Text 4. Modern Britain. Stability and Change.

Read the text and answer the questions.

1. How was the stability of power and the structure of society achieved through several centuries?

2. What do the British like to think about their qualities and what do these qualities demand?

3. Why had Britain fallen behind so many of its European competitors by the 1970s?

4. What were the economic successes and failures of the Conservative administration in 1979-97?

5. What promises of Tony Blair led the Labour Party to power?

For nine centuries the sea has protected the British from invasion and foreign occupation. During al this time the hereditary monarchy has survived, but with frequent changes to the limits on its power. There has been no political upheaval for 300 years, and the revolution of 1688 had no effect on the structure of society. It merely sent one king into exile, without violence, and replaced him by what may now be called a constitutional monarchy. The main institutions already established by that time were unaffected except by some fresh definition of their roles. Since then state power has been transferred by stages to a prime minister and government depending on a popularly elected parliament, in which it is usual for one party to have an overall majority of seats.

The British like to think that they excel in the qualities of moderation and tolerance. Such claims are obviously reinforced by the stability of government through several centuries without a written constitution and without clear definitions. These qualities demand self-discipline and mutual respect between people.

Since the 1960s the tolerance and moderation have been less evident than before, at least in politics and public life. For a long time until then, Conservative opinion had been ready to accept the advance towards equality. Governments of all parties maintained the welfare state, consulted the trade union leaders when forming economic policy, and imposed heavy taxes on the relatively rich. It was said that there was a ‘consensus’ giving high priority to personal security and the reduction of old class division.

By the 1970s it was evident that Britain’s achievements, as an industrial economy, had been poor. Britain had once been the most productive and prosperous country in Europe. Now it had been overtaken by all the others of north-western Europe.

On the one side this national failure was ignored, or attributed to the survival of the capitalist economic system. There was impatience with the rate of social progress, resentment that inequality survived. All established authority was criticized and questioned, except that of the trade union leaders whose authority was respected because they pursued the interests of the working class.

On the other side it was thought that Britain had suffered from too much security, too little reward for enterprise, too much action by the state to protect inefficient industries and businesses.

The two attitudes could not be reconciled.

When the people voted to choose a government in 1979, they put the Conservatives in power. Under Mrs Thatcher’s leadership they reversed the tends of the previous decades. They soon took measures to reduce trade union power. They revived the free enterprise capitalist economy, with its risks, its competition, its rewards for the winners, its harsh economic penalties and lack of sympathy for the losers. From the mid-1980s, they sold off nationalized industries to the private sector.

Under this regime the economy improved. Most denationalized Industries made profits, to the benefit of the people who bought shares in them (including many of their own workers). The proportion of people without work doubled in five years, but soon the productivity of those still working rose at a faster rate than in any other Western country. Then unemployment fell, until by 1988 it was below 10 per cent – still very high, but below the European average. Un 1983, and again in 1987, general elections confirmed Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives in power.

At least two-thirds of the people felt that they were sharing in the new prosperity, with their cars and foreign holidays and comfortable homes. The majority, who had owned their homes for several years, could see the market value of their homes increase beyond their most optimistic expectations. They did not much resent the even bigger share in prosperity obtained by accountants, lawyers, managers of money and of advertising businesses. They did not much complain that many businesses ensured the high productivity of their workers by employing fewer people than were needed.

In order to cut taxes the Government used new methods to restrict expenditure for social purposes and the health service. It spent little on the roads and sewage systems. It cut the railways’ subsidy. It was slow to impose and enforce rules to reduce pollution or to promote safety. It took new powers t oblige local councils to set limits to their expenditure – and to the local taxes.

Many of these measures were not popular. Opinion polls showed that most people favoured better public services, and would accept the need to pay for them through taxes. All through the 1980s the Labour Party attacked the Government with increasing bitterness. This bitterness reflected the feelings of those people who became worse off under the new regime, or those who were angry at the growing gap between the rich and poor. Thus the Conservatives were heavily defeated in May 1997, because they were widely perceived to be unfit to govern.

Tony Blair’s Labour Party came to power with a ‘landslide’ victory, and the promise of an entirely new beginning. It had dissociated itself from old style Labour by rejecting the ideology of state owned industry, and by reducing trade union influence on the party. It also portrayed itself as filled with with youthful vigour, in vivid contrast with the Conservatives who seemed old and tired. It made long-term issues its priority, in particular raising educational standards in order to achieve a workforce fit for the twenty-first century. It also laid emphasis on the compassionate values of socialism, but without the old ideology. It was happy to pursue the new capitalism as long as it could be made inclusive of ‘the many, not the few’, as its central campaign slogan put it. It believed Britain had no choice but to join the European Monetary Union, and so worked towards the necessary ‘economic convergence’. Finally, it argued for constitutional reform. It would decentralize power and be more openly accountable than any previous government. Above all, Labour promised to rejuvenate Britain.