Institutions Britanniques
Polycopié réalisé à partir des cours de T.Sheppard, lecteur à l'Université Paris X.
Ce polycopié n'est pas destiné à la vente et ne prétend en aucun cas remplacer les cours dispensés en amphithéâtre, c'est juste au nom de la solidarité et pour mieux assurer l'égalité des étudiants devant le service public de l'éducation qu'il a été réalisé.

INTRODUCTION

    Great Britain (GB) entered the war (WWII) the strongest power. The Commonwealth (CW) was composed of territories fiscally independent (which is different from France). Most territories were self sustaining and self run (not by the local population but by British administration). GB gave autonomy (free trade area) to its colonies. The colonies allowed GB to maintain economic power.

    At the turn of the century, the United States of America (US) became a more important economic power than the United Kingdom (UK). The US produced about 23.6% of the world's industrial product versus 18.5% for the UK. The power of the US continued to grow throughout the first quarter of the century. Unlike GB or France, the US was not a military power.

    GB's situation at the end of WWII: GB came out a victor: it held out alone throughout the war between June 17th 1940 (when the French capitulated) and December 1941 when the US entered WWII. GB emerged as one of the big, along with the US and the USSR. The US recognized a special relationship with GB in 1941 through the Atlantic Charter and equality between GB, the US and the USSR. There no elections during the war and Winston Churchill led the National Union Government and went to Washington and Moscow. He played a key role. The British gained the right to participate in all international reunions like Teheran, Yalta in February 1945 and Potsdam in august 1945. Europe was to be divide up between the big three.
    GB came out of the war with its empire which had not disappeared; had a seat on the UN Security Council; occupied Germany and had a special relationship with the US. There was a less institutional part to its victory: GB had been a victor and had been the capital of the free world (the BBC used to play the national anthems of the governments in exile in London). The free world was fighting from London. GB was no longer simply an island. There was an effort to grant power outside Europe in the CW. The “island status” was no longer a sanctuary, unlike during WWI. WWII was not fought on British soil but GB suffered. GB lost 500,000 soldiers and civilians (no comparison with France, Germany or The USSR). Deaths and injuries were not what was the most damaging. What hurt the most was the economy: there was no money left. The British had spent all the money on massive war expenditure and there was very little income because the British markets had disappeared: GB depended on the US. GB had been cut off the CW and continental Europe and the US had moved into these markets. Most of these markets went to US trade and this left GB in a very weak position.
    GB assumed its great power obligations during the war: it spent money in military duties and for the occupation of Germany. GB was expected to take in charge the development and the peace keeping in the Middle East. The relations between GB and the USSR were not at all profitable. The USSR was neither interested in negotiating with the UK nor with France. The USSR wanted to negotiate with their equal: the US.
    GB economic situation made it impossible to fulfill its duty as a great power after the war: for example: GB was unable to keep the communists out of Greece. In February 1947, GB put out a cry for help because it could not keep up: it could no longer support the Greek government: Greece and Turkey fell to the communists. GB's economy was incapable to keep up with the image that emerged from the war.

    WWII: emergence of institutions:

the Atlantic Charter which brings the US, the UK and the USSR together.
The United Nations emerged to replace the League of Nations: there was a discussion between the big 3 nations which led to the ratification in San Francisco of the UN Charter and the creation of the UNGA and the UNSC. The League of Nations had failed because the important nations had no real power and did not use it as a negotiating site. The UNSC is composed of 5 permanent members (US, USSR,UK, France and China). These are the five great nations: they have a permanent seat and a veto; negotiating took place at the UNSC, especially between the US and the USSR. The UNSC is also composed of ten other revolving seats. In 1947 the UN became a real institution.
Bretton Woods system of 1944: the governments in exile met to discuss the shape of the post war world. They did not want to fall back into the problem of the economic instability of the 1930's. The US said that protectionism and the existence of monopolies led to the weakness of the democratic states. Bretton Woods set this system up on GB's exceptional role: there was to be a fixed rate of exchange between currencies and all currencies were convertible in $ or £. The establishment of this economic system was possible with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and with the International Monetary Fund into which members would pay deposit money.
Another key institution was the Benelux which was created in 1944: it is a free trade zone between 3 states (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg). European federalism was then a dream.


The special relationship between GB and the US.
   For GB there is a link  between GB and the US. This idea was very developed in GB: it had something to do with race and stock. The US was a continuation of England's history, tradition, common law, free men… This conception was located in the upper classes. In the US, this idea had popularity but limited to an anglophile elite: the US considered itself as a different country geographically and historically. It was not the simple continuation of GB. For the US, the support for GB had costs and there was no political benefits, no votes to gain from helping GB out since some ethnic groups were hostile to GB.
   However, Churchill reintroduced the term of “special relationship” after he left office in 1945 in a speech: Churchill recognized that things were not going as everyone had hoped in their relation with the US. Throughout the end of the war, the US had been leading towards the USSR. 1) it was an attempt to bring the US closer to GB. 2) it was also an attempt to convince the British people. Indeed he USSR was more popular in GB than the US during WWII. The reasons were obvious: it is not that they were denying history, it was that the USSR and GB had suffered during the war. The American people were not suffering and the British were not so appreciative of the US efforts (the US entered the war late and did not give as much as they should have). The American people and economy had not suffered. The British political leaders needed the US to protect and arm Europe. GB could no longer cut itself off. It was connected to Europe and the threat came from Germany and the Soviet union.
   Besides the military concern, there was an economic need to reassert the special relationship: as soon as the war ended, the US ended the land lease program which allowed the UK to be provided with large military supplies without having to pay for them immediately. At the end of the war, the UK needs cash to pay its debts because the US insisted the UK started paying. The US then pulled out its economic support. By late 1946, the US had arranged a large loan but had come up with heavy conditions: one was the end of economic protectionism in the CW. The American corporations implanted themselves in these territories so the UK gave up its primary source of economic strength. The Labor Government who ended the protectionism in the empire was criticized by the Right because it abandoned the Empire and by the left because it was caving into imperialism. The UK accepted the US's hegemony.
   The symbolic of a special relationship is the most important: the UK got almost nothing out of it. The UK and the US both had nuclear arm programs and agreed informally to work together on the Manhattan project. Nonetheless the US kept the information on the nuclear bomb. The US informed GB only on its desire to drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This special relationship was based on interest. The Us did not give up their national interest to help the UK though GB abandoned its national interest to maintain the relationship. From the British point of view, it was clear that the US were only making money. From the American point of view, the US assumed that the UK could carry the load it was assigned. This was seen in the Bretton Woods system, where the pound sterling was to be an anchor of the financial post war system. The UK was to reconstruct its economy along the American guidelines, that is to say free trade and anti trust legislation.
   The economic recovery did not happen as quickly as the US wanted. The UK could not fulfill its military obligations. France would continue to dominate continental Europe. The UK was to exercise its powers over the Middle East and the CW, China over Asia and the USSR over eastern Europe. The UK proved unable to hold up its military responsibilities.
   A key year marks the collapse of the fact that the UK could not keep up as a great nation. 1947: GB asks the US's help to support Greece. An institution is set up in Europe: the Marshall Plan: the US offers money to set up European recovery program. An organization is set up to run the funding from the US government: the OECE (organization for economic cooperation in Europe). The result of the cry out for help as Greece was going to fall to the communists: the US intervened because an enormous exaggeration was made to convince the US: Franc, Italy, Greece and Turkey were in revolutionary situations and were also to fall to the communists and the US was the only capable nation of helping GB.

   1947 and 1948 are years dedicated to European integration and the Uk separates itself from the West of Europe. GB resists economic integration: there is no economic interest for the UK. However there is an interest in military integration. According to GB Europe should become a military alliance which should depend on the US.
   March 1947: Leon Blum meets with Attlee to negotiate a treaty about setting up an alliance: this is a move towards European integration: it is the Dunkirk Treaty which was a military treaty. It was the basis for a large western military alliance.
   January  1948: the British foreign minister Bevan negotiates the treaty of Brussels which extended the Dunkirk treaty to Benelux and set the stage for the creation of NATO directed by the US. The US had all the military commands in NATO.
   1949: the Council of Europe takes place in the Hague. The chairman of this board was Churchill. He headed the discussions around the idea of a European government. Churchill was then out of office: he was the head of the opposition. The Labor Party refused to participate in the elaboration of the European Council. There was no attempt to move towards European integration. There was an opposition between the maximalists like Jean Monet or Benelux or France, and the minimalists who wanted little integration like GB or Scandinavia. A committee of ministers was set up and a European assembly (the Council of Europe) was composed of people selected from their national parliaments. The Council of Europe was a victory for the minimalists: it had no legitimacy, it was not voted for and had no executive power; it could only meet for consultation.
   1950: the European coal and steel community was established. The British cabinet was the not in session and the UK rejected participating in the ECSC.
    At that period, GB was ruled by the Labor party. Just like in France and Italy, the parties of resistance to fascism  had les to the belief that post war world was  based on economic and social  relations. In 1939, 6 million workers participated in unions, in 1944, 8 million did. This shows a dramatic increase in the power of unions.
   1942-1945: the government is a government of national union that is to say labor ministers with a Tory leader: Churchill. Bevin was a union leader and he entered the government as minister of social affairs and engaged the discussion between corporations and unions. War was the reason for a state direction policy. The cost of living rose 31% whereas wages rose 74%. Unions were involved and engaged negotiating with the government. Life was not getting better though. These raises were only meant to avoid strikes. Women entered the workforce: in 1941 there was a draught of all women between 20 and 40. they were to be sent to work in the war industry. There was a call for everyone to help in this fight.
   The Resistance had plans for what types of countries they were going to be after the war. The Beverage plan provided a cradle to grave protection: the idea is that GB owes this kind of protection to its people, to allow no one to fall into poverty. This plan was not applied.
   The idea of privilege was disappearing: the British society (which was a class system) was no longer operating. People had to leave their homes which were being bombed. In the Army, there was no way that people of the upper classes could escape from serving. There was nonetheless a distinction between the working class and the bourgeois who mostly went to the air force. The government imposed a 100% tax an excessive profits and the average income tax was of 50%. Taxes reflected the resentment that businessmen made money off the war. Average Englishmen were better off after the war than before as far as wages are concerned.
   Churchill called elections immediately after the war in July 1945. He went down to defeat. Labor won over 60% of the seats in Parliament. Labor moved to commitment to social programs (Cf. Keynes). GB's focus is on rebuilding its economy and keeping itself out of another war: there is a need for military integration with the support of the US. GB also needs American economic support.


THE CONSTITUTION

    The classic idea of the constitution is that of a system of laws, customs and conventions which defines the composition and powers of the country's political institutions. It regulates the relation between institutions and citizens and between institutions themselves.
    Tocqueville was the first one to note that GB had no written constitution. GB does have a constitution. Unlike classic constitutions, the British constitution is not a single document. We should talk about an uncodified document. Large parts of the constitution are written out; other are not. It is in constant evolution. The form of evolution that the British constitution followed is unwritten. The British constitution is based in principle as well as in practice. There are five primary sources of the British constitution:
legislation voted by the parliament of Westminster. It is based on acts of parliament which creates laws and statutes.
Conventions which are unwritten. They regulate government procedure (ex: the existence of a cabinet, of two Houses of parliament, of Royal prerogatives…).
Common law and case law.
Constitutional theorists: certain writers like J. Locke or E. Burke have participated in finding the meaning of the British constitution.
European legislation.

I/ LEGISLATION.

    Foundational laws were important establishing the British state and constitution. In GB, no law is superior to another. Parliament has power to change or alter any law at any time. There is no statutory difference between various types of laws. GB is however required by its membership in the European community to accept European legislation but GB has not revoked its constitution and it can still change any of the European legislation.
    Parliament is sovereign: it can determine  and change laws. There is are restrictions on parliamentary powers: these are conventions.

    HISTORY:

The founding act of the C° is Magna Carta (1215). Nobles were able to defeat the King and force him to sign the Great Charter: the King is no longer above the law. Magna Carta laid out an inventory of feudal rights of the nobility versus the monarch:
the King had no right to tax the nobility without consultation (no taxation without representation).
The nobles have the right to be judged by their peers.

1689: following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the new king William II and Mary signed the Bill of Rights, which is a definitive victory of the parliament over the King: from 1689 on, we can talk about supremacy of parliament. GB becomes a constitutional monarchy. The key elements of the Bill of Rights are the liberties; these liberties are negative liberties: the King is forbidden from doing certain things. At the same time, parliament denies the King's power to establish exceptional jurisdiction: it is an assertion of parliament's control over the justice system.
In years ahead another series of key decisions will come about:
1679: the Habeas Corpus which is a piece of legislation that provided that there could be no imprisonment without being brought before a judge. Any prisoner had the right within 24 hours to know what there crime was. The Habeas Corpus was a customary liberty written into law.
1694: the King agrees to call parliament every 3 years: this guarantees that the rights and powers that parliament obtained could be exercised.
1701: the law of succession is voted by parliament to determine who the King will be. This law was voted to avoid any Catholics from accessing to the throne: this gave the possibility to parliament to exclude each probable heir.
Another effect of the Glorious Revolution is that parliament put a law in place that forbids people to serve both in the legislature and in the executive at the same time: parliament is trying to establish a separation of powers. The king refuses to agree with this law so it is still possible to serve both branches.

  The Glorious Revolution is an anchoring point: parliamentary sovereignty emerged; national sovereignty resided in the parliament.
  Throughout the 18th century parliament's supremacy and the government being an emanation of parliament were criticized. It is possible to be an MP and a minister as well. There are therefore restrictions on parliamentary powers: conventions.


II/ CONVENTIONS.

    Conventions are outside of the law. They are unwritten; they come about through practice. They can change every year  but they arise out of certain practices that work and are accepted through consensus.

    In the 14th century there were several attempts towards bicameralism. In the House of lords were the great lords (barons, dukes but not yet the bishops) and in the House of Commons were  representatives of small local entities: the burgers and the representatives of the merchant class. Any member of the nobility could participate in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons there were two representatives of each town and two representatives of each county.

    Another convention was the domination of 2 parties (this dates back to the Glorious Revolution): the Tories and the Whigs. The Tories represented the land interests and the Whigs, the money interests. This convention emerged at the same point as the shift from  power residing in the King and the power residing in parliament. The two parties must be loyal to the sovereign. No third party has played a large role in GB.

    Another convention was the emergence of the cabinet in the 18th century, following the 1701 act of succession. The effect was to bring a new royal family which did not speak English and knew nothing about GB. The Whigs dominate in the 18th century. The cabinet is formed by the leaders of the party who controlled the house of Commons. Members of government have to be MPs. Until the emergence of the cabinet, parliament had gained control over the king. The cabinet was responsible to the Parliament. The cabinet controls and directs the party that it represents. Through this convention establishing a cabinet, effective power has resided in the government.

    Another convention is party discipline: members of a party should not vote against what their party wants  and members of the opposition should not vote for what the government wants. Over the time, the prime minister has assumed a dominant role and the cabinet has a dominant role over parliament.

    The prime minister and the cabinet took powers which legally remained in the hands of the crown. The most important of these is the capacity to call parliament into session: it is a power of the prime minister through convention. Again, by law the crown declares war and signs treaties; through convention the prime minister does this. Parliament does not have to be consultated to declare war. This has made the prime minister a democratic dictator.

    Incapacity of George I and II, brought over from Germany to become King allowed the emergence of the prime minister and the cabinet. George III tried to take control of daily affairs. He bribed deputies to support him. Unfortunately in 1772 the American colonies become independent and the American revolution succeeds. This moment marginalized  a certain tradition of British law. The Americans believed in a traditional conception that government was restrained by constitutional  rules. The American revolution denounced the executive power in the person of the King George III. The American population established national sovereignty. Their victory forced George III to abandon his claims to power. The prime minister William Pitt took over the power. The Americans had spoken in the name of British traditions: the executive has the right to limited powers. This tradition that there should be strict limits is abandoned: parliamentary powers are slowly taken away by the executive. The King never again attempts to claim its powers.

    The 19th century is the moment of great liberal debates: it is a fight over representation.
1832: the reform bill is a key moment which gives the right to vote to 1 out of 6 men.
1872: the secret ballot act which gives people the liberty to vote.
1883: the illegal practice act which bans the buying of votes.
1884: extension of suffrage to most adult men.
1885: the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons: the seats should be based on population. This is not a law but a  convention.
1909: the liberal prime minister Lloyd George put in place a welfare act which the House of Lords refused. Edward VII announces that if the House of Lords does not approve this act, he will appoint new lords to give the liberals a majority: the lords have to sign a bill limiting their powers so they become less important.

III/ COMMON AND CASE LAW.

    Jurisprudence is central to Montesquieu's idea of balance of powers. Judges could create law through jurisprudence, by making decisions in court cases. Judges can create precedent which is a constitutional basis. If there is no precedent, judges can decide what the law is.
    There are limits on what they can judge: they have no right to discuss or alter acts of parliament; or conventions and they cannot challenge written laws an the basis of preexisting principle. If the law is written, the judges have to accept it.
    Judges have almost complete independence: no oversight by another power.

common law: it emerges after 1066 (Battle of Hastings): William the Conqueror conquers England and left in place local laws and practices. Then emerges a royal law that William set up. There was a combination of all the systems in an unwritten code based on precedent. From this basis, liberty emerges in England. What is not forbidden is allowed. The judges saw their powers more and more restricted. Their key role is that they are supposed to judge on precedent and on their soul conscience. Parliament can make any law but cannot infringe on the liberties (Bill of Rights…). The judges can restrict the interpretation of such laws.
Equity emerged in the 14th century. It is based on a petition submitted to the King which demanded justice. The King would decide how to respond, what judgment to make. Parliament restricted equity which applied when Common Law did not. Equity covered the establishment of trusts, contracts and loans (commercial acts). Equity became very powerful because people interested in equity were economically very powerful. The supremacy of equity law was established in the Earl of Oxford Case in the 17th century:  equity law primed common law. Courts are not sovereign: they are under parliamentary power; judges cannot challenge acts of parliament.

  Local officials emerged alongside equity: the justices of the peace. In the late 19th century (between 1873 and 1875) the separation between equity and common law was eliminated. Access to justice was, before then, a privilege. You had to demand justice to the Lord Chancellor (whose assigned role was to oversee equity law). When the Lord Chancellor agreed to this demand, it was by a writ. The complaint could be pursued before common law courts. Procedural problems often led to the disqualification of the case. When a case went through common law it could then go through the equity system. Certain common law justices  had begun to apply equity law in the 19 century so litigants did not have to go to the equity system.
    
    From 1873 to 1875, the British justice system brought together common law and equity through the establishment of a High Court of Justice (civil and criminal cases) and of a Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords as highest court Appeal.

    Still today equity is a superior legal doctrine.

IV/ CONSTITUTIONAL THEORISTS.

    Dicey came up with the idea that the British constitution was descriptive and not prescriptive. The premise was to insist that the British constitution was based on consensus. If the constitution is descriptive it makes it less powerful. There should be limits on executive power.
    In the 19th century there was a demand for democracy, for suffrage. Constitutional theorists stressed that certain liberties can't be restricted. Bagehot  insisted that the most important was the symbolic like the monarchy, the House of Lords…

    Another theory was that the British constitution  was based on the rule of law: government can only act as authorized by law. This idea was articulated by Dicey.

V/ EUROPEAN LEGISLATION.

    GB accepted to participate in the Common Market and accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice which has power to nullify administrative decisions and can instruct parliament on its own decisions. GB will not pass laws that interfere with European questions. Problem: is the parliament still sovereign?
The European Convention of Human Rights has just been accepted by GB, in October 2000. the convention was incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act.

    The European legislation sets in place challenges to parliamentary sovereignty.


THE WELFARE STATE


    The welfare state is important in understanding British institutions: there has been a dramatic shift of the role of the state in British society. The welfare state changed the way the British state was related to its people.

    How did people experience the war? What were their relations towards one another?
they experienced solidarity: people were brought together in the armed forces or in mass movements, leaving cities and going to the country to seek refuge. Efforts were maid to make sure people were equal.
The general international context was that the US dominated the world economy. Domination was the key element during the post war period. The US possessed 60% of the machinery involved in industrial production and 60% of all industrial production in the 1950's. in the 1970's this figure was reduced to 50%. The nations tended to reproduce the US system (at least as far as western Europe and Japan are concerned). US style capitalism emerged in western Europe and was above all consumerist. The symbol of consumerism was the automobile. The extension of goods and services which used to be available to a minority came into effect (automobiles, households appliances…). Cars introduced a new type of travel and linked to this, tourism becomes a new concept. All these products are not fundamental to stay alive. Consumerism had grown important in the US in the 1920's. in the post war period, the industrial production increased and les to a large scale Fordism. European countries reached higher levels than the US for some products. European countries had made up this deficiency. There was an economic tendency (consumerism) which had developed in the US and in Australia in the 1920's. In the 10 to 15 years following WWII, western Europe caught up with the American level. This consumerist period was exaggeratedly increased by new technologies.

   GB in the first years of the war was extraordinarily in advance in war power : GB had radars, nuclear weapon programs. The post war era sees an intense economic development: new technology becomes available to everyone.

   THE COLD WAR:

What emerged as a struggle between two poles (US v/ USSR) shaped the post war economy. On the one hand, the position of the USSR forced the US to assist western Europe. The US used the war to first, take over markets until then dominated by the UK, France or Japan. The US asked their debtors to pay up the land lease program which they ended. US wanted to take advantage of their position. The cold war forced the US to recognize that they needed to help what would be future commercial rivals. The US was forced to lower its tariffs which used to be very high. They stopped helping their companies which were expanding in the new markets.
   The US was ready to make a post war condominium with the USSR. The US were helping countries who would be allies in the struggle against the USSR.
The USSR was a model: industrial planning was introduced by Stalin in 1930 (the five year plan); it seemed to work because the USSR did not experience the Great Depression. The plan seemed even more attractive after two WW successes.
   In France, the period after WWII is called the 30 Glorieuses; in England it is called the Golden Age. It took a while to take shape. The key elements of this economy were put into place in 1945 but in the 1960's the welfare state became crystal clear with full employment. The Golden Age should be looked at retrospectively: the increase in productivity  was not a western phenomenon but a world phenomenon. Until 1958/1959 it seemed as if the USSR (and all the communist block) would surpass the rest. Retrospectively it became obvious that durable economic growth was specifically a western phenomenon: it was specific to western industrialized capitalist countries. It had effects on third world countries but the main booms were experienced in their fullness in western Europe.

Immediate after war period was caught between solidarity and the need to escape from the past. GB experienced war time solidarity and deprivation. Unlike any other country in western Europe, GB experienced neither occupation nor defeat. Still there was an economic downturn common to the rest of Europe.

   The answer that proved the most compelling to the British people was the welfare state. By 1961, the British state, traditionally very small and limited, employed directly 24% of all working people in the UK. By the early 1970's, welfare and social spending represented the largest portion of state expenditures. By 1970, civil servants who worked in the welfare state made up 40%. There were British specificities; the most important was the centralization of the welfare state. More than any other state in Europe, the welfare programs were paid for by direct taxation of citizens. Retrospectively, after the economic boom period ended, British welfare seemed much bigger to the British people than in any other state. The British welfare state seemed to be a model type, seemed to stretch beyond its means. GB's welfare state, from 1945 to 1970, spent less compared to the Gross National Product than any other European state on social programs (except for Switzerland).

   In 1945, the government (of national union) calls an election: during WWII, there was a government of national union composed of members elected in 1935. Churchill was under no obligation to call an election in 1945. For this first election since 1935, it was assumed in GB that Churchill would win.
   The conservatives ran on the idea that the British could trust Churchill.
   On the other side, the opposition party (Labour) ran  a similar program: “Let us face the future” which was a detailed list of promises. The campaign was presented as one man (Churchill) versus a whole program of what GB should do. The elements of their program were the following:
nationalization
new regulation
planning
welfare state.
These four points compose a “dirigisme” ideology. Classically, in British politics, these main points were not goals but practical remedies: ex: planning would lead to full employment; the welfare state was necessary to establish equality for all when faced with illness, for education and for insurance; nationalizations were part of the Labour program since 1918.

    In 1945 the elections were a surprising victory for Labour which had governed before but had bee minority governments (they were supported by liberals from the outside). They won a majority of 60% in the House of Commons. Labour's victory followed on WWII and Labour's participation in the national union government. Labour, when face with depression had taken very radical measures.  The radicalism of the 1930's was modified by the participation in the national union government.
    Labour's program was based on consensus of what should be done: the welfare state and Keynesian economic government intervention became widely accepted. Battle becomes prime minister. Bevin is the foreign minister. The system Labour puts into place changed the British state economy. The conservatives accepted these changes.
    These policies were based on tripartism that is to say negotiation between government, business and trade unions. Industrial tripartism had been tried out during WWII: the trade unions asked for wage raises and employers agreed to not lower the wages.
    The key idea is that of consensus: everyone agreed on the policies. Consensus emerged in WWII: during WWII a significant number of Tories were agreed on the policies that could be successfully used to make life better for everyone.
Ex: the Butler Act in 1945 is the first educational act for universal secondary education.
    In 1951  new elections were called. Why? In 1950 Labour won the election but barely: they had 6 seats over the conservatives. In 1951 new elections were called because in GB the Parliament is dissolved when the government cannot survive with such a small minority. The Tories won the 1951 elections but left into place  mechanisms that Labour inaugurated. Labour imposed restrictions on the population: it rationed meat, milk, eggs after the war whereas GB hadn't experienced rationing during the war. The conservatives won the elections in 1951 because they promised to leave rationing off.
   In the case of nationalized industries, the Tories (who were hostile to the idea) de nationalized iron and steel. Large lines of post war Labour style economic intervention formed the basis for post war consensus and still shapes GB today. GB's Labour Party accepted an established state and the British constitution ( in the 1930's the Labour party imposed dramatic shifts: it wanted a republic and no longer a monarchy, a written constitution… and would change the system shifting the relation ship between the institutions and the people. What Labour succeeded in imposing was a radical shift in state relations to the people and to the economy. The priority  was full employment. In focusing their efforts on full employment, hey were able to introduce a consensus: the trade unions represented  50% of working people and were very centralized. Trade union counsel was a centralized union and dominated negotiation throughout the country. Full employment got the agreement of the trade unions and business (it was a key development of post war economy). They agreed on Keynesian economy and welfare state. Business had been hostile to state intervention in the economy. The goal of full employment guided the implementation of Keynesian economy and welfare state. People were able to buy unnecessary products (consumerism). Full employment provides a basis for consumerism.

   The welfare state as it emerged in GB was theorized and laid out in 1942 in a famous report by Sir W. Beveridge. A liberal minister was delegated to prepare a program for the future. The Beveridge commission planned a scheme of social insurance and for special expenditure arising at birth, marriage or death. The goal of keeping people out of misery was a British idea. Beveridge said that there were three cardinal assumption:
national health
full employment
family allowance.

The goal was to fight against 5 social sicknesses:
want
sickness
ignorance
idleness
squalor (denument)
 People would get benefits against contribution. It seemed to people the end of charity and gave them the impression of social justice. Beverage proposed a social contract. There was a radical brake with the British social insurance system: in 1911, GB had introduced social insurance which was a system of assistance to poor people since the 1834 “Poor Law” was based on means testing, that is to say that the money comes not as a right but because you need it. The state must check out the situation: you have to apply and prove that you do not make enough money to live.
Beveridge's goal was opposed to the Poor Law: anyone can pay into the system and get social services in exchange.
 There was a first system in 1948: Labour put into place social security and national health service (which was the ultimate example of the British centralized system because it took over all health services: hospitals and doctors) services were free for everyone. The whole system was run by one administration. Until the 1970's, this system was very efficient; it was assessed as being a model. The social security system that emerged was also highly centralized but this was a means testing program.
 In 1930 there was an assistance called the DOLE: a certain amount of money was given to the most needy. Beveridge is against this type of system. The dole was humiliating. In 1948, social security was not based on Beveridge's idea. It was means tested. The dole was based on need: if you fell under a certain level, the state would provide some money to help you survive. Unlike other social security systems throughout Europe, there was no system to encourage people to look for a job: the British social security was based on preventing anyone to live in poverty. The dole becomes a basis for the 148 program.
 The three cardinal assumptions were put into place.
 Is it true to say that Beveridge only settled the goal of state intervention and not the shape it took? In 1942 he gave a description of the welfare state and its pillars. He was opposed to means testing. The welfare state was set up: national health service operated on that principle: everyone paid in and everyone got free medical service. The state took over hospitals and doctors. Concerning unemployment insurance, the dole was a system based on means testing. Beveridge's plan did not quite come into place. It crystallized big aspiration for change after the war. The average unemployment in GB is 3% in the post war period so very few people are on the dole. Full employment was the base for the whole system.
 Why did a liberal like Beveridge propose the welfare state model? He comes fro the liberal party. Liberalism is about individual rights, free trade, protection of property… another tendency is the idea of an enlightened elite that knows what is best for the British people and cares about them.

How did British institutions contribute to women's suffrage? In 1918, women got the vote in GB above age 30; in 1929, above age 21. In France women  got the vote in 1945. women in England were   excluded from social insurance program (before the welfare state) if they were married whereas France made no attempt to privilege men in social insurance. Family allowance was given to the woman.
 Women and the vote: in France, citizenship is at the heart of the question of who is French since the Revolution. France created a category that had never existed before, in creating women. There had been differences between men and women in the Clergy or in the Nobility but there had never been a general category of women. Women were not citizens. Citizenship creates a category of people all equal before the law but excludes women. The role of citizenship is critical in maintaining differences between genders. In GB, citizenship was not so important. It did not have the same foundational role. Social programs in GB have been the main way how GB maintained the difference between men and women. Trade unions ad owners came together to say that women should not work. This makes no sense because if women work, they are likely to want the same jobs as men and this would enable owners to kick troublemakers out.

 Since the 19th  century, GB has been the defender of free trade, of economic liberalism. After WWI, GB had seen government intervention of the economy. GB retained none of the interventionist measures of WWI. It clung to liberal ideas like minimum state expenditure and self regulation of the economy. In 1945 there was an accentuation of the idea: government intervention was made more dramatic. The unions emerged even stronger after the war. Another major reason was GB's economic decline (since the turn of the 20th century). The key idea of Keynes was the need to plan full employment. GB, more than any other European country did not engage in government planning (establishing industrial policies). Instead, the primary focus of Labour government (accepted by the Tories) was the nationalisation of
coal in 1945
airlines in 1946
the Bank of England in 1946
all domestic transportation in 1947
gas in 1949
iron and steel in 1950-1951. Both industries were well run but nationalised by Labour because of socialist press ion.      
   In 1951 these two industries were denationalised by the Tories. The reason for iron and steel nationalisations: why wasn't it useful and denationalised by the Tory government in1951? Nationalisation brought the Labour Party together. It was a symbol for socialism. After WWII, the conservatives opposed to nationalisation. Labour nationalised a series of industries when it came to power in 1945. In 1950 Labour nationalised iron and steel; nationalisations were proposed because some industries weren't being well run. The industries they picked were old, not well run and Labour unions were in constant conflict. They were nationalised for pragmatic reasons on demand of the trade unions.
    The Tories accepted the fact that these industries were better run and wanted good relationships with the trade unions. Iron and steel were competitive industries: there was no tense industrial conflict; therefore the Tory government denationalised it when came to power.

   Other countries who had a similar level of nationalisation were France and Germany. These countries experienced nationalisation by punishment at the end of the war. For instance: Renault collaborated with the nazis: industries caught up in the nazi war machine could no longer be trusted so they must be run by the state.


THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM

   The Glorious Revolution saw the emergence of two parties: the Whigs and the Tories; they are anchored in the early 18th century. The cabinet is an emanation of Parliament and becomes a convention in GB. More or less relative to today, the two parties were not ideological. The Tories are in support of the monarchy and the Whigs are in favour of parliamentary power. Both support the Parliament and accept the King. Tories are anchored in the land, making money from existing property and the Whigs anchored moneyed interests.
 
    George III comes to power and the Tories are in power. The two party system remains important in the idea that they are meant to govern. The first past the pole system is the fact that the majority in the first round wins the election so it encourages the grouping of parties. Both these parties exercise power through government; they have all the power when elected. The other party (non governing) has two central roles:
expose the faults of the governing party
propose alternative policies and people.
   The idea of a governing party and an opposition  takes hold  in the 19th century with the emergence of the shadow cabinet. With the shadow cabinet, for each member of government, there is a shadow member .

   In the 19th century, the Whigs emerged as the Liberals: a party that was an emanation of the ruling classes. The Tories were people in the country and supportive of the aristocracy. The Whigs transformed themselves in the Liberal party under Gladstone (prime minister). The Liberals believed in free trade, religious freedom, a minimalist state that did not intervene, protection of private property. They were in tension with the conservatives. The liberals became associated in the 19th century with the struggle for suffrage given to working men.

   Emergence of the Labour Party: In the 19th century, the two parties had existed for 200 years and faced challenge from Labour. The Whigs and the Tories had emerged from the system from struggles for representation in Parliament. Labour emerges from trade unions. In 1890, the trade unions decided they needed their own political party. Their demands for the right to organize workers, for better wages were not being met. Labour is a sectional party: it claims to represent trade unions and the working class. It proclaims that its policies were based on needs of that class. Tories and Whigs are the defenders of the entire nation.
   The emergence of Labour is premised on two challenges. By the end of WWII, the Liberal party had collapsed. In 30 years, a new party had come and replaced an existing party. The liberals continue to exist but the struggle is now between Labour and the Tories. Many Liberals joined the Conservative party like Churchill.

   The Liberal party still exists: what is different between being a liberal in the 50's and being a liberal nowadays? In the 30's, the Great Depression broke down the idea that liberalism worked: laws of supply and demand broke down in the 30's. no one believed then that if you let the market function, the economic situation would rise. Keynes proposed a new law of the market: there is a need (according to him) to control the money supplies through government action. He suggested alternatives:
deficit spending: government should inject money in the economy. Part of the Keynesian system was tax cut.
If there is too much money, you need to cut spending or hold on to the surplus in a reserve fund.

   The 50's brought in this new consensus of how the economy worked. Keynes thought that nationalizations were a possible option to have the correct amount of money in the economy. Planning is also part of the system. There is a dramatic economic increase: the gross national product rises. The brake down happened in the 70's. The Liberals bought the fact that classic economy does not function. There is a return of classic Liberalism today: the law of the market should function.

   How did Labour take over Liberalism? Liberals were linked to elitism: it had emerged from the Whigs. So the fight for suffrage was done because they supported liberty and it was a way to get people to support the existing institutions. They continued to protect property. The liberals wanted to catch working class votes and attempted to buy into it. In industrial conflicts, liberals proposed reconciliation. Liberals would support some nationalisation. Labour embraced nationalisation as a sign of moving towards a new social order. The liberals proposed classic solidarity. Labour thinks society penalizes the working class so it wants to rethink society and a section of the population does not want to be helped out, it wants to get the power it deserves. Labour passed a message everyone could understand.

   Why wasn't it possible for a third party to emerge? The British parliamentary system is based on bipartismship but there are other parties. The liberal party still exists: the Liberal Democratic Party. The electoral system is a first past the post system: constituencies are represented by one member of parliament. There is only one round of voting. The countryside side is over represented in parliament. A candidate does not need a majority to win. Only two parties at a time have enough national attraction. Labour came to  power twice without a majority (in the 20's and in the 30's) because they were supported by the Liberal Part from the outside. Throughout the 19th and the 20th centuries, the 2-party system ahs been institutionalised: opposition has a role in parliament: criticism; offers new government (policies and personnel). If you want to alternate, you have to vote for the party which has the most chances of winning.
   Thatcher won a majority 41 or 42% of the votes. In the 80's the social democratic party emerged and broke with Labour and attracted liberals: they got 20% in the poles. In the elections they won 4% of the seats.
Third parties have a real place in Northern Ireland and Scotland: regional parties have emerged.

   Labour became a large party thanks to trade unions and socialism. There was a whole campaign throughout the country to explain socialism. The failure of the Liberal party was due to the fact it hadn't recognized the growth of trade unions.
   Two phenomena emerged:
a great number of strikes
victories were based on the coming together of skilled and unskilled workers. Skilled workers wanted to hold on to their special status.

   Socialism is an ideal. FABIANS were an intellectual group. Fabians idea of socialism rejected class struggle and preferred a general critique of the system. They were gradualists. They thought they could slowly change the institutions through collectivism. The way they saw it was nationalisations. They believed civil servants that were impartial could run industries better because they were in favour of the common good and not profit.

   What is Labour's position towards religion? Labour claims to be socialist but not Marxist. Labour did not embrace scientific socialism. Labour has a tendency to think that capitalism needs to be replaced but not through warfare, in the way that Marx suggested. Labour has not criticized religion.
Labour did not embrace socialism: what were the means used to prevent the invasion of socialism in GB? In Western Europe where the communist party emerged, there had been a Marxist tradition; Labour was never linked to Marxism as an ideology. Republicanism in GB never came to power: it remained a radical tradition critical of the established order, th constitution… It was always seen as purely on the left.
   The primary source of the British working class radicalism is the dissenting churches: protestant groups emerged and  refused being incorporated in the Anglican Church. The Glorious Revolution cemented the role of the Church of England: after 1688, other protestant churches were suppressed. The dissenting tradition was another outside tendency of criticism of the established order: some are associated with the left wing. These two traditions did not associate with socialism (which rejected Christianity). Marxism did not go so well with these traditions.
   In the 1930's, Labour demanded that people who wanted to join the party sign an oath according to which they did not belong to anther association. Labour occupied the left of the British political spectrum. It convinced people on the left of the party that there was nothing wrong with the party but with the people who were governing.
Labour is too tied to TU and too accepting of the British constitution: that is why they did not get  the support of the working class who joined far left parties to really change GB.
   Did Labour criticize the royal system? If Labour criticized religion it was the Anglican Church, the established church of England, because it is attached to the system in power. It was part of the system and supported the existing powers. Labour criticized the monarchy and the constitutional system. Labour criticized the monarchy, the public school system, which has produced political and economic  leaders, Oxbridge and the constitution. The Whigs and the Tories had emerged from parliament. People entered parliament to represent a portion of the population (few people had the right to vote). They controlled the parliamentary system because they controlled wealth. Labour came from below and inserted itself into power. It emerged from labour unions and socialists (Fabians) who wanted to change the system. Trade unions and missionaries who believed in socialism like the Fabians constituted the Labour Party. Fabians still exist as a party. They are an independent organization linked to the ideals of socialism. They were called missionaries because they were preaching socialism, talking about  the problems of a capitalist system. Famous people preached: Sidney and Beatrice Web; George B. Shaw and H.G. Wells were part of the Fabians.

   Unions were very practical. Their first demand was the right to unionise, the second is the struggle for more wages. Two general strikes happened in 1921 and in 1926: all the trade unions shut down the country but they utterly failed: Labour weakened and the bourgeoisie strengthened. Minors (people from the mines) unions had a radical leadership: they simply refused liberalism. Trade unions refused to play the role that worked for them: they do not claim to be revolutionary. They worked in an industrial relationship (demand for more wages). Their growth allowed Labour to grow. Labour gave what the working class wanted.

   Organization of the Labour Party: (how it brought together trade unions and the Fabians). The National Executive Committee is composed of representatives who are elected by constituency parties. The National Executive Committee has a majority of members elected by a block vote of the trade unions. The Trade Union Council  is a variety of unions. It is made up of all major unions in GB. These unions are organized according to trade (métiers). Trade unions are very centralized and this gives them a lot of strength.
   Labour gets money from the trade unions and in return they receive a majority of votes in the National Executive Committee. This has changed under T. Blair. The  Labour Representation Committee is elected to fix party policies which are voted on by the National Executive Committee (NEC). There is a vague form of democracy: the NEC votes on policies, the party has a constitution and the Labour Representation Committee is elected by the NEC which means that the leader of the opposition is elected by the NEC (when Labour is the shadow cabinet).
    The Parliamentary Labour Party: when Labour is in power, the PLP votes for the prime minister and the prime minister selects the members of his/her cabinet. He will not follow what the party votes for. The PLP, by convention, has far more rights. Labour has another level of democracy: the constituency parties  choose who the candidate will be for each election: it is a right to reselection. Unions have no say: there is a separation between unions and the party. Trade unions tend to leave the political power to the political apparatus. The major post war conflict between the PLP and the trade unions was the Beveridge package (the social welfare programs): social wage versus wages you get from work. Labour wants to increase the social wage. Trade unions want to reduce the social wage and have more power to fight for their right to strike and organize. The trade unions are reticent to the Welfare state. Once the Beveridge plan is put into place, Labour is less dependent on trade unions (other people supported them.
Do TU have the same political impact in GB as in  France? TU have enormous objective power: more people have been members of trade unions than in France. In 1980: 53% of the working people joined TU. Though they support Labour, they remain outside of the party. In 1970 TU could have controlled the country because they could have shut down the economy. In France, certain TU could have down as well in 1995 or truck drivers in September 2000, they had popular support. In the 1970's, TU were unpopular. People disapproved of union activities though they belonged to unions. One reason why Thatcher came to power: unions used power in an unpopular way. In France, union demands are successful because they convince people.

   Conflict between Right and Left: Labour abandoned socialist policies to stay in power. Labour lost power.
   In 1940s, left supported Attlee because believed socialism being implemented. In fact, nationalizations came about  because of union demands.
   The left wing of the party focused mainly on foreign policy: trying to push Labour to not support the USA and to move to unilateralism. The Labour Left, in the 50's, 60's and 70's  fought to abandon the nuclear missiles given by the USA. Another focus of Labour Left was that GB should not get involved in the Cold War and get out of  NATO. Another Left focus was decolonisation.
   The Labour Party covers the left of the British political spectrum.  This has led to conflicts within party and also prevented other more radical leftist parties from gaining strength. Labour prevented infiltration of its party by Trotskyites and Communists.
   Clause Four, which committed party to nationalising means of production, remained in place until Tony Blair because it united socialists (left) and trade unions (right).

   
   The Tory Party: The Tories were the party of the nation: they ruled GB for 2/3 of the 20th century. Labour has been in power only for 17 years in the 20th century. Out of the six times Labour won since 1945, only three times did it have a powerful majority.
   The Conservatives are a party of circumstances: it has no ideology and deals with what is there.

   Edmund Burke articulated for GB a conservative ideology, which embraces the system as it exists: that is to say privileges for individuals and attachment to tradition. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the party had to be ready to change. Until Thatcher, the person who had the most influence on the party was Disraeli (he believed in the empire…) who argued the elevation of the condition of people. The conservative party is the party of established order: Oxbridge, the monarchy, the press, the BBC, civil servants, the judiciary have been tied to the Conservative Party because of social background, education, shared experiences and assumption.
   The Conservative party is the party of  the established order. They are supported by the national press. It is a party of national consensus which governed for 2/3 of the 20th century. They are the product of most of the leading power basis. Does the BBC and the newspapers support the Tories. There are two types of newspapers in GB:
the broad sheets (quality newspapers) among which the Times, the Guardian, the Financial Times. These are not the most widely read newspapers. The Times is the paper of record, like Le Monde. There is support both for Tories and for Labour. The Guardian supports Labour. The Independent is independent but relatively towards the left: it is more liberal however. The Times and the Daily Telegraph are pro conservative.
The tabloids among which the Tories receive the support of the press: the Express, the Sun, the News of the World. These are ultra nationalistic, anti Labour and anti Union, anti European… the Mirror has traditionally been a Labour newspaper (very populistic).

   The Conservative Party's three wings:
Until Thatcher there were three major tendencies in the Conservative Party:
the Progressives
the Nationalist Imperialists
the New Right.

   The Progressives were the dominant element of the conservative party in the era of consensus: they embraced Keynes and the Beveridge Plan and the Butler Act. They left nationalizations in place. They pursued policies to raise wages and social wages. In the 50's, the progressives accepted full employment as a goal. Full employment and consumerism economically made sense and became a moral imperative. Labour displaced Liberals who moved to the Conservative Party. Post war governing was conservative: Labour came up with policies and the Conservative Party perfected them.
   The Nationalist Imperialists lost a lot of power after decolonisation. They came back in the 50's and 60's led by Enoch Powell a round the issue of immigration of people of the Commonwealth. In the late 1960's he delivered a speech: “the Rivers of Blood” which basically meant that GB should stop immigration. He was then kicked out of the party. This group was obsessed with national identity. However Powell was a defender of free enterprise. His uncontrollability led him to be marginalized.
   The third wing is the New Right which  was about “laisser faire” and rejected Europe. It wants to embrace a special  relationship with the USA. The New Right defended centralized authority and associated with traditional values.
   The Conservative Party has local constituency parties. All the power, however, is in 1922 committees made up of MPs who decide what the leadership is, who the members of the cabinet are. Once they are elected, they are presented the next time.

The reason why a consensus was able to continue for so long is that social economic  elites  accepted the Welfare State, nationalizations, liberal immigration policies: these policies were unpopular among the activists of the Conservative Party. It supported universal welfare, tolerance to trade unions and entered the European Community.

Thatcherism is a return to power of the activists: they are opposed to trade unions, to Europe, to socialism. Thatcher and Powell represented important currents within their party.


THE WORKING CLASS

There are four ways to think of the working class:
è In the work place.
èidea of community: local communities particularly (towns, regions…) and shared experiences of living in the same place. Ex: the mining towns.
è culture: plebeian culture is popular culture. In GB high culture goes with wealth (Shakespeare, Opera, University). It is a counterpart.
è class consciousness: it is the idea that one  belongs to a class. The key text is “the Making of English Working Class” by E.P. Thompson who rejected the idea of relation of production.

    The three ideas that produced the British working class were:
1° dissenting churches (Methodism led by J. Wesley merged in late 18th century and brought together the dissenting churches on the ideas of love and respect).
2° Englishmen birth right: British people are uniquely free.
3° the mob, the crowd: there is a long tradition in GB for activism based on the crowd. Their action was premised in moral economy: the idea is that there are things that people deserve.

    The Methodist Church is anchored in popular classes; it is a national church and it is based on emotional ties like love… it is a dissenting church.

    The song (papier distribué en cours) refers to the idea of inherited English liberties. The connexion is based on emotional ties and on English rights. There is a division within the left: between voluntarism and Jacobinism: republicanism emerged from the French revolution; it remained a contestatory ideology, radical. The idea of Jacobinism is a turn to the state: the left would look to Jacobinism for change. Voluntarism is local activities coming from the base. Jacobinism is a desire for a strong state and the state must exercise the will of the people.

    Text: (également distribué en cours). Oswald Mosley became the leader of the British fascists in the 1930's (the Black Shirts). The meeting takes place in 1929: the journalist brings out the characteristics of the working class. In GB, Mosley was in the socialist party and came from the upper class. The text shows the emotion/ heritage of labourism. There is no class struggle: it is not a Marxist ideology. It shows the importance of class in British life: the differences are immediately noticeable. One can assign a class according to the accent. Oswald Mosley and his wife belong to a class they know. This passage gives the sense of the importance of religion and emotional base of the British working class and trade unionism.

    Film: Disraeli, Keynes, Beveridge came from the upper classes: their ideology is that there are inequalities produced by the system and it is their role to reduce the inequalities (professor in poorer quarters).
    In the post war consensus, the idea emerges of welfare state and full employment and Keynesian consensus. This was supported by the conservatives (progressives from the upper class). A social class and an intellectual elite were united in this party. They bought into the welfare state and full employment. They did not want another depression: there was a moral need to keep full employment and consumerism going: all products were to be maid available to every one (Noblesse Oblige).
    The Liberal party attempted to address all the problems the turn of the century imposed, like the need for a social welfare system. The Liberal party tried to do what was best for the working class (noblesse oblige style). The Labour party is an attempt to say “we know what we want”. The working class people have the major problem. A small number of people will be able to make it. The key people are socially immobile. Class stereotypes make sense to a lot of people in GB. The show was very popular. In GB there was intense recognition of the class stereotypes.
    By the end of the 19th century, two thirds of the working people in GB work in manufactures (after WWII, the same level is reached in France). The difference GB and other European countries is the number of people involved in urban life (separated from agriculture). The intensity of this working class culture could be seen in the documentary: pubs, rituals of people gathering. This reflects a voluntarist tradition.
    There are different levels of culture: on the one hand: upper class culture like opera, literature, theatre and on the other hand plebeian culture like road shows soap operas…

    Should the Labour party, the party of the working class, have tried to represent the whole nation? There was a constant struggle.

NEW LABOUR AND THE ARRIVAL OF TONY BLAIR.

Tony Blair came to power in the Labour Party in 1995 following the death of John Smith (opposition leader). He attempted inaugurate a new party: in the first congress of the Labour Party in 1996, he used the word “new” 46 times, “socialist” 1 time and “working class” 0 time.
   New Labour is a continuation of Thatcherism and it is a third way: a new vision of political possibilities navigates between social democracy and neo liberalism. Tony Blair accepts the taming of trade unions (he accepts all the restrictions MT's government imposed on TU, on their capacity to make people members of the TU: the banning of closed shop; the restrictions on what type of activity TU could engage in; New Labour accepts laws demanding that political contribution by TU had to be put to vote by members…).

   New Labour is a continuation of Thatcherism with the abandonment of Keynesian  economics, of political commitment to full employment, commitment to monetarism and abandonment of consensus in the negotiations between the government, the TU and business leaders.

   The third way suggests that New Labour offers a possibility to replace the working class as the bas of New Labour. It seeks to represent the modernizing elements of society. New Labour replaces corporatism embodied by TU with democracy. This is why New Labour accepts Thatcherism (limitations on TU) because it describes a move towards democracy.
   New Labour will replace internationalism with cosmopolitanism and will replace the Welfare State. Instead of the Welfare State, the third way is committed to social investment, willing to spend money when necessary, o allow people to help themselves (healthcare, education…). Commitment to education is a  hallmark to a socialist analysis: it is a move towards democracy.

   Structurally, there was a reassertion of the party leadership over the party activists: in the 704S AND THE 80's, there was an enormous activism from the left within the Labour Party (call for democracy). After the Labour Party's defeat in 1979, the party statutes changed: parliamentary parties were to be sovereign. MPs should always vote according to the majority of activists.
   The 1997 election brought Tony Blair to power. As opposed to the classic manifesto of the Labour Party, New Labour, in 1997,  ran its campaign on its pledge card of  pledges. New Labour relied on the media (its public image). Tony Blair changed the way the Party runs and the life of the Party (ethos of Labour). This new party is a party of government.
   New Labour has broken with Labour; it supports equality and justice. It abandons nationalizations and Keynesian economy.
   Moralism: there is a special attention to security and education by New Labour which is different from Thatcherism because of the re emergence of Christian socialism in the     20th century. It was committed at ending suffering, misery and at disapproving immorality and laziness. The re emergence of this tradition in the British left had been supplanted by Labour. MT reintroduced Christianity in the British political life: her ideas were anchored in Christian  politics and economics (19th century). This explains MT's approach on how to deal with misery.
   Christian socialism is not associated with Tony Blair: he is associated with communitarianism: new responsibility of society for those less fortunate. The rise of New Labour is linked to Thatcherism. MT used Victorian values: the poor should be instructed on how to better themselves. MT attacked intermediate institutions: the targets were the Churches who said that MT's values were not Christian values. This helped John Smith and Tony Blair to embrace this policy. John Smith came to the head of the Labour Party in 1992. when he died, he was followed by Tony Blair. They are both of Scottish origin and come from non conformist churches (neither protestant nor catholic). Like MT, they are very critical of the dole and of the basic provisions of the Welfare State. They are critical on moral grounds; the programs are not good because they damage people. They embraced most of the basic reforms of Thatcherism (denationalisation, attacks of MT's regime on the post war consensus). The post war consensus on nationalized industries, on Keynesian economics, on full employment policies is over. Thatcherism followed by New Labour affects the end of the post war consensus.
   The Welfare State remains in place as far as the NHS and education are concerned. Other elements  like the dole and unemployment insurance have been swept aside.
   Besides the use of Christian socialism to explain why Tony Blair is different, Blair insists that if people are working, struggling, the state has an obligation to help them.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

Devolution means « decentralization of power », giving rights to local authorities, regional parliaments like Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and London. There is a move towards the drafting of a bill of rights, an acceptance of the ECHR and a reform of the House of Lords.
   Old Labour is committed to socialism and constitutional reforms were not an important issue. Democracy is why Tony Blair and New Labour defend the reform. For Labour, democracy was, above all, economic. The constitution was accepted because it allowed Labour to come to power and when in power, to exercise power fully. Labour supported these ideas to move towards socialism.
   The reforms gave more power to the judges. The left is suspicious of the judiciary. For New Labour, under Tony Blair's guidance, democracy in an economic form has been abandoned; now it is institutional. TB has attempted to reinvest power in intermediate authorities, unlike MT.

   In 1998, new powers were given to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland by referendum. The most power was devolved to Northern Ireland and to Scotland. Wales had the least power to self determination.

   Sinn Fein is the legal party in Northern Ireland that defends Irish nationalism. After WWI, Ireland was given independence and broke with England in the late 20's. 6 counties out of 7 in Northern Ireland were kept under British control. They are part of GB (Ulster but not all of it). One third of the population is Irish Catholic  and two thirds are protestant. Sinn Fein defends the use of violence (provisional IRA): it has used violence since the 1970's. it is a political party. Versus the nationalists there are the Unionists who want Northern Ireland to become part of GB.

   1998: the Good Friday Agreement devolved full executive and legislative  authority on education, health, environment to regional parliaments (108 members). The election: there is a “single transferable vote” on a list which offers two choices: if the first person doesn't make it, the vote goes to the second choice. 18 seats are picked in constituencies where there was a “first past the post” election and 90 seats were chosen on the proportional list with a minimum of 5%.
   New forms of voting were seen as more democratic. New Labour has promised to look into new forms of election to improve democracy.
   The example of Northern Ireland shows New Labour's willingness to give more power to local authorities.
   In Scotland, a vast majority voted in the referendum for a Scottish Parliament and its power to raise or diminish taxes. In Wales, less people wanted a change.

   There was also a novelty: there is an elected mayor in London, by direct election (now Ken Livingstone). It is the only such position in British politics.
   “the loony left”: back to Fabian socialism, Labour controlled the Greater London Council and the local council under MT. MT eliminated the GLC and limited the power of the local authorities. Ken Livingstone was the leader of the GLC in the mid 80's and was very much of old Labour. Tony Blair tried to undercut the ethos of the party to make the Labour party a party of government. In the 80's, Labour defended disarmament, was opposed to denationalization. Labour was  linked to weakness on crime, disregard of traditional education and to “wild theories”.
   The election of Ken Livingstone: the idea of control has become essential to New Labour. Labour's manifesto was reduced to 5 pledges that fit on 1 card (no longer 100 page long manifesto). Tony Blair won by hiding policies. The government, since 1997, is centralized and the Prime Minister has a great amount of power. New Labour gave power to regional organizations. Within the party, Labour has reasserted its ability to eliminate constituency candidates (when to far left): Tony Blair hand picked  the person who ws going to run as First Minister in Wales and Scotland (against the will of Scottish and Welsh Labour militancy).
New Labour wanted to privatize the London underground but was forced to pause.