Title:
|
The Conservative Party and the welfare state 1942-1955.
|
This thesis addresses the historiographical debate over the extent of a
policy 'consensus' between the political parties in Britain during and after the
Second World War. It examines the development of Conservative Party policy
towards the welfare state between 1942 and 1955, focusing particularly on the
development of policies towards housing, health and education. In doing so, the
traditional picture of a 'New Conservatism' emerging after 1945 which accepted
large-scale public expenditure around a Keynes/Beveridge framework is
challenged.
Deep-seated concern over both the financial and ideological implications
of a commitment to the welfare state were evident in the Party during the war,
and continued to be a focus for policy development after 1945. But the Party
was not against expenditure on social policy, which was a long-standing feature
of British Conservatism. It was rather to the application of egalitarian and
universalist principles in welfare that the Party was intractably opposed. First, it
was feared that the extra expenditure involved in such an exercise would
necessitate unacceptable levels of taxation and impose an unrealistic economic
burden on the state. Second, the objective of increased equality in society was
fundamentally at odds with Conservative principles, which argued that social
inequality was necessary to ensure incentive and individual responsibility. In spite of consistent concern over the impact of increasing welfare
expenditure on economic performance, the Conservative Government after 1951
proved unable to reverse the trend of spending growth set in the Attlee years.
This can be explained in terms of behavioural constraints on political behaviour
in the decade following the war. In essence, this meant that Party policy on
welfare was the product of tension between what was believed to be
ideologically and economically desirable, and what was thought to be politically
feasible. Therefore, it is argued that 'consensus' is an inappropriate model for
Conservative social policy in these years.
|