The development of Great Britain at the beginning of the 20th century is brief. The political and economic situation of England at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Lag in economic development

Levin G. R.

England in the 20th century

England is a parliamentary monarchy, and royal power is exercised only through parliament and the cabinet of ministers, but for English monopoly capital the monarchy is important because it essentially conceals its unlimited dominance in the country's political system.

In England there is a widespread legend that the monarchy is “harmless” and “impartial”, that the very principle “the king reigns but does not govern” means that royal power is rather a symbol of civil peace among all subjects. This point of view is also shared by Labor, who believe that the king (or queen) is limited in his rights and therefore cannot do anything on his own.

As correctly stated in the English passage (pp. 7-8), the queen (or king), in accordance with the results of parliamentary elections, appoints the prime minister. Some historians consider this a purely formal act (after all, the leader of the winning party becomes prime minister). However, the crown sometimes has the right to choose between different candidates. Many examples demonstrate this. To take an example from the recent past: in 1957, Queen Elizabeth II, given the choice between two Conservative leaders, chose Macmillan and rejected Butler. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the Queen is informed of all decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers and can make representations to the Prime Minister.

The royal prerogatives also include the dissolution of parliament (albeit on the proposal of the prime minister) and the convening of a new parliament. The monarch is formally the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. On his behalf, orders are awarded, titles are bestowed, etc. Formally, the crown has the right of veto over parliamentary bills, but since 1707, not a single king has ever refused to sanction a bill approved by parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II receives huge sums from the state budget under the so-called civil list (in the early 60s - 475 thousand pounds sterling, in 1977 - about 1.7 million pounds sterling). The Queen's husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, also holds a civil certificate. Large sums are paid annually from the state treasury to the Queen's eldest son, Prince Charles. Other close relatives of the queen also have civil records. The royal family also receives large incomes from estates located in various parts of the country, such as income from the Duchy of Lancaster, a hereditary royal domain.

Bourgeois state lawyers have always supported the myth of the political neutrality of the English monarchy. In reality, the monarchy is an important tool of the ruling class in its desire to maintain the sanctity of the capitalist system. Even today it is very close to the Conservative Party, to layers of the old English aristocracy. Almost all of the crown's closest advisers were people of aristocratic origin, the vast majority of them studied at Eton, many were military men and served in the guards regiments. Thus, we are talking about a rather closed court caste, which has always been and, as long as it exists, will be a brake on any social transformation.

This book contains a number of passages from various sources about the role of the English parliament in the political life of the country, about the voting procedure, the role of the speaker, etc. One of the passages (see p. 10) emphasizes a very significant point: in England, in Unlike most other capitalist countries, there is no constitution drawn up in the form of a single fundamental law of the country. The English constitution refers to the complex of various customs, precedents, traditions and laws made over the centuries. These include: Magna Carta 1215, Petition of Rights 1628, Habeas Corpus Act 1679, Bill of Rights 1689. These constitutional acts include the Acts of Parliament 1911 and 1949, Westminster Status 1931 (on dominion rights) and others. Thus, one can only speak conditionally about the existence of a constitution in England.

All these acts have not been repealed and formally continue to retain their legal force. The English bourgeoisie seeks to mask its real dominance in all spheres of public life with these old acts.

The constituent parts of the English Constitution are constitutional customs and advisory norms (opinions of authoritative bourgeois lawyers), which have almost the same force as constitutional customs.

English legal scholars are trying to explain the absence of a fixed constitution by the fact that in England the principles of parliamentary supremacy and civil law have supposedly already been fully implemented. In fact, the absence of a constitution gives the bourgeoisie the opportunity to interpret the rights and duties of citizens as it considers appropriate and beneficial at the moment, filling the old form, old customs, etc. with new class content.

In addition to the monarch, the central authorities of Great Britain include the parliament and the cabinet of ministers. Parliament is the oldest representative institution in England, dating back to the 13th century. The official time of its establishment is 1265. Parliament has never been a democratic body in the past. At first it was an organ of class representation, and then from the 17th century, from the time of the revolution of 1640-1660, it became an instrument of the bourgeoisie. From the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the 19th century, there was a gradual weakening of the monarchy and a transfer of power from the crown to parliament. During this period, not only English bourgeois parliamentarism took shape, but also the two-party system.

During the 19th and 20th centuries. The working people of England achieved a certain democratization of voting rights and an expansion of the circle of voters. Under the pressure of the popular masses, parliamentary reforms were carried out in 1832, 1867, 1884 and 1918, but they turned out to be insufficient and could not ensure the election of genuine representatives of the people to parliament.

In fact, the residency requirement has been preserved. Lists are compiled once a year. In order to be included in these lists, every Englishman entitled to vote must submit an application to the official in charge of compiling the electoral rolls within a specified period. If this is not done on time, the voter is effectively barred from participating in all elections that occur during that year. A person who has moved to another place of residence after compiling the lists can take part in voting only at the place of registration, which, of course, significantly complicates the opportunity for a large number of the working population to exercise their right.

An essential feature of the English electoral system is the actual inequality of constituencies. One deputy is elected in each electoral district. However, the number of voters in the districts is not equal. As a rule, in districts populated by workers, the number of voters is twice the number of voters in districts with a propertied population.

The electoral law formally provides for secret voting, but in reality it is not enforced. The ballot paper handed to the voter is marked with a number. The same number is placed on the spine of the ballot, where the name of the voter who received the ballot is indicated. This makes it possible to establish for whom a particular voter voted, and this also makes it possible to put pressure on voters.

When analyzing the English electoral system, it is very important to take into account such a point as the establishment of a cash deposit of 150 pounds sterling for a candidate for member of the House of Commons. The deposit is returned only if the number of votes received by a candidate exceeds 12-12.5% ​​of the total number of votes cast in a given district. This measure is, of course, directed against representatives of the most consistent party in the struggle for the interests of the working class - the British Communist Party, since the candidates of the bourgeois parties are supported and financed by big capitalists, and the candidates of the Labor Party well-known funds of the trade unions included in this party. The CPV, which conducts its election campaigns with money raised by workers for its fund, is naturally limited in its capabilities.

Speaking about the English Parliament, it should also be emphasized that elections take place on the basis of an anti-democratic majoritarian system of relative majority, according to which the candidate who has collected more votes than any of his competitors is considered elected. As a result, the number of mandates received by individual parties does not correspond to the number of votes cast for them. Thus, a candidate for whom a minority of voters in a given district voted can enter the House of Commons. In those constituencies where only one candidate is nominated, he is considered elected without voting. This creates the possibility for major political parties to collude on one candidate in order to get it into parliament without a vote.

All of the above allows us to conclude that the bourgeois parliamentary majority does not at all represent the true majority of voters. However, this system is beneficial to such large political parties as the Conservatives and Labor, which have virtually monopolized the matter of elections, and therefore they strive to preserve it with all their might. This electoral system is characterized by the fact that deputies are not actually responsible to their voters, who do not have the right to recall deputies.

The House of Commons is elected for a term of five years, but it can, by resolution, extend its powers for any period. The early dissolution of the lower house is carried out by decree of the monarch at the proposal of the government.

The House of Commons is presided over by the Speaker (see pp. 11-12), who is elected by the party with the majority in it. The speaker himself does not participate in voting and is formally independent of his party, but this is only an appearance. The speaker is endowed with great rights. He has the right to suspend a speaker, can reject requests to the government, and stop discussing a particular issue if, in his opinion, this harms the prestige of the monarch or the government.

The House of Commons is considered competent if 40 deputies are currently sitting in it. Sessions of the House of Commons last for most of the year, with breaks in the autumn and winter for recess.

The length of parliamentary sessions may give the impression that parliament members have complete freedom to discuss government policy. In reality, ordinary members of parliament ("backbenchers") are forced to completely submit to party discipline and the instructions of the chief party organizers (or, as the British call them, "the Chief Whip14 and the Deputy Chief Whip the Assistant Whip") appointed by the party leader . Members of parliament are forced to vote on various bills according to the instructions of party organizers to avoid party repression.

This order ensures the adoption of laws that the English bourgeoisie needs. The right of legislative initiative in the House of Commons formally belongs to members of parliament. But in fact this right is exercised by the government.

Bills submitted to parliament undergo three readings. The first reading consists only of announcing the title of the bill, after which the lower house decides whether to accept it for consideration. The second reading is reduced to a discussion of the main articles of the bill (bill). The third reading follows the study of the bill in one of the standing committees and is accompanied only by editorial amendments, followed by a vote.

Deputies vote according to the instructions of their parties in this way: those voting “for” leave the meeting room through the right door, and “against” - through the left. However, due to the operation of “party machines,” the voting results are almost always predetermined.

In theory, the government is responsible to the House of Commons, and the House has the right to demand the government resign by expressing a vote of no confidence in it by a majority of the House. But in practice, the adoption of such a decision by the chamber is almost impossible, since the government relies on the parliamentary majority, all of whose deputies are not interested in the possibility of losing their place and their salary in new elections.

A well-known form of control of the House of Commons over the government is requests from deputies, but here it must be recalled once again that the speaker can reject requests from deputies that are unwanted by the government (parliamentary rules provide for about thirty types of “inadmissible questions”).

The role of the House of Commons has diminished compared to previous decades. Unlike the House of Commons, the House of Lords is not elected, with the exception of the 21 peers of Scotland and Ireland. Membership in the House of Lords is based mainly on the hereditary principle, and the English bourgeoisie protects this principle in every possible way.

This largely ensures the reactionary political nature of the upper house, which plays an inhibitory role in relation to the elected lower house.

The House of Lords consists of princes of the royal blood and hereditary peers (this title unites those with the titles of duke, marquis, earl, viscount, baron), constituting the vast majority of the House of Lords.

There sit 2 archbishops and 24 bishops of the English Church, who occupy their seats in the House of Lords as long as they hold their episcopal offices. Today the descendants of the ancient landed aristocracy constitute a minority in the House. However, “this is an impressive minority, since representatives of 300 families have sat in the House of Lords for over 100 years, and 200 families for over 150 years,” emphasize D. Harvey and K. Hood in their book “The British State” (Moscow, 1961 .).

By their class affiliation, members of the House of Lords are primarily representatives of finance capital, large capitalists and landlords. “Property is the basis of the upper house,” noted one English author. More than a third of the total number of Lords are company directors, bankers, steel magnates, newspaper owners. These are the so-called life peers, who received this title from prime ministers - "for services rendered to the fatherland." It is not surprising that the House of Lords is represented mainly by Conservative Party figures.

It is quite obvious that the House of Lords always uses its powers to slow down the adoption of any progressive bills.

There are also a small number of Labor Lords in the House of Lords, who are predominantly representatives of the far right wing of their party.

The progressive forces of Great Britain, and primarily the Communist Party, in their program “Britain's Path to Socialism” demand the abolition of the power of the Lords and the abolition of the House of Lords (see p. 16).

In the one given on p. Excerpt 8 talks about the government of the country - the Cabinet of Ministers. The Cabinet of Ministers consists of the main ministers of the government (Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Ministers of Internal Affairs and Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense and others). In addition to cabinet members, there are simply ministers who are part of the government, but not the cabinet - a narrower circle of government members. The cabinet plays a leading role in the state and political life of the country. It is the cabinet of ministers, not parliament, that has real power. Legally, parliament has the right to control the activities of the cabinet, but in fact the cabinet of ministers is the master in parliament. Suffice it to say that even the order of the day in parliament is agreed upon with the prime minister, who heads the cabinet. Since the latter is made up of the most prominent representatives of the ruling party, it exercises control over parliament. V.I. Lenin wrote: “Look at any parliamentary country, from America to Switzerland, from France to England, Norway, etc.: the real “state” work is done behind the scenes and is carried out by departments, offices, headquarters. In parliaments they only chatter with the special purpose of deceiving the “common people.”

The ruling party strives to have a stable absolute majority in parliament. Otherwise, at the proposal of the Prime Minister, early elections may be called, as was the case, for example, after the February 1974 elections, when, at the proposal of the Labor cabinet, which relied only on a relative majority in the House of Commons, parliament was dissolved and in October 1974 . new snap elections took place, giving a majority to Labor (Labor then received 319 mandates, but currently the Labor majority has “melted” and is now reduced to 317 mandates. The government now depends on the votes of small parties, it is forced to make agreements with the liberals and the so-called “Independent MPs” (Independents), who do not belong to any of the major political parties.).

A characteristic feature of the English political system is the two-party system (see p. 22). The development of the two-party system was the result of the alliance between the industrial bourgeoisie and the landowning aristocracy. This union took shape for the first time during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. In the 18th century two large parties - the Tories and the Whigs - completely took over the political life of the country, with the Tories representing the interests of the landowning aristocracy and the very top of the bourgeoisie, and the Whigs - mainly the interests of the commercial, colonial and partly industrial bourgeoisie. From 1714 until 1760, the Whigs were in power. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. dominance passed to the Tories.

The parliamentary reform of 1832, carried out by the Whigs under pressure from the masses, but not in their favor, led to significant changes. The class face of these parties is gradually changing. They are filled by representatives of the industrial bourgeoisie. New names also appear: conservatives (Tories) and liberals (Whigs). There was no sharp distinction between the two parties, since any serious and irreconcilable contradictions between the landowning aristocracy and the industrial bourgeoisie had disappeared. But the system of the two main parties established itself and received its further development and improvement in the 19th century. The essence of the two-party system is that the two main parties, which actually agree with each other on fundamental issues of public administration, alternate in power. There has been a distribution of roles between the parties, one of which forms “her (or his) majesty’s government,” and the other - “Her (or His) Majesty’s opposition.” This emphasizes that the opposition does not oppose the existing system. F. Engels likened this system to a “seesaw game”; he saw its meaning in the fact that it made it possible to capture the discontent of the masses and direct it in a direction that was safe for the ruling classes. The two-party system has always served the purpose of deceiving the working masses and perpetuating the rule of the bourgeoisie. “This so-called “system of two parties,” which reigned in America and England,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “was one of the most powerful means of preventing the emergence of an independent workers’ party, that is, a truly socialist party.

From the parliamentary reform of 1867 until 1918, English political life was dominated by the Conservatives and Liberals, and then, from 1923, by the Conservatives and Labor, who took the place of the crisis-ridden Liberal Party. The Conservative Party remains the main party of big capital in England to this day; it is the main political instrument of the monopolies. They are the ones who finance the Conservative Party. At least 14 large monopolies are its main “donors”. This party zealously defends the interests of the English bourgeoisie, about which V.I. Lenin said that “in the art of deceiving, corrupting and bribing workers, it has no equal in the world.”

The Conservative Party, which currently has approximately 3 million members, has managed, through promises of concessions, to attract a certain portion of the working people who vote for its candidates in elections. “In an effort to strengthen their social rear,” said L. I. Brezhnev at the Moscow meeting of communist and workers’ parties in 1969, “capitalists, along with methods of suppression, go to partial satisfaction of the demands of the working people,” this, according to Lenin’s definition, is a method of “unimportant concessions, preserving what is important (vol. 31, p. 158), sow the illusion that the working class can achieve the fulfillment of its aspirations through an agreement with entrepreneurs, without a revolutionary transformation of society, within the framework of the capitalist system. In many capitalist countries, many people are captured by these illusions. After all, it is a fact, for example, that during elections a significant part of the workers cast their votes for capitalist candidates and their henchmen.

The great political influence that the Conservative Party enjoys is also explained by the fact that the Labor Party does not oppose it with a genuine democratic alternative, does not defend the fundamental interests of the working class, and has actually become a partner of the Conservatives in the bourgeois two-party system.

Some English sociologists have recently argued that the Labor Party has transformed in its composition from a working-class party into a party of the middle class. This is, of course, not true. In terms of its social composition, the Labor Party remains mainly working-class. We must not forget that its basis is the collective members of its trade unions (out of 6 million 340 thousand members, only 680 thousand are individual members). Moreover, Labor draws the bulk of its voters primarily from the working class. However, the right-wing leadership of this party is pursuing a bourgeois policy. In acute periods of class struggle, the bourgeoisie considers it beneficial for the Labor Party to come to power, but under the Conservatives it feels more confident. After all, the Labor Party is under great pressure from the trade unions that make up its mass base. There is a constant left wing within the Labor Party demanding the implementation of socialist policies. The voices of left-wing Labor members and left-wing trade unionists were especially strong at Labor Party conferences and trade union congresses in the 70s, as is clearly stated in the materials contained in this book (see pp. 26-27, 27-29).

Given on p. 30-34, an article by the Deputy General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Reuben Fulber, published in the progressive English magazine Marxism Today (May, 1974), gives a clear idea of ​​the results of the general parliamentary elections in February 1974 and the situation in England after these elections. As already noted, as a result of these elections, Labor won a relative majority with 301 seats (37.2 percent of all votes). The Conservatives won 296 seats (38.2 percent), the Liberals 14 (19.3 percent), the remaining seats were distributed among the Ulster Unionists and the nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales. As a result of these elections, Great Britain received a minority government for the first time since 1929. The percentage of votes received by both Labor and the Conservatives was the lowest in more than forty years. But the current electoral system in the country worked, according to which the winner is not the party that received the most votes, but the one whose candidates managed to win a greater number of victories in individual districts.

During this election there was a certain galvanization of the Liberal Party, it received 6 million votes - half the number of votes cast for the Conservatives or Labor - but only 14 seats. The vote for the liberals is the result of the deep disappointment of voters in the two main parties and the demagogic election campaign of this bourgeois party, whose slogans were addressed to the middle strata and some of the workers.

Labor was forced to hold another snap election in October 1974. As a result, the share of the vote for Labor candidates rose to 39.3 percent (319 seats), while the share of the vote for the Conservatives fell to 35.8 percent (276 seats). places). The Liberal vote dropped by one percent (13 seats). The nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales increased their representation.

A characteristic feature of the political situation in Great Britain is that since 1964, not a single parliament has existed for the five years required by the electoral law: in 1966, 1970, 1974. early elections took place. This is undoubtedly an indicator of the political instability of British imperialism, which, like the entire capitalist world, is also characterized by economic instability.

In the article by R. Falber (p. 30), special attention should be paid to the presentation of the position of the Communist Party of Great Britain and its tactics during the elections. It is also important to understand the reasons why the CPV failed to get its candidates into parliament this time too. The CPV's tactics during the 1974 double elections were to defeat the Tories and get the largest number of left-wing figures elected so that the Labor government, under pressure from the mass labor movement, would pursue progressive policies. The communists had a twofold goal: to help Labor win an absolute majority and to secure as many votes as possible for communist candidates.

In the elections, the communists failed to get their candidates elected. The organizational weakness of the party had its effect, and the burden of expenses associated with participation in the elections made itself felt (in February the party nominated “a candidate, and in October - 29”). Many workers who sympathize with the CPV vote for Labor, trying to prevent the victory of conservative candidates, etc. However, the election campaign of the Communists helped Labor gain a majority. In many constituencies where the Communists did not field a candidate, the Communists directly assisted Labor candidates, which was particularly important in those constituencies where Labor had a precarious majority in February.

The CPV, together with other progressive forces in the country, is seeking electoral reform and the implementation of the principle of proportional representation.

In those given on p. Documents 35-36 and 36-40 detail the demands of the CPV during the October elections and set out in detail its point of view on the most important problems in the internal life of Great Britain, including on the issue of proportional representation, on the need for an agreement on the most important problems of the life of the country between left-wing forces.

The CPV, like other communist parties of the countries of Western Europe, resolutely opposes England's membership in the Common Market. The document placed on pp. 61-63, jointly adopted by the communist parties of these countries, explains their position quite clearly. Since 1961, when the Conservatives began to strive for the country's entry into the EEC (European Economic Community), and until June 1975, when a referendum on the “Common Market” was held in England, there was a sharp struggle in the country, and especially in the English labor movement, between opponents and supporters of the country's entry into this community.

At the time of the creation of the EEC, the majority of British capitalists were against joining it, since this could lead to a disruption of traditional economic and political ties with the countries of the British Commonwealth, etc. England then initiated the creation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - a kind of customs union of seven countries (England, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland). But already in 1961, the Conservative government, at the request of the largest monopolies, began to seek entry into the Common Market. The negotiations continued for a long time and ended under the Conservative government of E. Heath with the entry of Great Britain into this closed community. Since January 1, 1973, England has been a full member of the EEC, but the issue of participation in this organization remained at the center of the internal political struggle in the country for more than two years. The Communist Party of Great Britain, based on the class interests of the proletariat, took a firm negative position. From the very beginning, the communists exposed the EEC as an instrument of monopolies in their attack on the vital interests of the working people.

There was no unanimity in the Labor Party on the issue of joining the Common Market. Some Labor members, led by the far-right Roy Jenkins, advocated joining the EEC, but the majority of Labor members demanded refusal to join. They had to reckon with the fact that already in the first year after the country joined

In the European Economic Community, the situation worsened: many “unprofitable” small enterprises were closed, unemployment increased significantly, the number of unemployed exceeded a million, food prices began to rise catastrophically (in the first year - by 18.8%), etc.

The left-wing Laborists, along with the communists, were especially active in demanding withdrawal from the Common Market. This position was supported by the overwhelming majority of trade unions. All this forced the Labor government, on the eve of the February and October parliamentary elections, to promise, if it came to power, to achieve a review of the very strict conditions under which England was admitted to the EEC, and to hold a referendum on the issue of further stay in this organization.

After the Labor government came to power, the struggle over the EEC issue became extremely intense. Under these conditions, the “six” made minor concessions to the Wilson government, in particular on the issue of food prices in England.

The Labor leadership used these concessions to encourage workers to vote in a referendum to remain in the EEC. They convinced the masses that leaving the Common Market would deal a blow to the country's economy and further worsen the situation of workers.

On June 5, 1975, the first national referendum in the history of England took place, during which 67.2 percent of voters were in favor of continued British participation in the Common Market.

Progressive forces in Great Britain, however, continue to fight for the country's exit from this organization.

The materials in the book about Northern Ireland and the issue of devolution need some clarification. At the most important communist forums in recent years, the fact of worsening national contradictions in some developed capitalist countries, including Great Britain, was emphasized. The events of recent years have turned the national question in this country into a political problem of national importance.

A very acute situation has developed in Northern Ireland. The political and social crisis in Ulster that arose in the summer of 1969 has its immediate roots in the dismemberment of Ireland in 1921-1922, carried out by British imperialism, which since then has not ceased its control over the six Northern Irish counties (Ulster), constantly maintaining a regime of repression there discrimination.

As correctly emphasized in the article by Betty Sinclair, a member of the National Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Ireland (see pp. 58-61), the basis of the Northern Irish problem is not the difference between the religious views of Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, as bourgeois propaganda strives to present, but the economic and civil inequality between them, which has a class character.

Ulster Protestants took key positions in economic and political life, limiting in every possible way the rights of the indigenous Catholics, who found themselves in the minority.

The Catholic population of Northern Ireland is subject to economic and political discrimination. Catholics are the hardest to hire and the first to be fired. The voting rights of the Irish, most of whom struggle to make ends meet and live in the Catholic ghettos of the cities, are limited by property qualifications.

The Catholic population of Ulster is terrorized by extremist groups of Protestant ultras (from the Ulster Defense Association, the Ulster Volunteers, the Orange Order), organizing wild pogroms in Catholic neighborhoods, attacking peaceful demonstrations of Catholics who demand equal rights for themselves. The actions of Protestant extremists provoke retaliatory measures from the Catholic population, in particular the so-called provisional wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

Since the late 60s, civil war has actually subsided and then flared up again in Ulster.

Instead of satisfying the legitimate demands of the Irish population of Ulster, the English government resorted to massive repression.

The Conservatives, who came to power in 1970, brought regular troops into Northern Ireland, and parliament passed emergency laws, on the basis of which hundreds of Catholics were thrown into prison without trial. Concentration camps were established for civil rights activists. The Parliament (Stormont) and the government of Northern Ireland were dissolved. The British Parliament passed legislation for direct rule of Ulster from London. The British Minister for Ulster Affairs received unlimited powers (the Minister for Northern Ireland in the Callaghan government is the former Labor Minister of Defense Mason.). But the grave crisis in Northern Ireland continues.

