World Country Guide

History and Government

History
The Romans conquered and settled the major part of the British mainland between the first and fifth centuries AD, although their influence was limited in the northern and western regions. After their withdrawal (410-442), the island was invaded by Jutes, Saxons and Angles, who established seven kingdoms in the area south of Hadrian’s Wall. Scotland and Wales remained Pictish/Celtic. By the early ninth century, Wessex had emerged as the dominant kingdom and was the spearhead of resistance to the Danish invasions, particularly during the reign of Alfred the Great.

By the time of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), England was the most highly organised state in Europe and this position was consolidated when Norman military feudal organisation was imposed by William I and his successors (notably Henry I and Henry II) after 1066. Inheritance and dynastic marriage had given England control of most of France by the 12th century, and the territorial disputes were not settled until the end of the Hundred Years’ War in 1453. The 12th century also saw the conquest of Ireland, although it was never fully integrated into the political life of the mainland (see Ireland section). The constitutional history of England between the 11th and 15th centuries can be viewed in terms of the gradual expansion of the powers of the crown and the increasing efficiency and sophistication of the monarch’s administration. This was a policy that often ran contrary to the interests of the aristocracy and, on many occasions, notably during the reigns of Stephen, John, Henry III, Edward II and Richard II, constitutional conflicts developed which checked or reversed the trend; indeed the last two of these were deposed to make way for a ruler whom the barons felt would be more amenable to their wishes.

The deposition of Richard II and the accession of his cousin Henry IV of Lancaster ushered in 60 years of weak central government and low royal prestige (notwithstanding Henry V’s outstanding victory at Agincourt in 1415 and his subsequent conquest of most of France), which culminated in the dynastic conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. The throne changed hands on six occasions between 1461 and 1485, when the Tudor Henry VII defeated the Yorkist Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth.

One of the most able of English monarchs, Henry VII, managed to revive the power and prestige of the crown considerably. In 1509, his son, Henry VIII, succeeded to a state in many ways stronger and wealthier than it had ever been before. Scotland’s political development during this period was dominated by largely unsuccessful royal attempts at centralisation; nevertheless, the kingdom did manage to protect its independence in the face of constant English aggression, largely as a result of the talents of the members of the House of Stuart who managed to preserve some semblance of royal authority, despite the fact that every ruler between 1437 and 1625 came to the throne whilst a minor. Their reward came in 1603 when James VI succeeded Elizabeth I of England (see below). Wales remained as a Principality during this time, occasionally united and usually very much at the mercy of English political ambitions.

The Tudor period in England (1485–1603) witnessed several important developments: the re-establishment of central power, the break with Rome under Henry VIII, the beginnings of overseas expansion, the union of England and Wales and the flowering of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama. In retrospect, possibly the most important development was the remarkable growth of the power of Parliament. Accustomed since its slightly hazy beginnings in the baronial revolts of the 1260s to representing grievances and – particularly as a consequence of Edward III’s urgent need for money to fight the French – granting taxation, the institution acquired a new purpose in the 1530s. Henry VIII used it as a vehicle for passing the Act of Supremacy and other legislation pertaining to the break with Rome, thus giving Parliament the prestige and self-confidence to interfere in and influence the affairs of state, which it never lost.

Elizabeth I was succeeded by her cousin James VI of Scotland, although the formal union of the countries was not effected until 1707. The increasing power of Parliament (see above) was to prove a more effective force in curtailing the power of the crown than the medieval barons had been, and the English Civil War in the 1640s proved how real and effective this power had become: the conflict finally ended with the dramatic and, to most contemporaries, horrific spectacle of the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the establishment of a confused series of republics and protectorates during the English Revolution (1649–1660).

Despite the prodigious wealth of political ideas which surfaced in this period – ranging from the re-establishment of the monarchy under Oliver Cromwell to the creation of an Evangelical Republic to prepare for the imminently expected Second Coming – by 1660, the Revolution had run out of viable ideas and Charles II was invited back almost on his own terms. Amazingly, within 20 years he almost managed to assert absolutism, although this opportunity finally disappeared with the abdication and flight of the unpopular (and Catholic) successor, his brother James II. On this occasion, Parliament made no mistake, inviting (this time on their terms) the Protestant William III of Orange to take the crown in 1689.

From this date on, the powers of the crown became severely curtailed: his successor, Queen Anne, was the last monarch to refuse the royal assent to an Act of Parliament. The 18th century saw Great Britain’s (so-called after 1707) emergence as a major colonial and industrial power, mainly at the expense of France, in such conflicts as the Seven Years’ War. The American colonies were lost in 1776, but eventual victory in the Napoleonic Wars confirmed British naval supremacy. By this time, Great Britain was one of the world’s leading military and industrial powers, having spearheaded techniques in almost every field of production during the Industrial Revolution. While the growth of the colonies provided markets and sources of raw materials, the demographic increase gave the new industries a ready supply of cheap labour, and the explosion of urban wealth and population was probably the most dramatic social change since the introduction of feudalism.

Great Britain and Ireland were formally united in 1801 under the name of the United Kingdom. The long reign of Victoria (1837–1901) is associated with the period of greatest British involvement, conquest, evangelisation and overseas settlement, as well as further domestic economic and demographic growth. At the height of empire, Britain ruled vast tracts of the globe. The legacy of empire still continues today with problems and conflicts worldwide that can be directly attributed to the drawing of national borders, not on national or ethnic lines, but as a result of colonial expansion at the dictate of commercial gain. World War I, in which Britain suffered heavy losses, marked the end of the old system of European and colonial empires and was followed in Britain by a depression, the first signs of a relative economic decline that is still evident to this day. Relations between Britain and Ireland, never good, flared into civil war in 1916, and all but the six, largely Protestant, northeastern counties became independent in 1921. The colonial possessions were given up after the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II and, since then, the outlook of the UK has been dominated by European concerns, although British influence (often covert) in the ex-colonies remains strong.

Certain vestiges of the empire, such as the Falkland Islands, Hong Kong and Gibraltar, have caused varying degrees of friction with other states. After World War II, the empire was effectively finished: the opposition of the USA, which had now assumed the mantle of the world’s principal power, saw to that. At home, the Liberal Party was challenged, and quickly overtaken, as the main opposition to the Conservative Party by the Labour Party, which had its roots in the organised labour movement which grew up around the turn of the century. Labour formed its first government under Ramsay MacDonald in 1924. After a wartime coalition government of national unity – with both Labour and Conservative represented under Winston Churchill between 1940 and 1945 – Labour and Conservative have exerted a two-party stranglehold on the government of the UK.

The Labour government of 1945–51 was significant for major reforms of the health, education, housing and social service systems. The consensus started to break down in the 1970s as economic stagnation, endemic inflation and a growing trade deficit made it clear to many that the post-war prescriptions were no longer valid or relevant. It was against this background, and the decline of traditional manufacturing industries, that Margaret Thatcher came to power at the head of a government in 1979. The 1980s were a decade characterised by radical domestic policies of privatisation and deregulation of state-owned industries and public bodies. (These have since become standard features of economic reforms across the globe.)

Thatcher went on to win general elections in 1983 and 1987. Her finest hour was the military victory over the Argentinians in the South Atlantic War of 1982. However, Thatcher always courted controversy in her policies and her years in government are either seen as triumphant or troubling, depending on the Briton. As Prime Minister, she abolished free milk for schoolchildren under seven years old; employment figures rose (almost doubling in her first term); she advocated Poll Tax; refused full economic integration with Europe; and actively reduced the power of trade unions. Her eventual political demise in November 1990 came not from a decision of the electorate, however, but from worries within her own Conservative Party about the electoral consequences of her policies. The immediate inheritance of her successor, former Chancellor of the Exchequer John Major, was Thatcher’s agreement to participate in the US-led UN coalition formed to oust the Iraqis from their military occupation of Kuwait. Approximately 30,000 British service personnel eventually took part in this successful operation in early 1991.

Iraq has been a continuous foreign policy migraine for successive British governments (see below). However, so has been the evolution of Britain’s position in the European Union. The Maastricht agreement of 1992 took European integration far beyond the original conception of a common market, introducing major policies to harmonise legislation in the areas of social policy, immigration, policing and finance. The British were highly sceptical of some elements of the Maastricht package and negotiated exemptions from its provisions.

The Conservatives unexpectedly won another general election victory in April 1992, albeit with a reduced majority. The opposition Labour Party, despairing at the prospect of more than 15 years out of office, embarked on a major overhaul of its policies and public image under the leadership of a new leader – Tony Blair. By 1997, ‘New Labour’ was ready. The Conservatives were stale, bereft of ideas and dogged by ‘sleaze’ – a seemingly endless series of financial and personal scandals. The Labour victory in May 1997 was no surprise, (although the size of their majority, over 100, was). The Conservative party has since experienced a taste of the political wilderness. Wracked by in-fighting and seemingly unable to produce a coherent strategy, it was in little better shape after another crushing defeat at the most recent poll in 2001. A new leader, ex-Home secretary Michael Howard, took over in 2003.

Although the Blair government has run into some difficulties, it has been sustained by a steady economic performance. Progress on the main domestic policies emphasised by the leadership, health and education, has been patchy. The Government’s failure to tackle the historic legacy of neglect and under-investment in public services (especially transport) is now becoming a serious problem. And, in an ironic reflection of its Conservative predecessor, the Blair government has been dogged by a series of financial and personal scandals. The most important economic decision facing the government – whether or not to join the ‘eurozone', which has now been in operation throughout most of the EU for 4 years – has been consistently ducked. By early 2004, having espoused its support for entry when conditions were appropriate, the government pulled away from any prospect of entry in the near future. If Britain does ever join, it is now likely to be at least a decade from now.

Among its principal achievements has been the introduction of a working system of devolution for Wales and Scotland, which now have their own assemblies for a wide range of domestic powers. The government has also invested much time and effort in the Northern Ireland peace process but the mutual hostility between loyalists and nationalists has proved exceptionally difficult to overcome. At present, the process is in abeyance after local elections in the autumn of 2003 returned the Democratic Unionist Party as the main representative of the protestant/loyalist population and Sinn Fein as the main catholic/nationalist party. For the time being, the province is being ruled directly from London. What is reasonably certain, however, is that there will be no return to violence which scarred the province for over a quarter of a century.

By the beginning of 2004, it was the foreign policy arena that was causing the greatest problems for the government. The British allied themselves firmly to the US strategy of seeking a means to dispose - once and for all - the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. In the largest troop deployment since the Second World War, the British invaded and occupied the southern region of Iraq, centred on the city of Basra. The nation was deeply divided: the strength of opposition was evident from the largest demonstrations ever seen in Britain, and many people felt that the government deliberately over-exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and his ‘weapons of mass destruction’, plus Hussein's supposed connections with Al-Qaeda, now widely disputed. Moreover, many Labour Party members were, and are, unhappy at the close – critics say 'fawning' – relationship between Blair and US president Bush. The British-controlled zone of Iraq has proved more manageable than the American regions in the centre of the country, and British troops have not, by and large, suffered the level of attacks experienced by their allies. There were fears of an escalation in death and violence for Britons involved in the Iraqi region when the Black Watch troops were deployed in Camp Dogwood, near Baghdad, where five soldiers died. Many breathed a collective sigh of relief when 200 troops were returned home in time for Christmas. However, there is still a long way to go before British troops can be pulled out of Iraq completely.

The debate surrounding this issue - whether or not to pull British troops out of Iraq - only escalates. A recent event in London will probably prove pivotal in underscoring the urgency in which the issue must be addressed, even if the event has done nothing to unify opinion. On July 7 2005, London was the scene of a horrific terrorist attack, the worst on its soil for roughly sixty years. At the height of rush-hour, when commuters rush to work in their hordes, ever-reliant upon London's public transport system, three explosions on London's Underground network and one explosion on a London double-decker bus injured hundreds and killed scores of others - police estimation currently hovers around the 60-figure mark. Three co-ordinated and simultaneous bombs detonated on London's 'tube' trains at Edgware Road, King's Cross and Liverpool Street. An hour later, a bomb exploded on a bus whilst it was travelling through Tavistock Square, near Russell Square. Scenes of carnage were broadcast worldwide and initiated a wave of panic and fear, with jittery Londoners choosing to travel by taxi instead. The whole of Central London was forced into an eerie standstill: with the Underground system suspended, people ordered off buses, and many mainline train services cancelled or heavily delayed, surreal footage showed huge crowds of people being forced to make their own way back home, walking defiantly along motorways, A Roads and busy London thoroughfares. However, within 24 hours, Londoners were bravely facing the commute once again, defying the terror that the terrorists sought to inflict. Although clearly shaken up, it had been a week of much pride for London and the UK: on the previous Sunday, Bob Geldof and co. staged a huge concert in Hyde Park, watched by billions worldwide, as part of Make Poverty History, a campaign to highlight global destitution and starvation, particularly in Africa; meanwhile, and deliberately timed so, Gleaneagles in Scotland had been the host of the G8 summit; and London also won the Olympics bid, all set to stage the huge sporting event in 2012, despite an overall assumption that the city would lose out to Paris at the final hurdle. Such triumphs and victories seemingly helped to imbue the British population with a determination to carry on as usual, and keep both calm and a sense of humour - this was shown by UK and European shares quickly recovering within a few hours upon onset of attack.

Meanwhile, investigation into the explosions begins to get underway. An Al-Qaeda splinter group immediately claimed responsibility on their website but such claims are still being validated. Evidence also now pinpoints to the attacks being the work of suicide bombers - the UK's first - with four suspects having been confirmed, three (so far) from West Yorkshire, of Pakistani Muslim origin. Police investigation is still underway. However, enough time now seems to have passed for people to begin questioning the 'War on Terrorism', what it involves and what it shall involve. For some, this event on British soil will have strengthened the resolve to fight against those who threaten democratic society, however disparate and diffuse such an 'enemy' may be. For others, the London explosions will have only highlighted for them how ineffectual the War on Iraq has been, and how those who perpetuate such wars only serve to create new, second-generation terrorists through devastating 'collateral damage' and poorly handled sanctions. It remains to be seen how these events will affect the next debate on the horizon: ID cards. Tony Blair's stint as Prime Minister continues to be one that oversees both great and tumultuous events.

Government
The United Kingdom is an hereditary monarchy, with real power being held by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest parliamentary party and the head of the Cabinet. The two main political parties are the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour, although a centre party (the Liberal-SDP Alliance, later merged as the Liberal Democrats) threatened to disturb this old balance in the mid-1980s. None of the major British parties holds seats in Northern Ireland, where the political map is carved up between Unionist and Nationalist parties. Scotland and Wales return a handful of Nationalist MPs. The absence of proportional representation in parliamentary elections does not encourage the prosperity of smaller parties in Britain. Elections must be held every five years, though the timing is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The legislature is bicameral; the House of Commons is elected, while the House of Lords is a peculiar mixture of appointed members, judges, bishops and hereditary peers. Britain is almost unique in the world in having no written constitution, and the political and administrative machine is powered by a mixture of common and statute law, judicial decisions and archaic convention; the royal assent to an Act of Parliament, for instance, is still proclaimed in Norman French.