EP - The New Labour Government Part 1 - Blair's Early Years

In this episode, we look at Tony Blair’s New Labour Government. We mainly focus on his first few years of government, drawing on Andrew Rawnsley’s great book about this period: ‘Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour’. I also take some inspiration from the BBC documentary ‘Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution’. The main questions I consider in this episode are what did New Labour achieve and to what extent could it have achieved more in government.

Recommendations:

1. Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour by Andrew Rawnsley
2. Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution BBC iPlayer
3. Labour: The Wilderness Years
4. I can’t fully endorse Tony Blair’s biography as it’s a little bit self-justifying and not reflective enough in my opinion; there’s quite a lot of Tony Blair asserting ‘I did x because I just thought it was the right thing to do’ and not really allowing himself too much deep reflection. No doubt this confidence was part of what made him an effective leader but in an autobiography you hope for a bit more introspection and self-awareness. With all that said, if you want to understand the psychology of Blair, this is a good one to read (with a critical eye).

Transcript

Track 2: 0:22

Welcome to the modern, British political history podcast. I'm your host, Harry whites. So to give a bit of a sense of why I'm doing this podcast. I I'm a civil servant working in the department for education. I've been a civil seventh for. The last three years roughly. And. The history of governments and to get recent governments is. A real way to learn about how policy works, how government works, where it doesn't work. What's policies. I have purchased in the longterm and what ones come and go, undone very quickly. So that's a bit on my interest in terms of my job. And I hope that gives the podcast a little bit of a, an interesting angle. This podcast, won't be talking about any governments from 2010 onwards. Based on the fact that, I am currently a civil servant working in government and. It wouldn't be appropriate or, impartial to make comments on anything from 2010 onwards. This podcast, won't be, me giving political commentary. Anyway, it's much more of a history podcast. The commentary that comes in will, will be more. What were the, the views of people at the time? And thinking about, What's these governments achieved or didn't achieve, from a neutral perspective. It is looking at. Governments from 1945 to 2010. That's what I take to be modern or the other reason to not look at anything from 2010 onwards is. That to me doesn't feel like history. It's too. To really say. What the history of those governments are to make a broad comments on what they did or didn't achieve. And, really think about them in a, in a meaningful way. And that's another reason we won't be looking at anything. From that period. What we're looking at though today is a book, called seventh of the people by Andrew Rawnsley. And also I'm taking a little bit of inspiration from a documentary called Blair and brown, the new labor revolution, which is on the BBC. I definitely recommend both of these. And the focus of this podcast. Is on new labor and that particular government. I will mainly be using the books. So the people that have been working through. Points from that. The other thing to say is it's not just from a civil service perspective, I'm coming from this. It's from this. Perspective of being very interested in. Politics and history and having been a realities asked since probably the age of 16. Definitely since. Doing A-level politics. That really got me hooked. Into thinking about politics and history. And. Again, we're really focusing on more. Modern, British political history, but particularly with this one, I want to focus more on domestic rather than foreign policy. And the reason for that is. Firstly, a lot has been talked about. New labor with its foreign policy agenda, particularly Iraq being the main one, but also cost votes. Sierra Leone. I think it's original to think a bit about that domestic reforms. It's also just what. I know. My own. Experience in the civil service is from working on domestic policy. So I have a lot more to say on that. With this podcast, I'm going to split it into segments. So that, I can show, in the description of the podcast where I'm talking about things. So people can skip to where they want to listen if they don't want to listen to the whole thing. In segments are going to be firstly, why did new labor win the election in 1997? Because I think a lot of fruits in their successes. And the failures are in how they campaigned and their approach to, trying to win power and having come from a period of opposition. From. 1979 all the way to 19 97. A huge period in the wilderness. Which there's a great documentary. If you type into YouTube, The labor party, the wilderness. Yes. our, online stats, particular period. This next segment is going to be on what are the most long lasting things, new labor, dead. thinking about. Actually. What policies have stuck and what haven't. I think that's a very interesting thing from particularly from a civil service perspective to