Both Blair and Brown tried to present a model of politics they described as being both left and liberal in its leaning, but in reality, it was neither. In 1997, Tony Blair presented Labour’s election programme and put forward the ideals of equal opportunity, social justice and national renewal.
After a long period of Tory government, led first by Thatcher and then John Major, these felt like a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, by 2010 the mood had changed and the New Labour approach appeared technocratic and uninspiring. Indeed, when Gordon Brown stood on the platform during the leadership debates, he sounded like a man bereft of original ideas.The facts are that New Labour’s social policies stemmed from
their economic model for moving Britain forward. Blair, and later Brown believed incentives, accurate and well-planned commissioning and effective communication exchange could bring about a social revolution in this country. As part of this, Brown, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer held that finance capital and the banks were the key, because they were the best-informed agents for supplying ‘stability with growth’ for the national economy.This meant that the substance of public policies were based on these economic principles. Thus, plans for modernization and expansion of public services collapsed when the banking crisis emerged, alongside a broad public lack of confidence in Blair’s passion for target-setting and clear regulations.
As Professor Bill Jordan has argued, the same theory which prescribed a “light touch and a limited touch” for the oversight of the banks had also laid down the detailed structures – the NHS trusts, strategic authorities, inspection bodies, outcome measures, standards and funding principles – for the public sector. As a result, central government amassed the information, designed the incentives and sanctions and defined the contracts under which its policies were planned in order to produce socially desirable results.
As a system that operated impersonally through abstract economic forces, it neither required, nor sought the involvement, or loyalty of staff and service users. The notion put forward by New Labour under their Patient’s/ Citizen’s/ Parent’s Charter that service users should be engaged in delivery was only true to a point – their input was only of merit if it confirmed the planning and strategic aims of the existing structures, where it differed, it became a nuisance. As a result, even New Labour’s achievements often went unappreciated, whilst its mechanistic processes were broadly rejected and its failings deplored.
It was only a matter of time before this weakness in the New Labour project would be exploited. The heavy swing to Labour in 1997 crumbled almost as soon as it achieved power and continued through the 2001 and 2005 elections. By 2010, defeat was inevitable, but was enhanced by the Tories ability to identify New Labour’s shortcomings and offer an attractive alternative. This, coupled with a charismatic leader with the ability to ‘work the media’, meant the Tories were riding high on a wave of success. Their proposal to take power away from the state and switch it to the individual and communities achieved mass support in an electorate tired of hearing the ‘newspeak’ of performance standards and fed up of living in a climate where policies emerged out of needs assessments and risk analyses. When the Tories spoke of the “bonfire of the quangos”, they reached the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Even public servants working in the system were unconvinced by the arguments put forward by New Labour strategists like David Miliband, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson. Most felt disconnected from the human nature of their services. Scandals such as the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Hospital Trust that led to unnecessary deaths and poor standards of care, showed that ordinary compassion and basic professional standards had been sacrificed for the attainment of lucrative Foundation status, and inspections (despite having clearly defined guidelines) failed to identify lapses in patient care.In the end, the New Labour project showed little or no sensitivity to the moral and ethical features that sustain good practice, focusing instead on implementing “evidence-based methods through electronic record-keeping and assessing “quality standards” against official checklists. The result was that a party once dedicated to the social welfare of the working class was now governing a society where empathy, creativity and imagination were attitudes of the past.
Cameron cleverly recognized this and promised public servants that, if elected, he would give them more autonomy and the discretion to ‘use their judgment’. It proved popular. He then told the electorate he wanted to see a culture where public servants would be more accountable to service users. In advocating the creation of the Big Society, Cameron was calling for new and existing community organizations to assist in the formation of groups to support people at a local level. As part of this, he extended New Labour’s “Rights and Responsibilities” agenda by arguing that if we were to repair Broken Britain, it would need a new volunteer army who accepted that as citizens they would need to take responsibility for rebuilding local communities.
Under New Labour, citizenship had been viewed quite differently and had been defined as a contract between the individual and the state and sustained through the former’s independence and self-responsibility. In this analysis, ethical goals such as distributive equity (including the redistribution of wealth), social well-being and sustainable lifestyles were not the responsibility of each individual, but the state and it was the duty of government to manipulate the framework to bring about the best outcomes.
New Labour by the end was blinkered and unwilling to hear any opposition. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggesting the electorate saw UK society as too individualistic was largely ignored. Instead, the government breached some of the most sacred cows of modern socialism and imposed greater levels of surveillance, more sanctions and restrictions of civil rights and attacks on the most disadvantaged members of society.
In the end, New Labour was consigned to the garbage bin of history and Cameron and the Tories were elected. Significantly, the Tories failed to deliver on almost all of their election pledges – replacing them with some of the most austere measures this country has seen for a generation. A mass movement is building that is angry and determined to stand against the Tories and their allies, the Lib Dems. Most of this opposition is coming from people with little or no allegiance to the Labour Party. Indeed, the majority have, for reasons mentioned above, good reason not to trust the Labour Party – some will feel let down, others will have no history of associating the party with radicalism and militancy.
The coming months will be critical - Labour could easily opt for continuing along the social democratic path laid out by Blair, Mandelson, Miliband and the rest of the ‘old school’. If they choose this route there is a probability Labour will not be in power for years. The bitterness it will leave amongst activists, coupled with the lack of trust for the leadership will guarantee the party remains on the opposition benches.
Alternatively, the Party can look inside itself and rediscover its socialist roots. It will require rigorous honesty and a willingness to accept the New Labour project was, in many respects, a mistake. More importantly, it will mean redefining the goals and philosophy that will drive the party forward. In this respect, the Labour Representation Committee will have a critical role in rebuilding the party. However, it will mean forming alliances with other socialist groups – something the hard left has historically been poor at. It will also mean developing a far more media friendly face to attract new supporters. In both thee areas the hard left has a long way to go.
It’s all very well marching alongside comrades at demonstrations, or applauding loudly at left-wing conferences, but we have to take things to a whole new level. We have to win the hearts and minds of the vast majority of party members and extend it to establish a major political force amongst the electorate.
No-one ever said the path to socialism would be easy.
