War
(2019) Did war transform the priorities of the British people? You may restrict your answer to ANY
ONE war.
- Government Administration
o Wars centralised administration and made administration more accountable to
the people because they required a much more visible contract between the
people and government than had been seen before.
▪ Crimean War -> WW2
▪ Crimean War and Committees, Reform (e.g. 1918), Centralisation of local
gov after ww2
▪ Boer War – social contract – ppl need to be fit
- Social Policy + Welfare Provision
o Welfare provision has to be expanded bc wars decrease ppls general living
conditions and one of the elements of welfare is to account for uncertainty in
peoples lives (at least as seen in Beveridge Report) and war introduces dramatic
uncertainty
o War also requires national coordination of welfare because in war time resources
need to be directed to areas of the country that are the most effected (e.g.
massive discrepancies in the Blitz etc.) – so naturally transforms role of the state
bc local administration cant coordinate on the same national level
▪ Boer War, WW1, WW2
- Class
o War nationalises class – war massively increases class as an element of identity
which can displace class (e.g. Crimean War)
▪ Crimean War – individualisation of the soldier and accountability, Boer
war – state of the nation
o War also emphasises class differences and pushes the working class together
o Synthesis: War strengthens 2 separate identities and within each war the impact
of this on politics is different but in every single war both nationalism and class
identity is strengthened but the one strengthened more determines which way
politics goes
▪ Crimean War – nationalist and changes in terms of representation and
idea of the soldier and working class needing rewarding
o Synthesis: War produces a national community and strengthens the social
contract and this has the possibility of producing class tension if the social
contract is not repaid (war demands more of the working class which can if the
working class feels repaid lead to class solidarity or it can lead to class conflict)
o Priortiies
o War made people prioritise nation over class
▪ WW2 – war made ppl prioritise national reconstruction through the Labour
party over the sectional class interests of the upper class (Labour’s
critique of the Conservatives is not that theyre economically right wing but
that the C cant represent the nation bc they only represent the rich) – the
critique is of a group that represent the upper class over all classes
▪ Spanish CW as an exception – bc no British home front
• The reason war makes ppl prioritise nation is bc of the impact of
war on the home front and living standards but the Spanish CW
doesn’t impact the home front
, • War has a small impact on class mobilisation – e.g. in WW1
socialists vs fascists but when war hits the home front it forces ppl
to bind together
▪ WW1 – shift to the right after WW1, decades of C rule, progressive
advances are temporary (so nation over class)
▪ Crimean War
▪ Boer War – social poliices are not bc working class say they should
deserve more but bc the ruling class believe they need a nation fit for
fighting
Conclusion
War takes a country that has disparate interests and disparate administrations and disparate
patterns of life and centralises them
- This effects politics, social policy and class
(2022) Did Wars transform attitudes towards social inequality?
- War necessarily improves the quality of social welfare provision bc any nation that is not
fit to fight is not an effective nation
- But war, while making welfare necessary, war is competing for funding
o 1906 budget – 20% on war (twice welfare)
- War provided an impetus for elites to support war/social policy but in doing so also
competing w financing
- War changed nature of social welfare provision
- War changed the conception of the working class -> Made everyone working class in the
sense that social policy had to expand to everyone
Quality of Provision, Funding, Breadth of Social Policy, Changes the conditions in which it
happens (also includes war debts)
(2021) Why, in the world’s first industrial nation, did Labour to win a parliamentary majority before
1945?
- Utopian Socialism vs. Practical Socialism
o Ramsay MacDonald and Labour until mid-30s are utopian socialists – want
capitalism to evolve into socialism, sceptical of the state – Labour doesn’t believe
state intervention is enough bc socialism is about changing consciousness.
o Labour in power 1931 and fail bc they can’t do anything
▪ 1930s – Huge thinking across the Left
• Results in Attlee’s idea (The Social Worker)
o In 1945 a class-based party could never work in Britain but by 1945 Labour had
transformed itself from a class-based party to a national party while the nation
had transformed itself into a state that could be accepting of Labour
- Prior to 1939, Labour (by virtue of being a trade union party) could only represent a small
section of (working class)
, - WW1 did not change this sufficiently bc by end of WW1, even if Labour expanded its
ideals, WW1 was a patriotic war and Labour without experience in government was
governing for a small section
o Their vote increased bc their small section of the vote increased (more trade
unionists voting, 1918 act etc)
o Throughout the 20s, Baldwin captures what it is to be a nation
- First para = Theoretical – at no point in this period Labour can win as a union party
(Class)
- Labour over the period attempts to make itself a national party
- Mid-30s – series of shakes within the Labour party which make them accepting of a
different programme which is about universal (??itation)
o So 31-37 Labour became ready for the nation
- Impact of war
o 39-45 – The nation became ready for Labour
(2018) Did war change the course of British history at point?
- Equipoise – (reliant on labour less than liberals, old discussions like free trade) – war
changes the political system that has governed the Labour so far
- War changes system of government (committees after Crimean, Local gov after ww2)
- War didn’t change the course of British history but it accelerated the collapse of
precarious British systems
o System at a lag – reform bills but the structure of government is unchanged,
changing working class but nature of political representation unchanged, need for
welfare state
- War doesn’t change the course but allows it to pass less smoothly
- British history based on a series of unstable systems created out of political necessity
and war changes political necessity allowing the course to move
o Representation of People (+1949 Act)
▪ Conceptions of respectability and fitness to vote changew over the period
and war provides the starkest example of this
• Crimean War individual soldiers are important, Boer War –
individual soldiers are mistreated, WW1 – elites are failing, WW2
– elites are failing bc they are rich
• War makes contradictions of the nation stark
o Social Stuff and Programs
o Economics
▪ Secular climate of economics
• Britisheconomy unique – highly capital intensive, based on factory
and mechanisation of labour, highly importing (Britain first)
o So not just bc war – actually other countries develop
similar techniques but w larger factgories etc.
▪ WW1 war bond – single biggest budget item is war bonds and war debts
▪ British position on global scale
▪ Empire!
▪ War accelerates relative decline of Britain
▪ War in empire increases rate of exploitation
▪ What is essential about Britain is not that it declined but that it hadn’t
declined for so long
- War accelerated the secular trend in British History
o But did not change it
(2019) Did war transform the priorities of the British people? You may restrict your answer to ANY
ONE war.
- Government Administration
o Wars centralised administration and made administration more accountable to
the people because they required a much more visible contract between the
people and government than had been seen before.
▪ Crimean War -> WW2
▪ Crimean War and Committees, Reform (e.g. 1918), Centralisation of local
gov after ww2
▪ Boer War – social contract – ppl need to be fit
- Social Policy + Welfare Provision
o Welfare provision has to be expanded bc wars decrease ppls general living
conditions and one of the elements of welfare is to account for uncertainty in
peoples lives (at least as seen in Beveridge Report) and war introduces dramatic
uncertainty
o War also requires national coordination of welfare because in war time resources
need to be directed to areas of the country that are the most effected (e.g.
massive discrepancies in the Blitz etc.) – so naturally transforms role of the state
bc local administration cant coordinate on the same national level
▪ Boer War, WW1, WW2
- Class
o War nationalises class – war massively increases class as an element of identity
which can displace class (e.g. Crimean War)
▪ Crimean War – individualisation of the soldier and accountability, Boer
war – state of the nation
o War also emphasises class differences and pushes the working class together
o Synthesis: War strengthens 2 separate identities and within each war the impact
of this on politics is different but in every single war both nationalism and class
identity is strengthened but the one strengthened more determines which way
politics goes
▪ Crimean War – nationalist and changes in terms of representation and
idea of the soldier and working class needing rewarding
o Synthesis: War produces a national community and strengthens the social
contract and this has the possibility of producing class tension if the social
contract is not repaid (war demands more of the working class which can if the
working class feels repaid lead to class solidarity or it can lead to class conflict)
o Priortiies
o War made people prioritise nation over class
▪ WW2 – war made ppl prioritise national reconstruction through the Labour
party over the sectional class interests of the upper class (Labour’s
critique of the Conservatives is not that theyre economically right wing but
that the C cant represent the nation bc they only represent the rich) – the
critique is of a group that represent the upper class over all classes
▪ Spanish CW as an exception – bc no British home front
• The reason war makes ppl prioritise nation is bc of the impact of
war on the home front and living standards but the Spanish CW
doesn’t impact the home front
, • War has a small impact on class mobilisation – e.g. in WW1
socialists vs fascists but when war hits the home front it forces ppl
to bind together
▪ WW1 – shift to the right after WW1, decades of C rule, progressive
advances are temporary (so nation over class)
▪ Crimean War
▪ Boer War – social poliices are not bc working class say they should
deserve more but bc the ruling class believe they need a nation fit for
fighting
Conclusion
War takes a country that has disparate interests and disparate administrations and disparate
patterns of life and centralises them
- This effects politics, social policy and class
(2022) Did Wars transform attitudes towards social inequality?
