Beyond New Labour
Edited by Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle
Methuen
237pp
£14.99

With a stellar cast of the great and the good of social democratic thinking and a title which promises a way out for those tired of New Labour orthodoxy, this book was always going to have a hard task in satisfying its audience. The grand project which led to three never-achieved-before victories for the Labour Party is now variously described as in need of reinvention, dying or dead. So a tome titled ‘Beyond New Labour’ leads the reader to wonder whether it will describe if it’s possible to rejuvenate Blair’s project, or whether it will argue that we need to take an axe to it and spell out what comes next.

It’s not altogether surprising that this book struggles to do either of these things, but in spite of that, it is an impressive attempt at pulling together the various conundrums which have come to define New Labour’s period in office, and the political, economic and societal dilemmas which those who care about the future of left politics in Britain need to take on board if the Labour movement is to remain a relevant force in UK politics. Broadly, the book contains three main themes: why New Labour’s approach to market intervention is inadequate; how electoral, cultural and social change has altered the parameters of the left/right axis in politics; and the need for Labour to approach the issue of equality with greater clarity.

John Kay and Will Hutton explain the reasons why New Labour has become a victim rather than the master of markets. Kay writes: “In New Labour’s acceptance of the market, there has been something of the zeal of the convert in the readiness to believe in market efficiency”, while Hutton muses that in retrospect, “it seems amazing that anybody could ever have believed that the financial markets alone could pioneer a new economic future or believed for a nanosecond in the efficient market doctrine.” According to Kay, this was because Gordon Brown’s doctrine of market failure, was flawed as it was based on a “fundamental separation between economic and political spheres”. However, some economic choices are “essentially collective and cannot be described as a summation of personal preferences” which means that issues such as top-up fees, funding the longterm  care of the elderly, and executive remuneration cannot simply be answered by leaving it to the market. Kay does not reject the use of the market in public services entirely, however, writing that “the ability of consumers to exercise choice raises standards” and that “the most effective means of getting a good school is to be able to reject a bad one”.

This appears to work against calls from Labour’s left that the problem New Labour faces is an obsession with introducing markets into public services, and if only it were to drop this focus on ensuring individuals are able to make a choice in receiving services, the public would come flocking back to the party. In fact as Peter Riddell’s thorough analysis of the electoral landscape shows, what seems to matter to the public most is not ideological positioning, but competence. Riddell also suggests that the growing decline in support for greater redistribution and for left of centre positions particularly among Labour supporters, shows that “the Labour left’s alternative of a return to redistribution and government intervention on behalf of ‘our people’, a core vote, class-based strategy, has few electoral attractions”. At the same time, the UK has experienced massive change as Roger Liddle and Simon Latham’s chapter describes in great detail, leaving traditional old labour vs new dichotomies looking a little
irrelevant.

Instead, as the introduction argues, there is a new tension in social democracy which is emerging which divides into ‘cosmopolitan’ vs ‘communitarian’. One area where this division can be seen is in Labour’s approach towards migration and identity in Britain. As Hannah Jameson argues, “New Labour’s response to diversity and identity has been largely piecemeal. The desire for increased immigration to support a flexible labour market and drive economic growth has meant having to reassure the majority over migration fears, often by deploying tough rhetoric.” Yet that very rhetoric makes it difficult for new citizens to properly integrate. If Labour is going to remain a progressive, outward looking party, therefore, Jameson writes it will need to pursue “a greater civic identity, based on a renewed conception of citizenship”. Neither the old left, nor New Labour, has satisfactorily developed such a basis for moving the debate forward.

Finally, what does the book have to say about the enduring debate around the question of how to tackle inequality? It concludes by suggesting that while New Labour has made “significant strides in reducing poverty”, it also “under-estimated the profundity and complexity of the inequalities challenge in modern British society”. Social democrats must address themselves to the question of “who deserves what in a socially diverse society” and “resolve an enduring dilemma in a new form: ensuring that the plight of the worst off resonates with the middle-class majority”. So is New Labour the vehicle through which to make this change? The editors seem to suggest not: “it is our belief that a ‘next generation’ social democratic project for Britain is needed: not a reversion to traditionalism, nor a further revisionist project on the Crosland model”. A third way perhaps? But at least the “next generation of Labour politicians” that Patrick Diamond and Roger Liddle are putting their faith in, “can draw on the success of the New Labour project, confident that the centre-left is able to win the battle of ideas and govern competently in the name of a more equal and just society”. So perhaps New Labour is not dying, not dead, just different?

This article was originally published in the Fabian Review.