WI: PM Richard Haldane

Thomas1195

Banned
What if Asquith drank too much and died due to an accident in 1912, and Haldane become PM instead of Grey?

How would Britain look like ITTL, especially during ww1?
 
You would need an earlier POD than 1912. By then Haldane had given up any hope of Prime Ministerial office and gone to the Lords as Lord Chancellor.
However Haldane was probably the single most able man in Asquith's cabinet so aviation, industrial modernisation, military reform, health service reform and higher education expansion would all have received something of a fillip. Not as pro-German as public opinion thought him but did understand the political situation in Germany and didn't see them as the threat that Grey did. Still a Liberal Imperialist so no massive policy shifts in foreign or colonial policy. But not feeling personally indebted to Grey as Asquith was and unlikely to give him quite as much of a free hand. Probably would have spoken to the German Ambassador directly and made it clear that "Germany stays out of the Low Countries, Britain has no casus belli" something Grey was unwilling to do. So possibly no WWI as we understand it at all.

If Germany still went into Belgium and Britain went to war, Haldane (if he was able to face down the accusations of being pro-German) would probably have shortened the war by a year. Supporter of technological innovation, knew the military personalities (former Secretary of State for War), keen on aviation (Anthony Fokker might not have been sent off with a flea in his ear for a start!) and had a good understanding of German politics and economics. Wouldn't have been sunk in depression by the loss of his son in 1916 (he was childless) and not likely to fall in love with Venetia Stanley. Therefore no Conservative desire to have him kicked upstairs as his eye was off the ball and therefore no opening for a Lloyd George coup and thus no Liberal party split. Would probably have done a better job of keeping Winston Churchill useful and productive than either Asquith or Lloyd George. Understood military matters and could have distinguished between Winston's bright ideas (which were often very good) and his hare-brained ones (which weren't). So either no Gallipoli or a properly planned one. Probably would have been more realistic about the need not to humiliate Germany at Versailles. Rated Henry Lee among the Conservatives so he might have moved to Admiralty or War Office during the War, once all party coalition was formed.

Best Prime Minister we never had.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
You would need an earlier POD than 1912. By then Haldane had given up any hope of Prime Ministerial office and gone to the Lords as Lord Chancellor.
However Haldane was probably the single most able man in Asquith's cabinet so aviation, industrial modernisation, military reform, health service reform and higher education expansion would all have received something of a fillip. Not as pro-German as public opinion thought him but did understand the political situation in Germany and didn't see them as the threat that Grey did. Still a Liberal Imperialist so no massive policy shifts in foreign or colonial policy. But not feeling personally indebted to Grey as Asquith was and unlikely to give him quite as much of a free hand. Probably would have spoken to the German Ambassador directly and made it clear that "Germany stays out of the Low Countries, Britain has no casus belli" something Grey was unwilling to do. So possibly no WWI as we understand it at all.

If Germany still went into Belgium and Britain went to war, Haldane (if he was able to face down the accusations of being pro-German) would probably have shortened the war by a year. Supporter of technological innovation, knew the military personalities (former Secretary of State for War), keen on aviation (Anthony Fokker might not have been sent off with a flea in his ear for a start!) and had a good understanding of German politics and economics. Wouldn't have been sunk in depression by the loss of his son in 1916 (he was childless) and not likely to fall in love with Venetia Stanley. Therefore no Conservative desire to have him kicked upstairs as his eye was off the ball and therefore no opening for a Lloyd George coup and thus no Liberal party split. Would probably have done a better job of keeping Winston Churchill useful and productive than either Asquith or Lloyd George. Understood military matters and could have distinguished between Winston's bright ideas (which were often very good) and his hare-brained ones (which weren't). So either no Gallipoli or a properly planned one. Probably would have been more realistic about the need not to humiliate Germany at Versailles. Rated Henry Lee among the Conservatives so he might have moved to Admiralty or War Office during the War, once all party coalition was formed.

Best Prime Minister we never had.
Then some time after December 1910 election. We could see the whole Liberal Party going radical during 1920s.

I think he would be successful PM and would pave the way for Lloyd George to become the second GOM during the interwar period (well, I believe Haldane would stop in around 1924-1926 due to poor health).
 
