Unrest in the Early 19th Century

Unrest in the Early 19th Century

The early 19th century was an era of political and social unrest in Britain. In the early 19th century a group of Evangelical Christians called the Clapham Sect were active in politics. They campaigned for an end to slavery and cruel sports. They gained their name because so many of them lived in Clapham.

Then on 11 May 1812 a man named John Bellingham shot Tory prime minister Spencer Perceval. He was the only British prime minister ever to be assassinated.

Bellingham was a lone madman but in 1820 there was a plot to kill the whole cabinet. Arthur Thistlewood led the Cato Street Conspiracy but the conspirators were arrested on 23 February 1820. Thistlewood and 4 of his companions were hanged.

Meanwhile in 1811-1816 textile workers in the Midlands and the north of England broke machines, fearing they would cause unemployment. The wreckers were called Luddites and if caught they were likely to be hanged.

In March 1817 textile workers from Manchester tried to march to London to petition the Prince Regent. They were called blanketeers because many of them carried blankets. However even though the march was peaceful the blanketeers were stopped by soldiers at Stockport.

Then on 16 August 1819 a crowd of about 60,000 people gathered at St Peter's Field in Manchester to hear a man named Henry Hunt. Even though the crowd were unarmed and the peaceful the authorities sent in soldiers. As a result 11 people were killed and hundreds were wounded. Afterwards people called the event 'The Peterloo Massacre' in a grim mockery of Waterloo.

In 1830 farm laborers in Kent and Sussex broke agricultural machinery fearing it would cause unemployment. The riots were called the Swing Riots because a man named Captain Swing supposedly, led them. As a result of the riots 4 men were hanged and 52 were transported to Australia.

In 1834 6 farm labourers in Tolpuddle, Dorset tried to form a trade union. However they were prosecuted for making illegal oaths. (Not for forming a union, which was legal). They were sentenced to transportation to Australia. The case caused an outcry and they returned to Britain in 1838.

Political Reform

In 1822 a Tory government was formed which introduced some reforms. At that time you could be hanged for over 200 offences. (Although the sentence was often commuted to transportation). In 1825-1828 the death penalty was abolished for more than 180 crimes.

Peel also formed the first modern police force in London in 1829. The police were called 'bobbies' or 'peelers' after him.

From 1828 to 1830 the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) was prime minister. He introduced the Catholic Emancipation Act (1829). Since the Reformation Catholics had been unable to become MPs or to hold public office. The Act restored those rights to them. However Wellington was strongly opposed to any change to the electoral system.

At that time there were two types of constituency, country areas and towns or boroughs. In the countryside only the landowners could vote. In boroughs the franchise varied but was usually limited. However the constituencies had not been changed for centuries and they no longer reflected the distribution of the population. Industrial towns like Birmingham and Manchester did not have MPs of their own. On the other hand some settlements had died out but they were still represented in parliament! In 'rotten' or 'pocket' boroughs there might be only one or two voters!

In the early 19th century there were increasing demands for reforms. Most people wanted constituencies distributed more fairly and they also wanted the franchise extended but Wellington's party, the Tories, resisted.

However in 1830 the Whigs formed a government and they tried to introduced reform. The House of Commons eventually voted for a reform bill but the House of Lords rejected it. The King, William IV, warned that he would create more peers, who favored the bill unless the Lords agreed to accept it. Eventually the House of Lords backed down and passed the Great Reform Bill. It received the royal assent on 7 June 1832.

The franchise was only extended slightly but much more importantly the new industrial towns were now represented in parliament. Before 1832 Britain was ruled by an oligarchy of landowners. After 1832 the urban middle class had an increasing say.

However the working class were excluded from the reforms. From 1838 a working class protest movement called the Chartists was formed. (They were named after their People's Charter). The Chartists had several demands. They wanted all men to have the vote. Furthermore at that time you had to own a certain amount of property to become an MP. Chartists wanted the property qualification abolished. They also wanted MPs to be paid. Chartists also wanted all constituencies to be equal in size and they wanted voting to be by secret ballot.

The first Chartist rally was held in Manchester in 1838. In 1839 the Chartists delivered a petition to parliament, which was rejected out of hand. Another petition delivered in 1842 was also rejected. Finally in 1848 another great petition was sent to parliament but it turned into a farce. Some of the signatures were obvious fakes.

Chartism then fizzled out. For one thing it lacked middle class support and had no support among MPs. For another in the late 1840s conditions for the working class in Britain were improving and discontent was declining.

However further reform did eventually follow. In 1867 more men were given the vote and in 1872 the Ballot Act introduced voting by secret ballot. In 1884 still more men were given the vote. However not all men in Britain could vote until 1918.

Meanwhile in 1835 the Municipal Corporations Act reformed town governments. A uniform system of town government was formed.

A history of English government

The Corn Laws

During the Napoleonic Wars 1799-1815 Britain could not import large amounts of grain from Europe. That all changed in 1815. British landowners feared that cheap foreign grain would be imported so they passed the Corn Laws.

Import duties would be charged on imported wheat unless the average price of British wheat reached Ј4 a quarter and unless the price of British barley reached Ј2 a quarter. However from 1828 a sliding scale was used. Import duties were gradually increased as the price of British grain fell.

In 1839 John Bright and Richard Cobden formed an Anti-Corn Law League. Prime Minister Peel finally abolished the corn laws in 1846. (Robert Peel lived from 1788 to 1850. He was prime minister in 1834-35 and 1841-46).

Meanwhile by the 1840s public opinion changed in favor of free trade. Most people believed that government should interfere in the economy as little as possible. They also believed that countries should trade without import duties. So in the early 1840s Peel abolished many tariffs.

The Railways

The first passenger railway opened in 1825 between Stockton and Darlington. In 1830 a line was opened between Manchester and Liverpool. William Huskisson MP for Liverpool was killed but nothing could stop the growth of the railways.

By 1848 there were 5,000 miles of railways in Britain and the network continued to expand rapidly in the later 19th century.

