New Labour, historical danger?

18th December, 2012 11:36 am

There is an ongoing debate about the place of New Labour within the Labour Party tradition. Some, generally on the left of the party, argue that New Labour was a sharp departure from the principles on which the party was founded. Some, generally on the right of the party, argue that it is part of a tradition in the party going back decades of revising Labour’s approach to suit changing times and to appeal to a changing electorate. It is a debate that has been mirrored at different times over the last century with different terminology and individuals involved. Most, very sensibly, ignore it. However, it is an important argument to examine given that the party has a habit of lapsing into destructive factionalism. There is not a clear “either/or” answer. New Labour was rooted in Labour traditions and it did appropriate new ideological strands.

New Labour hasn’t exactly helped itself in this debate. Tony Blair was quite happy to develop the narrative that New Labour was a departure from what had gone before. Of course, in many ways it was and to a large extent New Labour bought the Tory argument that the Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s was a divided left wing rabble unfit to govern. It was a convenient argument for a leadership wishing to differentiate itself from its past and looking for an additional weapon against certain sections of the party. It was an attempt to tar the whole party of the 1970s with the winter of discontent in order to say it wouldn’t happen under Blair’s watch. In doing this Blair helped set New Labour up as an historical discontinuity. This also ignored the reality that Labour in the 1970s contained a number of distinct ideological strands: old left, new left, old right, new right.

There have of course been efforts to latch New Labour to the ‘revisionist’ right-wing of the party. The most notable being Patrick Diamond’s collection of revisionist writings. Earlier this year a series of blog posts by self-styled Neo-Gaitskellites was published on the Progress website and Giles Radice has also written about it. Nonetheless, many of these defences argue in favour of the revisionist method rather than in favour of the bits borrowed from Thatcher that provoke the ire of critics. This gets to the root of the problem. There is a distinct difficulty defending elements of the post-1979 neo-liberal consensus used by New Labour in a party that holds so dear the postwar consensus ushered in by Attlee.

It should be remembered though that central tenets of the postwar consensus had been questioned within Labour before Thatcher even became leader of the Conservatives. As Professor Tim Bale has pointed out there are deeper strands at work here, ‘that barring perhaps the period 1945-48, Labour leaderships, especially in government, were highly ambivalent about more public ownership, generally hostile to higher direct taxation being imposed on average earners, clearly flaky on universal welfare and, by the late 1960s, less sanguine about the possibility, and even the desirability, of continued full employment.’ The seeds for Blair’s approach had been inherent in the party for some time before New Labour.

While Blair and Brown did accept much of the Thatcherite consensus, the issue is more complex than the description ‘Blatcherism’ might suggest. This is particularly the case when it comes to spending. Research by Raymond Swaray and Maurice Mullard has found that under Blair spending on law and order, health, education and social security rose faster than under the Attlee, Wilson or Callaghan governments. Andy Newman, who incidentally proposed the GMB motion earlier this year opposing Progress, argues that Blair and Brown did ‘have a distinct social agenda, which was both ideologically and practically progressive, compared to the Thatcherite governments which preceded it.’ Saying New Labour was Thatcherism shackled to the Labour Party is simplistic and ignores the whole picture of what the last Labour government actually did.

The Labour Party will always change its approach as the world changes. New ideas are brought in and old ones are revived, revised and restated. Admitting that elements of what New Labour did were undoubtedly a departure from Labour governments of the past does not mean that New Labour itself was simply an alien force. History is useful but dwelling on it and using it as a weapon can be dangerous. For example, simply claiming that the election defeats of 1951, 1979 and 2010 happened because the party was too right wing ignores the larger contexts of those elections. It’s similar to how some in the party seem to think that what Blair did needs to be repeated. New Labour is dead. The world has changed. The past is sometimes a guide, not a rigid predictor of the future. Using history to claim that the party always needs to tack to the right or left isn’t going to work in every situation. It’s not 1945, 1983 or even 1997.

John Clarke blogs at johnmichaelclarke.wordpress.com

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • robertcp

    A good article. An important point to remember about New Labour is that it was opposed by many revisionists, for example, Roy Hattersley. In my case, I joined Labour despite reservations about its semi-pacifism in the 1980s but twenty years later I was horrified by the invasion of Iraq.

    My main reasons for opposing New Labour were that it was very authoritarian, seemed to lack compassion and followed a neo-liberal economic policy. Of course, there were also many achievements such as higher public spending but the massive deficit suggests that New Labour was spending money that the country did not have.

    Ed Miliband seems to have learnt the correct lessons of New Labour and returned Labour to a more social democratic and liberal approach. He usually makes the correct decision even if it is preceded by excessive dithering, for example, voting against the 1% rise in benefits.

  • robertcp

    A good article. An important point to remember about New Labour is that it was opposed by many revisionists, for example, Roy Hattersley. In my case, I joined Labour despite reservations about its semi-pacifism in the 1980s but twenty years later I was horrified by the invasion of Iraq.

    My main reasons for opposing New Labour were that it was very authoritarian, seemed to lack compassion and followed a neo-liberal economic policy. Of course, there were also many achievements such as higher public spending but the massive deficit suggests that New Labour was spending money that the country did not have.

    Ed Miliband seems to have learnt the correct lessons of New Labour and returned Labour to a more social democratic and liberal approach. He usually makes the correct decision even if it is preceded by excessive dithering, for example, voting against the 1% rise in benefits.

    • Amber_Star

      I agree with much of what you say, robertcp, except Ed Miliband being characterized as ‘dithering’. I think his consensus building approach should be considered a welcome contrast to years of knee-jerk sound-bites being served up to the media by Labour spinners within minutes of an issue coming to their attention.

      • robertcp

        I agree. Maybe I was a bit harsh on Ed M.

      • robertcp

        I agree. Maybe I was a bit harsh on Ed M.

      • robertcp

        I agree. Maybe I was a bit harsh on Ed M.

  • Pingback: New Labour, historical danger? « John Clarke()

Latest

  • Comment Featured It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It’s not the shared economy, stupid – but it does require a collective response

    It is often described as the sharing economy. It sounds very cuddly. All of us on a patchwork sofa, sharing a nice cup of tea… Or it’s the gig economy – because Uber drivers are all creative artists enjoying their freedom to perform… I prefer to call it the new intermediaries economy. Not as cuddly or cool but more accurate. When you get into an Uber cab the driver is not sharing her car with you, she is selling you […]

    Read more →
  • Europe News Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Blair: Brexit would hit living standards of society’s poorest most

    Tony Blair has weighed in on the debate over Brexit, warning that leaving the European Union would hit living standards and hit the poorest in society most. The former Prime Minister appears to make an appeal to Labour supporters – seen as an important swing demographic in the vote – in two interventions today. While Blair is a divisive, and even simply unpopular, figure in the modern Labour Party, there are hopes that he is still seen as a political “big beast” and […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Patronising people with patriotism will not win 2020

    Labour will need to win over the socially conservative voters of today in win in 2020 – but flag waving will not make up for a lack of credible policy on welfare and spending and a real understanding of the hardship faced by working people throughout the country. Widely reported research by Jon Cruddas this week suggested that since 2005, voters that were sympathetic to more socially conservative ideas have been increasingly more likely to select UKIP over Labour on […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Dave Hill: Sadiq must mould the mayoralty into a Labour success story

    Dave Hill: Sadiq must mould the mayoralty into a Labour success story

    Sadiq Khan’s victory in the London Mayor election three weeks ago has been rightly hailed as a triumph for positive campaigning over Crosbyite negativity and a richly symbolic hammering of the privileged Zac Goldsmith by a council estate kid. Now the hard graft of delivering has begun. Khan’s policies on housing, transport, air pollution, community safety and economic growth present separate challenges, but the same political theme unites them – the need to show the capital and the country what […]

    Read more →
  • Europe Featured News Both EU and NATO vital to keep us safe, says Thornberry

    Both EU and NATO vital to keep us safe, says Thornberry

    Emily Thornberry has said that the UK’s membership of the EU is “indispensable” in helping keep Britain safe, following a visit to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels. The Shadow Defence Secretary met with a number of senior NATO officials over two days, and says that it was “repeatedly made clear” that the EU is considered an important ally of the security alliance. “In recent days, we have been told by Leave campaigners that the EU is irrelevant to British security, because […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit