I'd like to add a thought as well, although it may be completely wrong, but we'll see. I think sometimes that the way that the land is parcelled out and the population density in the UK also has something to do with why it was more difficult inside Britain to get anything done.
I couldn't help noticing that the three places where communism really took off and got underway rapidly, were places where there was a large section of rural people who were almost completely disenfranchised and had been cut off from everything.
In those circumstances where the land is laid out like that, the elites would find it
geographically more efficient to do 'tax farming'
(outsourcing their tax collection tasks to increasingly corrupt quasi-private enforcement thugs), and also it is simply easier to ignore people when you are not surrounded by them. So in an almost ironic way, communism anticipated that the revolution would come once everyone had been proletarianised and dragged into the urban areas, but what in fact seems to have happened is the opposite - that the desperation of deprived and half-starved rural peasants
ran ahead of the industrial proletariat's desperation and led to communism taking off instead in:
But since no one had expected that
(I think?), it seemed to mean that they would have to play by ear. Meanwhile, the industrialised proletariat in Britain was closely snuggled under the wing of the British ruling class in metropolitan areas, imbibing the ruling class' ideology and morals.