Railways provided a great boost to other industries such as iron. They also revolutionized transport. Journeys that would have taken days by stagecoach took hours by train.

The Factory Acts

The industrial revolution created an unprecedented demand for female and child labor. Children had always worked alongside their parents but before the 19th century they usually worked part time. In the new textile factories women and children were often made to work very long hours (often 12 hours a day or even longer).

The government was aware of the problem and in 1819 they passed an act that made it illegal for children under 9 to work in cotton mills. However the act lacked 'teeth' as there were no factory inspectors to check the mills. Another ct was passed in 1833 but this time inspectors were appointed. Children under 9 were banned from working in textile mills. Children aged 9 to 13 were not allowed to work for more than 12 hours a day or a total of more than 48 hours a week. Children aged 13 to 18 must not work for more than 69 hours a week. Furthermore nobody under 18 was allowed to work at night (from 8.30 pm to 5.30 am).

In 1844 another act banned women from working more than 12 hours a day (although it also reduced the minimum age for working in a mill to 8). Then in 1847 women and children were banned from working more than 10 hours a day in textile factories.

In 1850 the law was changed slightly. Women were allowed to work for 10 1/2 hours but textile factories could not be open for more than 12 hours a day. All workers, including men, were allowed 1 1/2 hours for meal breaks.

In 1867 the law was extended to all factories. (A factory was defined as a place where more than 50 people were employed in a manufacturing process). The 1878 Factory Act defined a factory as any place where machines were used in manufacturing.

Meanwhile in 1842 the Miners Act banned women and boys under 10 from working underground in mines.

By the 1860s the 10 hour day was common, but not universal. In 'sweated industries' such as making matchboxes and lace people were paid piece rates (i.e. they were paid so much for each one they made). People often worked in their own homes and very often they had to work from dawn to dusk to make a living.

Nevertheless in 1871 bank holidays were created. In the 1870s some skilled workers were given a week's annual paid holiday. (Although it was not until 1939 that everybody had annual paid holidays). However by the 1890s the weekend was common as many people had Saturday afternoon off.

Th Century Trade Unions

In 1799 and 1800 the government passed laws called the Combination Acts, which made it illegal for men to combine to demand higher wages. The Combination Acts were repealed in 1824 but it was still doubtful if trade unions were legal.

It was not until 1871 that trade unions were definitely made legal. In 1875 the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act made peaceful picketing legal.

In the 1850s and 1860s skilled workers formed moderate trade unions called New Model Unions. In return for subscriptions members were given sickness and unemployment benefits. However the New Model Unions were keen to be seen as 'respectable' and tried to negotiate rather than strike. The TUC was founded in 1868.

In the late 19th century unskilled workers began to form powerful trade unions. In 1888 a woman named Annie Besant managed to organize a strike among the girls who worked making matches for Bryant and May. The girls were very poorly paid and they suffered from an illness called 'phossy jaw' caused by working with phosphorous. The strike was successful and the employers were forced to raise their pay. In 1889 the match girls formed a trade union.

In March 1889 the Gas Workers and General Labourers Union was formed.

Then on 14 August 1889 the Great London Dock strike was held. It lasted 5 weeks and was a great success. The Dockers demanded a minimum wage of 6 pence an hour (the 'Docker's tanner').

Also in 1889 a Seaman's Union and the General Railway worker’s Union was formed.

Th Century Housing

In the early 19th century much working class housing was appalling. It was overcrowded and unsanitary. Of course, poor people's housing had always been bad. However things grew much worse when vast numbers of people lived together in a small area.

Furthermore towns had been dirty and unsanitary for centuries. In the 18th century in many towns bodies of men called Paving Commissioners or Improvement Commissioners were formed with powers to pave, clean and light the streets. However in those days England was divided into parishes and the commissioners only had powers in certain parishes.

However in the 19th century towns spread to new parishes. Huge numbers of houses were built where previously there had only been fields and small villages. The commissioners had no powers in these new 'suburbs'. In them streets were often unpaved and unlit. There were no drains and when it rained streets turned to mud. People threw dirty water in the streets and stagnant pools formed. Furthermore toilets were often shared by several houses and queues formed on Sunday mornings.

In the early 19th century in most towns there were no building regulations. Builders simply built as they pleased. Usually they tried to cram as many houses as possible onto every piece of land. Many houses were 'back-to-backs'. These houses were literally back to back. The back of one house joined the back of another. They usually consisted of two or three rooms. Worst of all were cellar dwellings. In cities like Liverpool families lived in cellars, which were damp and poorly ventilated as well as crowded. Very poor people slept on straw because they could not afford beds.

Skilled workers lived in 'through' houses, so called because you could walk through them from front to back. However in the 1840s town councils began to take action. Cellar dwellings were banned and new back-to-backs could not be built. It was impossible to demolish and replace existing back-to-backs all at once. It took decades and some people were still living in them in the 20th century.

In the early 19th century toilets were usually cesspits, which were infrequently emptied and sometimes overflowed. Or urine might seep through the ground into wells from which people drew drinking water.

Given these disgusting conditions it is not surprising there were outbreaks of cholera in many towns in 1831-32, 1848-49, 1854 and 1865-66.

In 1848 a Public Health Act was passed. The act made it compulsory to form local Boards of Health in towns if the annual death rate exceeded 23 per 1,000 or if 10% of the population wanted it. Local Boards of Health could demand that all new houses have drains and lavatories. They could also organize a water supply, street cleaning and refuse collection.

In 1875 a Public Health Act strengthened previous acts. All local authorities were forced to appoint Medical Officers of Health who could prosecute people who sold food or drink unfit for human consumption. The councils were also required to provide refuse collection.

Town councils also began to provide public parks and most passed by-laws, which laid down minimum standards for new houses. Furthermore in the 1860s and 1870s sewers were dug in most large towns. In the 1870s water supplies were created in most towns. As a result of these measures towns were much healthier and cleaner by the end of the 19th century than at the beginning.

In 1875 the Artisan's Dwellings Act was passed which gave councils the power to demolish slums but large scale slum clearance did not begin till the 20th century.

Furthermore in the second half of the 19th century living standards rose. Gradually houses grew larger. In the late 19th century 'two-up, two-downs' were common. (Houses with two bedrooms and a kitchen and 'front room'. Many skilled workers lived in houses with three bedrooms.

However even at the end of the 19th century there were some poor families still living in just one room.

The history of English homes

The Suffragettes

By 1884 the majority of men in Britain were allowed to vote but women were not allowed to. So in 1897 local groups of women who demanded the vote joined to form the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS). The organisation was moderate and its members were called suffragists.

However in 1903 a more radical organisation was formed called the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU). Emmeline Pankhurst led it and its members were called suffragettes. Some suffragettes committed crimes like arson and vandalism. They also planted bombs. However the suffragettes halted their campaign when the war began in 1914.

Furthermore by no means all women were suffragettes. Many women were anti-suffragettes. They opposed women being allowed to vote. In Britain the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League was formed in 1908. Its president was Mary Humphry Ward, a famous novelist.

On the other hand many men supported the suffragettes and wanted women to be allowed to vote.

In 1918 in Britain women over 30 were allowed to vote. In 1928 they were allowed to vote at the age of 21 (the same as men). In 1919 Nancy Astor became the first female MP and in 1929 Margaret Bondfield became the first female cabinet minister. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of Britain.

The history of women

The First World War

Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914. A British expeditionary force was sent to France, led by Sir John French. It fought the Germans at Mons on 23 August. The Germans continued to advance but the French and British halted them at the Battle of the Marne in September. The Germans tried to outflank the allies but were blocked. Both sides dug trenches to protect themselves and soon the trenches ran in a continuous line. The war became a stalemate.

In 1916 the British launched an attack on the Somme. Both sides suffered horrific losses. However during this battle the British unleashed a secret weapon - the tank. The first tanks were too unreliable and too few in number to affect the outcome of the battle but they were a sign of things to come.

In 1917 Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare. They sank any ships from any country attempting to reach Britain. As a result food in Britain ran very short but the crisis ended when the convoy system was introduced. Merchant ships traveled in groups protected by warships. Nevertheless in 1918 rationing of meat, butter and cheese began. Furthermore as a result of the German policy the USA entered the war.

In the Spring of 1918 Germany launched a series of offensives in northern France. The allies fought on with their 'backs against the wall' and in August the British launched a counter-attack using tanks. The Germans were gradually pushed back and on 11 November they signed an armistice (cease-fire).

Entertainment

In 1922 the BBC began broadcasting radio programs. Radio first became common in the 1930s. By 1933 about half the households in Britain had a 'wireless' and by 1939 most of them did. Television began in 1936. It was suspended during World War II but it began again in 1946.

In the 1920s some people went to see silent films but from about 1930 all films were 'talkies'. During the 1930s cinema-going became much more popular and many people went once or even twice a week.

The Depression of the 1930s

In 1929 the world was plunged into a severe economic recession. By 1932 22.8% of insured workers were unemployed. However unemployment began to fall in 1933. By January 1936 it stood at 13.9%. By 1938 it stood at around 10%.

However in the late 1930s the North of England remained depressed and unemployment in the region remained very high. Traditional industries such as textiles and coal mining were severely affected by the depression. Yet in the Midlands and the South of England new industries brought some prosperity and unemployment was lower. New industries included making cars and aircraft and electronics.

During the 1920s and 1930s a series of 'hunger marches' were held from depression areas to London. The first was from Glasgow in 1922 but the most famous was the Jarrow march of 1936 when 200 shipyard workers marched from Jarrow to London. The hunger marches gained a great deal of publicity for the plight of the unemployed but they did not succeed in their aim of actually reducing unemployment.

However because living standards had risen so much an unemployed man in 1936 was about as well off as an unskilled worker 30 years before. Nevertheless life for the unemployed was grim. They lived in relative poverty.

Nevertheless despite the mass unemployment of the 1930s for most people with a job living standards rose substantially. That was partly due to a fall in prices. The price of essentials like food and rent fell 15% during the decade. So for most people life became steadily more comfortable during the 1930s.

Furthermore from 1939 all workers were entitled to a minimum of 1 week’s annual paid holiday. Before then the only paid holidays many people had were bank holidays.

WW2

 

In the summer and fall of 1940, German and British air forces clashed in the skies over the United Kingdom, locked in the largest sustained bombing campaign to that date. A significant turning point of World War II, the Battle of Britain ended when Germany’s Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force despite months of targeting Britain’s air bases, military posts and, ultimately, its civilian population. Britain’s decisive victory saved the country from a ground invasion and possible occupation by German forces while proving that air power alone could be used to win a major battle.

On June 17, 1940, the defeated French signed an armistice and quit World War II. Britain now stood alone against the power of Germany’s military forces, which had conquered most of Western Europe in less than two months. But Prime Minister Winston Churchill rallied his stubborn people and outmaneuvered those politicians who wanted to negotiate with Adolf Hitler. But Britain’s success in continuing the war would very much depend on the RAF Fighter Command’s ability to thwart the Luftwaffe’s efforts to gain air superiority. This then would be the first all-air battle in history.

In fact, Britain’s situation was more favorable than most of the world recognized at the time. Britain possessed an effective air defense system, first-rate fighter pilots, and a great military leader in Air Marshal Hugh Dowding. On the other hand, the Germans had major problems: they had no navy left after the costly conquest of Norway, their army was unprepared for any form of amphibious operations, and the Luftwaffe had suffered heavy losses in the west (the first two factors made a seaborne attack on the British Isles impossible from the first).

