This
will probably be the thickest book I read this year.
Similar
to my experience reading 'Cameron at 10' last year, learning about
modern British history made me feel like I was at that bit of an SFF
novel where a character learns about the background of their world
and how the current crises have come about. Britain's confused
relationships with America and continental Europe are a major thread
throughout our post-WW2 history.
Major
catastrophes such as the Second World War cause major changes: class
barriers had been broken down as people from all backgrounds came to
together to either fight and die as soldiers, or worked together on
the home front. The different classes began to understand their
differences were mainly material, and there was greater awareness of
poverty and a desire to do something about it. Government wartime
control of health, transport, food (the diets of a lot of poor people
actually improved during the war years - the meager rations they
received were more food than they could have afforded before the
war), and other industries, combined with the wartime ideals of
Britons all working together to help each other out and fight a
common enemy, was like a trial run for socialism.
And
so, after the war, there was landslide victory for Attlee's Labour
party, who had campaigned along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing),
"Let's use state planning, which helped us win the fight against
fascism, to win the fight against poverty and illness."
The
Attlee government created the NHS and massively expanded the welfare
state, causing a huge increase in living standards across the
country. It is a shame such a government would probably not have been
elected if it weren't for the horrors of World War 2.
(The
First World War had a similar effect: in its immediate aftermath, the
government extended suffrage and embarked on a huge social housing
policy, to make the country "fit for heroes who had won the war"
- without these policies, many of the soldiers would have returned
from the war to live in slums and been unable to vote for their
government.)
Reading
about how the Attlee government was made possible by WW2, I now
understand (and further abhor) the 'Lexit' argument that did the
rounds a bit back in 2016: the Left should vote for Brexit because it
will be a disaster that would force the country to come together in
crisis, and make a leftwing government more likely as a result. Even
among those ostensibly on the right, those that think No-Deal Brexit
would be a disaster in the short term seem to think the cost is worth
it if in the longer term the country is brought together through
hardship. How often is the Blitz and WW2 mentioned in discussions of
Brexit? We survived the Blitz, we can survive Brexit! Brexit will be
tough, but it'll bring some wartime spirit to the country and bring
us together!
Are
the people craving Brexit and the (idealised) wartime spirit really
craving a socialist government, without realizing it or wanting to
realize it?
Britain
was triumphant in WW2, but it was ruined economically and literally.
Post-war governments were not honest with the electorate about how
weak the country was after war: they had a "don't talk about it
in front of the children/voters" approach. They didn't want to
ruin the triumphant, positive mood winning the war had instilled in
the populace. The crumbling British Empire was no longer a
superpower, and was dependent on American aid for years after the
war. To keep the aid coming, Britain became the more subservient
partner in the "special relationship".
Having
defeated an extremely racist ideology in World War 2, with a lot of
help from colonial soldiers, the British government thought of
Britain as the opposite of the Nazis, i.e. not racist (obviously,
there was a lot of racism in Britain). British citizenship was
extended across the colonies: colonial subjects were now British
citizens who could move to Britain if they so wished, and would be
welcomed with open arms. There was also plenty of work that needed
doing to rebuild the country. This was essentially freedom of
movement across the commonwealth; however, transport was expensive so
not as many people could afford as would do today. Nevertheless, a
lot of people did come.
One
of the first ships of immigrants to arrive was the HMT Empire
Windrush, from which the Windrush Generation gets its name.
Symbolically, the ship was a re-purposed Germany Navy Troopship
captured during the war. Knowing this, reflect on the recent Windrush
scandal and what it says about the current state of our nation.
The
Suez Crisis of 1956 is often seen as the time when Britain proved to
the world that it was no longer a superpower. The Egyptian president
nationalized the Suez Canal, which had been under Anglo-French
control. The British and the French wanted to invade to retake the
canal, but America and the USSR had other ideas. Both knew that if
the British and French were kept out of Egypt, all of the old
colonial powers would be out of the Middle East, leaving it open for
them to influence. It was the only time during the Cold War that
America sided with the USSR against its supposed allies.
International pressure and domestic anti-war protest led to the
invasion force being withdrawn before they had recaptured the canal.
