Perhaps one of the more famous groups against decolonisation was the League of Empire Loyalists (L..E.L), a influential pressure group within the Conservative Party in the 1950ss, it however wasn't limited to Conservatives and had members from all over the political spectrum, the far right made up a relatively sizable chunk of the membership, with their founder Arthur Kenneth Chesterton being a former leading figure in the British Union of Fascists, one of their weaknesses was Chesterton who was a noted anti-semite and also wanted the Empire to stop Britain being dominated by the 'Jewish plottings' of Soviet socialism and American capitalism.

The group did sustain a large support base during the 1950s though, and gained notoriety in the Conservative party due to their stunts - they'd often hide at a venue before a scheduled conference began, then jump out in the middle of said conference to interupt it and explain their goals and aims to the audience before being forcibly removed.

I can't speak for a majority of the public but from speaking with a family member who experienced decolonisation I believe there was a large group in British society, maybe not aa majority, but a large group against decolonisation often for personal reasons. At the time of British decolonisation of Africa my great grandfather ran a farm and business on the outskirts of Nairboi, then the capital of the British administration of colonial Kenya. At first he was led to believe that he would be allowed to have both Kenyan and British citizenship upon independence from Britain, but for whatever reasons the deal never came to fruition and he was forced to accept Kenyan nationality only, and renounce his British citizenship, so he could stay and continue his business. The decision really hurt him, he had grown up in the United Kingdom, and his family had always been from there, he was a British man, but at the same time he had to officially renounce his citizenship so he could cotnienue to make his living abroad. I don't think this was a single experience, I would wager a large amount of British expats in the colonies felt the same, often being made to choose between their livelyhood and/or new life and their sense of loyalty and nationality due to changing world politics beyond their control.

(Part one):

I'm afraid I can only speak at length at Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) reactions to decolonisation and their attempts to leverage domestic political advantage from the international issue of decolonisation. I’m going to preface my comment by noting that the policy of the CPGB was, especially in the period 1920-1943 (after which COMINTERN was disbanded and the USSR expended much less energies on assisting and guiding the communist movements in “first world” countries), essentially the British arm of Communist International and therefore policy on opposing colonialism was dictated largely from Moscow. This is not to say that opposition to colonialism and the subsequent positive reaction to decolonisation did not enjoy widespread support from a variety of existing groups within Britain, nor am I implying that CPGB and other anti-Imperialist activists were motivated solely by a cynical desire to please Moscow. Instead, I see this link to the international Communist movement as informing the narratives and arguments used against imperialism by the CPGB, which therefore heavily informed their reactions when decolonisation occurred. It was the official policy of the COMINTERN to view the struggle against imperialism by resistance groups in the colonies as not merely a related struggle, but as the same struggle as the one being fought by the working classes in “western” nations such as the UK against the established capitalist class in Britain. Anti-imperialist arguments were initially couched in the language of colonial brutality against indigenous peoples and cultural imperialism, which had been the arguments traditionally employed by the British left against the Empire; however, the CPGB were quickly reprimanded for resorting to such “simplistic” narratives in their condemnation of the British response to the 1929 Palestinian riots and instead encouraged by the COMINTERN to portray events in the Levant as part “…of the general revolutionary struggle against imperialism.”(1) This relationship with COMINTERN is important to bear in mind when considering later reactions to decolonisation.

The CPGB had long been opposed to British colonialism which can ultimately be said to derive from their Leninist ideology and the subsequent desire to see the British "State" weakened at home and abroad as a means of speeding up the inevitable proletarian revolution in Britain. Many early decolonisation movements within Britain, most notably the League Against Imperialism (LAI), were marked by heavy CPGB involvement, who sought to present their anti-colonial message as a critique of "imperialism" more generally (this term encompassing capitalist businesses and entrenched political and economic interests within Britain as well as Britain's colonial policy). This approach had the effect of driving away much of the non-communist base of the LAI who didn’t accept this broader narrative of struggle against the British political elite, leading to a sharp decline in membership in the early 1930s (2). Thereafter the CPGB realised that this was an issue which they regarded as a completely essential facet of bringing about revolution which also enjoyed significant support from non-communists in Britain and thus was viewed as a means of bringing more British workers onto the side of socialism (If they already oppose colonialism, albeit for the “wrong reasons” as they don’t see it in terms of wider struggle, maybe we can convince them of the existence of said wider struggle and of the necessity of our plans for revolution in Britain). Yet it was not true that most of the British working class were necessarily anti-imperialist, with Tom Quelch of the British Socialist Party remarking that the average British worker would “consider it treason” for a British party or political body to support and organise anti-colonial efforts (3).

So then, how did the CPGB react when decolonisation started taking place after World War II? The Party was extremely sympathetic to violent liberation movements, not least because many of these movements had tended to co-opt socialist or communist ideology and language to frame their struggle against Western imperialists. In Malaya for instance, the British army was deployed to quell a communist insurgency seeking national liberation and the expulsion of British business interests. The CPGB produced pamphlets condemning the war as serving only the interests of British capitalists rather than British workers, arguing that the interests of British workers would be better served by peacefully allowing Malaya to gain independence which would, in turn, weaken the large British tin and rubber companies which were responsible for capitalist exploitation not only in Malaya but also in Britain as well.(4) Also of note is the references to emotive issues such as the deaths of working class British soldiers and the harsh treatment of innocent civilians in Malaya, issues which had nothing to do with communism per se but which enjoyed widespread opposition within the UK. The focus on these issues is evidence of the attempt to harness existing opposition to colonialism and colonial practises as a means for convincing people of the necessity of the whole CPGB programme (of which policy on decolonisation was only a small part).

While support for communist groups seeking to violently overthrow colonial rule in Malaya was forthcoming, support for other types of decolonisation was not necessarily given so easily. For the CPGB decolonisation meant the complete removal of any existing imperialist interests and influences including western firms operating in colonial territories and the liberation of the people through socialism. “Development schemes” designed to slowly ready a territory for decolonisation through the building of infrastructure and the creation of a national middle class were heavily criticised as only benefiting existing powers within the territory and failing to improve the position of ordinary people. (5) “Liberal-bourgeoisie” or otherwise non-communist liberation groups in the colonies were seen as peddling a false consciousness of sorts, with the Indian National Congress for instance denounced as a “dangerous distraction.” Therefore, events such as the legislative independence of the Gold Coast (Ghanaian) parliament in 1951 were not seen as victories for the decolonisation movement but instead merely an alliance between the British and colonial bourgeoisie classes to cement and expand their interests and to ensure the primacy of capitalism in the soon to be independent colonies. (6) When non-communist groups were successful in achieving independence, the CPGB was quick to portray their success as underpinned by support from the working classes and other nations in the socialist world, thus claiming the victories of liberation movements as victories for international communism.

The hope was that as nations gain independence, whether this be through violent struggle of communist guerrillas or through legislative independence leading to full national independence, the position of the “capitalist world” would inevitably weaken as more markets slipped from their control and the “socialist world” would rise, led by the USSR, as an inevitable consequence of the shared hatred of these nations toward imperialism and the imperial system (remember that capitalism is seen as part of the imperial system here). This would trigger the final crisis of capitalism within Britain and other “western” nations as competition for limited resources increased and inexorable growth could not be maintained (as the markets and resources of the colonies were now off limits to the west). Decolonisation was, therefore, seen as absolutely essential as a means achieving CPGB revolutionary goals in Britain and reports of the early 1960s, when the majority of the African continent secured independence, stress this idea (7). As it became increasingly clear that this was not going to occur, the party sought to highlight the continued influence of British and American business interests, as well as the maintenance of “capitalist” forms of government such as parliamentary democracy or presidential systems ruled by the national bourgeoisie rather than the workers as evidence that the newly independent countries were not “fully liberated,” with veteran CPGB campaigner Rajani Palme Dutt writing in 1961 (around the time that much of Africa was gaining formal independence) that “the battle of national liberation is not ended of independent states.” (what he termed and what would be termed now as “neo-colonialsm”) (8) In short the CPGB did not regard many of the states which emerged after decolonisation as truly “liberated” states as they failed to fit the narrow worldview which adherence to the International communist movement necessitated.