Above all, housing - selling one house and buying another -is at the centre of many decisions about where to work, with all its consequences for income, promotion and future prospects. Anyone thinking of moving from one home to another one in a different town or city has to consider the wildly varying prices of property in different parts of the country. These prices are based on desirability. Estate agents find out how many people would like to live in their area and adjust the prices accordingly. In London (as in Moscow) prices are higher than anywhere else, although there are cheaper and more expensive districts within the capital. Oxford, where I live, is also an expensive city with house prices much higher than those in the northern part of England. What happens? Our local school needed a new head-teacher. Among the candidates was an outstanding man; everybody agreed he would be both an excellent teacher and administrator in a time of problems. He wanted the job and was eager to live in Oxford. But he was living in the north with a wife and family and he simply could not afford to move south.
Here is the kind of discussion he had with his family. 'If we sell our house we will maybe receive £150,000 for it. But if we want to buy a similar house in Oxford we will have to pay about £300,000. At the moment we pay £500 a month for our mortgage on our own house here in the north. If we convert our mortgage (our borrowing from the bank) into a mortgage on the more expensive house in Oxford, we will have to pay about £1,100 a month. That means that we will have to pay more than double the amount of mortgage repayments each month. Can we afford it? I will be getting a bigger salary, but not that much bigger. You, my dear, (to his wife), will have to find another job in Oxford, and that will not be easy. So the family income will go down for a time, at least. And the mortgage repayments will go on for years. Of course, we could buy a cheaper house. What could we get for £150,000 in Oxford? A two bedroom bungalow outside Oxford maybe, with tiny rooms? Suitable for a retired couple. But this means that our two children would have to share a room, and transport costs into Oxford would be very high. Do you want to make these sacrifices so that I can become a head-teacher in Oxford? No? Well, I'm relieved, really, because I feel really nervous at the idea of having to pay £1,100 a month for a mortgage, while, on the other hand, I don't want to live in a small bungalow.'
I have simplified the discussion, but the figures are typical, the worry about mortgage repayments is widespread, and the result is that the would-be head-teacher is as far from Oxford as if he was refused an Official Registration Permit for the city. We do not need to feel sorry for him because this kind of juggling of needs and costs and dreams is as commonplace in Britain as in Russia. My point is that understanding patterns of work means that we have to understand the housing situation.
For Russians, in 2009, memories of the devastating changes of the 1990s, of the loss of your savings and of continuing uncertainty about the country's financial stability, mean that you tend to spend what money you have. And if you have any money over, it often goes on generous and impulsive present-buying. The British, with a greater sense of stability but also with the knowledge that they will probably live a long time after retirement, put their money into insurance, pensions, and savings for the future. However, it is extremely difficult to generalise. Millions of people in Britain will recognise the 'Russian' pattern of spending rather than the 'British' pattern. At least you can be sure that younger people with jobs, families, mortgages, insurance, homes and taxes have plenty to think about as they juggle one with another in order to contrive for themselves a pleasant life of reasonable work and sufficient income.
Part Five. How our Democratic Society Works
In Part Five I look at those essential institutions which make it possible for us to live together in a developed society in the twenty-first century. Although I describe our political system in the first chapter, the purpose of Part Five is to show how politicians, civil servants, professional people such as teachers, doctors and lawyers, administrators and journalists interact with the rest of the population, the people of this country, to make the whole system work. All societies are dynamic: in some the people at the top provide most of the dynamic push; in peasant and undeveloped societies the movements are mostly between groups at the bottom; in democracies the energies of all kinds of groups push in different directions so that we would suffer chaos if we did not have strong but flexible institutions. The dynamics involve us all - that is what democracy is about - but they are complicated and cannot be easily explained. So I have chosen examples of real situations where rulers, administrators, professionals and people have to work together to sort out common problems. I try to show how and why certain policies are adopted, where the different dynamic thrusts come from, and why the results may or may not be successful.
Obviously I have neither space nor expertise enough to go into details but I hope that the examples will illustrate the process adequately. They are either real examples of active policies or proposals which have been seriously considered in national debates on our democracy.
Chapter 1. Politics: Parties, Government and People
Russians have a history of dramatic political changes whereas the British are noted for their political stability. Why should this be?
Historically, the English developed parliamentary institutions early because, after 1066. We did not suffer from foreign invasions and their terrible damage; Magna Carta which limited the power of the Monarch and gave certain rights to all Englishmen was signed in 1215. A 'Parliament' was established soon afterwards, chiefly to control the King's tax-raising powers. From the early sixteenth century Parliament took fundamental decisions in conjunction with the King or Queen about such matters as religious reform, freedom and censorship of the press, and foreign policy. By the time of our Civil War (1642-49) Parliament was able to challenge the King on constitutional grounds. The judicial council which tried and executed Charles I in 1649 argued that they did so legally. After Cromwell's death and the Republican experiment, Charles I's son was invited back to England as King in 1660 - but only on condition that he was subject to Parliamentary rules. Since 1688, the powers of the monarch have been steadily stripped away by Parliament. Today, not only is the Monarch unable to alter parliamentary laws and decisions, she or he has to do what the Government in Parliament decides is necessary or desirable.
Sometimes Russians say that they would like a constitutional monarchy like ours. They believe that our Queen has limited but significant power. They are wrong. She has no power. She is not allowed to take part in political activity but is controlled by politicians. In return she is given considerable wealth, a protected life, and the duty to act as a popular figure head, a sort of human national flag which has the devotion of millions of her subjects.
What role does Parliament play in our present political system? It consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent different political parties. Every four or five years (it cannot be more than five and is rarely less than four) we have a General Election to decide who should become Members of Parliament. Voting is carried out on the basis of territorial areas with roughly similar populations called constituencies. There are about 650 constituencies in the United Kingdom (the number varies slightly from election to election) with 60-70,000 electors in each of them. Any group that is willing to pay a reasonable but not large sum of money can put up a candidate for election to Parliament - but unless their candidate receives at least 5% of the vote, the party forfeits the money. (This discourages crazy candidates!) In practice the political parties of any significance are the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and, in Wales and Scotland, the nationalist parties, (small in Wales, very important in Scotland).