Labour's Policy Review: A Case of Historical Continuity?
| Published date | 01 April 1990 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1990.tb00175.x |
| Date | 01 April 1990 |
| Author | Robert Garner |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Politics
(1990)
lO(1)
pp
33-39
LABOUR’S
POLICY
REVIEW
A
CASE
OF
HISTORICAL
CONTINUITY?
ROBERT
GARNER
IN
MAY
1989
the results of Labour’s policy review were published in a
70,000
word document called
Meet the Challenge,
Mah
the Change.
Many regard the
document as representing a hndamental change
in
Labour’s approach. The
left
of
the party,
in
particular, fought tooth and nail against what they saw
as,
in Tony
Berm’s
words, ‘the abandonment of the socialist analysis
in
favour of
the David Owen approach’. Ajournalist, in more approving terms, wrote that
the review marked ‘one of the biggest
shifts
in
Labour
thinking since the
war’
(Guardian,
9
May
1989).
The
aim
of this article
is
to
provide
an
historical
perspective
to
the debates surrounding Labour’s policy review in order
to
show that, far hm marking
a
radical departure from the past, the content
of
the policy review reports and ancillary statements of principle from the
leadership remains quite consistent with the major characteristics of
mainstream British socialist thought as
it
has developed since the turn
of
the
century. Furthermore,
our
historical analysis
will
show
that
the political
environment within which Labour
is
operating
is
not new. Indeed, there
are
some striking comparisons between Labour‘s present predicament, and the
leadership’s response
to
it,
and the period of Ramsay Machnald’s leadership
in
the
1920s.
The
Policy
Review
The policy review was set in motion by Labour’s conference after the partfs
third successive election defeat in
1987.
Seven policy groups were
set
up
to
consider Werent areas of
policy.
Their preliminary reports were approved by
the National Executive Committee (NEC) in May
1988
and the Conference
in
October.
AU
but one of the final reports were overwhemingly approved by the
NEC in May
1989.
The one exception, not surprisingly,
was
the defence
report
which, with
its
multilateral and bilateral emphasis,
was
eventually accepted
by
17
votes
to
eight.At the Brighton Conference
in
October
1989,
the
reports
were accepted not least because the option of amending them,
as
opposed
to
outright rejection,
was
ruled out by the leadership. Crucially, the leadership
could rely
on
their traditional allies
in
the trade
unions
and even the
opposition of
Ron
Todd’s Transport and General
union
was
not enough
to
defeat the defence report.
It is clear that Labour’s leadership got what they wanted out
of
the review
process.
Kinnock,
in
particular, had pre-empted the results by outlining his
vision
of a moderate reformist
socialism
in
various interviews, speeches
and
writings.
Running alongside this were his attempts
to
reform
Labour‘s
organisation. The
proposals
to
widen the franchise for the selection and
re-
33
To continue reading
Request your trial