Even more serious, the Germans had poor intelligence and little idea of British vulnerabilities. They wasted most of July in waiting for a British surrender and attacked only in August. Although air strikes did substantial damage to radar sites, on August 13–15 the Luftwaffe soon abandoned that avenue and turned to attacks on RAF air bases. A battle of attrition ensued in which both sides suffered heavy losses (an average loss of 21 percent of the RAF’s fighter pilots and 16 percent of the Luftwaffe’s fighter pilots each month during July, August, and September).

For a time the advantage seemed to swing slightly in favor of the Germans, but a combination of bad intelligence and British attacks on Berlin led the Luftwaffe to change its operational approach to massive attacks on London. The first attack on London on September 7 was quite successful; the second, on September 15, failed not only with heavy losses, but also with a collapse of morale among German bomber crews when British fighters appeared in large numbers and shot down many of the Germans. As a result, Hitler permanently postponed a landing on the British Isles and suspended the Battle of Britain.

Desintegration of British Empire

Before World War II it was stated fairly, “The sun never set on the British Empire.” For decades, this was true: the British colonial Empire touched all corners of the globe. After the War concluded, however, a worldwide process of decolonization commenced in which Britain granted independence to all of its major colonies, beginning notably in India. The British decision to grant independence to India arose primarily out of necessity; however, Gandhi’s successful social movements also inspired a fundamental change in the perceptions of colonial power that eventually led to the collapse of the British Colonial Empire.

In India there were numerous uprisings and conflicts that erupted over the course of the centuries long British occupation, but it wasn’t until Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi’s social efforts, beginning in India from 1915-1920 and onward, that a popular vision for India began to spread among ordinary Indians.¹ At the time, Gandhi had only recently returned from South Africa where he had stayed for more than twenty years, as the “voice and conscience of thousands” of racially subjugated Indians.² Upon his return to India, Gandhi advocated for Indians to boycott British institutions and products in a non-violent way; this movement was ultimately known as “Swadeshi.” Because of these efforts Gandhi became wildly popular; when Jawaharlal Nehru—the first Prime Minister of independent India—gave his famous Independence speech in 1947, he called Gandhi “The Father of our Nation who… held aloft the torch of freedom and lighted up the darkness that surrounded us.”³ Gandhi’s momentum reached a peak during World War II and consequently caused great strain on Britain, forcing them to recognize the significance of the Swadeshi movement. Additionally, pressures from within India were complemented by two major external factors: Britain’s economic and human resources were exasperated by the War effort; ⁴ and the Japanese, who had invaded the British colony of Burma in 1943, were aggressively expanding in Southeast Asia.⁵ Each of these factors was important in pushing Britain to the realization that it was no longer realistic for them to prolong their control of India. In March 1946, shortly after the close of the War, Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, expressed these sentiments in a speech to the House of Commons:

“India is today in a state of great tension and this is indeed a critical moment… It is a time emphatically for very definite and clear action… Let us all realise that whatever the difficulties, whatever the divisions may be, there is this underlying demand among all the Indian peoples… Is it any wonder that today she claims – as a nation of 400,000,000 people that has twice sent her sons to die for freedom – that she should herself have freedom to decide her own destiny? My colleagues are going to India with the intention of using their utmost endeavours to help her to attain that freedom as speedily and fully as possible.”⁶

Attlee’s description of India as being in a “state of great tension” was a verbal affirmation of the ultimate conclusion: the British had little choice but to help India “attain [her] freedom.”

After India was finally granted freedom in 1947, as the separate states of India and Pakistan, it was apparent that a change in the perceptions of colonial power was occurring. As early as 1931, Time Magazine featured Gandhi as the “Man of the Year,” forgoing other noted possibilities that included, ironically, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.⁷ In the article, Gandhi is described as being exalted by the people while the British colonizers are condemned:

"Cold English brains devised the system whereby bands of native police, especially in the rural districts, set upon individual Indian men & women and beat them… Individual beatings are applied, in the main, to extort from the victim his land tax.”⁸

Violence within the colonies was viewed as a reflection of the colonizers. From 1935 to 1951, Time Magazine prepared monthly newsreels of world events that in 1942 depicted video footage of British soldiers brutally attacking Indian protestors, while a commentator read, “The Indian people have never ceased to defy British authority, whether enforced by Soldier’s bayonets or Policemen’s batons.”⁹ Later, in June 1947, Gandhi graced the cover of Time magazine again, shortly after India had been declared independent.¹⁰ The media therefore played a significant role in showing the brutal reality of colonialism to the masses; in the end, increased media coverage was a catalyst in shifting public perceptions of colonial power.

It was nevertheless not only the perceptions of Europeans and Americans that were affected by India’s independence movement. In Africa, nationalist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah in the British colony of the Gold Coast were inspired by Gandhi’s success. Nkrumah was a native of the Gold Coast territory but nonetheless was highly educated in the United States. During his studies, he drew from the “Back to Africa” vision devised by Marcus Garvey in the 1920’s and consequently later went on to become the most influential proponent of Pan-Africanism in Africa.¹¹ After returning home, Nkrumah became the leader of the Convention Peoples’ Party (CPP) in 1950, which advocated the need for self-government, and began a campaign of “positive action involving nonviolent protests, strikes, and noncooperation with the British colonial authorities.”¹² Nkrumah’s campaign was strikingly similar to the one Gandhi had led in India, and likewise, he was imprisoned for his efforts. The atmosphere regarding colonialism, however, had undergone significant changes since India’s independence; after the British granted a new constitution to its colony in 1951, Nkrumah’s party, the CPP, won a majority of votes and Nkrumah was released as the new Premier.¹³ Several years later, a major turning point occurred that was reflective of the times: on May 9^th, 1956, the population of British citizens living in the British administered U.N. Trust Territory of British Togoland voted in a 58% majority to integrate with an independent Gold Coast.¹⁴ Less than a year later, on March 6^th, 1957, the independent state of Ghana was created out of the merging of the former British territories of the Gold Coast and British Togoland; Nkrumah became the first Prime Minister.¹⁵

Ghana thus began the wave of British decolonization in Africa that resulted in nearly every British territory being granted independence in the following decade. In 1960 the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan, delivered a famous speech known as the “Wind of Change:”

“One of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations… Especially since the end of war, the processes which gave birth to the nation-states of Europe have been repeated all over the world… Fifteen years ago this movement spread through Asia. Many countries there, of different races and civilization, pressed their claim to an independent national life. To-day the same thing is happening in Africa… In different places it may take different forms, but it is happening everywhere. The wind of change is blowing through the continent… Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact.”¹⁶

In the speech, Macmillan clearly indicates the British realization that decolonization was inevitable, calling it a “political fact.” Macmillan also gives reference to the significance of the prior movement in Asia, which was of course led by India.

