Old Labour believed strongly that there should be a large distribution of wealth across the country and this belief has weakened with New Labour who have largely abandoned this aim and instead aimed to attack poverty. Social justice and equality is the desire to rid certain inequalities in the country. Old Labour strongly believed that everyone is entitled to equality of opportunity and that the state is justified in intervening to eliminate the inequalities in life. Old Labour did this by evening out two main factors: firstly, they wanted to create greater opportunities for those who were deprived through no fault of their own, and secondly, they wanted to eliminate those who were privileged without their own accord. They decided to introduce a heavy inheritance tax which stopped many people starting out with a huge advantage in life and they provided a good standard of free education. In contrast, New Labour was much less concerned on redistribution of wealth as they believed that economic inequality is inevitable but they did believe that those who were unfortunately disadvantaged in life deserved a decent standard of living. There are still subsidies which are available to all in need such as pensioners but specific areas have been targeted such as those who are poor through no fault of their own. New Labour has adopted a large Anti-poverty campaign in which they aim to help those who are in most need of aid rather than the general distribution throughout the country.
Old Labour believed that the state should interfere in the economy in order to keep unemployment low but New Labour disagreed with this, believing that state intervention should be as little as possible but their main aim was to avoid public sector debt. Old Labour was extremely worried about unemployment (as it was not giving people equality of opportunity) which they deemed to be unjust and so they decided that it was necessary to intervene in the economy to reduce this. New Labour took a completely difference stance; they decided to intervene with the economy much less but allow public borrowing if it is used to invest in public services. They also decided to lower taxes and have the Bank of England control interest rates and this greatly benefited the economy for about ten years.
Old Labour and socialists in general have objected to private property for many reasons and encouraged common ownership whilst New Labour, were completely the opposite and believed that property should remain private and they were against the nationalisation of industry. Old Labour strongly believed that property gives rise to inequality and it increases the possibility of exploitation by the property owners to those who lack it. They therefore felt that common ownership can create economic equality and it is more “natural” in the sense that no-one can own the Earth. It is also feasible that common ownership benefits the whole community. New Labour wanted property to remain private and unlike Old Labour didn’t want nationalisation of industry because they thought that individuals prefer to own and control their own property.
Collectivism is the idea that people are more efficient and prefer to achieve goals collectively. This belief is obviously varied from complete collectivism (communism) to simply using it to produce and distribute goods and services. Old Labour strongly agreed with this and it strongly tied in with common ownership. An example of them putting collectivism was their strong support for unions. However New Labour believes in communitarianism which is a mixture of collectivism and individuality. They believe that each citizen needs a certain amount of freedom to partake in their own projects but they still want to keep the benefits of collectivism.
The typical Old Labour socialist belief about the constitution was that they wanted a radical reform but lacked the ability to do so, whilst New Labour was less radical but still implemented a huge reform. The socialist policy was to democratise institutions and promote equal rights but they never had the power to achieve any of these aims and so they simply remained ideals. New Labour did get to power and it did have a major constitutional reform. It contained devolution, the reform of the House of Lords and there was possible electoral reform. However, the eagerness of constitutional reform has eased now as they seem to be more satisfied with it.
Instead of tackling crime hard, Old Labour decided to concentrate on the cause of crime whilst New Labour agrees with this but also has decided to be “Tough on Crime” (Tony Blair 1994). Old Labour ideology suggests that the causes of crime were due to solvable social issues (such as poverty) and therefore by dealing with this, crime would be stopped. New Labour party agrees by acknowledging that the causes of crime need to be solved but they also adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards crime. This has led to increasingly harsh measures against young offenders such as ASBO’s as they strongly believe that it will deter the potential criminal in the first place.
Isolationism was a strong policy of Old Labour in the sense that they wanted Britain to distance itself from international affairs which is the complete opposite of New Labour. Old Labour was very anti-European and didn’t want to get involved with matters that did not concern herself. New Labour has taken Britain into a leading role in world affairs in which she tries to help poor countries and defend human rights (arguably more socialistic than Old Labour).
To conclude I would make the general assumption that New Labour is very different from Old Labour although some of the traditional values are still there. Old Labour was very idealistic in the sense that everyone should be equal and people should be given little freedom but this was not very practical due to the fact that society was not able to function and it is impossible to create a completely free society without controlling peoples lives’. New Labour recognised this and decided to evolve it by allowing and encouraging individualism as well as collectivism and only focusing on the poverty stricken rather than a huge redistribution of wealth. This was much more effective as it gave people freedom whilst resolving the most serious of the inequalities in society.
