Hubbry Logo
Post-war consensusPost-war consensusMain
Open search
Post-war consensus
Community hub
Post-war consensus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Post-war consensus
Post-war consensus
Post-war consensus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The post-war consensus, sometimes called the post-war compromise, was the economic order and social model of which the major political parties in post-war Britain shared a consensus supporting view, from the end of World War II in Europe in 1945 to the late-1970s. It ended during the governance of Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher. The consensus tolerated or encouraged nationalisation, strong trade unions, heavy regulation, high taxes, and an extensive welfare state.[1]

The notion of a post-war consensus covered support for a coherent package of policies that was developed in the 1930s and promised during the Second World War, focused on a mixed economy, Keynesianism, and a broad welfare state.[2] Historians have debated the timing of the weakening and collapse of the consensus, including whether it ended before Thatcherism arrived with the 1979 general election.[3] They also suggest that the notion might not have been as widely supported as some claim, and that the word consensus might be inaccurate to describe the period. Embedded liberalism has been applied to describe the post-war consensus on a global stage, around the same period from World War II to the crisis of the 1970s, and contrast it with the paradigm shift led by neoliberalism that followed.[4]

Origins of post-war consensus

[edit]

The thesis of post-war consensus was most fully developed by Paul Addison.[5] The basic argument is that in the 1930s Liberal intellectuals led by John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge developed a series of plans that became especially attractive as the wartime government promised a much better post-war Britain and saw the need to engage every sector of society.

The foundations of the post-war consensus can be traced to the Beveridge Report. This was a report by William Beveridge, a Liberal economist who in 1942 formulated the concept of a more comprehensive welfare state in Great Britain.[6] The report, in shortened terms, aimed to bring widespread reform to the United Kingdom and did so by identifying the "five giants on the road of reconstruction": "Want… Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness".[7] In the report were labelled a number of recommendations: the appointment of a minister to control all the insurance schemes; a standard weekly payment by people in work as a contribution to the insurance fund; old age pensions, maternity grants, funeral grants, pensions for widows and for people injured at work; a new national health service to be established.

The post-war consensus included a belief in Keynesian economics,[6] a mixed economy with the nationalisation of major industries, the establishment of the National Health Service and the creation of the modern welfare state in Britain. The policies were instituted by all governments (both Labour and Conservative) in the post-war period. The consensus has been held to characterise British politics until the economic crises of the 1970s (see Secondary banking crisis of 1973–1975) which led to the end of the post-war economic boom and a brief and failed experiment with monetarist economics[8][9] as championed by Milton Friedman. The roots of Keynes's economics, however, stem from critique of the economics of the interwar period depression. Keynes's style of economics encouraged a more active role of the government in order to "manage overall demand so that there was a balance between demand and output".[10] It was claimed that in the period between 1945–1970 (consensus years) that unemployment averaged less than 3%, although the legitimacy of whether this was solely down to Keynes remains unclear.

The first general election since 1935 was held in Britain in July 1945, giving a landslide victory for the Labour Party, whose leader was Clement Attlee. The policies undertaken and implemented by this Labour government laid the base of the consensus. The Conservative Party accepted many of these changes, and promised not to reverse them in its 1947 Industrial Charter. Attlee, using the Beveridge Report and Keynesian economics, laid out his plans for what became known as "The Attlee Settlement".[11]

The main areas he would tackle:

  1. The mixed economy
  2. Full employment
  3. Conciliation of the trade unions
  4. Welfare
  5. Retreat from empire

Policy areas of consensus

[edit]
See also: Embedded liberalism

The coalition government during the war, headed by Churchill and Attlee, signed off on a series of white papers that promised Britain a much improved welfare state after the war. The promises included the national health service, and expansion of education, housing, and a number of welfare programmes. It included the nationalisation of weak industries.

In education, the major legislation was the Education Act 1944, written by Conservative Rab Butler, a moderate, with his deputy, Labour's James Chuter Ede, a former teacher who would become Home Secretary throughout the Attlee administration. It expanded and modernised the educational system and became part of the consensus.[12][13] The Labour Party did not challenge the system of elite public schools – they became part of the consensus. It also called for building many new universities to dramatically broaden educational base of society. Conservatives did not challenge the socialised medicine of the National Health Service; indeed, they boasted they could do a better job of running it.[14]

In terms of foreign policy, there is much evidence to suggest that there was a shared set of views that were rooted in role of the recent history. Dennis Kavanagh and Peter Morris emphasise the importance of the Second World War, and war time cabinet, in yielding a set of values that were shared amongst the major parties rooted in the events leading up to the war: "Atlanticism, the development of an independent nuclear deterrent, the process of imperial disengagement and reluctant Europeanism: all originated in the 1945 Labour Government and were subsequently continued...by its successors".[15] However, there were some disagreement on areas of foreign policy, such as the introduction of the Commonwealth where  "Labour opposed the conservative 'imperial rhetoric' with the idealism of multicultural Commonwealth" or, in the same vein, decolonization, which became "an important theme of partisan conflict" in which Conservatives showed a reluctance to give back colonial possessions as well as the gradual process of independence.[16]

It is argued that from 1945 until the arrival of Margaret Thatcher in 1979, there was a broad multi-partisan national consensus on social and economic policy, especially regarding the welfare state, nationalised health services, educational reform, a mixed economy, government regulation, Keynesian macroeconomic policies, and full employment. Apart from the question of nationalisation of some industries, these policies were broadly accepted by the three major parties, as well as by industry, the financial community and the labour movement. Until the 1980s, historians generally agreed on the existence and importance of the consensus. Some historians such as Ralph Miliband expressed disappointment that the consensus was a modest or even conservative package that blocked a fully socialised society.[17] Historian Angus Calder complained bitterly that the post-war reforms were an inadequate reward for the wartime sacrifices, and a cynical betrayal of the people's hope for a more just post-war society.[18]

However, it is still important to note that there was not total agreement between the two major parties and there were still policies which the Conservatives did not support, such as how the National Health Service would be implemented. Henry Willink, who was the Conservative minister of health from 1943–1945, opposed the nationalisation of hospitals. This could indicate that the post-war consensus may have been exaggerated, as many historians have argued.[19][20][21]

Labour revisionism

[edit]

The Future of Socialism by Anthony Crosland, published in 1956, was one of the most influential books in post-war British Labour Party thinking.[22] It was the seminal work of the 'revisionist' school of Labour politics.[23] A central argument in the book is Crosland's distinction between 'means' and 'ends'. Crosland demonstrates the variety of socialist thought over time, and argues that a definition of socialism founded on nationalisation and public ownership is mistaken, since these are simply one possible means to an end. For Crosland, the defining goal of the left should be more social equality. Crosland also argued that an attack on unjustified inequalities would give any left party a political project to make the definition of the end point of 'how much equality' a secondary and more academic question.

Crosland also developed his argument about the nature of capitalism (developing the argument in his contribution 'The Transition from Capitalism' in the 1952 New Fabian Essays volume). Asking, "is this still capitalism?", Crosland argued that post-war capitalism had fundamentally changed, meaning that the Marxist claim that it was not possible to pursue equality in a capitalist economy was no longer true. Crosland wrote that:

The most characteristic features of capitalism have disappeared – the absolute rule of private property, the subjection of all life to market influences, the domination of the profit motive, the neutrality of government, typical laissez-faire division of income and the ideology of individual rights.

Crosland argued that these features of a reformed managerial capitalism were irreversible. Others[who?] within the Labour Party argued that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought about its reversal.

A third important argument was Crosland's liberal vision of the 'good society'. Here his target was the dominance in Labour and Fabian thinking of Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, and a rather grey, top down bureaucratic vision of the socialist project.

