Abstract
The first volume of this study of modern British political processes was finished in 1985. My own reformulations since then, together with the requirements of undergraduate teaching and the comments of other historians and political scientists, have inevitably emphasised and sharpened some of its arguments in the intervening four years, so that a brief recapitulation is desirable before setting out to complete the narrative as far as the mid-1980s. But even if it were not so, an introductory chapter on the 1961 context would require some assessment of how perceptions of the 1944 agenda and postwar settlement had changed. What had once been seen as a political contract written in very general but enabling terms, was judged, seventeen years later, to be an inadequate rulebook for what had become the principal contemporary requirements: adjustment to change and economic growth. Wartime reconstructors had, of course, envisaged their agenda in different terms; of survival as a great power in a hostile postwar environment, whilst remedying the greatest evils of the 1930s. Their conception of what was to be done inevitably fell foul of the next generation’s tendency to rewrite the agenda in its own terms and to seek, in the idea of planned growth, a remedy for the failure of politics and of the politicians who preceded them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
This is the theme of Correlli Barnett’s The Audit of War (1986), which rests fundamentally on the assumption that Britain could have been galvanised by a post-war government that had not set itself a ‘New Jerusalem’ of welfare priorities and rising living standards. Such a government, in an open democracy, after the 1945 election result, would have been inconceivable: the argument requires at the least a Bismarkian regime, if not a dictatorship.
Christopher Booker, The Neophiliacs (1969);
Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter-Culture (1970);
Stuart Hall, Resistance Through Rituals (1976). Cf. Stanislav Andreski’s comment: ’sorcery lost, not because of any waning of its intrinsic appeal to the human mind, but because it failed to match the power created by science. But, though abandoned as a tool for controlling nature, incantations remain more effective for manipulating crowds than logical arguments, so that in the conduct of human affairs, sorcery continues to be stronger than science.’ (The Social Sciences as Sorcery, 1972, p. 92)
S. M. Lipset, ‘The changing class structure and contemporary European polities’; R. Dahrendorf, ‘Recent changes in the class structure of European societies’, Daedalus, vol. 93, no. 7 (1964), pp. 271–303 and 225–70.
H. M. Wachtel The Money Mandarins (1986), p. 61.
Taking 1953 as the baseline, British industrial production 1951–60 rose from 98 to 129, by 31%; over the same period, Continental Western Europe from 92 to 172, or 86% (S. Pollard, The Wasting of the British Economy 1945 to the Present, 1982, p. 41).
E. A. Brett, The World Economy since the War, The Politics of Uneven Development (1985), pp. 132–3.
Cf. Pollard, The Wasting of the British Economy; S. Strange, Sterling and British Policy (1971); C. J. Bartlett, The Long Retreat (1972).
A. Shonfield, British Economic Policy since the War (1959), p. 234;
Radcliffe Report, pp. 265–6. For a later assessment, see R. Caves, Britain’s Economic Prospects (1968), p. 151.
It could be argued that the British were in some respect wiser: for autonomous growth in all these countries, except Italy, made it possible in the 1960s to lay aside the integration project and compensate the recipients of welfare out of rapid growth, leading in due course to the savage reversals in the mid-1970s that undermined both growth and welfare provision. But British disdain probably derived less from cynical foresight than from insular pride (Cf. Hugo Heclo, ‘Towards a New Welfare State?’, in P. Flora and A. Heidenheimer, The Development of the Welfare State in Europe and America (1981).
Hugo Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden (1974), p. 305.
G. Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old: Critical Essays and Reappraisals (1987).
Copyright information
© 1990 Keith Middlemas
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Middlemas, K. (1990). Introduction: 1961. In: Power, Competition and the State. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378780_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230378780_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38846-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37878-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)