I never figured out what Social Credit is... (a look later) Oh, the analysis has some interesting elements, even if the conclusions can be bonkers.
What if instead of becoming a single ideological plank, it just diffuses through all the parties and economic theory in different ways? With the result being that the consensus is demand side rather than the supply side of OTL (and its austerity)? But they'd have different conclusions on it.
The post realignment Tories embracing welfare programs as a necessary tool of social cohesion.
The liberals mostly concerned about the consumer's ability to express their demands and the freedom to meet them, especially once they move out of Fabian solutions and absorb the cooperative party, maybe go as far as advocating for public and democratic control of finance as a way to grease those wheels? Potentially a stronger cooperative wing could want its own pro cooperative finance and that could mesh with older Fabian goals into a public finance sector aiming at sponsoring economic ventures meeting lacking demand and ensuring investment keeps up with society's goals.
While the ILP would consider that you have to move past capitalism for the economy to ever be about producing to meet needs rather than profit, though probably with critical support given to local public banking, as it would help the main place where they'd have power, local government.
So in a way, it remains more of an academic background than purely policy focused, and often competes while adding its forces with Keynesianism to defeat the OTL trend towards the monetary and economic policy we know and suffer under.
I wonder if you could also throw in a dash of Georgism somewhere?
I'm thinking the liberals would be the party where there's the most opening for a lot of different proposals to come forth, with each of their government looking quite different and leaving the UK with a broad set of solutions to pick from to replace a more single minded Tory government when a crisis happens.
The ILP, meanwhile, would focus on the places where they're influential (unions and some local governments) rather than water themselves down to reach a national majority, because that space is already taken anyway. A big question is how they negotiate the turn away from the old industries and towards the new, but that could be much less brutal and much more gradual if the rest of the political board also listens to unions.
Unfortunately doctors kill people too and I don't just mean sick aberrations like Cream, Mengele or Shipman. My cousin's wife is a doctor and she was told that she would be responsible for at least four deaths before she had fully qualified. And that was sort of my point, the doctor of 1320 or 1620 or 1920 didn't have the medical knowledge of the doctor of 2020 but he did his best and was, by and large,a force for good in his community. But sometimes an operation doesn't come off or there is a misdiagnosis. When my cousin's wife was learning her trade the Aussie doctor who discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterial infection rather than stress was widely regarded in the medical community as a weird fruitcake. Not because doctors wanted to prolong suffering but because like the rest of us they are conditioned by their training and experience.
Geddes or Snowden didn't risk their lives, but they knowingly sacrificed any chances at higher political office, in Geddes case a Cabinet Post, in Snowden's any chance at the top job (and don't forget this was at a time when Ramsay Mac was starting to go off a bit) and, as I say, were prepared to sacrifice political alliances and personal friendships to do what they conceived to be their duty. Kingsley Wood literally worked himself to death shoring up the public finances during WW2. That they didn't have the knowledge of economics that we have today is to be deplored but that's not a reason to disrespect them. They did the best they could with the knowledge that they had.
If anything, modern conventional economics are
worse. What may have been a sacrifice for them at the time is now common place.