how britain’s leaders have approached individualism and collectivism

1908 – 2011

2

David Cameron2010 –

John Major1990 – 1997

Margaret Thatcher1979 – 1990

Winston Churchill1940 – 1945 1951 – 1955

Clement Attlee1945 – 1951

Tony Blair1997 – 2007

Individualism and collectivism represent the left–right divide in British politics.

Moving from the threat of communism through to the forming of the NHS, the privatisation of the Thatcher years, Tony Blair’s New Labour party and David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision, to what extent should the state attempt to look after it’s citizens?

With a hope to contextualise the government’s approach to state–led support and individuality, the motivations behind the ‘Big Society’ are called into question.

Does the ‘Big Society’ represent a genuine call for community involvement and activity or is it a new way of reducing governmental involvement and encouraging privatisation?

Individualism / Collectivism

3

Prime MinisterSir Winston Churchill

Conservative Party

In Office1940 – 1945 1951 – 1955

In the early part of the 20th century the threat of communism was a major concern for much of the western world, and Churchill was known to speak out against the dangers of socialism. During this period socialism was often considered one and the same as a communist outlook, and Churchill does well to point out that a balance between the two is necessary for society to flourish.

During his time as Prime Minister, Churchill’s leadership and ability to rally the nation together were seen as an essential component to victory in WWII. A collectivist attitude was essential during this time.

I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice.

They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature.

Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered!

It is expressed in other ways, you know the phrase – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way – “You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite.”

Now, ladies and gentlemen, no man can be either a collectivist or an individualist. He must be both; everybody must be both a collectivist and an individualist.

For certain of our affairs we must have our arrangements in common. Others we must have sacredly individual and to ourselves. We have many good things in common. You have the police, the army, the navy, and officials - why, a President of the Board of Trade you have in common. But we don’t eat in common; we eat individually.

And we don’t ask the ladies to marry us in common.

“Liberalism and Socialism”

address to kinhard hall, dundee

04.05.1908

4

Winston Churchill04.05.1908

“The New Social Services and the Citizen”

BBC Radio Broadcast

04.07.1948

I remember when I first went to work in east london, apart from what was done by voluntary organisations and by private charity, and apart from the obligations imposed on employers in respect to industrial injury, the only provision for the citizen who through sickness, old age or unemployment was in need of assistance, was that given by the poor law.

The poor law was still based on the principle of deterrents, the principle that the necessitates were in a sense offenders against society. It was assumed that every individual could and should make provision against every contingency. The poor law was designed to be, and indeed it was, the last refuge of the destitute. The younger generations can hardly realise what that meant. Since those days successive governments have introduced a whole series of remedies for particular aspects of social insecurity. First came old age pensions, and the beginning of school meals. Then the Lloyd George insurance act, and its provision against sickness and unemployment.

The new principle behind these advancements was that we must combine together to meet contingencies with which we cannot cope as individual citizens.

Valuable as these schemes were they were not always consistent with each other and gave rise to anomalies. A plan to bring them into harmony was needed. The wartime government of all parties, led by Mr Churchill, declared in the Atlantic charter that one of the causes for which we were fighting was social security. It is fair to say the new scheme comes into operation with the approval of the nation.

The four acts which come into force tomorrow; national insurance, industrial injuries, national assistance and the national health service represent the main body of the new army of social security.

I believe it will increase the health and happiness of our people, and I ask you all to join in working it whole-heartedly so it may bring new strengths and well-being to our country.

Prime MinisterClement Attlee

Labour Party

In Office1945 – 1951

Attlee announces and explains the forming of new social services for a post-WWII Britain, including the National Insurance Act, Industrial Injuries Act, National Assistance and the National Health Service. Prior to this point very little existed in the way of government led social services regarding health, pensions and welfare, and a nation rebuilding itself was in dire need of help such as these.

An important moment as Britain officially becomes a more collective society.

6

Clement Attlee04.07.1948

8

I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it.

‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

It is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many

of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate can know - “It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”.

That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” are being exploited, and when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole!

It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it.

“No Such Thing As Society”

Interview with Women’s Own magazine

23.11.1987

Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher

Conservative Party

In Office1979 – 1990

Thatcher raises an interesting point about the state of a nation perhaps taking the concepts of collectivism through the state for granted. Where once there existed little in the way of governmental support, a post-WW2 generation was born far removed from the worries Attlee described forty years previous.

Thatcher’s policies regarding worker’s unions and privitisation courted much controversy, and are indicative of a time where governmental collectivism was at a low point.

9

Margaret Thatcher23.11.1987

10

Our defining characteristic is to have greater faith in the individual than in the State.

We believe in fostering freedom by giving people more power to choose for themselves; by leaving people more of their own money to spend.

We believe in fostering enterprise by keeping personal and business taxes low; by cutting down the jungle of regulation; by creating a level playing-field on which businesses can compete freely and fairly.

We believe in fostering generosity by respecting and reinforcing the independence of local communities, in which neighbours willingly help each other.

We believe in fostering tolerance by respecting the individual; by recognising every citizen’s power to choose and right to own.

It is on those instincts of the individual that Conservatism is founded; and that Conservatism trusts. We reject utterly the idea that the state can manage economic and personal relations between people better than businesses or families.

It is not where the free market pervades that ties of community are under threat, but where the State owns and controls to the greatest extent.

The big problem lies elsewhere. It is from the inner cities, where the state is dominant, that businesses have fled. It is in the inner cities that vandalism is rife and property uncared for. It is here that fear of violent crime makes a misery of old people’s lives. Socialism must face up to its failures. It must recognise the harsh truth that it is where, over many years, the State has intervened most heavily, that local communities have been most effectively destroyed.

It is where people feel no pride in ownership; where they are stripped of responsibility for the conditions in which they live. And it is in the inner cities that schools — which should be beacons of opportunity — have slipped into a downward spiral of low expectations, politicisation and poor results.

Socialism has been discredited by experience. Conservatism has been validated by history.

“OUR COMMON PURPOSE”

Speech to The Carlton Club

03.02.1993

Prime MinisterJohn Major

Conservative Party

In Office1990 – 1997

Succeeding Thatcher, Major outlines the general reasoning behind the Conservative approach. By keeping taxation low, and allowing people to spend their money as they wish, it was argued that social mobility and individual freedom would flourish.

Too much involvement from the state, would lead to a loss of pride and purpose within communities and as individuals.

11

John Major03.02.1993

12

I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for co-operation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality, not because it wants people to be the same but because only through equality in our economic circumstances can our individuality develop properly.

For how do you develop the talent of all, unless in a society that treats us all equally, where the closed doors of snobbery and prejudice, ignorance and poverty, fear and injustice no longer bar our way to fulfilment.

Not equal incomes. Not uniform lifestyles or taste or culture.But true equality: equal worth, an equal chance of fulfilment, equal access to knowledge and opportunity.

Equal rights. Equal responsibilities.The class war is over.

But the struggle for true equality has only just begun.

To the child who goes to school hungry for food, but thirsting for knowledge, I know the talent you were born with, and the frustration you feel that it’s trapped inside. We will set your potential free.

To the women free to work, but because they are also mothers, carers, helpers barely know how to get through the day, we will give you the support to set your potential free.

To the 45 year old who came to my surgery a few months ago, scared he’ll never work again, I say: you didn’t become useless at 45. You deserve the chance to start afresh and we will set your potential free.

And to those who have wealth, but who say that none of it means anything if my children can’t play in the park, and my mother daren’t go out at night. We share your belief in a strong community. We will set your potential free.

And it is us, the new radicals, the Labour Party modernised, that must undertake this historic mission. To liberate Britain from the old class divisions, old structures, old prejudices, old ways of working and of doing things, that will not do in this world of change.

Maiden Speech

House of Commons

06.07.1983

Frontier of the New Millennium

Labour Party Conference

28.09.1999

Prime MinisterTony Blair

Labour Party

In Office1997 – 2007

Although given long before becoming Prime Minister, a young Blair sets out his allegiance to a socialist political ideal in a way that keeps in mind the benefits of collectivism without sacrificing the individual freedoms perceived by previous conservative leaders.

As Prime Minister, Blair introduced the first minimum wage in 1999. A bold step toward a collectivist ideal, setting a universal standard and safety net which would allow all citizens an equal starting point from which to develop.

13

Tony Blair06.07.1983

14

The Big Society is about a huge culture change where people, in their everyday lives, in their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in their workplace don’t always turn to officials, local authorities or central government for answers to the problems they face but instead feel both free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities.

It’s about people setting up great new schools. Businesses helping people getting trained for work. Charities working to rehabilitate offenders. It’s about liberation — the biggest, most dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street.

And this is such a powerful idea for blindingly obvious reasons. For years, there was the basic assumption at the heart of government that the way to improve things in society was to micromanage from the centre, from Westminster.

But this just doesn’t work.

We’ve got the biggest budget deficit in the G20. And over the past decade, many of our most pressing social problems got worse, not better. It’s time for something different, something bold – something that doesn’t just pour money down the throat of wasteful, top-down government schemes.

The Big Society is that something different and bold.

It’s about saying if we want real change for the long-term, we need people to come together and work together – because we’re all in this together.

We shouldn’t be naïve enough to think that if the government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more. The truth is that we need a government that actually helps to build up the Big Society. This means a whole new approach to government and governing.

For a long time the way government has worked – top-down, top-heavy, controlling – has frequently had the effect of sapping responsibility, local innovation and civic action. It has turned many motivated public sector workers into disillusioned, weary puppets of government targets. It has turned able, capable individuals into passive recipients of state help with little hope for a better future. It has turned lively communities into dull, soulless clones of one another. So we need to turn government completely on its head.The rule of this government should be this:

If it unleashes community engagement – we should do it.If it crushes it – we shouldn’t.

“Big Society”

Liverpool Hope University

19.07.2010

Prime MinisterDavid Cameron

Conservative Party

In Office2010 –

Facing the current economic crisis and inheriting a country in recession, Cameron proposes uniting the country through his ‘Big Society’ vision.

Cutting money to the public sector, Cameron suggests the nation is too dependant on state help and urges the nation to create their own services and reclaim a sense of pride in their communities.

It is yet to be seen how the ‘Big Society’ will work in practice. With public services being sold off to the private sector, will power be pushed down to the people or be claimed by big business?

15

David Cameron19.07.2010