Butskellism

[edit]
Rab Butler
Hugh Gaitskell

"Butskellism" was a somewhat satirical term sometimes used in British politics to refer to this consensus, established in the 1950s and associated with the exercise of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer by Rab Butler of the Conservatives and Hugh Gaitskell of Labour. The term was inspired by a leading article in The Economist by Norman Macrae which dramatised the claimed convergence by referring to a fictitious "Mr. Butskell".[24][25]

Debate about consensus

[edit]

There is much discussion over the extent to which there was actually a consensus, and it has also been challenged as a myth. Many political thinkers and historians have argued both for and against the concept of consensus. Paul Addison, the historian most credited with developing the thesis, has engaged in discussions on the subject with figures such as Kevin Jeffreys, who disagrees. Jeffreys says that "Much of Labour's programme after 1945, it must be remembered, was fiercely contested at the time" using the example of the Conservatives to vote against the NHS.[26] He attributes to the War the reason for the 'shock' result of the 1945 general election. Addison addresses many of Jeffreys' claims, such as the argument that if the Conservatives could have capitalised upon the Beveridge report they would have been the ones with a powerful mandate for pursuing policy, not the Labour party. Addison also changes his stance in this article, stating how he "exaggerated the extent to which 'middle opinion' already prevailed on the front benches" and determining that, in fact he "agree(s) with much of Dr Jeffreys' analysis".[27]

There are also a number of other interpretations of the consensus which many historians have discussed such as Labour Historian Ben Pimlott. He says this idea is a "mirage, an illusion which rapidly fades the closer one gets to it."[28] Pimlott sees much disputation and little harmony.[29] He notes the term "Butskellism" meant harmony of economic policy between the parties, but it was in practice a term of abuse, not celebration.[30] In 2002, Scott Kelly claimed that there was in fact a sustained argument over the use of physical controls, monetary policy and direct taxation.[31] Political scientists Dennis Kavanagh and Peter Morris defend the concept, arguing that clear, major continuities existed regarding policies toward the economy, full employment, trade unions, and welfare programs. There was agreement as well on the major issues of foreign policy.[32]

Dean Blackburn offers a different argument about the accuracy of the consensus. He proffers that the so-called consensus did not stem from ideological agreement, rather, an epistemological one (if any). He makes clear the ideological differences between the Conservatives and the Labour Party; the latter openly wanting an equal and egalitarian society, while the former was more reluctant, for example.[33] Rather, he suggests that an examination of parties' shared epistemological beliefs – "similar ideas about appropriate political conduct", a "shared a common suspicion of the notion that politics could serve fixed 'ends', and...believed that evolutionary change was preferable to radical change" – would offer a better insight into whether or not there was a consensus or not. Blackburn summarises this saying that instead of "being rooted in common ideological beliefs about the desirable 'ends' of political activity, the consensus may have stemmed from epistemological assumptions and the political propositions that followed from them".[34]

Collapse of consensus

[edit]

Market-orientated conservatives gathered strength in the 1970s in the face of economic paralysis. They rediscovered Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944) and brought in Milton Friedman, the leader of the Chicago school of economics. Keith Joseph played a major role as an advisor to Thatcher.[35]

Keynesianism itself seemed no longer to be the magic bullet for economic crises of the 1970s. Mark Kesselman et al. argue:

Britain was suffering economically without growth and with growing political discontent ... the "winter of discontent" destroyed Britain's collectivist consensus and discredited the Keynesian welfare state.[36]

In 1972 Chancellor of the Exchequer Anthony Barber introduced a tax-cutting budget. A brief "Barber Boom" followed but ended in stagflation and (effectively[a]) devaluation of sterling. Global events such as the 1973 oil crisis put pressure on the post-war consensus; this pressure was intensified by domestic problems such as high inflation, the Three-Day Week and industrial unrest (particularly in the declining coal-mining industry). In early 1976, expectations that inflation and the double deficit would get worse precipitated a sterling crisis. By October, the pound had fallen by almost 25% against the dollar. At this point the Bank of England had exhausted its foreign reserves trying to prop up the currency, and as a result the Callaghan government felt forced to ask the International Monetary Fund for a £2.3 billion loan, then the largest that the IMF had ever made. In return the IMF demanded massive spending cuts and a tightening of the money supply. That marked a suspension of Keynesian economics in Britain. Callaghan reinforced this message in his speech to the Labour Party Conference at the height of the crisis, saying:

We used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion since the war by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.[37]

A cause of the supposed collapse of the post war consensus is the idea of the state overload thesis, chiefly examined in the UK by political scientist Anthony King. He summarises the chain of events as saying "Once upon a time, then, man looked to God to order the World. Then he looked to the market. Now he looks to government".[38] It is suggested that due to the increased demand on the government during the consensus years, that an imbalance grew between what was possible to deliver and the demands that had been created. The process is defined as being cyclical: "more demands means more government intervention, which generates yet more expectations".[39] It is believed that these qualms with the consensus are what led, in part, to the emergence of the New Right and Margaret Thatcher.

Thatcher reversed other elements of the post-war consensus, as when her Housing Act 1980 allowed the residents to buy their flats. Thatcher did keep key elements of the post-war consensus, such as nationalised health care. She promised Britons in 1982 that the National Health Service is "safe in our hands."[40]

Economists Stephen Broadberry and Nicholas Crafts have argued that anticompetitive practices, enshrined in the post-war consensus, appear to have hindered the efficient working of the economy and, by implication, the reallocation of resources to their most profitable uses.[41] David Higgins says the statistical data support Broadberry and Crafts.[42]

The consensus was increasingly seen by those on the right as being the cause of Britain's relative economic decline. Believers in New Right political beliefs saw their ideology as the solution to Britain's economic dilemmas in the 1970s. When the Conservative Party won the 1979 general election in the wake of the 1978–79 Winter of Discontent, they implemented New Right ideas and brought the post-war consensus to an end.

New Zealand

[edit]

Outside Britain, the term "post-war consensus" is used for an era of New Zealand political history, from the First Labour Government of New Zealand of the 1930s until the election of a fundamentally changed Labour party in 1984, following years of mostly New Zealand National Party rule. As in the UK, it was built around a 'historic compromise' between the different classes in society: the rights, health and security of employment for all workers would be promised by government, in return for co-operation between unions and employers. The key ideological tenets of governments of the period were Keynesian economic policy, heavy interventionism, economic regulation and an extensive welfare state.[43]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Post-war consensus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The post-war consensus encompassed the bipartisan agreement in British politics from 1945 to the late , characterized by commitments to a comprehensive , via Keynesian , a featuring extensive public ownership of industries, and adherence to the Atlantic alliance including membership. This framework, initially enacted by the Labour government under through measures like the and of key sectors such as and railways, was broadly continued by Conservative administrations, reflecting shared priorities shaped by wartime and the Beveridge Report's vision for social security. Central to the consensus were policies aimed at achieving and sustaining low unemployment—averaging around 2% in the , far below interwar levels—and expanding social provision, including universal benefits funded by contributions and taxation, which initially curbed though failed to eradicate it entirely (e.g., 7.1% of households below assistance levels in 1953/54). These efforts, coupled with financial repression that reduced public from 200% of GDP in 1950 to 58% by 1971, fostered social stability and perceived progress in levelling regional disparities. However, the emphasis on demand-side interventions, , and accommodation of power neglected supply-side reforms, contributing to Britain's relative economic underperformance: labour growth averaged 3.74% annually from 1950 to 1973, trailing (4.83%) and (5.83%), as and weak competition hampered innovation and efficiency. The consensus unraveled amid the 1970s stagflation crisis, with rising inflation and industrial unrest exposing inherent rigidities, prompting Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government from 1979 to pursue , , and , marking a decisive break. While some scholars debate the depth of the alleged consensus, viewing it more as pragmatic convergence under political constraints than ideological unity, its legacy endures in ongoing discussions of state intervention's trade-offs between short-term equity and long-term growth.

Definition and Origins

Defining the Post-war Consensus

The post-war consensus denotes the period of bipartisan agreement in British politics from to the late , encompassing shared commitments to Keynesian macroeconomic policies aimed at , the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive , and a featuring significant of industries. This framework prioritized government intervention to mitigate economic cycles, provide universal social security, and ensure public provision of healthcare and education, reflecting a rejection of pre-war approaches in favor of and systems. The consensus originated in wartime experiences, including the coalition government's under and public endorsement of the , which proposed a "cradle-to-grave" safety net and garnered 86% popular support by addressing "want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness." Key policy pillars included the nationalization of core sectors—such as the , coal (1947), railways (1948), and (1951)—to secure strategic control and employment stability, alongside the creation of the in 1948, which provided free-at-point-of-use medical care funded by contributions and taxation. alignment featured cross-party support for NATO's formation in and opposition to Soviet , underpinning Britain's role in the Western alliance amid the . These elements were not merely Labour impositions but were pragmatically retained by Conservative administrations from onward, evidencing a convergence on interventionist state roles over ideological purity. Historians like Dennis Kavanagh have characterized this as a "consensus of the centre," where agreement focused on broad goals of prosperity and equity rather than uniform methods, though critics argue the term exaggerates harmony by downplaying intra-party divisions and electoral contests. from policy continuity—such as sustained public spending at 40-45% of GDP and below 3% until the —supports the notion of operational accord, yet underlying tensions over union power and fiscal limits foreshadowed its erosion by the 1976 IMF bailout and subsequent monetarist shifts. This definition, while widely employed in , invites scrutiny for potentially retrofitting events to fit a of stability amid evolving economic pressures.

Wartime Influences and Immediate Post-war Foundations

The wartime coalition government formed in May 1940 under Winston Churchill included Labour ministers, fostering cross-party collaboration on domestic planning and social measures amid total war mobilization. This unity extended to initial reforms, such as the Emergency Medical Service established in 1939, which centralized hospital care and highlighted the inefficiencies of fragmented pre-war health provision, paving the way for nationalized services. A pivotal influence was the Beveridge Report, published on November 24, 1942, which proposed a comprehensive system to combat the "five giants" of want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness through state-funded benefits from . Authored by , the report sold over 600,000 copies in its first weeks, reflecting widespread public demand for post-war security after experiences of , evacuation, and shared sacrifice that equalized hardships across classes. Though Churchill's government endorsed parts like family allowances introduced in 1945, it resisted full commitment to avoid electoral promises, yet the report galvanized support for welfare expansion beyond party lines. Educational reforms further entrenched these foundations, exemplified by the Education Act of 1944, steered by Conservative Minister R.A. Butler, which raised the to 14, mandated free , and introduced a tripartite system of grammar, technical, and modern schools under local authorities. Enacted during wartime constraints, the Act responded to evacuation revelations of urban deprivation and aimed to build a skilled for reconstruction, receiving on August 3, 1944, and signaling bipartisan acceptance of state intervention in development. These wartime developments shifted public sentiment toward rejecting interwar Liberal economics and favoring planned intervention, culminating in the July 5, 1945, where Labour, under , secured a with 393 seats to the Conservatives' 197, despite Churchill's war heroism. Voters prioritized Labour's manifesto commitment to implement Beveridge fully and pursue over Churchill's emphasis on private enterprise, establishing the immediate post-war basis for consensus policies through Attlee's government formation on July 26, 1945. This electoral mandate reflected causal links from war-induced and economic controls to a mandate for state-led reconstruction, though Conservatives later adapted rather than opposed core elements.

Core Policy Elements

Establishment of the Welfare State

The , formally titled Social Insurance and Allied Services and published on 2 December 1942, laid the intellectual groundwork for the by advocating a unified national system of to combat the "five giants" of want, , , , and . Authored by economist under wartime coalition auspices, it proposed compulsory contributions from employees, employers, and the state to fund benefits including unemployment pay, sickness allowances, maternity grants, widows' pensions, and retirement pensions, supplemented by family allowances and a . The report sold over 600,000 copies within weeks, reflecting public appetite for post-war social reform amid wartime privations, though implementation required peacetime legislation. The Labour government under Clement Attlee, elected in July 1945 with a landslide majority, prioritized Beveridge's blueprint amid economic reconstruction needs. The Family Allowances Act 1945, effective from August 1946, provided weekly payments of 5 shillings for second and subsequent children under 16 (later 18 if in school), funded by general taxation and distributed universally without means-testing. The National Insurance Act 1946 established a comprehensive scheme requiring flat-rate contributions from all working-age adults—4 shillings weekly from employees, 3 shillings from employers, and state subsidies—delivering benefits for unemployment (up to 26 weeks at 26 shillings for men), sickness, maternity, guardians' allowances, and retirement pensions starting at age 65 for men and 60 for women. Complementing this, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 replaced fragmented workmen's compensation with state-administered benefits for workplace injuries, averaging 45 shillings weekly for total incapacity. Central to the welfare state's health provisions, the National Health Service Act 1946—receiving royal assent on 6 November 1946—imposed a duty on the Minister of Health to secure a comprehensive, free service covering preventive care, hospital treatment, and general practitioner consultations for all residents, funded primarily through taxation and national insurance. The NHS launched on 5 July 1948, nationalizing over 2,000 hospitals and integrating voluntary and municipal services, with initial costs estimated at £400 million annually but rising due to pent-up demand. The National Assistance Act 1948 addressed gaps in insurance coverage by creating the National Assistance Board to provide means-tested aid for the able-bodied poor, long-term unemployed, or others ineligible for contributory benefits, distributing over £100 million in its first year. These enactments, totaling eight major social security laws by 1948, shifted from pre-war Poor Law remnants toward universal entitlements, though fiscal constraints limited generosity—pensions, for instance, remained below subsistence levels at 26 shillings weekly. Implementation faced challenges, including administrative overload and resistance from medical professionals; the British Medical Association initially opposed NHS salaried GPs, leading to negotiations that preserved capitation payments and private practice options. By 1951, coverage reached nearly all citizens, with 98% of the population registering with GPs and hospital beds under state control, embedding as a cornerstone of policy continuity across governments.

Nationalization and the Mixed Economy

The Labour government elected in 1945 pursued nationalization of key industries to facilitate economic planning, modernize infrastructure, and ensure resources for reconstruction after World War II, viewing state control as essential for coordinating production in sectors prone to private monopolies or inefficiency. The Bank of England was nationalized first via the Bank of England Act 1946, effective 1 March 1946, transferring ownership to the Treasury to centralize monetary policy. Coal mining followed with the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, establishing the National Coal Board to manage production, which employed over 700,000 workers by 1947 and supplied 90% of the UK's energy needs at the time. Electricity supply was consolidated under the Electricity Act 1947, creating the British Electricity Authority to oversee generation and distribution from previously fragmented private and municipal entities. Further nationalizations included civil aviation through the Civil Aviation Act 1946, forming state corporations like BOAC for overseas routes; gas supply via the Gas Act 1948, which unified regional boards under public ownership; and the Transport Act 1947, nationalizing railways, long-distance , and inland waterways into British Railways and the Road Transport Executive, aiming to integrate for efficiency. Iron and production, a politically contentious sector, was addressed by the Iron and Steel Act 1949, with vesting in the Iron and Steel occurring on 1 May 1951, shortly after Labour's electoral defeat, covering about 90% of crude output from 14 major companies. By 1951, these measures placed roughly 20% of the British under direct , focusing on "commanding heights" such as , , and , while leaving consumer goods, light , and largely private. This framework constituted a , blending ownership of strategic industries with competitive private enterprise in non-essential sectors, predicated on the belief that state intervention could correct market failures without abolishing capitalism entirely. The approach drew from wartime controls and Keynesian ideas of managed demand, allowing government direction of investment in nationalized firms while markets set prices and allocations elsewhere. The Conservative Party, upon returning to power in , largely accepted this structure, pledging in their to retain most nationalized industries intact rather than pursue wholesale reversal, citing pragmatic recognition of support and operational realities. Exceptions included partial denationalization of road haulage in 1953 and full reversal of steel nationalization via the Iron and Steel Act 1953, returning it to private hands, but core utilities like , rail, and remained state-controlled, reflecting elite adaptation to the economic landscape over ideological opposition. This bipartisan tolerance underscored the consensus, as Conservatives under leaders like R.A. emphasized efficiency reforms within ownership rather than , fostering stability amid reconstruction demands.

Commitment to Full Employment and Keynesian Demand Management

The commitment to full employment was articulated in the wartime coalition's 1944 White Paper on Employment Policy (Cmd. 6527), which declared the government's responsibility to foster conditions for high and stable employment levels post-war, analyzing demand factors and proposing measures like industrial coordination and monopoly controls to avert interwar-style slumps. This marked a shift from classical economics' passive stance, informed by empirical evidence of demand deficiencies causing 1920s-1930s unemployment averaging 14-22% in peak years. While avoiding explicit "full employment" terminology to sidestep rigid guarantees, the policy aligned with William Beveridge's contemporaneous framework in Full Employment in a Free Society (1944), defining it practically as unemployment not exceeding 3%—equating to more job vacancies than seekers—achievable via organized markets and public works. Keynesian demand management underpinned implementation, rooted in ' analysis that insufficient drove cyclical , treatable through fiscal activism rather than wage flexibility alone. Post-1945, both Labour and Conservative governments operationalized this via annual budgets adjusting public spending and taxes to stabilize output: for example, Labour's 1947-1950 fiscal expansions countered export slumps, while 1950s Conservative "stop-go" cycles reflationary boosted investment during mild recessions, such as R.A. Butler's 1952 measures easing amid 2% . Empirically, this approach sustained at historic lows—averaging 1.5-2% from 1948-1966—contrasting pre-war volatility, with tools like economic surveys monitoring gaps. Bipartisan adherence, as in Conservative acceptance of Labour's framework without reversal, reflected causal realism: governments prioritized stimulation over supply-side reforms, viewing as foundational to social stability despite emerging inflationary risks from wage rigidities.

Political Implementation and Ideological Shifts

Labour's 1945-1951 Governments

The Labour Party under won a in the 1945 general election, securing 393 seats to the Conservatives' 197, and formed a on 26 July 1945 that lasted until 1951. This mandate enabled the of sweeping reforms drawn from wartime , including the 1942 Beveridge Report's for against "want, , ignorance, squalor, and idleness," which the government enacted through legislation like the Act 1946 providing unemployment, sickness, maternity, and retirement benefits funded by flat-rate contributions from workers, employers, and the state. Central to these efforts was the establishment of the via the , which took effect on 5 July 1948 under Health Minister , creating a tax-funded system offering comprehensive medical care free at the point of delivery and integrating hospitals, general practitioners, and local services into regional boards. The National Assistance Act 1948 supplemented this by providing means-tested support for those outside national insurance coverage, thus realizing Beveridge's vision of a universal safety net while addressing immediate post-war needs like housing shortages through initiatives such as the New Towns Act 1946, which designated 14 development corporations to build over 200,000 homes by 1951. On the economic front, the government pursued a through of strategic industries to secure planning and investment amid reconstruction: the in February 1946, effective 1 January 1947 under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act transferring ownership of 1,600 pits and 700,000 workers to the , railways and via the Transport Act 1947 forming British Railways, and iron and steel in 1949 vesting control in the Iron and Steel Corporation of Britain. Complementing this was a commitment to , building on the coalition's 1944 Employment Policy , which rejected approaches in favor of state intervention to stabilize demand; Keynesian techniques, including fiscal stimulus and controls, helped achieve average below 2% from 1945 to 1950, though sustained by export drives and U.S. aid under the rather than purely domestic . These policies laid the groundwork for the post-war consensus by embedding for welfare and , with nationalizations accounting for about 20% of GDP by 1951 and welfare expenditures rising to 4.5% of national income, though fiscal strains from war debts, rearmament (increasing defense spending to 7.5% of GDP by 1951), and a 1949 from $4.03 to $2.80 underscored limits to expansion without productivity gains. Labour's approach prioritized over rapid denationalization or market liberalization, influencing subsequent Conservative governments to retain rather than reverse most reforms.

Conservative Adaptation and Butskellism (1951-1964)

Following the Conservative Party's victory in the 1951 general election, where they secured 321 seats to Labour's 295 despite receiving fewer votes overall, the government under Winston Churchill adopted a pragmatic approach to the inherited post-war economic framework. Chancellor R.A. Butler prioritized stabilizing the economy amid inflation and balance-of-payments deficits, implementing measures such as raising the Bank Rate from 2% to 4% in 1951 and introducing charges for National Health Service prescriptions and dental treatments in his September 1951 budget to curb public spending. These actions reflected a commitment to fiscal prudence while rejecting radical proposals like the ROBOT plan for a floating exchange rate, instead favoring managed demand to sustain full employment, with unemployment averaging around 1.5-2% through the decade. This adaptation manifested in retaining core elements of the welfare state and mixed economy established by Labour, including the NHS and most nationalizations, with only partial reversals such as the denationalization of steel in 1953 and road haulage. Butler's policies aligned with Keynesian demand management, accepting state intervention for growth and employment, which paralleled the outlook of Labour's Hugh Gaitskell, leading to the term "Butskellism" coined by The Economist in 1954 to denote the perceived ideological convergence between the two figures. The 1947 Industrial Charter had already signaled this shift in Opposition, committing Conservatives to social reform, industrial partnership, and rejection of laissez-faire, forming the basis for continued acceptance of high public spending and union influence. Under subsequent leaders and , this consensus endured amid economic expansion, with real GDP growth averaging 2.5-3% annually from 1951-1960 and living standards rising, as highlighted in Macmillan's July 20, 1957, Bedford speech declaring that "most of our people have never had it so good," while urging wage restraint against . Policies emphasized housing targets—over 300,000 homes built annually by 1954—and investment in nationalized industries, sustaining policies despite periodic "stop-go" cycles of credit squeezes and booms to address sterling crises. By , however, persistent balance-of-payments issues and slower growth exposed underlying rigidities, contributing to the party's electoral defeat, though the era solidified elite bipartisan adherence to welfare expansion and interventionism.

Labour Revisionism and Continuity (1964-1970)

The Labour government led by assumed office after the 15 October 1964 , in which the party secured 317 seats to the Conservatives' 304, yielding a working majority of four. This outcome built upon the revisionist strand within Labour, advanced by in the late 1950s and Anthony Crosland's The Future of Socialism (1956), which posited that socialist goals of equality could be pursued through redistributive fiscal policies, expanded public services, and regulated rather than mass public ownership of industry. Revisionism thus reconciled Labour with the post-war consensus by endorsing the and established under Attlee and adapted by subsequent Conservative governments. Wilson's pragmatic leadership perpetuated this orientation, framing the 1964 manifesto around technological modernization and national planning while avoiding commitments to further extensive nationalizations. Economically, the Wilson administration adhered to Keynesian principles of demand management and full employment, inheriting and extending the policy framework of the 1950s and early 1960s. The July 1965 National Plan targeted 25% GDP growth and 3.8% annual industrial output increase by 1970 through indicative planning via the National Economic Development Council, though balance-of-payments deficits and sterling pressures rendered it unfeasible by 1966. Selective nationalization occurred, notably the steel industry under the Iron and Steel Act 1967, transferring control of major firms like British Steel Corporation to public ownership amid concerns over underinvestment, but this fell short of the 1945-1951 program's scope. Facing recurrent crises, including a £800 million balance-of-payments deficit in 1964 prompting a 2% bank rate hike to 7% and credit squeezes, the government devalued the pound by 14.3% on 18 November 1967 from $2.80 to $2.40, accompanied by austerity measures and wage-price restraint appeals—measures that underscored continuity in prioritizing macroeconomic stability over radical restructuring. Average annual GDP growth reached approximately 3.1% from 1964 to 1969, with unemployment held below 3%, yet rising inflation to 5.9% by 1969 highlighted emerging strains within the consensus model. In welfare and social policy, Labour expanded the post-war settlement without fundamental alteration. Crosland, as Secretary of State for Education and Science from January 1965, advanced comprehensive secondary education to replace selective grammar schools, issuing Circular 10/65 that urged local authorities to submit reorganization plans, though implementation varied and faced resistance. The government raised the school leaving age to 16 by 1972 via the Education Act 1964 and invested in higher education, establishing the Open University in 1969. Health and housing policies continued prior expansions, with National Health Service spending rising 4.5% annually in real terms, while social reforms under Home Secretary Roy Jenkins from 1965-1967 liberalized laws on abortion (1967 Act allowing termination under specified conditions), homosexuality (Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalizing male acts in private for those over 21), and divorce (1969 Act simplifying procedures). These measures reflected revisionist priorities of egalitarian opportunity and personal freedoms within the welfare state's ambit, aligning with consensus commitments to social insurance and public provision. The Race Relations Act 1968 extended anti-discrimination to housing and employment, building on 1965 legislation. Despite rhetorical emphasis on "white heat of the " to forge a , Wilson's tenure demonstrated marked continuity with Conservative predecessors in sustaining the mixed economy's balance between private enterprise and state intervention. Policies avoided dismantling privatizations or market mechanisms, instead managing inherited institutions like the National Board for Prices and Incomes (1961) for , which imposed temporary wage freezes amid resistance. Intra-party tensions arose, with the left advocating Clause IV's full nationalization mandate, but Wilson and revisionists like Crosland prevailed, quelling challenges such as the 1968 Prices and Incomes Bill rebellion. The 1966 election , expanding the majority to 97 seats, enabled pursuit of these centrist strategies until economic pressures and public disillusionment contributed to Labour's defeat on 18 1970, with the Conservatives under gaining 330 seats to Labour's 288. This period thus exemplified the post-war consensus's durability under Labour stewardship, prioritizing incremental reform over ideological rupture amid mounting fiscal and industrial challenges.

Debate on Existence and Extent

Arguments Supporting a Genuine Consensus

The wartime (1940–1945), comprising Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals, commissioned the in 1941, which proposed comprehensive to combat "want" as one of five "giants" hindering reconstruction; the report garnered widespread cross-party endorsement, with over 450,000 copies sold within weeks of its November 1942 publication and polls indicating strong support for its principles among voters across political affiliations. This bipartisan foundation directly informed post-war legislation, including the Family Allowances Act of 1945 enacted under the coalition and the Act of 1946 under Labour, establishing universal healthcare without subsequent Conservative opposition to its core structure. Following Labour's implementation of nationalizations—such as (1947) and railways (1948)—and welfare expansions from 1945 to 1951, the Conservative Party's 1951 general election explicitly committed to preserving the NHS, strengthening family allowances, and retaining most nationalized industries under public ownership, reflecting an adaptation to electoral realities and public demand for social security rather than ideological reversal. In office from 1951 to 1964, Conservatives under chancellors like maintained these policies, with Butler's 1952 budget accepting Keynesian demand management to prioritize over immediate , achieving average unemployment rates below 2% through the decade. The phenomenon of Butskellism, coined by in 1954 to describe the policy convergence between Conservative R. A. and Labour's former Hugh , exemplified this agreement on a , robust welfare provision, and interventionist fiscal tools to sustain demand and employment, as both figures endorsed budgets balancing public spending with moderate controls rather than laissez-faire alternatives. 's revisionist leadership within Labour from 1955 further reinforced continuity, rejecting wholesale renationalization while affirming the welfare state's permanence, mirroring Conservative pragmatism. Historians such as Paul Addison have substantiated this consensus through analysis of wartime planning and public aspirations, arguing that the Second World War's collectivist exigencies—evident in shared commitments to social reform—extended into a post-1945 and popular alignment on domestic priorities like (per the 1944 ) and state intervention, sustained across governments until economic pressures in the . Empirical continuity in outcomes, including sustained welfare expenditures rising from 14% of GDP in 1951 to over 16% by 1964 under both parties, underscores the operational reality of these shared commitments beyond mere rhetoric.

