One of New Labour’s intellectual architects (or court theorists), Anthony Giddens, looks back on the New Labour ‘project’. His article in the New Statesman is a disappointing one, which doesn’t actually show much reflection or much awareness of the dissonances between ‘the project’ and reality. This, surely, is the rub:
Most of Labour’s policy prescriptions followed from this analysis. The era of Keynesian demand management, linked to state direction of economic enterprise, was over. A different relationship of government to business had to be established, recognising the vital role of enterprise in wealth creation and the limits of state power. No country, however large and powerful, could control that marketplace: hence the “prawn cocktail offensive” that Labour launched in the mid-1990s to woo the City of London.
There’s a partial backdown later in the (over long) piece, but it’s incredible that Giddens failed to appreciate how the GFC intervened violently in both the rhetoric and practice of Labour governance. But I suppose that’s ideology for you.
My experience talking to generally pro-labour lefties in England after the GFC was that they blame the whole thing on America and can’t see any aspect of it being New Labour’s fault.
I remember a particularly amusing exchange with some colleagues, after the government had considered a new form of rationing in the NHS, which might involve old people being denied hip replacements. I pointed out to my (generally left-leaning, pro-labour) colleagues that if, after 10 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the British suddenly found themselves discussing denying basic, well-established medical treatment to old people (even if quite speculatively), their economic project had failed significantly somewhere. They just blamed the GFC and the Americans, but never questioned New Labour’s role in the GFC, or the possibility that the wealth of those years had been mismanaged, or that the rhetoric of deficit terrorism was a little overwrought and altogether too hypocritical after a huge amount of potential NHS money had been blown on the bailouts.
If you really push them, the New Labour boosters might blame Thatcher for the underlying causes of the British part of the GFC; but generally it was all George Bush’s fault, as far as I can tell.
My experience talking to generally pro-labour lefties in England after the GFC was that they blame the whole thing on America and can’t see any aspect of it being New Labour’s fault.
I remember a particularly amusing exchange with some colleagues, after the government had considered a new form of rationing in the NHS, which might involve old people being denied hip replacements. I pointed out to my (generally left-leaning, pro-labour) colleagues that if, after 10 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the British suddenly found themselves discussing denying basic, well-established medical treatment to old people (even if quite speculatively), their economic project had failed significantly somewhere. They just blamed the GFC and the Americans, but never questioned New Labour’s role in the GFC, or the possibility that the wealth of those years had been mismanaged, or that the rhetoric of deficit terrorism was a little overwrought and altogether too hypocritical after a huge amount of potential NHS money had been blown on the bailouts.
If you really push them, the New Labour boosters might blame Thatcher for the underlying causes of the British part of the GFC; but generally it was all George Bush’s fault, as far as I can tell.
“A different relationship of government to business had to be established, recognising the vital role of enterprise in wealth creation and the limits of state power.”
That’s a good one. Thank to the GFC, the British state now owns most of the British banking system.
“A different relationship of government to business had to be established, recognising the vital role of enterprise in wealth creation and the limits of state power.”
That’s a good one. Thank to the GFC, the British state now owns most of the British banking system.
I think this quote is far more important in any analysis of New Labour:
Economics aside, New Labour was always about renewing the Labour brand to make it electable again.
The recent election shows that while Labour is damaged, it is not irreparably so (as many pro-Tory news outlets would have it).
In any political system that rewards tacking to the centre with government, you are going to see large parties like Labour try to take that ground. Playing to a small part of the electorate will only result in a small part of the vote (as we saw with the Lib Dems, or the Greens in Australia).
While the deficit spending of Blair/Brown was in hindsight not the best policy, the sheer size of the Global Financial Crisis should be recognised for creating the need for the bailouts and all the rest of it.
I think this quote is far more important in any analysis of New Labour:
Economics aside, New Labour was always about renewing the Labour brand to make it electable again.
The recent election shows that while Labour is damaged, it is not irreparably so (as many pro-Tory news outlets would have it).
In any political system that rewards tacking to the centre with government, you are going to see large parties like Labour try to take that ground. Playing to a small part of the electorate will only result in a small part of the vote (as we saw with the Lib Dems, or the Greens in Australia).
While the deficit spending of Blair/Brown was in hindsight not the best policy, the sheer size of the Global Financial Crisis should be recognised for creating the need for the bailouts and all the rest of it.
Absolutely, Mark, I found it to be an uncharacteristically weak piece.
>
On the other hand, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves how pervasive the ideology of the market really was – Giddens helps us understand how parties of social democracy came to genuinely believe that only an unfettered market could create wealth … besides, as he says, “No country, however large and powerful, could control that marketplace” … it wasn’t long before the deregulatory race to the bottom commenced in earnest.
Absolutely, Mark, I found it to be an uncharacteristically weak piece.
>
On the other hand, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves how pervasive the ideology of the market really was – Giddens helps us understand how parties of social democracy came to genuinely believe that only an unfettered market could create wealth … besides, as he says, “No country, however large and powerful, could control that marketplace” … it wasn’t long before the deregulatory race to the bottom commenced in earnest.
Playing to a small part of the electorate will only result in a small part of the vote (as we saw with the Lib Dems, or the Greens in Australia).
what, 20%?
In most of Europe, that’s pretty good, and allows a party to be in government with partners. But then, Europe – unlike the UK or Australia – tends to have fair electoral systems.
Playing to a small part of the electorate will only result in a small part of the vote (as we saw with the Lib Dems, or the Greens in Australia).
what, 20%?
In most of Europe, that’s pretty good, and allows a party to be in government with partners. But then, Europe – unlike the UK or Australia – tends to have fair electoral systems.
I think its interesting that he judges New Labour’s success principally by how long it remained in office, rather than what it did there – and that he leaves “liberty” off the list of left-wing values. But I guess if he’d included it, then his whole argument would be sunk.
I think its interesting that he judges New Labour’s success principally by how long it remained in office, rather than what it did there – and that he leaves “liberty” off the list of left-wing values. But I guess if he’d included it, then his whole argument would be sunk.
@4 – yep, Ben. But, again, it’s significant that he hasn’t reflected on his market worship in the light of recent events!
@3 – Alex, I wasn’t getting at the deficit (with which I have no problem if it’s counter-cyclical, sustainable and spent on good stuff) but on the ‘light regulation’ approach to the City – which created the boom economy in the UK, but also played a big role in the GFC. It should put Giddens’ claims about Brown’s ‘prudence’ in a different perspective too!
@4 – yep, Ben. But, again, it’s significant that he hasn’t reflected on his market worship in the light of recent events!
@3 – Alex, I wasn’t getting at the deficit (with which I have no problem if it’s counter-cyclical, sustainable and spent on good stuff) but on the ‘light regulation’ approach to the City – which created the boom economy in the UK, but also played a big role in the GFC. It should put Giddens’ claims about Brown’s ‘prudence’ in a different perspective too!
Electorally, if the GFC was supposed to be New Labour’s Black Wednesday then the blame hasn’t stuck. Even assuming that Cameron 2010′s 36% of the vote and 96 pickups is somehow comparable Blair 1997′s 43% of the vote and extra 147 seats, there is the little matter that we just came through a British election where the two party system almost imploded. That would seem to indicate Dave hasn’t taken all the political high ground. (The fun speculation really starts if, instead of Black Wednesday, the last few years were actually Brown’s early nineties recession analogue. Was he right about the possibility of a double dip recession if the Tories bring down a horror budget? Maybe the Euro proper will collapse?)
In policy terms I think the fact that John Cruddas has announced he won’t run for Labour leadership shows us there is no Big Rethink coming.
Electorally, if the GFC was supposed to be New Labour’s Black Wednesday then the blame hasn’t stuck. Even assuming that Cameron 2010′s 36% of the vote and 96 pickups is somehow comparable Blair 1997′s 43% of the vote and extra 147 seats, there is the little matter that we just came through a British election where the two party system almost imploded. That would seem to indicate Dave hasn’t taken all the political high ground. (The fun speculation really starts if, instead of Black Wednesday, the last few years were actually Brown’s early nineties recession analogue. Was he right about the possibility of a double dip recession if the Tories bring down a horror budget? Maybe the Euro proper will collapse?)
In policy terms I think the fact that John Cruddas has announced he won’t run for Labour leadership shows us there is no Big Rethink coming.
One of the ironies about New Labour and its intellectual impresarios is that insofar as they believe/d strongly in anything progressive, it’s the need to prioritise action to halt climate change – a point on which Giddens himself and Blair/Brown government ministers such as David Miliband were and are conspicuously strong, and for which they deserve to be applauded, but which is not altogether easy to reconcile with New Labour’s faith in the market.
One of the ironies about New Labour and its intellectual impresarios is that insofar as they believe/d strongly in anything progressive, it’s the need to prioritise action to halt climate change – a point on which Giddens himself and Blair/Brown government ministers such as David Miliband were and are conspicuously strong, and for which they deserve to be applauded, but which is not altogether easy to reconcile with New Labour’s faith in the market.
Fabianism is Marxist fascism without the excitement so no wonder voters are leaving it for dead. And why settle for social-democracy when you could have libertarian-socialism anyway? ( As seen in the free Ukraine 1918 and Spain 1936 )
Beats me.
Oh – and one obvious thing here is the danger of Third parties. They have split the Right in the US and now the Left in the UK. Be careful what you wish for with these false friends. I say lets reformat the whole hard-drive with anarchism.
Fabianism is Marxist fascism without the excitement so no wonder voters are leaving it for dead. And why settle for social-democracy when you could have libertarian-socialism anyway? ( As seen in the free Ukraine 1918 and Spain 1936 )
Beats me.
Oh – and one obvious thing here is the danger of Third parties. They have split the Right in the US and now the Left in the UK. Be careful what you wish for with these false friends. I say lets reformat the whole hard-drive with anarchism.