Britain and France humiliated on the world stage.
The
French government learnt from this that America could not be trusted:
they would betray their allies in a heartbeat if it benefited them.
France turned away from the US to focus on its continental allies, to
build what would become the EU. Britain was unsure what to do: it was
stung by the betrayal, but had been dependent on America since WW2
and wanted to maintain the "special relationship". British
governments since WW2 have been divided over whether Britain should
be closer to America, or closer to Europe, and this constant division
has meant that Britain has never been as close as it could have been
with either.
When
Britain was first trying to join the EEC (which became the EU), it
was blocked twice, with the French president De Gaulle being the most
vocal opponent of Britain joining. The European nations were worried
that Britain was too close to America, the Betrayer, and would be a
Trojan horse for American interests in Europe. They were also deeply
concerned about Britain dragging the Commonwealth into Europe with
it, especially with the 'freedom of movement' mentioned above
(tighter immigration controls were later introduced). Continental
Europe was more racist than Britain, and didn't want all those
non-white, non-European people from Britain's colonies getting to the
mainland.
Britain
joined the EEC in the 70s, under the Conservative government of
Edward Heath. The next Labour government held a referendum on whether
the populace actually wanted to be in it (the referendum had been
Tony Benn's idea: he wanted Britain out).
The
campaigns on both sides focused on how food pricing was affected by
membership: both sides claimed their option would result in cheaper
food. Prior to joining, Britain had imported most of its food from
the Commonwealth, now it was getting it from the continent. The Yes
campaigners said European food was cheaper; the No, that Commonwealth
food would be cheaper. Neither campaign really talked about the ways
the EEC was planning to develop and grow over the decades, becoming
increasingly a federal Europe. Neither side seemed to think that was
important. Both Labour and Conservatives were divided over EEC
membership: neither was a 100% Yes or No party.
(I
spoke to a man from New Zealand the other week, who said that a lot
of people in New Zealand and Australia had been disappointed when
Britain went closer to Europe and away from the Commonwealth. Their
trade with Britain decreased, and they had to find new markets to
sell their food.)
Many
Brexit supporters have said they would have voted No in 1975 had the
campaigns mentioned the plans of a closer union; many felt betrayed
and lied to, when the EEC became more than a trading arrangement:
when it became the EU.
Britain's
early years in the EEC coincided with a bunch of other major changes
to the country, which in some minds were causally linked to EEC
membership. Decimalization of currency meant coins such as shillings
and farthings, which went back to Anglo-Saxon times, were replaced by
the more rational system of pounds and pence we have today -
Britain's history and tradition was being eroded, thought some,
leaving them with a sense of alienation. Industries declined and
industrial strife increased. The government went to the IMF for a
loan to help its finances. The oil crisis of '73 and '79 caused huge
disruptions, especially when combined with the more frequent
strikes... leading to the Winter of Discontent, and the election of
Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher's
reforms were... divisive, to say the least.
Paradoxically,
she privatized a lot of public services, while also increasing
central government control of others and removed powers from local
authorities. Prior to the Thatcher years, local elections had been
about the local candidates and how they would use local powers to
improve local areas. As local powers were taken away by central
government, local elections increasingly became a proxy vote on the
government in power.
She
crushed the unions and allowed industries to die. The state would
interfere less in business: the Market would reign. Mass unemployment
arrived in modern Britain for the first time: this shifted power away
from workers towards employers. When employment is high, workers are
in demand and have greater power to push for better pay: when there's
always a significant number of people unemployed but wanting a job...
well, we can just hire one of the other people if you don't want low
pay.
Mass
debt also arrived. Right to Buy meant council tenants could buy their
homes at a massively reduced price. The deregulated financial sector
was happy to lend mortgage money. Britain's obsession with house
prices and house buying was born. At the time Thatcher came to power,
a greater proportion of Brits lived in social housing than in many
communist countries. Now it's less than 20% and there are endless
headlines about the housing crisis. The government doesn't build much
social housing, and the private sector is incentivised to build and
sell slowly to keep prices high.