Last edited:
Tend to agree regarding time of his retirement but don't automatically assume a Lloyd George succession with no party split. Montagu would presumably still have died in 1924 but Reginald McKenna and Walter Runciman both very capable men who might have had more of a chance to shine TTL. Herbert Samuel too. And Edward Horner or Thomas Agar-Robartes might have survived the rather different WWI under Haldane. Lloyd George might not have got beyond being a big beast in the Party and Cabinet. And a reforming Haldane administration probably wouldn't need another radical reformer to succeed him, feeling in the Party might be that a capable consolidator probably what the country needed at this point (which would favour McKenna or Runciman though LG was a surprisingly good administrator for a demagogue and a good judge of talent). TTL the Haldane reforms might have attracted Clement Attlee and Oswald Mosley to the Liberals rather than Labour? Though they wouldn't be "papabile" by 1924-26, junior ministers at best. And what of Eric Geddes and Christopher Addison? Rising stars by this point in time.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Tend to agree regarding time of his retirement but don't automatically assume a Lloyd George succession with no party split. Montagu would presumably still have died in 1924 but Reginald McKenna and Walter Runciman both very capable men who might have had more of a chance to shine TTL. Herbert Samuel too. And Edward Horner or Thomas Agar-Robartes might have survived the rather different WWI under Haldane. Lloyd George might not have got beyond being a big beast in the Party and Cabinet. And a reforming Haldane administration probably wouldn't need another radical reformer to succeed him, feeling in the Party might be that a capable consolidator probably what the country needed at this point (which would favour McKenna or Runciman though LG was a surprisingly good administrator for a demagogue and a good judge of talent). TTL the Haldane reforms might have attracted Clement Attlee and Oswald Mosley to the Liberals rather than Labour? Though they wouldn't be "papabile" by 1924-26, junior ministers at best. And what of Eric Geddes and Christopher Addison? Rising stars by this point in time.
Well, but following the People's Budget and the war, LG's popularity would be far higher than both Runciman and McKenna, and both the latter were still, well, Gladstonian, although there is a chance that McKenna could be persuaded by Keynes to adopt his policies. Addison and Samuel would be good alternative choices.

Sorry but Geddes, the architect of the Geddes Axe, was a hardcore Tory.
 
Lloyd George got a lot of undeserved credit for the People's Budget which was virtually all Asquith's work that he fortuitously inherited when Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman as PM. If Haldane's trajectory is different (which it would have to be for him to become PM 1910-11) either he would have become Home Secretary and McKenna Chancellor prior to 1910 or vice-versa. Both were senior to Lloyd George in the pre-war Party hierarchy.
Thus TTL Lloyd George would be a well-regarded former President of the Board of Trade (he wouldn't have wanted War prior to 1914), possibly with a promotion to Chancellor or Home Secretary in 1910 or 11 to fill Haldane's space and (assuming a WW1) Minister of Munitions with no particular connection to the old age pension. Post-war he might have got the Foreign or Home Office (or India after Montagu died) in recognition of his good work in WWI (if there was British participation) or through seniority as older hands retired and died. However there would have been so much additional health and social welfare reform that either he or others might have got credit for - National Infirmity Insurance perhaps if he did become Chancellor in 1910 or 11.

I think you significantly underrate McKenna who was the only person in frontline politics (and, apart from Keynes, almost the only person) who realised that Britain should not go back on the gold standard. Ever. Walter Runciman was not quite that imaginative but did realise that now was not the time. Either would have been a huge improvement on the Churchill Chancellorship. Neither were as colourful as Lloyd George but both would have commanded support from both the left and the right of an undivided Liberal Party.

Eric Campbell Geddes was a "hardcore" Tory but also a Lloyd George protégé. I was thinking of Auckland Campbell Geddes the younger brother. Also Conservative and Unionist but very strongly pro-Coalition and social reform and left politics for business after the fall of Lloyd George OTL (not a fan of Baldwin as I recall) so not that "hardcore". Not beyond imagination that he would have crossed the floor if the Liberal administration of Haldane was "efficient" and "businesslike", matters that were very important to him. And Haldane was efficient and businesslike -and would have promoted younger men that shared those qualities. And the Tories never valued his (Geddes') undoubted talents as much as the Liberals did. Remember they are still more a party of the landed gentry than the business community and professional classes at this time. The Axe was undoubtedly unpopular but it was informed by the economic orthodoxies of the time and it did show Geddes to be a man of determination and some moral courage. If Churchill and Seely could cross the house, why wouldn't he?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Thus TTL Lloyd George would be a well-regarded former President of the Board of Trade (he wouldn't have wanted War prior to 1914), possibly with a promotion to Chancellor or Home Secretary in 1910 or 11 to fill Haldane's space and (assuming a WW1) Minister of Munitions with no particular connection to the old age pension. Post-war he might have got the Foreign or Home Office (or India after Montagu died) in recognition of his good work in WWI (if there was British participation) or through seniority as older hands retired and died. However there would have been so much additional health and social welfare reform that either he or others might have got credit for - National Infirmity Insurance perhaps if he did become Chancellor in 1910 or 11.
IOTL, there was a series of reforms after 1918 Coupon Election which were greater than those of Asquith government, like Education Act, before being rolled back by Geddes Axe. But I think this kind of education reform would be actually introduced by a Haldane cabinet prewar.

Also, actually only Lloyd George was radical enough to put the Land Value Tax on the table. I am sure Haldane would support ot like Asquith IOTL, but no one other than LG would introduce that kind of tax.

But the POD here is that Asquith died due to accident after the People's Budget was passed. You know, the trio Asquith, Haldane and Grey were the highest ranking ones in the Cabinet, so either Haldane or Grey would succeed him, and LG is the third candidate.

I think you significantly underrate McKenna who was the only person in frontline politics (and, apart from Keynes, almost the only person) who realised that Britain should not go back on the gold standard. Ever. Walter Runciman was not quite that imaginative but did realise that now was not the time. Either would have been a huge improvement on the Churchill Chancellorship. Neither were as colourful as Lloyd George but both would have commanded support from both the left and the right of an undivided Liberal Party.
Well, but their view was still laissez-faire, non intervention, especially Runciman. It was Lloyd George who put forward Coal and Power Report in 1924, then played a key role in publishing Britain's Industrial Future in 1928 and We Can Conquer Unemployment in 1929.
 
Laissez-faire works reasonably well for an economic policy if you also get the fiscal policy right. I don't dispute that Lloyd George was more interventionist OTL than either McKenna or Runciman but TTL these might be issues that had already been addressed under Haldane and strategies already in place or (assuming we don't go back on the Gold Standard) might not have arisen to the same extent. Not as high a level of unemployment and less need for deflationary retrenchment for instance.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Laissez-faire works reasonably well for an economic policy if you also get the fiscal policy right. I don't dispute that Lloyd George was more interventionist OTL than either McKenna or Runciman but TTL these might be issues that had already been addressed under Haldane and strategies already in place or (assuming we don't go back on the Gold Standard) might not have arisen to the same extent. Not as high a level of unemployment and less need for deflationary retrenchment for instance.
We Can Conquer Unemployment was about reducing unemployment, but Liberal Yellow Book 1928 was purely for national development.

There were many things had to be done with Britain by the state: electrical development (but I think smt similar to OTL Central Electricity would be introduced in 1923-1924), road construction (as early as 1906, John Brunner had demanded Campbell Bannerman to improve the country's transport, but little was done before 1914), and after ww1, coal industry and agriculture. Laissez faire are not going to help Britain develop these infrastructures.

Besides, under Haldane, laissez-faire would be phased out faster and replaced by National Efficiency (which would require intervention).
 
