What do you think?
Rate this book
Britain since 1945: The People's Peace
Britain since 1945: The People's Peace is the first comprehensive study by a professional historian of British history from 1945 to the present day. It examines the transformation of post-war Britain from the planning enthusiasm of 1945 to the rise of New Labour. Its themes include the troubles of the British economy; public criticism of the legitimacy of the state and its instruments of authority; the co-existence of growing personal prosperity with widespread social inequality; and the debates aroused by decolonization, and Britain's relationship to the Commonwealth, the US and Europe. Changes in cultural life, from the puritanical 'austerity' of the 1940's, through the 'permissiveness' of the 1960s, to the tensions and achievements of recent years are also charted.
Using a wide variety of sources, including the records of political parties and the most recently released documents from the Public Records Office, Kenneth Morgan brings the story right up to date and draws comparisons with the post-war history of other nations. This penetrating analysis by a leading twentieth-century historian will prove invaluable to anyone interested in the development of the Britain of today.
Using a wide variety of sources, including the records of political parties and the most recently released documents from the Public Records Office, Kenneth Morgan brings the story right up to date and draws comparisons with the post-war history of other nations. This penetrating analysis by a leading twentieth-century historian will prove invaluable to anyone interested in the development of the Britain of today.
640 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
13 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth O. Morgan
63 books13 followersKenneth O. Morgan, Research Professor, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and Honorary Fellow, Queen's College, Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 27, 2025
An immensely dense read, but an important one nonetheless. Overall, I think the book does a stellar job at meeting its stated goal of introducing us to Britain since 1945. For my issues, with the slight biases of Kenneth O. Morgan, in an epic of this magnitude his keen insight provides instead a unique strength. Having lived through each era of history and in many cases experienced it directly, curious insights into the mood of the times can only be picked up by one such as himself.
As in all books of this length, it is difficult to get a full feel for the work and what keeps the work from my full support are the lulls and lack of description, or occasional biases that Morgan displays. I first note the structure, a broad chronology, loosely followed broken into four periods: 1945-61, 61-79, 79-01, 01-20. For better or for worse, this book is front-heavy with better analysis and descriptions in these earlier sections, and unavoidable difficulty in making sense of eras that were still ongoing.
The book starts off quite strong with Period I, The Era of Advance. Here, Morgan does a spectacular job at dissecting the myth of consensus from the start, giving a great jumping off point to the attitudes going into and that would later dominate the period. Coverage of the first Labour government is fair and concise, followed by solid coverage of the subsequent Conservative governments up to and sightly past the election of Macmillan. Morgan shines here with strong assessments of the popular mood of the period and how complacency developed while stability was also encouraged. I have written elsewhere on Morgan's overly rosy view of foreign policy during this period, but do not believe it compromised his analysis here.
Equally strongly described is Period II: The Years of Retreat. The falling off of the final years of Conservative hegemony are characterized in great detail, leading cleanly into what gave the forthcoming era a sense of unease. Here my first issues with the work really take hold as excessive focus is given to the Wilson and Callaghan governments, broken into four chapters which even at my most liberal characterization deserves maybe three. Further, especially with the first Wilson government while Morgan does a good job of characterizing the issues taking place under the government, Morgan fails to place the onus of failures on Labour where appropriate, marking an unusually detached tone for what clearly is a period of focus for him. While not quite enough to be characterized as a bias, with clear factual presentation and no sugar coating of the worsening situation of Britain throughout the two decades remaining strong, it does dent the coverage presented. In contrast, Heath's inabilities to control to situation are glossed over in remarkably vague detail as if Britain had no government in between. Finally, the period is marked by Morgan's tendency to emphasize the political calculations and maneuvers over actual tangible effects the government had on its circumstances or vice versa.
Despite questionable emphasis, the first two periods come through as solid, if dense, writing on the periods in question. The same can not be said of Period III: Thatcherism and Its Aftermath. Chapter 12 (the first in the section) displays worse failures than even that of Heath's chapter, bringing forth in less than concrete ways the motivations and creation of Thatcherism, while completely failing at adequately describing what actually occurred between 1979-83, besides a solid interlude for the Falklands War/Guerra de Las Malvinas. Chapter 13 returns to a more historical approach again with descriptions of the government's actions and events unfolding during the period like issues with Ireland, the EC, and 'monetarism' in the drivers seat. Despite characterizing the strong developments Thatcher puts forward, Morgan's biases shine through by undercutting the true belief in Thatcherism at the grassroots level and highlighting opposition. While true, this merely serves to cloud Thatcherism's quite real impact in shaping political style and enterprise from 1979-97 in terms of political landscape, and from '79-'90/'97-?? in terms of political style. Finally, I land a slight critique by baffling inclusion of the '97-'01 Labour government in the same section, even if largely characterized by a scarcely different middle way. What distinguishes this government from the later period is beyond me.
To end off, '01-'20 is briefly characterized in two chapters of solid quality. In an impressive feat, Morgan does a great job at distilling the important events of so recent a period with little difficulty bringing forth the EU issue with ease, as well as the stability of the early 2000s with the financial crash changing what was to follow. The only issues here were portions where it sounded a little like a broken record, chronology breaking to repeat the same issue, (Northern Ireland, the EU, economic inequality) with hardly a development to describe. Despite this, Morgan's success at seeing the forest from the trees is commendable and yields a solid if a bit of an open-ended conclusion to the work.
Ultimately, as a work covering such a broad period, I must commend it for doing such a good job at keeping a distinct thread and showing how these periods differ, but are by necessity not distinct, and feed off one another. As an intro to British History since 1945, there is little else as definitive. Read at your peril; for it is a dense volume; but feel sure that you will have a much richer idea of Britain in the modern age on the other side.
As in all books of this length, it is difficult to get a full feel for the work and what keeps the work from my full support are the lulls and lack of description, or occasional biases that Morgan displays. I first note the structure, a broad chronology, loosely followed broken into four periods: 1945-61, 61-79, 79-01, 01-20. For better or for worse, this book is front-heavy with better analysis and descriptions in these earlier sections, and unavoidable difficulty in making sense of eras that were still ongoing.
The book starts off quite strong with Period I, The Era of Advance. Here, Morgan does a spectacular job at dissecting the myth of consensus from the start, giving a great jumping off point to the attitudes going into and that would later dominate the period. Coverage of the first Labour government is fair and concise, followed by solid coverage of the subsequent Conservative governments up to and sightly past the election of Macmillan. Morgan shines here with strong assessments of the popular mood of the period and how complacency developed while stability was also encouraged. I have written elsewhere on Morgan's overly rosy view of foreign policy during this period, but do not believe it compromised his analysis here.
Equally strongly described is Period II: The Years of Retreat. The falling off of the final years of Conservative hegemony are characterized in great detail, leading cleanly into what gave the forthcoming era a sense of unease. Here my first issues with the work really take hold as excessive focus is given to the Wilson and Callaghan governments, broken into four chapters which even at my most liberal characterization deserves maybe three. Further, especially with the first Wilson government while Morgan does a good job of characterizing the issues taking place under the government, Morgan fails to place the onus of failures on Labour where appropriate, marking an unusually detached tone for what clearly is a period of focus for him. While not quite enough to be characterized as a bias, with clear factual presentation and no sugar coating of the worsening situation of Britain throughout the two decades remaining strong, it does dent the coverage presented. In contrast, Heath's inabilities to control to situation are glossed over in remarkably vague detail as if Britain had no government in between. Finally, the period is marked by Morgan's tendency to emphasize the political calculations and maneuvers over actual tangible effects the government had on its circumstances or vice versa.
Despite questionable emphasis, the first two periods come through as solid, if dense, writing on the periods in question. The same can not be said of Period III: Thatcherism and Its Aftermath. Chapter 12 (the first in the section) displays worse failures than even that of Heath's chapter, bringing forth in less than concrete ways the motivations and creation of Thatcherism, while completely failing at adequately describing what actually occurred between 1979-83, besides a solid interlude for the Falklands War/Guerra de Las Malvinas. Chapter 13 returns to a more historical approach again with descriptions of the government's actions and events unfolding during the period like issues with Ireland, the EC, and 'monetarism' in the drivers seat. Despite characterizing the strong developments Thatcher puts forward, Morgan's biases shine through by undercutting the true belief in Thatcherism at the grassroots level and highlighting opposition. While true, this merely serves to cloud Thatcherism's quite real impact in shaping political style and enterprise from 1979-97 in terms of political landscape, and from '79-'90/'97-?? in terms of political style. Finally, I land a slight critique by baffling inclusion of the '97-'01 Labour government in the same section, even if largely characterized by a scarcely different middle way. What distinguishes this government from the later period is beyond me.
To end off, '01-'20 is briefly characterized in two chapters of solid quality. In an impressive feat, Morgan does a great job at distilling the important events of so recent a period with little difficulty bringing forth the EU issue with ease, as well as the stability of the early 2000s with the financial crash changing what was to follow. The only issues here were portions where it sounded a little like a broken record, chronology breaking to repeat the same issue, (Northern Ireland, the EU, economic inequality) with hardly a development to describe. Despite this, Morgan's success at seeing the forest from the trees is commendable and yields a solid if a bit of an open-ended conclusion to the work.
Ultimately, as a work covering such a broad period, I must commend it for doing such a good job at keeping a distinct thread and showing how these periods differ, but are by necessity not distinct, and feed off one another. As an intro to British History since 1945, there is little else as definitive. Read at your peril; for it is a dense volume; but feel sure that you will have a much richer idea of Britain in the modern age on the other side.
May 29, 2023
DNF because it’s way too long but I read a sizeable chunk and found that the Major chapter was very very detailed and insightful. I wish it didn’t gloss over foreign policy and Northern Ireland so much though.
September 6, 2011
If you'd like to get up to date on recent British history - don't buy this book. Although the title suggests otherwise, Morgan ends his history of Britain in 1989. That having been said, if you want to read all about the history of Britain between 1945 and 1989, "The People's Peace" is a good starting point.
As can always be expected of history textbooks, you would need to read and reread each chapter carefully to grasp the complex network of political players, parties and institutions at work in post-war Britain. Morgan, however, guides the reader by splitting (nearly) each chapter into separate parts for foreign and economic policy, as well as a conclusion (look out, there are no sub-headings!).
As this is the first book I have read on that part of British history, I cannot say much on how Morgan aligns with other historians in his views of post-war politics: he certainly gives a lot of attention to the general area of structural economic weakness, to the point that you might think Britain didn't go through periods of enormous growth since WWII (it did!). Another focus of the book is Britain's diminishing role in international politics and the sometimes humiliating process of realising that the "Empire" is gone forever. Morgan is too favourable, in my opinion, claiming that on the whole British decolonialisation policy was successfull and helpful (remember sectarian violence in India?). He also could have put more focus on the role of women and minorities, though that probably involved a explicit decision not too get lost in the waters of sociology, focusing instead on the economic and foreign policy dramas that British history so readily provides.
If you are interested in British history, willing to commit 500 pages of your reading time to it and not easily moved by gloomy accounts of recessions and general economic hardships, go ahead and read "The People's Peace". Only keep in mind that, given the time that the book encompasses, it might also have been called "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"...
As can always be expected of history textbooks, you would need to read and reread each chapter carefully to grasp the complex network of political players, parties and institutions at work in post-war Britain. Morgan, however, guides the reader by splitting (nearly) each chapter into separate parts for foreign and economic policy, as well as a conclusion (look out, there are no sub-headings!).
As this is the first book I have read on that part of British history, I cannot say much on how Morgan aligns with other historians in his views of post-war politics: he certainly gives a lot of attention to the general area of structural economic weakness, to the point that you might think Britain didn't go through periods of enormous growth since WWII (it did!). Another focus of the book is Britain's diminishing role in international politics and the sometimes humiliating process of realising that the "Empire" is gone forever. Morgan is too favourable, in my opinion, claiming that on the whole British decolonialisation policy was successfull and helpful (remember sectarian violence in India?). He also could have put more focus on the role of women and minorities, though that probably involved a explicit decision not too get lost in the waters of sociology, focusing instead on the economic and foreign policy dramas that British history so readily provides.
If you are interested in British history, willing to commit 500 pages of your reading time to it and not easily moved by gloomy accounts of recessions and general economic hardships, go ahead and read "The People's Peace". Only keep in mind that, given the time that the book encompasses, it might also have been called "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"...
February 12, 2014
Fluid, neutral and interesting - but for someone interested in the economic history of the country this could be a disappointment. The figures for employment, debt or trade that helped define policies are served plain without enough details of the problems that arose at the time. The book is essentially a political history from the view of each prime-minister in the post-war period (till 1989). It reads more like biographies woven together with changing political climate. Although neither the title nor the intro of the book makes any pretensions of it being an economic history, I feel that a richer socio-economic analysis of the past is relevant to modern history writing.
June 2, 2014
The book is essentially one about Britain in itself - and not the British Empire - so you'd expect to have a lot of information regarding the post-WWII history of mainly England and to an extent Scotland, Ireland/Northern Ireland and Wales. The book focuses on the economic and political history, and is strongest on the writings regarding 1970s and 1980s. The side that it's lacking is on the socio-cultural history of Britain. Still, it is a very detailed book and a good introduction to people who want to read more about post-war Britain in a whole
October 10, 2013
Very good review of the history of post-war Britain. Not too Anglocentric (the author is Welsh, after all), though this is not really a history from a British perspective, I feel. Largely driven by political and economic narratives, it does nonetheless pay a bit more than lip service to cultural and social developments. The major problem is that this is a book which has been extended as time has progressed: the first part is stronger than the second.
February 17, 2012
My qualm is that it is unorganized. It might be chronological, but that hurts when discussing events and themes. I would prefer a thematic arrangement.
It also focuses excessively on politics. That is satisfactory, but there needs to be more on social and cultural features of society.
It also focuses excessively on politics. That is satisfactory, but there needs to be more on social and cultural features of society.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews