Post-War Consensus and Social Change 1951–1964

The period 1951–1964 is often described as the era of "consensus politics" — a period when both major parties broadly accepted the mixed economy, the welfare state, full employment, and the Atlantic alliance. This lesson examines the Conservative governments of Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, and Douglas-Home, the social transformation of the 1950s and early 1960s, and the historiographical debates about whether "consensus" is an accurate description of post-war politics.

---

The Conservative Return to Power (1951)

The Conservatives won the 1951 general election with 321 seats to Labour's 295 — despite Labour winning more total votes (approximately 13.9 million to 13.7 million). Churchill returned as Prime Minister at the age of 76.

Conservative Acceptance of the Welfare State

The key question for the incoming government was whether it would dismantle Labour's welfare state. The answer was that it largely accepted and maintained it.

Area	Conservative Approach
NHS	Maintained and expanded — health spending increased in real terms
National Insurance	Maintained — benefits increased periodically
Full employment	Maintained as a policy objective — unemployment rarely exceeded 2% until the early 1960s
Nationalisation	Iron and steel denationalised (1953) and road haulage returned to private ownership, but coal, railways, electricity, and gas remained in public ownership
Housing	Harold Macmillan, as Housing Minister, achieved the target of 300,000 houses per year by 1953 — a significant political achievement

The "Butskellism" Debate: The term "Butskellism" (coined by The Economist in 1954, combining R.A. Butler and Hugh Gaitskell) described the alleged convergence of Conservative and Labour economic policy around Keynesian demand management, the mixed economy, and the welfare state. Historians debate whether this consensus was real or superficial.

---

The Suez Crisis (1956)

The Suez Crisis was Britain's most humiliating foreign policy disaster of the post-war period and a defining moment in the decline of imperial power.

Event	Detail
Background	Egyptian President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956
Collusion	Britain, France, and Israel secretly agreed (Protocol of Sèvres, 24 October 1956) that Israel would invade Egypt, and Britain and France would intervene as "peacekeepers"
American opposition	President Eisenhower opposed the intervention; the United States threatened economic sanctions and refused to support the pound
Ceasefire	Britain was forced to accept a ceasefire on 6 November 1956 — a devastating humiliation
Eden's resignation	Anthony Eden resigned as Prime Minister in January 1957, ostensibly on health grounds

Significance of Suez

Interpretation	Detail
End of empire	Suez demonstrated that Britain could no longer act as an independent great power without American support
"Special relationship"	The crisis revealed the fundamental inequality of the Anglo-American relationship
Decolonisation	Suez accelerated the process of decolonisation — Harold Macmillan's "Wind of Change" speech (February 1960) acknowledged that colonial rule was ending

---

Macmillan and "Affluence" (1957–1963)

Harold Macmillan became Prime Minister in January 1957 and dominated British politics until his resignation in October 1963.

"You've Never Had It So Good"

Macmillan's famous phrase (Bedford, 20 July 1957) captured the reality of rising living standards in the late 1950s:

Indicator	Evidence
Real wages	Average real wages rose by approximately 40% between 1951 and 1964
Consumer goods	Television ownership rose from approximately 4% of households in 1950 to over 80% by 1964; car ownership approximately tripled
Home ownership	Increased significantly — from approximately 29% in 1951 to approximately 44% by 1964
Unemployment	Remained below 2% for most of the 1950s
Hire purchase	Consumer credit expanded rapidly, enabling working-class families to buy goods previously beyond their reach

The Limits of Affluence

Beneath the surface of prosperity, structural economic problems were accumulating:

Problem	Detail
Relative decline	Britain's economic growth rate was significantly lower than France, Germany, Italy, or Japan
Stop-go economics	Governments alternated between stimulating the economy (risk of inflation and balance-of-payments deficits) and restraining it (risk of unemployment) — creating damaging instability
Industrial relations	Unofficial strikes and restrictive practices were blamed for low productivity, though the causes were more complex
Balance of payments	Persistent deficits reflected Britain's declining international competitiveness
Investment	British industry invested less than its competitors in new technology, research, and training

---

Social Change in the 1950s and 1960s

The "Affluent Society" Debate