In a sense, it was at this time that the sun finally did set on the British Empire. What Gandhi had begun in India as early as 1915 had political implications for the entire colonial framework. His devotion to non-violence stood in marked contrast to the rifle bearing British occupiers, and he was immensely effective in making the world notice. Gandhi’s ideologies and India’s independence inspired the repressed around the world and led ultimately to the unraveling of an Empire.

The collapse of British imperial power - all but complete by the mid-1960s - can be traced directly to the impact of World War Two.

The catastrophic British defeats in Europe and Asia between 1940 and 1942 destroyed its financial and economic independence, the real foundation of the imperial system.

It also erased the old balance of power on which British security - at home and abroad - had largely depended.

Although Britain was one of the victorious allies, the defeat of Germany had been mainly the work of Soviet and American power, while that of Japan had been an almost entirely American triumph.

Britain had survived and recovered the territory lost during the war. But its prestige and authority, not to mention its wealth, had been severely reduced.

The British found themselves locked into an imperial endgame from which every exit was blocked except the trapdoor to oblivion.

An early symptom of the weakness of the empire was Britain's withdrawal from India in 1947.

During World War Two, the British had mobilised India's resources for their imperial war effort. They crushed the attempt of Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to force them to 'quit India' in 1942.

Nonetheless, in an earlier bid to win Congress support, Britain had promised to give India full independence once the war was over.

Within months of the end of the war, it was glaringly obvious that Britain lacked the means to defeat a renewed mass campaign by the Congress. Its officials were exhausted and troops were lacking.

But the British still hoped that a self-governing India would remain part of their system of 'imperial defence'. For this reason, Britain was desperate to keep India (and its army) united. These hopes came to nothing.

By the time that the last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, arrived in India, Congress and its leader Jawaharlal Nehru had begun to accept that unless they agreed to partition, they risked a descent into chaos and communal war before power could be transferred from British into Indian hands.

It was left to Mountbatten to stage a rapid handover to two successor governments (India and Pakistan) before the ink was dry on their post-imperial frontiers.

Repairing Britain

The huge sense of relief at a more or less dignified exit, and much platitudinous rhetoric, disguised the fact that the end of the Raj was a staggering blow for British world power.

Britain had lost the colony that had provided much of its military muscle east of Suez, as well as paying 'rent' for the 'hire' of much of Britain's own army.

The burden of the empire defence shifted back to a Britain that was both weaker and poorer than it had been before 1939.

For these reasons, it may seem strange that the loss of India did not lead to a drastic reappraisal of Britain's world interests and a 'timely' decision to abandon its far-flung commitments from the Caribbean to Hong Kong.

Britain was now overshadowed by the United States and Soviet Union, its domestic economy had been seriously weakened and the Labour government had embarked on a huge and expensive programme of social reform.

In fact British Prime Minister Clement Attlee and his cabinet colleague Ernest Bevin, who dominated Labour's foreign policy at the time, drew quite the opposite conclusion with regards to the future of Britain's oversees interests.

Attlee and Bevan believed Britain's economic recovery and the survival of sterling as a great trading currency required closer integration with the old 'white' dominions, especially Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The 'sterling area', which included the empire, Commonwealth (the main exception was Canada) and some other countries, accounted for half of the world's trade in the early post-war years.

The British were also determined to exploit the tropical colonies more effectively due to the fact that their cocoa, rubber and tin could be sold for much-needed dollars.

Nor was it simply an economic imperative. Britain's strategic defence against the new Soviet threat required forward air bases from which to bomb Southern Russia - the industrial arsenal of the Soviet Union. That meant staying on in the Middle East even after the breakdown of British control in Palestine and its hasty evacuation in 1948.

In Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf, the British were determined to hang on to their treaties and bases, including the vast Suez canal zone. They wanted help from Australia and hoped for Indian support against Soviet influence in Asia.

Across the whole spectrum of party opinion, British leaders had no doubt that Britain must uphold its status as the third great power, and that it could only do so by maintaining its empire and the Commonwealth link. Europe, by contrast, they saw as a zone of economic and political weakness. It was Britain's overseas assets that would help to defend it

In the 1950s, British governments struggled to achieve this post-war imperial vision. They had already reinvented the Commonwealth in 1949 in order to let India remain a republic, overturning the old rule that the British monarch must be head of state in a Commonwealth country.

They accepted the need to grant increasing self-government and then independence to some of their most valuable colonies - including Ghana and Malaya in 1957 - on the understanding that they remained in Britain's sphere of financial and strategic influence.

The British governments took up the challenge of anti-colonial revolts in Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus. They invested heavily in up-to-date weaponry and fretted over the slowness of the British economy to resume its old role as the great lender of capital.

By the end of the decade, things were not going well. Staying in the Middle East had led step-by-step to the confrontation with President Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and the disastrous decision to seek his overthrow by force in collusion with Israel.

The 1956 Suez Crisis was a savage revelation of Britain's financial and military weakness and destroyed much of what remained of Britain's influence in the Middle East.

In the colonial territories, more active interference in social and economic matters, with a view to speeding the pace of development, had aroused wide opposition and strengthened nationalist movements.

It was becoming much harder for Britain to control the rate of political change, especially where the presence of settlers (as in Kenya and the Rhodesias) sharpened conflicts over land.

Britain's position as the third great power and 'deputy leader' of the Western Alliance was threatened by the resurgence of France and West Germany, who jointly presided over the new European Economic Community (EEC).

Britain's claim on American support, the indispensable prop of imperial survival, could no longer be taken for granted. And Britain's own economy, far from accelerating, was stuck in a rut.

With conditions as they stood, it was now becoming increasingly difficult to maintain even the semblance of British world power. In the 1960s, British governments attempted forlornly to make bricks without straw.

Britain tried and failed twice to enter the EEC, hoping partly to galvanise its stagnant economy, partly to smash the Franco-German 'alliance'.

To avoid being trapped in a costly struggle with local nationalist movements, Britain backed out of most of the remaining colonies with unseemly haste. As late as 1959, it had publicly scheduled a degree of self-government for Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. All became independent between 1961 and 1963.

British leaders gamely insisted, and no doubt believed, that Britain would remain at the 'top table' of world power - a status guaranteed by its nuclear deterrent and its continuing influence in the ex-colonial world, and symbolised by the Commonwealth which the ex-colonies had joined.

The situation did not go as planned. Britain's failure to stop the white settler revolt in Southern Rhodesia in 1965 was a huge embarrassment and drew fierce condemnation from many new Commonwealth states.

In South East Asia, protecting the new federation of Malaysia against Indonesian aggression became more and more costly.

Meanwhile the British economy staggered from crisis to crisis and the burden became unsustainable. Devaluation of the pound in November 1967 was followed within weeks by the decision to withdraw Britain's military presence east of Suez.

When Britain finally entered the European Community in 1973, the line had been drawn under Britain's imperial age.

But the ending of an empire is rarely a tidy affair. The Rhodesian rebellion was to last until the late 1970s, Britain fought a war to retain the Falkland Islands in 1982 and Hong Kong continued, with tacit Chinese agreement, as a British dependency until 1997.

Summary and highlights

This report focuses on the theme of 'belonging' in 21st century Britain. The notion of belonging, or social identity, is a central aspect of how we define who we are. We consider ourselves to be individuals but it is our membership of particular groups that is most important in constructing a sense of identity. Social identity is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be human.

In Britain today there is public debate suggesting that we are losing this essential sense of belonging — that globalization, for example, far from bringing people closer together, is actually moving us apart. We hear that our neighbourhoods are becoming evermore impersonal and anonymous and that we no longer have a sense of place. But is this really the case? Are we losing our sense of belonging, or are we simply finding new ways to locate ourselves in a changing society? This report seeks an answer.

On one level, belonging is certainly changing. While in the past a sense of belonging was more rigidly defined in terms of the traditional markers of social identity such as class or religion, people are now far more able to choose the categories to which they belong. We are now able to select from a wide range of groups, communities, brands and lifestyles those with which we wish to align ourselves and which, in turn, shape our social identities. At the same time we may, or may not, remain rooted in our families or in the place in which we were born. The 'landscape' of belonging may have changed — with much greater opportunity these days to opt in and opt out of various groups — but we still want the same things from membership of these groups. We have timeless needs for social bonding, loyalty, security and acceptance. These have been with us since the Stone Age and throughout our history we have created social networks and groupings to serve these ends. So what does this landscape look like today? Is it that much different from that of the past?

To explore this fundamental aspect of human life the Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC) has employed a number of research methods. First, a detailed literature review provided the background for two in-depth focus groups with 8-10 people in each, representing a broad cross-section of demographic groups. The material from these groups was subsequently used to design national poll questions that were distributed by YouGov to 2,209 nationally representative participants across the country.

Through these methods, SIRC's research has identified six key social identities in which people most frequently anchor their sense of belonging today:

· Family. Despite public debate about the decline of the family in modern society, family remains the most important focus of belonging. Of respondents in the national poll, 88% chose family as the key marker of belonging. The ways in which families are structured has certainly changed in recent decades, but family remains the most important category of human social organisation.

· Friendship. While the close proximity of a large extended family would have provided a structure for social support in the past, this function is now filled, at least in part, by an increasingly diverse and multilayered network of friendships. Increased geographic mobility and interconnectedness through new digital technologies allow us to connect with people in new ways. In the poll, 65% of respondents saw friendships as being an essential part of their sense of belonging.

· Lifestyle choices. In developing friendships and social networks we are also defining the kinds of lifestyle that we want to lead and the types of social capital — the social status, shared values, and cultural practices — that go with it. We make choices about the kinds of activities that we are interested in, the kinds of products that we buy and the associations that these involve. Importantly, we also make lifestyle choices by choosing not to consume certain products or engage in certain types of activity. What we do not do is as important to our sense of belonging as that in which we actively choose to engage. For many participants in the project, thinking about lifestyle choices revealed a far more entrenched sense of brand and group loyalty than they had initially expected or were prepared to admit.

· Nationality. Advocates of cultural globalization point to the fact that national identity is on the decline. As the world becomes more connected it is increasingly common for people to pass through the borders of individual countries, both physically and virtually. While there is certainly a greater awareness of the flexibility of national identities, and the possibility of shedding one in exchange for another, there still remains a strong tie between individuals and the nationalities with which they are born. People may question what exactly it means to be 'British' or 'English' in the 21st century, but this is by no means the same as rejecting the idea of being British altogether. Over a third of all people claim their national identity as a major factor in defining belonging.

· Professional identity. In a society where our social status is to a great extent measured by the work we do and, perhaps more importantly, the money we earn, it is little surprise that professional identity is an important locus of belonging for both men and women. It is, after all, often the first characteristic that people offer up when introducing themselves to others. While occupational mobility has certainly increased for many people, and 're-skilling' is a normal part of modern-day professional life, we remain tied to the social significance of what we do for a living. Our sense of belonging in this context is greater than the affinity we feel with members of our extended families.

· Team spirit and shared interests. For men, the football or other sporting team that they support provides a stronger sense of belonging than religion, social class, ethnic background or political affiliations. The clubs they belong to are also important sources of social identity. Both men and women view the hobbies and interests that they share with others as an important source of identity. For women, this sense of belonging is as strong as that associated with their nationality.

The kinds of social changes that have taken place in recent years are evidenced by the fact that these categories rank higher than other more traditional foci of belonging, such as class, religion, or place of origin. Only 13% of people, for example, feel a sense of belonging to the community in which they were born. The main body of this report looks at where these changes have taken place and explores how we are incorporating both new and more traditional notions of belonging into our patterns of social interaction.

Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 after a landslide victory over the Conservative Party. Under the title of New Labour, he promised economic and social reform and brought Labour closer to the center of the political spectrum. Early policies of the Blair government included the minimum wage and university tuition fees. Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown also gave the Bank of England the power to set the base rate of interest autonomously. The traditional tendency of governments to manipulate interest rates around the time of general elections for political gain is thought to have been deleterious to the UK economy and helped reinforce a cyclical pattern of boom and bust. Brown's decision was popular with the City, which the Labour Party had been courting since the early 1990s. Blair presided over the longest period of economic expansion in Britain since the 19th century and his premiership saw large investment into social aspects, in particular health and education, areas particularly under-invested during the Conservative government of the 1980s and early 1990s. The Human Rights Act was introduced in 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2000. Most hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords in 1999 and the Civil Partnership Act of 2005 allowed homosexual couples the right to register their partnership with the same rights and responsibilities comparable to heterosexual marriage.

The nation was stunned when Princess Diana died in a car accident in Paris on 31 August 1997, even though she had divorced Prince Charles a few years earlier. Numerous conspiracy theories arose about her being intentionally murdered due to her plans to marry an Arab businessman, although nothing was ever proven.

From the beginning, New Labour's record on the economy and unemployment was strong, suggesting that they could break with the trend of Labour governments overseeing an economic decline while in power. They had inherited an unemployment count of 1,700,000 from the Conservatives, and by the following year unemployment was down to 1,300,000 – a level not seen since James Callaghan was in power some 20 years previously. A minimum wage was announced in May 1998, coming into force from April 1999.^[27] Unemployment would remain similarly low for the next 10 years.^[28]

The long-running Northern Ireland peace process was brought to a conclusion in 1998 with the Belfast Agreement which established a devolved Northern Ireland Assembly and de-escalated the violence associated with the Troubles. It was signed in April 1998 by the British and Irish governments and was endorsed by all the main political parties in Northern Ireland with the exception of Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party. Voters in Northern Ireland approved the agreement in a referendum in May 1998 and it came into force in December 1999. In August 1998, a car-bomb exploded in the Northern Ireland town of Omagh, killing 29 people and injuring 220. The attack was carried out by the Real Irish Republican Army who opposed the Belfast Agreement. It was reported in 2005, that the IRA had renounced violence and had ditched its entire arsenal.

In foreign policy, following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, Blair greatly supported U.S. President George W. Bush's new War on Terror which began with the forced withdrawal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Blair's case for war was based on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and consequent violation of UN resolutions. He was wary of making direct appeals for regime change, since international law does not recognise this as a ground for war. A memorandum from a July 2002 meeting that was leaked in April 2005 showed that Blair believed that the British public would support regime change in the right political context; the document, however, stated that legal grounds for such action were weak. On 24 September 2002 the Government published a dossier based on the intelligence agencies' assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Among the items in the dossier was a recently received intelligence report that "the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so". A further briefing paper on Iraq's alleged WMDs was issued to journalists in February 2003. This document was discovered to have taken a large part of its text without attribution from a PhD thesis available on the internet. Where the thesis hypothesised about possible WMDs, the Downing Street version presented the ideas as fact. The document subsequently became known as the "Dodgy Dossier".

46,000 British troops, one-third of the total strength of the British Army (land forces), were deployed to assist with the invasion of Iraq. When after the war, no WMDs were found in Iraq, the two dossiers, together with Blair's other pre-war statements, became an issue of considerable controversy. Many Labour Party members, including a number who had supported the war, were among the critics. Successive independent inquiries (including those by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons, the senior judge Lord Hutton, and the former senior civil servant Lord Butler of Brockwell) have found that Blair honestly stated what he believed to be true at the time, though Lord Butler's report did imply that the Government's presentation of the intelligence evidence had been subject to some degree of exaggeration. These findings have not prevented frequent accusations that Blair was deliberately deceitful, and, during the 2005 election campaign, Conservative leader Michael Howard made political capital out of the issue. The new threat of international terrorism ultimately led to the 7 July 2005 bomb attacks in London which killed 52 people as well as the four suicide bombers who led the attack.

The Labour government was re-elected with a second successive landslide in the general election of June 2001.^[29] Blair became the first Labour leader to lead the party to three successive election victories when they won the 2005 general election, though this time he had a drastically reduced majority.^[30]

The Conservatives had so far failed to represent a serious challenge to Labour's rule, with John Major's successor William Hague unable to make any real improvement upon the disastrous 1997 general election result at the next election four years later. He stepped down after the 2001 election to be succeeded by Iain Duncan Smith, who did not even hold the leadership long enough to contest a general election – being ousted by his own MP's in October 2003^[31] and being replaced by Michael Howard, who had served asHome Secretary in the government of John Major. Howard failed to win the 2005 general election for the Conservatives but he at least had the satisfaction of narrowing the Labour majority, giving his successor (he announced his resignation shortly after the election) a decent platform to build upon.^[32] However, the Conservatives began to re-emerge as an electable prospect following the election of David Cameron as Howard's successor in December 2005. Within months of Cameron becoming Conservative leader, opinion polls during 2006 were showing a regular Conservative lead for the first time since Black Wednesday 14 years earlier. Despite the economy still being strong and unemployment remaining low, Labour's decline in support was largely blamed upon poor control of immigration and allowing Britain to become what was seen by many as an easy target for terrorists.^[33]

Devolution for Scotland and Wales [edit]

Blair also came into power with a policy of devolution. A pre-legislative referendum was held in Scotland in 1997 with two questions: whether to create a devolved Parliament for Scotland and whether it should have limited tax-varying powers. Following a clear 'yes' vote on both questions, a referendum on the proposal for creating a devolved Assemblywas held two weeks later. This produced a narrow 'yes' vote. Both measures were put into effect and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly began operating in 1999. Thefirst election to the Scottish parliament saw the creation of a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition with Donald Dewar as First Minister. In Wales, the Labour Party achieved a complete majority with Alun Michael as the Welsh First Minister. In the 2007 Scottish election, the Scottish National Party gained enough seats to form a minority government with its leader Alex Salmond as First Minister.

Devolution also returned to Northern Ireland, leaving England as the only constituent country of the United Kingdom without a devolved administration. Within England, a devolved authority for London was re-established following a 'yes' vote in a London-wide referendum.

On 18 September 2014, a referendum on Scottish independence failed with a 55/44 percentage.

Gordon Brown (2007–2010) [edit]

Gordon Brown

Tony Blair tendered his resignation as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the Queen on 27 June 2007, his successor Gordon Brown assuming office the same afternoon. Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister without having to face either a general election or even a contested election for leadership of the Labour Party.

Brown's style of government differed from that of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who had been seen as presidential. Brown rescinded some of the policies which had either been introduced or were planned by Blair's administration. He remained committed to close ties with the United States and to the Iraq war, although he established an inquiry into the reasons why Britain had participated in the conflict. He proposed a "government of all the talents" which would involve co-opting leading personalities from industry and other professional walks of life into government positions. Brown also appointed Jacqui Smith as the UK's first female Home Secretary, while Brown's old position as Chancellor was taken over by Alistair Darling.

His appointment as prime minister sparked a brief surge in Labour support as the party topped most opinion polls that autumn. There was talk of a "snap" general election, which it was widely believed Labour could win, but Brown decided against calling an election.^[34]

Brown's government introduced a number of fiscal policies to help keep the British economy afloat during the financial crisis which occurred throughout the latter part of the 2000s (decade) and early 2010, although the United Kingdom saw a dramatic increase in its national debt. Unemployment soared through 2008 as the recession set in, and Labour standings in the opinion polls plummeted as the Conservatives became ascendant.^[35]

Several major banks were nationalised after falling into financial difficulties, while large amounts of money were pumped into the economy to encourage spending. Brown was also press ganged into giving Gurkhas settlement rights in Britain by the actress and campaigner Joanna Lumley and attracted criticism for its handling of the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the only person to have been convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

Initially, during the first four months of his premiership, Brown enjoyed a solid lead in the polls. His popularity amongst the public may be due to his handling of numerous serious events during his first few weeks as Prime Minister, including two attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow at the end of June. However, between the end of 2007 and September 2008, his popularity had fallen significantly, with two contributing factors believed to be his perceived change of mind over plans to call a snap general election in October 2007, and his handling of the 10p tax rate cut in 2008, which led to allegations of weakness and dithering. His unpopularity led eight labour MPs to call for a leadership contest in September 2008, less than 15 months into his premiership. The threat of a leadership contest receded due to his perceived strong handling of the global financial crisis in October, but his popularity hit an all-time low, and his position became increasingly under threat after the May 2009 expenses scandal and Labour's poor results in the 2009Local and European elections. Brown's cabinet began to rebel with several key resignations in the run up to local elections in June 2009.

In January 2010, it was revealed that Britain's economy had resumed growth after a recession which had seen a record six successive quarters of economic detraction. However, it was a narrow return to growth, and it came after the other major economies had come out of recession.^[36]

The 2010 general election resulted in a hung parliament – Britain's first for 36 years – with the Conservative Party controlling 306 Seats, the Labour Party 258 Seats and the Liberal Democrats 57 Seats. Brown remained as prime minister while the Liberal Democrats negotiated with Labour and the Conservatives to form a coalition government. He announced his intention to resign on 10 May 2010 in order to help broker a Labour-Liberal Democrat deal. However, this became increasingly unlikely, and on 11 May Brown announced his resignation as Prime Minister and as Leader of the Labour Party. This paved the way for the Conservatives to return to power after 13 years.^[37]

His deputy Harriet Harman became Leader of the Opposition until September 2010, when Ed Miliband was elected Leader of the Labour Party.

David Cameron (2010–present) [edit]

David Cameron (Con),
Prime Minister, 2010– present.

Nick Clegg (LibDem),
Deputy Prime Minister 2010–15.

The Conservative Party won the 2010 general election but did not win enough seats to win an outright majority. David Cameron, who has led the party since 2005 became Prime Minister on 11 May 2010 after the Conservatives formed acoalition government with the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and several other Liberal Democrats were given cabinet positions. Cameron promised to reduce Britain's spiralling budget deficit by cutting back on public service spending and by transferring more power to local authorities. He committed his government to Britain's continuing role in Afghanistan and stated that he hopes to remove British troops from the region by 2015. An emergency budget was prepared in June 2010 by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne which stated that VAT will be raised to 20% and there will be a large reduction in public spending. A key Liberal Democrat policy is that of voting reform, to which a referendum took place in May 2011 on whether or not Britain should adopt a system of Alternative Vote to elect MPs to Westminster. However, the proposal was rejected overwhelmingly, with 68% of voters in favour of retaining first-past-the-post. The Liberal Democrat turnabout on tuition policy at the universities alienated their younger supporters, and the continuing weakness of the economy, despite spending cutbacks, alienated the elders.

Prince William married Kate Middleton on 29 April 2011 in a globally televised event much like his parents' wedding 30 years earlier. In July 2013, the royal couple welcomed their first child, Prince George. In May 2015, they welcomed their second child, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.

In 2012, the Summer Olympics returned to London for the first time since 1948. The United States claimed the largest count of gold medals, with Britain running third place after China.

2015 election [edi