What would the Attlee government do if it was elected in 1951? How would they handle Suez and the rest of decolonisation? Would they nationalise industries further?
Labour in the 50's
- Thread starter broken-arrow
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I think they have to deliver on economic growth, which really is the engine of the whole thing
I agree with you how would they try to do this differently to the Conservatives? I think they would have maybe continued nationalisation but am unsure where they would next nationalise and they would reduce rationing at some point therein allowing that pent up demand to be set free.
I believe that some were looking at the chemical industry as a potential area for further nationalisation.
The auto-mobile industry was also a major growing sector that was heavily integrated into the corporatist economic system that Labour helped establish, a lot of cheap price controlled steel was earmarked for it as well as other export industries, so I could see an enterprising Labour government seeking to extend public control over such a vital sector.
Labour in their 50s manifestos pledged to expand and focus on Britain's export industries so any economic plan in a 50s Labour government is going to focus heavily on those industries in some form.
There were also promises for mass investment into Northern Ireland which could have some interesting effects on the local politics, especially if Labour is able to maintain its base among working-class Protestants in Belfast.
A curious thing to note is that in all of their 50s manifestos Labour pledged to introduce workplace democracy in the nationalised industries and give unions a significant say in management. Following Labour's electoral failures such ideas would fall out of favour in mainstream political thought only really finding support on Labour's hard-left and the Youth Wing, so radical they were referred to as the Red Guards, of the Liberals. Have Labour start to implement that in the 50s and that is a very big change to the Political Economy of the UK. At the very least it would alter the dynamics of Trade Unionism which IOTL was much more reactive in its orientation than in other countries, which was part of the reason a lot of people turned against them in the 70s and 80s due to the labour unrest that entailed. ITTL the UK could develop into something more akin to the Rhineland Model albeit with much more public ownership.
The auto-mobile industry was also a major growing sector that was heavily integrated into the corporatist economic system that Labour helped establish, a lot of cheap price controlled steel was earmarked for it as well as other export industries, so I could see an enterprising Labour government seeking to extend public control over such a vital sector.
Labour in their 50s manifestos pledged to expand and focus on Britain's export industries so any economic plan in a 50s Labour government is going to focus heavily on those industries in some form.
There were also promises for mass investment into Northern Ireland which could have some interesting effects on the local politics, especially if Labour is able to maintain its base among working-class Protestants in Belfast.
A curious thing to note is that in all of their 50s manifestos Labour pledged to introduce workplace democracy in the nationalised industries and give unions a significant say in management. Following Labour's electoral failures such ideas would fall out of favour in mainstream political thought only really finding support on Labour's hard-left and the Youth Wing, so radical they were referred to as the Red Guards, of the Liberals. Have Labour start to implement that in the 50s and that is a very big change to the Political Economy of the UK. At the very least it would alter the dynamics of Trade Unionism which IOTL was much more reactive in its orientation than in other countries, which was part of the reason a lot of people turned against them in the 70s and 80s due to the labour unrest that entailed. ITTL the UK could develop into something more akin to the Rhineland Model albeit with much more public ownership.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Then we can roll with it!
And I think that's what it's about, smart choices at the margins. Not huge programmic projects which may or may not work out.
That is, a variety of medium steps, where we can get feedback and make changes as we take more medium steps. And with this approach, the UK might catch the wave of the rise of electronics and computers.
Wouldn't there be another election before the Suez crisis? (Though theoretically it could be *just* before...) Would Attlee step down by then?
I'm not an expert on the policies, but what you should remember is that there will be a significant changing of the guard in a Labour Government that goes on into the 1950s. Stafford Cripps had already resigned on ill-health in 1950 and would die in 1952, Ernest Bevin dies in early 1951, William Jowitt in 1957, and Dalton, Bevan, and Attlee himself are not well men by the late 1950s.
Increasingly a 1950s government is going to be dominated by the clash between the mainstream Gaitskell faction, the growing ''socialism now''/''keep left'' pressure group led by Bevan but critically supported by a number of the new generation of MPs like Foot, Benn, and Wilson, and, of course, the Herbert Morrison faction, although he was increasingly side-lined.
Increasingly a 1950s government is going to be dominated by the clash between the mainstream Gaitskell faction, the growing ''socialism now''/''keep left'' pressure group led by Bevan but critically supported by a number of the new generation of MPs like Foot, Benn, and Wilson, and, of course, the Herbert Morrison faction, although he was increasingly side-lined.
How would the attempted democratisation of the workplace take place due you believe? would they make the nationalised more like co-operatives instead of being very top down? how would they expand this to the private sphere something akin to the Rhineland model as you suggested or try and make more incentives to co-op or something else?
I believe think so yeah but if Labour win in 1950 big I see no reason they can win in 1954/5 with a good economy as the Conservatives did and I believe he would do as long as he could get someone he wanted to succeed him eg not Morrison
I agree thats why im interested in how Labour would develop as a lot of the men who had taken them through the war and the immediate post war period would be too old eg Cripps, Attlee, Morrison. Of Course Bevans illness can be butterflied away so im interested who would succeed Attlee if they were in government and how the change of the guard would affect policy and how then coming generation of Foot, Benn, and Wilson would develop if they spent more of first years in parliament in government.
IIRC from Charles Gardner's history of the British Aircraft Corporation the 1945-51 Labour Government wasn't planning to nationalise the aircraft industry, but it did have plans to reduce the number of firms by forcing them to merge. IIRC it never came off because of the Korean War, the subsequent 1951 Rearmament Programme and loosing the election.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And interestingly, after maybe a bad experience or two at the beginning, I can see the workers in a workplace democracy being more cautious and risk-averse than is traditional management!
I'm very interested in this. I plan to do in the (far) future my first timeline, where Orwell lives to a ripe age and dies early 90's. I intend to do it in the form of essays written by him. Although i don't want many butterflies, this could be one and he would definitely comment on these events. This is right up his and his parties, ILP, alley.
I have some rough ideas for a No Cold War timeline which features a Labour Party that remains in power until 1970, so I have given it some thought, although there are other divergences and butterflies, such as no Korean War, which won't be applicable to this scenario.
One thing that is worth bearing is the effect that this will have on the Labour right. A lot of their critique of the left, particularly with regards to their opposition to nationalisation, was developed in the aftermath of repeated electoral failures which they associated with the dogmatism of the left. If Labour is able to secure a comfortable victory in 50/51 and are able to sail through on the tide of rising growth and living standards until the late 50s/early 60s its going to be a lot harder to maintain that criticism. So whilst the Gaitskillites ITTL will still be open to alternatives to nationalisation, on a if all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails basis, they would be more relaxed about existing or even expanding nationalisation. This could lead to a softening of the factional differences within Labour, at least on these key economic issues, which could mean a more united party.
Another thing to consider is the impact this will have on the British political consensus. IOTL Labour was able to set some broad parameters in the 6 years they were in office which the Tories were largely able to accept. With Labour in power for longer and pushing a more radical agenda by the time the Tories get back into power either they are going to have to accept the new status quo, which means a more left-wing consensus, or they are going to try and roll it back, in which case I can see the Liberals having a better chance of successfully taking the middle-ground between a more radical Labour and more reactionary Conservative party, along with possibly keeping the Tories in the wilderness long enough for their ties with the National Liberals to break down (although if you really want to help the Liberals have Labour win a comfortable majority in 1950 as the 51 election effectively forced them to concede any pretence of being a significant party).
Another idea I had was to have an alternate Wolfenden Report headed up by Oliver Baldwin resulting in earlier and more sweeping Gay Rights reforms, although that might be more due to wishful thinking on my part.
One thing that is worth bearing is the effect that this will have on the Labour right. A lot of their critique of the left, particularly with regards to their opposition to nationalisation, was developed in the aftermath of repeated electoral failures which they associated with the dogmatism of the left. If Labour is able to secure a comfortable victory in 50/51 and are able to sail through on the tide of rising growth and living standards until the late 50s/early 60s its going to be a lot harder to maintain that criticism. So whilst the Gaitskillites ITTL will still be open to alternatives to nationalisation, on a if all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails basis, they would be more relaxed about existing or even expanding nationalisation. This could lead to a softening of the factional differences within Labour, at least on these key economic issues, which could mean a more united party.
Another thing to consider is the impact this will have on the British political consensus. IOTL Labour was able to set some broad parameters in the 6 years they were in office which the Tories were largely able to accept. With Labour in power for longer and pushing a more radical agenda by the time the Tories get back into power either they are going to have to accept the new status quo, which means a more left-wing consensus, or they are going to try and roll it back, in which case I can see the Liberals having a better chance of successfully taking the middle-ground between a more radical Labour and more reactionary Conservative party, along with possibly keeping the Tories in the wilderness long enough for their ties with the National Liberals to break down (although if you really want to help the Liberals have Labour win a comfortable majority in 1950 as the 51 election effectively forced them to concede any pretence of being a significant party).
Another idea I had was to have an alternate Wolfenden Report headed up by Oliver Baldwin resulting in earlier and more sweeping Gay Rights reforms, although that might be more due to wishful thinking on my part.