WI: Imperial Preference in 1932?

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
In 1932, representatives of Britain, the Dominions, and the Colonies held the Commonwealth Conference on Economic Consultation and Co-operation in Ottawa, Canada. There was initial agreement on Imperial Preference. But the incompetence and tactless manner of British Dominions Secretary J. H. Thomas so alienated Dominion prime ministers that an opportunity was missed.
The conference saw the group admit the failure of the gold standard and abandon attempts to return to it. The meeting also worked to establish a zone of limited tariffs within the British Empire, but with high tariffs with the rest of the world. This was called "Imperial preference" or "Empire Free-Trade". This abandonment of open free trade led to a split in the British government.
The conference was especially notable for its adoption of Keynesian ideas such as lowering interest rates, increasing the money supply, and expanding government spending.
WI: JH Thomas or another (Malcolm MacDonald?) fail to stuff up the agreement. Tariffs for non-empire goods. Free trade between Britain, the Dominions and the Colonies.

What impact would this have on the cohesion of empire?

Tariffs at a standard across the empire pay for the 'Imperial' Navy (more so than OTL RN budget). Seventy cruisers and thirty fleet/escort destroyer flotillas required for trade protection? The RN certainly estimated they would need that many cruisers.

What sort of tariff rate are we looking at here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Duties_Act_1932
Tariffs could be increased on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee which the Act founded. The flat 10% tariff was increased to rates from 15% to 33% for various goods shortly after the Act was passed.
ftp://ftp.bham.ac.uk/pub/RePEc/pdf/1031.pdf (Effect of the 1932 Tariff)

Will trade outside of empire collapse?

Will the price of grain sky-rocket? Well, tariffs were not imposed on food, agricultural and raw material items; primary products of Empire countries.

Would anyone care to speculate on the pre-1939, 1939-1945 and long term outcome?
 
Last edited:
Considering the volume of their food exports to the UK, I suspect Argentina would eventually join the scheme if WWII does not occur.
Although Baldwin had considerable sway in 1931/32, Ramsay Macdonald was still PM and IIRC Snowden chancellor; both were free traders. While the 1930's coalition could and eventually did institute a preferential scheme, it took a Conservative PM to enact it.
 
HMS Heligoland had this...

...As an idea that in essence prevents US 'dumping' and enhances inter-Dominion trade. And, yes, I'm all for the 'Dominion of Honour' of Argentina entering an Imperial Preference scheme.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
For Argentina to enter, would they not have to become an official Dominion?

As far as the cohesion of the Empire, I think that Imperial Preference might have been effective if it had been implemented before WWI. After 1919, however, there really isn't much that can be done to prevent the gradual decline of the Empire.
 

abc123

Banned
For Argentina to enter, would they not have to become an official Dominion?


I doubt that Argentina would become member of Commonwealth/Imperial Free Trade Zone, because their main export commodity was meat and grain, and that would be big competition to Canada and Australia.
;)
 
I doubt that Argentina would become member of Commonwealth/Imperial Free Trade Zone, because their main export commodity was meat and grain, and that would be big competition to Canada and Australia.
;)

You could have a two-tier system though with important non-British trading partners given special status.

That would still give the Dominions a leg up, but also not kill a trading partner as important as Argentina.
 
Would have been a great idea especially as the Import Duties Advisory Committee could have acted as a base for further tightening of inter Imperial economic relations and possibly keep foreign policy alignments tighter both pre and post war.
 
I agree with Anexagoras to an extent, although the decline might could be slowed or mitigated.
If Britain and the Empire are in a stronger position economically when WWII breaks out, this could
allowfor a greater recovery post war. From 1919 Britain's days as The world power are officially
over, but A world power? Perhaps not.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Before the 1926 General Strike the TUC asked Thomas to negotiate with Stanley Baldwin's Conservative Government, but the talks were unsuccessful and the strike went ahead.
If we are going to bump him off it is hard to resist an earlier POD.

The Dawes plan (reparation coal free to France and Italy), poor productivity and the Gold Standard were making things impossible for the mining industry (especially the workers). Any thoughts on someone that could convince Baldwin to tackle the underlying causes of the strike?

220px-The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg

The Subsidised Mineowner - Poor Beggar!
from the Trade Union Unity Magazine (1925)

The report of the Royal Commission (the Samuel Commission) was delivered in 1926. It rejected a continuation of the Government subsidy and approved the wage reductions that the owners had tried to enforce the previous year. The miners, under the leadership of A.J.Cook, swiftly announced their intention to fight under the slogan 'not a penny off the pay, not a second on the day'.
The owners posted the lock-out notices and, after fruitless attempts at negotiation between the government, the coal owners and the TUC, a special conference of trade union executives was convened on May 1st to approve plans for a 'national' strike in defence of the miners.
If Thomas dies before 1925, let's have Joseph Jones assisting in the negotiations as a last minute moderating influence. He narrowly lost out on being the mine workers union leader to A.J. Cook on the opposite (left) wing of the union.

I think Thomas dies in an air crash at Croydon airfield on Christmas eve 1924*, along with eight others. A shock to his comrades in the Rail unions. He had been Minister to the Colonies in Ramsey MacDonald's recently defeated Labour minority government. Back in 1921 as a leader of the Rail and transport workers he had failed to support mineworkers in a similar dispute.

*POD
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
November 1923 Keynes publishes A Tract on Monetary Reform, calling for an end to the Gold Standard. He states that devaluation is preferable to deflation. On the question of whether it is preferable to manage a currency to achieve a stable external value or stable internal prices, Keynes concludes that stable internal prices are preferable.

12 April 1924 British unemployment has reached one million. Lloyd George writes to the Nation demanding the Government should intervene to fund a large program of public works to create jobs.

1924 Keynes becomes First Bursar at King's College, taking control of the College's finances.

24 May 1924 Keynes' Does Unemployment Need a Drastic Remedy? is published in the Nation. He proposes Government capital spending of £100 million per annum to stimulate the economy, specifically spending on housing, roads and electrical power distribution. He further proposes National Savings should be spent on works in Britain rather than invested overseas.

Second Half 1924 Sterling is appreciating on the currency markets. Speculators are buying Sterling anticipating it will rise to its pre-war value when it rejoins the Gold Standard.

November 1924 Keynes gives the Sydney Ball Foundation Lecture at Cambridge. The title he chooses for his lecture is The End of Laissez-Faire and he says:

"I believe that in many cases the ideal size for the unit of control and organisation lies somewhere between the individual and the modern State. I suggest, therefore, that progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-autonomous bodies within the State-bodies whose criterion of action within their own field is solely the public good as they understand it, and from whose deliberations motives of private advantage are excluded..."

"One of the most interesting and unnoticed developments of recent decades has been the tendency of big enterprise to socialise itself. A point arrives in the growth of a big institution... at which the owners of the capital, i.e. its shareholders, are almost entirely dissociated from the management, with the result that the direct personal interest of the latter in the making of great profit becomes quite secondary. When this stage is reached, the general stability and reputation of the institution are the more considered by the management than the maximum of profit for the shareholders."

"We must aim at separating those services which are technically social from those which are technically individual... The important thing for government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all."

"For my part I think that capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that in itself it is in many ways extremely objectionable. Our problem is to work out a social organisation which shall be as efficient as possible without offending our notions of a satisfactory way of life."

December 1924 By virtue of astute speculation in the financial markets, Keynes's assets have grown from nil (virtual bankruptcy) in May 1920 to £57,797. He has achieved his objective of becoming a wealthy man.

April 1925 Keynes, almost on his own, continues to argue against the Gold Standard. He writes in the Nation of his concerns about the over-valuation of Sterling.
webmedia.php


Jones makes a strong case for insisting that 40% of royalties are reinvested into the efficiency of mines. He argues that productivity will reward the owners such that they will get 60% of twice as much. Quite the liberal for a socialist. Seems to be influenced by J.M. Keynes.

A.J. Cook argues that this will still lead to redundancies as more efficient pits require less workers to draw the same amount of coal. And thanks to the Dawes plan, demand for British coal is falling fast. This seems to be the sticking point of negotiations.

Premier Baldwin isn't content to allow some jumped up communist dictate policy to the British government (and it's friends in the coal industry). Although he can see the appeal of linking subsidy to equipment investment by the mine owners. The Dawes plan has only just been agreed. To rescind it so soon would look weak and leave Italy and France bitter at the lack of support over war losses. It wouldn't look good to be supporting Germany even further. The gold standard? Churchill was doubtful, but most experts were of one voice. There was much advice in favour, but Keynes was starting to ring alarm bells about the consequences.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
If Baldwin allowed himself to print money without gold reserve backing, he could invest heavily in domestic demand for coal. Carville B power station led the world in efficient electrical power generation. Railway companies could use electricity (from power stations like it) to electrify their routes. Industries could use it to produce goods. The inflation would be as costly in the eyes of the electorate as a general strike. It would leave the country in a better position long term however and the government would be seen to be in control. All he had to do was make it seem like A.J.Cook had won the best deal workers had ever had. Let Cook take the blame for inflation? That might work. He could even agree a minimum wage, knowing that inflation would undermine it. He lit a pipe.
78134.jpg

£2.4 million a year invested in new efficient pit methods, an increase in domestic demand for coal in power stations, for home, industry and transport. Baldwin knew that while new projects would employ many initially, productivity gains would lead in turn to redundancies across all these enterprises. Likewise the government spending would reduce the value of a free floating pound creating domestic inflation. The low pound would limit imports and boost exports however. He might come out of this smelling of roses yet.
78135.jpg

He began musing a new mineral rights profit tax. Hardly a good conservative measure, but perhaps Churchill and his liberal leanings were good for something. Even with rebellion the majority would be great enough to pass any required legislation.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I seem to have set off on a different TL. I'm biased towards a Keynesian non-gold standard + Imperial Preference economy. A much gentler ride for the British economy in the late 20s and early 30s. No general strike. A ~25% more competitive pound. Modernising public works to boost employment. By shifting to the centre Stanley Baldwin has a good chance of a long spell in government (as long as he can keep the right of the party on board). A lot will depend on the political structure alongside Imperial Preference.
 
Last edited:
Perfectgeneral this is really interesting stuff, I've often wondered how Britain could have performed better economically in the 1920's but I've never known enough about the politics of the period to work out how. Not resuming the gold standard and introducing some kind of proto-Keynesian policies could have made a big difference. This would make a good TL!
 
This looks interesting, I hope you take it forward.

If there is going to be increased spending in the 20's, would some of it go (as was originally proposed) to build and refit ships for the RN (thus reducing unemployment in the shipbuilding industry)?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Perfectgeneral this is really interesting stuff, I've often wondered how Britain could have performed better economically in the 1920's but I've never known enough about the politics of the period to work out how. Not resuming the gold standard and introducing some kind of proto-Keynesian policies could have made a big difference. This would make a good TL!

I shall be going beyond that. I have just got a couple of books, Industry and Politics by Sir Alfred Mond (ICI) (1927 - signed first edition) and Imperial Economic Unity by Lord Melchett (Alfred Mond)(1930). Expect the empire economic union to go full speed ahead with scientific industrial management.
 
Last edited:

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
This looks interesting, I hope you take it forward.

If there is going to be increased spending in the 20's, would some of it go (as was originally proposed) to build and refit ships for the RN (thus reducing unemployment in the shipbuilding industry)?

Knowing me, probably. The naval treaties have their loopholes. This would be the carrot to drive labour, industrial and management reform in shipbuilding.
 
Knowing me, probably. The naval treaties have their loopholes. This would be the carrot to drive labour, industrial and management reform in shipbuilding.

There was a suggested plan in the 20's, it didnt breach the treaty.. a fair bit of reconstruction, a new carrier or two, and so on (apart from battleships, it was the 1930 treaty that was the navy-killer...)
Don't have my reference on it to hand, unfortunately
 
Top