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

  • 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

  • Featured News Miliband: Labour will put “working people first”

    Miliband: Labour will put “working people first”

    Tomorrow Ed Miliband will lay out the choice for the electorate: between a Labour government that “puts working people first” or a Tory government that “works only for the privileged few”. To illustrate this difference he will reiterate the party’s pledge to abolish the non-dom status. Miliband will say that the non-dom rule currently allows very rich people to avoid paying tax and he will also point out that the Conservatives, UKIP and the Lib Dems have all defended this two hundred-year-old […]

    Read more →
  • News Why has this Labour candidate been the target of a “deeply divisive leaflet” which backs her Tory opponent?

    Why has this Labour candidate been the target of a “deeply divisive leaflet” which backs her Tory opponent?

    Uma Kumaran is the Labour PPC for Harrow East, she’s running a closely fought campaign against Tory Bob Blackman, but recently, these leaflets have been going out in the constituency, targeting her and the (in a poor third place) Lib Dem candidate over their party’s views on laws to outlaw caste discrimination. The leaflet goes on to back Blackman: The leaflet has been distributed by the organisation Dharma Sewa Purva Paksha (DSP) – based in Leicester – whose managing editor Mukesh […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why I’m voting Labour

    Why I’m voting Labour

    I’m voting Labour. Obviously you’d hope that’s what I’d say in a column for LabourList, but I want to use my final column before Election Day to explain my decision. The usual purpose of this column is to write about what Class is up to, so I want to be clear that I am not setting out a position for Class, which is an independent think tank unaffiliated with any particular party or union. But I am voting Labour. And […]

    Read more →
  • News Video On those £12bn in cuts: IDS says the Tories haven’t ‘done the work yet’

    On those £12bn in cuts: IDS says the Tories haven’t ‘done the work yet’

    During today’s Daily Politics debate on welfare, Iain Duncan Smith admitted that the Tories can’t explain where the £12bn in cuts to the welfare would come from because they haven’t ‘done the work yet.’ So even though they’re making vague claims they won’t cut child benefit, the reason they can’t be sure is because they’ve not figured out where the money would come from. This is most likely a ploy because last week Danny Alexander released secret documents showing where […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Solidarity Vs Scottish Nationalism

    Solidarity Vs Scottish Nationalism

    More and more, I’m being asked to ‘imagine if we’d voted yes to independence’ by Scots that are apparently doing just that. It’s hard to tell in 140 characters, but I gather it’s a specific outcome they’re picturing. So okay, let’s imagine that. Let’s say that the Nation of Scotland has been everything Nicola Sturgeon promised. A new kind of politics has taken hold, and is working flawlessly. Services are better than they’ve ever been, the economy is booming and […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit