Is there anything new about New Labour(TM)s approach to Economic Management?

Authors Avatar

Samantha Bentham                                                                                                                       New Politics in Britain.

Is there anything new about New Labour’s approach to Economic Management?

 

  Before we can decide if there is anything new about New Labour’s economic approach we first need to consider the economic policies of previous governments. Initially we need to look at the way ‘Old’ Labour ran the economy and then look at Thatcher’s key economic themes so that there is a point of comparison as to whether New Labour economics is a contemporary phenomena or just old ideas presented in an innovative way.

  In regards to ‘Old’ Labour the most appropriate place to start is with Clement Atlee’s post-War Labour party. This government was seen to be quite revolutionary at this time. It supervised a major nationalisation program of many of the key industries and utility providers. Under Atlee’s government the railways, coal mining, the steel industry and the Bank of England were brought under the public ownership of a national government along with electricity, gas, water and telephones. It was also Atlee’s government that brought about the ‘cradle to grave’ Welfare State which was created on the basis of William Beveridge’s 1942 ‘Social Insurance and Allied Services Report’ (better known as the Beveridge report.) As part of this model the National Health Service was created in 1948 under Aneurin Bevan, health minister at this time. This is seen as being the Labour Party’s greatest achievement.

  The Labour party at this time followed a Keynesian model of economics. This was the theory that aggregate demand for goods was the driving force behind economic growth and that the government should take charge of the economy by promoting spending either by lowering interest rates or investing in the infrastructure of business.

  In 1951 the Conservatives came back into power under Winston Churchill and in 1955 Hugh Gaitskell took over as leader of the Labour party. Gaitskell along with Anthony Crosland saw the Labour party as moving in a different direction than Attlee. Gaitskell and Crosland wanted the party to embrace a more temperate social democrat position. They believed that a mixed economy and demand management rather than government intervention were the appropriate policies to achieve the goals of a collective welfare state and full employment. This did however cause problems within the party and in particular the idea of amending/removing Clause IV of the Labour constitution, which stated:

‘To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.’ www.labourcounts.com

  It is widely accepted that this committed the party to public ownership but Gaitskell believed that it was the public opposition to nationalisation that had led to their poor performance in the previous election. He therefore wanted to amend this impression but it caused uproar with Labour party members and he failed to make this change.

 

 It was 1964 before Labour came back into power with Harold Wilson at the helm.  Wilson was left with a large balance of trade deficit by the previous Conservative government which was mainly due to its expansive fiscal policy and Wilson tightened Labour’s fiscal policy in response to this. The first few years that Wilson was in office were overshadowed by what was an eventually a hopeless attempt to avoid the devaluation of the pound. By 1967 market pressures forced the pound into devaluation although Wilson emphasised this would not affect the ‘pound in your pocket’ as he stated in a televised speech

Join now!

From now on, the pound abroad is worth 14 per cent or so less in terms of other currencies. That doesn't mean, of course, that the Pound here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued.’ Harold Wilson 19/10/67

  The devaluation of the pound led to a slight upturn in Britain’s economic performance.

  Another theme of Wilson’s government was an emphasis on planned economy by which the government controls all the chief components of the economy and devises all the policies regarding the use and distribution of income again ...

This is a preview of the whole essay