A return to consensus politics?

(c) bixentro

Popular accounts of mid-century politics often paint a picture which shows the British political system emerging from the Second World War with an established consensus between the major political parties. Having spent five years in government together some form of agreement was bound to emerge, especially given the British political tradition which has rarely seen radical ideologies flourish and instead tends towards moderate change within a parliamentary framework. Ignoring the debatable historical accuracy of the idea of consensus, it is evident that to some extent the parties agreed on certain basic tenets which victory in a war against fascism necessitated: after all, what was the point in winning the war, if the peace could not also be won?

The death of consensus politics is commonly seen to have been on 4 May 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister on a programme of monetarist policies which dismissed the predominantly Keynesian slant that had dominated the country’s economy for over 30 years. However, what we are confronted with today is a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell New Labour from Conservative and which, therefore, begs the question: are we returning to consensus politics?

Hostility to government policies by the opposition party gives us little clue as to what they would actually do in government; it is the opposition’s job to react and criticise. It is looking increasingly likely that next summer we will be confronted by a Conservative government and it is only then that we can judge whether they will deliver something different. Certain events suggest that this will not be the case, most noticeably the Tory support of the war in Iraq instigated by Tony Blair’s Labour administration. The current expenses scandal is a perfect example of the converging behaviour of political figures and it is little wonder, with a parliament that even in the twenty-first century is overwhelmingly populated by public-school educated Oxbridge graduates, that our politicians are gravitating more and more towards each other.

During World War Two the emergence of consensus politics, however artificial, led to a move away from party and a support, albeit temporary, for small movements such as Richard Acland’s Common Wealth. Nowadays, the parties that people seem to be increasingly turning to are quasi-patriotic organisations which employ a xenophobic rhetoric to gather support. It can only be hoped that their followings will be just as temporary.

David Cameron’s announcement of his intention to work with the far-right leaders of certain European countries has been criticised, but could indicate an acknowledgement by the Tories that they want to remain firmly on the right of the political scale. It will be a difficult task, but if Labour wants to renew voter confidence they might have to make a similar move in the opposite direction. Whilst I am loath to agree with Margaret Thatcher on anything, she was perhaps touching upon something when she said: “For me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies”. Consensus politics in itself is no bad thing, and compromise can bring about great social change; the NHS, for instance, resulted from this atmosphere of consensus. However, at the same time the move away from traditional party values can alienate voters who start to consider ‘politicians’ in one category, irrespective of party affiliation. It can also lead to stagnation of ideologies and political commitments. Moving out of the middle, grey area of the spectrum could brighten up the colours of our top parties.