- Prime Minister Wilson implements an austerity program, why does he implement it?

(1 point)
A:The reason Prime Minister Wilson implemented this program is because by the time of the
late 1960s, Great Britain was realizing that inflation and the balance of payments deficit were
reaching alarming levels.

2.- What measures did the austerity program that Wilson implemented include? In addition to
listing the measures that Wilson applied, relate them to the policies seen in class and identify
which policy was applied. (1 point) Don't forget that there are two questions here.

A: a. The measures included in this austerity program are:

1. Budget cuts

2. Freeze of salaries

3. Uncompromising policy towards unions

These measures correspond to a contractionary fiscal policy and are basically to reduce public
spending. This decision is contrary to previous policies in the Wilson government and others
before it, but the government believed that constant increases in wages and other
employment benefits were affecting Britain's economy.

Well, he implemented it because at that time the country had a high rate of inflation and
deficit and by making budget cuts, that is, freezing salaries, Wilson wanted to reduce the
aforementioned problems.

2.- What measures did the austerity program that Wilson implemented include? In addition to
listing the measures that Wilson applied, relate them to the policies seen in class and identify
which policy was applied. (1 point) Don't forget that there are two questions here.

The measures that Wilson implemented included

The mandatory freezing of workers' salaries
Public budget cuts
A more intransigent policy with unions
What policy applies to this question?
Good is the contractionary fiscal policy that, as we saw in the previous discussion, this policy is
used in periods of time when the government decides to reduce public spending or raise taxes
since the country had a very high public deficit and has to lower spending. public or raise the
tax to counteract the public dephysisis that Great Britain was going through and it is important
to emphasize that Wilson thought that freezing salaries and cutting public budgets could
reduce the deficit and inflation.

Greetings

Britain will remain faithful to free trade for almost a century, from 1846, which is the date of
the adoption of free trade, until 1931 - 1932, Britain is continuously free trade Great Britain
put an end to mercantilism because it industrialized and became the world's leading economic
power.

SUMMARY

The central issue of this article is the transformation of the welfare state in Britain in recent
decades. A historical approach is sought to the development trajectory of the British welfare
state, particularly the progressive reduction it has faced in recent decades.

In the British case, the constitution and development of the welfare state, from the 1940s to
the first decade of the 21st century, presents a historical development that allows us to
observe both the framework in which this State model emerges and its progressive reduction
and the resistance it has aroused.

Keywords: Great Britain, well-being, crisis, society, history.

INTRODUCTION

The central problem of this article is the process of transformation that the welfare state in
Great Britain has undergone in recent decades. A historical approach is sought to the
development trajectory of the British welfare state, particularly the progressive reduction it has
faced in recent decades and the problems that this generates.

In the British case, the constitution and development of the welfare state, from the 1940s to
the first decade of the 21st century, presents a historical development that allows us to
observe both the framework in which this State model emerges and its progressive reduction
and the resistance it has aroused.
The view from immediate history implies the attempt to identify the central elements of
rupture or continuity that manifest themselves in temporally recognizable phenomena. These
have a historical density and depth since a set of processes of greater temporal extension are
affected. For this reason, the study is not limited only to the situation, but presents the
changes and transformations (immediate, current) temporally recognizable in a larger context.
In this way, with a historical density of the immediate, a better approach can be achieved to
the transformations and problems that occur in the now, alter the relationships and social
realities developed in the past and that will influence the future.

THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK: WELFARE STATE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT

Historically, the welfare state finds its origin in the second half of the 19th century, with the
various labor and work regulation policies that were applied in Great Britain, Germany, etc. (1)
But it was during the first half of the 20th century and largely as a consequence of the
destruction of the world wars, when it (particularly in Great Britain, with the Beverigde Plan(2))
developed its most present "image" in the 20th century (Ritter, 1995).

The twenties and thirties of the 20th century were characterized by a critical look at capitalism
and liberalism (Hobsbawm, 2006); the global economic crisis with its fallout of poverty and
destruction raised the need to change the system. In Western Europe some observed the
Soviet example and the mobilization and importance of the communist parties Germany and
France can be considered an example of this; Others fearful of the Bolshevik revolution
established the need for an anti-Marxist and anti-liberal totalitarian State, of a corporatist
nature, a fascist state apparatus capable of controlling the whole of society and assuming, in an
extreme and irrational policy like Nazism, the "purification of the humanity" (Evans, 2007).

But the reflection on the resolution of the social and political problems caused by the economy
did not move exclusively between socialism or fascism/Nazism, since a group of thinkers of
diverse types observed the viability of regulating the capitalist economy through economic
management. of the State, which would mean neither socialist revolution nor totalitarian
control.

In this system, the State had to have as its axis - and in very summary terms - the control and
reduction of job search time (full employment), through the expedient of guiding the economy
through its orders (food, fuel, etc.) that impact employment and prices (Beveridge, 1947: 158-
247). The State was the only social institution capable of assuming this task since it
concentrated the powers to mobilize the necessary energies in the fight against problems
within the nation. This is because the war had shown the power of the State in the fight against
the external enemy, which also according to Beveridge should be used to end unemployment
(Beveridge, 1947: 36).

The action of the State in the economy took shape in an important process of nationalizations
that, although it has antecedents in the first decades of the 20th century(3), was the period
between the years 1940 and 1950 in which it concentrated almost 80 percent of transfers from
private industry to public property (Millward, 1997: 210).

The growth of State control over productive areas meant that it had important economic
resources to support its welfare policies, particularly in the field of health and unemployment
insurance. This worked relatively normally until the oil crisis of 1973 increased unemployment
expenses and made a large part of the State's expenses more expensive due to the increase in
the price of oil (Mamarella, 1997: 303).

With the problems generated by the oil crises in 1973 and 1979-80, the welfare state in
Western Europe, including the British one, faced a series of difficulties in supporting public
expenditure. Stagflation hit societies, generating increased inflation and economic stagnation,
with its resulting spike in unemployment. The industrialized world was shaken by a drastic
change because "businessmen and workers in the industrialized world were accustomed to
growth, full employment and stable prices; the last generation of Europeans, North Americans
and Japanese had only known prosperity" (Frieden, 2007 : 482).

In the general framework of the last three decades of the 20th century, the industrialized
countries of Western Europe were marked by a considerable increase in public spending, the
result of the policy of containing the effects of economic crises (Tanzi, 2008: 9). This implied a
growing problem for European governments, which, having direct participation in various
productive and service branches, had to face mobilizations that demanded economic
improvements in a crisis scenario and at the same time deal with it. With this, economically,
the need for resources and liquidity became a central issue for several governments, and
politically, the task of changing and even breaking the strength of the union movements
became an important issue. in conservative sectors.

THE REDUCTION OF THE WELFARE STATE IN GREAT BRITAIN

Beyond the necessary discussions about the causes of the trend of increasing unemployment
since the second half of the 1970s and the role of political factors and reforms in this, there is
relative agreement that since the oil crisis , the Keynesian model faced deep questioning. State
spending had multiplied (Judt, 2006: 784; Frieden, 2007: 484-485; Martin et al, 2006: 264-265).

The containment of the crises of the beginning and end of the 1970s had followed the
expedient of increasing public spending in a scenario of low production growth. In the British
case, between 1930 and 1980 "social transfers in the United Kingdom had increased from 2.2
of GDP to 10 percent in 1960 and 13 percent in 1970 and almost 17 percent in 1980"
( Fergusson, 2010: 227). The above allows us to understand the difference between the social
situation of the crisis of the 1930s and that which covered part of the 1970s, "the two main
reasons were the cushion provided by the welfare state and the strength of international
financial institutions." " (Wasserstein, 2007: 633).
Starting in the 1980s, the idea that the State "hinders" and "distorts" the economy - and its
"natural" laws - progressively gained ground in the political and economic world, a
phenomenon that ran parallel to an accelerated decomposition. of the real socialist regime.
The welfare state and Keynesianism, the foundations of the postwar economy of much of
Western Europe, faced an onslaught that stripped the State of its direct economic functions. At
a more or less general level, the 1980s and 1990s had the imprint of the privatization of
companies and public services.

All this meant a decrease in the participation of the States in the various productive areas
assumed in the postwar period (1945-1960), which in the sale of services and industrial areas
allowed for significant tax collection that allowed limiting the increase in taxes and maintaining
policies of containment of the crisis.

Since the late 1980s, with the advancement of technology, communications and progress in
technical training in underdeveloped countries, Europe and the first world lost their industrial
dominance, as new competitors emerged. At the same time, the qualification of the Indian,
Chinese or Brazilian workforce was an attraction for the displacement of investments from old
industrial areas such as Manchester to new industrial centers that improved competitiveness
by reducing the value of labor (Smith, 2007: 621). Illustrative is that Japan, in the 1980s,
became the second largest economy in the world after the United States, displacing any
European country (Smith, 2007: 621).

In Western Europe the paradigm of state reduction was Margaret Thatcher's policies in the first
half of the 1980s. The measures promoted by the "Iron Lady" sought to revitalize British
industrial competitiveness by reducing public spending. This was directly linked to the political
objective of weakening the British trade union movement, which from the neoliberal
perspective had exerted significant pressure to "inflate" wages and, thereby, make production
more expensive (Wasserstein, 2007: 621).

Regarding the above, it is important to highlight the political aspect that allows us to
understand the reduction in public jobs. Thus, among the reasons for the increase in
unemployment, not only can we find purely economic reasons, but it is also possible to identify
the interests of certain economic and political sectors that viewed a long period of high
employment with alarm due to the pressure they acquire. the workers (Korpi, 2003: 596).
Following this logic, unemployment would have the advantage of reducing the power of non-
business sectors, limiting the bargaining capacity of workers. And with this, from what is not
strictly political, it is possible to have an economic impact (Pissarides, 2003: 14).

Some of the most dramatic chapters in the history of the application of neoliberal reductions
are found in the closure of coal mines. In this scenario, Great Britain recorded a progressive
increase in unemployment (between 1971-2010), which exceeded 3 million unemployed
between 1983-4. Also significant were the sale of British Airways and the privatization (during
John Mayor's government) of the railways.

The impact of the closure of the coal mines particularly affected South Yorkshire which ten
years later continued to suffer the effects of a lack of employment and resources. Thus in 1994
that region of Great Britain was declared one of the poorest in the European Union and in need
of economic aid from it (Sheffield Libraries Archives, 2009: 4). As of March 2005 there were
only 8 coal mines left in Britain.(4)

Even with the attack against the direct intervention of the State in the economy, welfare
policies tended to be maintained, although weakened. Privatizations provided the conservative
government of Thatcher and those that followed her internationally, the income to maintain
measures to contain unemployment and inaugurated new sources of wealth and investment
for the private sector. This opened a "golden age" for financial speculation at an international
level (Megginson and Boutchkova, 2000).

In economic terms, the late 1980s were years of growth for Great Britain, in part, due to the
resources from the North Sea oil fields and the privatization process that energized the
industry by increasing its production. In the financial field and thanks to the deregulation of
1986, the "City of London" took first place in importance for international finance, surpassing
New York, as the center of global stock market transactions (Wasserstein, 2007: 638).

Despite this, and as history has shown so many times, the celebrations of the stock markets
and investors do not always reflect what is happening in society because since the 1980s Great
Britain has seen inequality increase, it is enough to cite the evolution of the Gini index between
1983 and 2009, with an increase of almost 10 points in inequality(5).

Tony Judt points out that during Thatcher's government the public sector increased in size, but
as he himself recognizes, this was a change from jobs in industrial and productive sectors of the
State, towards the tertiary and service sector (Judt, 2006: 805). . This point is relevant to
consider since the privatizations may not only have sought liquidity and the weakening of the
British union movement - as we have already seen previously - but, as Bruno Biais and Enrico
Perotti point out, it was proposed to develop a type of private property for the middle sectors
that would allow the construction of political support for right-wing parties (Biais and Perotti,
2002: 240-241). Of course, the success of this political "Machiavellianism" of privatization
depended on various other factors, such as the debacle of real socialism (Krugman, 2009: 22-
26).

All in all, the neoliberal reduction of the State in Great Britain maintained levels of health and
education services that, although impoverished, remained at the level of the State's duties
towards society(6). The suggestion of privatization of health and the tariffing of public
education cost both Margaret Thatcher and her successor John Mayor the evaporation of voter
support (Judt, 2007: 787). It would be a second global crisis that would mark an onslaught of
adjustment to higher education(7) and health.
THE CRISIS OF 2008

In the scenario of the turn of the century, Great Britain, its economy and a sector of its society
enjoyed a positive situation in terms of employment (House of Commons, May 1, 1998: 14), it
seems that the difficulties of the beginning of the decade of 1990 were behind us, and although
the slowness of the British economy produced by its close dependence on the world economy
(particularly with the United States) was recognized, the threat of a recession was not observed
(House of Commons, November 2, 1998: 7).

The scenario of the last decade of the 20th century was paradoxical "private prosperity was
accompanied, as so often happens, by public misery" (Judt, 2007: 785). However, an increase in
private poverty was also declared when in 1997 public pensions in Great Britain represented
only 15% of average income, becoming the poorest pensions in the European Union (Judt,
2007: 785). Regarding economic income, if in the 1980s less than 15% of the population lived
with less than 60% of the average income, in the 1990s this percentage had increased to 25%
(Drever et al, 2000: 36) .

The financial deregulation celebrated and promoted by neoliberal policies in the second half of
the 1980s took less than thirty years to generate a new economic crisis. Originated in the
United States real estate market, when the inflated sales boom collapsed, leaving more than 2
million people homeless at the end of 2007 and almost 4 million in danger of losing their
properties (Harvey, 2010: 1). On September 15, 2008, the economic giant Lehman Brothers fell
and the problem was soon exported. At the end of 2008, much of the world was affected by
production declines and increased unemployment.

In the case of Great Britain, banking problems forced the British government to carry out a
bailout of private banks such as Northern Rock; Bradford and Bingley. In addition, the State
carried out the purchase of shares from private entities such as Barclays; Lloyd's; HSBC, Royal
Bank of Scotland, Nationwide, Standard Chartered and Abbey Bank, among others(8). Prime
Minister Gordon Brown was quick to explain the measure, pointing out the importance of
banking in the lives of the British.

"The banking system is fundamental to everything we do. All the family's businesses and all of
Britain depend on it. Therefore, when threatened by the global financial crisis that began in the
United States and has now spread around the world, the United Kingdom took measures to
ensure that our banks and financial system" (9).

But the commitment alluded to by Brown was not reciprocal, because at the end of 2009,
when the Brown government proposed an increase in taxes (Super-Tax) on the bankers'
bonuses, they responded with the threat of leaving the country ( 10).

The crisis not only hit the banks, but the entry into closure declared in 2008 by the government
meant an increase in unemployment, which in 2009 affected young people between 16 and 24
years of age with particular drama, with almost 19% unemployment rate. national level(11). In
London the percentage of young people unemployed reached 20%(12). In January 2010, a
study pointed out that young people under 25 years of age would become a "lost generation"
as a result of the economic situation that would mean difficulties in finding a secure job and
achieving happiness(13).

During the second half of 2010 the total number of unemployed reached 2 and a half million,
representing an increase of 35 thousand people in the last quarter of 2010(14). If you look at
the following graph, since the oil crisis unemployment has not fallen below 4%. This is linked to
an increase in unemployment times that poses a historical problem for "full employment", the
historical basis of British well-being - as we have already pointed out -. Regarding this, the data
tells us that as of October 2010 "there were 839,000 people unemployed for more than twelve
months, the highest number since February 1997"(15).

Thus, the lifeline to the banks, plus the increase in unemployed people, increased the pressure
on social aid and with this the public deficit was revealed during 2009 as a major problem,
reaching 11.4% of GDP. As of November 2010, the British national budget showed a deficit of
19.9 billion pounds sterling, which represents a significant increase from the deficit of 14 billion
pounds sterling in 2009(16). On the other hand, in 2010, Great Britain's net national debt
reached 64% of GDP(17).

Politically the crisis hit Gordon Brown's Labor government. His loss of popularity, at the rate of
increasing unemployment and scandals of enrichment and misuse of public resources(18),
meant his defeat in the elections, being surpassed by the alliance between conservatives and
liberals. At the same time the Labor Party experienced a crisis that improved the position of its
conservative and liberal critics(19).

Upon leaving, Brown revealed part of the nature of the crisis and his difficulties in resolving it:
"No one knew that British, German, Italian and Austrian banks were acquiring these mortgages
in the United States. Given the nature of the global banking system, it is something that will
continue to happen" (20).

The new government (conservative-liberal) led by David Cameron assumed the task of solving
the problems of the deficit through the use of a strict adjustment of the State and its
accounts(21), the objective is to reduce it in four years and leave it at 3% a sum that now
exceeds 11% of GDP(22). To carry out this purpose, in December 2010 a significant cut in public
spending was announced(23), described by the press as the largest experienced by the United
Kingdom since the Second War and seen as "the largest adjustment of the welfare state."
agreed in a single day by the British government"(24). Considering the proposed measures,
public spending will be reduced by 81 billion pounds (91 billion euros), of which 20 billion euros
affect social well-being(25). Furthermore, in pursuit of the same goal, in terms of taxes the
government has decided to increase VAT from 15% to 17.5% and increase social contributions
by 0.5%(26).

