After the Second World War a supposed “consensus” developed throughout British politics. In February 1954, ‘The Economist’ invented a new word - “Butskellism”. The magazine thought that the policies of the Exchequer of the day, the Conservative R.A. Butler, were so similar to those of his Labour predecessor, Hugh Gaitskell, that they had been devised by a “Mr. Butskell” (Boxer 2010,38). This statement shows that even the people at the time thought of a consensus in British politics. [...]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction:
II.1. What is a “Consensus”?
III.What is the “Post-War Consensus”?
III.1. Beginning
III.2. Themes
III.2.1 Mixed economy
III.2.2. Welfare
III.2.3. Conciliation of the trade unions (TUC)
III.2.4. Britain´s new role
III.3. End of the “post-war Consensus”
IV. Critiques on the Consensus:
V. Importance of the “Consensus” for the understanding of British Politics
VI. Conclusion
Objectives and Research Themes
This essay aims to evaluate the historical validity of the "post-war consensus" construct in British politics, questioning whether such a consensus genuinely existed or if it is merely a retrospective analytical interpretation. The central research question explores how this perception of consensus influences the contemporary understanding of British political history and current policy-making.
- Definition and theoretical understanding of political consensus.
- Historical origins and key thematic pillars of the post-war era (e.g., Keynesianism, Welfare State).
- Critical academic perspectives questioning the depth and reality of the consensus.
- The role of path dependency in analyzing historical political developments.
- Implications of the consensus model for modern British political analysis.
Excerpt from the Book
III. What is the “Post-War Consensus”?
The understanding of the construct “Post-war Consensus”. Much has been written about the existence of such a Consensus. Many believe that this was ‘marked by common agreement about the basic objectives and principles of government amongst the leaders of both major political parties, others believe the level of consensus has been overstated.’(Ellison 1996,17).Kavanagh& Morris (1994,4) distinguish different senses of agreement. One refers to a style of government characterized by institutionalized consultation between government and major actors. The second refers to a range of policies that were pursued by the “Consensus-governments”.
How did the modern understanding of the ‘post-war consensus’ emerge?
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the historical context of the post-war era and defines the essay's intent to investigate the existence and influence of the "post-war consensus" construct.
II.1. What is a “Consensus”?: Examines the etymological and political definitions of "consensus" as an agreement or shared set of policy parameters between political actors.
III.What is the “Post-War Consensus”?: Analyzes the emergence and definitions of the consensus construct within the academic literature.
III.1. Beginning: Discusses how the unique conditions of WWII and the necessity for a social contract established the foundations for a post-war consensus.
III.2. Themes: Highlights the core pillars of the consensus, specifically the commitment to collective welfare and the management of aggregate demand.
III.2.1 Mixed economy: Analyzes the implementation of Keynesian demand management and the mix of private and public ownership.
III.2.2. Welfare: Explores the expansion of the welfare state and the creation of the National Health Service as key elements of social policy agreement.
III.2.3. Conciliation of the trade unions (TUC): Describes the institutionalized role of trade unions in the post-war policy-making process.
III.2.4. Britain´s new role: Addresses the impact of decolonization and the shifting geopolitical status of Britain during the post-war period.
III.3. End of the “post-war Consensus”: Reviews different academic viewpoints on when and why the consensus era ended, often associated with the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1970s.
IV. Critiques on the Consensus: Presents critical scholarly perspectives that challenge the notion of a true ideological consensus between the Labour and Conservative parties.
V. Importance of the “Consensus” for the understanding of British Politics: Evaluates how the legacy of the consensus continues to shape modern British political discourse and policy analysis.
VI. Conclusion: Summarizes the essay's findings, asserting that while the consensus existed as a policy outcome, its depth is often debated in academic discourse.
Keywords
Post-war consensus, British Politics, Keynesianism, Welfare State, Labour Party, Conservative Party, Butskellism, Policy-making, Political agreement, Path dependency, Institutionalization, Social contract, Trade Unions, Economic history, Political ideology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this essay?
The essay examines the validity and influence of the "post-war consensus" concept in British political history, analyzing whether it represented a true ideological shift or a retrospective construct.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include the development of the welfare state, Keynesian economic policies, the role of trade unions, and the transition of Britain's role in the post-colonial world.
What is the main research question?
The work investigates if the "post-war consensus" actually existed as an ideological reality and how this perceived consensus shapes our current understanding of British politics.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a literature-based analytical approach, drawing on established political science theories and historical studies to critically review the concept of consensus.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It provides a chronological and thematic breakdown of the origins, pillars (such as the mixed economy and welfare), and the eventual erosion of the consensus during the 1970s.
How would you characterize this work with keywords?
The work is characterized by terms such as post-war consensus, Keynesianism, British political history, and policy path dependency.
What is the significance of the "Butskellism" term in this context?
Butskellism represents a specific example of the perceived consensus, suggesting that the economic policies of the Conservative R.A. Butler and Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell were remarkably similar.
How does the author view the critique that there was "no real consensus"?
The author acknowledges these critiques, suggesting that while policy convergence was observable, it often stemmed from practical necessity and electoral popularity rather than profound ideological agreement.
Does the author conclude that the consensus was a historical myth?
The author argues that it serves as a valid analytical construct for describing policy outcomes, but warns against overestimating the depth of the ideological harmony between the parties.
Why is the concept of "path dependency" mentioned in the conclusion?
Path dependency is used to highlight that past political decisions constrain and inform current political paths, justifying why studying the "consensus" era remains vital for understanding contemporary politics.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Michaelis (Author), 2013, The "post-war consensus" and its meaning for our understanding of British politics, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/273550
