The only real failed states of the British Empire, syscom, seem to be in Africa. And even those are doing better, or were doing better, than the others e.g South Africa and Zimbabwae (Rhodesia).
Since the British Empire covered a large time span it's hard to hold to one world of thought. I am not disagreeing that the British Empire existed to help others, of course the British Empire was there to feed the wealth of Great Britain.
But the British Empire aimed to develop the nations it ran, which isn't unlike the Roman Empire. Sure, the British Empire enslaved a whole race at the start of it's expansion into Africa but it was the first super-power to abolish slavery.
I disagree with your idea that the industrial revolution did not aid the nations the British controlled. My prime example always is the railway, or even to add we can mention the telegram. The railroads in Ireland, India and Africa were designed and produced by Great Britain. Without British rule the railway wouldn't have been in those nations for decades, or even centuries.
I do have to say that those nations would not have been as prosperous. Without British encouragement and development to create surplus socities in the nations it controlled, albeit for it's own wealth, the nations generated healthy trade with their surplus after Britain left. In Africa, Britain opened up the mines in gold, silver and diamond again for it's own wealth but without Britain they'd have never been discovered. And people say Europe bled Africa dry, there's still millions upon millions of tons of rare natural resources in that continent.
I will still say the British Empire was more LENIANT and understanding of its subjects. As mkloby says they were more benevolent to increase trade and reduce uprising. The actual plan of the British Empire was to create a massive trading network with Britain at it's helm.
If you consider empires muggers of the world, Britain more likely said "...work for us, or we'll kill you" - rather than "...give me all your money." To say that Britain held it's empire together on military might alone is foolish, I'm sorry to say.
Great Britain throughout its history has been over-stretched. Several points during the Revolution War the whole Empire could have kicked off and it would have crumbled. But instead, the British Empire seemed to gladly march under the Union Jack in times of trouble. Seriously, do you think Britain could have forced the Indians to fight for them in World War I? No way, but the Indians did anyway. Same in World War II, Britian couldn't have forced them to fight in Europe.
The Suez Crisis was not a land grab, Great Britain built and funded the Suez Canal. The U.S did exactly the same in Panama. One thing right though is that the U.S was the new super-power.
mkloby; I've passed my aerodynamics unit. But I'm continuing to get merits and maybe distinctions. I'll send you my assignment on the basics of transonic flight if you want.