hankyoreh

Robert M. Page

As elsewhere in the world, the dramatic and exceptional changes in economic and social life resulting from the spread of the Coronavirus has been the main topic of conversation in the UK. The Conservative government has introduced extensive measures to limit the scale of the infection. Citizens have been instructed to stay at home where possible, limit all forms of non-essential social interaction and stop working unless they are involved in the provision of vital services. These draconian measures have been compared to the myriad of regulations and rules that Churchill’s coalition government introduced during the Second World War which included rationing of food and fuel.

Although public officials will be given additional powers to implement new rules and restrictions, the government recognises that it will need to rely on the goodwill and solidarity of the British public to adhere to the restrictions being put in place rather than through formal enforcement measures.

It is useful to look back at the situation during the Second World War as we attempt to come to terms with the current situation in British society. There has been a lengthy debate amongst political historians regarding the impact of the Second World War on civilian attitudes and behaviour. On the positive side, various wartime reports and surveys highlighted the selfless actions of countless citizens who were prepared to offer accommodation and support to evacuees from towns and cities targeted by enemy aircraft. Other citizens contributed by enlisting for the Home Guard or undertaking other civilian duties such as fire watching.

On the negative side, there was a marked increase in crime such as opportunist thefts and looting of goods from bomb damaged homes as well as infringements of new laws such as failing to carry an identity card. There was also a notable increase in industrial disputes and strikes as well as in levels of absenteeism at work despite legal prohibitions against action of this kind. There is evidence too that more prosperous and well-connected citizens were able to flout some regulations and make fewer sacrifices than those from working class backgrounds.

While it is important to acknowledge that anti-social activity did occur during wartime, it remains hard to disagree with the judgement expressed by one of the leading official historians of this conflict, Richard Titmuss. In his influential study, Problems of Social Policy (1950), Titmuss concluded that there was an over-riding sense of social unity displayed by both civilians and service personnel during the war which resulted in demands for the creation of a more egalitarian and just peacetime society.

While it is much too early to generalise about contemporary social responses and actions, it is at least possible to draw attention to some of the significant social changes in British society since the Second World War which might lead us to contemplate the possibility of a less altruistic response to the current Corvid-19 crisis. There has been a steady erosion in the social solidarism which led to popular support in the 1940s for the implementation of the recommendations of the Beveridge Report on Social Insurance (1942) and the subsequent election of a radical post-war Labour government (1945-51), which created the welfare state. The advance of neo-liberal ideas under Mrs Thatcher (1979-1992) led to greater emphasis on individualism and competition rather than collectivism and co-operation. While this shift was seen by her supporters as essential to create a more dynamic economy, others expressed concern about the social fragmentation that resulted from the loss of major industries in the public and private sectors especially in the north of England.

Although the new Labour governments of both Blair (1997-2005) and Brown (2005-10) placed greater emphasis on social justice than either Thatcher or her successor John Major (1992-97) were prepared to contemplate, they proved reluctant to challenge the established liberal economic order, believing that her approach could better deliver the financial revenues needed to bolster the social services. Indeed, it could be argued that a modern-day political consensus had emerged on the need for light economic regulation and avoidance of redistributionist tax regimes if sufficient resources are to be generated for social programmes.

Recent Conservative leaders such as Cameron, May and Johnson have recognised that economic austerity has proved to have been an onerous burden on lower income groups since the financial crisis in 2008, and that steps need to be taken to generate greater prosperity for this section of society. Indeed, Johnson made a direct and successful appeal to working class voters in the 2019 General Election that he would prioritise their concerns.

It remains to be seen whether the `left behind’ groups in society will rally round to combat the current pandemic and accept that they will have to make further sacrifices for the benefit of the nation.

Solidarity has a lengthy gestation period, relying as it does on deep levels of inter-personal, inter-generational and inter-class trust. The response to the challenges of Covid 19 will in all likelihood vary between nations. In the case of the UK it will be interesting to see whether there is still a latent and sufficient degree of solidaristic sentiment and action which will overcome this latest threat to its long-term survival.

By Robert M. Page, Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]