ESSAY - "Was there such a thing as a post war consensus in the years 1951 – 1964?"

Note: these are essays written by me and have not been marked, so may contain mistakes. Please use for revision purposes only :) 

"Was there such a thing as a post war consensus in the years 1951 – 1964?" Discuss. (45 marks) 

The post war consensus was a term given by historians to describe the general agreement between the two major political parties between the years 1945 to 1964. After WWII the Labour party were voted into power and introduced several new social, economic and foreign policies. These policies were implemented to help Britain reconstruct economically and socially, some of which were against Conservative traditional views. However there was very little attempt on Conservatives part to reverse the changes made, hence there were indications that a post war consensus did exist and for a number of reasons.   

Firstly, the policies that the Attlee government implemented between 1945 and 1951 were accepted by the Conservative party. Traditionally, the Conservative party were frequently against the Labour party’s policies; however the success of Attlee’s legacy such as the welfare policies, Keynesian economics, nationalisation and of course the NHS made the Conservatives rethink and promise not to reverse them. Not only that, but after WWII there was the feeling of unity within the nation. The war time coalition ministers from all the major parties had worked together during that time so they were more open to cooperation after the war. This therefore shows that a post war consensus did in fact exist.

Likewise, the popularity of Labour’s welfare reforms, especially the NHS, meant that many Conservatives were less hostile to the welfare state. They were not only more accepting of Labour’s policies, but also more in tune with the public opinion which boosted their own popularity. Most Conservatives recognised that the experiences of war made people want economic and social reconstruction, so they acknowledged the fact that the Labour party were correct to achieve the welfare state.  If the Conservatives did eradicate the NHS and reverse all of Labour’s policies, it would only achieve to commit political suicide, so there was a post war consensus.

Also, there was a post war consensus because the Conservatives wanted to avoid being seen as the “party of mass unemployment.” People still had the bitter memories of mass unemployment during the 1930s, the Conservatives of which were held responsible. As a result, the Conservatives didn’t feel strong enough to dismantle Attlee’s legacy as any changes would mean that the electorate would swing back in Labour’s favour. Consequently it can be argued that there was a post war consensus as the Conservatives were reluctant to make drastic changes.  

Furthermore, the reorganisation of the Conservative party meant that there was a post war consensus. This is because there were now younger, more dynamic characters within the party who were more pragmatic and accepted the necessity of government intervention in social and economic issues – this is what Nigel Lawson called “big government.” The Conservatives wanted to cooperate with the trade unions - which had become very powerful and influential because key industries like coal and the railways had been nationalised by the Labour government - whereas they may not have been as willing before the war. This proves that there was a post war consensus as the Conservative party were prepared to alter their traditional views and weave social and public opinion into their own policies. 

Finally, both the Labour party and the Conservative party consented to a mixed economy which demonstrates the consensus between the two parties. This is because Labour proved that they were not all-out socialist and accepted capitalism and in turn, the Conservatives accepted Labour’s nationalisation programme and only denationalised the steel industry and road transport. This is evidence that there was a post war consensus because both parties were cooperating on issues that they would otherwise disagree with.  

On the other hand, there are various arguments for why there may not have been a post war consensus. For example, as soon as the Conservatives were voted back into power in 1951, they were quick to denationalise the steel and road transport. This shows that the Conservatives did not agree with every change Labour made and therefore the post war consensus did not exist.

Also, not all of the Conservatives agreed with the policies the Labour party applied. Some right wing Conservatives would often challenge the policies but only went along with it because they needed the support of the working class. Similarly, the Labour party faced internal criticism of the policies. Left wing Labour politicians, who were very socialist, opposed the fact that Attlee decided to side with the USA rather than the communist Soviet Union. They believed it was a waste of opportunity because had they supported the Soviets, Britain may have become the communist state that the socialists always wanted. Some historians would argue that it is for these reasons that there was no such a thing as a post war consensus.

Others also agree that the post war consensus did not exist. José Harris for example wrote in her essay 'Political Values and the debate on State welfare 1940-45' that the "national consensus was an artificially manufactured myth." Jefferys agreed with her, saying that "the parties were in many ways as far apart on social issues as they had been before 1939” as both parties were still very different from each other regardless of them agreeing to each other’s agendas.

However, Alan Bullock wrote in his book The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin that the war had brought "a hybrid society to which neither of the terms 'capitalism' nor 'socialism.'” He believed that there was a consensus as both parties committed to full unemployment, the welfare state and the NHS, among other reforms.

To conclude, the consensus between the Labour party and the Conservative party after 1945 did exist. This is evident as both parties did actually cooperate with each other, with the Conservatives denationalising only one industry but accepting the other polices and the Labour party not yielding to total socialism. Although there were some internal disputes between individuals and different motives for accepting the policies (for example, the Conservative’s desire to get back into favour with the public) it does not change the fact that they did alter their traditional views which demonstrated the consensus between the two parties. And as Bullock said, there was a hybrid society where there was neither left wing nor right, but both parties were central and committed to the reconstruction of Britain.