While
Thatcher had been pro-Europe to start with, she increasingly became
anti-Europe during her time in office, as the federal project
accelerated. The big disagreement came over the European Exchange
Rate Mechanism (ERM) - the different European currencies would work
towards maintaining agreed exchange rates with the German Deutcshmark
through monetary policy: this would make the planned transition to a
single currency easier. Thatcher hated this idea, but the Treasury
and much of her party was broadly in favour, which combined with the
Poll Tax fiasco brought about her downfall.
Thus,
the Conservative party divide between what would become Leavers and
Remainers grew, and soon it would grow again.
In
1992, Germany was going through an economic boom after reunification.
Britain, not so booming, was struggling to keep the pound up to the
value of the Deutschmark. The German government didn't want to ruin
the boom because it needed money to help former East Germany. John
Major's government kept pushing up interest rates until homeowners
and businesses were in danger of defaulting. Major wanted to ride out
the storm, keep Britain in the ERM, so the country could be at the
heart of the developing union.
But
it was not to be. The government cracked, and Britain exited the ERM
on Black Wednesday.- 16th September 1992. Economic recovery followed,
and the Conservative Eurosceptics became more confident. In its
aftermath, the Referendum Party was founded, which had a single
policy: hold a referendum of Britain's membership of the EU.
Tony
Blair's New Labour easily beat the humiliated Conservatives, winning
the largest majority in Labour's history. But there were problems.
Labour had been out of power for two decades: the new ministers had
no experience of government and made a lot of mistakes. Blair took to
courting all the newspapers, telling them what they wanted to hear,
which inevitably turned them against him when the lie was revealed.
Blair wanted to bring Britain closer to Europe, have Britain join the
Euro, but struggled to balance his European aspirations with his
courting of the anti-EU press. Lies, half-truths, and twisted truths
became increasingly common from politicians: outright lying to the
press and the electorate was being normalized among the political
class. Blair got the nickname Bliar.
Oof,
this is a long post isn't it? This book ends in 2007, with Blair's
resignation and some descriptions of recent changes to Britain, which
we're so accustomed to now it felt that they were once new.
Increasing surveillance through CCTV. Increasing concerns about data
protection - who buys our personal data, and is this important?
Increasing Internet usage - Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the
World Wide Web, warned in 2006 that it could be used to spread
disinformation and undermine democracy. Immigration was increasingly
becoming a major political issue: refugees from the Middle East were
fleeing conflicts (which Britain was a part of) and settling in
Britain, more people from Europe were coming over here. Islamophobia
had become more common since 9/11 and 7/7. Politicians were often
talking about the long term and economic benefits of immigration,
while neglecting to mention the short term costs: the extra burden on
public services, and worsening the housing crisis (to homeowners this
was a good thing since it meant higher house prices). Since mass
unemployment had arrived with Thatcher, the idea that 'immigrants are
stealing our jobs' became more common and more convincing...
(A
more recent paperback edition continues the story to 2017.)
Knowing
the historical context for our current affairs is important, and as
you can probably tell I learnt a lot from this book and enjoyed it.
Marr's
writing flows well and he has come great turns of phrase. My main
quibble is that he gets obsessed with the Westminster drama: with the
characters and their relationships to each other, which often feels
like fluff and filler. This is probably his training as a Westminster
journalist at work. The news is what the politicians are doing and
saying; the history is what the politicians did and said. I would
have preferred more emphasis on how the country as a whole changed.
When lands beyond Westminster are mentioned, it is usually because
the people in Westminster have to respond to events there.
There's
plenty of description of the drama around passing legislation, but
comparatively little about how the legislation affected the country.
This prevents him from being too critical of any politician's actual
record and legacy. Criticisms are typically leveled at their
character, and how they interacted with colleagues. There are
segments on topics outside of Westminster, but they read like he
would much rather get back to Westminster. It sometimes feels more
like 'A History of Modern Westminster and its Occasional Relations
with Other Lands, with Minor Digressions onto Other Topics'. This
makes the book feel broad but shallow. That's fine, I guess: there's
plenty of suggestions for further reading in the notes.
I
did enjoy this book a lot, though I do feel a slight disappointment
that it isn't the book I wanted it to be, but that book would never
have written by Andrew Marr: he's a journalist, not a historian.
