Is Thatcherism Best Described as a Revolt Against the Post-war Consensus?

There is great disagreement over the value of the achievements of the Conservative governments under Mrs Thatcher, but whether it is seen as successful or a failure, most acknowledge that the advent of ‘Thatcherism’ was a major turning point in the recent political, social and economic history of Britain. The 1979 general election was in many ways the most significant since the end of the war, as it signalled the comprehensive end of what became known as the Post-war Consensus, changing fundamentally the way in which the country was governed. To understand whether Thatcherism was a reaction against this consensus we have to first understand what the consensus was - and why it ended.

The consensus emerged in the difficult but optimistic years following the war. It came at least partly from a desire to create the "New Jerusalem", creating social and economic progress from victory. It was in a sense a reaction against the ‘consensus’ that went before, that of a generally non-interventionist government, which was discredited by the memory of the 1930s. The consensus, inaugurated by the policies of the 1945-51 Labour government, marked a great increase in the role of government in peacetime economy and society, something which remained generally unchallenged for decades by successive governments. This does not mean that there was no disagreement between parties and nothing was at stake at elections, as there were many instances of bitter conflict between parties and party identification remained high - but the consensus was a set of parameters in which policies could change, almost agreed goals but disagreement on how they should be achieved. For example, the retreat from Empire was generally agreed on, but the pace and the timing was a matter for difference between the parties.

The term