British industrial sanity options between 1906-1914 alternate history discussion gas 93

##########

Click to expand…Yes. This. A million times this. I know I’ve said this before in threads that touch on this subject, usually those started by the OP here, and I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record. But Edwardian Britain was both a hotbed of radical ideas AND one of intense social, political, economic, and fiscal conservatism. Changes like these would be dramatic and difficult – just look at the OTL opposition to the People’s Budget. You can’t just restructure the Liberal Party (and what happens to the non National Efficiency supporting wing of the party? Do they just vanish?) and hope for the best. You need to take the social and political context into account.

In order to answer the OP’s question, you need to look at why Britain OTL was seemingly content buying these goods from overseas. It isn’t simply a lack of national zeal or inadequate technical expertise in the UK, but also to do with the costs and contours of the Free Market economy of Britain at the time. You need to remove the cost-effective and easy nature of buying, say electricity formulas grade 9, all your optical equipment from Germany and that is fundamentally related to the free market. A state-owned armaments industry is a rational proposal in hindsight, but wasn’t really that realistic in the context of an Edwardian Britain deeply sceptical of state involvement in the economy.

Moreover, if there was change it would have to take place in Britain itself. The idea that the UK at the time would invest in building up industry in the colonies is dubious – not only would the investment be harder, requiring better infrastructure than already existed in the UK itself, but many of the colonies lacked a technically-educated mass population base for such industrial productions. OR were only just beginning to build it up in significant numbers.

In many ways the RD you are looking for was not just lacking in the UK, but was in no way industry standard throughout the world. You’re asking for a seismic change without providing any idea of why it might happen beyond government policy. Just reforming education and churning out more technically trained young men doesn’t guarantee a transformation in British Industry at the time because it doesn’t change economies and work cultures. In the railways, for example, like in many industries young men were hired and internally trained and there was great suspicion of men who came save electricity pictures in from outside. Changing that culture would be much harder – it persisted in many cases into the 1950s and 1960s OTL.

Yes. This. A million times this. I know I’ve said this before in threads that touch on this subject gas smoker recipes, usually those started by the OP here, and I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record. But Edwardian Britain was both a hotbed of radical ideas AND one of intense social, political, economic, and fiscal conservatism. Changes like these would be dramatic and difficult – just look at the OTL opposition to the People’s Budget. You can’t just restructure the Liberal Party (and what happens to the non National Efficiency supporting wing of the party? Do they just vanish?) and hope for the best. You need to take the social and political context into account.

In order to answer the OP’s question, you need to look at why Britain OTL was seemingly content buying these goods from overseas. It isn’t simply a lack of national zeal or inadequate technical expertise in the UK, but also to do with the costs and contours of the Free Market economy of Britain at the time. You need to remove the cost-effective and easy nature of buying, say, all your optical equipment from Germany and that is fundamentally related to the free market. A state-owned armaments industry is a rational proposal in hindsight, but wasn’t really that realistic in the context of an Edwardian Britain deeply sceptical of state involvement in the economy.

Click to expand…The split would be less significant because there were very few or even no protectionists among Liberal rank, unlike Tories. Even the working people and the trade unions (later Labour IOTL), Chamberlain’s major supporters if he stayed, were also free traders. Also, IOTL, Chamberlain shifted to the right significantly after the Home Rule split, and eventually moved closer to TR. There is no guarantee that he would move to Tariff Reform without the split in 1885.

Well, about Salisbury, he would not win anything if the Liberals continued to bring forward things like Radical Programme or Newcastle Programme. Worse (for Tories), with Chamberlain, there is a chance that they might even absorb the likes of Keir Hardie gas x coupon 2014 or Ramsay MacDonald (before going Socialist, they were among the Radical ranks before 1885).

Another POD: have Asquith become PM in 1906. IOTL, in 1909, Asquith introduced Development and Road Scheme to invest things like in road building, agriculture or scientific research and other things that private businesses would not do, both for national development and for reducing unemployment when trade slumps, but it was not large as British economy was booming between 1910-1914. However, there was a significant slump between 1906-1908, which means the Scheme would face a real world test. Now, what if the public works prove its effectiveness? The Cabinet might be determined to expand the scope and scale of the Scheme (but of course, it would not be like £100m per annum like Keynesian programme in 1924 or 1929).

Click to expand…I think some of this is wishful thinking. Why do radical programmes necessarily edge out the Tories in these elections? You’ve got to remember that the UK was a limited franchise in this period and that many voters were not interested in radical solutions to problems. Furthermore, whilst they might absorb early Labour MPs like they kept John Burns and his ilk OTL, there will still be the pressures in the TUC and the gas 4 less manhattan ks socialist movement that will jar with the less radical elements of the Liberal Party. I still think the emergence of a Trade Union supporting Labour Party is the most likely outcome in this period – there will be only so far a radical Liberal leader can accomodate their desires without alienating moderates in the Party or in the electorate.

But, more than anything, I think you are massively underestimating the Tories. Salisbury helped create the modern Conservative Party as an electoral force. The Primrose League, which supported his campaigns, was a well-oiled local association organisation that had more members than the Trade Union movement at points in this period. Furthermore, in the elections in this period a significant number of Tories ran in seats where they were unopposed. Your POD hasn’t changed that weakness in the power usage estimator Liberal Party’s funding and geographical reach, meaning that however well they do there are always going to seats they can’t afford to compete in (a whopping 163 in the 1900 election).

I’m not trying to say you are wrong, but just that your analysis needs nuance. Whilst, as you claim, the changes to the Liberal Party you envisage would have had dramatic consequences, I don’t think you can make blanket claims about how they would have kept the Tories out of power for thirty odd years or effectively neutered the rise of the Labour Party wholesale. You need to put any PODs in the wider context of what isn’t changed ITTL.