Yes, agreed up to a point but that type of state intervention to improve infrastructure and regulate some industries would be a new orthodoxy by 1924-26 not a radical new development and neither McKenna nor Runciman were outright reactionaries who would be rolling it back (now Ernest Benn on the other hand..). Indeed with less deflationary economic policies they would be better able to fund it than OTL.
I am not saying Lloyd George wouldn't have made PM by the way, he did have some formidable strengths (and weaknesses -willing to sacrifice Party unity in 1916 or do a deal with Hitler in 1940 in the interests of his personal advancement) but what I am saying is TTL he may not have the prestige he had OTL. TTL (assuming a WWI) Haldane is clearly "im wot won it" and old folk will have been popping down to the Post Office to lift their "Haldane" or "Reginald" not their "Lloyd George". And Samuel, Simon and Runciman (and of course Haldane) will be picking up a lot of the credit for health, education and welfare expansion not LG.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes, agreed up to a point but that type of state intervention to improve infrastructure and regulate some industries would be a new orthodoxy by 1924-26 not a radical new development and neither McKenna nor Runciman were outright reactionaries who would be rolling it back (now Ernest Benn on the other hand..). Indeed with less deflationary economic policies they would be better able to fund it than OTL.
I am not saying Lloyd George wouldn't have made PM by the way, he did have some formidable strengths (and weaknesses -willing to sacrifice Party unity in 1916 or do a deal with Hitler in 1940 in the interests of his personal advancement) but what I am saying is TTL he may not have the prestige he had OTL. TTL (assuming a WWI) Haldane is clearly "im wot won it" and old folk will have been popping down to the Post Office to lift their "Haldane" or "Reginald" not their "Lloyd George". And Samuel, Simon and Runciman (and of course Haldane) will be picking up a lot of the credit for health, education and welfare expansion not LG.
For education, maybe Runciman would gain the most of nothing change after Haldane becomes PM, as he was already President of Board of Education, although Herbert Fisher would have done the job much better than Runciman regarding education since Fisher was some kind of technocrat, an educationalist, in this field. For welfare, if LG remain Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would take all the credit, as he was willing to intervene in the Board of Trade to push more reforms. Otherwise, it would be McKenna, but to a lesser extent.

But you have a good point about state intervention to improve infrastructure at national scale (not small like OTL Development Act 1909) and regulate some industries would be a new orthodoxy by 1924-26 with Haldane as PM.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I think you significantly underrate McKenna who was the only person in frontline politics (and, apart from Keynes, almost the only person) who realised that Britain should not go back on the gold standard. Ever. Walter Runciman was not quite that imaginative but did realise that now was not the time. Either would have been a huge improvement on the Churchill Chancellorship. Neither were as colourful as Lloyd George but both would have commanded support from both the left and the right of an undivided Liberal Party.

This also depend on public speaking and debating skills. These were the reasons why Asquith was favoured over Haldane.
 
This also depend on public speaking and debating skills. These were the reasons why Asquith was favoured over Haldane.
Fair point, but this was also an era where most people got their political news through the newspapers rather than radio and as long as you could write a decent speech or article, the quality of delivery was secondary. It did matter in the Commons though where MPs were more financially independent and thus more independent minded than we are used to. But OTL McKenna was at the Admiralty during the Anglo-German Naval Race and the Home Office for the Suffragettes. I get no sense of him being a man easily flustered in debate. And as Chancellor he would have understood his subject matter much better than anyone else on either side of the House. That would compensate for any lack of flashy pyrotechnics.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
For ww1, you might consider this scenario: more forceful state intervention in the war industries to make them more efficient then IOTL, with earlier formation of Ministry of Munition, earlier invitation of industrialists and technocrats into Cabinet and Ministry of Munitions. And if Haldane could avoid the Gallipoli disaster, he might not even need to form a Coalition, thus butterfly away the first Labour minister ever and prevent the slowdown of Education reform (well, IOTL, Arthur Henderson was basically useless as a Minister of Education).

I am not sure about Treaty of Versailles ITTL, but it might be still the same.

Next, after the war, a Liberal Cabinet that includes both Haldane and Lloyd George would be willing to spend money on public works and reforms instead of rolling back everything like IOTL.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
However Haldane was probably the single most able man in Asquith's cabinet so aviation, industrial modernisation, military reform, health service reform and higher education expansion would all have received something of a fillip
More Imperial Colleges and LSEs in other industrial regions.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, lets see. Of course, Haldane would be a very efficient war leader. This might even butterfly away Wartime All-party Coalition. He would be the man who won the war, and Liberal Party under his leadership would be very likely to win a crushing victory in 1918 khaki election. I don't know how Versailles would be different from IOTL, if the war goes long enough for Wilsonian principles to be proposed. Perhaps there might be national self-determination for all, including the German (i.e. Anschluss), since Liberals wanted a "clean peace".
 
Top