Skip to main content

In praise of the post-war consensus.


In a previous blog I described my privileged upbringing. In 1964 I left school. The year I left school was also the year Labour were elected after 13 years of Conservative governments. Harold Wilson it was who said that Labour was nothing if not a crusade. In those days the crusade was readily understood. The Atlee government had established the National Health Service and developed the foundations of the Welfare State. So great were these achievements, so entrenched in voter psyche that all major political parties to varying degrees 'signed up' to a post-war consensus. It was that consensus that Thatcher was so intent on breaking, but that was yet to come. Labour had shifted the centre of gravity of British politics, they had mapped out the centre ground.

The centre ground was much larger than it is now; it was more inclusive of left and right. The Left represented by Michael Foot, for example, had no difficulty being heard. Harold Wilson came from the Left but led from the right as almost all leaders of the party do. Today the 'centre ground' is the size of a pin head and 'major' differences are nuanced rather than fundamental. Was there really that much difference between any member of Tony Blair's cabinet? Perhaps little that would have brought about a fundamental shift in direction. The differences between Brown and Blair were not about the fundamentals.

In Wilson's time that was not so. Crossman and Crossland were poles apart; Michael Foot and Denis Healey; Barbara Castle and Roy Jenkins. Each had distinct views about what they wanted to achieve and how. Cabinet discussion was a true debate. Today we have the ludicrous attempt to label Ed Miliband as 'Red Ed'. Yet his position today would have been on the right of Labour's centre of gravity in the 1960s. Silly politics; there is little Red about Ed.

But in the 1960s the language was different in many ways. We talked about society a key ingredient of the 'post-war' consensus; there are functions best achieved together. Indeed there are objectives that could only be achieved effectively by working together. We argued about the balance of private and public and not whether there was a role for either. There were certain needs and functions that even the Tories, or at least their leadership would not have dreamed could be or should be 'privatised' - although health was not one of them!  All that was set to change. There were Tories in those days who worked with an understanding of society. Rab Butler was one of them.

Rab Butler had chaired the war-time coalition's reconstruction committee preparing for post-war social reform. He steered through the 1944 Education Act creating a free secondary school system. He raised the school leaving age to 15 (the age I left school). These changes did much to contribute to social mobility.

Tory and Labour  adopted a Keynsian approach to economics;  full employment through social intervention was a major objective. Employment was a major goal and a means to growth. Labour and Tory 'spoke the same language of Keynsianism'. Employment was a means to an end, today it is a consequence of monetary policy.  We try to influence rather than direct the economy.  Rather than consider the function of the engine itself we only control the 'fuel' - money.

Back in the 1960s we tried to steer the ship with a hand on the tiller; now we stick a finger in the water in a vain attempt to alter the tide!

(too be continued...)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As