“The Labour party is to secure for the workers the full fruits of their industry and the
fairest distribution that may be possible upon the basis of common ownership of
production, distribution and exchange.” The clause was related to nationalisation,
where by the sate government would own all major industries and was an ideological
commitment fort eh labour party of the 1980’sBut the new clause which came into
effect from1998 stated that the Labour party believes that “By strength of our
common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone and create for each of us
the potential for all of us to be a community in which power, wealth and opportunity
are in the hands of the many and not just the few.” This change was followed by
several examples of privatisation in 1998 when the government sold off shares in air
traffic control, the Tote, the Royal Mint and Commonwealth Development
Corporation, thus putting these industries into the control of individuals rather than
under governmental ownership. This policy would not have been considered under
old Labour due to its ideological commitment to public ownership and because
privatisation followed the policies of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980’s.Under New Labour
Gordon Brown developed new economic strategies which would
shift the role of the active state, from Keynesian demand management to supply-side interventions. “The supply side means not economic or industrial planning but the provision of education and training”. Brown communicated new ideas for the economy , including giving the Bank of England the control to change interest rates, a decision which had previously been taken by the treasury. This was both an economically and politically approved decision which would enable interest rates to independently fixed. Old Labour may not have agreed with this policy because of its desire for public ownership and government control. Before the 97 general election some argued that the Labour leadership’s abandonment of old ideological commitments and acceptance of market economics meant there were no real difference in the economic policies of the two main parties in some points this was true. For example in the election both Labour and Conservative parties emphasised the need to keep inflation low and the labour government promised to keep to conservative spending plans for the following two years.
Blair’s appeal to the ‘middle England’ was in contrast to the way in which Old Labour often isolated the middle classes. Many election policies including those of the economy were designed to encourage the C1 class electorate to vote Labour. Labour could now be presented as economically sound and with Blair’s personality leading the party labour soon experienced success in the polls.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly was New Labours break with the Trade Unions. During the 1980’s the unions had financially contributed vast sums of money into the labour party and in return experienced great influence and power. Blair however introduced OMOV (one member one vote) which meant that trade unions members’ power was curbed and the power of the unions declined, particularly during the leadership and parliamentary candidate’s elections.
The main principles of Old Labour were influenced by the Social Democrats and
Democratic Socialists, this was in contrast to New Labour who banned the traditional
Labour word ‘socialism’ but accepted the term Social Democracy. Old Labour had a
clause for Nationalism of means of production, distribution and exchange whereas
new Labour believes in the power, wealth and opportunity in the hands individuals
and the ‘many.’ Old Labour also had a close relationship with trade unions which has
been undermined in recent years and the party is now financed by individuals, and
business donations. Old Labour maintained the welfare state a policy with which it
has been argued New Labour have continued with after Browns new spending
increases have kept with socialist tradition of providing for the population form the
‘cradle to the grave’ vote and is financed by individual and business donations.
Driver and Martell 1998 p32-33
