One Nation Labourism

“The core vote of this party is not the heartlands or the inner city or any sectional interest or lobby. Our core vote is the country”. Tony Blair went out of his way to articulate with Disraelian certitude that Labour has to be for the nation and must not narrow its interest to the unionised working class alone. Let it not be forgotten that the Labour Party was formed for industrial purposes, not for political ones in order to increase working class representation in Parliament after a series of anti Trade Union legislation at the turn of the twentieth century. Blair’s achievement has been masterly, and it is difficult for today’s generation, who can’t possibly comprehend the Labour of the 1970s or 1980s, to appreciate this fact fully.

The Gandalf of Granita issued a perfervid delivery with his usual aplomb and confidence. His main theme appears to be “reform” for the purpose of securing Labour’s fourth electoral victory – apparently the only “legacy” he’s ever cared about. To Blair, reform is the ultimate panacea for Labour’s recent troubles and he is determined to enshrine it into Labour’s political DNA permanently.

However, the verisimilitude of the speech could at times be called into question. There was a staged and somewhat forced attempt to venerate Gordon Brown and play down his pugnacious relationship with his Chancellor. He duly returned the apparent ace, lobbed over the garden wall of Number 11 to Number 10 yesterday, with a heartfelt acknowledgement that Brown had been instrumental in the transmogrification of Labour over the past decade. It is sometimes hard to see where such reported venom has come from as the two men hold little by way of ideological schism and their lust for power is hardly matched by anyone else in the Cabinet.

Yet the anticipated fratricide came to naught as both camps try to come to terms with the ever-changing balance of power. What appears paramount now is survival, not necessarily of any one man, but of New Labour as a project. As mentioned, the tool Blair advocates to achieve this is his perpetual mantra of reform.

In order for something to be maintained, it must be defined clearly for people to identify with, but be flexible enough to absorb MacMillan style “events”. As Darwin wrote, “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change". This appears to apply to political parties as it does to anything else.

Blair’s explicit definition is to reduce his creed to a simple formula:
New Labour = Economic Efficiency (polite words for “Thatcherism”) + Social Justice.

In short, Thatcherism with a social conscience which has worked exceptionally well in maintaining arguably the most stable economy in the world in both its longevity and the key macroeconomic indicators. Such a formula can easily be identified and has the potential for universal appeal. This was echoed by Brown the day before when he married aspiration with compassion as not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent. The idea that Bevan, Wilson, Callaghan, let alone Foot would – or actually could – utter such words with such vigour is laughable.

Such ‘One Nation Labourism’ will be key to its success. What is curious, is that for the talk of modernisation and reform as the oil that greases the New Labour machine, there is absolutely no talk of electoral reform. I have already stated clearly in this blog the fallacy of Labour “victories” and how they are the least popular party in absolute popular votes this country has ever seen.

It also begs the question: does an election winning party now need to be a party of “reform”? Blair has firmly established this new political vernacular and any one wanting to fight him or New Labour must do so on his terms. Yet, can there logically ever be too much reform? Clearly yes – look at the success of the “Safety First” campaign of the 1920s under Baldwin. Blair has installed the notion of a perpetual revolution in the heart of Whitehall with a blizzard of headline grabbing initiatives. It will invariably take time for the shock waves of this approach to be fully absorbed.

Brown appears to want to impose his own character on future policy, as he certainly should as a potential PM, but at the same time has clearly adopted this inclusive approach. It will be interesting to see the Opposition’s response to this established re-alignment, but for the time being the successes of Blair have to be recognised whether you love or hate him. Things could have been a lot worse if Labour hadn’t adopted the nicer parts of Thatcherism and failed to lampoon the Tories from office in 1997. This is not to say Labour has been without faults (a contradiction in terms) but that party political competition is essential for democratic health and Britain can ill afford to be without it.