Evidence of Underlying Divisions and Elite-Led Nature

Despite superficial cross-party agreement on welfare expansion and economic interventionism, profound ideological fissures undermined the post-war consensus within both major parties. In Labour, these tensions surfaced acutely in 1951 when Aneurin Bevan, architect of the National Health Service, resigned from Clement Attlee's Cabinet on April 23 alongside Harold Wilson and John Freeman, protesting Chancellor Hugh Gaitskell's budget that imposed charges on prescriptions, dentures, and spectacles to fund Korean War rearmament commitments. Bevan argued the measures betrayed the NHS's principle of universal free access at point of use, exposing a rift between left-wing advocates of unyielding socialism and centrists prioritizing fiscal prudence amid economic strain, including a balance-of-payments crisis that necessitated devaluation in 1949. This Bevanite rebellion persisted, fueling intra-party strife that weakened Labour's cohesion through the 1950s and contributed to electoral defeats in 1951 and 1955. Further evidence of Labour's divisions emerged under Hugh Gaitskell's leadership after 1955, particularly in the failed attempt to revise of the party constitution at the 1959 and 1960 conferences. Gaitskell sought to replace commitments to widespread public ownership with vague pledges to " and ," reflecting revisionist views that should not be an automatic goal amid public skepticism toward further state takeovers. However, the proposal encountered vehement grassroots and opposition, with over 100 constituency resolutions condemning it as a capitulation to , forcing Gaitskell to abandon the effort and highlighting the chasm between elite modernizers and the party's rank-and-file, who clung to as a symbolic bulwark of socialist orthodoxy. The Conservatives exhibited analogous undercurrents of discord, pragmatically accepting inherited Labour policies like the NHS while ideologically resisting their expansion and privately decrying as inefficient. Party rhetoric in opposition during the late emphasized individual enterprise against Labour's "socialism," inciting public discontent with and controls that lingered until 1954, yet leaders like moderated outright reversal to avoid alienating voters. Post-1951, denationalization of steel in 1953—reversing Labour's 1949 act—proved popular, with polls by the late 1950s indicating even most Labour voters opposed additional nationalizations, suggesting the consensus masked broader societal preference for selective rather than wholesale state intervention. Internal Conservative debates, including emerging monetarist critiques from figures like , foreshadowed rejection of Keynesian orthodoxy, underscoring that adaptation stemmed from electoral calculus rather than conviction. The consensus's elite-led character is evident in its formulation by a narrow cadre of politicians, Whitehall mandarins, and intellectuals, often detached from mass preferences or party bases. Policies like full employment targets and demand management were entrenched through Treasury and civil service influence, with officials predisposed toward interventionist continuity that prioritized administrative expertise over democratic contestation. Historians note this top-down dynamic as a compromise "worked out at the top," where pragmatic leaders like Attlee and Churchill deferred to expert consensus on welfare and mixed economy amid wartime exigencies, sidelining rank-and-file dissent or public referenda on specifics like industry ownership. Such insulation from broader scrutiny—exemplified by minimal parliamentary revolts on core tenets until the 1970s—reveals the era's stability as engineered by institutional elites rather than organic societal accord, with consensual narratives often overlooking these suppressed fractures.

Right-Wing Perspectives: Myth of Harmony and Ideological Suppression

Right-wing critics contend that the post-war consensus represented not a genuine harmony of ideas but a veneer of that concealed the dominance of collectivist policies and the marginalization of free-market alternatives. Figures such as argued in The Audit of War (1986) that Britain's wartime and post-war elites, influenced by sentimental "" visions of welfare expansion, rejected pragmatic industrial realism in favor of expansive state intervention, fostering illusions of moral superiority over economic competitiveness. This perspective posits the consensus as an elite-driven accommodation that stifled debate on denationalization and supply-side reforms, portraying apparent cross-party agreement—epitomized by 's centrist adaptations—as a pragmatic surrender rather than ideological convergence. Enoch Powell exemplified early dissent within Conservatism, scorning the Keynesian full-employment orthodoxy and advocating privatization of state monopolies like the Post Office as far back as 1950, views that clashed with the prevailing commitment to mixed-economy stability. Powell's opposition to the consensus's collectivist framework highlighted its suppressive effect on individualist and nationalist impulses, which he saw as eroded by bureaucratic expansion and immigration policies unmoored from cultural preservation. Right-wing thinkers like Roger Scruton later characterized the era as one of "managed economic decline," where union power and fiscal laxity were entrenched under the guise of harmony, sidelining monetarist critiques until the 1970s stagflation exposed their prescience. This suppression extended to intellectual currents, with influences from —whose (1944) warned of planning's totalitarian risks—dismissed as alarmist within circles, despite empirical evidence of rigidities in nationalized industries contributing to productivity lags. Conservatives who embraced such ideas, including proto-Thatcherites in the Selsdon Park group of , faced internal party resistance, underscoring the consensus's role in narrowing the ideological spectrum to exclude radical market-oriented reversals. In this view, the myth of harmony perpetuated a one-sided policy hegemony, delaying necessary confrontations with structural inefficiencies until external crises forced a reckoning.

Economic and Social Outcomes

Short-Term Achievements and Empirical Gains

The post-war consensus policies, encompassing Keynesian and expansion, facilitated robust economic recovery in the from 1945 to the early 1970s. Real GDP growth averaged approximately 3% annually between 1950 and 1973, surpassing pre-war trends and reflecting effective reconstruction efforts supported by government investment and export-led demand. This period, often termed the "" of growth, saw rise steadily, with real GDP per hour worked increasing at 2.99% per year from 1950 to 1973. Such gains were underpinned by fiscal stimuli and infrastructure spending, though aided by external factors like U.S. aid totaling $3.3 billion (equivalent to about 1% of GDP annually in the late ). Unemployment remained exceptionally low, averaging below 2% throughout the , with rates recorded at 1.6% in and 1.9% in 1957, fulfilling the commitment to through active labor market policies and programs. By the , the rate hovered around 2.7%, enabling broad workforce participation and wage stability amid industrial expansion. Nationalizations of key industries, such as (1947) and railways (1948), contributed to short-term stabilization by centralizing and labor coordination, with coal output rising from 174 million tons in 1946 to 200 million tons by 1950 despite wartime disruptions. Social welfare reforms yielded measurable reductions in poverty and health disparities. The implementation of the Beveridge-inspired National Insurance Act (1946) and family allowances halved the poverty rate among working-class households by the mid-1950s, with estimates indicating that without these transfers, poverty would have affected 24.7% of the population in the early post-war years rather than the observed lower incidence. The (NHS), established on July 5, 1948, expanded access to care, correlating with a decline in from 34 per 1,000 live births in 1947 to 22 per 1,000 by 1957, alongside increased life expectancy from 68 years in 1948 to over 71 by 1960. initiatives under the consensus, including over 1 million council homes built between 1945 and 1951, addressed wartime shortages and improved living standards for low-income families. These empirical gains, while not solely attributable to consensus policies—given contributions from pent-up and global recovery—demonstrated the short-term of mixed-economy interventions in averting interwar-era slumps and fostering social cohesion. Productivity in nationalized utilities, such as , advanced through planned modernization, supporting industrial output growth of 2-3% annually in the . However, early signs of inefficiencies, like over-manning in , emerged by the late , tempering long-term assessments.

Long-Term Criticisms: Structural Rigidities and Relative Decline

Critics of the post-war consensus argue that its commitment to extensive and strong influence fostered structural rigidities that hampered long-term productivity and adaptability. Nationalized industries, which by 1971 accounted for 18.7% of , exhibited chronic inefficiencies, including overmanning and resistance to technological upgrades, contributing minimally to overall growth while absorbing disproportionate resources. These sectors prioritized preservation over competitiveness, leading to subsidized operations that distorted capital allocation and stifled dynamism. Powerful trade unions enforced restrictive practices, such as demarcation lines and opposition to new work methods, which curtailed and in and services. This "British disease" of labor market inflexibility exacerbated productivity shortfalls, with union-led disputes and closed-shop arrangements impeding structural adjustments needed for global . Empirical analyses attribute much of the era's lagging to these institutional barriers, rather than mere capital shortages. The consensus era coincided with Britain's relative economic decline, as annual GDP growth averaged approximately 2.9% from 1960 to 1973, trailing 's 5.7%, France's 5.0%, and Japan's 9.2%. labor , once superior, fell behind competitors; for instance, output per worker relative to inverted from an 80% advantage in 1950 to a 20% deficit by 1974. High marginal tax rates and regulatory burdens further discouraged and R&D investment, perpetuating a cycle of underperformance amid rising pressures. These rigidities, embedded in the consensus framework, are seen by economists like Nicholas Crafts as key drivers of the that undermined Britain's post-war economic position.

Causal Factors in 1970s Stagflation and Crisis

The 1970s stagflation in the United Kingdom manifested as simultaneous high inflation, peaking at 24.2% in 1975, and stagnant growth with unemployment rising from 3.5% in 1970 to over 5% by 1979, challenging the post-war commitment to full employment. This crisis was precipitated by external supply shocks, notably the 1973 OPEC oil embargo that quadrupled crude oil prices from $3 to $12 per barrel, increasing import costs and contributing to a terms-of-trade deterioration equivalent to 2-3% of GDP. A second shock in 1979, following the Iranian Revolution, nearly tripled prices again to $39 per barrel, exacerbating energy cost pressures in an economy reliant on imported oil for over 90% of needs. However, these shocks alone did not cause the persistence of stagflation; domestic policy frameworks inherited from the post-war era amplified vulnerabilities through structural rigidities. Central to the crisis were the inflationary consequences of expansive Keynesian , which prioritized output stabilization over monetary discipline, leading to rapid growth—M3 expanded at an average annual rate of 20% from to 1975. Governments under both Labour (1974-1979) and preceding Conservative administrations pursued fiscal deficits averaging 4-5% of GDP, financing public spending via borrowing rather than tax increases, which accommodated rather than curbing it. Incomes policies, such as the 1972-1974 wage freezes and subsequent limits under the Heath and Wilson governments, temporarily suppressed rises but failed to address underlying union militancy, resulting in pent-up demands that fueled wage explosions post-1974, with average settlements reaching 20-25% annually. These measures reflected the consensus-era deference to stimulus, ignoring supply-side constraints and enabling a wage-price spiral where unit labor costs rose 15% faster than from 1973 to 1979. Powerful trade unions, bolstered by post-war full employment policies and legal immunities from strikes, exerted disproportionate influence, with membership density at 55% of the workforce in 1970 and over 12 million days lost to strikes annually by mid-decade. Union resistance to productivity-enhancing reforms in nationalized industries, which accounted for 10% of GDP and employed 7% of the workforce, perpetuated inefficiencies; for instance, and coal sectors saw output per worker stagnate or decline amid restrictive practices. The 1978-1979 , involving 29 million working days lost across 2,000 strikes, exemplified how union leverage derailed attempts at fiscal restraint, pushing to 13% and prompting the 1976 IMF bailout requiring £3.9 billion in loans and spending cuts. This union strength, a hallmark of consensus-era , distorted labor markets by enforcing above-market wages, contributing to an where potential GDP growth fell to 1.5% annually against a pre-1973 trend of 2.5%. The collapse of the in 1971, with the UK's sterling float in 1972, exposed currency vulnerabilities amid loose policy, as the pound depreciated 20% against the by 1976, importing further . Consensus reliance on interventionist tools—high marginal tax rates up to 83% and regulatory barriers—discouraged investment, with dropping to 16% of GDP by 1979 from 20% in the , entrenching low productivity growth at 1.2% per year. Empirical analyses attribute 40-60% of the variance to monetary accommodation of shocks rather than the shocks themselves, underscoring how policy inertia—prioritizing equity and employment guarantees over —prolonged the crisis until monetarist shifts in the late 1970s.

Collapse and Aftermath

Triggers for Breakdown in the 1970s

The , triggered by the embargo following the , quadrupled global oil prices and imposed severe supply shocks on the economy, exacerbating energy shortages and contributing to the onset of —a combination of high and stagnant growth that undermined Keynesian demand-management policies central to the post-war consensus. surged to 24.2% by 1975, while GDP growth faltered amid rising import costs and declining competitiveness. These external pressures exposed structural weaknesses, including over-reliance on imported energy and uncompetitive industries burdened by and restrictive practices. The collapse of the in 1971, which ended fixed exchange rates and led to a floating pound, intensified inflationary pressures through and imported , further eroding confidence in the consensus's commitment to and welfare expansion without fiscal discipline. Governments under and later attempted wage and , but these measures fueled wage-price spirals driven by powerful trade unions resisting restraint, as union membership peaked at over 13 million and militancy rose with repeated strikes. Heath's 1972 Industrial Relations Act, aimed at curbing union power, backfired amid the 1973-74 miners' strike, forcing a three-day workweek and his government's defeat in the February 1974 election. By 1976, chronic balance-of-payments deficits and a sterling prompted the Labour government of to seek a $3.9 billion standby loan from the IMF in September, conditional on public spending cuts and monetary tightening—measures that contradicted the consensus's expansionist ethos and signaled its practical exhaustion. The IMF conditions, including targets for reducing the borrowing requirement, marked a shift toward fiscal and discredited the idea of indefinite deficit-financed growth. Climactically, the from November 1978 to February 1979 saw widespread strikes across public sectors— including gravediggers, refuse collectors, and lorry drivers—over opposition to 5% wage caps, resulting in over 29 million lost working days and chaotic disruptions like unburied bodies and rubbish piles in streets. This union-led resistance to incomes policies alienated , boosting support for monetarist alternatives and paving the way for Thatcher's 1979 electoral victory, which rejected the consensus's accommodation of union veto power and state intervention. These triggers collectively revealed the consensus's inability to adapt to global shocks and domestic rigidities, fostering a causal chain from economic malaise to political repudiation.

Thatcherism as Rejection and Market Reforms

Margaret Thatcher's election as on May 4, 1979, marked a deliberate break from the post-war consensus, which had emphasized state intervention, corporatist bargaining with unions, and Keynesian macroeconomic management to prioritize over control. Influenced by monetarist ideas from economists like and , her government prioritized controlling the money supply to combat , rejecting the consensus's tolerance for moderate in favor of wage-price spirals driven by union demands. Medium-term financial targets were set in 1980, aiming to reduce monetary growth, which contributed to a sharp in 1980-1981 but ultimately lowered from 18% in 1980 to 4.6% by 1983. This shift exposed the consensus's causal flaws: unchecked monetary expansion and union militancy had fueled , as evidenced by the 1978-1979 , with over 29 million working days lost to strikes. Central to Thatcherism's market-oriented reforms were efforts to curb power, which the consensus had empowered through legal immunities and closed shops, leading to frequent industrial disruptions that undermined . The Acts of and 1982 restricted secondary , required pre-strike ballots, and limited unions' ability to call sympathy actions, while the 1990 Act further banned pre-entry closed shops. These measures culminated in the government's defeat of the National Union of Mineworkers during the 1984-1985 strike, where stockpiled and police preparations prevented blackouts, signaling the end of union veto over . Union membership fell from 13 million in 1979 to 9 million by 1990, correlating with improved labor flexibility and reduced strike days from 29.2 million in 1979 to under 1 million annually by the late 1980s. Privatization represented a core rejection of the consensus's legacy, transferring state-owned enterprises to private markets to enhance efficiency through and profit incentives. Beginning with in 1981 and British Telecom in 1984—raising £3.9 billion at the time—the program expanded to (1986, £5.4 billion), (1987), water utilities (1989), and electricity (1990), generating over £50 billion in proceeds by 1990. complemented this, including the abolition of exchange controls in 1979, which boosted capital mobility, and the 1986 "Big Bang" financial reforms that dismantled restrictive practices in the , increasing trading volumes and attracting foreign investment. The scheme under the 1980 Housing Act enabled over 1.5 million council tenants to purchase homes at discounts up to 50%, fostering and reducing by 40% by 1990, thereby shifting resources from state dependency to individual markets. These reforms aimed to restore supply-side incentives, cutting the top rate from 83% to 40% by 1988 and the basic rate from 33% to 25%, while reducing corporation tax from 52% to 35%, to encourage enterprise over redistribution. Empirical outcomes included GDP growth averaging 3.5% annually from to 1989, outpacing the average, though initial peaked at 3.3 million in 1984 due to shedding inefficient industries. By dismantling the consensus's rigidities—such as over-manning in nationalized sectors and union-enforced wage rigidities— prioritized long-term competitiveness, evidenced by manufacturing productivity rising 40% from 1979 to 1990 despite output contraction in some areas. Critics from left-leaning institutions often attribute rising inequality to these policies, but links prior consensus failures, like persistent deficits and low investment, to the malaise, with reforms enabling a pivot to service-led growth.

Enduring Legacy and Contemporary Reassessments

The post-war consensus left a profound institutional legacy in the , particularly through the establishment of the in 1948 and the expansion of the , which have resisted full-scale reversal despite subsequent reforms. These structures fostered broad public support for universal entitlements, contributing to social stability but also entrenching fiscal commitments that ballooned public spending to over 40% of GDP by the 1970s and persisted into later decades. Economic policies under the consensus, emphasizing and Keynesian demand management, achieved short-term gains like low averaging 1.5-2% in the and , yet sowed seeds of inefficiency through powerful trade unions and nationalized industries, which accounted for 20% of GDP by 1970 and suffered chronic losses, such as British Steel's £200 million deficits in the early 1970s. This legacy of state dominance correlated with Britain's relative economic decline, as GDP per capita growth averaged 2.4% annually from 1950-1973, lagging behind West Germany's 5.0% and France's 4.1% over the same period, attributable in part to over-manning and resistance to productivity-enhancing changes. Contemporary reassessments, particularly since the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, have scrutinized the consensus's causal role in Britain's "sick man of Europe" status, with scholars arguing it suppressed market-oriented reforms and fostered ideological conformity among elites, limiting innovation in sectors like manufacturing. Historians like Dean Blackburn highlight a shared empiricist epistemology between Labour and Conservatives, favoring gradualism over radicalism, which underpinned the consensus but masked underlying divisions, as evidenced by Conservative backbench revolts against nationalizations in the 1950s. Post-Thatcher evaluations, informed by data on sustained low inflation (averaging 2% post-1980s reforms) and GDP growth acceleration to 2.5-3% in the 1990s-2000s, credit the consensus's collapse with averting further stagnation, though critics from left-leaning academia decry rising inequality (Gini coefficient rising from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 by 1990) as a neoliberal overcorrection. Recent analyses, such as those following Nigel Lawson's 1980s supply-side shifts—including privatization of 50 state firms and the 1986 Big Bang deregulation—emphasize enduring financialization of the economy, now comprising 8% of GDP versus manufacturing's decline to 10%, prompting debates on whether partial consensus revival via increased state intervention, as in Labour's 2024 fiscal rules allowing £28 billion green investments, risks reigniting inflationary rigidities without addressing productivity gaps persisting at 20-30% below G7 averages. These reassessments underscore causal realism: while the consensus delivered social insurance, its aversion to competition and over-reliance on corporatism empirically hindered long-term dynamism, informing skepticism toward uncritical returns to interventionism amid global challenges like deglobalization.

International Parallels

New Zealand's Similar Consensus and Reforms

New Zealand maintained a economic consensus akin to Britain's, characterized by extensive state intervention, protectionist policies, and a commitment to and welfare expansion from the late 1940s through the 1970s. Key features included high tariffs averaging over 30% on manufactured imports, quantitative import licensing that restricted foreign competition to shield domestic industries, and substantial agricultural subsidies supporting the export-oriented farming sector, which accounted for around 40% of exports by the . The , solidified under the 1938 and expanded post-1945, provided universal family benefits from 1946, free healthcare, state housing initiatives, and pensions, funded by progressive taxation and aimed at egalitarian outcomes amid high birth rates and reconstruction. State-owned enterprises dominated key sectors like railways, electricity, and telecommunications, operating under soft budget constraints with implicit government guarantees, while prioritized over control, leading to persistent deficits. This framework delivered short-term stability and growth in the and , with GDP per capita rising steadily and below 1% for much of the period, but sowed seeds of inefficiency through insulated markets and resource misallocation. By the , external shocks exposed underlying rigidities: Britain's 1973 entry into the eroded preferential access for New Zealand's butter, meat, and wool exports, slashing by 20-30%; concurrent oil price quadrupling in 1973-74, given total reliance, fueled exceeding 15% by 1975 and a balance-of-payments with foreign surging to 50% of GDP. Governments under both National and Labour parties responded with ad-hoc measures like wage-price freezes and further subsidies, but these exacerbated distortions, yielding with real GDP contracting 2% in 1974-75 and rising above 2%—unprecedented breaches of the full-employment norm. The consensus fractured decisively after the July 1984 election, when the Fourth Labour Government, led by Prime Minister David Lange and Finance Minister Roger Douglas, inherited a fiscal emergency with a current-account deficit at 8.2% of GDP and inflation at 16.1%. Despite campaigning on Keynesian intervention, the administration launched "Rogernomics"—a sweeping neoliberal overhaul rejecting protectionism and statism—in its first 100 days: the New Zealand dollar was floated on March 4, 1985, ending fixed exchange controls; financial markets deregulated, allowing foreign banks entry; agricultural subsidies, totaling NZ$1.2 billion annually (4% of GDP), were slashed by over 90% by 1986; and a 10% goods and services tax (GST) introduced in 1986 replaced progressive sales taxes. State trading departments were corporatized into competitive entities like Telecom and the Electricity Corporation, with performance contracts and eventual partial privatization; tariffs reduced from an average 25% to under 10% by 1990, and over 40 acts of deregulation dismantled wage bargaining rigidities. These reforms, paralleling Thatcherism's market-oriented rupture, induced short-term pain—a 1987-88 recession with unemployment peaking at 11% and farm bankruptcies rising—but catalyzed recovery: inflation fell to 1.7% by 1991 via Reserve Bank independence in 1989, productivity growth averaged 2.5% annually through the 1990s, and GDP per capita converged toward OECD averages, transforming New Zealand from one of the most regulated economies to among the freest. Subsequent National governments from 1990 entrenched the shift with further privatizations, including British Petroleum and Air New Zealand stakes, underscoring bipartisan repudiation of the old consensus's interventionist legacy amid evidence that pre-1984 policies had stifled innovation and export diversification. Critics from left-leaning academia, often citing inequality rises (Gini coefficient up from 0.28 to 0.36 by 1991), argue the speed overlooked social costs, yet empirical data affirm causal links between deregulation and sustained outperformance relative to the 1970s malaise.

Broader Global Context in Western Democracies

In , post-World War II economic frameworks paralleled the British consensus through commitments to welfare expansion, , and state intervention, albeit with distinct national flavors emphasizing reconstruction and social stability over extensive . West Germany's Soziale Marktwirtschaft, introduced by Economics Minister in 1948 and enshrined in the 1949 , integrated ordoliberal principles of competition and price stability with a robust social welfare system, including insurance and worker codetermination, fostering the with average annual GDP growth exceeding 8% from 1950 to 1960. This model prioritized market competition to avoid the rigidities of heavy seen in Britain, yet achieved similar reductions in inequality, with the dropping to around 0.25 by the mid-1960s. France adopted dirigisme, a state-guided involving nationalizations of industries like banking and energy in 1945–1946 and the launch of the Monnet Plan in January 1947 to allocate investments toward infrastructure and , enabling the of 4–5% average annual growth through 1973. via multi-year targets coordinated public and private sectors without full command economy features, reflecting a consensus among Gaullist and socialist elites on modernization to overcome pre-war backwardness, though it incurred higher public debt ratios rising to 20% of GDP by the 1960s. Other nations, such as the and , extended universal welfare systems with Keynesian fiscal tools, where government budgets expanded to 30–40% of GDP by 1970, supporting low below 3% in peak years. In the United States, the post-war order built on foundations without Britain's nationalization thrust, emphasizing through expanded and countercyclical policies; the Employment Act of 1946 mandated federal pursuit of and via the new , underpinning 3–4% average growth and unemployment averaging 4.8% from 1948 to 1973. Programs like the 1944 , benefiting 7.8 million veterans with education and housing subsidies, reinforced , while federal spending on infrastructure and defense sustained demand amid private-sector dominance. and mirrored this with full-employment white papers in 1945 and welfare buildouts, including Australia's nationalized banking experiments under Labor governments until 1949, though both leaned toward market-led growth with immigration-fueled labor supplies. These arrangements across Western democracies faced parallel strains from 1970s , eroding the interventionist consensus as oil shocks and wage rigidities amplified inflationary pressures.

References

  1. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=jil
  2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/thatcherism_01.shtml
  3. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/history/modern-britain/post-war-consensus/
  4. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-politics-of-reason-post-war-consensus/
  5. https://ojs.ual.es/ojs/index.php/ODISEA/article/download/4901/5955/24820
  6. https://academic.oup.com/tcbh/article-abstract/3/2/175/1645320
  7. https://thehistorianjournal.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/is-the-postwar-consensus-a-useful-concept-for-understanding-british-politics-after-world-war-ii/
  8. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/coll-9-health1/coll-9-health/
  9. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/students/videos/spotlight-on/spotlight-on-beveridge-report/
  10. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwhsfg8/revision/3
  11. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/educationact1944/
  12. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/attlees-britain/education-act-1944/
  13. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-winston-churchill-and-the-conservative-party-lost-the-1945-election
  14. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/britain-moves-leftward-labour-party-and-july-1945-election
  15. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-did-churchill-lose-the-1945-general-election
  16. https://navigator.health.org.uk/theme/beveridge-report
  17. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/attlees-britain/
  18. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/clement-attlee
  19. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/9-10/67/enacted
  20. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/industrycommunity/case-study-so-davies-and-workplace-compensation/workplace-compensation-legislation/early-life-in-mining-communities1/
  21. https://history.blog.gov.uk/2023/07/13/the-founding-of-the-nhs-75-years-on/
  22. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1946/81/pdfs/ukpga_19460081_en.pdf
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1113496/
  24. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/england
  25. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsd68mn/revision/6
  26. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/220429/7/220429.pdf
  27. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2502&context=lcp
  28. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/95244/3/02whole.pdf
  29. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education
  30. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v7n9/v7n9p20.pdf
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1810244
  32. https://escoe-website.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/17145130/Denman-and-Macdonald-LMT-1996-Unemployment-Statistics-from-1881-to-the-present-day.pdf
  33. http://pinguet.free.fr/beveridge44.pdf
  34. https://expeditiorepositorio.utadeo.edu.co/bitstream/handle/20.500.12010/15425/%255B9781847201393%2520-%2520Keynes%252C%2520the%2520Keynesians%2520and%2520Monetarism%255D%2520Did%2520Britain%2520have%2520a%2520%25E2%2580%2598Keynesian%2520Revolution%25E2%2580%2599_.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236720137_Britain_in_the_1950s_A_Keynesian_Managed_Economy
  36. https://files.ehs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/29061004/Middleton5b.pdf
  37. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/14042ed5-5116-452d-9ccc-31aa36b48d22/download
  38. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/158060/1/WRAP-what-can-we-learn-from-UK%25E2%2580%2599s-post-1945-economic-reforms-Crafts-2021.pdf
  39. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-07019-0_6
  40. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1143578.shtml
  41. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/coll-9-health1/health-01/
  42. https://socialworkwithadults.blog.gov.uk/2023/07/05/seventy-five-years-of-health-and-social-care/
  43. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/present_timeline_noflash.shtml
  44. https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/business_economics/nationalisation.html/
  45. https://warwicklightfoot.substack.com/p/economic-record-of-labour-government
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081544
  47. https://quizlet.com/gb/301223358/conservative-domination-1951-1964-flash-cards/
  48. https://rgshistory.com/2018/06/11/the-chancellors-17-rab-butler/
  49. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/britain-20th-century-conservative-reaction-1951-1965
  50. https://rgshistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/full-reader-the-conservative-governments-1951-64.pdf
  51. https://quizlet.com/gb/516276413/butskellism-and-stop-go-policies-the-conservatives-economy-1951-64-flash-cards/
  52. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095538813
  53. https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/10338
  54. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/20/newsid_3728000/3728225.stm
  55. https://revisionworld.com/a2-level-level-revision/history-0/post-1945/conservative-great-britain-1951-1964
  56. https://warwicklightfoot.substack.com/p/conservative-economic-inheritance
  57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1t88x2b
  58. https://rgshistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/full-reader-the-wilson-governments-1964-70.pdf
  59. https://warwicklightfoot.substack.com/p/economic-record-of-labour-government-2c7
  60. https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/history/modern-britain/harold-wilson/
  61. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2817%2930918-X/fulltext
  62. http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1951/1951-conservative-manifesto.shtml
  63. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/edcollchap/book/9781847429384/ch002.pdf
  64. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Butskellism
  65. https://wordhistories.net/2023/06/11/butskellism/
  66. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/OutputFile/854509
  67. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1951/apr/23/mr-aneurin-bevan-statement
  68. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/fifties-britain/aneurin-bevan-resigns/
  69. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/national-health-service-crisis-1951
  70. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13619462.2021.1967751
  71. https://academic.oup.com/book/7238/chapter/151910122
  72. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v13/n04/paul-addison/the-road-to-1989
  73. https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2025/01/correlli-barnett-prophet-of-the-new-right
  74. https://academic.oup.com/book/3196/chapter/144125419
  75. https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/10488
  76. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/enoch-powell-and-the-making-of-postcolonial-britain/without-war-commonwealth-and-consensus/149BCB6C1D92F897947483264A994458
  77. https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-january-2025/scruton-and-the-roots-of-modern-conservatism/
  78. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/12/new-political-consensus-will-terrible-britain-means-swing-left/
  79. https://files.schudio.com/great-sankey-high-school/files/documents/The_Making_Of_Modern_Britain_1970s.pdf
  80. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook138pdf.pdf
  81. https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Britain-since-1945
  82. https://electiondatavault.co.uk/tables/economic-measures/unemployment/
  83. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1960s/
  84. https://ifs.org.uk/inequality/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-welfare-state-and-inequality.pdf
  85. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-06/the-nhs-at-70-how-good-is-the-nhs.pdf
  86. https://academic.oup.com/tcbh/article/34/4/754/7187462
  87. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/2017/twerp_1142_crafts.pdf
  88. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CC72_Renationalisation-back-to-the-future_web.pdf
  89. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c6748/c6748.pdf
  90. https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/109507
  91. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-349-12831-0_1.pdf
  92. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/170878/economics/how-the-uk-economy-has-changed-in-the-past-70-years-1952-2022/
  93. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/[economics](/page/Economics)/research/workingpapers/2017/twerp_1142_crafts.pdf
  94. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/25-inflation-50-years
  95. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1970s/
  96. https://obr.uk/box/the-changing-impact-of-fossil-fuel-shocks-on-the-uk-economy/
  97. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2013/oil-shocks-and-the-uk-economy-the-changing-nature-of-shocks-and-impact-over-time.pdf
  98. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/working-paper/2002/monetary-policy-and-stagflation-in-the-uk.pdf
  99. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/601/unemployment/economics-of-the-1970s/
  100. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13563467.2012.656080
  101. https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=33264
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026499931731338X
  103. https://www.omfif.org/2021/10/repeat-of-70s-in-store-as-uk-heads-towards-stagflation/
  104. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/oil-shock
  105. https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=33307
  106. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/132993/economics/uk-imf-crisis-of-1976/
  107. https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/imf-crisis-1976
  108. https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/winter-of-discontent-causes-what-happened-meaning/
  109. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/thatcher-economic-policies/
  110. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/margaret-thatcher
  111. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2017/margaret-thatchers-privatization-legacy
  112. https://xinlanemilyhu.com/projects/thatcher-unions.pdf
  113. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/economic-legacy-mrs-thatcher
  114. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22073527
  115. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-thatcher-transformed-british-politics/
  116. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/214983/economics/thatchers-economic-legacy/
  117. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/04/how-1980s-chancellor-turned-postwar-economic-consensus-on-its-head
  118. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy
  119. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/the-uks-productivity-gap-what-did-it-look-like-twenty-years-ago
  120. https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/hub/publications/speech/1996/speech1996-06-04
  121. https://croakingcassandra.com/2022/11/12/economic-management-in-years-gone-by/
  122. https://teara.govt.nz/en/overseas-trade-policy/page-5
  123. https://teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-4
  124. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2007-09/tgls-hawke.pdf
  125. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/the-1970s/overview
  126. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2013-12/twp13-30.pdf
  127. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/the-1980s/overview
  128. https://www.cis.org.au/publication/rogernomics-reshaping-new-zealands-economy/
  129. https://theconversation.com/a-nation-reinvented-40-years-on-from-its-1984-victory-the-fourth-labour-government-still-defines-nz-232133
  130. https://www.hoover.org/research/market-reform-lessons-new-zealand
  131. https://www.dw.com/en/can-germanys-social-market-economy-system-cope-with-another-70-years/a-50490937
  132. https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_06_3_witt.pdf
  133. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hall/files/evolution_of_econ_pol_2001.pdf
  134. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcms.13480
  135. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/2483/105p225-Milward.pdf
  136. https://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/impact-and-legacy
  137. https://livingnewdeal.org/history-of-the-new-deal/what-was-the-new-deal/
  138. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-02683-5
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.