WI: PM Rosebery. Would PM Rosebery during 1906-1911/1914 make Britain worse off?

Would PM Rosebery during 1906-1910 make Britain worse off?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • No

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17

Thomas1195

Banned
Assume that Rosebery defeated Campbell-Bannerman and still won the 1906 election. Would a Rosebery government make Britain worse off overall during 1900s-1910s?

I read that he had destructive foreign policies during Gladstone government 1892-1894.

But he was also a strong supporter of education reform, especially technical educatiom, as well as National Efficiency.
 
Last edited:
At the very least Rosebery in power would drastically alter the Home Rule debate. This is less significant in 1906 (assuming Rosebery achieves a similar level of success as C.B did) but will start to matter greatly when a hung parliament becomes likely.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
At the very least Rosebery in power would drastically alter the Home Rule debate. This is less significant in 1906 (assuming Rosebery achieves a similar level of success as C.B did) but will start to matter greatly when a hung parliament becomes likely.
I am not sure that the People's Budget and the 1910 elections to curb the Lords' power would happen ITTL, especially Rosebery was a Lord himself.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Can anyone give an idea about his potential domestic policies? I assume that foreign policy would be the same as IOTL.
 
He was without exception the worst Prime Minister of the Victorian era. Personally charming and with many talents he was utterly inept at diplomacy and unable to hold a Cabinet together. Alienated all the other European powers Soured the Liberal party on aristocratic leadership which worked against the much more able Lord Spencer and his future son-in-law Lord Crewe (either of whom could have made a decent fist at the job). Politically damaged goods by 1910, essentially resigned in 1893 to avoid a sex scandal relating to Lord Drumlanrig's suicide which could have torn the Liberal Party apart. So essentially yes things would have been worse if the Liberals had been mad enough to bring him back.
Only prospect of him achieving office would be if he had never been PM in the Victorian era and hadn't the bad track record. Even then I suspect he would have been a disaster. And by 1903 if the Liberals had wanted an aristocratic leader they had the much better options of Lords Spencer (although he was incapacitated by a stroke 1905 and died soon after) or Crewe.
Moved to the very far right of the Liberal Imperialists in the early twentieth century and opposed Irish Home Rule. Someone said the reason why Asquith had so little internal difficulty with his Irish policy was that Rosebery opposed it and that therefore everyone knew that it had to be right. Just politically tone deaf and got everyone's back up. It was telling that he was not recalled to any wartime office during the Coalition when many things were forgiven and forgotten and all talented men were needed. And it wasn't homophobia either, the Liberal Cabinet were quite happy to tolerate Lewis Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp and Lord Esher. The difference being that they were all competent men.
 
He was without exception the worst Prime Minister of the Victorian era. Personally charming and with many talents he was utterly inept at diplomacy and unable to hold a Cabinet together. Alienated all the other European powers Soured the Liberal party on aristocratic leadership which worked against the much more able Lord Spencer and his future son-in-law Lord Crewe (either of whom could have made a decent fist at the job). Politically damaged goods by 1910, essentially resigned in 1893 to avoid a sex scandal relating to Lord Drumlanrig's suicide which could have torn the Liberal Party apart. So essentially yes things would have been worse if the Liberals had been mad enough to bring him back.
Only prospect of him achieving office would be if he had never been PM in the Victorian era and hadn't the bad track record. Even then I suspect he would have been a disaster. And by 1903 if the Liberals had wanted an aristocratic leader they had the much better options of Lords Spencer (although he was incapacitated by a stroke 1905 and died soon after) or Crewe.
Moved to the very far right of the Liberal Imperialists in the early twentieth century and opposed Irish Home Rule. Someone said the reason why Asquith had so little internal difficulty with his Irish policy was that Rosebery opposed it and that therefore everyone knew that it had to be right. Just politically tone deaf and got everyone's back up. It was telling that he was not recalled to any wartime office during the Coalition when many things were forgiven and forgotten and all talented men were needed. And it wasn't homophobia either, the Liberal Cabinet were quite happy to tolerate Lewis Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp and Lord Esher. The difference being that they were all competent men.

The above is absolutely spot on. Frankly I'd forgotten how much of a blithering (but charming) idiot everyone said he was.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He was without exception the worst Prime Minister of the Victorian era. Personally charming and with many talents he was utterly inept at diplomacy and unable to hold a Cabinet together. Alienated all the other European powers Soured the Liberal party on aristocratic leadership which worked against the much more able Lord Spencer and his future son-in-law Lord Crewe (either of whom could have made a decent fist at the job). Politically damaged goods by 1910, essentially resigned in 1893 to avoid a sex scandal relating to Lord Drumlanrig's suicide which could have torn the Liberal Party apart. So essentially yes things would have been worse if the Liberals had been mad enough to bring him back.
Only prospect of him achieving office would be if he had never been PM in the Victorian era and hadn't the bad track record. Even then I suspect he would have been a disaster. And by 1903 if the Liberals had wanted an aristocratic leader they had the much better options of Lords Spencer (although he was incapacitated by a stroke 1905 and died soon after) or Crewe.
Moved to the very far right of the Liberal Imperialists in the early twentieth century and opposed Irish Home Rule. Someone said the reason why Asquith had so little internal difficulty with his Irish policy was that Rosebery opposed it and that therefore everyone knew that it had to be right. Just politically tone deaf and got everyone's back up. It was telling that he was not recalled to any wartime office during the Coalition when many things were forgiven and forgotten and all talented men were needed. And it wasn't homophobia either, the Liberal Cabinet were quite happy to tolerate Lewis Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp and Lord Esher. The difference being that they were all competent men.
I know, and for all things I have read about him, I was quite shocked to hear that the National Efficiency term that eventually became the mainstream view of Liberal Imperialists (like Haldane) and then the Liberal Party was originally the brainchild of this clown. In fact, it was suspect that the Liberal Imperialist trio did try to oust Campbell Bannerman and bring him back.
 
He wasn't totally incapable. Stage managed Gladstone's barnstorming Midlothian campaign based on ideas he had imported from observing American electioneering. But his occasional good idea was far outweighed by a practical ineptitude at implementation.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He wasn't totally incapable. Stage managed Gladstone's barnstorming Midlothian campaign based on ideas he had imported from observing American electioneering. But his occasional good idea was far outweighed by a practical ineptitude at implementation.
Actually, he had a good record at reforms before becoming Foreign Minister. He was able to settle a coal miner strike.

Like Haldane, he was also a strong supporter of education reform and played an important role in forming the Imperial College in London, specializing in scientific and technical education. It was him who introduced electric lighting and typewriter in Westminster.

He looked at German and American industrial development and championed National Efficiency and push for the shift away from Classical Liberalism, thus was able to draw support from all spectrum, including Socialists. This term was later incorporated in New Liberalism.

He could be a good deal if you can keep him away from foreign and military policies so that he could not piss off the whole Europe. Give him the Board of Trade or Education would be OK, but no.

IOTL, John Brunner told CB to allow state intervention to improve Britain's transport and communication but CB declined because he feared railway owners and that Tories may attack him. Maybe Primrose could have done different, we don't know.
 
On his track record would have alienated the railway owners and the industrialists wanting improved communications equally within two years! Yes he had some good ideas but, in CB, Asquith, Haldane or LG's place I honestly wouldn't let him near anything more responsible than the Commission for the Fine Arts.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
On his track record would have alienated the railway owners and the industrialists wanting improved communications equally within two years! Yes he had some good ideas but, in CB, Asquith, Haldane or LG's place I honestly wouldn't let him near anything more responsible than the Commission for the Fine Arts.
If I have to do, I would put him at the Board of Education. Education reform was the only area where he was fully committed to and he actually did something meaningful to help it, even more than some Presidents of Board of Education. I want to see more Imperial Colleges in Science and Technology to be established in other cities in the UK before ww1.

Haldane was an acolyte of Rosebery, especially in education matter.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
On his track record ...

Two Derby winners!

This success on the course offended the strong Nonconformist element in the Liberal Party in the 1890s. Believe Rosebery was quoted along the lines that he could perennially run horses that finished second, but it became a huge debt on his ledger with the NCs if any of the geegees won. Typically he won the Derby the two times it was run whilst he was PM!
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Only prospect of him achieving office would be if he had never been PM in the Victorian era and hadn't the bad track record. Even then I suspect he would have been a disaster. And by 1903 if the Liberals had wanted an aristocratic leader they had the much better options of Lords Spencer (although he was incapacitated by a stroke 1905 and died soon after) or Crewe.
Moved to the very far right of the Liberal Imperialists in the early twentieth century and opposed Irish Home Rule. Someone said the reason why Asquith had so little internal difficulty with his Irish policy was that Rosebery opposed it and that therefore everyone knew that it had to be right. Just politically tone deaf and got everyone's back up. It was telling that he was not recalled to any wartime office during the Coalition when many things were forgiven and forgotten and all talented men were needed. And it wasn't homophobia either, the Liberal Cabinet were quite happy to tolerate Lewis Harcourt, Lord Beauchamp and Lord Esher. The difference being that they were all competent men.
To make him PM, he must become leader around 1901.
So, how would be the Lib-Lab Pact in this scenario, as well as Liberal Unionists? Could a Liberal Imperialist Party with Home Rule being sidelined get some Unionists back to their rank? Liberal Unionists were not many, but they were usually influential businessmen. Bring them back could help bolster the Party, rather than having to rely on IPP or Labour.
 
Well assuming he didn't become leader in the late Victorian era, then the previous Liberal PM was either Lord Spencer or Sir William Vernon Harcourt (who was very much not a Liberal Imperialist). Spencer would have remained leader until his death in 1905 (he was competent and remained politically active OTL). Harcourt might have gone a couple of years earlier. But both would have been more successful 1893 until (at least) 1895 so the nature of political discourse might have already changed a bit prior to 1901 from OTL. Might not have been a Boer War so less impetus for National Efficiency. But, as I say, politically tone deaf. More likely to discredit these concepts than advance them and unlikely to reach an accommodation with the IPP. More risk of the Radicals bolting the party to unite with Labour than the Liberal Unionists returning to the fold.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Might not have been a Boer War so less impetus for National Efficiency.
This would make Britain worse off. Without Boer war, they would never know that 40% of male pp could not meet physical requirments.

More risk of the Radicals bolting the party to unite with Labour than the Liberal Unionists returning to the fold.
Or this might happen more under these two. Harcourt and Spencer might still practice Gladstonian policies (low spending, non-intervention, self-help) like Campbell-Bannerman IOTL, which were criticized at home by the Radicals, and both at home and abroad by the Imperialists.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, some potential trends, which could be either positive or negative, in a hypothetical Rosebery cabinet:

- More education reform than IOTL, with an expansion in higher and technical education. We might see equivalents of Imperial College and LSE to be founded in industrial cities.

- More businessmen and experts in Cabinet, like Brunner, Mond, Rowntree, Merz or Ferranti, or even Chamberlain if he returns (if Home Rule is sidelined early enough but unlikely).

- With more technocrats in Cabinet, Brunner's call for state support to improve transport and communication might be accepted.

- Home Rule would be temporarily sidelined well before 1906 if Rosebery wins the struggle against HCB. If early enough, this would open a chance for uniting with Liberal Unionists, even with Chamberlain and sons if before they convert to protectionism.

- Britain might piss off the French over Morocco crisis if Grey was not given full authority in foreign policy.
 
Rosebery didn't do much in a practical way for education or infrastructure (or anything else) really when he was PM so I doubt if his becoming PM later would have really changed this very much. I will accept that he was at the forefront of thinking in respect of educational reform but I doubt his practical abilities as an administrator. National Efficiency was the Liberal version of a fairly widespread strand of thinking across party lines in early C20th Britain. Not much Rosebery was saying there that the "Reveille" or "Wake-up England" movements weren't also saying or that Haldane wouldn't have synthesised for himself.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Rosebery didn't do much in a practical way for education or infrastructure (or anything else) really when he was PM so I doubt if his becoming PM later would have really changed this very much. I will accept that he was at the forefront of thinking in respect of educational reform but I doubt his practical abilities as an administrator. National Efficiency was the Liberal version of a fairly widespread strand of thinking across party lines in early C20th Britain. Not much Rosebery was saying there that the "Reveille" or "Wake-up England" movements weren't also saying or that Haldane wouldn't have synthesised for himself.
Actually, YES, the Board of Education in 1899 was formed as a result of the 1895 Bryce Report (James Bryce was the chairman of the Royal Commission on Education appointed by Rosebery in 1894), but Rosebery government fell shortly before the Report was signed. In 1902, he also helped form the Imperial College of London. In the same year, he and Haldane, his protege, also crossed the party line to support Balfour's Education Act.

It was also the fact that his reform bill (including reforming the House of Lords) was rejected by the Lords. Death duties were only few of his government's achievements that passed the Lords.

National Efficiency was popularized by the Imperialist wing.
 
Death duties were only few of his government's achievements that passed the Lords.
Death duties being the brainchild of one William Vernon Harcourt (who wasn't all that Gladstonian either). He helped form Imperial College mainly by signing cheques and organising fund raising -didn't need to be PM for that. Committed to better education yes, appointed Royal Commission on Education yes. Meaningful achievement? The Board of Education formed under Lord Salisbury and Education Act passed under Balfour.

Yes, aware that the Imperialist wing were main fans of "National Efficiency" just like Conservative/Liberal Unionist Imperialists main fans of "Reveille" and "Wake Up England" my wider point being that he wasn't by any means the only advocate here and provided no unique insights
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes, aware that the Imperialist wing were main fans of "National Efficiency" just like Conservative/Liberal Unionist Imperialists main fans of "Reveille" and "Wake Up England" my wider point being that he wasn't by any means the only advocate here and provided no unique insights
Were the Imperialists alone supported National Efficiency? No, but they were among the earliest supporters, at least in their party.

The Board of Education formed under Lord Salisbury and Education Act passed under Balfour.
Because he had to resign before the Report was signed. Also, Salisbury and Balfour never had to worry about the Lords.
Rosebery and Haldane supported the Education Act, while HCB denounced it and tried to repeal it (luckily, he failed).
 
Top