Course:HIST317/Political

Enfranchisement:

Who: men, women later, property owners, renters.

What: Obtained the right to vote.

When: Reform Bills 1832, 1868, 1885, 1918- women, only married women over the age of 30.

Where: Parliament.

Why:

-It is significant because enfranchisement brought about new pressure groups, political parties, new political developments, influence of liberalism, a sign women and worker were co-opted, popular voice becomes unavoidable, development of mass culture, midloathian campaign?

-A middle class movement that gathered steam (Industrial Revolution, steam.. get it?) in the 19th C.

-This larger electorate allowed the emergence of populace politics for instance Gladstone's Midlothian campaign.

Political Dates Representing Modernity:

1846 Corn Law Repealed: - Breaks down old trade barriers moving towards free market economy - One of the only countries to do so

1880 Education is made compulsory for children under 10 -spending on Education increased ten fold

1885 Third Reform Act -almost universal suffrage for males

1901 Birth of the Labour Party -political representation of the working class

1908 Parliament approves Old Age Pension -max 5 shillings for people over 70 years of age

1911 National Insurance Act -coverage for sickness and unemployment -foundation of a welfare state

== In Class Presentation Outlines ==

From Ancient Constitution to the Great Society, Graham Wallas coined the term the Great Society defining it as; a shift in the external conditions of life which has occurred due to the inventions which did away with the old limits to the creation of mechanical force, the carriage of men and goods, and communication by written and spoken words. “One effect of this transformation is a general change of social scale. Men find themselves working and thinking and feeling in relation to an environment, which, both in its worldwide extension and its intimate connection with all sides of human existence, is without precedent in the history of the world”. Harris argues that between 1850 and 1914 there was a political shift from the aristocratic to the democratic, or in other words from the ancient constitution to the Great Society. Harris' herself defines the Great Society as being a comprehensive, pluralist authority based on citizens being individuals, and being open to all comers. I would argue the development of the labour party in the early twentieth century in Britain, marks the slow shift away from aristocratic domination to what Wallas was calling the Great Society. I do not feel though that this shift was as drastic and as dominate as Wallas' definition portrays it to be, but with the rise of socialism, and the mobilization of the working class, the Great Society and welfare state was starting to take shape. Prior to this time, in the latter half of the nineteenth century, though the policies of the political parties looked to incorporate the working classes, they did so by using lies and ellipses, such as the mythic return to the Golden age, making promises they could not fulfill. Thus the transition of the social scale, and the move away from the role of the oligarchy and the ancient constitution, was not in reality reduced, or changed, but was instead made less obvious by the showcasing of mixed government, and the widening of the political culture. Even though the Great Society did begin to take form, and socialism did start to take rise in the twentieth century it was not done by a complete overhauling of the ancient constitution, but instead by the grafting of news ideas onto the old constitution. With the reform acts, and the expansion of the franchise the ancient constitution was once again molded to fit the needs of the time, as it had been manipulated for centuries past. The shift that occurred prior to the twentieth century was then not one which saw a movement away from aristocracy to democracy but more so a simple widening of the constitution to include more men, which in turn played right into the hands of the aristocracy, as the early reforms simply opened up the vote to more wealthy, land owning men, and not those who were really struggling to find a voice within society. Thus because the working classes were drawn in by the lies and ellipses of the liberals and conservatives, it was not until the rise of the Labour party in the twentieth century, that they began to get the voice that they needed. The big question then is So what? So what politics? Why should we care? For so long I asked myself the exact same question, I have never been interested in political history. my interest has always been in the cultural aspect of history, so when I began researching British Political history I was skeptical. I quickly realized though that it was the top down influence that politics has on all of culture that was the so what. Without the hierarchical control of politics, and government, we would be without culture. Bold statement I know, but think about it, to you what best describes the popular opinion of society? For me, literature is a great portal into the popular ideas of a culture, so lets look at literature of the Victorian Era. Dickens, for example, is riddled with commentary on social structure, the negative influences of industrialization and modernization, and the harsh impact of economics, all issues which are directly related to political influence. So how does this tie into the suggested shift from the ancient constitution to the Great Society? The Great Society, or the opening up of socialism is a direct result of the mobilization of the working classes, and their opinions, this shift though would not have been possible, if it hadn't been for the long period in which the political parties had been making false promises to them, without this the working class would not have had the reason to rise up with their own voice. On so many occasions I have been told that as individuals we were born to lead and not to follow, the really question though is how can one lead, without something to follow, or in other words to go against. Politics then sets the boundaries for cultural leaders of the time to break out of, and precipitate (trigger) the evolution of the time, that is the so what of politics

Questions for discussion: -Do you think that Wallas' idea of the Great Society was ever accomplished, or is it all objective? -Can the ideas of the ancient constitution ever be removed from British Politics, or are they too deeply ingrained in the history? -Did the labour party really give the working class the voice they needed?

~Amy

The establishment of domestic social policy and the beginnings of the welfare state -- Was this due to political reform and the enlargement of the franchise? OR Did increased social policy coincidentally occur at the same time as political reform occurred? Did social reform occur for different reasons? Industrialisation, urbanization, Continental influence, etc.?

I would argue that increased emphasise on public social policies was due to the enlargement of the franchise. The Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 created almost universal male suffrage. As a result, following 1884 the more liberal and radical middle and lower classes were now political participants in British society. The extension of the franchise left the domestic departments well exposed to external pressures and consequently left the domestic departments having to adapt to the new demands of the newly franchised members of society.

Local British governments initially took on a significant role in establishing and managing regional public policies such as sanitation, public health, relief, education etc. The newly franchised middle and lower classes had an easier time influencing and contributing to local politics than they did to national politics. As a result, it was local governments who often set the precedent for social public policy and in turn influenced national policies. The central government was slower to react to the socially more liberal demands of the newly enfranchised middle and lower classes of Britain. However, by the onset of WWI the central government in Britain had developed social policies that would act as the foundation for a welfare state.

1880 and 1902 - Education Acts - Compulsory education.

1908- Old Age Pensions - Up to 5 shillings a week for people over 70 years old.

1909- “People’s Budget” - Increase property taxes to help pay for social reform.

1911- National Insurance Act - Sickness and unemployment coverage.

Why is politics so important during this time period in British history? - The enlarged franchise more than doubled the voting population. As a result, a vast number of political figures, ideologies and demands were forced upon the British political system all at once. These new innovative and liberal pressures placed on the system resulted in significant change in social policies in a relatively short period of time. Consequently, it was politics that expanded the ability for both men and women to own property, allowed women to assembly and aggressively pursue the right to vote, established secularised school boards, provided children with an education and educated the population and provided workers with rights that protected their lives and interests while in the work place. As a result, these reasons contribute and help demonstrate why politics were so important and influential in Britain during this time period.

Questions for discussion: Would the increased establishment of social policy been as significant or rapid if the franchise was not expanded? Considering the time period, did the local and central governments do enough in terms of establishing social policies? Did the local and central governments do to much in terms of establishing social policies? Should the central government have focused more on foreign policy than domestic policy considering the circumstances in Europe at the time?

~ Jordan

Political Participation and Allocation of Power within Great Britain.

Who held the ability to create policy in Great Britain? What Social Class were they from?

1911 proved to be an extraordinary year for British Politics for the Parliament Acts that passed severely curtailed the power of the House of Lords and its ability to block and veto legislation passed up from the Commons. The commons, being a popularly elected house held far more political legitimacy in policy making than the Lords who held hereditary, appointed positions. Why then was it so difficult for them to pass legislation through the lords until this reform?

I would argue that until the early 20th century with the political crisis of 1909 in which taxation Bills were passed through the commons but were rejected by the Lords, no real shift in allocation of power or attitudes was present within the political framework of Great Britain. Many cabinet positions and other publicly appointed offices were still held by members of the landed aristocracy, and until the Labor movement of the early 20th century and the showdown between the two houses occurred.

Harris states on page 187 “Landed aristocrats and their relations formed a majority in nearly all British Cabinets down to 1905.”  “MPs drawn from the landed classes formed the largest occupational group in the House of Commons until 1900, when they were overtaken by those with interest in Finance.” Personal Wealth of Conservatives in the 1890s nearly twice that of the Liberals.

Why Politics is Important

The process through which people must pass legislation in a nation is of great importance to its development and the overall happiness of its people for it must cater to the greater good of the nation as opposed to the individual, if society as a whole is to receive benefit. The political changes of the period, expansion of suffrage, and removal of class barriers in theory was good for the common man. It laid the groundwork for change. But did this Change really occur right away?

Discussion Questions:

If the same people, who held power before, are holding power now, except with a different title for their office, is that truly change?

-Gregg