From Reformism to Resignation and Remedialism? Labour's Trajectory Through British Politics

On 9 April 1992, the British Labour party lost its fourth successive general election. ¹ The outcome, coming after prolonged economic difficulties, led many commentators to call into question altogether the viability of the reformist project in the United Kingdom. For Labour's leaders, the result was bitterly disappointing. To lose any general election is, of course, evidence of failure. But, given the extent of the radical transformation the party appeared to have undergone in the late 1980s and early 1990s, to lose in the propitious circumstances of 1992 was especially frustrating. Just over five years later, however, much of the period under a new leader, Tony Blair, and having undergone further dramatic adaptation, including a comprehensive rebranding as "New Labour," the party not only took office at the general election of 1 May 1997 but won a landslide victory of 179 seats. A little over four years later it won a second landslide victory with a majority just 12 seats fewer at 167: it was an unparalleled achievement in the party's history.

To many observers, this remarkable electoral recovery came at a high price in terms of Labour's social democratic credentials. ² They concluded that the cost of electoral victory was a shift from the reformism to which the party had adhered, albeit in an increasingly moderate and timid fashion, to a stance that could best be characterized, in the terms of Adam Przeworski, by its resignation and by its remedialism. ³ Resignation reflected New Labour's utter acceptance of the market economy and the forces of globalization. Remedialism reflected the sense that all that a left-wing government could do was tamper with the worst excesses of free-market capitalism. Such tinkering did not constitute a reformist program.

In this essay, I examine Labour's electoral recovery between 1992 and 2001 and I ask whether it has been achieved through the abandonment of any remaining social democratic ideological commitments. In the next section, I place that Labour's electoral decline within a theoretical context. In the third section, focusing on economic strategy and welfare policy, I chart Labour's recovery after its 1992 defeat and summarize its record in office. I go on to outline the attempts by Tony Blair to provide theoretical underpinnings with which to define the New Labour project. Finally, I assess the extent to which New Labour may be considered reformist. As will be seen, the leitmotivs of reformism, resignation, and remedialism litter my discussion of Labour's trajectory through British politics over the last decade or so.

Theorizing Labour's Decline

Labour suffered four general-election defeats in a row between 1979 and 1992. In the aftermath of 1992, many were bleak about the party's prospects. David Butler and Denis Kavanagh argued, "At first sight [the result] seemed to confirm the rejection of socialism, as in many countries, and to show that the center-left had no clear and electorally attractive political message." They indicated that the election marked "a rejection of what was offered by Labour and raised again questions about the party's future as a party of government." ⁴ One group of scholars asked, "Can Labour win again in the foreseeable future? On the face of it there seems little reason for optimism." Their answer made miserable reading for the left: "But to reach the summit [win] would take an unprecedented effort even on the most optimistic assumptions about the electoral climate." ⁵ Peter Jenkins, a newspaper columnist, was caustic: "It was a reversal no less fundamental than in 1983 and in 1987, indeed a confirmation of the watershed that flowed from 1979. . . . Labour lost because it was Labour." ⁶ Of the party's decline, Crewe argued, "It may well not be fully reversible in the short term. " ⁷ Unsurprisingly, those within the party were equally gloomy: "Labour's fourth successive defeat plunged the party...