‘It is not the socialism of Marx or state control. It is rooted in a straightforward view of society. In the understanding that the individual does best in a strong and decent community of people with principles and standards and common aims and values. We are the party of the individual because we are the party of community. It is social-ism.’

These words, which could have been uttered by Ed Miliband in 2011 were, in fact, part of Tony Blair’s first address to the Labour party conference as leader in 1994, thus indicating that the rupture between the former and the latter’s leaderships may not turn out to be as great as some may hope or indeed fear.

It is, though, incumbent on those who believe New Labour is relevant to the party’s chances at the next election to define what progressive politics should stand for in 2015, not simply parrot the agenda of 2005.

It is in this context that we view Jon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford’s article in the last issue of Progress, which provoked lively debate on ProgressOnline and in Progress reading groups across the country. Their articulation of the ‘blue Labour’ agenda, which argues for a ‘politics of belonging’ and defends ‘continuity of relationships at work and in neighbourhoods’, has been echoed in Miliband’s call for the party to ‘defend ways of life which give people self-respect’.

These sentiments may initially seem alien to those who subscribe to the New Labour cause. And to fail to recognise the benefits that have arisen from Britain’s openness to the world would be a grave mistake. So too would be the suggestion that Labour need only increase its share of the white working-class vote to return to power.

However, ‘blue Labour’ and New Labour may have more to learn from one another than first appearances suggest. As Blair’s words indicate, New Labour was never simply about the party’s belated – and necessary – acceptance of markets. Instead, it was an attempt to marry that acceptance with the values of opportunity, responsibility and, most especially, community. The communitarianism of American social scientist Amitai Etzioni, for instance, was first articulated by Bill Clinton in his revitalisation of the Democratic party. After Blair’s election as Labour leader, Etzioni was described as ‘the father of Blair’s big idea’.

It would be wrong to think that this belief that New Labour should be the ‘party of community’ was casually cast aside when the party entered office in favour of the global market and, most particularly, an indifference to its destructive consequences in some parts of the country. Indeed, the drive to reform welfare, reduce joblessness and crack down on crime and antisocial behaviour which animated much of Blair’s premiership showed an ongoing concern to foster strong, cohesive communities.

Nonetheless, this was only one part of the equation and it is true that New Labour appeared at times to suggest that there were severe constraints on what the state could do to temper the chill economic winds which, even at the height of prosperity, continued to batter some communities. Late in the day, the industrial activism which Peter Mandelson brought with his return to the cabinet showed the role government could play and, as historian and new Labour MP Gregg McClymont argues on page 24, must continue to.

More crucially, however, Labour’s continuing attachment to Whitehall as the means to deliver change blinded it to the other possibilities which might have emerged from a greater attempt to spread and redistribute power to local communities, to users of public services and to employees in their workplaces. In so doing, it could have drawn upon the rich tradition of collective self-help, mutualism, and the cooperative and trade union movements which animated its early years, perhaps finding common ground with currents of thinking like that represented by ‘blue Labour’.

This remains, though, the territory upon which, as Michael Stephenson argues on page 18, Labour can develop a distinct ‘people power’ alternative to the ‘big society’ – one rooted in greater accountability in public services, much greater employee ownership in the economy, and, crucially, adequate safeguards against the kind of asset-stripping which the Tories’ plans could so easily develop into. This ‘people power’ will be about ensuring that there is a proper balance of interests in our economy and society.

It is also territory which will provide a stark contrast between Labour’s vision of change which is managed in a way that protects those things which people hold most dear and the Tories’ apparent abandonment of their conservative roots in favour of a kind of revolutionary fervour which threatens to test not only our public services, but the very fabric of Britain’s civic society to destruction. Rightly framed and persuasively argued, this is a contest New Labour can help shape and win.

Photo: Rick Toomer