What do you think?
Rate this book
The Death of Consensus
Over Britain’s first century of mass democracy, politics has lurched from crisis to crisis. How does this history of political agony illuminate our current age of upheaval?
To find out, journalist Phil Tinline takes us back to two past eras when the ruling consensus broke down, and the future filled with ominous possibilities – until, finally, a new settlement was born. How did the Great Depression’s spectres of fascism, bombing and mass unemployment force politicians to think the unthinkable, and pave the way to post-war Britain? How was Thatcher’s road to victory made possible by a decade of nightmares: of hyperinflation, military coups and communist dictatorship? And why, since the Crash in 2008, have new political threats and divisions forced us to change course once again?
Tinline brings to life those times, past and present, when the great compromise holding democracy together has come apart; when the political class has been forced to make a choice of nightmares. This lively, original account of panic and chaos reveals how apparent catastrophes can clear the path to a new era. The Death of Consensus will make you see British democracy differently.
To find out, journalist Phil Tinline takes us back to two past eras when the ruling consensus broke down, and the future filled with ominous possibilities – until, finally, a new settlement was born. How did the Great Depression’s spectres of fascism, bombing and mass unemployment force politicians to think the unthinkable, and pave the way to post-war Britain? How was Thatcher’s road to victory made possible by a decade of nightmares: of hyperinflation, military coups and communist dictatorship? And why, since the Crash in 2008, have new political threats and divisions forced us to change course once again?
Tinline brings to life those times, past and present, when the great compromise holding democracy together has come apart; when the political class has been forced to make a choice of nightmares. This lively, original account of panic and chaos reveals how apparent catastrophes can clear the path to a new era. The Death of Consensus will make you see British democracy differently.
472 pages, Hardcover
First published June 23, 2022
11 people are currently reading
288 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 4, 2024
A fantastic book. I read a lot of books about British politics and this is one of the best I've read for a while. The author puts forward a really interesting thesis but also writes a great entertaining story.
February 16, 2024
This was a book I read very quickly and really enjoyed; for this review I have done something different and broken it up into the specific sections of the book:
Part One
The most striking thing about this first part is the similarities with the circumstances we find ourselves in today, heading into another general election. A Conservative party who can no longer claim that the Labour party would wreck the economy through borrowing, because they have already borrowed more than anyone else before them (either through war as then or COVID as now). Then there is the hysterical scenarios played out before people of the consequences of various paths, whether that be fear that a Labour victory in the 1930s would lead to a fascist takeover to overthrow the socialist government of similar hysterics over our own often expressed "death of democracy" fears. The thing about reading this is it brings a sense of calm in that it shows you the old adage is true: "the more things change the more they stay the same!" They were fighting over the same things as we are now; how much should government intervene, borrow/tax and spend vs austerity and shrinking the state, how much should the state intervene in our own lives (the horror of state officials coming into your home and means testing for unemployment benefits is particularly surreal given how things work now with PIP assessments etc). I did think that the beginning part could have been explained better, especially around the gold standard and background of the old Victorian consensus as it was hard to follow who was in favour of what and why. However, this was a very interesting piece and it kept me glued, allowing me to learn so much more about this time period than I had before.
Part Two
This next part was perhaps the best one; simultaneously a part of history I feel I know a lot about but also where I learnt a lot more to add onto it. We are all familiar with the rise of Thatcher and her transformation of Britain, with the battle against the unions being the pinnacle of that period. However, it was fascinating to see that the two decades leading up to that event, away from the way history is often written with hindsight as if it was all a forgone conclusion and inevitable. Maybe it was, but this part shows that there were many battles lost along the way, especially by Labour governments. The consensus of full employment is played out and explained well, making me think that even in my lifetime this has become less of a taboo. When I was a child my parents hammered into me the worries of employment figures and it was a huge thing in the news, even in the nineties, but now you never really hear them mentioned! Even less the missions not in employment but also not registering as looking for work (NEETS). The Thatcher revolution HAD to happen, the unions destroyed themselves and governments were incapable of thinking outside the box to take braver decisions, but one thing that has been lost for the worst is the consensus among our politicians that work in and of itself is a universal good and something to be pursued and respected. We are now too ready to let those who could be given the life boost of paid employment fall by the wayside and left to waste their potential. I loved the details of this part, and it brought home the real struggles of the post war consensus and explained how the unions got to the position they were in that led to Thatcher. I have some new sympathy for them, ultimately feeling they were let down by their leaders rather than being the universal symbol of greed and revolutionaries I saw before. That being said, they needed destroying and of that I am as sure as I have ever been.
Of particular fascination were the measures that Labour tried to bring in around wage restraint, the fact governments had such a say over wages at all was a huge surprise to me and makes me wonder why a minimum wage was seen as so revolutionary. Again and again through, the unions forced elected governments to reverse their legislation, in particular with Barbara Castle of Labour and Edward Heath of the Conservatives. The image of unions going to Chequers with Harold Wilson and leaving having forced an elected Prime Minister to change his policy was to me the beginning of their power hungry craze and seen as a point, though it was 12 years or so later, that a battle such as Thatcher's was inevitable. The picket line battles were news to me and massively significant, one which the unions won at..... and one which the government won at...., all ending in the infamous battle of Orgreave. It has been said many times that Thatcher's victory was not inevitable and close than history portrays, and while that's always been known to me, having had the previous 20 years detailed so brilliantly really made me feel how fine the margins were! At the end of the day public opinion, union leaders overreaching in their aims (Scargill and talk of capitalist overthrow) turning fellow unions against them and therefore refusing to come out in solidarity strikes with the miners, as they had done in the 70s, and finally the Falklands war were what turned it.
Part Three
I have less to write about this part, mainly because it was the shortest and I got a real sense of this being a story we are still in the middle of. The credit crunch and economic crisis of 2008 was a trigger for something we are still dealing with, and once again our politicians are fighting the last war and not fully grasping that the public have given up on the old post Thatcher consensus. Another reason for not saying more is because I found this quite a depressing chapter. I was one of the many millions who voted for Brexit, and then for Boris with a sense of enthusiasm that this was a real moment of change and for a new consensus to come out into the mainstream. However, covid initially scuppered it and then once again our political class let us all down by reverting to type and putting their trust back into the old ways of doing things. I feel as though we are in the middle of that 12 year period I talked about in part two, with no obvious way out of our current unhappiness and discontent. Boris was meant to be the architect of this new consensus; now I don't think he truly believed in it in the beginning, but I feel he came to believe in it if only through political opportunism; regardless of the reason why, he was in a position to enact this new consensus. I do have some hope still though, due to the reading of earlier parts in this book, that change can still happen. I believe that our next path is a Labour government, but not a revolutionary one and one that is fighting the old battles. I think it will be a solid majority but not one embraced by the public, destined to be a Ted Heath and continue mulling along with little tweeks hear and there but nothing substantial. What will come next, who knows! Hopefully someone will emerge who "gets it" and brings together a new consensus of a more interventionist, planning state economically but a less intrusive one culturally. It is depressing the huge opportunities of Brexit and the 2019 election have been squandered, but also what encourages me is the revelation in the book of groups of people away from the public eye who truly believe and recognise the new consensus; those who worked under Theresa May particularly seemed to understand it, and were it for a more competent leader or for her to be in place at a different time, or for her to have not fought such a disastrous general election campaign, things could have turned out differently. They are still there, in the Conservative Party, and hopefully a new leader will emerge from them after this lot of deservedly been chucked out of office. It remains to be seen but history teaches us that these massive changes cannot be stopped, however messy the process.
In summary, this book was one of the best I have read regarding this topic. I would have liked less emphasis on the economic and more on the social side, but I can see how economics influences everything. I feel part three, the part we are now living in, is driven more by how society feels, not so much their living standards and money issues. Brexit, the trans debates, immigration and our general dislike of those who lead us all go so much deeper than previous consensus struggles and our politicians are still to realise this, preferring to think of it all as an anomaly and with our current crop of leaders acting like a Blair and Cameron tribute act they obviously believe that the public have had their vent and will continue as normal, not realising that all of this goes far far deeper than that. Until they do, things will never get better but history, and this book, shows us that once the public have made that decision to break with consensus nothing can stop it.
Part One
The most striking thing about this first part is the similarities with the circumstances we find ourselves in today, heading into another general election. A Conservative party who can no longer claim that the Labour party would wreck the economy through borrowing, because they have already borrowed more than anyone else before them (either through war as then or COVID as now). Then there is the hysterical scenarios played out before people of the consequences of various paths, whether that be fear that a Labour victory in the 1930s would lead to a fascist takeover to overthrow the socialist government of similar hysterics over our own often expressed "death of democracy" fears. The thing about reading this is it brings a sense of calm in that it shows you the old adage is true: "the more things change the more they stay the same!" They were fighting over the same things as we are now; how much should government intervene, borrow/tax and spend vs austerity and shrinking the state, how much should the state intervene in our own lives (the horror of state officials coming into your home and means testing for unemployment benefits is particularly surreal given how things work now with PIP assessments etc). I did think that the beginning part could have been explained better, especially around the gold standard and background of the old Victorian consensus as it was hard to follow who was in favour of what and why. However, this was a very interesting piece and it kept me glued, allowing me to learn so much more about this time period than I had before.
Part Two
This next part was perhaps the best one; simultaneously a part of history I feel I know a lot about but also where I learnt a lot more to add onto it. We are all familiar with the rise of Thatcher and her transformation of Britain, with the battle against the unions being the pinnacle of that period. However, it was fascinating to see that the two decades leading up to that event, away from the way history is often written with hindsight as if it was all a forgone conclusion and inevitable. Maybe it was, but this part shows that there were many battles lost along the way, especially by Labour governments. The consensus of full employment is played out and explained well, making me think that even in my lifetime this has become less of a taboo. When I was a child my parents hammered into me the worries of employment figures and it was a huge thing in the news, even in the nineties, but now you never really hear them mentioned! Even less the missions not in employment but also not registering as looking for work (NEETS). The Thatcher revolution HAD to happen, the unions destroyed themselves and governments were incapable of thinking outside the box to take braver decisions, but one thing that has been lost for the worst is the consensus among our politicians that work in and of itself is a universal good and something to be pursued and respected. We are now too ready to let those who could be given the life boost of paid employment fall by the wayside and left to waste their potential. I loved the details of this part, and it brought home the real struggles of the post war consensus and explained how the unions got to the position they were in that led to Thatcher. I have some new sympathy for them, ultimately feeling they were let down by their leaders rather than being the universal symbol of greed and revolutionaries I saw before. That being said, they needed destroying and of that I am as sure as I have ever been.
Of particular fascination were the measures that Labour tried to bring in around wage restraint, the fact governments had such a say over wages at all was a huge surprise to me and makes me wonder why a minimum wage was seen as so revolutionary. Again and again through, the unions forced elected governments to reverse their legislation, in particular with Barbara Castle of Labour and Edward Heath of the Conservatives. The image of unions going to Chequers with Harold Wilson and leaving having forced an elected Prime Minister to change his policy was to me the beginning of their power hungry craze and seen as a point, though it was 12 years or so later, that a battle such as Thatcher's was inevitable. The picket line battles were news to me and massively significant, one which the unions won at..... and one which the government won at...., all ending in the infamous battle of Orgreave. It has been said many times that Thatcher's victory was not inevitable and close than history portrays, and while that's always been known to me, having had the previous 20 years detailed so brilliantly really made me feel how fine the margins were! At the end of the day public opinion, union leaders overreaching in their aims (Scargill and talk of capitalist overthrow) turning fellow unions against them and therefore refusing to come out in solidarity strikes with the miners, as they had done in the 70s, and finally the Falklands war were what turned it.
Part Three
I have less to write about this part, mainly because it was the shortest and I got a real sense of this being a story we are still in the middle of. The credit crunch and economic crisis of 2008 was a trigger for something we are still dealing with, and once again our politicians are fighting the last war and not fully grasping that the public have given up on the old post Thatcher consensus. Another reason for not saying more is because I found this quite a depressing chapter. I was one of the many millions who voted for Brexit, and then for Boris with a sense of enthusiasm that this was a real moment of change and for a new consensus to come out into the mainstream. However, covid initially scuppered it and then once again our political class let us all down by reverting to type and putting their trust back into the old ways of doing things. I feel as though we are in the middle of that 12 year period I talked about in part two, with no obvious way out of our current unhappiness and discontent. Boris was meant to be the architect of this new consensus; now I don't think he truly believed in it in the beginning, but I feel he came to believe in it if only through political opportunism; regardless of the reason why, he was in a position to enact this new consensus. I do have some hope still though, due to the reading of earlier parts in this book, that change can still happen. I believe that our next path is a Labour government, but not a revolutionary one and one that is fighting the old battles. I think it will be a solid majority but not one embraced by the public, destined to be a Ted Heath and continue mulling along with little tweeks hear and there but nothing substantial. What will come next, who knows! Hopefully someone will emerge who "gets it" and brings together a new consensus of a more interventionist, planning state economically but a less intrusive one culturally. It is depressing the huge opportunities of Brexit and the 2019 election have been squandered, but also what encourages me is the revelation in the book of groups of people away from the public eye who truly believe and recognise the new consensus; those who worked under Theresa May particularly seemed to understand it, and were it for a more competent leader or for her to be in place at a different time, or for her to have not fought such a disastrous general election campaign, things could have turned out differently. They are still there, in the Conservative Party, and hopefully a new leader will emerge from them after this lot of deservedly been chucked out of office. It remains to be seen but history teaches us that these massive changes cannot be stopped, however messy the process.
In summary, this book was one of the best I have read regarding this topic. I would have liked less emphasis on the economic and more on the social side, but I can see how economics influences everything. I feel part three, the part we are now living in, is driven more by how society feels, not so much their living standards and money issues. Brexit, the trans debates, immigration and our general dislike of those who lead us all go so much deeper than previous consensus struggles and our politicians are still to realise this, preferring to think of it all as an anomaly and with our current crop of leaders acting like a Blair and Cameron tribute act they obviously believe that the public have had their vent and will continue as normal, not realising that all of this goes far far deeper than that. Until they do, things will never get better but history, and this book, shows us that once the public have made that decision to break with consensus nothing can stop it.
March 4, 2024
I read this book out of a general interest in contemporary history much of which I had lived through. I did find it interesting, especially when I was able to clarify or reminisce over events. I feel torn between registering a 4 rather than a 3. However, I have chosen the lower mark because there was too much detail and repetition for my liking. Perhaps I could have skipped through some of it, but doing that could have lead to a loss of continuity. I very much liked PT's identification of the desire to reach consensus in politics. However, I found myself losing sight of what exactly was the consensus that was being sought in different eras.
I feel that the book woould suit a student of contemporary politics but is not quite as good for someone just trying to gain an overall view of the period being reviewed.
I feel that the book woould suit a student of contemporary politics but is not quite as good for someone just trying to gain an overall view of the period being reviewed.
January 6, 2023
This book is an excellent look at how a consensus emerged following the failure of the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments to tackle both unemployment and their unwillingness to rearm in the face of the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and how that consensus broke down in the late 60s and through to the Thatcher Government. Are we seeing an emergence of a new consensus after Brexit and the need to ‘take back control’? Not many books have led me to rethink many of my assumptions. This one has.
November 21, 2022
Fantastic book, reads like an absorbing story
April 10, 2023
A very important book. Politics (like many other things) consists of fears of the unthinkable, struggles for it and imagination for something new.
March 30, 2024
I think I was looking for something that this book couldn’t give me. While the historical research was brilliant, I was frustrated with the author’s argument and felt it lacked something about the nature of politics in reality.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews