This is an authoritative history of a period which represents most of my working lifetime. A quick clarification, however: that period runs loosely from Mrs Thatcher’s ousting in late 1990 to when covid was imminent, in late 2019/early 2020, but had not yet arrived. There is a lot of scene-setting discussion of earlier history, but no coverage of the pandemic itself: in this, the sub-title may be a little misleading.

The book will perhaps appeal most to those, like me, who want to compare their own recollections and perspectives with that of a professional historian, but it will deservedly get a much wider audience. It reminded me of much that I’d forgotten or overlooked – and taught me a lot of new things besides.

The author is an Emeritus Professor at Oxford. At first sight the book looks pretty dry, with almost seven hundred pages of low-font text, more than a hundred further pages of references and sources, and a lengthy index. It contains a scattering of contemporary black and white photographs and cartoons, but no tables, charts, diagrams or maps. However, it is more readable than it looks, and Harrison’s prose is almost light-hearted in places.

It is also willing to share some distinctly non-consensual thoughts. In particular, and refreshingly, Harrison avoids the mawkish declinism which seems to be almost the default setting for anyone writing about the UK’s fate in recent decades. He observes wryly that: “A major theme in British history since 1945 has been the contrast between almost continuously growing private affluence and persistent anxiety in public debate about the UK economy.” (p682)

The first chapter offers a basic narrative (“The Political Sequence”). The next eleven chapters tackle various related and interlinked themes such as: “The Structure of Government”; “Law and Disorder”; “Social Class and Ethnicity”; “The Life of Learning”; “Health and Welfare”. There is then a brief concluding chapter. These themes are of course chosen by Harrison, but I couldn’t see any obvious omissions, and his approach helps make a massive amount of material more digestible, at least to this (non-specialist) reader.

Amongst the many insights and rekindled memories I took away from the book:

· The political skill – but very different personalities – of Major and Blair, described as the two “fine” Prime Ministers of the six in this period (p687);

 · Amidst more recent political dysfunction, I’d forgotten the sheer petulance and incompetence of Brown’s administration (Harrison quotes Lord Desai: ‘Gordon Brown was put on earth to remind people how good Tony Blair was.” (p108);

 · The counter-productive, technocratic overconfidence of the “Remain” campaign;

· Despite the varying approaches to fostering “multiculturism” (he lists six), Harrison suggests (accurately, I want to believe) that “… racism in the UK has been in slow long-term decline…” (p 406);

· The dramatic but naïve expansion of higher education, which has eroded both the screening value of degree-level certification and the professional and social status of academics;

· The majority in favour of a devolved government in Wales in the first referendum was 50.3% to 49.7%, on a turnout of 50.1% (p149);

· An unusually objective observation on the origins of the Global Financial Crisis: “In truth, the fundamental problem did not lie in individual ethics, but… in an unnecessarily complex system that nobody had planned… and which had the effect of bewildering not only individuals but governments.” (p663).

For me, the chapter on economics (“Industry and Commerce”) is too short (this is an SPE review, after all). Harrison can be spuriously precise in his use of data, and in talking of inequality he sometimes confuses wealth with income (to be fair, he is in good company in this regard). Talking of rich people moving to lower-tax countries, he says: “Two thirds of those in the UK who earned a million a year or more did just that…” in response to the 50p rate in 2010/11, which sounds unlikely (and is not clearly sourced). There is also little discussion of what the UK was making and selling, beyond the usual cursory talk of “manufacturing” and “services” (but again, most economists largely ignore this too).

To his credit, however, he acknowledges that material progress has been made – in terms of life expectancy, consumer living standards, unemployment – and he is braver than most economists in asking, about measures aimed at solving the productivity shortfall, whether proposed remedies were “… chasing a non-problem.” (p638).

In conclusion, I found this a comprehensive, balanced but still provocative account of our times. If you were there, you’ll want to read it. If you weren’t, you may need to.

His concluding sentence is on that vexed topic of UK decline: “Smallness does have its advantages.” (p696) Bravo