On the issue of taxation in 2001, the differences lay in the level of basic rate; Tories aiming to reduce it to at least 20%, Labour extending a 10% tax band at low income levels. In health, Labour remained committed to retaining the basic system, where Tories were willing to have the private sector used by the NHS when necessary.
With the problems of immigration, and more recently of adoption, the two parties have taken different stances: Tories wanting tighter controls over the number of immigrants let into the country, and Labour, whose policy involves establishing centres for asylum seekers in more remote, traditionally Conservative areas of the country. The topical argument over adoption has caused splits within the Conservative party, with Iain Duncan-Smith imposing a three-line whip against homosexuals and unmarried couples having the right to adopt. Labour, alternatively, support this more liberal attitude.
The Tories have taken a slightly harder line over law and order then Labour, proposing special measures to reduce youth crime, longer sentences and more custodial punishments. Labour, although having a generally tough approach, aimed in 2001 to speed up the judicial process and increase the size of police forces.
Over the issue of welfare, the Conservatives have taken a firmer line on benefits fraud, and proposed further tightening on benefits. Labour, although having similar policies, also look to support the child benefit system, single parents who want to work, and provide a minimum level of income for all working families, rather than the Tories who view welfare simply as a safety net for those with no alternative.
On other key policies, however, such as economic control, employment, industry and education, the two main parties have generally similar policies. Of course, the opposition continue to criticise the current government policies, but thus is the nature of politics. It is becoming decreasingly common for the Labour and Conservative parties to be deeply divided over a certain issue, with the only general exception being Europe.
- To what extent has ‘new’ Labour broken with the party’s traditional ideas and values?
Towards the end of Labour’s eighteen-year long run as the opposition, its organisation became heavily centralised in the interests of party discipline and policy cohesion, usually with more importance placed upon electoral requirements than party democracy. Having gained power using these techniques, it was inevitable that Labour would have to show strong, centralising trends in government. Indeed, Labour’s association with centrally imposed discipline became almost obsessive.
From the outset of the Labour parties existence, three aspects remain relevant in answering the question of the effect of ‘new’ Labour on traditional party ideas. Firstly, the party was a federation of groupings from a variety of socialist traditions, which encompassed a wide range of philosophies from both radical and moderate wings of the whole movement. Secondly, it was formed outside parliament and therefore its most important institutions are not parliamentary, but external party organs. And finally the influence of trade unions existed and played a dominating part in the values of Labour party members.
‘New’ Labour was a name adopted by Tony Blair in his campaign for the 1997 election, in an attempt to relaunch the tiring party, united under a set of new party principles and a new leader. However, it was Blair’s predecessor, Neil Kinnock, who set the agenda for Labour’s new philosophy, by ordering the Policy Review of 1989-9. Blair’s successful battle to revise Clause IV of the party Constitution, enabling him to seize control of industry, ultimately symbolised a transformation in what Labour stood for.
Blair’s reorganisation of the internal structure of the Labour party so that he could make new policies without being restricted by other members of the party, (such as the revision of Clause IV and distancing the party from Trade Unions) helped to move Labour forward by popularising and modernising the party. The cost of this, however, was that the disciplinary section had to be toughened up – MPs having to be more obedient to the party and its policies. This was demonstrated by Blair summoning the swollen PLP to a meeting following the 1997 election, where he reminded MPs that ‘their prime task was to extol the government’s achievements’ (Guardian, 8 May 1997).
On the other hand, certain areas of the Labour party appear to have been empowered by Blair’s apparent reshuffling of power within the party. Labour’s central hierarchy – leadership, NEC, and officials continue to keep firm control of party activity; for example, in regional assembly leadership issues, the Labour party chooses who is most suitable for the job rather than who the electorate may want as their leader. In effect, the NEC is able to reach down into local politics and has the power to override the constituent’s choice of MP, which clearly appears democratically suspect.
Another important change made by ‘New’ Labour have been its attempts to dilute the power of the conference itself – traditionally being the sovereign policy-making body inside the party. Following the NEC’s publication of its ‘Partnership in Power’ document in 1997, the conference has been downgraded to a body to simply ratify the work of a National Policy Forum and various commissions. Effectively, this allows the NEC to keep a tighter hold on the process of policy-making, while turning conference ‘from a serious and occasionally fractious assembly into a celebration of the Leader and his policies’ (Kelly, 1997) in the following years. The revised procedures of policy-making announced that the NEC was indeed to ‘publish the final policy reports for conference endorsement or rejection’; hence demonstrating that power lay behind the closed doors of this select committee.
Perhaps the most important alteration that New Labour has made to its traditional ideas and values has been its aim to appeal to the progressive middle class by distancing the party from its traditional, urban working-class allies and hence disassociating itself from the historical ties with Trade Unions. This was demonstrated by Blair’s government confirming a lower minimum wage than that demanded by the TUC, and providing new legislation on union recognition in the workplace, which was more employer-friendly than the unions had hoped.
Further steps were taken to weaken union links by an enquiry, chaired by Lord Neill, into party funding by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Between 1992-7, there was a 20% decrease into the amount of Labour income from union donations, from 66% to 46%. The results of Neill’s Report, published in October 1998, proposed more state aid to political parties, and also helped to curb the Tories traditional financial advantage by placing restrictions upon donations and national campaign spending.
In conclusion it seems evident that although the traditional influence of trade unions on the Labour party has been weakened under Blair’s leadership, the main ideas and values of the Labour party have remained intact. It is understandable that a party will have to alter its ideas with the changing times, and hence, in recent decades, with the emergence of a larger middle class and more affluent society, Labour would simply be unable to survive if its target voters remained the traditional working classes.
Therefore, by restructuring the internal politics of his party, Blair has aimed to produce one that is more united, and able to appeal to a larger number of the electorate. In order to produce ideas and views which are relevant to today’s society, some of the older ones have been required to be disregarded (specifically union links). It can be argued, however, that the ‘facelift’ of an ageing party is the only effective method to make it acceptable if it is failing. This may prove to be a process that the Conservative Party too, must now resort to.