So far, a wide range of transformations have been announced, where in general "Ministerial
Departments will see their spending reduced by 19% in the next 4 years"(27) in the services
delivered by the State, within which We will focus on the National Health Service (NHS), social
benefits and education(28).

The NHS will be treated preferentially in relation to other cuts applied to the public sector. This
means increasing the budget by 1.3% in real terms until 2015, however, considering rising costs
in the sector the NHS must save approximately £20 billion in running costs to sustain service
delivery(29). .

The consequences of this important saving - corresponding to 5% of annual costs(30) - have

been warned during 2010 by organizations such as the Royal College of Nursing, the British
Medical Association and UNISON(31) when they pointed out that the reduction of Funds will be
impossible to obtain exclusively through the development of higher productivity standards(32).
According to critics, the expected spending levels can only be achieved through numerous
layoffs that affect sector personnel, bringing disastrous consequences for the beneficiaries of
the health system by inevitably worsening the quality of services(33).

In the same way, the rest of the United Kingdom has also been subjected to reducing its
budget, thus affecting the number of jobs "In Northern Ireland, a reduction of 4,000 jobs has
been noted, and in Scotland, the figure is almost 3,800. Last year, the Welsh Assembly
Government set a target for the NHS in Wales to reduce staff by 3% each year, for 3 years"
(34).

However, belt-tightening is not the only challenge the NHS will face. In addition to the austerity
program already mentioned, in January 2011 a project was presented that attempts to
profoundly restructure it and that intends to be put into practice from 2013(35). David
Cameron said there has been a unique opportunity to modernize public services, supporting
reforms as a necessary step to improve services and create a healthier nation. Likewise, the
reform allows, according to Cameron, to save considerable sums of money compared to the
current organization by eliminating 45% of its administrative resources(36).

However, by promoting this project, the coalition is going against its electoral promise not to
introduce a reduction or organizational restructuring if elected(37), thus becoming the target
of Labor criticism. In turn, numerous independent experts and members of the public health
service have also raised their criticism of the bill. One of the most used arguments emphasizes
that it is inappropriate to carry out a reform with such speed and of such magnitude at the
same time that the system is subject to one of the greatest financial pressures in its history(38).
The Health Committee made up of members of parliament has pointed out that the reform has
taken the NHS by surprise, meaning that the service has not been able to plan it
adequately(39), warning that the transformations are too risky and may be excessively
expensive(40 ).

Likewise, the opening of NHS services to private providers is also seen as a threat to the public
system(41) "It is a major upheaval that will put additional unnecessary pressure on the NHS
and could open all the doors of the NHS to competition from private health companies"(42), an
opinion also shared by the leaders of six health unions who warned about the concerns that
arise about great commercial competition between the NHS and private companies(43).

The great controversy arises around how the NHS will respond under an operating logic where
the ability to choose, competition and diversity within the market will prevail(44). For the
government this option will translate into better operating results that will optimize costs and
raise quality standards, on the contrary, for its detractors this change means the death of the
NHS as it is known today, and the only ones capable of surviving They are the private
companies "that are circling like sharks, waiting to come in and kill" (45). The only certainties
that exist today is that the National Health Service will be subjected to major transformations,
deepening previous trends(46) and introducing new elements, which will have to be
implemented with a considerably smaller number of personnel after the consequences of the
plan. austerity and the abolition of more than 24,000 jobs that will be carried out as part of the
reform(47).

Another important step in the reform of the public sector corresponds to the important
transformation that the social benefits system (Benefit System) will undergo within the United
Kingdom. After the announcements made in 2010 about the cuts that will affect the public
welfare system through a series of measures such as delaying the retirement age earlier than
expected(48), introducing temporary limitations on pension benefits, disability and changes in
tax credits and housing benefits(49), the government considers reform necessary to address
the problem of dependency on social benefits that millions of families in Great Britain have.
The government points out that this is fundamentally because the system incentivizes people
to remain under the benefits system for long periods of time rather than encouraging them to
look for work as a way out of poverty.

According to data, 5 million people receive unemployment benefits in the United Kingdom, of
which 1.4 million have received it for 9 of the last ten years. Likewise, the rate of unemployed
households is one of the highest in Europe, where 1.9 million children live in homes where no
one has a job(50).

"This has consequences for all of us, not just people trapped on benefits, who have stopped
seeing work as the best route out of poverty. The social and economic costs of the failures of
the current system are assumed by society as a whole, since the lack of employment and life
opportunities for parents and children decreases the productive potential of the country" (51).

From the government's perspective, the general balance is negative since the budget destined
to finance the benefits system has increased by 45% in real terms in the last decade, however
the poverty rates that affect adults of working age have increased and social mobility has
decreased(52). It is this scenario that has prompted the ruling coalition to create a "new
contract between the people who have and the people who have not" called Universal
Credit(53) which aims to integrate the different types of benefits and tax credits within a only
one aid, thus simplifying the social aid system and reducing the margin of error on the part of
beneficiaries and administrators existing in the current system(54).

The new system will unify benefits for the unemployed with the benefits granted to employees
with low incomes - which today constitute two separate benefits - and in this way the risk
involved for beneficiaries in changing from one system to another will be reduced. In this way,
the creators of the proposal affirm that the incentives to look for work will be increased(55),
ensuring not only that unemployed people are provided with the basic income to live, but that
it is more profitable to get a job than to live on subsidies(56). In turn, Universal Credit will be
supported by a strong system of conditionality; the unemployed who are able to work must
make all reasonable efforts to find employment, otherwise they will be financially
penalized(57).

Despite these changes the government has assured that no one will experience a reduction in
the level of payments they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit which is
expected to come into operation in 2013. However, the IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies) has
indicated that the change will create "winners and losers", since it has been calculated that 2.5
million families will gain in the long term, 1.4 million will lose, while 2.5 million will not see
changes in its benefits and tax credits(58). Although British society wants to reduce the existing
tendency to remain for long periods under the support of unemployment insurance, living
without working continuously, the great fear is that the reform will make "the righteous pay for
sinners" and deprive itself of aid. to those who genuinely need them"(59).

Finally, in the field of public education, the government has also indicated that it will have
"preferential treatment"(60) within the budgetary adjustment, protecting the direct funds that
finance schools in England. However, this consideration leaves aside the university education
system(61), which will suffer large budget cuts, profoundly transforming its financing method.
Currently in the United Kingdom, universities are supported mainly through state
contributions, which cover 35% of the financing,(62) however this situation will be modified by
the guidelines drawn up by the ruling coalition that aim to reduce costs by 80%. public funds
dedicated to university education(63).

The most affected by this decision will be the students who enter the new system since 2012,
since they will become the main people responsible for financing university education. Tuition
fees may almost triple in relation to their current value, going from the current 4,100 euros per
year to a maximum of 10,700, although in general the fees will be 7,140 euros(64). In this
sense, the money coming from students' pockets will mostly go to replace the void generated
by the withdrawal of State funds(65). While the new modality is being implemented, a 6%
reduction in the university education budget has been planned for 2011, which will have to be
faced without the new sources of resources from fees(66).
Although these measures will be implemented exclusively in England, the rest of the United
Kingdom could also be affected due to the budget cuts experienced, "Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland have been closely watching the debate on rates. They, too, face cuts to their
overall budget" (67). Scotland has already implemented some changes by introducing
modifications to its tuition fees, however the increase only applies to students from England,
Wales and Northern Ireland. The measure arises in reaction to concerns raised about the
English reform - which could eventually cause an increase in demand in Scottish universities
that still maintain their tuition without increases - thus putting significant pressure on the
government budget.(68)

Regarding the reform in England, numerous criticisms have been raised against this measure,
claiming that the changes not only imply an increase in tuition fees - which will largely finance
the institutions - but that universities will begin to be governed by a system free market,
transforming one of the bastions of the Welfare State - the public university - into a private
higher education system(69).

The National Union of Students has indicated that the cuts will leave students with a poorer
experience and with job risks for staff working at the various universities(70). Likewise Sally
Hunt - representative of The University and College Union - said "by reducing funding and
access to the university, attacking the pay and workload of staff and loading up student debt,
(the government) is going to abandon" (71).

Despite the fact that the government points out that the reform is progressive, that there are
mechanisms to help students in disadvantaged situations,(72) and that with the current levels
of the population that aspires to have university studies it is impossible to charge the cost on
behalf of taxpayers, there are opinions that indicate that the State has wrongly abdicated its
financing responsibility. This has been based on the belief that only individuals benefit directly
from education(73) and not society as a whole. Scottish Education Secretary Mike Russell
clarified that "After all, higher education is one of our most valuable national assets, it would
be a mistake for us not to protect its value and enhance its reputation" (74).

Unlike other transformations in the public system announced by the government - among
which we have already pointed out the reform of the health and welfare systems - the
alteration of university financing has burst the existing social tension among the youngest who
have seen deeply hit by the economic crisis. If we review the unemployment figure, the latest
report indicates that for November 2010 the number of unemployed within the United
Kingdom was around 7.9%, however the youth unemployment figure almost triples this
number, standing at 20.3%, which corresponds to the level highest since records began in
1992.(75) The figures increase fears about the future of this generation of recent graduates
who could eventually become a "lost generation" with no chance of finding work. The outlook
for future university students does not look very promising either because not only will they
enter a hostile job market but at the same time they will have to be responsible for the loans
they acquired to finance their academic degree - which in many cases - do not. ensures a
prosperous or economically stable future.
Faced with this scenario, many young English people feel that government reform will
mortgage their future. The changes that the educational system will experience, and the
perceptions that exist about the negative consequences that this would entail, have caused
several street demonstrations led by students to protest the government's decision and to
account for the existing social discontent regarding budget cuts. . In November 2010 there
were massive demonstrations, the first meeting - organized jointly by the National Union of
Students and the University and College Union - brought together more than 50,000 students
and teachers from various parts of the United Kingdom,(76) which passed through Whitehall -
the great administrative avenue of London - and then through the outskirts of Parliament. Then
several hundred went to the headquarters of the Conservative Party to demonstrate the
discontent against the reforms promoted by the government. One of those present said "We
are occupying the roof of the Tory headquarters to show that we are against the Tories' system
of attacking the poor by helping the rich. This is just the beginning" (77).

Indeed, two weeks later, nearly 20,000 students gathered again to continue their protest
against the increase in tuition fees. This time the demonstrations were not only concentrated
in central London, but also spread through "the streets of the main university cities in the
United Kingdom, occupying facilities such as Oxford and canceling classes in Cambridge and
other teaching facilities." 78) Finally, on December 9, 2010, the day the reform was approved
by the Commons, nearly 30,000 students - according to the National Union of Students - were
demonstrating all day near Parliament, especially against "(. ..) the liberal democrats, a
minority in the government coalition with the conservatives, (who) broke their electoral
promise to oppose any increase (in tuition fees) (...)"(79).

There are opinions that maintain that the reduction in public spending has been excessive and
that trying to overcome a deficit of 11% in four years is not only an economic but also a
political gamble. The government will be successful if we see growth in the economy despite
the withdrawal of public funds, if the private sector is able to absorb job losses, and Treasury
revenues improve until the government can establish certain concessions to soften the fit. On
the contrary, if the economic situation worsens, unemployment increases and social discontent
increases, the government could become a "scapegoat" for a crisis that public opinion blames
on the bankers, but also on previous Labor governments. (80).

CONCLUSION

Possible responses to the transformations in the welfare state may still be yet to come. We
have already seen the reactions to a university reform that seems unacceptable in the eyes of
students. The State should not abdicate its responsibility for financing since maintaining a
system that allows access based on intellectual abilities and not based on economic capabilities
seems to be a fundamental principle for the British. Regarding the reforms in health and well-
being, it is still early to know the reactions. We can only anticipate that the NHS represents an
important piece on the board as it is a unique institution in British life viewed with particular
affection by the public(81) appearing as the third priority behind the economy and
immigration(82). At the same time, if we compare with the period led by Margaret Thatcher
during which she was attacked for reducing the NHS budget, we must point out that it grew on
average 4.3% in real terms year on year, 3% more than what was expected. will currently
grow(83).

From this historical perspective, the development of neoliberalism as a prevailing economic

system does not seem to be reconciled with the role that the welfare state assumed after its
creation in the mid-20th century. The recurrent economic crises have hit its structure,
subjecting it to constant changes that question the role it should play and the responsibilities it
should have with the rest of society. The last blow came with the emergence of the crises of
2008, which has produced significant social discontent regarding the measures to beat the
deficit. Many Britons feel that society is paying the consequences of a crisis for which they are
not responsible, however. , neither criticism nor protests seem to stop the process of
reconfiguration of the State.

During the development of this article we have outlined the existing guidelines in the process
of reducing the welfare state in Great Britain in recent decades. However, it is necessary to
point out that the problem of the sustainability of the welfare state not only affects the United
Kingdom, but also constitutes a larger phenomenon that several European countries are going
through.

Finally, it should be noted that the study and understanding of transformation phenomena in
societies such as the British one are of special interest for other societies and countries. The
above is due to the fact that such problems directly or indirectly affect those who are outside
the British borders, given that the process of internationalization of capital and globalization
raises a greater interrelation between countries, their economies and societies. Thus,
unemployment, health and education problems, among others, are shown in developed
societies as a warning that, as Judt pointed out, something is wrong.

COMMENTS

1. Table of three European countries with the social policies that are antecedents of the
configuration of the Welfare State.

Source: Data taken from Schmidt, Manfred, et. al (2007), Der Wohlfahrtsstaat. Eine Einfürung
in den historischen und internationalen Vergleich. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag, p. 125.

2. "The experience obtained from war has significance in times of peace, since it demonstrates
that unemployment disappears in time of war and that every man has value for the State,
when it creates an unlimited demand for a purpose that is of important importance." decisive.
The spectacular successes achieved by economic planning in wartime also demonstrate the
magnitude of the waste produced by unemployment (...). One of the functions that the State
will play in the future is to ensure the existence of an adequate volume of expenditure and,
consequently, protect citizens against mass unemployment, just as the state currently assumes
the obligation to protect the population against attacks from outside." (Beveridge, 1947: 34
35).

3. Since 1900, there has been significant concern among a sector of British liberals about the
problems of misery in British society. This "new liberalism" or British liberalism (as opposed to
imperialist liberalism) took note of the problems experienced in continental Europe and in the
words of Winston Churchill, in 1908, "British Liberalism...has not abandoned the traditional
ambition...of establish freedom and equality, but alongside that effort it promotes measures to
improve living conditions for the multitudes. The former Liberals in this country used the
people's natural discontent with poverty and precarious livelihoods as a powerful motive to
gain for themselves a better, more influential, and more honorable status of citizenship in their
country. The new liberalism, while pursuing its great ideal with firm energy, devotes part of it
to the enterprise of removing the immediate cause of discontent...I have heard some clumsy
rumors that the recognition of this fact in legislation might drive capital away. . "There is
nothing that the capital should fear more than the desperation of the multitudes." (Ritter,
1995: 85).

4. Thatcher had managed to weaken the British trade union movement and thereby hit the
most left-wing sectors of the Labor Party. The miners' movement and the end of the strike
(without any demands to the government) marked a period of setback in the response capacity
of the British public workers sectors. The diary of one of the miners gives an account of part of
the climate experienced at the end of the strike, "I attended my last picket of the longest
national strike in modern times. I almost lost my voice hurling abuse at the scab buses going in.
It's them bastards I blame!

Yesterday a Special Delegate Conference voted 98 to 91 for an organized return to work, with
no conditions. The bastards have bowed down too far and betrayed the 600 men sacked during
the strike. I'm ashamed of them!!

At a mass meeting in the Armstrong Hall the Lodge officials ran true to form and merely
informed the men to phone the pit to find out what shift to return on. They brushed aside
complaints from men who've already phoned and been told to return to work at 10pm, night
shift. The bastards are really rubbing it in because it's just over a year since we defeated the
managers plans to force all men to do night shift instead of volunteers. Our cowardly officials
are back to being commitment specialists. I really hope the lads get rid of them all at the
earliest opportunity!" In: The Miners Strike, 1984-5. My Diary, at:
http://normanstrike.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/151-monday-march-4th-1985/

5. "Family Resources Survey data show that inequality in household income (before housing
costs) remained stable in the UK between 2007/08 and 2008/09, with a value of 36 for the
coefficient of Gini's two years. This value also shows a global increase since 1983, when the
Gini coefficient (...) was 27". In: Office for National Statistics, "Income inequality remains
stable." At: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=332
6. In this context it is possible to observe the configuration of a welfare state model that, from
the perspective of Esping-Andersen, Pitruzello and Navarro, is defined as "liberal." In this, the
State provides minimum welfare, where the benefits are modest and generally with strict
qualification criteria. In which those who receive the benefit of the State are stigmatized and
regularly tested (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Pitruzello, 1990; Navarro et al, 2006).

7. Regarding the higher education system, payment began to be implemented during Blair's
New Labor government, implementing special interest rates for students. In addition to the
delivery of State subsidies to the university system.

The Iron Lady was looking for something very different from "consensus." What she wanted
was a radical change in the British economy, which had been dragging on for years of decline in
the heat of increasingly deep state interventionism. To do so, he surrounded himself with
experts linked to three liberal think tanks that continue to operate at full capacity in the 21st
century: the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Center for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith
Institute.