- War necessarily improves the quality of social welfare provision bc any nation that is not
fit to fight is not an effective nation
- But war, while making welfare necessary, war is competing for funding
o 1906 budget – 20% on war (twice welfare)
- War provided an impetus for elites to support war/social policy but in doing so also
competing w financing
- War changed nature of social welfare provision
- War changed the conception of the working class -> Made everyone working class in the
sense that social policy had to expand to everyone
Quality of Provision, Funding, Breadth of Social Policy, Changes the conditions in which it
happens (also includes war debts)
(2021) Why, in the world’s first industrial nation, did Labour to win a parliamentary majority before
1945?
- Utopian Socialism vs. Practical Socialism
o Ramsay MacDonald and Labour until mid-30s are utopian socialists – want
capitalism to evolve into socialism, sceptical of the state – Labour doesn’t believe
state intervention is enough bc socialism is about changing consciousness.
o Labour in power 1931 and fail bc they can’t do anything
▪ 1930s – Huge thinking across the Left
• Results in Attlee’s idea (The Social Worker)
o In 1945 a class-based party could never work in Britain but by 1945 Labour had
transformed itself from a class-based party to a national party while the nation
had transformed itself into a state that could be accepting of Labour
- Prior to 1939, Labour (by virtue of being a trade union party) could only represent a small
section of (working class)
, - WW1 did not change this sufficiently bc by end of WW1, even if Labour expanded its
ideals, WW1 was a patriotic war and Labour without experience in government was
governing for a small section
o Their vote increased bc their small section of the vote increased (more trade
unionists voting, 1918 act etc)
o Throughout the 20s, Baldwin captures what it is to be a nation
- First para = Theoretical – at no point in this period Labour can win as a union party
(Class)
- Labour over the period attempts to make itself a national party
- Mid-30s – series of shakes within the Labour party which make them accepting of a
different programme which is about universal (??itation)
o So 31-37 Labour became ready for the nation
- Impact of war
o 39-45 – The nation became ready for Labour
(2018) Did war change the course of British history at point?
- Equipoise – (reliant on labour less than liberals, old discussions like free trade) – war
changes the political system that has governed the Labour so far
- War changes system of government (committees after Crimean, Local gov after ww2)
- War didn’t change the course of British history but it accelerated the collapse of
precarious British systems
o System at a lag – reform bills but the structure of government is unchanged,
changing working class but nature of political representation unchanged, need for
welfare state
- War doesn’t change the course but allows it to pass less smoothly
- British history based on a series of unstable systems created out of political necessity
and war changes political necessity allowing the course to move
o Representation of People (+1949 Act)
▪ Conceptions of respectability and fitness to vote changew over the period
and war provides the starkest example of this
• Crimean War individual soldiers are important, Boer War –
individual soldiers are mistreated, WW1 – elites are failing, WW2
– elites are failing bc they are rich
• War makes contradictions of the nation stark
o Social Stuff and Programs
o Economics
▪ Secular climate of economics
• Britisheconomy unique – highly capital intensive, based on factory
and mechanisation of labour, highly importing (Britain first)
o So not just bc war – actually other countries develop
similar techniques but w larger factgories etc.
▪ WW1 war bond – single biggest budget item is war bonds and war debts
▪ British position on global scale
▪ Empire!
▪ War accelerates relative decline of Britain
▪ War in empire increases rate of exploitation
▪ What is essential about Britain is not that it declined but that it hadn’t
declined for so long
- War accelerated the secular trend in British History
o But did not change it
