New Labour in Perspective: A Comment on Rubinstein
| Published date | 01 February 2001 |
| Date | 01 February 2001 |
| Author | Phil Larkin |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.00135 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
New Labour in Perspective:
A Comment on Rubinstein
Phil Larkin
University of Hertfordshire
In a recent issue of this journal, David Rubinstein (2000) questioned Stephen Driver and Luke
Martell’s characterisation of New Labour as a fundamental break with the past. Rubinstein notes
important continuities between ‘Old’ Labour governments and the current Blair government, and
correctly challenges Driver and Martell’s simple ‘old’/’new’ portrayal. However, he underestimates
the extent to which contextual changes impact upon a left-of-centre government’s ability to
achieve its aims.
In his recent article in this journal, David Rubinstein (2000) challenged the
portrayal of New Labour as fundamentally different in its aims and strategy from
previous ‘Old Labour’ governments given by, amongst others, Stephen Driver and
Luke Martell (1998). He might also have mentioned that this portrayal has also been
adopted by the representatives of the pre- and post-Blairite Party. In his regular
column in The Guardian, the former deputy leader Roy Hattersley has frequently
claimed that John Smith’s death in 1994 and his succession by Blair marked the
advent of a different party (for a recent example see Hattersley, 2000). But this is
a line also put forward (though naturally in a more favourable light) by Peter
Mandelson (Mandelson and Liddle, 1996).
Rubinstein is correct in noting a number of similarities between ‘old’ and ‘new’
Labour governments. This highlights the political marketing strategy by which the
party has sought to bracket off the unpleasant associations of its past. The Winter
of Discontent, the IMF crisis, ‘lame duck’ nationalised industries and punitive
direct taxation were a product of the ‘old’ Labour Party and thus not things
associated with, never mind to be repeated by, the new improved Labour Party.
The portrayal of the pre-Blair Labour Party given by Driver and Martell too readily
accepts the representations of the party’s past that allow easy old/new contrasts to
be drawn. Where Old Labour was egalitarian, New Labour talks of social inclusion;
Old Labour’s social liberalism has been replaced by New Labour’s conservative
communitarianism; Old Labour favoured public ownership where New Labour
favours public/private partnership. However this straight old/new dichotomy does
ignore the very real continuity in a number of areas, a number of which are noted
by Rubinstein. In office Labour has frequently disappointed its supporters in terms
of redistribution and has certainly never managed the ‘fundamental and
irreversible’ shift of wealth it claims to have sought in the past.1The socially liberal
tenure of a home secretary such as Roy Jenkins should not distract attention from
the rather more illiberal nature of his successor, Jim Callaghan. The party in office
has rarely been much of a friend to the trade unions. And, outside the com-
paratively uncontroversial nationalisations of the Attlee government,2there has
POLITICS: 2001 VOL 21(1), 51–55
© Political Studies Association, 2001.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
To continue reading
Request your trial