Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

How New Labour turned toxic

Published 06 December 2007

For fear of letting in the Tories, party loyalists and trade unionists have stayed silent. But the need to speak up for core Labour values has never been so urgent, argue Jon Cruddas and Jon Trickett. Plus our unrivalled political insights in the Inside Track

Looking at the government's nightmarish predicament, one thought occurs time and again: that new Labour's chickens are coming home to roost. The travails over donations link in turn to the cash-for-honours episode, but the origins of the current crisis go much further back - to the early to mid-1990s, when understandable optimism about Labour's skyrocketing prospects served to obscure a mess of factors that were probably always going to turn toxic.

More than a decade on, we're faced with crises of both substance and style, and these are coming together to create a perfect storm of political havoc. Ultimately the two are linked, because the political substance of new Labour has always demanded the centralised model of politics that long ago left the party floundering, and led in turn to the current funding crisis. The upshot is simple: in order to navigate through a Westminster soap opera that seems to lie somewhere between Our Friends in the North and House of Cards and draw hardened political conclusions, we have to examine what went wrong with the new Labour project.

After years in opposition and with the political and economic dominance of neoliberalism, new Labour essentially raised the white flag and inverted the principle of social democracy. Society was no longer to be master of the market, but its servant. Labour was to offer a more humane version of Thatcherism, in that the state would be actively used to help people survive as individuals in the global economy - but economic interests would always call all the shots. Once the Blair government took power, the essentials of its approach became clear: from the commercialisation of public services to flexible labour markets, on through soaring executive pay and on in turn to party funding, big business and the politics of the market had taken pole position.

Social insecurity

This primacy of the economic over the social has created some winners but many losers. The market is contaminating society as inequality grows and anxiety spreads. The credit crunch, falling house prices and the failure of Northern Rock are straws in the wind of an economy on the turn. Nothing exemplifies the UK's snowballing social insecurity more than the march that the Tories stole on inheritance tax. Polling has shown that the political sensitivity of inheritance tax is rooted in our homes being the only source of security we have. Jobs are lost or outsourced; company pensions collapse; long-term care bills loom, as do university tuition fees. Bricks and mortar are all we have to cling to.

So much for new Labour's substance. When it comes to its operating style, decision-making has always had to be controlled. The activists and the unions cannot be trusted: not only do they not understand the nature of the drive to reposition Labour as a party that continues the neoliberal revolution - albeit in a more humane form - but they must not ever be allowed to understand it. Thus, the life of the party has been purposefully sucked from it. The post of general secretary of the party - a once-mighty position - goes to administrators; the NEC is kept permanently in the dark; and the role of conference as a decision-making body has recently been brought to an end. Talk to the members Labour has remaining, and it becomes clear: the notion of an engaged, democratic party looks either dead or on life support. Where is the million-member party that was promised? Where is any notion of pluralism with independent centres of power that provide checks and balances on the parliamentary leadership? In their place, control has been handed to an elite few to force the party to change beyond recognition.

New Labour has left the party without the oxygen of modern social democracy to sustain it, while imposing a political culture that actually serves to leave the new leadership horribly exposed. To use a military analogy, it is the supply lines back to the roots that sustain and feed you. Without them, things always come unstuck. In short, Blairism has stretched the Labour Party to breaking point.

And so, to a note of qualified optimism. All this presents us with a pivotal moment. Will new Labour now be entrenched or replaced? The shape of Gordon Brown's response remains unclear, but it should be judged according to clear criteria. First, there has to be an end to triangulation and a lasting move towards more progressive politics. Just as Compass did a few weeks ago, we can only remind the Prime Minister that the kind of sentiments contained in his 2004 speech on the progressive consensus have the potential to push the party into territory where it can effectively mix power with principle.

The first aspects of this progressive approach must be symbolised by the way we fund and conduct politics within the Labour movement. The party and the country must witness a determination to identify and reject anyone who has behaved illegally or inappropriately in relation to the funding of the party. This, in turn, has to be accompanied by a drive to diminish the penetration of British politics by the power of wealth.

These steps will be necessary, but insufficient. In tandem, we need to begin the renewal of the party's federal structures and a renaissance of an engaged, meaningful conception of democracy. Both the Blairites and the Tories want the link with the unions broken for ever. If that happens, Labour will be finished as a party that can speak to working people's authentic concerns, and will stand revealed as a flimsy electoral machine built to chase the votes of a mythic Middle England - just as the same insecurities that affect Labour's core vote eat into the lives of those people concentrated in the more affluent marginals.

The point needs to be made at every available opportunity: the retention of the union link is a red line that cannot be crossed - not for reasons of factional interest, but to ensure that Labour remains in touch with the kinds of concerns that Westminster can all too easily forget.

Equality and democracy

Moreover, the senior officers of the Labour Party must become independent of the parliamentary leadership, starting with the appointment of a new general secretary with real operating autonomy. We should also demand the separation of the deputy leadership from a properly elected party chair.

To sound a slightly more ideological note, the aim of our politics is to put people in control of their lives and their world. We know we can't do this as individuals or consumers - only as citizens. For that to happen, we need a truly democratic politics, a thriving public realm and a more equal distribution of resources to ensure everyone fulfils their potential. All of this is anathema to the world of profit and the market. The means of creating the good society - greater equality and more democracy - have to become the ends. Means and ends are thus reconciled.

There is still no strong turn to the Tories. It remains true that it is governments that lose elections, and the next election is hardly a foregone conclusion. With more than two years until the end of this parliamentary term, there is still time to turn our fortunes around. But if that is to happen, the party leadership has to come down heavily on the side of change over continuity.

Both party and unions have stayed silent for too long, for fear of letting in the Tories. But as politics drifts further to the right and Labour's essential identity is in real danger, there is more risk in not speaking up. To encourage debate and renewal in Sweden's Social Democratic Party, its new leader coined a phrase for dissident voices - she calls them "loving critics". There is still time for Labour's leadership to listen to such voices and alter its course. But we don't have long.

Jon Cruddas is MP for Dagenham and was a candidate in the recent deputy leadership contest

Jon Trickett is MP for Hemsworth

Post this article to

24 comments from readers

gnuneo
06 December 2007 at 12:21

absolutely superb article!

it is only to be hoped that it is listened to by those who can make the necessary changes.

one note i would disagree with:

"we need a truly democratic politics, a thriving public realm and a more equal distribution of resources to ensure everyone fulfils their potential. All of this is anathema to the world of profit and the market."

in actual fact, as can be seen from the example of denmark and skandi in general, such a move actually brings in MORE profit, and is pure market based - it is hardly a model of a 'free market" when 5 people in a community own over 25% of its wealth, and the bottom 50% of the community own less than 1% of its wealth. This is NOT a free market, and the danish switch to agricultural cooperatives at the end of the 19th century, spreading the wealth around, is the key element to grasping where the current high living standards of DK come from.

in actual fact, switching to a more social democratic state, with more capitalist partnerships, will BOTH increase social justice, AND increase wealth, AND also follow market principles!

it has been heartbreaking to watch that incredible hope and optimism shown on the day that blair and the new labour project took power, when he walked through london and people flocked the streets simply to see him (could either he or bush do that now? Enough said), turn into bitter disillusionment and rejection of parliamentary politics.

i cannot help but wonder what john smith could have achieved in the same situation...

this is a timely message to those who rule our lands, if you wish to prevent our future slide into anarchy, followed by totalitarian fascism, then now is the time for you to move your chips to the side of the People. If you do not do so, not only are you betraying any kind of 'christian' values you may hold, but frankly - you ARE a traitor to the British People.

as Jon and Jon say, time IS running out - but it has not yet run out for you to find your moral compass, and have the guts to do what is RIGHT, and not what is easiest.

in 50yrs you will be dead anyway - do what is right for the British People who have entrusted you with our future.

Stephen Newton
06 December 2007 at 14:05

The assertion that 'Society was no longer to be master of the market, but its servant,' could only be made by someone who believes state capitalism is the remedy for market failure and who has never come close to understanding the intellectual underpinnings of New Labour.

The truth is that New Labour accepted that markets exist whether we like that or not. And more importantly that market failure needs to be addressed with, for example, smart regulation (e.g. the minimum wage) and targeted taxation (e.g. on fossil fuels).