The Labor government is trying to find some kind of political solution to this crisis. In May 1975, Northern Ireland held elections to a Constitutional Convention, which was designed to develop recommendations for the creation of a form of government that would be acceptable to the entire population of the province as a whole. Most of the seats in the Constitutional Convention were won by right-wing Protestant parties that oppose any sharing of power with the Catholic minority.

The convention limited itself to condemning violence and calling for order. Nothing real has yet been done to solve Ulster's problems. English troops remain. Repression continues. Parliament extended the powers of the British administration for an unlimited period.

The position of the Labor government causes protest from the democratic forces of Ulster. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association, a progressive mass organization of Irish workers, strongly condemned repression and violence and demanded democratic changes and an end to the use of military force in resolving the Northern Irish crisis. As a historical perspective, the Communist Parties of Great Britain and Ireland defend the demand for the elimination of the partition of Ireland.

The speech of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain Gordon McLennan at a meeting of the Party Executive Committee, published in its theoretical organ Comment (see pp. 63-66 of this book), talks about a complex knot of national contradictions characteristic of Scotland and Wales.

Wales was conquered back in 1284 under King Henry II Plantagenet, and Scotland was conquered by England in the 50s of the 17th century. Since 1707 it became part of Great Britain, after a long period of struggle for independence.

Despite centuries of joint economic and political development with England within Great Britain, Scotland and Wales have retained a number of national characteristics and traditions in culture and life, as well as in other areas. For example, Scotland has its own characteristics in the education system, in the organization of the judiciary and local authorities. The Welsh (Wels) also retained some features and national identity. The Scots and Welsh do not consider themselves English. The progressive forces of Great Britain believe that it is inhabited by three different nations - the English, the Scots and the Welsh.

In Scotland and Wales, there are national movements and nationalist parties have formed: the Scottish National Party (SNP) arose in 1928, and the National Party of Wales (NPU), or Plaid Cymru, in 1925.

Before the Second World War, the positions of these parties were very weak, with only a few hundred adherents in their ranks. The revival of nationalist parties began in the late 50s and early 60s and especially after 1966, when the nationalists first won seats in parliament. The reasons for such rapid changes should first of all be sought in the fact that the crisis of the British economy hit hardest the traditional industries in Scotland and Wales - coal, shipbuilding, etc.

The English bourgeoisie prefers to develop new industries in England. Scotland and Wales lag significantly behind areas of England proper. There is a very high unemployment rate here. It is almost twice as high as in England. Of course, this causes discontent among the workers and middle classes of Scotland and Wales. The Nationalist parties managed to launch a demagogic campaign among them, portraying themselves as defenders of the interests of the working people. One of the main slogans of the SNP and Plaid Camry from the very beginning of the intensification of their activities: “Scotland (or, accordingly, Wales) first of all. The bourgeois elements at the head of the nationalist parties take advantage of the motley social mass of their supporters, portray all the troubles of Scotland and Wales as the result of the omissions of the “London” government, claiming that the creation of national parliaments will solve all problems, while obscuring the question of the class character and essence of their power. Nationalists advocate the preservation of the capitalist system, with their demagogy they distract the masses from their true class interests.

Nationalist parties oppose nationalization, in particular the SNP opposes the nationalization of the North Sea oil resources off the north-east coast of Scotland, proclaiming at the same time the slogan “Oil must be Scottish!” At the same time, it is silent on the fact that all rights to exploration and production have long been sold to supranational oil monopolies.

Nevertheless, the demagogy of nationalists in conditions of an acute economic crisis and political instability brings them a certain success. In the October 1974 parliamentary elections, the SNP won 30.4 percent of the vote (11 seats out of 71). This is even much more than in the February elections (21.9% of the vote and 7 seats). Plaid Camry collected more than 10 percent of the vote and 3 seats in the British Parliament. While Labor enjoys predominant influence in Scotland and Wales, its position is clearly threatened by nationalists.

The CPV has repeatedly warned Labor that ignoring the national interests of the Scots and Welsh is grist for the nationalists' mill. The CPV and its Scottish organization enjoy considerable influence among the working class and trade unions in Scotland. This to a certain extent predetermined the position of the influential Scottish Trades Union Congress, which declared the need for constitutional reforms. The Labor government introduced a Government White Paper to Parliament in November 1975 entitled “Our Changing Democracy: Partial Devolution of Power to Scotland and Wales.” The Labor government's proposals involve so-called devolution. National legislative assemblies (parliaments) with limited rights should be created in Scotland and Wales. Assemblies should be elected by a system of proportional representation with the right to exercise power in the area of ​​local government. Executive power was to be exercised by ministers - members of the assemblies.

The British Parliament continues to debate the devolution bill introduced by the government. He faces resistance from conservatives. It is rejected as insufficient by the nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales.

As for the position of the Communist Party of Great Britain, it is clearly stated in the speech of G. McLennan cited in the book.

In the first post-war decade, the English economy developed in a complex and contradictory manner. This was due, on the one hand, to the adherence of the bulk of English society to the old traditional methods of economic development - “living at the expense of the colonies” - and the reluctance to invest large sums in the development of their own economy. On the other hand, the growing global competition of younger and more energetic states still forced the Conservative and Labor governments to take certain steps towards improving economic management, but they did not always produce the desired results and the country was increasingly losing ground.

The global economic crisis in England began with some delay, and this was caused by the fact that in the pre-crisis period, English industry developed extremely slowly and by the beginning of the crisis had barely reached the pre-war level. The crisis reached its greatest depth in the spring of 1933, when production fell by 23% from the 1929 level.

Economic crisis 1929-1933 had a severe impact on the UK economy. The government sought a way out of the difficult economic situation by strengthening state regulation of the economy, encouraging the growth of monopolies and concentration of capital, as well as creating a closer political and economic union of the metropolis and dominions.

