‘Old New Labour habits die hard’

The New Labour government of 1997–2010 was very different from anything anyone had known before. They changed the country for the better in many ways (while also, of course, doing other things that many Labour members were deeply uncomfortable about, not least Iraq). But life-changing policy wins are not new for Labour governments, even if some of the policy approaches were.

They were a government in which one faction was almost completely dominant — something that, at the time, Attlee and Wilson might have yearned for, but that soon dissolved as New Labour itself split into two tribes of Blairites and Brownites.

However, what did feel ‘new’ and different about Blair’s government was the approach to actually doing the day-to-day governing. One of the under-examined factors from that government that we are feeling the echoes of today was what came to be known as ‘sofa government’.

The phrase ‘sofa government’ was both flattering and alarming.

READ MORE: No 10 took ‘dismissive approach’ to Mandelson vetting, says sacked Foreign Office official

Flattering because it chimed with Tony Blair’s carefully cultivated, oh-so-modern image of a relaxed CEO — denim shirtsleeves rolled up, sipping a latte (so new!), shooting the breeze with his team. It was a very 90s image of what a leader looked and acted like. It embodied a swaggering self-confidence that allowed for that level of relaxation—the ‘new man’ of government.

Alarming, though, because it was a repeated criticism of Blair that he was too casual with decision-making — where a tight group of advisers would come to take decisions away from the cabinet (that this was something new and concerning seems almost quaint now), with little record of the discussions in these informal chinwags. And while details from these conversations did occasionally leak, there was a tighter hold on them among that very tight inner circle.

So little of this would be possible now, for so many reasons. One of the facts I’ve always found really illustrates the difference between politics then and politics now is that Tony Blair never sent an email or text.

Here’s another — to send a text it would have cost 10p a time in 1997. Can you imagine if that were true of WhatsApp, the discipline it might impose on all of us?! I had a little look and yesterday alone would have cost me £4.20. That wasn’t even a particularly WhatsApp heavy day. 

We may now call it ‘government by WhatsApp’ (and have done since Boris Johnson), but the basics of ‘sofa government’ remain the same. There seems to have once again been a tight-knit group of advisers (some even the same people), with that same sense of casualness about following the rules.

But fronting it is not a ‘new man’ in the 90s sense but someone with a reputation for being a more old fashioned man of rules, formality, process, and sometimes a rather dull stiffness. 

That image worked for Starmer because it felt authentic. But as we question if the rules have been followed and if we have that old casual attitude to them, it feels so much worse because it goes against who we were told Starmer was.

That, in itself, is an image problem. But deeper, there has been a misunderstanding about how much of the 1990s way of government you can suitably bring into the world of the 2020s.

Become a friend of LabourList and join our community. Our friends support our vital non-factional work and get access to exclusive content and events. 

While the casual attitude may be an old problem, due to new technology, what happens on a Downing Street sofa doesn’t stay on a Downing Street sofa anymore. At the touch of a button, not one but multiple journalists, MPs, and political allies (for now) are given your innermost thoughts — and can screenshot them, which sort of goes against the point of the previous form of sofa government.

Let’s be honest, there is a value to politicians being able to have private exploratory discussions. To explore ideas that might later be wholly rejected to fully examine what they might have to offer without the pressure of them being presented to the public as ‘oven ready’.

Let’s get real — all of us gossip and chat and have conversations with those we trust that go beyond what we would say outside of our closest circles.

Burt what we have now might be the worst of both worlds: decisions that go unchallenged and therefore untested because they are made off the record, casually, by a small clique, without those conversations having the sense of security and privacy that once at least held for those taking part.

There was plenty that was done well in the Blair and Brown years that can either be replicated or updated for a modern era. But there were some vices too. And it is a worry that what we have seen as the Mandelson scandal continues to unfold is that it may not be just a couple of individuals Starmer will regret having brought back, but some of the bad habits of sofa government—now given a modern, sharper twist.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook. You can also write to our editor to share your thoughts on our stories and share your own. The best letters are published every Sunday.

What is needed is a discussion about how to take the best of what New Labour’s approach allowed—but updated for a modern era rather than sticking rigidly to old, outdated playbooks. What is needed is a grown-up discussion about how politicians (and those who advise them) can have the freedom to explore ideas that may eventually be discarded in an age of both mass communication and intense scrutiny. What is needed is a new sense of agreement between politicians and civil servants about how to give space to discussion while managing the need for accountability and transparency.

As Labour continue in their project to reform the civil service — something they need to do alongside the organisations of the state — these questions should be at the heart of how we manage this in a way that does not frustrate politicians’ ability to think freely, the public’s democratic right to know what those they elected are considering as early as possible in the legislative journey, nor the civil service’s ability to plan and deliver.