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 Andy Burnham to announce he’d scrap employment tribunal fees

    Andy Burnham to announce he’d scrap employment tribunal fees

    Andy Burnham has said that he would scrap employment tribunal fees if he was Prime Minister. Burnham is one of four people in the running to be Labour’s next leader. Speaking at a hustings held by Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation (TULO) tomorrow, Burnham will announced that Keir Starmer, newly-elected MP for Holborn and St Pancras and former Director of Public Prosecutions, will spearhead a review into replacing the current fees system. The review will include consulting with business […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News All four leadership candidates commit to 50/50 shadow cabinet gender balance

    All four leadership candidates commit to 50/50 shadow cabinet gender balance

    All four Labour leadership candidates have committed to ensuring they would strike a 50/50 gender balance in the shadow cabinet. In interviews with Labour Women’s Network representative, Emma Burnell, all four leadership hopefuls – Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall – committed to making sure that under their leadership the shadow cabinet would be made up of an equal number of men and women. The four contenders also pledged their support for all-women shortlists and they signed LWN’s […]

    Read more →
  • News Scotland Dugdale wins support of third trade union in Scottish leadership race

    Dugdale wins support of third trade union in Scottish leadership race

    Kezia Dugdale now has the support of three trade unions in the Scottish Labour leadership contest, following the backing of the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) today. This follows the support of Community and Unison for Dugdale’s campaign. The news comes ahead of tonight’s tough hustings in Dundee, a city which has become a stronghold of support for independence and the SNP. Reacting to the announcement, Dugdale said: “I am delighted to receive the backing of the CWU to be the […]

    Read more →
  • News Weekly survey: English Labour party, London Mayor and the Snooper’s Charter

    Weekly survey: English Labour party, London Mayor and the Snooper’s Charter

    Last week, Jon Cruddas let it slip that he and a group of Labour MPs were planning on setting up an English Labour party. However, Labour party officials told LabourList that this had no formal backing, so it looks like Cruddas and co. are trying to convince the party to establish an English Labour party, equivalent to the Scottish and Welsh Labour parties. What do you think? Do you think there should be an English Labour party? Or are you […]

    Read more →
  • News Chuka Umunna hits back at ‘Tory lite’ jibes

    Chuka Umunna hits back at ‘Tory lite’ jibes

    Reducing the deficit and admitting Labour made mistakes on the economy are not ‘Tory lite’ ideas, according to Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna. In a piece for The Guardian today, Umunna argues that taking these positions would not entail “capitulating at the feet of George Osborne” – but would be the first step in “meeting the voters where they are”. It is the second detailed piece by Umunna on economic strategy after initially setting out his ideas in the Independent […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit