Transcript - 'Will Talks Anarchism: Slightly More Informed: '

For our occasional 'Slightly More Informed' series, Poorly Informed member Will has released an informative and entertaining podcast episode explaining anarchism. It can be found here.

Unusually, there also is a script available, and so we have published it below for the convenience of readers and listeners. You may wish to read it alongside the podcast, or instead of! You may even want to refer to it in future too; if you need a key term, press 'ctrl'+'F' and type in the term. 

The script equates to just under half an hour of speech - fifteen minutes for a fast reader.

Enjoy.

Intro

There is a pervasive view that society as a whole has, from liberal social democrats all the way to the most ardent right wing idealogues, that Anarchism is merely the embodiment of chaos. It means complete lack of order and rules where every citizen is defenseless against the onslaught of mobs, criminals and opportunists, all exploiting the lack of authority to do nothing except cause harm to people and property. In this view the Anarchist is nothing more than the black clad protester, equipped with a mask and a molotov, burning cars and violently clashing with riot police. It is violence for violences sake, they say.

So pervasive is this view in fact that I would be willing to bet that the majority of the people who hold it, don’t actually know that Anarchism is an actual political ideology, let alone what the principles and beliefs it has. In this slightly more informed episode I will be delving into the philosophy of Anarcho Communism, there are many other flavours of Anarchism about, but this is probably the most prevalent and influential today. That being said even within the philosophy there are many differences and I am not trying to give a definitive account of their ideology. Rather this will be an overview into the main ideas of Anarcho Communism (which for simplicity's sake I will be referring to as just Anarchism for the rest of the episode).

I have written this because in my view it is important that we all understand the political ideologies around us, whether you wish to support or oppose them, in order to do either of these things properly, you must understand the basic principles of the ideology and equally importantly, what those principles can look like when put into practice.

So I decided to create this podcast to explain just that, I will not be able to cover everything for this is a topic that is both wide and deep, but I hope after listening that you will be just a little more informed.

The Goal of Anarchism

Before we get to the bulk of the theory it is important to ask why Anarchists are suggesting an alternative to both capitalism and the state in the first place. As I will explain later on, Anarchists are critical of capitalism as they see it as something that steals from the working people, creating poverty and misery in order so that the rich can continue to get wealthier. They believe in an alternative to this which would distribute the resources of society more equally and fairly, enabling the elimination of poverty and the minimisation of work to only what is necessary to maintain and improve society rather than having large parts of the population work ultimately pointless jobs in order to enrich the wealthy. However this is not unique Anarchists, what makes them different to other ideologies is that they reject using the state in order to build the new alternative.

The state in Anarchist political philosophy is something that always leads to oppression and suffering no matter who controls it or what its goals are, they believe that the only route to true freedom and equality means freeing man from all forms of external control. The goal is individual liberty, within a society governed all, as equals.

Not only do they want economic equality but they go further and demand that there must be total social and political equality, there can be no bosses elected or otherwise. Only then do they believe that humanity can live without need or oppression.

Socialism

The first main point that must be understood is that all Anarchists are Socialists (although the reverse is not true), so in order to be able to delve into Anarchism we must have an understanding of Socialism. To put it very simply, Socialism advocates for the building of a society where the means of production are under common ownership and where no classes, states or money exists. Once this has been achieved the society would be said to be communist. Now I’m sure many of you are wondering what the hell half that sentence means, don't worry, I shall explain.

The means of production are the tools used in the production of goods and services, and I mean tools in a very broad sense, for example they not only include the machines that a factory worker might use but they also contain the raw materials that are used and for an exclusively modern example, the computers and software used by just about every business in the world. Under a capitalist system these are under private ownership, an individual or shareholders in a company have ownership over them and it is those same people that employ workers to use the means of production in order to create goods and services such as cars or washing machines. These goods and services can then be sold, with all profit going to the owners and the shareholders. Socialists do not like this state of affairs because the employee in this case is not being compensated fully for the work they have done. For example if you are paid £100 a day to produce one washing machine a day that will sell for £300 pounds out of materials that cost £50, then you are creating something worth £300 pounds are not being compensated for the full value of your work. In this case the owner of the company would pocket the £150 profit, this is done because they own the tools that the worker used to create the value, so the owner feels entitled to take the profits in order to compensate them for the investment of buying the tools. Socialism advocates something different, rather than these means of production being privately owned, instead they should be collectively owned. This means that the workers own the means of production, and therefore no profit is taken from them by an external force.

Examples of this in practice exist all over the world in worker cooperatives, which are owned and democratically run by the workers themselves. They can exist under capitalism but they would become the main way of organising workplaces under socialism.

Now we move onto the next key part of what socialism aims to build; that is a classless, moneyless and stateless society. Class in this case refers to the owners and everyone else, if you own the means of production then you are part of the capitalist class, if you do not, then you are part of the working class. Classlessness is the result of the change in ownership of the means of production that I just described, you cannot have one class that has ownership and another that does not, when society as a whole has ownership. A moneyless society is one operating on the principle, which is to quote Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In practice this would mean that the society as a whole would collectively decide how to distribute the goods and services that have been produced in order to satisfy everyone's needs. This is instead of distributing them according to who can afford them using money. Finally a stateless society is one that does not have a centralised state that organises and runs the society, in its place the society organises itself without the need from an external power ruling over it.

So that is my very brief and probable oversimplification of what Socialism aims to achieve as it's ultimate end goal. Therefore this is very similar to Anarchism's goals, there will of course be some variation, but at the end of the day, the worlds that the two ideologies hope to build are in the broad sense essentially the same.

Anarchism

Now I realise that this podcast is meant to be about Anarchism and so far it has not been but it is important to establish the broader political context in which the ideology exists. None of these ideas came about in a vacuum and there is a considerable amount of mixing between a range socialist ideologies, of which Anarchism is just one of many, albeit a large and particularly influential one.

Now we move onto the key principles of Anarchism.

Hierarchies

The first of these is probably the most misunderstood and controversial, it is the dismantling of hierarchies. Nations, chains of command and the fact that you have a boss at work are all instances of hierarchies, any situation where one person is given power over another or can exercise authority over another person is hierarchical. In order for hierarchies to exist someone must be placed above another person, therefore someone has been placed in the lesser position with less power. Anarchists believe that this situation necessarily leads to the abuse of this power, the very existence of power results in people exploiting it. A rather apt phrase here is “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” and it is something that can be seen in the real world quite clearly. The biggest example being the Soviet Union which was founded ostensibly to create an egalitarian communist society, as we all know, it did not work. Very quickly those in the communist party turned the state into their own personal dictatorship, using the guise of a workers paradise to disguise a brutal military dictatorship that was far more concerned about its own power than the welfare of its people.

The alternative to this is proposed as an horizontally organised society with people cooperating in order to achieve the goals that those same people set. By horizontally organised I simply mean the organisation of people on the basis that they are all equals and that every single person involved in a particular group has equal decision making power within the group. For example in a cooperative workplace like the one we discussed earlier, not only would everyone working there have collective ownership of it, they would also have collective control over it. To return to our washing machine factory metaphor, you as a worker there would have a democratic say along with everyone else who worked there, about how to run the factory. This doesn't mean to say that everyone involved must be part of every single decision because for obvious reasons that would be infeasible, spending your entire day voting is not a desirable state of affairs. So individuals can be delegated in order to represent a larger group of people. This sounds similar to a parliamentary system, however it is not. The delegation is at any moment revocable by those who sent them; if the group does not see their delegate as currently representing them, then they can simply be recalled and another delegate will be chosen. Also it would be treated much more like a civic duty than that of a politician trying to win votes, it would be normal for the delegate to be constantly changing. The final important distinction is that whoever is representing them must be part of that group of people, a group is represented by one of it's own, not by an external person. Someone representing those working in our washing machine factory will be a worker in the washing machine factory.

Federalism

This moves us very nicely onto our next key principle which is very closely related, the idea that those working or living in a particular area or domain are the best people equipped to make decisions in that area or domain. Those who work on the railways are the best able to decide how the railways are to be run, but it is important to remember that this does not occur within a vacuum, these groups must work with one another in order to function, after all the trains could not run with electricity.

Once again our principle of horizontal organisation is applied when looking at interactions between these groups, an interesting example of this is the administering of geographic areas. Instead of their being a centralised state there being decentralised communes that federate together in order to fulfill the people's needs. By commune here I mean a fairly small number of people, a few hundred to a few thousand who live in a particular geographical area. They would make decisions for their area through direct democracy within community meetings and would govern their area themselves through this method.

However they are not self sufficient and will rely on their neighbours for many things as well as the other way around. In order to coherently administer the wider area, upon which all of the communes rely, they can choose to voluntarily join with one another, importantly as equals. Decisions that are made by this federation are made by the delegates of the communes or by direct democracy through a vote of the people in the communes. Delegetes of these larger federations can be selected in the same way and this process can simply continue upwards, with cities federalising together all the way up to a global system of federalised free states that cooperate and negotiate in order to solve common problems. At the base of this entire system is the direct democracy that takes place within a commune or a workplace, at every level, if there is a decision that affects you personally then you will have a say in that decision. All the way from the collection of your bins to global decisions on how to combat climate change.

However to many of you listening I am sure that you might be wondering how different this is from there being a state, after all these communes and federations would have bodies that would control energy production for example. Something which is very superficially similar to any energy department in a current state. The answer to this is two fold, firstly these bodies follow the principle of being accountable and revocable representation so there is far greater democratic control over these bodies, they will be made up of those people directly impacted by decisions made there, people who live or work in the area and energy workers. It is as far as possible self management as opposed to orders given out by a centralised and largely unaccountable bureaucracy which most states today.

The second part of this answer boils down to semantics largely, because it depends how you look at the state, anarchists view the state as a method of controlling a group of people so the function it fills is not the defining attribute of the state. Another form of organisation can fulfil the same function that the state did without being a state itself, just because a federated system can organise bin collections and coordinate energy policy does not mean it is a state, even though it is fulfilling needs that currently only states fulfil. Most importantly in order to tell the difference you need to look at how these functions are carried out, are there minimal hierarchies, fully accountable and revocable representation and decentralised control. It is important to remember these differences, anarchism does not dispense with the functions of states, we all need our bins collected after all, it just puts them in the control of fundamentally different power structures.

Unjust Hierarchy/Prisons

So now we move on to a few more contentious bits of anarchism which generally apply more to the practical side of things, the implementation of the ideas in the real world which as we know is the far more difficult area. Away from the grand ideas about entirely reforming society the concerns now become about more mundane matters, how to organise food distribution for example. Or as is one of the more complex and muddy areas of debate, how to implement a justice system in an Anarchist society. Now in doing the research for the episode I spent a lot of time reading differing attitudes to justice and I must emphasize the number of different viewpoints, this is by no means a cut and dry issue within the philosophy. One of the most common points of contention is related to something I talked about earlier, the abolition of hierarchies. But that doesn’t tell the full story, more accurately you would say anarchists want the abolition of unjust hierarchies, the principle being that hierarchies are bad but in some cases they are necessary, in those cases it is up to the hierarchy to justify its existence. It is on the hierarchy to prove itself necessary, so it is only allowed to exist where it is the only way to adequately fulfil the role and that no other alternatives are sufficient.

One area where this may be the case is prisons. If for the moment we assume that prisons are a case where a hierarchy is justified then we can have a look at one potential option for a justice system in an anarchist society. First and foremost these prisons would only hold those who are a current threat to the safety of others, if they are not a threat the approach would be to help the individual whether it be through treatment for mental illness, drug abuse or job training. As a side note most Anarchists expect these kinds of smaller crimes to decrease due to the eradication of poverty and a society wide focus on ensuring that every individual has their needs met as far as possible.

For those who are a threat to others they would be kept in a prison, but it would not just be bare walls, bars and a bed with strict timetables and limits on activity. As far as is safe the prisoners would be able to live a fairly normal life, even having normal jobs, just within the confines of the prison. The focus is to enable these prisoners to return to wider society as soon as possible. They are removed from the general population to ensure the general populations safety, but aside from to ensure that they stay removed, they are not deprived of other liberties unless there is an immediate threat to the safety of someone else and even then it is a last resort. There is also the fact that these prisons could also be communes and be largely autonomous.

On top of this there are the issues of policing, who would ensure that those who are locked up would stay locked up, and who would be responsible for catching those who have committed crimes in the first place. Obviously police forces as we currently know them would be abolished and their replacement would be a sort of community militia. Where there would be a rotating group of people tasked with enforcing the rules set by the commune at any particular time, they would be overseable and accountable to the democratic body of the local area or commune. And it is likely that they do things like this as a civil duty rather than it being their profession. In a sense the community polices itself according to its own democratically decided rules and procedures and there is not an external force from above enforcing regulation with some higher authority.

To some of you this may sound like a fantasy and to others it might give you pause for thought, but let me be clear, I have just outlined a broad set of principles under which a system might operate but there are enormous debates over everything that I have just laid out, including whether the is even the right approach in general. Some disagreement will be in the specifics and other disagreement will be over the issue of whether a prison system is an unjust hierarchy. Can it be justified that one group of people get to deprive another group of people of their rights even with the safety of the community involved, that is largely an individual decision and many people make it in different ways.

Ultimately how such a system would be implemented would be decided through democratic means by the people who would be affected by them. One of the benefits of this kind of societal organisation is that there is no one size fits all and solutions can be adapted easily by any one group in order to suit their particular needs.

Wages

One important distinction of Anarcho-Communism as described here when compared to other forms of socialism and Anarchism, is that it completely abolished any form of wage or payment for work. Rather than being paid for work in money or something of value that can then be used to buy things they prefer a social contract system. This does sound complicated but it really isn’t, essentially the society has a certain amount of necessary labour that needs doing in order to keep people fed, the lights on and the bins collected. Each person who is part of society is expected to put in a certain amount of work in areas that ensure that the needs of the society are met. For example in order to fulfil their amount of necessary work someone could stock shelves, process food or program the computer systems used to regulate the electricity grid. Anarchists believe that due to the productivity gains made by automation and the fact that there is no extra work done to produce profit, the amount of time spent by each person doing necessary work should be about 4 to 5 hours a day, less if possible. Furthermore because each person can do whatever necessary work they like, there is no central direction, which Anarchists say would mean that everyone is able to work at what they are good at and enjoy, enabling both more productive and enjoyable labour for everyone.

In return for this, each person would be provided food, housing and all other necessities in life up to the highest standard of living that the commune could provide. Where there are plenty of resources to go around, each person can take as much as they wish until they become limited. If a resource is limited, it is simply distributed according to who needs it the most. If someone is able but refuses to do the necessary labour that the society needs, then they will not share in the resources of the society. Most likely they will be provided with the basics needed for existence but no more, they will not live comfortably off the backs of everyone else.

Direct action

Now we return to where we began, the molotov throwing Anarchist. This image of them isn’t entirely unfair, particularly in Europe Anarchists have been a large part of anti facist and protest movements and some are willing to use violence in that context. They do this because they believe in something called direct action, which is where they do things that make material changes to the world around them. But this doesn't have to be violent and the vast vast majority of direct action is not, it is far more likely that they set up soup kitchens or volunteer in homeless shelters. A fantastic example of direct action has been thrown into the spotlight following the Black Lives Matter protest after the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police. During the first days where Minneapolis was burning, there was a group called the North Star Health Collective, these medics were on the ground providing emergency healthcare to those present at the protests. They are prepared for anything from washing teergas out of people's eyes to gunshot wounds. They are not getting paid, they do this because it is necessary. And I will be honest, I cannot give you a better example of direct action than that. They are doing something that will materially improve the lives of those people around them by treating them when they are injured. A need is there and these men and women act directly to fulfil that.

So bear that in mind when you think about direct action, it is supposed to improve people's lives by doing something now, rather than promising change at some point through the ballot box.

Outro

I hope you have found this episode to be informative, for many of you I know this will be a first look into a particular brand of ideology that you may not have known much about before. It is to be sure a radical one, but understanding alternatives to the current system is important, all too often we forget that the ideas that currently prevail are not inevitable, nor are they the only option. Anarchists believe a world without capitalism and states is possible, they question the very fabric of society, something which the vast majority of us never do.

So now the next Trump tweet you see yelling about violent black clad Anarchists whose only mission is to turn real life into the purge you will understand that the reality is far more complex than that. And that real Anarchists are not trying to destroy the world, in fact they are trying to implement a complex society free from need or suffering. Whether you think they are lunatics or you agree with them, you are at least now slightly more informed about Anarchists and their ideas.

For those who would like to learn more I would recommend two books in particular that I used heavily while researching this. First, the more accessible of the two: Noam Chomsky’s On Anarchism, which explains many of the aspects of Anarchism in detail, in particular it examines some of the historical examples of Anarchism in practice which is very interesting and worth the read. The second book is probably the defining book of this entire philosophy, Peter Kropotkin’s, The Conquest of Bread. While a little dated is a thorough overview of the philosophy in far more detail than I could provide here and extremely useful for understanding this ideology. I urge you to read that if you want to understand more.

If you have further questions feel free to email us at poorlyinformeddiscussion@gmail.com or simply send me a message. I will do my best to answer them all so please don’t hesitate. Thank you for listening, this has been a Slightly More Informed episode by Will. Goodbye.

