Unit 1.4 Flashcards
John Major
From a working-class background in Surrey.
He left school at the age of 16 but worked his way up to executive level in the banking industry. He became a Conservative councillor in the 1970s and was elected as an MP for Huntingdonshire in 1979. He joined Thatcher’s cabinet as Chief Secretary of the Treasury in 1987, and was promoted to Foreign Secretary and then Chancellor in 1989 before becoming prime minister in 1990.
-Major won clearly in the leadership election and was young and different to previous PMs. However, was portrayed as a grey man by satirists and Spitting Image.
-John Major was Thatcher’s choice of successor and one key reason for Major’s rise to the leadership was that Thatcherites saw him as one of them. In fact, this view of John Major was not especially accurate. Major’s natural instincts were to unify the party. This would be a difficult job; there was ongoing hostility to Michael Heseltine and a fierce determination amongst some to take revenge against those who had betrayed Maggie’. Split between ‘wets’ and ‘dries’.
Major’s Initial Action
John Major’s first big task involved foreign affairs and Europe. Britain was already fighting the First Gulf War, which reached a successful conclusion in March 1991. Major then turned his attention to Europe, making a speech that set out his aim to see Britain take a place at the very heart of Europe. Major and his supporters hoped that it would be possible to follow a middle way on Europe. At home Major needed to deal with the poll tax. Many wanted him to scrap it immediately but this risked splitting the party. Only in November 1991, after very lengthy discussions, was the poll tax abandoned in favour of the new council tax. Doing this meant that £1.5 billion had been wasted but it allowed Major to get away from an unpopular policy that could be blamed on his predecessor.
1992 Election
Major called the election in March 1992, almost the last possible moment before the end of the five-year parliamentary term. The opinion polls placed the Conservatives on an average 29 per cent, with Labour ahead on 41 per cent and the Liberals at 15 per cent. Most observers predicted a Labour victory. It seemed as though defeat was inevitable.
John Major himself, however, was surprisingly upbeat and his optimism was vindicated. Towards the end of the longer than usual election campaign, opinion swung back towards the Conservatives.
The Conservatives ran a good campaign. John Major won a lot of respect for his old-fashioned soapbox’ politics, making impromptu speeches on the street in towns like Luton, standing on his soapbox. Although people blamed the Conservatives for the economic recession, they were still seen as the party best able to get the country out of the mess.
Elections are always lost as well as won. In 1992, Labour’s weaknesses mattered as much as the strengths of the Conservative campaign. Many voters probably just did not feel Labour had reformed enough; memories of the 1980s were still too strong.
Con - 336 seats, 51.6% votes
Lab- 271 seats, 41.6%
Lib-20 seats, 3.1 % votes
1992 election - Conservative strengths
-The Sun newspaper was sufficiently convinced to switch its support from Labour to Conservative. This defection to the Conservatives of one of the main voices of popular opinion was a blow to Labour and helped explain the late and decisive swing to John Major.
-John Major won a lot of respect for his old fashioned ‘soapbox politics’.
-From mid-1991 to comy 992, unemployment rose from 1.6 million to 2.6 million. Many homeo high were trapped in negative equity (having to repay mortgages that were higher than the current value of their homes).
Many had their homes repossessed. Unlike in the recession of the early 1980s which largely hit working-class and northern communities, this affected traditional Tory voters.
With an election imminent, Major’s government resorted to high public spending. Falfoment borrowing was forced due to rising unemployment, but huge government borrowing was used for subsidies on transport and increased spending on the NHS. Although able to improve image by increasing spending the negatives suggest it was more about labour weaknesses than conservatives strengths.
1992 election - Labour weaknesses
-The Labour Party led by Neil Kinnock conducted a poorly judged campaign. Having in the early part of the campaign successfully promoted itself as the caring party, it assumed from the opinion polls that it was going to win. This was evident in an ill-conceived rally in Sheffield in the week before the election. Aping the razzmatazz style of US politics, the Labour campaigners put on an extravaganza with blaring music and announcements and spotlights picking out shadow cabinet members who walked to the platform through ranks of cheering admirers. The climax came with Neil Kinnock bounding up to the rostrum and exchanging repetitive shouts with audience as if he were at an American convention. Kinnock later admitted that the triumphalism had been both premature and rather tasteless, although he disputed that it had cost Labour the election.
-More serious damage was done by Labour presenting a shadow budget that seemed to threaten large increases in taxation, which John Major was able to exploit by literally standing on a soap-box and suggesting in a homely way that only the Conservatives could be trusted to run the economy.
Economic Situation before 1992
From mid-1991 to early 1992, unemployment rose from 1.6 million to 2.6 million. Many homeowners were trapped in negative equity (having to repay mortgages that were higher than the current value of their homes).
Many had their homes repossessed. Unlike in the recession of the early 1980s which largely hit working-class and northern communities, this affected traditional Tory voters.
With an election imminent, Major’s government resorted to high public spending. Half of this spending was forced, as a result of rising unemployment, but huge government borrowing was used for subsidies on transport and increased spending on the NHS.
Black Wednesday - what happenened
Within a few months of winning the general election, Major’s government suffered a severe crisis and Britain was forced to leave the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). What became known as Black Wednesday came to dominate the rest of Major’s premiership.
Britain joined the ERM in 1990 when Thatcher was persuaded that it would help to combat inflation which was starting to rise. The ERM required Britain to maintain a fixed rate of exchange (2.95 German marks to the pound) with a narrow band allowed for fluctuations.This was unrealistically high and caused British exports to become overpriced. By September 1992, the British currency (together with several other ERM currencies) came under pressure. International bankers, sensing that the pound sterling was overvalued, began to speculate against it on the money markets.The pound began to fall sharply. In a desperate effort to maintain the pound at the level required by the ERM, Norman Lamont, the chancellor of the exchequer, raised interest levels from ten per cent to fifteen per cent and sold off €30 billion of the UK’s foreign reserves. It was all to no avail. The pressure on the pound was too great. Major’s government was determined to avoid any devaluation of the pound and to remain within the ERM. But despite all the government’s efforts, the pound continued to sink. Major’s government did the only thing it could; on
16 September 1992, known afterwards as ‘Black Wednesday, at 7pm, Norman Lamont announced the decision to leave the ERM live on television.
Black Wednesday - Short term impacts
- The effects of Black Wednesday on the British economy proved much less catastrophic than was feared at the time. Within a relatively short time, the economy stabilised and it could be seen that leaving the ERM had many beneficial effects. The political consequences, however, were disastrous for the Conservative government. The long-standing Conservative electoral asset of being trusted on the economy was thrown away. There was a steep drop in support for the Conservatives in opinion polls. John Major’s personal authority was badly weakened. He was fiercely criticised by newspapers that had previously supported him. The Labour Party shot ahead in the polls, gaining a 15 point lead. Many observers, including John Major himself, looked back at the events of
16 September 1992 as the beginning of the end. - Britain’s economic situation started to improve almost immediately after Black Wednesday in 1992. Leaving the ERM prevented Britain from having to keep high interest rates to protect the stability of sterling and it allowed exchange rates to float downwards, which helped British exporters. Unemployment rates slowed down and the housing market began to pick up. At the same time the American economy was coming out of recession and world trade was expanding. The British economy was also benefiting from the impact of financial deregulation and flexible working practices which the Conservative Party had introduced since 1979. In comparison, the German economy was struggling with the huge costs of unification and had sluggish growth rates compared with Britain.
- The case for Britain’s becoming involved in European monetary union was weakened.
- The argument of the Euro-sceptics against deeper integration with Europe was strengthened.
- Cabinet divisions widened between Euro-sceptics, principally Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo and Michael Howard, and pro-Europeans, principally Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine and Douglas Hurd.
Black Wednesday - Long term impacts
-By 1997 most economic indicators were positive, and Unemployment was down. Productivity was up, though not by much. Consumer spending went up. Car ownership increased. House prices rose and negative equity became a thing of the past. Business was supportive of government policies. Yet people were surprisingly reluctant to give Majors government credit for this. The ‘feel-good factor’ was missing.
-Some observers have called the event ‘White Wednesday’, a reference to the fact that, freed from its artificial ties, the pound began to recover. By 1996 the exchange rate of the pound was DM3, a higher rate than when the pound was in the ERM. What was true of finance was also true of the economy overall.
Britain’s growth rate outperformed that of its European partners. It prompted the Euro-sceptics to question again the supposed benefits of EU membership. Norman Lamont later remarked ‘I know of no single benefit which has come to Britain solely because of its membership of Europe.’
These longer term effects were obviously of no immediate benefit to John Major’s government. The truth was that Black Wednesday left its mark on the remainder of his administration to 1997. A divided Cabinet, uncertainty about Europe, a public who now doubted the government’s financial competence and a Labour Party recovering its confidence: these were the legacies of the ERM crisis.
Majors Unpopular Political Policies - Privatisation
A number of other Conservative policies in the 1990s also proved controversial and confirmed the feeling that the Conservative government was prone to crisis. Majors government continued the policy of privatisation. The coal industry was privatised in 1994, the railways in 1996. The government also set about privatising the Post Office but ran into opposition and eventually abandoned the scheme due to public concern. Major also introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). These were public-private partnerships that meant private companies would fund infrastructure improvements and then deliver public services that the State would pay for over the length of the contract.
Majors Unpopular Political Policies - Citizens Charter
Major also introduced the Citizen’s Charter in 1991. This was an attempt to give public service users more power over the quality of the services they received by providing information about the standards they should expect. For example, in education there would be more testing and schools would publish the results. However, some elements such as the ‘Cones Hotline’ - a phone number motorists could call if motorway lanes were closed off without any sign of roadworks - became targets of the satire.
Majors Unpopular Political Policies - Miners
Pit closures continued. In 1991 Heseltine announced the closure of 31 pits including some in Nottinghamshire; this was seen as a poor reward by Conservatives who remembered that it was the Nottinghamshire miners who had stood against Scargill. The outcry forced Heseltine into a U-turn in the short term though eventually, the closures went ahead. Major was seen to be continuing Thatcherite policies, closing mines and privatising. Heseltine had also gone back on previous words that Nottingham mines would not be closed following their stand in strikes.
Majors Unpopular Political Policies - BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy)
Major’s government also had to deal with the BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy) crisis, better known as Mad Cow Disease. This had been first identified in the mid-1980s but was recognised as a potential threat to human health in 1996. This led to British beef being banned in Europe.
None of these policies or events in themselves appears to be big enough to undermine a government’s reputation. But together, and combined with the other issues discussed in this chapter, they helped to cement an image of incompetence.
John Major - Back to Basics
In 1993, John Major decided to relaunch his leadership and the party.
At the annual party conference, he gave a speech that outlined his anger at those Tory MPs who were causing issues around Europe (among other things)
He also stated a need to return to return to core British values that were still alive, it was time to get Back To Basics, to self-discipline and respect for the law, to consideration for others, to accepting a responsibility for yourself and your family and not shuffling off on other people and the state.
Political sleaze, scandals and satire - Cash for Questions
Finally, the so-called ‘Cash-for-questions affair erupted; it was very damaging to the Major government because it lasted such a long time and kept ‘Tory sleaze in the news right through the 1997 election campaign. The Cash-for-questions affair arose when Neil Hamilton and other Conservative MPs were accused of accepting money in return for lobbying (asking questions in Parliament) on behalf of the controversial owner of Harrods, Mohammed Al Fayed. Hamilton was ruined by losing a very public libel case, but refused to resign, to the intense irritation of John Major. In the 1997 election, Hamilton was humiliatingly defeated by an independent candidate, the former BBC journalist Martin Bell, who made ‘sleaze’ the keynote of his campaign.
Political sleaze, scandals and satire - Minister sex scandals and deaths
Part of the reason that Major’s government found it difficult to claim credit when things went right is that it became associated with things going wrong. This was partly because of the ERM crisis. But this perception was strengthened by scandals and accusations of Tory sleaze that dogged Major’s years in office. There were more than a dozen sex scandals involving MPs having extramarital affairs including two cabinet ministers, David Mellor and Tim Yeo, both of whom were forced to resign.