Sadly a decade on the backbenches has left the Jons so embittered that their only pleasure is to see the government flounder.

gwi
06 December 2007 at 14:51

Excellent piece! At last, somebody in the PLP has had the courage to say what's been obvious to many members (and ex- members) for years!

Mike
06 December 2007 at 16:32

A very gratifying article and if I hadn't checked I'd have sworn these weren't words coming from some one in the Labour party. I've always been middle of the road politically speaking only wanting a fair society working inside the market economy but the ten years of Blair changed all of that and not for the better. We've ended up with the worst excess's of any Tory government and thats become the norm for the country under New Labour. The poor are much poorer despite many more billions being thrown their way and one has to ask why. Whether its tax credits, housing or any other social benefit scheme, three times as much is spent on IT systems, civil service personnel and many more unproductive areas than actually reaches the poor purely to fund Gordon Browns social engineering games. Middle England comprising of teachers, nurses, policemen all on average salaries have been forced to pay for these Stalinist type programs lifted straight from communist Russia of the 60's or 70's. They now pay at least 15% more tax than they did in 1997 and most in the private sector have seen their pensions stolen from under them leaving only their house as a retirement investment. The only ones to benefit are New Labours rich and famous 'friends' that many at the top of Labour have ingratiated themselves with for reasons of envy and avarice not forgetting the odd cut price loan or two. There are those in the Labour party like the writers of this article, Frank Fields a champion for fair pensions and others that have been silenced by the likes of Blair and now Brown. I just hope these types of people get a second chance to bring sanity to a party thats now out of control. On the spin front, the insidious control of PR has come around and bitten Labour in the rear and they only have themselves to blame. No one can keep up a scam or con indefinitely without being found out. All the chickens are coming home to roost including the the main one that will seal Labours fate at the next general election. This one is the economy, and peoples feeling of wealth or financial security is fading fast and its that which kicks political parties from power whether in the US or the UK. The banks aided by Gordon Brown have created a country with probably the highest debt per person in the western world. Browns 'elastic' financial goal posts, his cycle changes and many other creative accounting tricks that would have done Robert Maxwell, Enron or Worldcom proud, are now coming back to haunt him with a vengeance. The current financial events such as Northern Rock show they are out of his direct control and all he can do is throw tens of billions at it to prevent meltdown, he can run but he can't hide anymore. We do need at least two parties in the UK but not on these current terms. I believe Labour needs some more time in the wilderness again to learn some lessons and hopefully change for the better learning from its many mistakes over the past ten years. Blatant arrogance should be the first anti-social trait they should tackle if they are ever going to be given some trust by a deceived electorate.

frenetic
06 December 2007 at 17:08

Hopefully, a defence of ‘core labour values’ as mentioned in this article would include a robust defence of the welfare state, this is needed urgently. The pace of welfare ‘reform’ as epitomized by Peter Hain with his 'ending Sicknote Britain call, (with its attendant benefit scroungers’ as the new folk devils), is breath taking in its scope and ferocity. Sixty years of decent social democratic welfare provision is being dismantled in front of our very eyes, with US style ‘welfare to work’ being introduced, housing benefit abolished and disabled people being forced, yes, its compulsorily, into unsuitable work and even medical interventions.

The welfare system is also being marketised very very rapidly, again taking its cue from neo-liberal countries such as the US and Australia, with massive private training companies replacing accountable civil servants, thus the profit motive enters vulnerable peoples lives. Jon and others must make defending the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, any reconfigured left’s priority, yes, internationalism and global issues are crucial, but so is what is happening in our own backyard.

writeon
06 December 2007 at 20:53

Tony Blair was, up until Iraq, an unusually fortunate politician. The economic climate was balmy and positive, and he could do what he liked best, which was grandstanding, and leave the actual running of the country, to dour, old, Gordon. Who actually, well, uknow, like, what I'm saying is, seemed to like that sort of thing, poor sod!

So Thatcherism more or less carried on, and Labour introduced various schemes to mitigate the most obvious and debilitating consequences of neo-liberalism, now matter how wasteful and flawed this strategy was. There were paradoxes and contradictions built into this strategy, and increasingly one was reduced to having to run very fast just to reamain where one was, and not lose ground, as unleashed market forces pulled society in another direction. That there might be fundamental, structural problems with the neo-liberal economic model, which were not aminable to mitigation, seemed to be a taboo subject.

With an economy fueld by the expansion of the financial sector, the property boom, the credit bubble, and substantial increases in public expenditure; everything appeared to be continuing as business as usual. The "marketplace" seemed to be functioning optimally, so why question or change anything?

But, but, but; this kind of economy only works, as long as it works. What happens when hard times come along, like now? What happens when the great, speculative, credit bubble bursts? Housing, credit, and the City are all connected. If they get into trouble what happens to government expenditure on the public sector?

A political party can choose to administer as system that appears to be successful, and effectively dump old-fashioned stuff like ideology and even it's membership and roots, but what happens when things start to go wrong with the system one chooses to administer, what does one have to fall back on? If ones identity as a party is reliant on the success of market forces, what happens if a Depression turns up, and the market goes into a nose-dive, does one go down with the plane or choose to bale out?

Assegai
06 December 2007 at 21:48

I love this quote ".... Labour will be finished as a party that can speak to working people's authentic concerns, "

Let's not forget John Cruddas as MP for Dagenham where he has a house also owns a £500,000 flat in Notting Hill (for which he has claimed £60,000 in tax-free Commons housing expenses in the past three years), just half a mile away from where his child is educated at the selective Cardinal Vaughan Memorial school in Holland Park.

How can anyone believe this self-rightous article written by a patronising hypocrite.

Bushman
07 December 2007 at 11:47

Right on brothers! Lets bring back Kinnock, Lord Stansgate. the spirit of Michael Foot et al. That'll put the fear of God into the Tories (not to mention the electorate!)

tomfrom66
08 December 2007 at 11:37

I cannot believe all the pro-New Labour bloggers on this site. What planet are you living on, guys?

Globalised, free market growth, is driving this world straight into a massive two-pronged crash: climate change and resource depletion.

There is zero evidence that the "free market" is anything other than the main driver, and G. Brown - for one - has no understanding of this at all.

The Hayek-Friedman party is nearly over.

Observer
08 December 2007 at 17:43

It could all be irrelevent for Gordon Brown soon. Labour are in freefall in Scotland, he probably won't have a seat after the next UK election. That's if he lasts that long.

scampy
09 December 2007 at 10:49

Hain never had a job as minister of work and pensions, only these labour stooges could come up with that.

This has nothing to do with Iraq.

We welcome their diversity.

Iraq is a country the size of France but we will find WMD.

Out with the lying bastards and make them find jobs.

taghioff.info
10 December 2007 at 10:21

The concept of globalisation as the relentless extension of free markets is close to the end of the road. The reason is simple: It would take around one more planet for each of India and China to bring all of their people into a "developed" lifestyle, based on current consumption patterns.

This implies that markets need to be better regulated in order for growth of any kind to continue. Clearly this is not necessarily a return to state socialism, as the Scandinavians continue to demonstrate.

But it i does mean a return to politicians taking responsibility, by not continuing to roll over to market forces. The difficulty is this, it cannot be achieved at the national level, due to businesses being able to bid states off against each other by threatening to relocate. So it needs to be based in an international politics. This is why Cruddas' article is a strong diagnosis with no coherent cure, because he can only speak through the lense of national politics.

What we need is an international framework of equality and market regulation along social democratic lines. That would give us the Economic, Social and Political stability to survive the barrage of Hurricaine Katrinas and food shortage that await us. Our political leaders need to start raising their vision to this sort of scale, otherwise we travel headless into the abyss.

Derek Bennett
10 December 2007 at 11:20

New Labour has always been "toxic", but it's only now that people are begining to realise that fact.

Harry
10 December 2007 at 23:00

The idiot who wrote this article seems to believe that old socialist nonsense that "democracy can only exist with equality". How many times does this have to be proved wrong before people stop saying it? Its actually the opposite- if a country forces equality, democracy cant function (or ceases to matter) because the economy stops working.

Besides, if Labour had stayed "old" then no one would have voted for it. Why? Because the public understands that socialism only brings poverty.

Heres a thought for all those socialists out there: Some of us work harder, and produce more, than others. That's why they should be paid more. Thats fair. Get over it.

gnuneo
11 December 2007 at 12:55

harry: should people not have "equal" opportunity to work hard? Should people not have "equal" opportunity to have decent schooling? Should people not have "equal" possibility of decent health care?

or is all that just "socialist nonsense"?

because according to adam smith, actually such notions are part and parcel of capitalism.

one cannot have a efficient, capitalist / democratic nation, if 80% of the population is receiving a sub-par education.

you write "some of us work harder" - i can tell you from first hand experience that a subsistence African farmer will work harder in a week of preparing to plant their crops, than you will in most of your lifetime combined - what is important is to work *more efficiently* - and that requires not only a decent education and health provision, but also the best possible incentives.

in a democratic state, those incentives are based upon the citizens being involved in the society, having a "stake" in it, such as home ownership, or even better owning their share of the company they work for.

it is the same in education, the students who feel included, who feel their views are respected and listened to, are the students who perform best - the students who feel excluded, rejected and ignored, are precisely the ones who cause most trouble, or 'at best' (!) will simply under-perform.

thus the writers call for greater citizen participation, greater oversight of our leaders and structures, a return to or renewal of our democratic values.

that you call this "socialism", and presumably (from your previous NS comments) you contrast this to "capitalism", indicates you apparently beleive a society ruled entirely from above, with no notions of equality, with every decision made by a small coterie of unelected businessmen, is somehow the model of perfection!

and through some strange mental gymnastics that only someone with virtually no experience of the 'real world' could beleive, you also apparently beleive that by simply "working hard" in someone else company, you will receive for your hard labour financial recompense equivalence.

naturally, this explains why, as polish workers are generally harder workers than UK born workers, the polish are all returning home £millionaires, and that in actual fact wages have increased during this period! (as the workforce is therefore working harder).

alas you see, when capital and labour are divided, it simply doesn't work that way - all you are really doing, is making other people who have purchased your labour wealthier, and they are probably laughing at you toiling away for little more than the occasional pat-on-the-head.

if you *truly* want an economic system where you receive to a greater degree the results from your own hard labour, you will instead (as i have told you before) support the system of 'capitalist partnerships', aka cooperatives, as then your brown-nosing and hard work will not irritate your co-workers, but instead inspire them. However you probably also still regard this as "socialism", and retreat back to your badger den mantra of "socialism bad, capitalism good".

bbbaaaaaa!!!!!!

Harry
11 December 2007 at 17:02

baaa indeed.

"should people not have "equal" opportunity to work hard? Should people not have "equal" opportunity to have decent schooling? Should people not have "equal" possibility of decent health care?"

Of course. But our paycheques should be very different. We need equal opportunities, so that people who produce things that society wants generally earn more. A good education system yes- something approaching old labour anti-market financial equality, certainly not.

"and through some strange mental gymnastics that only someone with virtually no experience of the 'real world' could beleive, you also apparently beleive that by simply "working hard" in someone else company, you will receive for your hard labour financial recompense equivalence."

Nonsense. If youre only planning on "working hard in someone else's company", you certainly shouldnt be paid as much as the people who run it, should you? They did the real work. They set up a company- something that the workers didnt even think of. They created something which creates wealth, and in the process actually gave people jobs. If you are a worker in this situation, you should be grateful. If you dont like the job, go ahead- quit and do something better.

As for calling me someone with "no life experience"- how would you have any idea? Ive worked in four different countries, two of which were poor. What have you done? Let me guess- a lifetime living in fear of change behind someone else's desk in Britain. Well, no wonder you dont like capitalism.

writeon
11 December 2007 at 19:52

Harry is way to emotional and dogmatic when he describes the free market capitalist system. He is praising something that doesn't really exist. It never did, and it never will. Reality is far more complex. Modern capitalism exhibits many of the characteristics of "socialism" only wealth and power aren't really redistributed, so much as, concentrated. It's been described as a system where profits have been privitized and losses socialized.

Harry's belief in the blessings of the free market is quasi-religious, which seems to be why he gets so angry with people who questions his beliefs.

He's also extraordinarily theoretical, describing a market system in very formal terms, which don't stand when one looks at the way the system actually functions in practice. The "free market" is a comforting myth. It does not exist in the real world. In the real world markets are controlled and highly regulated. All this chatter about free markets is faintly amusing dogma, a kind of folk, fairytale. Modern capitalism has about as much relevance to free markets, as the Soviet Union had to socialism.

Harry
11 December 2007 at 20:39

So, all youre saying, writeon, is that Im generalising instead of giving specific examples? It hardly requires three paragraphs, does it? Whats more, you havent given any counter examples- or indeed specified exactly what you disagree with. All youve done is given the generalisation that "youre just generalising". For three paragraphs. Was it even worth posting?

writeon
12 December 2007 at 08:46

Harry,

You do seem to have trouble with people who disagree with you, don't you? Basically you have a tendancy to grossly oversimplify the world, especially in your views about the nature and benefits of "capitalism" compared to "socialism". Your statements are very dogmatic and primative. You quote me for a statement I did not make, and then proceed to criticise me for making it! This is unworthy, but characteristic of the way you argue. You have already made up your mind, you already know how the world functions, you understand. How is this possible when the world is so complex and contradictory? Your level of certainty is based, fundamentally, on a simple lack of knowledge wrapped in arrogance.

Cybertiger
12 December 2007 at 12:24

@writeon

"Your level of certainty is based, fundamentally, on a simple lack of knowledge wrapped in arrogance."

Harry is a laugh - his ignorance is encyclopaedic and the arrogance is fundamental. Come the revolution, Harry's head will roll up and down ... and then down into the gutter. lol.

gnuneo
12 December 2007 at 12:28

"But our paycheques should be very different."

who the hell said otherwise??

"They set up a company- something that the workers didnt even think of. "

absolute poppycock. That's like saying someone who rents has never considered owning. Were owners to offer to sell the share of the company to the employees, most would take them up on it - after all, just like your home (indeed moreso considering the speculation that is leading us to the home-value crash), your company accumulates more value than it dissipates - thus it is a valuable investment.

yes, some people have the characteristic of risk-taking - but the reward IS the risk!

if you actually had the entrepreneurial attitude, instead of blindly worshipping it, you would understand that already.

and there is absolutely no requirement for those risk-takers to then steal the surplus created by their fellow co-workers, let them purchase their way into the company, and share the rewards for all of their hard work.

btw, many people who are good are starting companies, are not good at growing them - a good company requires different skills as it expands, so spread the decision making, and the profits around, and you get a far healthier, adaptive, flexible and motivated company.

can you remember all the reasons why a democracy is preferable to a monarchy? Think about them, and cross-apply them. Your understanding will grow tremendously.

why are you so afraid of fairness? Why are you so pro-feudal minded, and anti-capitalism?

Scott Redding
12 December 2007 at 12:58

Folks are going on about state capitalism and socialism, but there is only a scant paragraph about anything other than internal democracy within Labour and above-board fundraising. Don't shy away from being "slightly ideological" ... "The Jons" need to spell out what a "thriving public realm" and putting "people in control of their lives and their world" really means. Does a "thriving public realm" mean empowerment of public sector workers, releasing their creativity? Or do you mean all workers, public, private, unionised and very precariously employed? Is this a social democratic view -- workers councils, etc, or is it a more democratic socialist vision?

Harry
13 December 2007 at 11:48

Again, writeon, you are labelling my arguements without saying which part you're refering to. Which part is an excessive generalisation? Of course you have to generalise to a large extent when talking about economics- examples alone give a far more warped view than generalisations. Some people are left behind in every system, and always will be. Talking about them isnt as good as giving a statistic, or a generalisation. Generalisations are the key, and if you disagree with one, specify which one, so we can debate it.

I always enjoy this guys quotes:

"Harry is a laugh - his ignorance is encyclopaedic and the arrogance is fundamental. Come the revolution, Harry's head will roll up and down ... and then down into the gutter. lol."

Its amazing how quickly the left can become the hard left, and how the hard left can become the Stalinist left. One minute we re talking old labour, and the next its about revolutionary head-cutting.

""But our paycheques should be very different."

who the hell said otherwise??"

Old Labour values did. Thats what we re talking about here.

"That's like saying someone who rents has never considered owning."

Nonsence- people dont own houses because they cant afford to. They dont start their own companies because they dont know how, have any idea what they would sell, and dont have the drive or ambition to do it.

"the reward IS the risk!"

What kind of nonsence is that?! The reward is clearly the money.

shirley frost
14 December 2007 at 00:43