A significant role in the recovery of the British economy from the crisis was played by the reorientation of capital investments to the domestic market, now protected by high customs “walls”. This was explained by a decrease in income from the export of capital due to the breakdown of the financial system of world capitalism and the abandonment of the gold standard of the pound sterling.

So, if foreign investments in England in 1931-1936. increased from 41 million to 61 million f.st., then domestic capital investments amounted to 89 million in 1931, and in 1936 - 217 million f.st.

Despite the general weakening of its positions, England was able to maintain its place as one of the largest powers in the world before the Second World War. Behind it there were still the most important markets for capital investment; England held a raw materials monopoly on such important types of raw materials as natural rubber and certain types of non-ferrous metals, and had large assets in the oil regions and other sources of raw materials. Even having lost its former role as the main center of world capitalist trade, Great Britain still retained one of the leading places among other exporters and importers. The English commodity exchanges occupied a monopoly position or shared it with a few exchanges in other capitalist countries.

And yet, with all its successes in the 30s. XX century Great Britain was unable either to restore its place in the world capitalist market or to overcome all the economic and political processes that were deepening in it.

The war caused a further weakening of Britain's economic and political position.

During the war years, the total volume of industrial production decreased, which in 1946 amounted to 90% of the 1937 level. The export of British goods decreased significantly. The balance of payments deficit by the end of the war exceeded 4 billion pounds sterling. The equipment of British enterprises had worn out during the war years, and technical progress had slowed down.

Summing up the results of the country's economic development in the second half of the 40s and in the 50s, it should be noted that in general the British economy developed in the general direction of the European powers, but in terms of development rates it was inferior to Germany, the USA, and then Japan. The loss of the colonial empire had a painful impact on the country's economy, and the onset of the scientific and technological revolution era required changes in the traditional structure of production. Significant funds were required by large military expenditures and what began in the 50s. technical re-equipment of the army, which resulted in a reduction in social programs. All this created additional difficulties in governing the country for the Conservative government, which sought to return to the role of world leader for Great Britain.

In the second half of the 60-70s. The UK economy was in an extremely difficult situation. On the one hand, giant monopolies grew rapidly in the most modern branches of production, which dictated their terms and had a powerful impact on the government’s domestic and foreign policy. On the other hand, the public sector increased, which covered mainly old traditional branches of production and was extremely slowly rebuilt under the influence of scientific and technological revolution; its products could not successfully compete in the world market.

Enormous expenditures on social programs led to the emergence of tendencies towards “dependency” in society, and attempts to reduce expenses provoked violent protest from the powerful trade union movement.

Fierce competition from the USA and Japan forced England to join the EEC, but this step did not solve all the accumulated problems.

Thus, in the 70s. Great Britain became a stagnant society, which was not exactly moving backwards, but all its main rivals were moving forward faster. The economic management system has become corporate, i.e. decisions were made through deals between the government, trade unions and employers. They had a tendency to divide the economic pie to their advantage. It was a producer-oriented society rather than a consumer-oriented one.

The Conservative government, which came to power in 1979, was headed by the energetic M. Thatcher.

The economic growth of the country in the 80s was a consequence of the economic policy pursued by the Thatcher government. on average at 3-4% per year, which was higher than in other Western European countries. On average, 500 new firms were created every week. For the 80s Labor productivity grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%, second only to Japan.

Even more convincing was the increase in the efficiency of using fixed capital - capital productivity. England, besides Japan, was the only developed country where this figure increased compared to the 70s.

In the 80-90s, alarming signs appeared in the socio-economic and political life of Great Britain. Thus, a serious miscalculation of the Conservative cabinet of M. Thatcher was the implementation of local taxation reform in the spring of 1990, which provided for the introduction of a new electoral law. The economic benefits turned out to be insignificant, and the socio-psychological consequences had an extremely negative impact on the prestige of the government, whose socio-economic policy caused “irritation” among many Englishmen. In 1990, John Major became the new leader of the Conservatives and Prime Minister of Great Britain. M. Thatcher resigned.

In the first half of the 90s. Positive processes were taking place in the UK economy. Thus, the gross domestic product grew quite steadily and unemployment decreased. If in the first quarter of 1993 GDP was 2.5%, then in the first quarter of 1994 it was 4%; the unemployment rate in the first quarter of 1993 was 10.5%, in the first quarter of 1994 it was 9.9, and in the fourth quarter of 1994 it was 8.9%.

A particularly important achievement of the new government was the improvement of the trade balance. During the period from 1991 to 1995, it was possible to ensure a favorable combination of consistently high growth rates and the lowest for the period since the early 60s. inflation rates. In addition, the state of the balance of payments improved noticeably, which in 1995 was reduced to a surplus for the first time since 1987.

Thus, summing up the economic development of England in the 80-90s, it should be noted that “Thatcherism” in relation to the conditions of Britain turned out to be quite effective. The face of England has changed significantly. "Thatcherism" as a British model of neoconservatism confirmed that capitalism turned out to be a flexible system, capable of adapting to changing socio-economic conditions, rebuilding and modernizing.

In preparing this work, materials from the site http://www.studentu.ru were used

England at this time was a constitutional monarchy. But unlike Germany, in England royal power did not play a big role. The kings of England were only heads of state, practically not participating in government. Management of domestic and foreign policy was in the hands of the government, formed by parliament.

The government in England was made up of the party that won the parliamentary elections. A strong two-party system was formed in the country, representatives of one of the parties were called conservatives, and the other - liberals. The main support of the Conservatives were large landowners and the Church of England, and the main support of the Liberal party was representatives of the middle class.

If the Conservative Party was distinguished by its devotion to traditions, then the Liberal Party stood out for its initiative in carrying out reforms in the spirit of the times. At the same time, there were common interests that united them. The basis of the community of interests were such goals as the desire to maintain the dominant position of England in the world, the further expansion of the colonial empire, and the desire to oust competitors in the world market as far as possible.

By the middle of the 19th century, the foundations of civil society were established in England. This was reflected in the permission to hold rallies, freedom of speech, etc. A number of class privileges were also abolished; first place was given not to belonging to any stratum, but to the freedom of the individual, his talent, independence, and individuality.

Thanks to the parliamentary reform carried out in 1867, the property qualification for citizens wishing to participate in elections was reduced. As a result, 50% of the male population acquired the right to participate in elections. W. Gladstone from the Liberal Party took the post of Prime Minister for the fourth time. In 1864-1874. under his leadership, the government carried out a number of reforms. For example, trade unions were given the opportunity to defend their rights in court. Strikes were also allowed, parliamentary elections were established by secret ballot, and school reform was carried out.

During the period of Prime Minister B. Disraeli (1874-1880), a 54-hour work week was established in 1875. The employment of children under 10 years of age was prohibited. In 1911, another parliamentary reform was carried out. This reform was an important stage in the development of civil society and the rule of law.

Lag in economic development

In the last quarter of the 19th century, England began to lag behind other countries economically. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the volume of industrial production in England, nicknamed the “workshop of the world,” decreased by 2 times, and its share in foreign trade decreased by 70%. In terms of industrial production, it dropped to 3rd place. The status of “workshop of the world” is a thing of the past. The main reason for this was, firstly, the export of capital abroad. English investors preferred to build plants, factories and other enterprises in the colonies, because the colonies were sources of raw materials and cheap labor, while importing them to the mother country would be expensive.

The export of capital abroad brought very large profits. For example, it was 5 times more than the profit from foreign trade. As a result of the pursuit of profit, many enterprises in England itself were left not equipped with advanced equipment and technologies in a timely manner. As a result, the competitiveness of British manufactured goods declined. German and American goods began to displace British goods in all markets of the world, since German and American goods were both of higher quality and cheaper. Therefore, over the course of 20 years, that is, from the 80s to the beginning of the 20th century, German exports to England increased by 41%, exports from the United States more than doubled, and English exports to these countries increased by only 8%.

In addition, young developing countries imposed high tariffs on British goods. England continued to remain faithful to the traditions of trade without duties.

Secondly, in the context of a tightening struggle for the redivision of the world in the international arena, England was forced to increase military spending. During 1900-1914 these expenses tripled.

Despite this, England was still strong economically. London continued to be the financial center of the world. In world trade, settlements were still carried out on the basis of the English currency (pound sterling).

Although English capitalism lost its former leadership in the field of industry, it retained the possibility of generating large profits. England achieved this by maintaining very large markets in many colonies. In addition, although England's industrial superiority was gradually lost, it had not yet lost other monopolies - world intermediary trade, insurance, banking monopoly, and shipping. The bourgeoisie of England maintained these monopolies for a long time, primarily thanks to their colonial empire.

England still continued to export capital. This capital brought England very large profits.

Capital (French, English capital, Latin capitalis - main, main) - investment; all funds and savings that bring profit to the owner. That is, the cost multiplies itself.

• Hello Gentlemen! Please support the project! It takes money ($) and mountains of enthusiasm to maintain the site every month. 🙁 If our site helped you and you want to support the project 🙂, then you can do this by transferring funds in any of the following ways. By transferring electronic money:

1. R819906736816 (wmr) rubles.
2. Z177913641953 (wmz) dollars.
3. E810620923590 (wme) euro.
4. Payeer wallet: P34018761
5. Qiwi wallet (qiwi): +998935323888
6. DonationAlerts: http://www.donationalerts.ru/r/veknoviy

• The assistance received will be used and directed towards the continued development of the resource, Payment for hosting and Domain.

The purpose of this textbook is to present a holistic picture of the development of British society in the 20th - early 21st centuries. The book examines the main problems of Great Britain's domestic, foreign and colonial policies, features of the country's political and economic development, and the activities of leading parties. The role of Great Britain in the international arena and the participation of the British in two world wars are shown. The manual is addressed to students, graduate students of higher educational institutions, teachers, researchers, as well as political scientists, sociologists and anyone interested in the recent history of Great Britain and Europe.

Part one TIME OF TEST (1900-1945)

Chapter 1. GREAT BRITAIN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY

Chapter 2. GREAT BRITAIN DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR

Chapter 3. RETURN TO PEACEFUL LIFE (1918-1929)

Chapter 4. PRE-WAR DECADE (1929-1939)

Chapter 5. GREAT BRITAIN IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Part two TIME OF CHANGE (1945-2011)

Chapter 6. ACTIVITIES OF LABOR GOVERNMENTS K. ATTLEE (1945-1951)

Chapter 7. CONTINUITY AND INNOVATIONS IN CONSERVATIVE POLICY (1951-1964)

Chapter 8. LABOR IN POWER (1964-1970)

Chapter 9. BOARD OF THE CONSERVATIVE CABINET OF E. HEATH (1970-1974)

Chapter 10. LABOR'S RETURN TO POWER (1974-1979)

Chapter 11. BOARD OF CONSERVATIVE CABINETS M. THATCHER (1979-1990)

Chapter 12. ACTIVITIES OF CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS J. MAJOR (1990-1997)

Chapter 13. BOARD OF THE CABINETS OF E. BLAIR AND G. BROWN (1997-2010)

Chapter 14. THE COMING TO POWER OF THE COALITION CABINET OF CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Great Britain in the second half of the twentieth century - the beginning XXIcentury

Background

Great Britain, as one of the most important participants in the anti-Hitler coalition, emerged victorious from World War II. At the same time, during the war it suffered significant losses - both human and material. At the end of the war, Great Britain had a significant foreign debt.

Events

1947-1948- Beginning of decolonization of the British Empire. In these two years, India and Burma gained independence. Most of the British colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Oceania became independent states in the 1950s-80s. Many of them recognize the British monarch as the head of state and have the status of Commonwealth kingdoms; Canada and Australia have the same status.

1956-1957- Suez crisis. The Suez Canal, located on Egyptian territory, was not formally its property, since the Egyptian share was once bought by Great Britain. He was extremely important to the British economy. In 1956, the Egyptian government announced the nationalization of the canal. Great Britain, France and Israel agreed on joint military action and attacked Egypt. This drew sharp criticism from the United States, Britain's traditional ally, and the USSR threatened Egypt's opponents with missile strikes. As a result, Great Britain was forced to withdraw its troops. The Suez crisis damaged the image of the British authorities and demonstrated Britain's dependence on the US position in foreign policy.

1969-1972- escalation of the conflict in Northern Ireland). While the state of Ireland became completely independent from Great Britain in 1949, leaving the Commonwealth, Northern Ireland (also called Ulster) remained part of Great Britain. In ethno-confessional terms, the population of Northern Ireland is mixed, there are numerous Protestant British and Catholic Irish there. Conflicts between them also occurred in the 1950s and 60s, but they moved to a new level after Britain sent additional troops to the island to eliminate unrest. The British were opposed by the Irish Republican Army, whose maximum goal was to incorporate Ulster into Ireland. The conflict was accompanied by numerous terrorist attacks organized by radicals on both sides. The parties made peace only in 1998, but this peace is not strong enough to this day.

1979-1990- Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain from the Conservative Party. During her premiership:
. as part of the optimization of government spending, financial support for depressed regions, education, housing and communal services and other social spheres was reduced;
. state-owned enterprises were actively privatized;
. the activities of trade unions were limited;
. An extremely unpopular per capita utility tax was introduced.

In general, Thatcher's policies often had a positive economic effect, but they aroused the hatred of millions of Britons, primarily workers and representatives of the poorest sections of the population. In 1990, she was removed from her position by party colleagues who feared that the Conservative Party was losing popularity due to Thatcher's policies (see RIA Novosti).

1982- Falklands War. The Falkland Islands, located off the coast of South America, belonged to Great Britain. In the spring of 1982, the Falklands were captured by Argentina, but as a result of a military operation they were returned by Britain. The war led to the fall of the military junta in Argentina and strengthened the prestige of the Thatcher government.

2005- terrorist attack in London. A group of Islamist suicide bombers simultaneously detonated four explosive devices on London public transport. The explosions resulted in numerous casualties and are associated with the UK's anti-terrorism policy, carried out jointly with the United States.

Conclusion

In the second half of the 20th century, Great Britain lost its status as a colonial empire, and it had to face considerable difficulties. However, factors such as a stable political system that has developed over centuries, developed industry, etc., allowed Great Britain to avoid serious shocks.

Abstract

The first election after the end of the Second World War was won by a protege of the Labor Party - Clement Attlee. The Conservatives who led the country during the war, led by Winston Churchill, suffered a heavy defeat. It was Attlee who represented Great Britain at the Potsdam Allied Conference.

In the post-war period, British society went through difficult times. Of all the European countries, Great Britain developed the slowest. The role of the leading power gradually left its hands.

Rice. 1. Britain after World War II ()

Attlee's post-war government introduced a number of social reforms. Thus, universal free education was introduced, laws were adopted aimed at supporting the poor and poor, and old-age pensions were introduced. Labor nationalized healthcare - medical care was provided at state expense. At the end of the 1940s. was nationalized one of the main industries - steel foundry Then the transport, energy, coal and metallurgical industries were subject to nationalization.

1950s in the history of Great Britain are characterized by the further rise and restoration of industry, undermined by the war. Churchill returned to power in 1951 denationalized a number of industries, but retained some social benefits. In Great Britain, 1950s - early 1960s. characterized by a period of peculiar stagnation in the economy and political life. Due to the destruction of the colonial system, British industry was unable to adapt to new conditions for a long time. The former “own” markets have now become “foreign” and free. On top of everything else, Great Britain fenced itself off from the created European Economic Union, believing that such a free trade zone would cause even greater harm to its economy. It was not until 1973 that she became a full member EES.

The Labor government came to power in 1964 Harold Wilson, which again nationalized a number of industries and concluded " social contract» with trade unions - freezing tariffs and prices in exchange for non-strikes.

In Great Britain, as throughout the Western world, there has been an increase in consumer society" 1960s characterized by the emergence of mass culture, the strengthening of anti-war, women's, student and other mass organizations. It was they who began to influence the country’s politics and became the new electorate for whose votes political parties fought.

1960s-years of collapse of the colonial system. Almost all of Great Britain's colonies gained independence.

The 1970s were marked in the history of Great Britain by several energy crises, a gradual reduction in the share of production in the economy and other negative phenomena. At the same time, the country is experiencing an increase in the so-called. " white collar workers" - people engaged in engineering and technical work, the number of which exceeded the number of " blue collar" - workers.

In 1979, the Conservatives came to power in Great Britain, led by "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher. A proponent of austerity, Thatcher waged war on trade unions by passing anti-strike laws. She closed unprofitable enterprises, most notably coal mines, which caused mass unemployment. Mass protests swept across the country and were brutally suppressed. Privatization began in the country - that is, the transfer of large state-owned enterprises into private hands. A poll tax was introduced, requiring every Briton over the age of 18 to pay a tax, which caused outrage among the poor. Thatcher was a prominent representative of the trend " social Darwinism”, the essence of which is the following - “in society, the strongest survive.”

Rice. 3. Margaret Thatcher ()

New British Conservative Prime Minister and Thatcher's successor John Major slightly weakened the policies of his predecessor. In the 1990s. Britain was experiencing an economic and industrial decline. Erupted in Eurozone The financial crisis also did not contribute to success. But despite this, Great Britain remained one of the main capitalist countries in Western Europe.

Labor became prime minister in 1997 Tony Blair. Under him, Great Britain began to pay more and more attention to resolving the contradictions between society and big business. This course was called third way. The Blair government paid great attention to issues of education, health and social services.

The Conservative won the 2010 elections.

Rice. 4. David Cameron ()

Bibliography

1. Shubin A.V. General history. Recent history. 9th grade: textbook. for general education institutions. - M.: Moscow textbooks, 2010.
2. Soroko-Tsyupa O.S., Soroko-Tsyupa A.O. General history. Recent history, 9th grade. - M.: Education, 2010.
3. Sergeev E.Yu. General history. Recent history. 9th grade. - M.: Education, 2011.

Homework

1. Why did Great Britain, once the main power in the world, cede this primacy to the United States after World War II?
2. Describe the concept of “Thatcherism”. Advantages and disadvantages.
3. What areas of domestic policy receive the most attention in modern Britain?

1. Academician ().
2. Internet portal Durov.com ().
3. Internet portal Regnum.ru ().