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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,