And Now For Something Completely Different: (1/3)

We've just released a podcast episode ranking our favourite post-Thatcher Prime Ministers (here), but it's about time we looked at all the post-war Premiers.

We won't be ranking them this time, but giving you a brief bluffer's guide to each PM. We'll cover how they entered and exited office, what their main achievements/failures were, and how they governed. It's gonna be great.

However, it's also a big job, so we're breaking it down into three posts, covering three political eras: 

1) 1945-1964: the welfare state is formed as Britain struggles with diminishing world influence.

2) 1964-1990: Labour are back, but the economy is tanking. Cue Thatcher.

3) 1990-2019: the centrists dominate, but struggle with Thatcher's legacy and global crises

This post starts in the ruins of the Second World War, and ends with the expulsion of a twelve-year Tory government, forming a highly significant period in British history.

The universal welfare state is formed, with the NHS created and key industries nationalised. Big government came to stay. 

But as the country reinvented its domestic affairs it also struggled with a diminishing role on the world stage, as two hundred years of international dominance came to an end. This is the era where Britain transitioned from imperialist hegemon to progressive nation state - a legacy we're left with today.

Weeks before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan in August 1945, Churchill called a general election. The National Government that had run the country through six years of war was dissolved (more on that here.)

And after a gruelling campaign, the Labour Party shocked the nation by winning for the first time since 1926. In a landslide too. And this government was like none before it.

Clement Attlee: 1945-1952 (Lab)

If you don't study politics, you might think Attlee rather boring and unnoticeable. If you do study politics you know Attlee was boring and unnoticeable. 

Yet he spun those very traits into a sense of reliability and dedication, forging a wartime coalition, winning two elections and repairing Britain after humanity's worst crisis.

Known for introducing the National Health Service - healthcare free at the point of delivery - Attlee's government also ushered in universal pensions and national insurance, ended the empire in India, nationalised a fifth of the economy (including the Bank of England), secretly developed Britain's first A-bomb, and demobilised 1.5 million troops across the globe.  

His administration even played a role in developing the Marshall Plan - massive American loans to Europe for recovery.

All while recovering from a massive global conflict. In just his first two years, Attlee's administration spent more than any previous British government - ever. The workload nearly broke him.

His weak understanding of economics meant the economy remained chronically unstable; rationing was still in force seven years after war had ended. Yet he is today regarded as one of Britain's greatest post-war premiers, if not of all time.

Winston Churchill: 1952-1955 (Cons)

Churchill worked best as the figurehead of a balanced, rounded team - something he had done in wartime. But as an elder statesman doddering through a second term, his legacy is mixed. Having won the 1952 election, he wasn't quite sure what to do with it.

The second Churchill ministry was most prominent on international affairs. Desperate for a better Anglo-American relationship, Winston tried to create a US-Soviet detente. However, President Eisenhower remained evasive and the USSR distant.

Domestically, Churchill allowed his Cabinet to conduct the straightforward policies of building houses, ending rationing and balancing the economy. However there was a notable lack of vision, underpinned by the Prime Minister's age and deteriorating condition. After prolonged illness Churchill resigned in 1955.

Anthony Eden: 1955-1956 (Cons)

Anthony Eden was Churchill's protege and a highly capable Foreign Secretary. Chosen to lead after Churchill resigned, Eden subsequently won an election against the rudderless Labour party.

Despite his obvious skill, however, Eden's ministry is overshadowed by an operation to covertly recapture the Suez Canal from the Egyptians. 

The plan blew up in his face after the Americans (now becoming the world policeman) openly condemned the operation, along with most of the rest of the world. 

Britain was humiliated and Eden, amidst claims of lying to the Commons, resigned. He was vastly overshadowed by his successor.

Harold Macmillan: 1956-1963 (Cons)

So close, yet so far. Probably the standout Prime Minister of this era in his ingenuity, political scheming and 'grand designs', Harold Macmillan came fairly close to transforming the country. But he couldn't quite clinch it, despite election victory in 1959.

Famously declaring 'you've never had it so good' in a 1959 speech, 'Supermac' oversaw a bumpily growing economy that lowered unemployment and raised standards of living. 

However he faced the constant agony of maintaining the pound's value while trying to liberalise trade while trying to structurally transform the economy while trying to sustain high employment while trying to suppress inflation. It all culminated in 'stop-go' economics; inconsistent short-term fixes rather than medium-term plans.

In foreign policy, Prime Minister Macmillan had much more success albeit with one obvious failure. He upgraded the UK's nuclear deterrent to Polaris missiles, accelerated decolonisation, repaired the 'Special Relationship' after Suez and brokered a US-USSR test ban treaty.

However, he was unable to achieve the pivotal liberalising measure of joining the EEC - an early EU - thanks to a French veto. This was to haunt the economy. A brutal cabinet reshuffle in 1962 had already weakened his standing, but after de Gaulle's famous 'non', Macmillan ran out of road. 

Looking for an exit, and accelerated by prominent scandals (including the Profumo Affair), in late 1963, under cover of a prostate illness, Macmillan essentially announced his resignation. Frenzy ensued, during which there is evidence that he 'managed' the process of selection to favour his Foreign Secretary, the 14th Earl of Home.

Alec Douglas-Home: 1963-1964 (Cons)

Put forward as a dark horse 'compromise candidate' during the chaos of Macmillan's resignation, Lord Home controversially formed a government in late 1963, the last Lord to do so (he quickly dropped the title and became an MP).

However, with just a year until an election, Prime Minister Home was short on time and opportunities. He couldn't compare with the electrifying, power-hungry Harold Wilson in the Labour Party, and was severely undercut by dissent from his own party. 

Wilson, a skilled speaker and TV performer, convinced the electorate of a need for change in the face of a tiring Conservative Party. Come the October election, Home was booted out of office for a Labour government.

Part 2 is here, or jump ahead to Part 3 here.

And Now For Something Completely Different (2/3)

Part Two of our series on post-war Prime Ministers. Conservative dominance is ended, with the economy replacing foreign affairs as Britain's political centre. And it's economic decline which is the story here, as balancing sterling and union-driven inflation creates an intractable mess.

Harold Wilson: 1964-70 (Lab)

Harold Wilson came to power inheriting an economy with a £400 million trade deficit and without the majority to do much about it. Stop-gap measures bought time until, in 1965 a 'National Plan' was implemented, steadying the economy and giving the government breathing space.

Wilson was a smart tactician, and in 1966 used this relative calm to call an election that swung decisively his way, allowing him to lead a more confident government.

Social spending shot up, amidst growing awareness of poverty, while Roy Jenkins, one of history's few memorable Home Secretaries, introduced greater freedom for abortions, gay rights and literary publishing.

However, any attempts at long-term strategy were blown apart by strikes wobbling the pound. 

To stabilise sterling, it had to be devalued, requiring sharp cuts and damaging the party's reputation. To make matters worse, Wilson botched new industrial action regulations, which irritated the unions. (This was to prove fateful.) And then - of course - we failed to join the EEC again.

Thankfully for Labour, economic recovery beckoned, with the balance of payments going into the black. Buoyed by this, with an upbeat national mood, glorious weather, and a mediocre opposition, Wilson called an election for the summer of 1970. And we're still not quite sure how he lost it.

Ted Heath: 1970-74 (Cons)

It was Ted Heath, the quiet Conservative, who ended remaining British imperial delusions. Continuing the military retreat from bases east of Suez, letting the pound sink in value, and finally - finally! - joining the EEC all in retrospect began to create a new vision of Britain as a modern trading nation.

However, a vision was as far as Heath got.

Major strikes by the powerful National Union of Mineworkers crippled government influence and drove up inflation, while unemployment rose significantly for the first time since the 1930s; these twin crises destroyed government plans to reform the economy.

An intelligent but solitary leader, Heath struggled to cope, especially when the NUM, on its second strike in early 1974, blocked government access to coal. 

During winter. 

In response, he reduced electricity access to just three days each week (the 'three-day week)', and called an election. Where he lost his majority in a hung parliament.

Harold Wilson pt.2: 1974-76 (Lab)

The Labour Party had to govern for eight months as a minority administration, before another election in October yielded a majority of just three seats.

The one success of Wilson's second premiership was approval for EEC membership in a 1975 referendum. And even that split the Labour Party, now a constant sore for Wilson, who won tactical victories but failed to implement any coherent strategy.

Worldwide 'stagflation' set in, with high living costs (inflation hit 20% in the UK) alongside unemployment and recession, something economists hadn't thought possible. Wilson was unable to respond effectively to these crises and resigned that year with health concerns. Foreign Secretary James Callaghan easily won the party ballot.

James Callaghan: 1974-79 (Lab)

By 1974 Britain was the sick man of Europe. With unemployment persistently above a million, inflation at 16%, sterling collapsing, interest rates useless and government spending 'out of control', an IMF bailout was required, savaging confidence and government budgets. 

Callaghan was a 'political animal' but also a trusted, capable figure, adept at compromise. Yet attempts to freeze wages (and curb inflation) angered the unions who, commanding half the workforce, went on a general strike in late 1978. 

Months before, the Prime Minister, overseeing a recovery and optimistic polls, looked set to call a general election. But he backed off just before the unions shut down the country for a 'winter of discontent'. And from then on he was doomed; no-one wanted to vote for a government that left rubbish uncollected and trains idle. 

His thin majority gone in by-elections, Callaghan lost a vote of non confidence in Parliament; this forced an election. The Conservatives ran out easy winners under a formidable leader. Labour were out, and would remain in the wilderness for 18 years.

Margaret Thatcher: 1979-1990 (Cons)

Unlike that other great post-war Tory leader, Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher was not a grand schemer. Her leadership was a blatant opportunism that rammed through action by force of will, chopping and changing ideas and ministers as she liked. She would start with economic reform.

'Thatcherites' believed that if inflation could be reduced, everything else would fall into place. The 1981 budget is famous for its financial harshness in that respect. Despite a recession and collapsing employment, spending was cut to the bone, and the government started haemorrhaging support. 

Not that Thatcher cared. Although she probably appreciated what victory in the Falklands did to Conservative fortunes. With national morale up, and with her determined leadership on display, 1983 was a landslide against the divided Labour Party. 

This gave her a mandate to face down the trade unions; mining and newspaper printing strikes in 1984/5 were bloodily crushed, and the unions have never recovered. And anyway, the economy started to boom, which swung Britain back into optimism.

That 1983 victory also allowed Thatcher to consolidate power and act on her own judgement. Firms were privatised, council housing stock sold-off, income tax slashed twice. Never mind that the new British Telecom and British Airways were monopolies, that there was now precious little housing available for those who needed it most, and that welfare cuts accompanied tax cuts.  

Thatcher knew the consequences and, frankly, didn't care. The poor were their own fault, lazy and idle, and didn't deserve government help.

And then she overreached. Nigel Lawson's hubristic tax cuts in 1988 unleashed inflation again and interest rates had to be jacked up. 
Thatcher herself rolled out an unpopular, regressive 'Poll Tax', which surmised the story of the decade as the 'rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer'. 

And her quiet Deputy Prime Minister, Nigel Howe, frustrated at Thatcher's behaviour towards Europe and ground down by a decade of her self-interested bullying, resigned. The party was shocked into moving against her, and very quickly manoeuvred her out of office.

That was that.

But her legacy remains. A neoliberal, market-centered economy. Union power broken. Politics split on a north-south, rich-poor divide. Inequality entrenched. And a fresh recession for her successor. Read on here, or go back here.

And Now For Something Completely Different (3/3)

Thatcher's out. But who follows the century's greatest stateswoman? This is a hotpotch period, as Prime Ministers grapple with Maggie's economic legacy, but also have to respond to a series of devastating global crises.

John Major: 1990-1997 (Cons)

Just as Callaghan was overshadowed by his successor, plain John Major was also overshadowed by Thatcher, and, similarly, had to face an energised opposition.

And he didn't do too badly. Sound economic management meant a decline in unemployment and recovery from recession. 

Successful involvement in the First Gulf War, and opt-outs from closer European integration raised his standing, as did beginning the Northern Ireland peace process. 

However, in 1992 was 'Black Wednesday' where leaving a European currency exchange system crashed the pound and permanently wiped out Major's poll lead. This and continual party sleaze gave the revived Labour Party vast ammunition. 

Major couldn't compete with their opposition's energy and in 1997 was crushed on a scale not seen since 1832.

Tony Blair: 1997-2007 (Lab)

Blair's premiership sprawls everywhere. Big government, big spending, big bureaucracy; 'blairism' simply swamped the political system. Yet underneath the flab was a redefining of Britain not seen since the sixties. 

Blair made the state great again. Welfare, education and health were entirely overhauled, with vast building programs to boot.
Legislation introduced the minimum wage and expanded police powers, while the army took an active role abroad in places such as Kosovo and Sierra Leone. 

The Anglo-American relationship soared, but so did the UK-EU partnership, an unusual balancing act.

Blair embodied the idea of a 'presidential' prime minister. One of the greatest speakers in Downing Street's history - he played the Commons 'like the London Palladium' - his presentation was second-to-none, which resulted in comfortable victories in three consecutive elections. 

Those successes inflated Blair's presidentialism further; he was in charge and expected everyone else to fall in. 
Decisions were made in a small team and above the heads of ministers, with intense effort devoted to 'spinning' the media favourably. 

While this allowed him to overcome crises such as foot-and-mouth, Northern Ireland, and, most crucially, 9/11, it also slowly came back to bite him. Poor decision-making and accountability led to the blunder of the Iraq War. 

His hubris also destroyed a very successful working relationship with Chancellor Gordon Brown. Despite winning a third election in 2005, under pressure on those two fronts Blair was forced to bow out in mid-2007. Brown subsequently took over. 

Gordon Brown: 2007-2010 (Lab)

A doctoral graduate, an efficient Chancellor, a 'brooding' figure with a monstrous temper, Gordon Brown probably saved the world financial system. 

In October 2008, when the markets went into free-fall over subprime loans, 'there was a real possibility of a total banking collapse'. 

Brown first correctly judged that a vast bailout was needed to prop up the banking system (£500bn in the UK), and then also convinced much of the western world of that urgent need. 

America, France and Germany all followed suit, calming the markets and likely stopping a global societal collapse (although there was no avoiding a global recession.)

However well managed, an economic crash does not lend itself to electoral victory, alas. 

Brown had rejected a good election opportunity in 2007, and his chance of winning an election permanently declined after Lehman Brothers collapsed; in 2010 he oversaw an inevitable Labour defeat. But the Conservatives couldn't quite make a majority.

David Cameron: 2010-2016 (Cons with Liberal Democrat coalition until 2015)

A youthful contrast to the sulky Brown, David Cameron was determined to carry a modernised, socially liberal Conservative party into power, and overturn New Labour's 'big government' legacy. However, he had to do it for five years with Liberal Democrat help.

Head of Britain's first official coalition since 1945, Cameron oversaw an unexpectedly stable government that, in order to stabilise the economy post-financial crash, conducted deep austerity measures. 

These proved controversial, with the NHS under increasing pressure (despite not being directly affected) and welfare spending sharply reduced. The legacy of austerity will continue to provoke serious dispute for years, although by doing so he successfully reduced the budget deficit - something that often draws praise.

Cameron's other memorable moment was the calling of an EU membership referendum in 2016 in order to secure a 'remain' vote and end divisions in the Conservative Party. 

But despite winning a general election the year before, the national mood swung against him with a slim majority in favour of 'Leave'; a shock result. Cameron promptly resigned, triggering a Party leadership election.

Theresa May: 2016-2019 (Cons)

As strong and stable as a magic money tree, Theresa May's time in office connotes a Shakespearean tragedy: started mediocre, and only got worse. Despite promising social change and 'ending austerity', hers was a single-issue premiership.

After doing very little of substance, May confidently called a general election in 2017. 

Unexpectedly, however, the Labour Party, under socialist Jeremy Corbyn, rapidly ate into her thin majority, forcing her to return to Parliament humiliated and dependent on some sulky Northern Irish unionists for a majority.
And her own party, torn over Brexit, failed to provide coherent support.

Bereft of ideas, short on allies, presiding over a Party in its worst mood since the mid-1800s, May was stuck in limbo, with power draining from her every time she failed to pass a Brexit Bill. Obviously without popular support, confirmed in damning European Elections in mid-2019, she was forced to resign, having achieved little.

Her successor, however, is another story...

Read Part 1 again here, or Part 2 here.

Thanks for reading! We hope you enjoyed this series - it took a lot of research and writing to make it happen. Consider leaving a comment, or listening to our podcast episodes here to show your support.

If you'd like to read further, the sources we used are below. All are well-written and enjoyable, but we'd particularly recommend 'Citizen Clem' - a biography of Clement Attlee - and 'Hope and Glory' - British politics from 1900-2000.

(All quotes and information from these sources or Wikipedia)

• 'Citizen Clem' - John Bew: Clement Attlee biography, especially interesting for World War Two and early-post war politics
• 'Winds of Change' - Peter Hennessey: a story of Britain in the early 60s, as Macmillan reaches his high and low, eventually replaced by Douglas-Home.
• Hope and Glory' - Peter Clarke: a concise, wide-ranging discussion of British politics through the century. 
• 'For the Record' - David Cameron: memoirs by David Cameron
• 'A Journey' - Tony Blair: memoirs by Tony Blair
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-saved-banks
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk: both useful resources for understanding Brown and the Bailout