Inside Politics: Exploring the Evolution of the UK Labour Party
Introduction
In the world of British politics, one phrase that often comes up when discussing the current leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, is “Keir Starmer is not Tony Blair.” While this may seem like a simple observation, it highlights an important distinction between the two leaders and their respective parties. In a recent book launch, Colm Murphy, a professor of British politics, explores the early years of New Labour and sheds light on the complexity and intellectual foundation of the party’s transformation. This event serves as a reminder that the current Labour Party is in a different position compared to its past, and there are unique challenges and opportunities to consider.
Understanding New Labour’s Legacy
Murphy’s book, “The Future of Socialism,” offers a comprehensive history of the rise of New Labour from 1973 to 1997. It challenges the popular narrative that New Labour simply adapted to Thatcherism under Tony Blair. Instead, Murphy argues that the emergence of New Labour was a much more nuanced and intellectually driven endeavor. While the book may not be readily accessible to all due to its academic nature, its key message is worth considering.
One notable aspect of New Labour’s development was its engagement with the political successes of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The party’s debates on “modernization” in the 1980s and 1990s were shaped, in part, by the conservative governments in power. Furthermore, Blair’s government inherited a favorable economic climate after defeating Major in 1997. This context played a significant role in shaping the party’s intellectual landscape.
Contrasting Labour’s Past and Present Debates
Comparing the intellectual foment of Labour’s period in opposition from 1979 to 1997 with the current state of the party reveals distinct differences. Labour’s discussion of modernization and its vision for the future during that time was more vibrant and focused compared to what we see today. The party had a clearer sense of its big-picture missions and goals.
One of the reasons behind the current Labour Party’s somewhat ambiguous debate about the future is the absence of a comparable legacy. The economic model of the last Labour government faced challenges during the global financial crisis and further disruptions caused by Brexit and the loss of single market membership. Additionally, the global economy is shifting towards protectionism, which presents further obstacles.
The Implications of Brexit and Global Politics
Brexit has had a significant impact on the economic model of the previous Labour government. The loss of single market membership, combined with the global shift towards protectionism, has created a challenging landscape for the UK. Guy Verhofstadt, former Brexit coordinator for the European Parliament, once stated that the world of tomorrow is a “world of empires.” According to Verhofstadt, the UK must choose between the American, Chinese, and EU empires, with the EU being the most viable option.
While Verhofstadt’s framing may not have been politically wise, recent global developments have proven the essential truth behind his argument. However, it’s important to note that the European “empire” lacks the ability to defend itself or act with genuine strategic autonomy. This further complicates the UK’s position as it navigates its relationship with its closest geographical neighbor.
Climate Spending and the Starmer Project
Labour’s focus on climate spending as a means to unlock growth and prosperity is an area where the party draws inspiration from the United States and the Biden administration. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the United States can be considered an empire, according to Verhofstadt’s definition. On the other hand, the UK lacks a similar status, and being outside the immediate neighborhood of the EU presents its own challenges.
Conclusion
The history of the UK Labour Party’s transformation into New Labour offers valuable insights into the party’s present-day challenges. The intellectual foundation and complex evolution of the party cannot be simplified or ignored. Understanding the nuances of the party’s past can shed light on the current debates and the unique landscape Labour finds itself in.
As the party navigates its future, it must address Brexit’s impact, the shifting global economic climate, and its own intellectual trajectory. Labour’s focus on climate spending and its aspirations for growth and prosperity should be considered with the challenges of being outside of the EU’s immediate orbit.
By exploring the lessons and insights from New Labour’s history, the party can construct meaningful strategies to shape its future. However, it must also acknowledge the unique context in which it finds itself today and adapt accordingly. Through intellectual rigor and clear vision, Labour can establish a compelling narrative to inspire its supporters and regain political momentum.
Summary
The UK Labour Party’s transformation into New Labour was a complex and intellectually driven endeavor, explored in Colm Murphy’s book, “The Future of Socialism.” Comparing Labour’s history to its present debates highlights the challenges and opportunities the party faces. Brexit and the shifting global economic landscape have impacted Labour’s economic model and its relationship with the EU. Labour’s focus on climate spending draws inspiration from the United States but must reckon with the UK’s unique position. Understanding these factors and embracing a clear vision for the future can guide Labour in reclaiming political influence and shaping its trajectory.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Get free updates on the UK Labor Party
We will send you a myFT Daily Digest email rounding last British Labor Party news every morning.
This article is an on-site version of our Inside Politics newsletter. Registration Here to receive the newsletter directly in your inbox every day of the week
Good morning. Here’s a phrase you can safely use if you can’t think of something profound to say about British politics: Keir Starmer is not Tony Blair.
However, some of the more important reasons for this are overlooked. One of them is that their party’s political and intellectual positions are very different. Yesterday I went to the launch of a fascinating new story of the early years of New Labour. As well as being great archival work, it has some interesting things for all of us in the UK to think about today. Some thoughts on that below.
Inside Politics is edited by Georgina Quach. Follow Stephen on Twitter @stephenkb and please send your gossip, thoughts and feedback to insidepolitics@ft.com
Imperfect future
I went to the new book launch last night The future of socialism by Colm Murphy, Professor of British Politics at Queen Mary, University of London and Deputy Director of the Mile End Institute. It is a rich history of the emergence of New Labor starting in 1973 and ending in 1997.
Through his extensive use of archival material, Murphy makes a cogent argument: that the popular account of the rise of New Labour, in which the party has adapted to Thatcherism under Tony Blair, is simplistic. In Murphy’s account, the emergence of New Labor is a far more complex and far more intellectual endeavor than that. (Unfortunately it is a scholarly monograph, so while it has much to recommend to the lay reader, it comes at a heavy price. Ask your local librarian to get you a copy and/or write peevish letters to Cambridge University Press until they publish a paperback at a reasonable price.)
Murphy wisely avoids drawing too many contemporary parallels, but reading the book it became obvious to me that there is an unflattering one to be drawn between the intellectual foment of Labour’s last sustained period in opposition from 1979 to 1997 and, well, that that Labor now has.
Part of that, as I recently wrote in my column, is also a reflection on Conservative government. Labor’s debate on ‘modernisation’ in the 1980s and 1990s was shaped in part by the political successes of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Blair benefited from what must be, in economic terms, the most benevolent inheritance ever bestowed on an incoming government when she defeated Major in 1997.
One of the reasons the Labor Party has a somewhat fuzzy debate about the future – big picture missions and goals, yes, but nothing like what happened during Murphy’s book arc – is that it now has nothing similar to that legacy. (If you haven’t already, give it to Chris Giles brilliant but bleak account of what Labor would inherit if it won a reading in the next election.)
One way politicians are just like you and me is that if they care about an inconvenient truth they often choose to simply ignore it. One such difficult truth is Brexit. The economic model of the last Labor government took a major blow in the global financial crisis, and then Brexit and the loss of our single market membership put an end to it.
Furthermore, the global economy is heading into a new era of protectionism. (You have to call it “de-risking” or “friendshoring” these days. It’s political correctness gone mad.)
During the Liberal Democrat conference in 2019, Guy Verhofstadt, the then Brexit coordinator for the European Parliament, he told the hall that the world of tomorrow was “a world of empires”, and given the choice between the American, Chinese and EU empires, the UK would have to choose the EU. His speech was, I think, not politically wise. But in political terms, everything in global politics since has confirmed the essential truth of his argument. (That said, as Gideon Rachman’s clever column this week reminds me, the European “empire” is far from having the ability to defend itself or to act with genuine strategic autonomy.)
As Janan Ganesh notes today, many in Labor are placing a lot of faith in the idea that its climate spending will help it unlock growth and prosperity, and much of the intellectual energy around the Starmer project is blowing from the United States and the administration of Joe Biden. But the United States AND in fact an empire, at least according to Verhofstadt’s definition. The UK is not one and the difficulties of being outside the closest thing that has its immediate neighborhood have not yet gone away.
Now try this
I saw Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. I love a corporate, crowd-pleasing blockbuster, but this was too much for me: a movie that managed to spend a mouth-watering sum of money while still giving off an overwhelming whiff of “will this be okay?” Danny Leigh got a much better impression of it, though: read his review hereAND its selection of the six best films of the year so far here.
Today’s best stories
-
High stakes | A meeting between the Pensions Regulator and the £90bn Universities Superannuation Scheme, which is a major investor in Thames Water with a 20% stake it will already happen this weekaccording to people familiar with the situation.
-
Councils urge Khan to reverse the expansion of the pollution tax | Mayor Sadiq Khan’s controversial plan to expand London the clean air zone should be blockedpartly due to a flawed and “incomprehensible” consultation process, the UK High Court heard yesterday.
-
The “blood mastermind” of the government. . . gets in the way | A request from young doctors for a salary increase of approx 35% is “not set in stone”according to the head of the British Medical Association, signaling a possible compromise with the government in the union’s longstanding wage dispute.
-
Inflation ‘more persistent’ than expected | The prime minister has admitted the Bank of England’s task is to cut inflation it had been complicated from the largest share of people with fixed rate mortgages, as he pledged to reduce public debt and take a “responsible” approach to public sector pay.
-
Sunak accused of betraying populations vulnerable to global warming | The government is drawing up plans for abandon the UK’s £11.6 billion climate and nature finance pledge, according to a leaked briefing note to ministers, delivered to the Foreign Office and seen by the Guardian’s Helena Horton and Patrick Greenfield. The Foreign Office said the government remains committed to delivering on the pledge.
—————————————————-