New Labour obituary: this is the modernisers’ Clause Four moment

Yesterday, it was announced that Progress would be dropping their label as “the New Labour pressure group”. This should come as no surprise. New Labour was always, right from the beginning, described as “a project”. It is one that has run its course. By this point, we can be confident that it is no longer applicable to the challenges faced by the Labour Party or the country.

As Ed Miliband’s leadership has progressed, there has been an obvious shift away from the policy ideas of New Labour. Current flagship policies on rent and energy prices (and maybe soon railways) are all based on the kind of state intervention in markets of the kind that would have had Tony Blair running a mile. Whereas under Blair, ministers would have these ideas and be reined in, in Miliband’s Labour Party the impression is that pressure is coming from above for departments to push the envelope a bit.

This shift denotes not just a move on from New Labour on policy, but on the way elections are fought too. In 1997, the consensus was that a move away from ideological battles was the key to success. Instead, Labour focussed on proving that they were a better alternative government, to be trusted on traditional Conservative hallmarks like managing the economy and, well, running the country. This worked so well then that it has been the cornerstone for every general election campaign since.

When Ed Balls announced that Labour would stick to Tory spending plans, it was a play straight out of the New Labour handbook. It looked then as though the two Eds were going to stick to the argument about who could run the government better. Now, it looks like they’ll be seeking to fight it on an ideological battleground: as the economy recovers, they’re not asking the electorate who they think can run the country but who can change it.

That Miliband and Balls can try this strategy is due to the success of New Labour. People no longer wonder whether Labour are a party of government: after thirteen years of power, they know they are. This gives the current leadership the leeway to launch a campaign based on how they’ll govern, rather than whether they can.

It does mean, however, that those who still identify with New Labour are at best, hankering for the past, and at worst, disloyal.

This is not the end of what began twenty years ago, but a sign of growing up. Modernisation, by definition, cannot stand still, cannot cling limpet-like to a certain way of thinking and wait for its time to come again. It has to change, adapt to the shifting grounds of the political landscape. Philip Gould did not call his book The Unfinished Revolution because there was just a couple more things the Blairites needed to do before they could pack up and go home. It was because he hoped what he began would never end.

New Labour was a crucial stage in Labour’s history, and one that will shape the Party’s future. But those who celebrate it most would only have seen themselves sidelined if they believed it still existed.

To consign the name to history is therefore an act not of defeat, but of moving on.

Considering New Labour’s commitment to branding, it is surprising to see the term lasted so long. It stopped being useful some time ago now, and has been irrelevant to the British public for even longer.

We should know by now that there is no room for sentimentality when it comes to winning. That’s why ditching New Labour is the modernisers’ Clause Four moment.