Parallels and Tangents
An inconclusive general election, mass protests about electoral reform, another stock market crash – Britain’s got the jitters. I think it’s time for a bit of old-fashioned stoicism. In fact, yesterday, when I saw a lot of comments on the unprecedented politicial situation facing Britain, I changed my facebook image to the following poster dating from the Second World War.
I meant it as a bit of a joke but it got me thinking about parallels between the UK’s current situation and that of this month 70 years ago when we faced problems of an altogether different magnitude.
I’m no historian so I’ll just include an excerpt from Simon Schama‘s BBC TV series A History of Britain. The last programme of the series cleverly follows the story of the Second World War through the eyes of two very different Englishmen, George Orwell and Winston Churchill. Here Schama describes how close this nation came, in May 1940, to doing a deal with Hitler. Meeting after meeting behind closed doors in Whitehall took place until eventually Churchill held sway. There was no to be no surrender.
Of course the problems facing the nation in 1940 make those facing us now pale into insignificance, so I’m not going to push the parallel too far. Nevertheless, 70 years on, we once again have lengthy and no doubt heated secret negotiations whose outcome is still by no means certain, but which will probably alter the political landscape of this country for many years to come. This time it’s not so much a matter of danger, but one of opportunity. I think change is in the air, and I also think we need it.
Another parallel is that the war in Europe came to an end almost exactly five years after the installation of Churchill as Prime Minister. Victory in Europe (VE) Day, which marks the anniversary unconditional surrender of the Germans on May 8th 1945, was yesterday. In fact the leaders of all three political parties took time out from their haggling to take part in the commemoration ceremony. Soon after the end of the War, on July 5th 1945, a General Election was held that yielded a Labour landslide and booted Churchill out of office. I don’t think that people were ungrateful, just that their wartime experiences made them aspire to a more progressive vision of the future than the old guard could provide. Clement Attlee‘s government took over a country bankrupted by war, with most of its cities in ruins, and with terrible labour shortages. Not surprisingly given that it was beset by so many problems, the Attlee government struggled to deliver what it set out to do. Nevertheless, it gave us – amongst other things – a National Health Service and a Welfare State that, to me, are emblematic of the “real” Britain.
I think Schama gets it exactly right in the clip when he talks about the War not just being about Britain as a physical entity but about much more abstract notions, such as freedom and democracy. We weren’t just fighting the Germans, we were fighting Nazism and the threat it posed to the liberties the British people had taken hundreds of years to win. The pricewas very heavy, but it was certainly worth paying. I too, would rather have died fighting than live under Fascism. My only worry would have been whether I had it in me to show the courage and resourcefulness needed to meet the challenge.
This all brings me to the question of what “Britain” actually represents in the modern age. The BNP present their views as a vision of Britishness, but most British people find their attitudes repugnant. Not only did they fail to win any seats at the General Election, they also lost all their council representation in Barking, previously thought to be a stronghold. The people of Barking clearly aren’t as mad as they’ve been portrayed.
We probably have very different views on many aspects of our national identity – or even if there is such a thing at all – but we can probably agree on, as Schama puts it in the clip, “freedom, democracy, and the rule of law”. Outside that core, people clearly differ. For myself, I would add a sense of social justice and compassion, which is why the Welfare State and NHS are so important to me.
To me, inclusiveness (whether cultural, religious, racial, or whatever) is also essential to what it means to be British, but that view clearly isn’t shared by everyone. Immigration is a hot potato in British politics these days, a fact that surprises given our existence as a mongrel nation that has been enriched over the centuries by people coming here from elsewhere. I suppose its natural that people are suspicious of strangers, and this can be exploited by unscrupulous people looking for scapegoats, but we should remember, for example, that sixty years ago we were desperate to persuade people from the West Indies to move here in order to deal with the post-war labour shortage. Nowadays we too need immigration to deal with shortages of skilled labour and to counteract the economic effects of our rapidly ageing population. I can’t imagine what state our universities would be in if it weren’t for the many excellent researchers who have come here from all round the world, and that also goes for the UK as a whole.I’m not trying to say that immigration is a non-issue, just that it’s neither new nor something we need to panic about. We can cope with it.
After all, we’re British.
In the Dark 
May 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Speaking of parallels, I might also point out that the Premiership is supposed to end this afternoon. Perhaps someone should tell Gordon Brown?
May 9, 2010 at 3:27 pm
You know as well as I do that the present government continues for just as long as there is no alternative ready and waiting …
May 9, 2010 at 4:43 pm
The BNP’s stance on racial purity is absolutely absurd. If anyone is to have an upper hand on race and a claim to Britain it would likely be someone of Celtic origin, such as the Welsh or the Picts up in Scotland, however I’m not too certain if even they can make a claim following the Roman Empire, Viking raids, Norse kingdoms, Saxons and Normans.
The BNP could make a more ‘sensible’ plea by campaigning for British ethnicity rather than race, which would focus more on culture, but not even this is coherent. Take for example the diversity of even ‘native’ languages present as Welsh, Gaelic, Gallic, Scots, formerly Manx and Cornish, and more recently English. Add on top of those the variations of Romani present in all of said native languages and you have a nice and colourful mess. How would you now define Britishness?
You can’t. The only identification that is possible to make is attitude, which Peter you have already said. The BNP of course make no reference to the mongrel House of Windsor.
I do of course acknowledge the non-uniformity of immigration in the UK. Some areas have been absolutely transformed in a matter of years. This is not fair to those who have lived there all their lives only to find in 5 years time a square mile they no longer identify or relate to. Another problem has been the readiness of the government to exploit the benefits of immigration without investment. I’m referring to housing, hospitals and other infrastructure. We hear stories of 10 people crammed into a terraces house, but nobody seems to have considered setting up a shelter or dorm so that people can initially stay, before establishing themselves properly in the community.
The clustering of immigrants means that rather than people integrating and assimilating in to what people might refer to local culture, their number are so large that they more or less establish their own small communities within the larger community. You might see evidence of this when individuals who have lived here for 20 years, still have no grasp of conversational English. They only interact with people in their own community and have no need to reach out to the wider one.
What does anger me however is the message by all parties who have tried to sound tough on immigration during this election, insisting that all immigrant must learn English. Please keep us Welsh speakers in mind, or is it too much to ask for the English this time to integrate?n(No personal reference to you Prof. Peter, just an exclamation of my speechlessness when I hear such words from Westminster and Fleet Street.)
May 9, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Huw,
I’m not denying the problems caused by decisions that have been taken – by many local Councils – to house large numbers of immigrants in specific areas. This was probably done with the best intentions, but has led to the creation of ghettoes. There are big problems in the school system in this respect too. Ethnically divided schools are not a good way to achieve social integration. But these are not problems with immigration per se, just the way that we’ve failed to think through how best to integrate people. I think shoving them all together was the laziest solution.
There’s a fine line between encouraging people to integrate and forcing them to abandon their own cultural heritage. Should immigrants be required to learn English? I think probably yes, but there’s a big question over how it’s done.
Actually I also think I should learn Welsh since I’m an immigrant here. The fact that I haven’t managed to do so doesn’t mean I won’t try. However, only a minority of the native Welsh speak the Welsh language fluently. Interestingly, my local Plaid Cymru candidate is of asian origin, having moved to Cardiff over 20 years ago. He didn’t win the seat.
Peter
May 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Schama speaks hypnotically and says some interesting things, but for some of us north of the border it was hard to get past the feeling that a “History of Britain” was a “History of England”. Scotland, let alone Wales, only enters the story when they impinge on English events. And now here we are in the new Tory Britain, and only ONE Tory MP in Scotland …
May 9, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Peter,
I didn’t make myself clear, I’m not blaming immigration for these problems, however blaming encouraging immigration when there is no intention of supporting and nurturing it. You can’t invite people from other countries and leave them to it. If the government doesn’t want to invest in developing immigration, then they shouldn’t allow it, and with that you consequently will have stagnation in the economy. It a choice for the MPs – take credit for a booming economy and accept the need to direct money towards immigration, or be criticised for a stagnant economy whilst at the same time stamping on immigration.
What I meant with encouraging integration was an environment where immigrants are forced to learn English, better understand the habits of existing locals and more or less learn to better relate and sympathise with neighbours. This will only usually happen when the number of immigrants of a particular community is small enough so that they must interact with the wider community. This does not in anyway force them to abandon who they are. There would be no problem if they group together to converse in their first language in the pub, pray together in a community centre, or play five-a-side on a Thursday night etc.
When this doesn’t happen, and as you state you think they should learn English, dangerous ideas get thrown around to force the issue. This can result in undesirable forms of nationalism which is ultimately defined by a group of people, who can no-way represent the entire public. This gives rise to people such as the BNP, English Defense League etc. which are manifestations of types of negative nationalism. The topic of integration, has in my belief, always been one-sided for those in London/Westminster.
I am in no way trying to force anyone to learn Welsh, but actively encourage it. The benefits or learning Welsh are the same for any other language, ignoring the shallow motives of learning it for economic purposes, you can appreciate and better understand the world from a different perspective and even embrace new attitudes. One thing that fascinates me are the different meanings of place names in English and Welsh for the same location, also the colourful and personal vocabulary used for the natural world.
This British ‘inclusiveness’ of which you talk about might have its roots here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hywel_Dda
May 9, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Andy: I don’t really agree with you about Schama’s History of Britain. Scotland played a central role in several programmes of the series, and I learned a lot from it about thins like the Darien fiasco and the Scottish enlightenment. Wales featured much less prominently, but then Wales as subjugated by the English much earlier in British history.
Huw: India manages to function with umpteen official languages, so I don’t see why England and Wales can’t either. However, it would also seem sensible to use their own names for their own places. As an ex-pat Englishman living in Wales I think there would be nothing wrong with the “official” names only being the Welsh version, with the English version there simply to help ignorant foreigners. The Italians, after all, have Firenze not Florence.
Peter
May 9, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Peter, the Scottish bits only came up after the Union of the Crowns. Where was Malcolm II or the Lord of the Isles ? I don’t think Schama is anti-Scottish. Its just that to some extent he fell for the traditional trap of structuring history by a sequence of kings, and two sequences (or even worse three counting the times when the islands were part of a Norwegian empire) is just much harder to do…
By the way, I am really a Man of Kent, but you learn to spot Anglo-centrism very quickly once you move here ! Don’t start me on Elizabeth the Second…
May 9, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Andy,
Stockholm syndrome is a recgnised condition and with some help you may manage to regain proper perspective in the future. ;-P
Peter, as a mongrel of mostly Irish (but also Welsh and Scottish) descent I’m all for immigration, I would not be here except for it.
You hit the nail on the head when you say that immigration is nothing new and I think its nothing we need to worry about. We DO need to consider how we manage it but that has always been an issue for every country.
May 10, 2010 at 10:41 am
I don’t think the Germans surrendered on 8th May 1940. If they had things would be rather different today. I saw the “Keep Calm and Carry On” poster on television the other day. It was commissioned but never used during the war for some reason and was found many years later in an old bookshop, I think.
May 10, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Nick,
Quite right, silly mistake. It was 8th May 1945. I’ve corrected it now.
Peter
May 11, 2010 at 10:02 am
We don’t have the original recordings of most of Churchill’s speeches – certainly none to the House of Commons. He re-recorded them, sometimes more than once, after the war. He did it for the money – in those days ex-PMs, even great ones, did not go on a round of overpaid lecture and dinner tours, nor were recruited onto the board of multinational companies to impress clients. He had turned down a Dukedom after the war in order to continue his political career, but even that would not have brought in any money. He felt bitter that Chartwell, the house granted him by the nation, was his only for life and not to hand on to his family, and he wrote his multi-volume war memoirs and History of the English Speaking Peoples to assure his family’s financial future. (His son Randolph was an alcoholic who only just outlasted him.)
After seeing Schama I understand better why Churchill said that his entire life had been leading to the moment of deestiny when he defeated Halifax.
Anton
May 11, 2010 at 10:34 am
Atlee was ruthless in demanding that Churchill call an election, on pain of ending the coalition, *before* the war was over.
May 11, 2010 at 11:46 am
Churchill Senior was also fond of the bottle, but he famously said “I have taken much more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me”.
I’ll drink to that.
May 11, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Churchill bought Chertwell in 1922. After the war he could not afford the running costs, so a consortium of wealthy people lead by William Berry gave Churchill 55,000 pounds for the running costs, on condition that Chertwell went to the National Trust after his and his wife’s deaths. Berry owned the Daily Telegraph and was made Viscount Camrose by Churchill in 1941.
This instance of Churchill being funded by rich backers was not unique.
May 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Phillip,
“Do you think it bad that Churchill was “forced” to work after he stepped down as PM?”
I don’t think it was bad that Churchill had to earn his living after he ceased to be PM. But that’s because I think MPs should be paid only a subsistence wage plus expenses. (Less than that and you shut out the poor, more than that and you get freeloaders.) They should be free to supplement that income in ways that do not directly trade on their status, and perhaps parliament should meet less often to facilitate this. Today it is impossible for a citizen to know all the laws of the land, which is a mad situation and has come about because more and more laws are passed continually.
“Have any other heads of state ever been granted living quarters apart from the official residence?”
The sovereign is the Head of State. If you mean other PMs, I don’t know, but I doubt it.
“And why should his family inherit something the state (generously) let him use during life?”
Perhaps because he deserved peace of mind after what he did for the nation. But I can see both sides of that question and I was not suggesting that he should have been given Chartwell to do as he pleased with.
Anton
May 11, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Re the election result, we have actually been in this situation before. Historically there was a 2-party system, Whigs vs Tories. Then Labour appeared and we moved to a 2-party system, Labour vs Tories. (The Whigs became the Liberal Party.) Since Labour did not replace the Whigs as the alternative to the Tories overnight, there was presumably a genuine 3-party system for a few elections, about a century ago. Does anybody know how the horse-trading went following an election in that era?
Anton
May 12, 2010 at 11:44 am
Phillip,
I can’t resist pointing out that the result of a referendum on a binary issue is not consistent with the spirit of PR (ie, the losers get nothing). A referendum on EU membership would be nice, but politicians who are pro-EU never offer us one because they know what the result would be. When we had a referendum on it a generation ago, it was not for the federalist version of the EU that subsequently emerged (and which we now know was always the intent of its senior bureaucrats and about which Ted Heath is now known to have lied to the British people).
The new Tory PM is not letting his new LibDem allies get a sniff at PR. He is offering them something like a referendum on a transferable vote system within each parliamentary constituency.
I think there will be a falling out and another election within 2 years. If the same stalemate happens again, it will be interesting.
I’ve found out more about what happened in the era when the Whigs/Liberals were declining and Labour was on the up. I asked the same question to a friend who knows a lot of political history, and he said:
There weren’t many [elections during that transition], and matters were complicated by the Irish Nationalists in the early days and party splits later on. My recollection is that the first election in which there wasn’t a majority was January 1910, when the Irish Nationalists held the balance of power. As it was obvious from the beginning that they would side with the Liberals, that is what happened.
After that:
December 1910 – carbon copy of January 1910
1918 – wartime coalition (Liberal/Conservative) continued
1922 – Conservative majority (the Liberals had split and the Labour Party for the first time overtook both of their branches)
1923 – Labour minority Government (the Conservatives in fact had
substantially more seats and votes. Liberals reunited again)
1924 – Conservative majority of 209 – Liberals now down to 40 seats
1929 – Labour minority Government (Conservatives had more votes but fewer seats)
1931 – National Government (largely Conservative but Labour PM) with a majority of 497. The Conservatives alone got 55% of the vote (the last time that any party has got more than 50%) and the coalition parties in total 67%. The Labour and Liberal parties were both split over whether to join the National Government, although most Liberals did.
1935 – National Government majority reduced to 244 (again largely
Conservative). More Liberals outside it this time and hardly any Labour members in it. In 1940 the recalcitrant Liberal and Labour members joined the wartime coalition.
Anton (with help from DK)
May 12, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Phillip,
I agree that binary issues are of necessity winner-takes-all, obviously, but it does show the limits of the PR concept. The other thing is who wins. If you have a different view in parliament and among the people, you can bet that there won’t be a referendum. I call that anti-democratic corruption. “Good grief, we can’t possibly let the people decide how they will be ruled for the next generation – they’re not fit to make the decision!”
Anton
May 12, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Phillip,
By your criteria we would soon have a referendum (or two, according to your constitutionality rider) in Britain about EU membership. Yet you have elsewhere said that the people should *not* decide this issue (since, if I read you correctly, it is too far above their heads…)
Anton