The 1997 UK General Election secured a sensational landslide majority for the Labour Party after 18 years of Conservative rule. With a 179 seat majority over all other parties, virtually anything seemed possible. Labour, or indeed New Labour, radically redefined themselves in order to be electable after the long Thatcherite years, and this paid off. However, was this at the expense of principles; of implementing a genuine Centre-Left programme?
There is little doubt that Labour’s leftward drift under the influence of Michael Foot and Tony Benn in the early 80s significantly alienated them from the public. Their 1983 manifesto, a commitment to unilateral disarmament, nationalisation of all privatised utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, was dubbed “the longest suicide note in history” by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman. Taking aside the hugely popular Falklands campaign, Margaret Thatcher had taken many unpopular decisions in Government, yet in the face of an out of touch Opposition, she secured a landslide. It would take another three Leaders (Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair) to complete the move to the Centre ground and be electable again. Redesigned as ‘New Labour’, the party under Tony Blair ended the long standing ‘tax and spend’ stigma of the party (much as Bill Clinton did with the ‘New’ Democratic Party in the US), and symbolically abolished ‘Clause IV’; the commitment to wholesale nationalisation, or “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. No doubt these were divisive issues within the Labour ranks, but Blair could point to a first Labour landslide since 1945 and a return to Government since 1979 as justification. The issue is what happened next, or indeed what didn’t happen next.
A possibility to “mend the schism that occurred in progressive forces in British politics at the start of this (20th century) century” (quote from Blair, by Ashdown) was elaborated on by both Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown in their respective autobiographies. Despite Labour’s historic majority, a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and a Government majority of 269 over all other parties was seriously considered by both men. Ashdown stated he “had always believed that the best relationship between parties in partnership was to be in Government together”, with Blair expressing that “from the off, I wanted to have them (the Lib Dems) in the big tent”. From an ideological perspective, this could have worked. Blair says in his autobiography that he had gone out of his way to “pay tribute in my own political heritage to Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge”, a strong acknowledgment of prominent and historic Liberals. With Blair and Ashdown both describing the inevitable protests from the likes of John Prescott and Gordon Brown over such a deal, Blair muses that the Lib Dems “lacked the necessary fibre to govern”, preferring to be “honest critics”, whilst Ashdown concludes Blair did not seize the opportunity of the “golden hours”, and overestimated “his own powers”. In this sense, a consideration of what might have been and what didn’t happen can only be hypothetical; despite a willingness from both men to contemplate a coalition, we will not know for certain how close this came to reality.
In terms of policy, New Labour certainly adhered to Tory elements (a plan which brought New Labour traditionally Tory heartlands). They restricted spending levels for their first two years of power, and maintained the top level of income tax at 40%; increased to 50% only after the global financial crisis and after Tony Blair had left office. Also, perhaps reminiscent of Michael Howard’s “prison works” mantra, New Labour adopted the line “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” as policy. Despite these centrist, or even centre-right leanings, there were historic successes. Peace in Northern Ireland was achieved after centuries of struggle, along with the downfall of Milosevic in Kosovo and the implementation of the minimum wage (now supported by the Conservative Party after initial opposition). It is in this sense, however, that Blair appears far more at home in international than domestic affairs; Paddy Ashdown states Blair’s “hesitation on domestic affairs” interestingly “did not apply to international affairs”. However, despite Social Democracy entailing a mixture of public and private enterprise, Blair (who has repeatedly stated that he is a Social Democrat) did not oversee any major incorporation of public services in to his plans, and did little to reverse privatisation measures from the previous Government; Blair himself admits that despite disagreeing with John Major’s privatisation of Britain’s railways, he did not “want to waste money re-nationalising it”. Some policies appeared to form, as Gerwirtz states, a seemingly confusing amalgamation of “neo-liberal authoritarian humanism”, linking both a “neo-conservative strand of New Right thinking” and “a social democratic stance” (Gewirtz 2002, p.156). Furthermore, Blair stressed his intention not to “alienate business” in his autobiography, and won the support of the powerful media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the former Conservative supporter unlikely to be a champion of Social Democracy, and a sign of de-regulation drives to come.
Current Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe has said she briefly changed her allegiances to New Labour in 1997, believing Blair to be “socially liberal, but an economic tory”. The likes of Shaun Woodward MP (Conservative) were also converted, with the New Labour project’s domination of the Centre ground apparent. With this hegemony, the Liberal Democrats arguably became the most radical party of the three major parties, with their platform including raising the income tax threshold and providing a multi-billion pound pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils, as well as their trademark commitment to electoral reform. This goes some way to suggesting that the “schism” of the Centre-Left was not healed, with Nick Clegg in recent times claiming that the Lib Dems are the “true progressives” and the “vanguard of the progressive Centre-Left”. Furthermore, in Blair’s autobiography he frequently states his desire not to alienate the “middle England” vote which he so successfully garnered from 1997 onwards; as previously stated income tax was never raised in his tenure, and even indirect taxes such as National Insurance were raised minimally. Blair’s courting of Right wing media such as Rupert Murdoch’s empire gives the impression of the types of people he was willing to surround himself with; hardly Centre-Left progressives.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still heavily divisive issues to this day, and indeed are still ongoing. For New Labour and Blair in particular, it will always be a permanent and negative association. This, and arguably the lack of a Centre-Left platform, led many in the youth and student population to ditch New Labour for the Liberal Democrats (on an anti-Iraq war platform), arguably furthering the view that they became the most radical Party. New Labour’s introduction of top-up tuition fees (despite a promise not to do so) hastened this move. In an ironic reversal, the Liberal Democrats’ vote to increase tuition fees in 2010 (despite the promise not to do so and the policy of abolition), not to mention their Coalition with the Conservatives, has led the student population back to Labour, albeit with a new leader. Furthermore, the de-regulation drives during New Labour’s term of the markets and the banking industry were arguably key factors in exacerbating the financial crisis of 2007 onwards, although it was a global issue. In the present context, support appears to be returning to Labour. However, it is perhaps telling that in the 2010 Labour leadership contest, all five candidates rejected Tony Blair’s critique that Labour lost the 2010 Election because “they stopped being New Labour”, and all of the candidates appeared to strongly attempt to ‘move on’ from Blair and Brown.
In the same leadership contest, Diane Abbott claimed that 5 million people had stopped voting for Labour over the years from 1997; 1 million voted for other parties, whilst 4 million no longer vote at all. It is difficult to fully examine or make deductions from this demographic, but the aspect of apathy is certainly a strong component here; perhaps New Labour did not go far enough for many of the 4 million apathetic voters? New Labour stalwarts may well point to their long hegemony of Government in response to this; successive Conservative leaders faltered, and it was only after David Cameron’s succession of Michael Howard in 2005, and his shifting of the Tories closer to the Centre, that the Opposition looked like forming a Government. The Economy enjoyed a long boom period, leading Gordon Brown to proudly proclaim an “end to boom and bust”. Nevertheless, you are unlikely to find many glowing references of New Labour’s time in Government today, and the failure to reconnect with those 5 million lost votes was to cost them dear in 2010, and perhaps in the future too.
I believe that with the huge majorities obtained under Blair, New Labour had the potential to implement far reaching and meaningful reforms. However, it is arguable that he, as Ashdown states, failed to “seize the initiative” on the domestic agenda. Blair wanted to permanently alter the British landscape, as Margaret Thatcher had done, but perhaps for this very reason he was cautious in his approach for radical change. It seemed that the focus was often on the next Election and to not alienate the coalition of ‘middle England’ and wealthy donors in this approach. What do I mean by radical change, and the opportunity for more to be done? It entails many things. For a Social Democrat, a reversal of Thatcher’s neoliberal economic policies must surely have been a priority, yet Blair did little to change this; he himself admits he likes a “liberal economic” approach, and a trust in the markets. Furthermore, despite numerous top down targets, social mobility actually worsened in the period between 1997 and 2010. The target of eliminating child poverty appears ever more unlikely to be met, and on the education platform Blair says in his autobiography that equity in education should never be at the expense of academic excellence. On the constitutional platform, New Labour had a brilliant opportunity for electoral reform, with the Jenkins Commission recommending the use of the ‘AV+’ method to elect the House of Commons, yet Blair was not able to assert his authority over dissenters in his cabinet such as John Prescott and Gordon Brown. The issue of electing the House of Lords, currently an agenda for the incumbent Coalition Government, was another initiative not seized (although the 1999 House of Lords Act removed hereditary peers).
Labour’s move to the Centre also elicited both the loss and gain of voters. The capture of ‘middle England’ and former Tory voters reaped dividends in 1997, yet it is a strong proportion of the working class who will have felt hard done by, perhaps exclaiming as Ed Balls states that Labour “aren’t on our side”. The current Party policy of Labour to abolish tuition fees perhaps indicates that their introduction in the first place was a mistake, and Ed Miliband triumphed in his election as Leader on a platform to the Left of many of the candidates (including brother David) which emphasised the need to banish New Labour to the history books; gaining support from numerous prominent Trade Unions indicates how strong an influence they still possess in the Labour Party.
It is fair to say that Tony Blair, the figurehead of New Labour, is to this day intensely divisive in political discussions. When failures are listed, they often include a lack of economic and banking regulation, along with a controversial foreign policy and a negative impact on social mobility-all issues which a Centre-Left ideology (on the surface at least) would have eradicated. In this sense, New Labour could be deemed a failure in itself. However, their success in ending 18 years of Conservative rule, followed by a record 13 years in Government themselves, cannot be ignored. The sad truth could well be that, contrary to opinion that the UK is largely progressive (but politically divided), it is conservative with a small ‘c’, and only a battle for the Centre ground and the rejection of Keynesian principles can bring Electoral success, something which New Labour did very well with. Was New Labour progressive? In some cases, yes; the minimum wage, the windfall tax, the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. Were they Centre-Left? My opinion is that they rarely were, but their time in Government often transcended the left-right axis, and their success in hegemony may well discard my theory; this does not stop the theory from provoking interesting, controversial and inconclusive discussion.
-Ben
-Ben
References
Ashdown, P “A Fortunate Life”, 2009, Aurum Press
Blair, T “A Journey”, 2010, Hutchinson
Gerwirtz, S (2002) The Managerial School; Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, Routledge, USA/Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment