Post-war consensus was a myth. Discuss.

Authors Avatar

‘Post-war consensus was a myth’. Discuss.

In 1945 Clement Attlee was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain. In the ensuing years, certain historians believe that there was a political consensus, a debate which was laid out by Paul Addison in 1975. However other historians such as Harriet Jones have disagreed with this and argue that this post-war political consensus was a myth. Other historians such as Kavanagh and Morris have defined consensus as “a high level of agreement at both elite and popular levels”. This essay will argue that there was consensus among the British political elite, however, it will also argue that, at ‘popular levels’ there is the view that a consensus between these supporters of the conservative and labour parties did not exist.

The argument that post-war consensus was a myth is supported by the differences between their policies, as seen in the 1950’s election manifestos. In 1950 the Labour party were pursuing a policy of nationalisation of key industries within the British economy, for example the coal, electric and steel sectors. This is clearly stated in their manifesto with their defence of this policy arguing that “in 1949 output was 28 million tonnes higher than 1945” this, in the Labour party’s opinion, showed that “nationalisation...has saved the British industry from collapse”. Indeed, it can be seen from Attlee’s own writing that nationalisation had always been an aim of the Labour party, as portrayed in his 1937 book The Labour party in perspective where he called for “the state ownership of all major industries”, however, historians such as Marr have pointed out that there is a distinct difference between the Labour party’s ideology and what they could practically achieve, which indicates that, as a political party, they were being ruled by their hearts and not their heads. This is an argument that was echoed by the Conservative party at the time with their opposition of their nationalisation policies. The conservatives 1950’s manifesto stated that “monopoly and bureaucracy should give place to competition and enterprise”, this approach to economics typifies the conservative party’s capitalist outlook, which shows all too clearly that a post-war consensus on economic matters-between the two parties-was a myth.

Kavanagh and Morris’ definition of consensus, with their separation of the elite and populace triggers another argument that consensus was a myth. The historian Harriet Jones argues that a consensus did not exist between the political parties’ supporters did not exist as the grass root followers found it difficult to establish common interest and goals, even Addison admits that “the post-war plans of the coalition were never more than short term compromises” this shows that a consensus could not have existed long term because of the deeply rooted ideological differences which according to Harriet Jones were very deeply apparent during Winston Churchill’s peace time government which was elected in 1951, which can be seen in the Conservative’s manifesto which is peppered with constant references to the “socialists” and the “crushing burden” which they impose upon the nation. This illustrates that a consensus never existed thus it was a ‘myth’ because of the incompatibility of the two parties with the deep ideological differences which perturbed them from working together. Some believe that the election results of 1945 are a good indication of this incompatibility as the Labour victory was a land slide victory, this resounding defeat of the conservatives highlights that there were distinguishable differences between the two factions of the British political system.  

Join now!

Arguments in favour of a political consensus following 1945 also exist, during this period the majority of policies followed by the two parties were essentially the same and were heavily influenced by the Beverage report of 1942, which is considered the foundling stage of the welfare state. This consensus of policy can be seen as certain areas of the party’s political strategy didn’t change from one government to the next, such as education and foreign policies which showed that there was a common vision for post-war reconstruction.

In 1944 the government passed the Education Act which reformed ...

This is a preview of the whole essay