"The last few decades have seen the erosion of the social democratic post war consensus". Discuss.

Authors Avatar

Helen Leach

"The last few decades have seen the erosion of the social democratic post war consensus". Discuss.

        When talking in general about political culture, we are talking about the 'commonly shared goals and accepted rules of society' (Marcadis). However, we define British political culture as 'those traditions and styles, which contribute to the workable composition of British politics' (Rose). Traditionally, Britain was seen as having a relatively stable political culture during the 1950's and early 1960's and this was due to the key roles played by consensus and deference.

        During the years 1951 to 1979, there seemed to be a broad agreement between politicians of differing political viewpoints, this was particularly true for the '50's and '60's.

        1945 to 1951 saw many heated ideological debates over the creation of the Welfare State, nationalisation and the growth of government. However, the Tory rule from 1951 to '64 and the 1964-1970 Labour government produced merely conflicts over details.

        The reason for this broad agreement was because the Tories had come to accept the bulk of Labour's post war reforms after 1951. There was also general affluence and rising living standards, due to full employment. The consensus included a commitment to all aspects of the Welfare State, including council houses, state intervention in the economy and multi-lateral defence. This consensus between the politicians was also reflected among the people, who were seen as being a largely passive, deferential public. There was a general assumption that those in authority would act in good faith and it was believed that the vast majority of people accepted the electoral system, the legal system, the principles of Cabinet government and Parliament.

Join now!

        Bagehot (1867) argued that British society was essentially deferential in its attitudes to the Monarchy, the Peerage and to the trappings of society. He argued that the secret of the constitution was that the real power lay with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, whilst the monarchy was there to 'mesmerise the masses' into respect for the system as a whole and in turn creating stability. The public was also deferential when they identified the leadership skills with high social status. The people who were running the country tended to come from a wealthy background, had good private education and ...

This is a preview of the whole essay