How did the term ‘Butskellism’ arise Was it justified

In this paper the historical view will look at the content of ‘consensus’ and how it emerged and was translated into actual policies. In short what actually was the postwar consensus? There onwards the academic debate which surrounds and is continuing as we write. so to speak. will be examined. The core questions like. was it a consensus or was it political rivalries misnamed as consensus? Was it an elite consensus or a broad consensus of electorate to the political center? Reference will also be made to the consensus or otherwise of the interest groups (trade unions etc.). An attempt will be made to situate this discussion within the overall structural matrix of British Political System. The purpose is to show that the structure and the dynamics within, actually construct constraints and boundaries which form the context of UK Politics and any radicalism/drastic change is perceived as out of context. This argument will be supported by a brief comparative political analysis with mainland European model. It will also be supported by referring to the underlying core value structure of UK, which forms the basis of any socio-political construct.The consensus has probably always existed in British Politics, in its different variants, within the confines of practically two-party parliamentary system. This will be demonstrated in the later part of this paper, as for now, as a point of departure of this paper, it is suffice to address the ‘postwar consensus’ and it’s ‘moderately satirical’ Economist typification as Butskellism.It is perhaps an erroneous assertion to call consensus. postwar. It did not spring up suddenly between two political antagonists just after the Second World War. The War time Conservative government was a consensus government. The achievements of the Coalition Government of 1940-45 are termed as the harbinger of postwar-consensus (Addison.1975). Our assertion however is that consensus is the quintessential British Political

You Might Also Like