The revision of Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution represents the principle item of the political renewal. Shortly after the leadership-election Blair actuated the discussion about the clause. In April 1995 the clause, formulated in 1918, was modified on previously mentioned tenor. Blair demonstrated the break with the past and moreover his party has shown unity, by supporting him with regard to his whole reform-programme. However, Blair was not the first politician, who was driven by the controversial idea of the inner-party reformation. In 1959, after an internal discussion emerged about the future of socialism, Hugh Gaitskell had already tried to push such a change, without avail. The reform should be related to the terms nationalisation and public ownership. Both were crucial points of Blair’s subsequent campaign. However, Gaitskell met other realities than Blair. Supported by Anthony Crosland, he wanted to redefine both the terms ‘public ownership’ and ‘nationalisation’, and presented his project ‘as part of a necessary process of ideological adaptation’. Next to his own errors in the campaign, especially the disregard of the symbolic force of Clause 4, he prevented a successful revision. Wilson mentioned later: ‘… we were being asked to take Genesis out of the bible’. After more than 30 years, Blair has faced the challenge in completely changed political and economic circumstances. Four lost elections, growing problems of the economy and the welfare state, a weakened union movement, and in particular the pre-work of Kinnock and Smith alleviated the situation for Blair. The welfare state as it existed, was not able to survive; that was plain for everyone. Besides, he recognised the importance of an involvement of all party-wings. Tudor Jones mentioned that the revision was an ‘important symbol of Labour’s modernisation and ideological adaptation’.
By means of this illustration it is recognisable, that there was already a thought of party modernisation at the end of the 50’s. Blair’s slogan, ‘New Labour – because Britain deserves better’ is not an innovation, but rather a repeat of 1964. At that time Harold Wilson promoted his campaign with the slogan ‘Labour- The New Britain’ and mentioned even a ‘new thinking’ in his manifesto. Paul Allender claims in his article ‘What’s new about New Labour’ that ‘essentially there is nothing new about New Labour’ and it is only a ‘catch-up with these new times’. According to Adam Lent the majority regards the election defeat of 1987 as the beginning of Labour’s transformation. However, this is wrong because‚ ‘other causes and aspects of the transformation’ already existed before 1987. Gaitskell’s attempt to revise Clause 4, can be regarded as the first action of modernisation within the party. During his leadership Wilson regarded the scientific revolution, like Blair’s 1997 information revolution, as new possibilities for the British people. His attitude towards the trade unions is very similar, as well.
‘... no place for restrictive practices or for out-dated methods on either side of industry’(Wilson)
The essential beginning of New Labour is however seen in the era Kinnock. Adam Lent states in his article ‘Labour’s Transformation’ that the analysis and reports are oversimplified and do not realise that Kinnock already had his reformation thoughts before his leadership. Kinnock himself confirmed that he had his own reform plans, but did not want to share them with anyone else, because this could mean the early end of the reforms. After his election as party leader 1983, he started numerous initiatives with regards to political reforms. He replaced the NEC with Joint Policy Comittees, he altered the defence policy by stating that ‘he would keep cruise missiles’ and he shifted away from Labour’s old-fashioned attitude to finish the engagement in the EU. In 1985 Peter Mandelson was appointed Director of Campaigns and Communication and a new epoch of campaign strategy started. Kinnock’s principal task and merit was the party’s reunification, after the disastrous election defeat in 1983. Martin J Smith mentioned that he ‘changed the expectations of the party in the 1980’s and slayed a number of important dragons’ and that he had the backing of the left that allowed him to change the party.
One further possibility to illustrate the party renewal, is the comparison of the different manifestos. In order to emphasise the development I have concentrated on the campaigns of 1964, 1983, 1992 and 1997. What views held the party leaders in their manifestos with regards to the perils of a nuclear threat, the fiscal system, the European Union and what significance did the nationalisation have?
With regard to the threat of nuclear weapons, Wilson mentioned a new military role for Britain and expressed his considered opinion to ‘stop the spread of nuclear weapons’ and start an era of disarmament. The Tories were blamed for ‘the entry into the European Common Market’ and it was seen as a useless try to improve the economic situation. Besides, it suggested a national plan and the substitution of private monopoly with public ownership in special sectors. The economy should be incited in particular by the fiscal system and want to avoid ‘untaxed rewards of passive ownership of Stock Exchange speculation’.
The left winged manifesto of 1983 offers a ‘non-nuclear defence-policy’. Michael Foot and his present party wanted to ‘prepare for Britain's withdrawal from the EEC’ and ‘the return to public ownership’, ‘as required in the national interest’. In case of a Labour government there will be increasing taxes, however with a better wealth distribution.
In 1992 Kinnock demanded disarmament, however in concern with the co-operation with the other 7 nuclear powers. With regards to Europe there is significant deviation from the old Labour point of view. ‘We shall play an active part in negotiations on Economic and Monetary Union’. It is however obvious that he did not mention the word ‘nationalisation’, but he spoke about ‘strategic role’ of a modern government, that do ‘not to replace the market but [to] ensure that the market works properly’. For the fiscal system he promised the improvement of the benefits, which were supposed to be ‘self-financing’, this is the same as increasing taxes.
1997, Blair confirmed the traditional Labour attitude towards nuclear weapons and demanded their elimination. In his opinion about the role of Britain in the European Union, he fell into line with Kinnock and is promising a ‘new leadership from Britain to reform Europe’. With regards to the economy he mentioned over-centralisation of government as a former problem and the acceptance of the global economy as a reality and rejected the isolationism. He promised increasing taxes and a cut of VAT on heating.
In terms of the party renewal, I want to mention shortly the one-member-one-vote movement. For the first time this discussion emerged during Kinnock’s leadership in 1984. However, he had to face the resistance of the Unions and to agree on a compromise. Smith finally managed it in 1993 to enforce the OMOV. The union vote was cut from 40 percent to one third with regards to future elections for the leadership.
Another point is the change of the party-membership. Seyd and Whiteley see the origin of the shift at the grass roots due to the election defeat of 1983 and Kinnock’s modernisation. They mention a re-education-process of ‘the grassroots party into changing its views’. After the election defeat of 1992, the leadership saw in a revitalised grassroots party new political electoral advantages. Blair started an extensive mobilisation campaign and the party increased its size by 40 percent and includes about 400,000 members. To get new members, who are closer to the views of the leadership, was one of the primary objects. So, you can not only recognise a change in the type of member but also striking shifts in the party attitudes on crucial topics like redistribution, nationalisation, and class politics. The typical present party member, compared with the old, is described as more conservative and relatively inactive, ‘more working class, younger, less female, less affluent and less educated’. Issues like income, health redistribution, and public ownership lose importance and the individual becomes a priority. That means more and more of an agreement with Blair’s policy.
Another point has to be taken into consideration in talking about New Labour, the Third Way. Starting with Bill Clinton’s New Democrats, the Third Way ideology spread throughout the world. Inspired by Clinton, Tony Blair came back to power with New Labour, and Gerhard Schroeder in Germany with the Social Democrats. And there are many other countries, which are affected by this movement. In his book ‘The Third Way’, Anthony Giddens gives us some information about critics and reproaches, that the new way of thinking has to fight against. For some it is not more than an empty concept without any real content, where others blame Clinton and his followers and protest that it is a betrayal of left-wing ideals. The Third Way is often described as a
‘new balance of economic dynamism and social security, a new social compact based on individual rights and responsibilities, and a new model for governing that equips citizens and communities to solve their own problems’
The Labour Party tried to get a People’s Party and involved the economy more in politics. They transformed the call for less government and more governance and abandoned the old belief in Keynesian politics. The International Herald Tribune portrayed the new relation between the government and business the best:
‘…during the Labour Party conference the streets of Blackpool were no longer invaded by miners in overalls, but by businessmen, lawyers and management consultants, most of them wearing suits and equipped with mobile phones…’
Old Labour was seen as a party, which redistributes money in a welfare state. New Labour wants to redistribute life chances, employment and lifelong learning. Finally as described in the Schroeder/Blair-speech:
‘Social democracy has found new acceptance – but only because, while retaining its traditional values, it has begun in a credible way to renew its ideas and modernise its programmes. It has also found new acceptance because it stands not only for social justice but also for economic dynamism and the unleashing of creativity and innovation.’
In conclusion, I have to point out that New Labour is both ‘New’ and still a labour Party with social-democratic principles. ‘New’ in particular with regards to ideology, membership, party structure and the relation to the Trade Unions and the population. It is still a labour party, because the majority of members are part of the working class and the new ideology proved itself as job-generating machine. The social-democratic opinion has changed, but due to earlier mentioned reasons nobody can deny, that it is still a social-democratic party. The new way of thinking cannot be seen as a betrayal of old principles. Blair and his fellow thinkers have only recognised that it is about time, to get rid of the out-fashioned ideology and to adapt itself to the people’s way of thinking and get into closer contact with the electorate. Many little steps were necessary to create today’s picture of New Labour. Initiated by Neil Kinnock, the modernisation process peaked in the 1997- election victory of Tony Blair and the revision of Clause 4. Tony Blair was the person, who made a go of the concept of New Labour and found a compromise between both young and old, and modernisation and traditional ideology. The re-election in 2001 confirmed Blair and his party to be on the right track. However, an example, which represents the transition of the newly adapted principles becoming old-fashioned again, is best presented in the presidential election 2001 in the United Sates. Gore lost the election as the candidate for the New Democrats. We will see how Tony Blair is able to cope with the present problems. He has not only to face domestic issues, like the NHS and the conflict in Northern Ireland, but in particular the crisis relating the ‘War against Terrorism’. Gerhard Schroeder had to challenge the vote of no confidence in the German Parliament to enforce a participation of German troops in Afghanistan. How long will the British Parliament follow the United States in supporting them in this war with regards to a possible attack against Iraq? I think Labour has to stay in power to maintain the image of a new party.
Bibliography:
Brivati, B. and Heffernan, R., The Labour Party – A Centenary Histoty, (London: MacMillan
Press, 2000)
Giddens, A., The Third Way, the renewal of social democracy, (London: Polity Press, 1998)
Paterson, W. and Thomas, A., Social democratic parties in Western Europe, (London: Croom
Helm, 1977)
Webb, P., The Modern British Party System, (London: SAGE Publications, 2000)
Articles:
Allender, P., What’s New About New Labour, Politics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2001, pp.56-61
BBC Radio interview with Harold Wilson, February 1964; published in The Listener, 29
October 1964
Butler, A., The Third Way Project in Britain: The Role of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit,
Politics, vol. 20, no. 3, 2000, pp.153-159
Callaghan, J. and Tunney, S., The End of Social Democracy, Politics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2001,
pp.63-72
Dahrendorf, R., New Labour and Old Liberty: Four Comments on the Third Way, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, 14 July 1999
Driver, S. and Martell, L., From Old Labour to New Labour: A comment on Rubinstein,
Politics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2001, pp.47-50
Freeden, M., The Ideology of New Labour, Political Quaterly, 1999, pp.42-51
Kinnock, N., Which way should Labour go?, Political Quaterly, 1980, pp.411-423
Lent, A., Labour’s Transformation: Searching for the Point of Origin, Politics, vol. 17, no. 1,
1997, pp.9-15
Rubenstein, D., 'A New Look at New Labour', Politics, vol. 20, no. 3, 2000, pp.161-167
Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P., New Labour - New Grass Roots Party?
Web-Links
A year of New Labour's "third way":
Blair, T. and Schroeder, G., ‘Europe: The Third Way/Die neue Mitte’:
Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution:
Giddens and the Third Way:
Labour and the Third Way:
Labour Manifestos:
Web-Link: Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution.
Paterson, W. and Thomas, A., ‘Social democratic parties in Western Europe‘
Freeden, M., ‘The Ideology of New Labour’, p. 46
Freeden, M., ‘The Ideology of New Labour’, p. 47
Freeden, M., ‘The Ideology of New Labour’, p. 47
Callaghan, J. and Tunney, S., ‘The End of Social Democracy’, p. 63
Allender, P., ‘What’s New About New Labour’, p. 60
Brivati, B. and Heffernan, R., ‘The Labour Party – A Centenary History’, p. 303
BBC Radio interview with Harold Wilson, February 1964; published in The Listener, 29 October 1964
Brivati, B. and Heffernan, R., ‘The Labour Party – A Centenary History’, p. 312
Manifesto 1997 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1964 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1964 of the Labour Party
Allender, P., ‘What’s New About New Labour’, p. 57
Allender, P., ‘What’s New About New Labour’, p. 61
Lent, A., ‘Labour’s Transformation: Searching for the Point of Origin’, p. 10
Allender, P., ‘What’s New About New Labour’, p. 60
Lent, A., ‘Labour’s Transformation: Searching for the Point of Origin’, p. 11
Brivati, B. and Heffernan, R., ‘The Labour Party – A Centenary History’, p. 152
Manifesto 1964 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1964 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1964 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1983 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1983 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1983 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1983 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1992 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1992 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1992 of the Labour Party
Manifesto 1997 of the Labour Party
Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P., ‘New Labour - New Grass Roots Party?’, p.20
Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P., ‘New Labour - New Grass Roots Party?’, p.19
‘International Herald Tribune’, 30. September 1998
Blair, T. and Schroeder, G., ‘Europe: The Third Way/Die neue Mitte’