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

  • Featured Local Government News Scotland Uncategorized Britain decides: liveblog 2016

    Britain decides: liveblog 2016

      We want to hear from Labour activists and supporters today so please send us your stories and pictures [email protected] The pick of the submissions will be added to the liveblog. 20.48 – Voters in Liverpool will also be choosing their Police and Crime Commissioner. Labour’s Jane Kennedy won the office back in 2012, with 56.2 per cent of the vote, but with a low turnout of 12.7 per cent. The former Labour MP is standing for re-election this year – best of luck to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Local Government Uncategorized Green voters must give Sadiq their second preference, says Christian Wolmar

    Green voters must give Sadiq their second preference, says Christian Wolmar

    The Greens did not recommend to their supporters any particular candidate for their second preference votes in the London Mayoral election. This is odd since there are very good reasons why Sadiq Khan deserves their support, given both his policies and those of his main opponent, Zac Goldsmith. At the first hustings for the Labour nomination, I mentioned my long campaign to pedestrianise Oxford Street and Sadiq was very quick to endorse it, saying he thought it was a great […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Voters turned away from London polling station

    Voters turned away from London polling station

    Labour MPs and activists have voiced concerns about voters being turned away from polling stations in North London today.  Dozens of people who presented their polling cards were told they were not on the register. Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis was among those reportedly unable to vote, along with Conservative councillor Dean Cohen. Barnet council has now said they have now resolved the problem and have advised those who were turned away to return before 10pm. They have also advised those who cannot […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News New twist in junior doctors’ dispute as Hunt agrees to “pause” new contracts

    New twist in junior doctors’ dispute as Hunt agrees to “pause” new contracts

    Ministers have has said they will “pause” the introduction of the junior doctors contracts for five days – which had been due to begin on Monday – in an attempt to resolve the junior doctors’ dispute. The Government have said they are willing to accept a proposal from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges which will see the BMA postpone further strikes on the condition they can re-open conversations over Saturday working. The chairwoman of the Academy said a delay is […]

    Read more →
  • News Alan Johnson: Labour must be anti-racist in everything it does

    Alan Johnson: Labour must be anti-racist in everything it does

    Alan Johnson has told Labour members to be “anti-racist in everything we do” as he backed party officials to kick out prejudiced “infiltrators”. Johnson issued a call for Labour to draw on its long history of fighting prejudice as it deals with the fall-out from the anti-Semitism row. He also condemned the “crazy” intervention of Ken Livingstone, who has been suspended after mounting a botched defence of Naz Shah last week. The former Home Secretary invoked the Battle of Cable […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit