New Labour: not new and not Labour

(C) Regent's College London

It seems strange that in 1997, just two words were powerful enough to symbolise both the Labour Party’s epic re-branding project and a fresh, optimistic vision for the future. They were also powerful enough to help usher in the first Labour government since 1979. Now, on the far-side of 11 years on from the start of the New Labour project, many Labour activists are counting down the days until the Labour Party can pick up from where it left off in 1992.

The title of this article comes from a comment made by Neal Lawson, Chair of the left-wing, progressive think-tank Compass. He stated: “New Labour is not new enough, or Labour enough.” This is an old argument, but one that has shown signs of resurfacing as the General Election looms. I have been lucky enough, in the past few months, to hear Frank Dobson, Phyllis Starkey and Chris Bryant speaking to the party faithful. Whilst the first two MPs made no reference to New Labour (as you would expect) and spoke previously forgotten words such as “redistribution”, I found it striking that Mr Bryant, a young convert to New Labour, also shied away from mentioning the brand –  instead, he spoke of “levelling the playing field” and “politics of opportunity”.

How much of this is merely rhetoric, or tactical pre-election disassociation with the unpopular? Is it possible that Labour politicians can simply stop using certain words, keep the same policies and still appear different? The flip-side of this question would be: how much of New Labour was also merely rhetoric? I would say: some.

Labour’s 1997 election manifesto was packed with the buzz-words that became the hallmark of the campaign: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, “Education, Education, Education”, and so on. Yet, whilst the PR machine (that we all – now – know so much about) was the packaging for the New Labour movement, there was a clear strategic shift in the Labour Party that had been kick-started by Neil Kinnock with his unenviable war with the Militant Tendency. The task of modernisation was finished by Tony Blair and it saw a change in emphasis from trying to ensure political equality to seeking economic freedom.

If we examine the various measures that have been introduced in the last 11 years such as the working tax credit, national minimum wage and the controversial involvement with Network Rail, not to mention the bank bailouts, we see social democratic themes but not socialist themes. The shift from political equality to economic freedom was, however, just a different approach to the same argument.

Ultimately, fairness and cohesion are still the centrepiece of Labour’s ideology, as they ever were, but the crucial difference is that the old, simmering opposition to capitalism has disappeared altogether. The watered-down role of trade unions has not been repealed, big businesses and the rich are no longer alienated (quite the opposite in fact) and despite Labour continuing to increase welfare and public spending, the increases are constructed in concert with more Conservative concepts. Gordon Brown has talked of “responsibility” for those out of work and the NHS has had “quasi-markets” introduced to promote competition and, by extension, improve performance.

Following the Second World War, Labour’s welfare reforms and nationalisation won the argument. Just as in 1979 and throughout the 80s Thatcherism ultimately challenged Labour’s social agenda, using economic instability and the dangerous power of trade unions to win the debate. So, in the 1990s, Labour had to find new arguments against Libertarian politics. These arguments were an acknowledgement that previous Labour governments had not exercised fiscal restraint, but also a criticism that Thatcherite economic control came at too high a social cost. In short, a “Third Way” must be charted.

I sometimes feel that many Labour supporters fail to appreciate the wider context that preceded the inception of New Labour and how it has merely been shaped by a developing consensus. Social welfare and equality must be tempered with economic control, however the recent banking crises may have shattered the post-Thatcherite consensus on laissez-faire economics; hence why people speak of a “return to old Labour”.

So, is New Labour both “new” and “Labour”? I would argue that it is not inherently new in ideological terms. The modern Labour Party has merely responded to changes in society and has pragmatically evolved to shape its agenda and implement its values in a new political context. In short, it’s not new, but it is Labour.