Labour rules Britain from 1929 to mid 1970s

[politicus]

I have being discussing whether Labour would have pursued policies similar to the Nordic countries if they had been in government for an extended periode of time similar to the SAP run in Sweden from 1932-1976 (not counting the 4 month "bourgeois break" in 1936).

My view is that Labour would have been controlled by its right wing and would basically have implemented a model pretty close to the Scandinavian one. But the strength of British capital interests and the role of running a global empire etc. makes it hard to compare.

Others claim Labour would have either nationalized the economy to a greater extent or gone the "National Labour" route of MacDonald IRL.

Also, in this scenario does Britain retain its character as a class society or could Labour successfully have altered that?

Case:

Lets say Ramsay MacDonald doesn't try to defend the gold standard and instead devalues the pound and use Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy. It works and pulls Britain out of the depression keeping Labour in charge until WW2 where successful Labour management of the war effort secures them a position as the natural party of government reducing the Tories to the role of a perpetual opposition. What happens then?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That assumes that Labour would have successfully managed WW2, indeed it assumes that WW2 would have happened largely as in real life.  How would a Labour government managed defence spending in the pre-war period?  Would they have invested in radar and the RAF to the same degree? Would a Labour government have reacted similarly to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Spanish Civil War, the Anchluss, and the Sudentenland?  Differences in any or all of these have the potential for a lot of butterflies before one even reaches WW2.

[politicus]

That assumes that Labour would have successfully managed WW2, indeed it assumes that WW2 would have happened largely as in real life.  How would a Labour government managed defence spending in the pre-war period?  Would they have invested in radar and the RAF to the same degree? Would a Labour government have reacted similarly to the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the Spanish Civil War, the Anchluss, and the Sudentenland?  Differences in any or all of these have the potential for a lot of butterflies before one even reaches WW2.

Agreed, but not relevant for the things I am interested in discussing ie ideological differences and similarities between SDs in Nordic countries and Britain, the influence of a dominant Labour on British society and the effect of government on the internal dynamics in a party such as Labour.

Generally I think contrafactual history can be a useful tool for discussing and analysing a topic without having to be 100% realistic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have being discussing whether Labour would have pursued policies similar to the Nordic countries if they had been in government for an extended periode of time similar to the SAP run in Sweden from 1932-1976 (not counting the 4 month "bourgeois break" in 1936).

My view is that Labour would have been controlled by its right wing and would basically have implemented a model pretty close to the Scandinavian one. But the strength of British capital interests and the role of running a global empire etc. makes it hard to compare.

The 1924 Labour government mostly pursued policies of that type and was surprisingly successful considering its impossible parliamentary position. The 1929-31 government was (of course) destroyed by the Depression and its adherence (via Philip Snowden) to orthodox/disastrous economic/fiscal policies, but it did pass some legislation of that type as well (c.f. the Greenwood Housing Act). Labour-run local authorities - local government in Britain being very powerful in those days - generally implemented similar gradualist models, even those controlled by the Left (i.e. Labour councils in militant South Wales adopted much the same policies as those in moderate County Durham; the policies of Herbert Morrison's 'right-wing' leadership on the London County Council were not obviously distinct from those of the 'left-wing' Labour group in Sheffield).

So, basically, you're correct. Still, Labour would have needed to have won a majority - which they found very difficult in real life - and Snowden would have have to have lost his rather baleful control over the Party's economic policies. Basically this means that Labour would have to have lost the 1929 election: essentially you'd need the circumstances that led to Labour gaining control of the London County Council in 1934 to happen nationally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nationalisation only became a major aspect of Labour policy in the 1940s after the wartime experience showed that it could work (Clause IV was generally interpreted in a notably less literal manner before then), and MacDonald did what he did in 1931 under extreme pressure and in a crisis situation. Footage of him after 1931 makes for depressing viewing: very much a man dead inside.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Class in Britain is much too much like Caste in India for there to be much of a chance of that, regrettably. Possibly what was left of legal discrimination could have been abolished earlier, maybe education could have been structured differently, and presumably society would have been more economically egalitarian, but the markings would remain.

[afleitch]

The only way for Labour to build a solid enough mandate for themselves would have been to extend their natural constituency. Part of that would have been to maintain and build upon their rural base in some parts of the country which even as as 1966 could put in an appearance. You have demographic changes of course, and changes in labour. The reliance on the Empire for all manner of foodstuffs plus a later than necessary franchise for working voters probably meant that building a more solid base would probably have escaped them by even 1924.

[Lurker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Class in Britain is much too much like Caste in India for there to be much of a chance of that, regrettably. Possibly what was left of legal discrimination could have been abolished earlier, maybe education could have been structured differently, and presumably society would have been more economically egalitarian, but the markings would remain.

Interestingly (and paradoxically?) though, there was less "class voting" in Britain than in the Scandinavian countries, according to Stein Rokkan. The Tories, in the post-war years, had a significantly larger share of the working class vote than the Scandinavian centre-right, IIRC.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interestingly (and paradoxically?) though, there was less "class voting" in Britain than in the Scandinavian countries, according to Stein Rokkan. The Tories, in the post-war years, had a significantly larger share of the working class vote than the Scandinavian centre-right, IIRC.

Yes. Though the really interesting thing is that the extent of 'class voting' was different in different parts of the country: there were Conservative MPs for working class seats in Liverpool until 1964 and Salford* (though always Labour from 1945) was marginal territory until then, while 'class voting' in many coalfields and heavy industrial areas was as absolute as anywhere in Scandinavia. Also you had Labour MPs in (for example) certainly-not-utterly proletarian towns like Gloucester, and Labour was genuinely competitive in large stretches of new suburbia. You can't understand British society and politics (in the past as well as now) without reference to class, but it was never as simple as is often assumed...

_{*It'd be only a slight exaggeration to claim that entire city was basically one giant slum. We aren't talking 'better off working class people toying with voting for the right' here...}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Part of that would have been to maintain and build upon their rural base in some parts of the country which even as as 1966 could put in an appearance.

Not possible. The Labour rural vote in the places you're thinking of came almost entirely from two 'subclasses' (for want of a better term); farmworkers and railwaymen.* Farmworkers were the larger of the two groups by far, but were already in decline by the 1930s due to changes in agriculture (obviously this intensified about a thousandfold post-war). Very few people outside these groups voted Labour or had any interest in doing so.

_{*In both cases we can safely add 'and their families', of course.}

[politicus]

Part of that would have been to maintain and build upon their rural base in some parts of the country which even as as 1966 could put in an appearance.

Not possible. The Labour rural vote in the places you're thinking of came almost entirely from two 'subclasses' (for want of a better term); farmworkers and railwaymen.* Farmworkers were the larger of the two groups by far, but were already in decline by the 1930s due to changes in agriculture (obviously this intensified about a thousandfold post-war). Very few people outside these groups voted Labour or had any interest in doing so.

_{*In both cases we can safely add 'and their families', of course.}

I suppose smallholders is an irrelevant group in Britain? Perhaps with the exception of crofters in Scotland? Since English agriculture mainly consisted of relatively large tenant farms as far as  I know.

"Workers - public employees* - smallholders. You have the power if you want it" was the slogan on a Danish SD poster in the mid 1920s and describes their coalition pretty well, even if most smallholders voted for their allies the Social Liberals. This coalition got them to 46,1% in 1935. Since Britain was more industrialized I suppose a similar coalition with a high degree of class voting would have given Labour an outright majority.

Apart from  less rigorous class voting among workers the Labour coalition must also have been smaller than this: was public employees mainly a Tory constituency?

* The term used "tjenestemænd" describes officials working in the customs service, railways, postal service, fire fighters, policemen and teachers, not academics in the civil service and doctors etc.

[politicus]

The reliance on the Empire for all manner of foodstuffs plus a later than necessary franchise for working voters probably meant that building a more solid base would probably have escaped them by even 1924.

How did the late franchise affect their coalition building negatively? Working class voters did become their base after they (except young women) got the vote in 1918.

[politicus]

Perhaps I should clarify why I am interested in this.

When looking at why SDs became strongest in Scandinavia there are three obvious factors: Their opponents didn't try to use antidemocratic measures, there were no major party split following the Russian Revolution and they didn't have the Catholic church acting as a spoiler by convincing working class voters to vote for Conservative or Christian Democratic parties. Those three factors where problems for SDs anywhere outside of Scandinavia with one exception: Britain. And with its long industrial history and strong trade unions Britain should on paper have developed a stronger Labour dominance than the Scandinavian countries.

As explanations for why they didn't I can see: FPTP means that the anti-socialist vote is united behind the Tories and Labour lack a small Left Liberal or Centrist party to ally with and you have a lot of media power on the Tory side and the lack of Labour voters in rural areas gives some safe Conservative seats. Still in 1929 Labour gained (which turned out to be a loss..) from FPTP since they got more seats with 200.000 votes less than the Tories, so the electoral system doesn't explain it all. Then you have the strange phenomenon of less rigorous class voting in a more rigorous class society.

So what caused the Labour pre-war coalition to be smaller than in Scandinavia? More lower middle class and white collar voters trying to distance themselves from "the proles"? Or is it more complex?

Of course past 1930 all this is reinforced by the fact that Labour didn't got the position of successful crisis managers during the depression which made Scandinavian SDs into the natural parties of government and made it possible to increment their coalitions to include about half the population on its top.

EDIT: I see that the post-war Labour coalition is broader than I thought and its mostly the two loses in 1951 and 1955 with Torie victories despite a 46%+ Labour result in both elections that makes the diffence. Otherwise it would be Labour 1945-1959 and 1964-1970. So not being able to build on 1930s results and the election system/two party dynamics perhaps accounts for most of difference.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose smallholders is an irrelevant group in Britain? Perhaps with the exception of crofters in Scotland? Since English agriculture mainly consisted of relatively large tenant farms as far as  I know.

There was a significant smallholder vote in upland agricultural areas in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. But with a few strange exceptions in parts of Wales it was... how shall we say... not particularly Labour friendly. The countryside was (is) a class society as well, and in most places where there were large numbers of smallholders they weren't near the bottom...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Public employees did not form a single electorate in that sense (and still don't, actually). But the so-called 'uniformed working class' (which included railway workers: the railways were still in the private sector here, remember) were a very important part of the Labour electorate and were disproportionately likely to be party members. There were cities where these people were more likely to be loyal Labour voters than slum dwellers. I don't think much research has ever been done into the voting habits of local government officers and the like, but I suspect that it mostly depended where they lived and what grade they were in.