THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE

Stability and Change

For nine centuries the sea has protected the British from inva­sion and foreign occupation. During all 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 stage 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. Pedestrians cross streets against red lights when there are no cars coming, and nobody harasses them; but car drivers obey the lights and regularly respect the pedestrian crossings.

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 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 divisions.

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 trends 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 nationalised industries to the private sector.

Under this regime the economy improved. Most denationalised 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 1983 it was below 10 per cent — still very high, but below the European average. In 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 properity, 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 expen­diture for social purposes and the health service. It spent little on the roads and sewage systems. It cut the railways’ subsidy. 3fc was slow to impose and enforce rules to reduce pol­lution or to promote safety. It took new powers to 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.

The tone of political argument in Parliament had already been more hostile in the 1970s than before, and became more hostile still in the 1980s. Many people in the country would have preferred more moderation, and there was a new surge of support for the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party (SDP) which seemed to offer an alternative to the politics of confrontation.

The atmosphere of confrontation seemed to reflect a tendency towards belligerence in society as a whole. Hundreds of support­ers of football teams, some of whom have made war on each other both inside football grounds and on the streets outside, brought shame to their country by their violence in Brussels and other European cities. There was violence too at some strikes, where hundreds of people gathered to prevent others from going to work. There were also violent demonstrations and other actions in sup­port of various causes.