Britain: past, present and future

By the late 1980s most British people felt that the future was full of uncertainty. These doubts resulted from disappointment with lost economic and political power. Many people looked back to the "Swinging Sixties" as the best ten years Britain had had this century.

However, people were divided concerning the nation's future possibilities. Some, those who had voted for Thatcher, were optimistic. They believed that material wealth was vital for national renewal, and that economic success was about to happen.

Others were unhappy with the direction the nation was taking. They believed that the emphasis on material wealth encouraged selfishness, and a retreat from an ideal of community to a desire for personal gain. They were worried by the weakening of the welfare state, particularly in the educational and health services.

The government said much about maintaining "traditional values", particularly law and order. Respect for the law, it argued, was rooted in British tradition. It also spoke of a return to Victorian values. On the other hand, its opponents argued that the tradition of broad popular agreement on the management of the nation's affairs was in grave danger. Neither side was wholly right in its claim. For example, the Conservative argument forgot that in the past, the law had been frequently broken not only by criminals but also by those for whom it was oppressive, like the Tolpuddle Martyrs. It forgot, too, that the Victorians had valued not only enterprise and hard work but had also cared about social reform to assist the weaker members of society. In the same way, when Labour accused the Conservatives of putting broad national agreement in danger, it forgot that its own party origins lay with the radicals who stood against accepted national political practice. But such awkward facts were easily placed on one side, and the political parties appealed to "history", as this fitted their view of modern Britain and the glorious future they offered if the people supported them.

There was nothing new in this. People have always looked at history in the way that suited their system of beliefs. In 1988 Britain celebrated two major anniversaries, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, and the Glorious Revolution in 1688. One was about Britain's successful military and foreign policy, the other about its successful constitutional development. The popular view is that both were truly glorious events. However, the truth is less simple. The Spanish Armada was defeated more by the weather than by the English navy, the Spanish navy became stronger rather than weaker after 1588, and the war with Spain seriously damaged the economy of England. Nevertheless, the defeat of the Armada has remained a symbol of Britain's seafaring success. It was given particular importance in the late nineteenth century, when British world' wide command of the seas was at its height. By 1988 it was harder to think in the same way, because British foreign policy had shrunk in recent years, with a decline in its interests beyond Europe and the United States.

There was also something slightly uncomfortable about celebration of the Glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution was about the sovereignty of Parliament in the nation's affairs. But not everyone was happy with parliamentary life by 1988. Was its constituency system truly democratic? Was Parliament itself too powerful? There was another reason for discomfort. The Glorious Revolution had been a disaster for Ireland. In 1988 there was a reminder of this side of Britain's history in the conflict in Northern Ireland, where even the Protestant "Loyalists" were unhappy with rule by the Westminster Parliament. In Scotland, Wales, and parts of England, too, there were people who disliked the centralised power of Westminster, which had increased in the Thatcher years.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 1009