-David Mellor resigned as National Heritage secretary in September 1992, following an affair. Although Mellor’s resignation antedated John Major’s “Back to Basics” speech by more than a year, the media were quick to link the new campaign to the scandal.
-In December 1993 it was revealed that Tim Yeo, Minister for the Environment and Countryside, had fathered an illegitimate child, despite having publicly talked of the need to “reduce broken families and the number of single parents”; he later resigned in January 1994.
-On 7 February 1994 the Conservative MP Stephen Milligan was found dead on his kitchen table as a result of auto-erotic asphyxiation, wearing only a pair of women’s stockings and suspenders, with his head covered and an orange segment in his mouth. According to the diary of his long-time friend, the Conservative MP Gyles Brandreth, Milligan had just been offered promotion to a ministerial job earlier that day, and Brandreth speculated that Milligan had gone home “to celebrate”.
-Two leading Conservatives, the novelist Jeffrey Archer and the former minister Jonathan Aitken, were convicted of perjury.
Political sleaze, scandals and satire - Arms to Iraq
Other scandals centred on corruption. In 1994, the Scott Enquiry, set up by Major to investigate illegal arms dealing, proved that government ministers had broken the rules and been ‘economical with the truth’ in enabling the arms company Matrix Churchill to supply arms components to Iraq. British companies and government officials were involved in the export of arms and dual-use technology to Iraq, raising questions about the ethics of such deals.
Political sleaze, scandals and satire - Media Satire
The sleaze and scandals made the Major government ripe for satire. Private Eye created an Adrian Mole spoof, The Secret Diary of John Major aged 47 and three-quarters. The puppeteers of Spitting Image presented Major as dull and boring. The Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell caricatured him as a grey superhero wearing his Y-fronts on top of his trousers. None of this satire was vicious and Major remained personally more popular than his party; but the image of Major as a well-meaning but inadequate leader stuck to him.
Internal Divisions in the Conservative Party
-After Thatchers decisive end to her reign, it was hoped that Major would prove able to bring the Conservatives back together,
-This proved a forlorn hope.
-Disaffected cabinet ministers began to brief against Major and he faced a leadership challenge in 1995.
-He defeated John Redwood decisively and clung on to power. 89 MPs voted against Major (he had a majority of 20, had effectively lost majority)
-Thatcher didn’t help by publishing her memoirs that were less than positive about Major.
-She even seemed more positive about the new Labour leader Tony Blair
-Major hit out at Tory minsters calling 3 of them “Bastards”, the Eurosceptic ministers were not named, but almost certainly Michael Howard, Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo came within minutes of the vote of confidence which kept him in office.
Northern Ireland and John Major - timeline
-In 1993 the government were told that Sinn Fein were willing to discuss peace.
-Backed by Ireland and America’s leaders, these dialogues went on and 2 key events happened
-1993 – Joint Downing Street Declaration between UK and Ireland government to bring peace to Northern Ireland
-1994 – IRA ceasefire
Northern Ireland and John Major - Situation worsening in Northern Ireland 1987 - 1993
Thatcher’s policy towards Northern Ireland did not change in the final years of her administration. The government banned organisations which were believed to support terrorist activities from broadcasting in Britain; broadcasters got around this ban by employing actors to read the words of those affected.
However, the States activities during the Troubles also came under scrutiny. There were accusations of a shoot to kill’ policy after three IRA members were killed by the SAS (Special Air Service, one of the British military’s Special Forces) in Gibraltar in 1988; high-profile miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four were revealed. Meanwhile the atrocities continued; loyalists and republicans engaged in ‘tit for tat’ killings and the IRA started to target mainland Britain.
Major had been in office for only two months when, early in 1991, in its most audacious act yet, the IRA fired mortar bombs at 10 Downing Street from a
parked van. This was the prelude to a sustained IRA bombing campaign in Britain.
* In March 1993, a boy of three and another twelve people were killed and 50 injured by bombs left in litterbins in a shopping mall in Warrington,Cheshire.
* In April, one person was killed and 40 were injured by a bomb planted in a lorry in Bishopsgate in the City of London.
* This bomb also caused over a billion pounds worth of damage to a number of bank and office premises, most notably the NatWest Tower (called Tower 42 since 2015).
The anger among ordinary people at these brutalities led to large peace rallies in London, Belfast and Dublin. Aware of how public opinion was turning against
them on both sides of the Irish Sea, the IRA put out disclaimers saying that the deaths had not been intended and that it was the fault of the British police,
who had failed to act on the detailed forewarnings that the IRA had given themabout the location of the bombs.
The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four
The Guildford Four were jailed in 1975 for life for the bombing of 2 Guildford pubs in which 5 people died. The verdict was overturned in 1989. The Birmingham Six were jailed in 1975 for life for the bombing of 2 Birmingham pubs in which 21 people were killed. The verdict was overturned in 1991. Wrongful convictions.
Northern Ireland and John Major - John Majors Actions - Downing Street Declaration
Although the times scarcely seemed promising for a new political initiative, the Irish Republic and the UK had as premiers at this point two men of very similar character and temperament. Albert Reynolds and John Major shared an unflappable, practical attitude which enabled them quickly to agree on a common approach towards improving the chances of peace. The outcome of their agreement was the Downing Street Declaration, whose chief features were as follows:
- The British government announced that it had ‘no selfish or strategic interest in Northern Ireland’; its sole concern was to accede to the democratically expressed wishes of the people there.
- It also accepted that it was for the people of the island of Ireland alone, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish
- Reynolds declared that the Irish Republic accepted the right of the majority in Northern Ireland to decide its future and that, if a democratic settlement
could be achieved there, the South was prepared to drop its traditional claim that Northern Ireland was part of the Republic.
Northern Ireland and John Major - John Majors Actions - Ceasefire 1994
Unofficial contacts between the British government and Sinn Féin eventually convinced the IRA that the declaration had indeed recognised the key republican and nationalist positions on the status of Northern Ireland and that Britain was not committed to indefinite control of the province. This was sufficient for the IRA to declare a ceasefire in August 1994.
The big issue was whether the loyalist paramilitary units could be persuaded to do the same. It was clear that the IRA would not keep the ceasefire for long if it remained a one-sided affair. The government’s fear was that the precise point that had temporarily pacified the IRA, Britain’s willingness eventually to allow Northern Ireland to decide its own status, might be seen by the unionists as a sell-out. Major took the step of assuring them that the British government had no intention of forcing the North into a united Ireland. This proved sufficient
for the time being to quell unionist fears. In October 1994 the loyalist units announced that they would be observing their own ceasefire.
For the first time since the troubles had reignited in late 1960s, the Northern Ireland sides were at peace. Given all the bitterness that had gone before, it could be only a fragile peace and how long it would hold depended on how long the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries considered it served their respective interests.
The ceasefire did not hold; between 1996(London +Manchester bombing) and 1998 there were frequent outbursts of renewed violence. The basic fact was that the two sets of paramilitaries did
not trust each other.
Northern Ireland and John Major - John Majors Actions - The Mitchell Report, January 1996
It was at this point that the USA made an encouraging diplomatic contribution.
In 1995 President Clinton was rapturously greeted on his visits to both Dublin and Belfast; in the following year, Senator George Mitchell chaired an international commission set up to consider the Irish issue. John Major showed a generous spirit in accepting the American move. Rather than see it as outside interference in a British problem, he welcomed the commission as offering a way forward. Mitchell, in a report he presented in January 1996, laid down a set of principles on which a peace process might be developed, the main ones being:
* the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and their renunciation of force
* the agreement by all parties concerned to accept as binding any agreement reached in an all-party negotiation.
Mitchell’s central conclusion was that real progress towards a settlement was ultimately impossible without decommissioning. However, to achieve this, both
sides would have to be assured that laying down their arms could achieve the same results as using them. Peace had to be seen as being as politically profitable
as violence. Yet the very fact that this tenuous peace existed at all when John Major left office in 1997 was a tribute to his quiet, accommodating diplomacy.
He had shown what could be achieved by tact and patience.
Realignment of the Labour Party - Niel Kinnock 1983 - 1992
Despite Kinnock’s changes between 1983 and 1987 the Labour Party was heavily defeated again in the 1987 general election. Kinnock then sought to further reorganise the party and moved its policies towards the centre ground.
The party organisation was overhauled and the party became much more professional in its presentation. The mastermind of this was Peter Mandelson, who became Kinnock’s director of communications in 1985. John Smith, who became the shadow chancellor of the exchequer in 1987, gave Labour a more reassuring image of moderation and competence. A policy review was launched after the election defeat of 1987, and by 1988 much of the 1983 manifesto had been ditched, including withdrawal from the EEC, unilateral nuclear disarmament and rises in taxation on high incomes.
Many on the Left of the party were concerned about the proposals.
Furthermore, Kinnock signalled a split with the trade unions by ending the Labour Party’s support for closed shop union agreements in 1989. As the Conservative government became more unpopular, Labour started to look like an alternative government. They were ahead in the polls before Thatcher left office and even after John Major became prime minister the Labour Party was still the favourite to win the 1992 election.
Given this, some therefore blame Kinncok for losing the 1992 election and he resigned 4 days later. At an election party rally in Sheffield, shortly before election day, he had been greated as a conquering hero and was later accused of over- confidence. It is certainly true that some voters had difficuly seeing Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the Labour Party Kinncok left behind in 1992 was infinitely stronger than it had been in 1983.
Realignment of the Labour Party - John Smith 1992-94
Kinnock’s successor was John Smith, his shadow chancellor. As the Conservative Party’s troubles grew after Black Wednesday, Smith seemed ideally suited to lead Labour towards victory. He was seen as serious and someone to be trusted on the economy. John Smith signalled a shift in the Labour Party by moving to abolish the trade union block vote by introducing
*One Member, One Vote (OMOV) for parliamentary candidates in 1993.
John Smith’s death from a heart attack in 1994, at the age of 55, was a shock to the whole nation. Many people have argued that Smith might have achieved all that Blair did, perhaps more. Others have argued that Smith was innately very cautious and would not have acted as boldly and decisively as Blair did.
He was wary of extending OMOV to conference motions that decided Labour Party policy, which frustrated modernisers like Tony Blair.
Realignment of the Labour Party - Tony Blair 1994-2007 - winning leadership
After John Smith’s death in 1994, the danger of a divisive leadership contest was avoided by a deal between Tony Blair and his main rival, Gordon Brown. It was agreed at a dinner at the Granita restaurant in Islington that Blair would stand as leader and work in close partnership with Brown who would act as a strategist and policy expert. Afterwards, it was widely believed that Blair had agreed to step down at some point in the future to allow Brown to have his turn as leader. The question of when exactly Brown would take over later caused tensions between ‘Blairites’ and ‘Brownites’ within the Labour government. Gordon Brown played key role in modernising the Labour Party and in planning for the 1997 election. After Labour came to power, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years, longer than. any other chancellor in modern times. His relationship with Blair was often tense but they made a powerful and effective team. Brown succeeded Blair as prime minister in 2007.
Realignment of the Labour Party - Tony Blair 1994-2007 - Success of Reform
Blair set out to further remodel the Labour brand! The promotion of ‘New Labour was intended to end the perception from the 1980s that Labour was unelectable. To do this Blair wanted a dramatic shift in policy to show how Labour was breaking with its past. In 1995 he persuaded the Labour Party conference to rewrite Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution. Following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, socialism as a political philosophy seemed dead. Blair wanted the Labour Party to drop the socialist ideas that appeared outdated and to instead embrace the modern capitalist economy.
The Labour Party also worked hard to ensure that it was no longer perceived as the party of tax-and-spend’ economic policies. Gordon Brown wanted to convince people that Labour was the party of prudence and economic competence. To do this he promised that the Labour Party in government would follow the Conservative spending plans. This made it difficult for the Conservatives to attack Labour’s economic promises. It also meant that business was, at the very least, no longer fearful of a Labour government.
Tony Blair himself was a skilful communicator, particularly effective in presenting an air of moderation and winning over Middle England He was also attractive to women and young voters. The Labour Party had all-women shortlists leading to a record number of female candidates. The Labour Party appeared fresh and vibrant, especially in comparison to the Conservative Party which, mired down in sleaze and scandal, appeared tired and out of touch. It was no coincidence that the Labour Party chose a modern pop song Things can only get better as its campaign theme in the 1997 election.
These contrasting images were reflected in the national press. In the past, the Conservatives had enjoyed greater support from the national press; Alastair Campbell (Blairs Press Secretary 1994-2003) negative press coverage of Neil Kinnock in the 1992 election campaign was just one example of this. Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell, used his experience as a former journalist to change Labour’s relationships with the press and media. Journalists and newspaper owners, many of them unenthusiastic about John Major anyway, were won over. One of the Conservative Party’s most powerful weapons had been neutralised.
In addition, the Labour campaign was run by a disciplined ‘spin machine’ that was very effective in dealing with the media and the press, both in refuting Conservative attacks and in selling Labour policies. Labour spokespeople were always ‘on message’ with access to up-to-date. Peter Mandelson ran the efficient machinery coordinating public statements and keeping all elements of the party ‘on message.
1997 election in comparison to the 1992 election
1992 election:
Labour - 271 seats, 41.6%
Conservatives - 336 seats, 51.6%
Lib Dems - 20 seats, 3.1%
Other - 24 seats, 3.7%
1997 election:
Labour - 418 seats, 43.2%
Conservatives - 166 seats, 30.7%
Lib Dem - 52 seats, 16.8%
Other - 28 seats, 9.4%
Reasons for the Labour Partys election victory in 1997 - prior concerns from Labour
Although opinion polls during the campaign showed a large Labour lead, many Labour supporters still genuinely feared that the power of the Tory electoral machine might cause yet another disappointment like 1992.
Tony Blair secretly discussed the possibility of a coalition with the Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown. The Labour Party manifesto included pledges such as referendums on devolution which had been longstanding Liberal aims.
Reasons for the Labour Party election victory in 1997
-The Labour Party created a pledge card which contained five promises.
These were clear, easy to understand and designed to attract a range of potential voters.
-The Labour Party was no longer an easy target for attack. Both its organisation and its policies meant that previously successful Tory tactics of frightening voters away from Labour’s socialist extremism’ simply did not work any more. In fact the Conservative message was confused as it veered between, on the one hand, complaining that Labour had stolen Conservative policies’ and, on the other, - that New Labour’ was just ‘Old Labour’ in disguise. Neither argument worked.
In addition the accusations of ‘Tory sleaze were damaging. In Tatton, Martin Bell’s campaign for clean politics against Neil Hamilton dominated evening news bulletins, reminding voters of the sleaze and scandal. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties did not run candidates there so the spotlight was fully on the Conservatives.
-The battles over Maastricht and Europe continued to resonate. The Referendum Party was set up, by Sir James Goldsmith, specifically to fight the 1997 election on the sole promise to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. It won no seats but kept the Conservative splits on Europe in the news and may have attracted enough voters to cause Conservative defeats in some marginal seats, such as in the defeat of David Mellor in Putney.
What happened after the 1997 election
-Most Conservatives, including John Major and Michael Heseltine, accepted That defeat was inevitable. In the end, Labour won by a landslide. Election night was a grim experience for Conservatives. Half of all Conservative MPs lost their seats. Many of the casualties were high-profile personalities: Michael Portillo. David Mellor. Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind. The Conservatives got 31 per cent of the vote, the lowest figure since 1823. They now had only 165 seats in the Commons, with not a single seat in Scotland. It was a bigger disaster than 1945.
-For many people, the symbolic image of election night came from Enfield, where a previously unheard of young Labour candidate, Stephen Twigg, defeated one of the Conservative ‘big beasts’, Michael Portillo. Portillos losing of his seat went on to have a longer-term impact on the Conservative Party in opposition.
-The election results also indicated widespread tactical voting, with Labour supporters voting Liberal Democrat (and vice versa) according to how the anti-Conservative vote could be maximised. This behaviour by the electorate neutralised another advantage that the Conservative Party had had in the 1980s - the split on the Left/centre-Left which had existed since the formation of the SDP in 1981.
-In one sense, explaining the Conservative defeat in 1997 is easy. In a democracy, no government lasts forever. Sooner or later the pendulum of party politics always swing and the voters decide it is time for a change. This happened to the Conservatives in 1964 and to Labour in 1979, But there were particular reasons that explain the election result in 1997.
-The Labour landslide of 1997 ended 18 years in opposition. A Labour government had a strong parliamentary majority for the first time since 1966.
Many people thought of 1945 and the hopes of a new era. The fact that so many new Labour MPs were youthful or female was in tune with the ideas of a new beginning. The Conservative Party had suffered its worst defeat since the nineteenth century. John Major did not hang around. On the day Tony Blair moved into 10 Downing Street, Major made it clear he was resigning as party leader and then went to the Oval to watch cricket.
How socially liberal was Britian 1987-1997 - Social Liberalism
-Homosexuality - Both the social conservatism of Thatcherism and the changes in attitudes in this period can be exemplified in attitudes to homosexuality. Negative attitudes grew during the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1987. Part of this may have been because of the identification of AIDS which stirred up great prejudice about gay people. The first case in the UK was recorded in 1981 and because gay men seemed to be particularly at risk, it was referred to as a ‘gay plague’.’Loony left’ councils were accused of ‘promoting’ homosexual ‘lifestyles’ by funding support groups. There was a tabloid outcry in 1986 over a book, Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin, which was stocked in some London school libraries. In response to this, Section 28, a law which banned the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, was passed in 1988. Although it was not directly aimed at schools, many people believed that it made it illegal to discuss homosexuality in schools. ‘Outrage! ‘used direct action, threatening to ‘out’ gay clergy and MPs. Stonewall backed test legal cases at the European Court of Human Rights, challenging the unequal age of consent and the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces.
This led to a reduction in the age of consent for gay men from 21 to 18 in1994. However, equality wasn’t achieved until 2000 when the age was lowered to 16; similarly it wasn’t until 2000 that the lifting of the ban on homosexuals in the military was eventually passed.
-The 1980s saw a series of other moral panics, many of which had subsided by 1997. Family campaigners feared for the future of marriage as the divorce rate hit record highs in the 1990s and the percentage of babies born to unmarried parents more than doubled from 12 per cent in the early 1980s to 30 per cent by the early 1990s. Single mothers and absent fathers were particularly criticised. In 1992 Peter Lilley, the Secretary of State for Social Security, sang a song to the Conservative Party conference including the words: ‘There’s young ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing queue / And dads who won’t support the kids / of ladies they have … kissed’. To counter this, the Child Support Agency was set up in 1993 to try to ensure that absent parents paid maintenance for their children.
-Concern about under-age sex was seen in the campaign, led by Victoria Gillick, against the availability of contraceptive advice to girls under the age of consent without their parents’ knowledge. Initially, the high court ruled that this advice could only be given with the consent of a parent or guardian, though this was overruled in 1985 by the House of Lords.
-It is also clear from the impact of the scandals that enveloped Conservative MPs during the 1990s that public expectation about the behaviour of public figures was still high. Extramarital affairs, illegitimate children and issues of sexuality all led to MPs resigning as ministers or stepping down.
How socially liberal was Britain 1987-1997 - Anti Establishment Culture
-Major outlined aim to creat classless society in 1990, when he became PM
-Increase in willingness to challenge traditional sources of authority during this time – as Thatcher had done when she challenged established post-war consensus as an outsider
-Attitudes towards the royal family:
-Increased criticism: ¾ of Queen’s children’s marriages broke down. Details of extramarital affairs splashed over tabloids. Public disquiet over financing of Windsor Castle repairs after a fair (1992). This led to Queen agreeing to pay tax on her private income and a reduction in civil list.
-Details about things like treatment of Princess of Wales by royal family was damaging. Queen accused of not caring after her death in a car crash (1997); royal family reached trough of public support.
-Art:
-Young British Artists (YBA) led by Horst, Lucas and Emin challenged ideas about art. Used things like dead animals.
-Charles Saatchi (advertising exec.) was important patron and his collection of YTA work formed basis of Sensation exhibition held in 1997.
-Youth Culture:
-Late 1980s, ‘acid house’ (dance house with psychedelic edge) arrived from USA.
-1988 and 1989 saw explosion of raves and free parties. Linked to increased use of ecstasy
-This led to moral panic about drug taking and backlash in tabloids. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act passed 1994 (gave more power to police to break up these free parties)
_Environmental Movements:
-Protest against road developments started at Twyford Down M3 extension in 1992 and spread to other sites (e.g. Newbury bypass).
-Bought together many people e.g. from first time middle class protestors to new-age travellers.
-Variety of innovative direct action measures to delay or block work legal chaining themselves to trees which were due to be uprooted it building tunnels and living underground.
How socially liberal was Britain 1987-1997 - Women
-The beginning of the 1990s saw the start of what has been termed third-wave feminism. This was both a critique and a step forward from the second-wave feminism of the 1960s. It was broader than just legal and financial equalities including more emphasis on breaking down stereotypes about women involving race, gender and sexuality. Out of this grew the underground Riot Grrrl movement: female bands such as Bikini Kill and Huggy Bear which had a punk sensibility and sang about feminist issues. By the mid-1990s the message of girl power’ had become a more mainstream one, led by the pop group the Spice Girls.
-While Thatcher’s position as prime minister showed that women could achieve highly, her own relationship with feminism is more difficult to measure. After her death in 2013, one member of the Spice Girls, Geri Halliwell, described Thatcher as the first lady of girl power. Critics argued that she did little for women when she was in power; she had only one female cabinet minister and did nothing to encourage other women into Parliament. She herself said: I owe nothing to Women’s Lib’ in an interview in 1982.
Nevertheless, there were further indications of progress in women’s rights in this period. The first female Speaker in the House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, and the first female head of MI5, Stella Rimmington, were both appointed in 1992. The first ordination of women as priests in the Church of England came in 1994. In 1994 rape within marriage became a criminal offence. It also became increasingly normal for women to work; by 1993
68 per cent of women of working age were in employment and by 1996
50 per cent of employees were women. Women’s pay also improved relatively in the period (even though it remained at 80 per cent of men’s earnings) and married women were able to be taxed separately from their husbands for the first time.
How socially liberal was Britain 1987-1997 - Race relations
-By the later 1980s there were some signs of progress in race relations.
Unlike in the period between 1979 and 1987, which saw racial tensions lead to riots in 1981 and 1985, there were no mass outbreaks of disorder. The series of riots that happened in 1991 and 1992 in towns and cities across the country from Oxford to Newcastle to Burnley involved mainly young white men on deprived council estates. Moreover, in the 1987 general election four non-white MPs were elected, the first since the 1920s; all held their seats in 1992. Britain started to be seen as more comfortable with multiculturalism.
-Nevertheless, progress was not always consistent. In 1992 the black Conservative candidate for Cheltenham, John Taylor, lost to the Liberal Democrats amid rumours of racism from some local Conservatives. Similarly, there remained tensions between young black men and the police. This was best exemplified by the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
-New stresses on social cohesion also arose. In the 1990s, there was a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers, fleeing from violent upheavals in places such as Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. As well as this, migration into Britain continued to include many immigrants from New Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; these were often relatives of people already living in the UK. Many of these immigrants were Muslims and concerns started to be raised about Muslim integration into British society. In 1988 the British Indian author Salman Rushdie published a novel, The Satanic Verses, which was considered blasphemous by many Muslims. The Iranian Ayatollah issued a fatwa sentencing the author to death, and Rushdie had to go into hiding. Many British Muslims did not agree with the issuing of the fatwa.
Some accepted that publishing the book was acceptable in British culture; others protested and burned the book. It was clear that some Muslims found it difficult to reconcile the tension between British societal values and their Islamic beliefs.
What was Britain’s relationship with Europe like from 1988-1997 - Thatchers Bruges speech
Although Thatcher had, in 1986, signed the Single European Act (SEA) which had appeared to be pro-European, she seemed to become more negative about Britain’s relationship with Europe after this. Thatcher wanted a single market as this reflected her economic philosophy. She later claimed that she had not fully understood how the SEA would be used to change Britain’s relationship with Europe. It soon became apparent that the SEA limited the influence of individual nation states. This worried Thatcher and a growing number of Conservative MPs.
To counter the direction Thatcher feared the EEC was moving in she made a speech in Bruges in 1988 to set out her vision of the future of Europe. Thatcher wanted to emphasise that the EEC was a trade association between sovereign states. She was resolutely opposed to federalism and the idea of ‘ever closer political union, whereas there were elements of the European Commission, including its president, Jacques Delors, who thought that was precisely the direction in which the EEC should be going.
While her speech was intended to be positive it infuriated other European leaders and raised doubts about Britain’s commitment to further European integration. Meanwhile, in Britain, the Bruges speech so enthused the Eurosceptics MPs that the Bruges Group was formed to focus opposition to any European federal state.
Thatcher’s more negative line on Europe caused tension within her government. People like Geoffrey Howe and John Major thought she was backtracking from positions she had already agreed to since 1985. On the other hand, Eurosceptics, such as the Bruges Group, argued that it was the federalists in Brussels who were changing the EEC into something different from the Common Market that Britain had joined in 1973.
After the collapse of communism, Thatcher was enthusiastically in favour of expanding the EEC to include the new states in Eastern Europe. This was to extend free trade and to ensure that communism was truly defeated. However, it was also partly to weaken the power of the European Commission in Brussels; she favoured a wider and shallower union instead of a deeper union.
However, it is also true that Thatcher was never openly anti-European before she left office; that was something that developed later.
What was Britain’s relationship with Europe like from 1988-1997 - What relationship with Europe did Major inherit from Thatcher
John Major inherited a Conservative government that was starting to be openly divided by the issue of Europe. There were still many supporters of Britain’s involvement in Europe, with Europhile cabinet ministers such as Ken Clarke and Chris Patten. However, the Eurosceptics were becoming increasingly important and vocal; these included cabinet ministers like Michael Portille and John Redwood and influential backbenchers such as lain Duncan Smith and Bill Cash. They were encouraged by Thatcher’s increasingly anti-European interventions. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 gave them the opportunity to voice their concerns about the direction of the European Union particularly after ERM showed issues with increased integration in Europe.
What was Britain’s relationship with Europe like from 1988-1997 - The Maastricht Treaty
The Maastricht Treaty was designed to set up new structures to deal with the expansion of the EEC. Under the terms of the treaty:
-the EEC became the European Union
-the conditions were set up for a single currency to come into being in 1999
-common European foreign and defence policy
-Social Charter
The treaty was agreed in December 1991 and signed in February 1992 by European member states. Major’s style had enabled him to establish good personal links with other heads of government, particularly with the German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, and his diplomatic skills enabled him to secure opt-outs for Britain from the plans for a single currency and from the Social Chapter (which aimed to regulate working conditions such as maximum hours for the working week and employment rights for part-time workers; the Conservatives opposed it because they favoured deregulation). Selling the deal to sceptical political and public opinion at home was much harder. While the opt-outs won over most doubters in the Conservative Party, they did not eliminate them all.
What was Britain’s relationship with Europe like from 1988-1997 - Major and the Maastricht Rebels
John Major’s signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 had been only the beginning of the process. To become binding on Britain, it had to be ratified by Parliament. In July 1993, rebel MPs blocked Major’s attempt to get Parliament to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. Having committed his government to Maastricht, Major was not prepared to be thwarted by the Commons. In a hurried move, Major won the vote by threatening a vote of no confidence which, if he had lost, would have led to the dissolution of Parliament and a general election. The Conservatives were far behind in the polls so this threat made sure he got sufficient support. But it damaged Major’s authority and made him appear weak.
The Maastricht Treaty was eventually ratified by Parliament after 18 months.
However, this did not bring an end to the divisions over Europe. Conservative Eurosceptics continued to oppose Major on European issues. Losing the party whip or being threatened with deselection did not stop the rebels. Even Major’s back me or sack me resignation did not really strengthen his position.
In addition, the debate mobilised anti-Europeans outside Parliament. The Anti-Federalist League, the forerunner to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), was set up in 1993, and in 1994 the wealthy financier Sir James Goldsmith set up the Referendum Party to fight the 1997 election on the single issue of demanding a referendum of Britain’s relationship with Europe.
It was the opposition from Europe that most offended John Major. In an unguarded moment, he was recorded on tape describing his critics within the Cabinet as ‘bastards’. Although he would not give names when further questioned about this, it was widely assumed that he was referring to Peter Lilley, Michael Portillo, John Redwood and Michael Howard. Clearly, a prime minister who does not have the full support of his Cabinet and party is in a very difficult position and this was the case for Major throughout his period of office, which ran its full term until 1997.
In July 1995, in an effort to end the backstabbing to which he felt he was continually subjected, Major called a leadership election, which he easily won, defeating John Redwood by 218 to 89. But small though the vote against Major was, if the 22 abstentions were added in, it revealed the unwelcome fact that over 100 members were not fully committed to him as leader.
What role did Britain play in the key international issues from 1987-1997 - Collapse of the Cold War
-Reagan and Thatcher insisted that Russia respond positively to this, taking a strong line
-Gorbachev realised that he nor the USSR was in a position to compete with this
-Despite the positive instincts and a general willingness to negotiate, all the key players failed to see it through to the end, Gorbachev was removed from power in 1991 as the Soviet Union fell apart.
-Reagan left power in 1988 and Thatcher was removed in 1990
-As a result of the reunification of Germany, Helmut Kohl became the hero at its head.
-With a population of 80 million, the German superstate that Thatcher had feared became a reality, but she was unable to stop it.
-Thatcher opposed the reunification and relations with Germany became strained.
-But in Eastern Europe the role that Thatcher played in making them independent was widely appreciated
What role did Britain play in the key international issues from 1987-1997 - Gulf War 1991
-As the Cold War ended, troubles sprang up in other areas resulting in a hot war
In the Middle East, the first Gulf War broke out.
-Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein invaded neighbouring Kuwait (very oil-rich) in the Arabian gulf in August 1990.
-In 1991 American-led coalition including britain, which was backed by a United Nations resolution, expelled the Iraqi troops in a short lived military campaign.
-But Hussain remained in control.
-Major’s conduct was very statesman like, he managed to co-operate with the USA to create a coalition, and in keeping with the UN resolutions ended Saddam Hussein’s illegal occupation of Kuwait.
-Major kept both Neil Kinnock (Labour leader) and Paddy Ashdown (Liberal Democrat Leader) informed of decisions. This won him a lot of respect.
What role did Britain play in the key international issues from 1987-1997 - Balkans
-A knock-on effect of the end of the Cold War was the disintegration of what had previously been Yugoslavia
-From 1989, the Yugoslavia president, Communist leader Slobodan Milosevic became an extreme Serbian nationalist, threatening violent action against the Albanian population of Kosovo.
-In 1991 Slovenia declare independence and Yugoslav states begin to break up. Violent clashes between Serbia and Croatia – both ethnic and religious
-EU and UN began diplomatic efforts
-But the efforts of european diplomats failed and war broke out in 1992 in Bosnia
-Muslim population of eastern Bosnia were driven out in violent ethnic cleansing
-August 1992 John Major hosted a joint EU-UN conference and a peacekeeping force was put in place. At the time Major was praised for actions but there was no concerted European pressure.
-This proved ineffective as USA was not willing to intervene
-War in Bosnia lasted 3 more years and contained shocking events such as massacre of Srebrenica in July 1995 (7000 men and boys massacred)
-After the horrors of Sarajevo Britian turns to the US and NATO, Clinton persuaded to intervene.
-It was not until 1995 and NATO bombing of Serbian forces that they were forced into peace negotiations at Dayton, Ohio. December 1995 a peace deal was signed in Paris. Bosnia was given independence and to be protected with a UN force.
-Britain’s special relationship with the US appeared to be strong and the UK was seen appeared to have a strong role to play in international affairs. However the UKs actions could appear weak and reliant on the US, had to wait 3 years.
Blair as the Prime Minister
-New kind of labour politician. His father was a Conservative supporter and Blair had not joined the Labour Party until after he had graduated from Oxford University. This made it easier for him to move the Labour Party away from its traditional policies and beliefs. Believed modernisation was necessary for party to stay relevant.
-Blair was a charismatic leader who was comfortable with the media. As well are performing well in parliament, Blair was adapt to appearing on non-political TV programmes. Portrayed himself as an ordinary person, in both his speech and interests. He was able to show he in touch with electorate, refering to Princess of Wales as ‘the peoples princess’ folllowing her death in 1997. Blairs popularity soared to 93% according to internal Labour poll.
- Blair did not want to reverse many of Thatchers and Majors policies. Argued that it did not matter who delivered public services as long as the quality of the services was what users wanted, called the Third Way. Critics argued that Blair did not really stand for anything and he had accepted Thatcherite policies and dropped traditional labour policies to win power.
-Despite early landslide victory, people were worried that this success could not last. The tight control over the media message and splits between the party, particularly Blair and Brown, were hidden. By 2007 this ‘control freakery’ was increasingly disliked and was adding to a feeling that politicians could not be trusted.
Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer
-Brown given complete control over economic policy as the Chancellor of Exchequor in the whole period as he didnt stand for labour party leadership against Blair.
-Labour inherited very favourable economic circumstances in 1997. Browns initial priorities were to keep inflation low, keep govt spending under control and prove labour was pro business and could be trusted with the economy. Rules also set
-Brown made the Bank of England independent from the government meaning the govt would set inflation targets and the Bank of England would set i/r to meet them.
-This was however, ‘prudence with a purpose’ according to Brown. Purpose of stable economic growth was to improve public services. After 2001, injection of money into public services, increase in investment in schools, hospitals and pay rises for docs, nurses and teachers. Exam results went up and waiting lists went down. Felt public spending was neccasry after years of under-funding.
-In order to avoid raising taxes, labour continued to use private sources of funding for improvements to public services. There was some criticism of the funding of new projects through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). The buildings usually got completed quickly but debts were stored up for the future.
-Throughout Browns time inflation was kept under control and record numbers of people were in work. Living standards remained high and the consumer economy boomed. Some critics warned that the consumer boom was based on rising house prices and high levels of credit-card spending and personal debt, rather than increased productivity. There was a danger the ‘bubble’ might not last.
New Labour Constitutional Reforms - Devolution
-Labour party had promised new referendums on devolution in 1997 manifesto.
-Referendums held in 1997 with 3/4 of the Scottish people voting in favour od devolving power and giving this parliament tax-raising powers. Led to new scottish assembly being established based on system of proportional representation. Similarily Wales agreed to setting up an assembly with a 0.6% victory but had more limited powers. N.Ireland also devolved after Good Friday agreement in 1998. And reform introduced for an elected mayor in London in 1999.
-However these changes did not have the effect Labour had hoped for, Scottish Nationalists (SNP) and Plaid Cymru (PC) continued to gain support contrary to the belief that devolution would take away their momentum.
-The introduction of elected mayor in London proved to be a successful change. However in the first election in 2000, Balir blocked Ken Livingston from being the Labour candidate due to fears he would farm the image of ‘new labour’ because he represented the ‘loony left’ Labour Party. However Ken ran independently and won and Blair was forced to accept him back into the party.
New Labour Constitutional Reforms - Reforms to House of Lords
The reform of the House of Lords, to which Labour was pledged, raised difficulties for the government. Ending the right of unelected hereditary peers to sit in the upper house. But the problem was what form the new chamber would take and what powers it would have. By 2001 Blair had created more ‘life peers’ in his four years of government than the Conservatives had in their eighteen. Critics complained that it was part of his scheme for consolidating New Labour’s authority by packing the House of Lords with his own appointees. Even some of his own side were unhappy at this. Tony Benn, in his role as Labour’s conscience, described the process as going back 700 years to the time when monarchs got their way by surrounding themselves with placemen.
Overall despite major efforts to reform the house of Lords in 1999, it ended with a messy compromise in which hereditary peers were not abolished but cut to 92. House of Lords reform was seen as unsatisfactory by almost everyone.
New Labour Constitutional Reforms -Citizens Rights
-Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 giving people the right to request information from public bodies. By 2006 over 100,000 requests were being made each year. Blair later described this as a foolish mistake as its existence would prevent politicians from making difficult decisions because they feared their actions would become public knowledge. Also complaints that public bodies still not fully accountable as they could use stipulations in the Act to avoid full disclosure.
-The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the way judges interpreted this sometimes created unexpected difficulties for the government.The Act aroused some controversy as, according to some lawyers, it was essentially a matter of the UK putting itself under the pre-existing European Convention on Human Rights.
New Labour Domestic reforms - 1997-2001
-1997 Pledge card identified five pledges concerning improvement in public services. By 2001 all of these five pledges had been met.
-In education, Labour kept the league tables and inspections introduced by Major’s administration. Targets were extended and more specialist schools encouraged.
-Blair had also promised that Labour would be tough on crime and its causes. There were measures to reduce social exclusion -one of the causes of crime- but this was paired with longer prison sentences.
-Special delivery unit was set up in July 2001 to ensure health and education reforms were met, increasing investment and quality, and increasing targets were used to try and enforce changes. There would be more teachers, doctors and nurses but also more accountability to parents and patients to ensure improving exam results and shorter waiting times for operations. But, Blair disappointed by slow progress of these reforms and argued they should have been prepared to be more radical eariler.
-Winter fuel allowance 1997- for senior citizens, initially £100 pp, was criticised on grounds that a universal payment made regardless of recipients income, so could be wasteful use of public money, should go elsewhere.
-In 1998 minimum wage of £4.85 established. When it came into force in 1999, increased wages of over 1.5 million workers. Tories initially opposed the measure as a threat to jobs, but came to accept it.
-Jobseekers Allowance 1998, replaced existing unemployment benefit. To qualify had to prove they were actively looking for work. Labour measures introduced in 1998 were meant to streamline system by removing the means test attached to applicants and allowing greater time and flexibility in their search for work. 2003 - 2008, 2.5 million claims under scheme.
-Working families and child tax credit scheme 1998 - Under the working families scheme - Families with dependent children whose income from employment was below a minimum level, were entitled to a tax allowance that in effect raised their wages. The child tax credit scheme paid on a scale according to parental income and number of dependent children. Part of the attempt to tackle ‘social exclusion’, where poverty and depreciation led to sections of community being shut off from main society. In 1997, Social Exclusion Unit set up to address issue by integrating various bodies dealing with social welfare. Work highly useful in defining the character of the problem - matter of aspiration and poor education etc.
New Labour Domestic reforms - 1997-2001 - Crisis
Blair’s government also had to face some crises. Rising fuel prices led to a blockade in 2000 by farmers and lorry drivers; foot and mouth disease hit farmers of cattle and sheep leading to a cull of ten million animals. People in the countryside more generally felt that the Labour Party was too urban and did not properly understand their issues. This came to a head when the Labour government tried to ban hunting with dogs. There was a long battle with the House of Lords over the issue and the pressure group the Countryside Alliance organised a march which half a million people attended in 2002 before the ban was finally passed in 2004.
New Labour Domestic reforms - 2001-2007
-Police Reform Act 2002 - created police community support officers who were not legally police officers so had limited powers. Main aim was to to suggest there was police presence in the local community, lessening the ‘them and us’ attitude existing between police and public.
-Repeal of Section 28, 2003 - Repeal of section 28 of the local government act of 1988, declaring that local authorities cant promote or teach about homosexuality. Although delayed by resistance in House of Lords, eventually achieved under Local government act of 2003. Removal of stigma on homosexuality and movement towards the tolerant society.
-Civil Partnership Act 2004- Futher extension of gay rights following repeal of Section 28. Same- sex couples in a partnership were given the same rights and protections as couples in a male-female civil marriage.
-Gender Recognition Act 2004 - The Act gave transsexuals the right to change their legal gender and to marry someone of their newly assigned gender. Was further evidence of New Labours socially progressive approach.
-Employment Act 2004 - confirmed trade union rights while at the same time improving industrial relations by requiring unions to hold a ballot before strike action.
The Good Friday Agreement - Build up
Tony Blair inherited a great political opportunity in Northern Ireland in
1997. A lot of the vital work in building confidence between the unionists and nationalists/republicans had been done under John Major, meaning there was potential to bring an end to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There had been talks involving all the different parties in Northern Ireland on and off since
1996. John Hume, the leader of the Social Democratic Labour Party (SDLP), had persuaded Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein that a negotiated settlement was possible.
Both sides, the unionists and the republicans, trusted the chairman of the talks, George Mitchell, a former US senator who was Bill Clinton’s special envoy for Northern Ireland. There was also a further international dimension.
Blair developed a close working relationship with the Irish Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, which continued throughout the period 1997 to 2008; this helped keep the support of the republicans. The Labour secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, kept the paramilitaries on board by visiting them in the Maze prison. However, Blair’s personal commitment was also vital and Blair proved capable of reassuring David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists that Sinn Fein could be trusted.
The tense final negotiations in April 1998 went on for 17 hours after the final deadline set by Mitchell was missed. One of the UUP negotiators, Jeffrey Donaldson, walked out on 9 April 1998 in protest at the lack of progress in ensuring that the IRA would decommission its arms, leading to fears that the negotiations would collapse. However, on 10 April George Mitchell announced that an agreement had been reached and that this agreement would be put to a referendum of the people, both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
The Good Friday Agreement - Terms
The key elements of the agreement include:
* both the UK and the Irish Republic would give up their claim on Northern Ireland as it would be up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they would remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Irish Republic
* a devolved Assembly along with a power-sharing Executive would be set up
* links between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between Britain and the Republic of Ireland would be strengthened *parties would use their influence to ensure the decommissioning of arms *there should be an independent commission to oversee reform of policing *there could be early release of prisoners where paramilitary organisations were committed to peace.
The Good Friday Agreement - Successes
-The referendum was held on 22 May: in Northern Ireland 71 per cent voted for the agreement and in the Republic, 94 per cent voted yes.
-Blair remained closely involved in Northern Ireland throughout his premiership, although not all problems were solved, many people regarded Northern Ireland as Blair’s greatest single achievement.
-In May 2007, the new executive came into being with Ian Paisley, leader of the largest party, appointed first minister, and Martin McGuinness, leader of Sinn Féin, the second largest, deputy first minister. In July 2007, the British army announced the end of its mission in Northern Ireland, which it had been operating since 1969
This was an extraordinary climax to nearly 30 years of intensely bitter rivalry, which had cost the lives of thousands. It was a tribute to those on both sides of the Irish Sea, most notably John Major, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, who had stayed committed to the peace process, no matter how many times it faltered.
Perhaps most extraordinary of all were the amicable relations that developed in government between Paisley and McGuinness.
The Good Friday Agreement - Failures
-However, there was opposition to the Good Friday Agreement from both sides. The leaders of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, were very nervous of a republican backlash against them selling out. David Trimble and the Ulster Unionists feared the powerful negative influence of Dr Ian Paisley, the leader of the hardline Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Some of these fears were realised: the Omagh bombing in 1998, which killed 30 people, was carried out by dissident republicans in the so-called Continuity IRA; and over the next 10 years unionists became disillusioned with some parts of the agreement and the DUP overtook the UUP as the main unionist political party in Northern Ireland.
-In the following ten years there were a number of disagreements: over whether the paramilitaries were really decommissioning arms; over the early release of convicted terrorists; over the right of the Protestant Orange Order to march on its traditional routes. The devolved institutions had to be suspended in 2002 until the St Andrews Agreement in 2006 which reiterated key elements of the Good Friday Agreement and restored the Northern Irish Assembly and the DUP agreed to share power with republicans and nationalists in the Northern Ireland Executive whilst Sinn Féin accepted the authority of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
(PSNI), which had replaced the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).
Tony Blair and Ireland - Decommissioning
On 28 July 2005, responding to a number of appeals by Sinn Féin, the IRA announced that, while it would remain in being as a force committed to defend nationalist Ulster, it was giving up its weapons and pledging itself to the use of ‘exclusively peaceful means’.
The issue now was whether the loyalist paramilitaries, such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), would do the same. The UVF’s claim had always been that they could not trust the IRA declarations of intent and, therefore, could not themselves disarm.
Ian Paisley, although never an advocate of violence, had always proved a major obstacle to constitutional advance. His DUP had rejected the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement.
As long as he held out, loyalist paramilitaries were unlikely to budge. However, the unionists were also undergoing a form of conversion. Unless they adapted to these irreversible changes, Ulster unionists would become an increasingly embattled enclave. It was such thinking that played a part in persuading Paisley and his DUP that it was far better to accommodate themselves to the situation, while they still had the chance to be part of a power-sharing government, than to continue with a resistance that might ultimately destroy their power altogether. The result was that in May 2006 the UVF renounced violence and pledged itself to give up its weapons. This opened the way for the St Andrews Agreement between the British and Irish governments.
1997 Election
Conservatives - 418 seats, 44.4% of votes
Labour - 165 seats, 31.4% of votes
Liberal Democrats - 46 seats, 17.2% of votes
Northern Irish Parties - 14 seats, 1.8% of votes
Sinn Fein - 4 seats, 0.5% of votes
Why did the Conservatives lose the 1997 election - Conservative weaknesses
-Cabinet divisions over Europe
-The Conservatives had lost all their by-elections since 1990
-The government had relied on the support of the DUP
-Assosicated with sleaze
-John Majors leadership was uninspiring
-Public distaste for the undemocratic ratification of the Maastricht Treaty
-The government lost its reputation for financial management after withdrawing from the ERM
-Associated with extra-marital sleaze (affairs)
Why did the Conservatives lose the 1997 election - Labour Strengths
-John Smith continued modernising the party after Neil Kinnock with the introduction of one member one vote
-Tony Blair used spin doctors to put out a positive message
-Blair projected himself as ‘cool Britiannia’
-The imbalance of the electoral system gave Labour a winners bonus
Conservative Party leadership 1997-2007
May 1997 - Election defeat
June 1997 - Election of William Hague
June 2001 - Election defeat
June 2001 - Election of Iain Duncan Smith
May 2003 - Duncan Smith replaced by Micheal Howard
May 2005 - Election defeat
June 2005 - Election of David Cameron
Conservative party in 1997
Party after the 1997 election was half the size as it had been in 1990. Party was more Eurosceptic and Thatcherite, with 145/165 MPs being eurosceptics following loss of pro-EU big hitters such as Chris Patten.
Following Major resignation leadership elections began.
-Heseltine had suffered ill health and decided not to run for leadership however his pro-European views and challenging thatcher in 1990 meant he had little change regardless.
-Ken Clarke well regarded for being down to earth and success as chancellor of the exchequer 1992-1997. But pro-European and had advised Thatcher to resign in 1990.
-Obvious candidate from right, and eurosceptic, Micheal Portillo, but he had lost his seat.
-One right candidate was William Hague. The leadership campaign was dominated by ‘anyone but Clarke’ and Hague emerged as new leader. Mrs Thatchers preferred choice.
How successful were conservative leaders in unifying the party 1997-2007 - William Hague (1997-2001)
-Hague unified the party on Europe by ruling out entry into a single currency in future, however party remained unpopular.
-Party split over identity, some argued that party needed to change both its policies and its image, arguing the party was seen as uncaring, intolerant, old-fashioned and obsessed with Europe. But this was contreversial.
-1999 Peter Lilley, delivered speech which criticised elements of Thaterism and that depite accepting economic reforms as necessary in 1980s, the public were cautious about further such reform (Majors discussion of privatisation of Royal Mail resistance). He argued electorate was resistant to private involvement in public services and voted labour partly becuase they would protect public services. Speech caused uproar and interpreted as a repudiation of Thatcherism.
Hague was forced to reiterate his support for Thatcher. The Conservative Party was starting to divide between those who believed that the Conservative Party needed to change.
-In period party failed to make any progress in the polls. Hague felt his leadership was even more threatened after 1999 when Portillo was elected to Parliament in a by-election. To some on the right Portillo was the man who should have become leader in 1997 and Hague felt obliged to appoint him as shadow chancellor. After the Conservatives went down to another crushing defeat in 2001, Hague resigned the leadership immediately.
How successful were conservative leaders in unifying the party 1997-2007 - Iain Duncan Smith (2001-03)
-Despite Ken Clarke (remained popular with electorate but Conservatives view with suspicion due to pro-Eu views) and Portillo (Eurosceptic, reinvented himself as socially liberal moderniser but unpopular with traditional conservatives) being the strongest candidates for leadership. Howevevr, party members chose Iain Duncan Smith as leader in 2001 due to negative voting against Clarke and Portillo.
-Smith had little charisma and no match for Blair. Tories still behind in opinion polls. Smith made some efforts to introduce compassionate conservatism, with a belief party had to do more to tackle poverty.
-But aggressively Eurospectic and reopened divisions over Europe.
-Within a few months of his emergence as leader, some Conservative MPs were plotting to get rid of him.
-Under his leadership, the Conservative Party also remained socially conservative - voting against both the repeal of Section 28 and against allowing unmarried couples to adopt. These issues demonstrated the divisions in the party as modernisers such as David Cameron and George Osborne refused to follow the party line. Smith found it hard to demand loyalty from backbenchers as leader.
-Smith also supported British entry into Iraq War, heavily criticised as it made it difficult for conservatives to criticse labour for unpopular decision, especially as war dragged on; instead the Liberal Democrats emerged as the anti-war party to challenge Labour.
-Finally, amid press speculation about the salary he paid to his wife to act as his secretary, Duncan Smith faced a vote of no confidence. Despite the fact that subsequently no wrongdoing was found, the damage was done; Duncan Smith was ousted from power and Michael Howard was installed as leader, unopposed.
How successful were conservative leaders in unifying the party 1997-2007 - Micheal Howard (2003-05)
Howard took over leadership as a unifying figure, more so to do with the parties realisation of the state it was on, they would back him as they were tired of being embarrassed.
-However once again struggle to compete in opinion polls.
- Much of the work that Duncan Smith had done on social justice was abandoned and the Conservatives remained distrusted on key policy areas such as health and education. However, Howard did bring stability to the party. And despite the fact that he was on the right of the party and was socially conservative, Howard promoted modernisers in his cabinet. After the election defeat in 2005 David Cameron became shadow education secretary and George Osborne shadow chancellor. Howard made it clear that his preference was for his successor to be a moderniser.
How successful were conservative leaders in unifying the party 1997-2007 - David Cameron (2005- 15)
-As leader Cameron set about detoxifying the party, or modernising the party.
-Felt it was essential to reach out beyond the narrow core support for the Conservatives to make the party more tolerant and inclusive, no longer hostile to all kinds of social
groups including ethnic minorities, gay people, single mothers, and young people.
-He highlighted areas that were not traditionally conservative:
-He promised that a Conservative government would take seriously the issue of climate change; he visited the Arctic himself and cycled to Westminster.
-He was in favour of gay rights and wanted to increase overseas aid.
-He praised the way the NHS had cared for his disabled son and promised that a future Conservative government would protect it.
-Although still a Eurosceptic, party talked less about the EU.
-Instead Cameron’s shadow chancellor, George Osborne, promised to maintain Labour levels of spending on public services, effectively ruling out tax cuts. The Conservative Party would be more centrist, tolerant and outward looking.
The Labour party found it more difficult to attack Cameron than his predecessors partly due to declining popularity of the party. Also due to Conservatives starting to look electable again.
-However RW still sceptical of shift, Norman Tebbit openly critical of was was perceived as a rejection of Thatcherism. Although on the whole party seemed more united than it had been for over a decade. Perhaps this was because many Conservatives hoped for victory at the 2010 election against an increasingly unpopular Labour government and realised that only a united party could achieve this. Certainly, by the time Tony Blair left office in 2007, Cameron’s Conservative Party seemed to have recovered much of the ground lost since 1992.
Why did the Conservatives lose the 2001 election - Conservative weaknesses
- Hague found it difficult to be taken seriously, especially his attempts to appear ordinary and live down his teenage political speech-making. He was mocked for wearing a baseball cap, for appearing at the Notting Hill Carnival and for his boast of drinking 14 pints a day as a teenager
-The divisions in the Conservative Party and his own personal weaknesses in the opinion polls meant that by the time of the 2001 election, Hague had retreated to right-wing policy positions designed to shore up the Conservative core vote: the fight to save the pound’ and a hard line against immigration.
-Furthermore, Thatcher appeared at an election rally quipping that she had seen an apt billboard advertising the film The Mummy Returns. While her involvement was attractive to many Conservative activists, it did not widen the Conservative Party’s appeal any further. Instead it further undermined Hague’s leadership and reminded some voters of why they had rejected the Conservative Party previously. The Conservative Party lost by another landslide.
-William Hague was a witty and trenchant performer in the House of Commons, his qualities did not translate into popularity in the country at large. The same was true of his party, which found it difficult to encroach on Labour’s lead. The Conservatives at this stage lacked a distinctive enough image to make them an attractive alternative in the eyes of the voters. Although they sniped at the government, they found it difficult to score a palpable hit. Poor campaign with main line of opposition being opposition to adopting the euro, which failed to attract floating voters.
2001 Election Results
Labour - 412 seats, 40.7%
Conservative - 165 seats, 31.7%
Liberal Democrat - 46 seats, 18.3%
Why did the Conservatives lose the 2001 election - Labour Strengths
-Tony Blairs personal popularity major factor in success.
-Britain’s finances seemed secure in the hands of Gordon Brown as the chancellor of the exchequer and the economy was growing.
-In regard to Northern Ireland, Blair had taken a number of important initiatives, leaving little room for the opposition to attack him. In foreign affairs, the government’s record was sound and while there was some uncertainty about the government’s attitude towards Europe, there was even more about the attitude of the Conservatives.
-The opinion polls had concurred in forecasting a Labour victory, thus decreasing the incentive to vote
-Improvements in the public services
Why did the Conservatives lose the 2005 election - Conservative weakness
-Although Howard had made some noises about moving to the centre, he himself was on the right of the party. He was also associated with the previous Conservative governments of Major and Thatcher; voters therefore found it difficult to believe that the Conservative Party had changed. Its manifesto at the 2005 election seemed to reinforce this: a tough line on immigration, travellers, and law and order, combined with tax cuts and a reduction to the public sector. Michael Portillo described it as the Victor Meldrew’ manifesto
- a grumpy old man complaining about the state of modern Britain. Party seemed to still be the same party of the 1980s and 90s.
-Although the Conservatives made some progress in 2005 it was still limited, particularly in context. The shift to the right had prevented a rise in support for UKIP but little had been done to make the party more attractive to the centre. Modernisers in the party who wanted to ensure that this defeat was finally the spur to change pointed out that the Conservative Party’s popularity was still falling amongst women, young people, and in the north.
-Since the Conservatives had supported the government’s decision to go into Iraq, they were unable to gain from the mounting criticism of the war.
-The Conservative Party had had three different leaders within two years.
William Hague had been replaced by lain Duncan Smith after the 2001 election defeat. In 2003 Duncan Smith, having proved an uninspiring leader, was in turn replaced by Michael Howard. This did not impress the general public, who regarded the Conservatives as a divided party, lacking in confidence and unlikely to be able to govern well.
Why did the Conservatives lose the 2005 election - Labour Strength
-In 2005, the Conservatives suffered a third successive defeat. This was despite the Labour Party’s unpopularity over the war in Iraq and more obvious divisions appearing between the Blairites and the Brownites.
-Despite losing some ground in the election, Blair’s government had retained a comfortable overall majority. There was no reason for thinking it could not run another full term if it chose.
-Although Blair’s involvement in the Iraq war lost him some popularity, he was still regarded by the electorate as the outstanding choice among party leaders.
-Knowledge of the economic difficulties that were beginning to face Britain had not become sufficiently widespread for it to count as a factor against the government.
-Skilfully backed by his spin doctors, Blair by 2005 was an experienced political operator who knew how to project his image. Howard was a competent Conservative leader but he was no real match for Blair in the presidential-style campaign that the prime minister conducted.
2005 election results
Labour - 355 seats, 35.2%
Conservatives - 198 seats, 32.4%
Liberal Democrats - 62 seats, 13.5%
To what extent did society change between 1997-2007 - Rights and powers of workers - Continuity
Historically the Labour Party was the party of the workers. So when the Labour Party was elected to government in 1997 many believed that their long connection with the trade unions would make them much more sympathetic to trade union concerns. However, the decline of trade unions, which had begun in the 1980s, continued. The percentage of the workforce with membership of a union fell from 29 per cent to 26 per cent - though this rate of decline was much smaller than it had been previously.
Furthermore, despite the hopes of many trade unionists, New Labour did not repeal the trade union legislation that had been passed by the Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997. In fact the Labour government was often openly critical of strike action by trade unions. This is not really surprising. New Labour believed that the Labour Party’s links with the trade union movement and memories of the ‘winter of discontent’ was one of the reasons that it had not been electable in the 1980s. Instead the influence that trade unions had on the Labour Party, for example through the block vote, had already been limited in the reforms passed by Smith and Blair; New Labour preferred to emphasise its pro-business attitude.
Some trade unions were also extremely critical of the Labour government for continuing to pursue policies such as outsourcing and PFI, which had been introduced by the Conservative Party in the 1980s and 1990s. Although the Labour government protected the employment rights of workers who moved from the public to the private sector in this way, they allowed contracting out to continue. Similarly, the Labour government not only did not reverse the privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s, it extended them. The Air Traffic Control organisation was sold off; London Underground moved to a public-private partnership; there were even discussions about selling off Royal Mail, which Major had not dared to do. Many trade unions were dismayed by this. By 2004, the RMT, the Transport Workers’ Union, had been expelled from the party because some of its local branches had decided to donate to other, more left-wing, political parties.
To what extent did society change between 1997-2007 - Rights and powers of workers - Changes
However, the Labour government did opt back into the European Social Chapter. This meant that Britain would now follow European policies regarding employment and social rights. So, for example, all employees were now entitled to request up to three months unpaid parental leave to care for a child who was under the age of eight years old. Nevertheless, the Labour government also retained its ability to opt out of some employment legislation, for example maximum working hours.
The Labour government also welcomed globalisation as an opportunity for economic growth. It argued that Britain had to learn to better compete in the new globalised world economy by increasing the skills of its workers. This would allow Britain to develop a ‘knowledge economy’ that would add value with more efficient systems and processes, often utilising new technologies.
This new efficiency would increase productivity.
Although there was not an explicit commitment to full employment, there was an emphasis on supporting people into work. Blair expressed it as work for those who can, security for those that can’t. The New Deal programme targeted particular groups of the unemployed - young people, older workers, the disabled, lone parents - and promised support to help them find work. This might be training or guidance, work in the voluntary sector to gain experience, or a subsidised job placement. Critics argued that the support was often limited and complained that the sanctions imposed if people did not take up the support were unfair and counter-productive. There was also a great deal of emphasis on making work pay. In 1998 the Labour government introduced the National Minimum Wage. A Low Pay Commission was set up to oversee and set the wage, though initially it was set at an extremely low rate. In addition, Brown introduced tax credits, which were means-tested benefits paid to people with low incomes, with specific elements targeted at, for example, those with children or with a disability.
To what extent did society change between 1997-2007 - Women
In 1997 the number of women elected as MPs rose to 120, double the previous number. Of these, 101 were Labour MPs. Labour had introduced all-women shortlists to half of what it considered its most winnable seats in a deliberate attempt to try and increase the number of women in Parliament.
Blair also appointed women to prominent positions in his cabinet including Margaret Beckett as foreign secretary (2006-07), the first woman to serve in this role.
Women were often the main beneficiaries of New Labour’s policies.
Childcare provision was extended: by 2007 all 3- and 4-year-olds were entitled to 12.5 hours a week of free nursery education which was to rise to 15 hours by 2010. Similarly, women were given pension credits when unable to work because of caring responsibilities.
Women were also making progress, albeit slow, in the board room. Between 1999 and 2007, the percentage of FTSE 100 companies that had no women on the board fell from 36 per cent to 24 per cent. However, critics argued that there was limited progress on other issues such as the pay gap, with women still only earning 87 per cent of what men did in 2007. Critics also argued that New Labour’s emphasis on paid employment undervalued the unpaid work in the home and with the family which women did; one report found that, by 2007, when couples were compared, women still did three times the amount of housework as men.
To what extent did society change between 1997-2007 - Youth - Changes
There was a great deal of focus on youth by the New Labour government.
The government itself was seen as a youthful alternative to the Conservatives.
Tony Blair was the youngest prime minister to have been elected. He had three school-age children, and a fourth was born in 2000. This was an image which was emphasised. Not long after the election victory in 1997, Blair hosted a celebrity party at 10 Downing Street; attendees included Noel Gallagher from the band Oasis, the fashion designer Vivienne Westwood, who had risen to notoriety during the punk era of the 1970s, and the actress Helen Mirren.
A concentration on issues that affected young people also complemented New Labour priorities. A key objective was to end social exclusion and the Social Exclusion Unit was set up in 1997 to coordinate this effort.
The aim to end social exclusion led to the establishment of Sure Start centres. These centres aimed to help families with children by providing guidance and information and ensure that preschool children were supported to be ready for school. In addition Blair, in 1999, pledged to end child poverty in 20 years, and through policies like child tax credit had brought it down by a quarter by 2005.
Similarly, the Connexions service was created to advise teenagers about the choices they had when they left school. New Labour also aimed for 50 per cent of young people to go to university, believing that this would produce the highly skilled workforce needed to compete in the globalised world
To what extent did society change between 1997-2007 - Youth - Continuity
However, there were also concerns about youth issues. Despite the New Deal for Young People, the number of NEETs had increased to almost 20 per cent by 2007. And it was partly fears over youth crime that led to the introduction of the Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO). An ASBO was a court order which would put limits on what the defendant could do. For example, it could impose a curfew or ban someone from going to a particular estate or shopping centre. Breaching an ASBO was a criminal offence.
ASBOs aimed to prevent antisocial behaviour such as graffiti, vandalism, or intimidation. These were not solely aimed at young people although they became the main recipients: by 2005 46 per cent of ASBOs went to under-17-year-olds.
To what extent did Britain become a multicultural society - Immigration
Globalisation had accelerated the movement of people, as well as the EU opening the way for people from Central and Eastern Europe to move to Britian. 1991-2006, net migration increased by 3 million in this period.
-These migrants included: skilled workers and professionals, coming to fill skills shortages; the families of immigrants already living in Britain; foreign students at British universities; people from the new states who acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007; asylum seekers displaced by the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other conflicts in the world. The changing nature of immigration sometimes raised tensions.
-Ethnic minority groups represented just over 7%, much less than one in ten, of British population.
-Some newspapers like the Daily Express focused on the potential problems, associating migrants (particularly from Eastern Europe) with criminal behaviour and with taking jobs away from local people, or driving down wage levels by accepting low pay. The pressure group Migration Watch, headed by a retired diplomat, Sir Andrew Green, focused on the dangers of large numbers of immigrants arriving so quickly that public services such as health and education were overstretched.
-Most economists argued that the nation benefited economically from migrants: they filled labour shortages, brought valuable skills, set up useful small businesses, paid tax and were a net gain to the economy. They argued that most migrants were young, active and healthy, so they did not make heavy demands on public services and often worked in them. Migrant families tended to have more children at a younger age, with a beneficial impact on overall birth rates.It was also pointed out that migration did not flow only one way. Many migrants returned home; about one third of migrants from Poland did so. Similarly, many British people were leaving to work abroad or to buy retirement homes in Spain.
To what extent did Britain become a multicultural society - Multiculturalism in society
Argument for racial equality was accepted by all responsible people. Very little people claimed that one race was superior to another, issue that remained to be resolved was not race but a cultural one, were all cultures regarded as morally equlivant.
-Evidence that Britian was a multicultural society and was comfortable with this:
-The year 2002 saw the first black cabinet minister appointed, when Paul Boateng became the chief secretary to the Treasury.
-Mosques were a familiar feature of many towns and cities.
-Schools, local government and corporate organisations launched initiatives to celebrate the cultural background of people from ethnic minorities, many of whom had been born in Britain.
-Festivals like the Notting Hill Carnival attracted millions. Many people took pride in the progress made towards a genuinely multicultural society; in 2005 London successfully bid to hold the 2012 Olympic Games and one of its key selling points was the multiculturalism of the city.
However still evidence of racial tensions:
-The Macpherson Report, published in 1998, about the murder of Stephen Lawrence, identified problems of ‘institutional racism’ in the Metropolitan Police. The BBC chairman, Greg Dyke, acknowledged that his workforce was ‘hideously white’ in 2001, believing that the organisation did not do enough to attract and retain people from ethnic minorities.
-There were also complaints that not enough emphasis was being placed on the responsibilities of immigrants to properly integrate into Britain and that even some people who were born in Britain were alienated from British society and culture.
-Riots in 2001 in Bradford, Manchester and Oldham in which black, white and Asian groups clashed showed integration had not taken place in more deprived areas.
-Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), argued previous multicultural policies had not integrated in the way governments had hoped. In 2005 he argued that key way of preventing segregation was to not allow it in education in the form of exclusive faith schools. With the Muslim schools where children trained in an Islamic way of life being referenced, backlash saying they had been long established and could be compatible with British vales.Phillips comments aroused anger on the left. Ken Livingstone, the Labour mayor of London, attacked him for giving currency to racist ideas by ‘pandering to the right. Phillips replied by saying it was essential to ask hard questions about multicultural Britain, adding in a memorable phrase that the basis of free speech was the right to allow people to offend each other’.
To what extent did Britain become a multicultural society - Terrorist attacks
- Complaints over a lack of integration into Britain and alienation of non-british people can be highlighted by the terrorist attack on London in July 2005. On 7 July 52 people were killed and 700 injured as 4 suicide bombers attacked 3 underground trains and a bus. When the bombers were identified it was discovered that three of them were British-born citizens who had appeared to be wholly assimilated into society.
The leader of the group, Mohammed Sidique Khan, had been a well-respected community worker in West Yorkshire.
-Two weeks later on 21 July 2005, four more suicide bombers attempted a similar attack but the bomb failed to explode. Four men were later convicted for the attempted attacks. Although they had been born in Ethiopia and Somalia they were naturalised British citizens. The attacks caused much soul-searching about security issues and about community relations.
-Two main responses to these terrorist attacks, some argued necessary to find out why men like Khan had become so alienated and how relations with ethnic minorities could be improved to that they felt more British. One common belief was that Britain’s foreign policy, especially the war in Iraq, had dangerously alienated British Muslims. In 2006 the post of secretary of state for local government and communities was created; one aim of the role was to work with local communities to prevent extremism.
Others argued that there was essential need to greater security leading to national identity cards and the terrorist act of 2006.
To what extent did Britain become a multicultural society - Legislation
In 2006 the Labour government passed the controversial National Identity Card Act arguing that identity cards were needed to fight terrorism; likewise the Terrorist Act 2006 increased the time that a suspect could be held without charge to 28 days, though this was fewer than the 90 days the government had wanted. Critics looked at the experience of the Irish Troubles between the 1970s and the 1990s, emphasising the importance of not overreacting and cutting back civil liberties; they pointed out that the introduction of internment of terrorist suspects in Ireland in the early 1970s had simply encouraged recruitment to these organisations.
In 2006 the governments awareness of multiculturalism as a growing issue led to the introduction of the Religious Hatred Act, intended to protect people from being abused and attacked for their religious beliefs. Events such as the London Bombings 2005 and the violent reaction to a set of satirical cartoons published Danish newspaper in 2005, which, according to many Muslims, insulted the prophet Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic faith. In London, in February 2006, some 300 Muslims demonstrated against their publication in the previous year. Four of the demonstrators were arrested and subsequently tried and imprisoned for incitement to violence and murder. One of the convicted four had whipped up the crowd by leading a repeated chant, Bomb, bomb the UK.
Overall the Bill met stiff criticism from both believers and non-believers who suggested that religious hatred was too imprecise an attitude to legislate against and that existing laws against incitement already gave adequate protection. In the end, the Act went through in a watered down form and added little to existing laws on incitement.
To what extent did Britain become a multicultural society - British Opinion
These terrorist incidents highlighted broader concerns about multicultural Britain. Pressure groups, Internet blogs and some sections of the national press claimed that this was a problem that threatened social cohesion and the British way of life. In the 2001 election, opinion polls found that immigration was regarded as a vital issue by only 3 per cent of voters; similar polls in 2007 put the figure at nearly 30 per cent.
In a MORI opinion poll for the BBC, August 2005 found that:
-62% of Brits felt Multiculturism makes Britain a better place, 82% of Muslims
-32% of Brits felt Multiculturism threatens Britain’s way of life, 13% Muslims
-58% of Bris felt people who came to Britian should adopt British values and traditions, 29% Muslims
(1.6 million Muslims in Britain, making them the largest British non-Christian faith group)
New Labours Foreign Policy Objectives
-Making the UK government a leading power in Europe
-Fostering people’s diplomacy to increase respect, understanding and goodwill for Britain
-Supply ethical content to foreign policy
-Making Britain a leading partner in the world community of nations
Robin Cook
a Scottish Labour MP first elected to Parliament in 1974. As shadow foreign secretary he had been extremely critical of the Conservative government’s handling of the Arms to Iraq affair. After 2001 he served as leader of the house, but resigned from the cabinet over Britain’s entry into the Iraq War in 2003. His resignation speech received a standing ovation.
Saddam Hussein
Seized power in Iraq in 1968. From 1979, he ruled as a dictator. He fought a long war against Iran in the 1980s and invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking the First Gulf War. He was overthrown in April 2003 during the Second Gulf War and was executed by the new government of Iraq in 2006.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Relationship with the EU, Blairs Approach
-Many people hoped that the New Labour government would transform Britain’s role within the EU. He argued for a third way approach: He spoke of an EU made up of friendly states, retaining their individual sovereignty, but collaborating on matters of common economic and political interest. Majors talk of Britain ‘being at the heart of Europe, was unrelasitic to Blair. Blair had already called for Britain to develop a new, more positive, relationship with its European partners, for example opting back into the European Social Chapter. Throughout his ten years as prime minister, Blair had a high personal standing and good relationships with other European leaders. This allowed Britain to take a leading role in negotiations for EU enlargement and in the discussions about the Treaty of Nice of 2001, which extended the institutions of the EU.
Blair was also enthusiastic about the possibility of Britain joining the European currency, the Euro. On New Years Day 2002 the euro became common currency to all but 3 members. However, Gordon Brown, as chancellor of the exchequer, was far less keen on this and set up a number of economic conditions that had to be met before Britain would give up the pound; they were so stringent, they were unlikely to be met.
-Blair was especially enthusiastic about strengthening the role of the EU in the wider world. Blair took the lead in European initiatives on issues such as climate change, world trade, and in aiming to ‘make poverty history’ by reforming aid to Africa. Britain was also at the centre of efforts to develop a common European strategy against the threat of global terrorism after the events of 11 September 2001. Blair tried to make Britain a bridge between Europe and the United States, above all in action against Iraq in 2002 and 2003, but also towards the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians and towards Iran.
-By 2007 the European Union had expanded to 27 states and was involved in negotiations with even more new applicants for membership, including Turkey, Croatia, Serbia and the Ukraine. This rapid enlargement had forced many changes in the nature of the EU and its methods of reaching decisions. It also presented new and difficult challenges for British foreign policy. What had started out as ‘The Six, an economic community dominated by the partnership between France and West Germany, was now becoming a much more political organisation in which the states of the New Europe, the former communist states of the USSR, were bound to play a prominent role. British policymakers had to decide how much Britain would actually be at the heart of Europe.
By the time Blair resigned as prime minister in 2007, his personal prestige in Europe was still high and he still enjoyed excellent relationships with the leaders of other European countries including the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and with the ‘new Europe[. But there were few concrete achievements. Progress on climate change and aid in Africa was frustratingly slow. Britain seemed unlikely to join the Euro. Attempts to reform the workings of the EU ended in the rejection of a proposed new constitution. A new, diluted scheme for reform was finally presented in the form of the Lisbon Treaty, at the end of 2007, but this aroused considerable controversy and there was no certainty that all 27 states would ratify the treaty.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Special Relationship with the US
New Labour was keen on maintaining the ‘special relationship with the United States. When Blair was elected in 1997, Bill Clinton was the president of the United States. There were a number of similarities between the two governments, both being influenced by the ideas of the Third Way. New Labour figures had forged even closer links with the US Democrats after 1992 to learn how a left-of-centre party could be electorally successful.
After the failure of the European Union and the United Nations to deal with the Yugoslavian crisis in the 1990s, Blair was utterly convinced that it was essential to keep the United States involved in European affairs and to make full use of NATO to defend the new world order that existed at the end of the Cold War. He believed that it was vitally important to maintain Britain’s
‘special relationship’ with the United States and that Britain had a key role in bringing closer together US and European policy.
The US Democrats lost the presidential election of 2000; the new Republican president was George W. Bush. Although it might have appeared to be likely that Blair would have less in common with Bush than he did with Clinton, the two men developed a close relationship, especially with regard to meeting the threat of global terrorism. However, this also led to accusations that British foreign policy became too dominated by US priorities during Blairs premiership
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Military Interventions and the war on terror - Yugoslavia
Blair firmly believed in liberal interventionism to prevent the recurrence of massacres and ethnic cleansing that had been seen in the Yugoslavian civil war.When the final phase of the Balkan wars began as a result of Serbian attacks on Kosovo, Blair devoted his main diplomatic efforts to persuading a reluctant President Clinton to back military action against Serbia. In 1999, a prolonged NATO bombing campaign against Serbia forced Milosevic into pulling his forces out of Kosovo. This early success in the Balkans moulded Blair’s thinking and did much to shape his later policies.
In 2000, when rebel forces in the civil war in Sierra Leone threatened to take over the capital city, Freetown, the British government sent armed forces. Initially this was to evacuate foreigners, but once there British forces supported the United Nations peacekeepers in securing the capital and helped bring about the end of the civil war a year later.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Military Interventions and the war on terror - 9/11
-Later military interventions to support the war on terror proved more controversial and their success is harder to judge. The war on terror began after the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. Death tolls from 4 crashes, including 2 into the world trade centre, killed over 3000.
-Blair immediately commits himself to war on terror, announced support for US and became close ally of Bush. A month after events of 9/11 Blair sent British troops to support the US forced in attack on al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan
-Although 9/11 events intensified Blairs sense of mission they did not create it. In a speech given in Chicago in 1999, the British PM expressed what became known as the Blair doctrine:
-His position was that of a determined anti-appeaser; he believed that the best way to defeat tyranny in the world was not simply by using diplomacy to persuade oppressive regimes to behave better. Of course, diplomacy should be tried first, but, if this did not work, it was legitimate to use force to oblige aggressor states to conform to internationally agreed standards of conduct.
-Felt that international action should be carried out by those best fitted by experience and capability for the task, so UK and USA had special role in affairs.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Military Interventions and the war on terror - Afghanistan
Before 9/11, the United States had felt invulnerable from outside attack so the events of 9/11 came as a shock. Almost immediately, preparations began for NATO forces to invade Afghanistan, where the Taliban government had allowed Al-Qaeda to use the country as a base for training and planning
On 7 October 2001, Britain joined the United States in a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban and expel Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. This was supported by both NATO and the United Nations. Initially it was hoped that a new Afghanistan might quickly develop into a modern democratic state and again show the benefits of liberal interventionism; however, there was no instant pacification of the country and the leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda escaped. A new democratic regime was established but progress towards economic and political development was slow. Furthermore, from 2002, attention was drawn towards Iraq; critics argued that this allowed the Taliban to regroup in 2006 and 2007.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Military Interventions and the war on terror - Iraq
-After the First Gulf War of 1990 to 1991, Saddam Hussein had been
‘contained’ by economic sanctions and by ‘no-fly zones’ enforced by NATO air patrols. But by 2002 there were increasing fears of the threat Saddam might represent to the West. The first fear was that Iraq might link up with Al-Qaeda and provide a new base for terrorism, in the way that Afghanistan had been before 2001. The second was that Iraq might develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and would have the capacity to launch air strikes against Britian within 45 minute time span, according to Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)
-A United Nations resolution (Resolution 1441) in November 2002 had forced Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. However, by early 2003 the USA believed that Saddam Hussein was not properly cooperating. There was a dispute within the United Nations about whether this first resolution had given the international community permission to use military force in these circumstances. In order to reach agreement, Blair made strenuous efforts to win over his European allies by pushing for a second UN resolution but was ultimately unsuccessful, largely due to Russia and China making it clear they would block any attempt to push through.
He tried to gain support from Europe but failed; France and Germany found the grounds for military intervention unconvincing. If Britain and the USA went ahead, they would be acting alone.
The invasion of Iraq was launched by American forces in March 2003 backed by a coalition of the willing including Britain, Poland and Italy among others, without UN sanction.
Blair’s critics claimed that he knew Bush was going to invade Iraq anyway, that agreed with Bush’s aim of regime change and was simply using UN resolutions as a way of bringing Europe round. Blair’s defenders argue that he was genuinely convinced about the dangers of WMD and that he was correct in his analysis of the need to ensure that the United States continued to be part of the international world order and not retreat to unilateral action or isolationism.
Military victory and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were complete by April 2003, but there was no neat or decisive end to the war, with a ‘civil war’ following. British troops found themselves bogged down in a long struggle. Although by 2006, there were improvements in the security situation and the Iraqi government had become more stable, few of the expectations when the war was launched in 2003 had been proved right
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Political impact of Iraq
British involvement in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been extremely controversial. Four ministers, including the foreign secretary, Robin Cook, resigned over the issue. A ‘Stop the War’ march through London in February 2003 had attracted more than a million people. The failure to find evidence of WMD, which had been used to justify the invasion, heightened criticism. By May 2003 the British government was being accused of having exaggerated the threat in the findings of the JIC dossier which Blairs had based his reasons for going to war. In addition, as the war dragged on, British and US troops were accused of mistreating Iraqi prisoners of war.
By the end of 2007, Britain had achieved only very limited and partial success in Iraq, well short of the ambitious goals set out in 2003. In any case, troop reductions in Iraq were countered by the need to reinforce the British war effort in Afghanistan, which also remained insecure.
When Tony Blair left Downing Street in 2007, it was still too early to make a definitive judgement on the success or failure of the Iraq War. But it was apparent at this point that the war had damaged Blair’s reputation, and that of Britain. On the other hand, a democratic government existed in Iraq instead of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and it could still be hoped that this government might have a stable and successful future in the long term.
-By 2007, in many ways ‘Blair’s war’ in Iraq was the defining issue of his political career and of Britain’s position in the world. It was still possible to hope that future developments would eventually lead to a new, secure Iraqi state, but the war had had a cost in lives, expense and diplomatic effort
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - overall judgement
-Blair’s involvement in Iraq had also undoubtedly damaged the reputation of his government within Britain. His ideal of liberal interventionism was discredited; it would be much harder for a British government to convince the public of the need for military intervention in future. Some argued that this would ensure that Britain could concentrate on defending its own interests; others raised the possibility that not being willing to play such an influential role in world affairs in future might mean that Britain’s position in the world would decline.
-Iraq also had other implications for Britains position in war. Blair had made efforts to mediate in the Middle East in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, both through direct diplomacy and through working with the EU. But while he had a genuine commitment to the peace process, the Iraq War, and his close relationship with Bush, made this difficult. Britain was not seen as an independent and fair judge of international disputes.
-Despite special relationship being strengthened, but position in Europe remained ambivalent. Didnt join Euro on launch in 1999 and seemed as far away from joining as ever in 2007. And deep divisions between the European countries who had opposed intervention and Britain were opened up by the war in Iraq. Moreover, while Britain had played a major role in foreign affairs between 1997 and 2007, some believed that it had so obviously been dominated by the United States that it merely confirmed that Britain was very much the junior partner in the special relationship.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Relationship with the EU, Rebate Issue
-A concern that had clouded Britain’s relations with Europe since 1973 was the size of the annual budget paid by member states to Europe. Britain felt that it had been discriminated against from the beginning by being obliged to pay a disproportionately higher amount. It was true that in 1984 Margaret Thatcher had won an annual rebate for Britain, but there were strong complaints from many member states, most prominently France, which argued that rebates breached the various treaty obligations which members had signed. In 2004 this issue forced itself into the foreground when the EU was enlarged to include the states of Eastern Europe.
-Blair told Europe that Britain was prepared to pay its ‘fair share of the costs of enlargement’, but he added that it could not give up its rebate and that he would use Britain’s veto to block any EU attempt to force the UK to do so. One of Britain’s strongest arguments was that the UK had never actually received its full rebate because, in accordance with European regulations, 66 per cent of any EU funding that it was granted was deducted from the rebate. The result was that in net terms the UK, since joining in 1973, had received much less from the EEC EU than it had paid into it.
-In 2004 Blair further stated that ‘the rebate and the Common Agricultural Policy are inextricably linked and there cannot be fundamental change in one unless there is fundamental change in the other’. He was on strong grounds. CAP had never worked in Britain’s favour. In 2004, Britain received less from CAP than any of the major member states (UK 9% vs France 22% and Spain 15%, beneficiaries)
-Despite Blair’s strong stance in 2004, he did not achieve the reform of CAP that he had wanted. When Europe closed ranks against Britain in 2005 and demanded that it increase its budget contributions, he gave in and complied One of his last acts as prime minister on the European stage was in December 2006 when he negotiated away the UK’s rebate, as a result of which Britain’s annual contribution rose to £7 billion, Blair had given into Europe on the rebate issue. There is an interesting aspect to Blair’s eventually giving in to European pressure. Despite its odd-one-out image, Britain was the most compliant of all the EU member states. During 2006, Britain accepted over 3000 EU regulations and directives, few of which were discussed, let alone modified, by the Westminster Parliament.
What was Britians place in the world 1997-2007 - Relationship with the EU, The European Consititution
Running parallel with the debate over CAP was the equally divisive issue of the adoption of a European constitution. In October 2004, the 27 EU member states met in Rome to sign the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE).
The treaty was scheduled to come into force in November 2006, provided it was ratified by each of the member states. Blair’s government promised that, before the TCE was ratified by the UK, the question of whether it should be accepted would be put to the British electorate in a referendum. However, when in 2005, in separate referendums in France and Denmark, the electors there rejected the treaty, the government declared that ratification was now a dead issue, which made a referendum in Britain no longer necessary. This did not satisfy those who asked why the British people were to be denied a referendum which other member states had chosen to hold. Euro-sceptics claimed that the government had reneged on its promise because it knew the TCE would be rejected in Britain, an outcome strongly suggested by the opinion polls.
Undeterred by the failure to achieve ratification, the EU in June 2007 produced a replacement for the TCE. Technically, the new document was termed a ‘Reform Treaty, a linguistic shift which meant that, although the new treaty was in every major respect the same as the TCE, it was not formally a constitution and, therefore, did not require formal ratification. As a consequence, when the Reform Treaty was subsequently accepted and signed by the EU members in Lisbon in December 2007, the British government (now led by Gordon Brown as prime minister) declared that there was no need for a referendum on it.
Claiming that its promise to hold a referendum applied only to a constitution, the government asserted that acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty was now solely a matter for parliamentary approval. This was duly granted in March 2008, when the government used its majority to push it through. These manoeuvrings recalled the way that John Major’s government had achieved parliamentary acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993