think about. why didn't new labor, chief? What it did. what were the more unpopular things that did or the failures, even from its own criteria of success, and then why didn't achieve more, which I think is a very. Interesting question cause. Really when people tend to talk about new labor, they talk about what it didn't do and the way it didn't go far enough. Particularly on the left. There's a feeling of, there was so much more than that these governments could have done. Firstly kicking things off. So why did new labor win this election in 1997? There was a calculation of why labor had lost previous elections that Blair, Gordon brown and others did. And the. A few issues that they particularly were worried about, I think were crime, defense, patriotism, social security. Why were they worried about those? Because the tabloids. Had a very effective run. Of. Denigrating labor based on those SGS labor was soft on crime. it wasn't strong enough on defense. for example, being pro. unilateral nuclear disarmament. it was a policy in 1983 that Michael foots, the leader of the labor party that, at that time, Pushed and most, Tabloids at the time. We'll put that in the bucket of weak on defense, patriotism as well, linking, linking to that point on defense, that labor wasn't a patriotic party that it's fashionable on the left to dislike. Britain and its history and its tradition, and to be quite cynical about it. and then also social security. The idea that actually the welfare state had created a dependency culture, and. The labor party and the left, wouldn't face up to that. And the tacos. Those were very effective at talking about, that dependency culture. I think the thing about new labor was it firstly matched it. Mitigate all those, issues. it managed to look tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. At my age to have a more pro defense pro NATO. outlook. It sorts about new Britain, a different future for Britain, but still one that was patriotic and it also had a strong message on social security and getting people back to work. Also, it had a modernizing message. It emerged to emphasize that idea of new labor, and not just being, beholden to labor traditions, like the union movement, Which Blair thought had held. Labor back. so you look at that history. Blair. His, Family had conservative roots. I think his father, was a conservative, and he also had quite a middle class upbringing. He went to, private school up in Scotland. and whereas Gordon brown had a more traditional labor background, combining those two was, was a big part of why new labor, one that kind of having some of the old, ideas of labor, but revitalizing it for a new. New era. And also having a really effective comms strategy using modern media in a way that previously the labor party. It's been suspicious of modern media tactics of PR of television. And they been better used by Margaret Thatcher with such in Saatchi, for example, their PR. company. but actually people like Peter Manderson wants to take television and modern media and turn it from being labors. Denigrates, and its Achilles heel to actually being it's key, ways of winning, governments. Some of the best things that new labor did then. And when I say best, my definition of that is things that. now seen pretty much across the borders. Good things. And also policies that weren't undone. So we could talk about how much funding went into the NHS, how much funding went into education. But a lot of that has been turned back. So it's hard to see it as a full success. Minimum wage, civil partnerships, smoking ban. Upgrading the existing housing stock. house of Lords reform and education reform are all areas the vast majority of people. See those, as part of modern Britain and there's not many calls from governments. for example, the conservative party to turn back any of those. You kept wanted to overturn parts of the smoking ban, but, that's never hugely caught on as an idea beyond, that particular party. Looking at those things. That all areas where it's systematic reform, it's areas where it's hard to undo, essentially also as well, you're winning the argument. So the minimum wage was. Strongly opposed. when it was being, first envisaged, both from the conservative party in the right, but also from some, of the left, The argument was one, all the arguments on, well, if you have a minimum wage, it will drastically reduce, or increase. unemployment. Didn't come to fruition in the way that it was thought that it would really cause lots of companies particularly smaller ones to go bust also didn't seem to come to fruition i think is a sign A real policy that stuck when Your Enemies embrace it as well similar To smoking ban similar to some of the education reforms say academize of schools for. for example it's something that was taken up by michael gove and expanded in many ways but that was something that was first started under blair's party The key question with new labor. I think that people ask is why didn't it achieve more? It was a government. When it was campaigning. Promised a huge amount of change to make a new Britain. To revolutionize. The way, the public. It's a word. It's the economy. Whereas like revolution and radical. Ones. Very much favored by Blair. It raised expectations to Heights that were almost undeliverable. So the first answer to the question of why they not achieve more is remembering how much they did achieve. And that they're a victim of their own. Strong rhetoric on how much they could achieve, in government. And there was naturally going to be a disappointment. Once they got into government because governing is challenging. It's always easy to point out where things are wrong in a system that harder to make writes. and I will say once you make decisions in government, you immediately start to create divides. What people also tend to talk about is the friction between Blair and brown and the splitting into Cam's Blairites and brown outs. And that being a real issue for the government being able to achieve. A huge amount because there was constant. Functional infighting spurred on, not just by the two main figures, attain a bland and brown over. There was a lot of. discord between them based on. brown wanting to be a leader of. The government and feeling like he arguably was the senior of the two, throughout much of that. careers. And then was, assert. to the throne of being a prime minister by a tiny blah. even though he did, concede, to give to that, to any blessed and to be late and he did step down. People talk about that kind of personal resentment. the brown may have felt. But also. With, lots of figures around tape lab and golden brown. work key in. Currently in flight. So forgets like Charlie Wheelan and Peter Mandelson played a role as to Campbell. I think actually though, The press focused a lot on those reasons and still does because. That's the stuff personality politics, the press tends to be more interested in than. Issues of ideology, policy differences, and, other factors that might underline why government struggles to achieve or questions on just the actual machinery of government and challenges of getting things done. and inertia. one thing I talk about, and this is going to be the meat of the podcast is very much why didn't the labor not achieve more? Is. And the first time new labor were quite uneasy about, doing anything too radical because I the labor party had not been in government for 18 years and it had been consistently paced it by the Tories. and also the tablet press. and felt that. Deposition was quite 10 years, even though they achieved a massive majority, it didn't feel like that. I think to Blair and brown, it felt like at any moment they could lose that possession, a new labor. It could be cast back into the wilderness. like it had been so many times before, so they were less confident than you might think they would be given the majority. They had an Austin played it safer than they need it to. given how much political capital they accumulated. There's a lot of reliance on focus groups, run by Phillip. Good. Tiny guys, chief pollster and arguably quite a lot of paranoia and annexed about, what's the. Electorate we're thinking at any given moment and whether they're. Policies work going on well or not? Well, And there was a belief that Britain was fundamentally a conservative country so. Their position was uncertain at best because the moment they lent towards, non-traditional labor policies, they could put on unpopular the tabloids code. turn against them. So definitely I think that's one. Key reason. Another is about, The. Differences between Blair and brown, but less on the kind of personal. Animosity between the two, but I think the fact that Blair actually did see some. brown as he seen it in lots of ways. The book. sense that people talk about how blame is mammothly dazzled by the cleverness and energy of brown. And. throughout that early parts of their career, when they shared a office in parliament together. Brown was seen as the senior. He taught a great deal about politics, particularly about the labor party, its traditions, and how to make speeches to the party. And it wasn't expected to Blair would. become a leader before. Brown. And there's an element of, I think. In government, tiny black, still. Wasn't comfortable, challenging brown on issues and would defer to in particularly on the economy. And issues. on that front because Gordon brown. was intellectually stronger on, on financial matters. Also. That Blair was ultimately more of a conciliatory figure. Someone who liked to fudge where he could and smooth over different cracks between different factions in his party. or smooth over difficult policy issues. And not, goes against what you need sometimes to drive forward, real change in government and achieve, which is to take tricky decisions and to make enemies and to challenge vested interests. there was always seen a nervousness by a guy to do that. Blair also, let Scott and brown lead on domestic policy, because of that feeling of, The experience that Gordon brown had and the feeling that, he had been turning less senior in many ways throughout the relationship. And, that creates quite a bit of tension. that. Brown would drive forward His domestic policy agenda, and then there'd be conflict with Blair did not. agree with that. And also once you don't have the prime minister looking at these things closely, it's less likely that progress will be made and. Blair focused a great deal on foreign policy issues. more say than, than domestic policy. I think part of the reason behind that is that premise. Who are charismatic often get very enamored with talking about foreign policy over domestic policy, perhaps because it's easier to get things done in some ways, strangely on. On or feel like you're getting traction. when, Communicating to other world leaders. Rather than getting mired in the complex machinery of your domestic government, it's easier for the premise that feel like he is personally making a difference. and here it has some, less constraints maybe, less need to rely on his other ministers to get things done. And also, there's an ego element to that that, sometimes stretching on the world stage is more appealing than trying to get the trains to run on time. Phillip good. said that. G to the cost of war. The people still passion. In tiny bluff, the wall, which they didn't see demonstrated in, his interest in domestic concerns. And that is. what side of that? Became quite driven by was, this idea of humanitarian ethical intervention in different countries and Sierra Leone. Kosovo and Iraq really has dominated our perceptions of Blair. Labor governments also tend to be quite effective when they are focusing more on the gymnastic. arguably, so you think about climbing out late and the NHS and the welfare states. that was a government that had a real vision for what they wanted to do on the home front. Atley ran a lot of domestic policy during the second world war and Churchill was much more interested in foreign policy. and then that was reflected in her email. interested. the labor government in 1945. I was in, trying to reconstruct Britain after the war. Then you've got Harold Wilson, not taking us into Vietnam, in the sixties. And actually focusing more again on domestic consent and not getting, Unhinged by a foreign policy whereas Blair. famously dead gets entangled in Iraq and joined the Americans in a foreign policy adventure. and so we'll say something about, The fact that transport and green issues. And domestic issues in general were less interesting to a tiny blur. and he. Gave him less of his attention. So when that number 10 did actually take a real interest in these things, it tended to be focusing on. Vetoing things rather than, putting things through and particularly things that would disadvantage. What's only blast doors, his people, which were middle end and middle class. voters rather than who labor is traditionally seen to serve, which is the last one. The working class. So for example, number 10, vetoed policies that my anger motorists say things like, congestion, charges, taxes on out-of-town shopping. Tabler had a real dedication to that particular middle-class, Electra and. preserved a lot of that, perks they had. So for example, middle classes often have tax parts, things like mortgage tax relief. Also that government, because they were keen not to offend middle-class sentiments. There was what the book calls to habit. Your weakness was to make a gesture rather than to take action. This was an ecology of government unfriendly its policies, which might make a difference in the longterm. But which card with immediate term controversy. So constantly thinking about the headlines and what might look bad. and if you take that attitude, it's unlikely. You're going to. Make real a long-term definitive policies that will stick and make a real difference. Lincoln to the connection to the middle classes was also connection to business that. new labor hard and it being arguably a little bit overwrought by business. The CBI, for example, the Confederation for British industry. sad to be. I've been surprised at how Smith's and Blair was a new labor in general with business and how reluctant. to challenge. Business. A lot of that comes from Blair's background and that he was a lawyer and had a lot of friendships with, people in corporate law and business. And. They were his kind of people. He admits that he enjoyed that kind of aspiration or get up and go, Entrepreneurial spirit that they had, and was therefore unwilling to, disadvantage them in policymaking. This time, I will say said that he himself was someone who, if you hadn't been a public servant, I've gone into business themselves. and that was an appeal to him. Also try to piss tablets I've mentioned. So there was understanding of. The labor in the past had, faced a lot of criticism on tabloids. And there was excited to, turn them into allies rather than enemies. And I think this explains the number of special advisors and communication advisors the new labor government hired. there's a lot of criticism. put on you. How much spend there was how many new spots were appointed, but it's not really surprising if a government, or the parties felt. they've struggled with, the media that they then went in that direction of over-correcting But arguably, this did lead to it. politics, more of gestures and signals than, than hard delivery. and more interested in, in, the headlines in the press. then the machinery of government. for example, there's policies, like trying to give on the spot fines to people who are drunk. Out in public, which we're not deliverable but, what talented by. Blair and others to get the positive headlines about tacking anti-sexual behavior. Also in terms of why didn't the labor not achieve more. They achieved a huge amount in terms of redistribution. And a lot of this though was done by stealth saved through tax credits for working people and families. Gordon brown. I did a lot of this work and brought millions of children out of poverty. But they were reluctance is when the arguments on this, which, which meant that. they couldn't go. Further a They wouldn't. I talk about these successes as much as they would talk about. Efforts on crime or the NHS or other issues. And brown also thought funding was a way of tackling, a great deal of issues. but a lot of that funding was, Undone by future governments. And the reason it wasn't done was because they hadn't really made the argument for why they were putting more funding into. helping less well-off families or, Reducing child poverty. and if you don't win the argument, like for example, the algorithm, the minimum wage was made and won, then your policy is likely to be. Undone in future governments. Also the not being able to get out. And most out the government machinery, So one is a civil seven. It's a slow working. Machine government, but if you know, How to make it work, it can be very effective. at the start of the new labor government, they had a huge array of targets. So over 6,000. at one count, which the book says is more than Stalin's targets. and if everything's a target, nothing is a target. There was a real control, freak career elements of setting, lots of targets, but then, making them meaningless because what are you focusing on? came by his own personality, his political type was less suited to. Working through the intricacies of government and was more charismatic and had the ability to say the right things. make policy sound effective, but getting into the detail and thinking about the systems and interchange was last on his radar parts, became more sudden his last term. But by that point, he'd lost a lot of political capital and said that he would not be prime minister for much longer. So. Struggled to follow through on. Some of the structural changes then that he actually was. mature enough to think about an advocate for, his strengths. The book says mainly relied on reading political moods, not reconfiguring structures and Michael, how the conservative party leader. that to make real change, you have to be prepared to do boring, and that wasn't really prepared to do that. and then a key reason, more long term, why new labor didn't achieve as much, is about legacy that any project or political movement needs to be sustained beyond just the lifetime of the immediate people who you inspired it. So if you think about new labor, it really was three key people. Brown, Blair, and Peter Manon who embodied what new labor was all about. Peter Manon talks about in this book, that new labor was more of a club than a movement. and there was no one really to take forward its legacy. Peter man's book called the third man, and. Bland Gordon brown had a project, which they very much built from the center. it was a small group, coming up with the ideas intimately working together and then slowly, gaining traction within the wide labor party. There's not a new labor, right. Faction in the same way as there is a Thatcherite faction in this conservative party. On proportional representation, which I, think's a key area where progresses, would've hoped that new label would've made some progress. Bla, when he was coming to power, had agreed, during the campaign that if he won, he would form a, a government including some members of the liberal Democrats and then would, offer a friend of on proportional representation. And had been talking about that with the li Dem leader, Patty Ashdown, but then once, new labor won and won. So stratospherically and impressively, Blair moved away from, that idea, was, became less keen on it and essentially strong Patty Ash down and Liams along whether or not that he would follow through with having a referendum or having liberal Democrat, MPS in his cabinet. I think part of this is self-interest it must have become clear to bla that actually it was possible for labor to win and win big under current system. And if they changed it to be more proportional, then it would have less seats. and the lib dams would have. as with other parties. So it wasn't actually anymore in their interest. And there was certainly an element of controlling from the center. and, perhaps more presidential staff from Blair. So. Proportion representation doesn't marry up well to that. Countries that are under that, voting system have much more consensual style governments involving alliances rather than, one party holding the range of power. The last one, is about removal of hereditary peers and general reform in the house of Lords, which went some of the way. To achieving what, was promised in Blas manifesto. In that he said, he'd remove all the hereditary peers, but actually, when he enacted it, they struck a deal essentially, in the Lords that they would take away 650. And the way that would be done was through votes, of the current ed repairs, they would vote, which of them would stay on. And which would, no longer be in the house of Lords. You could say this was pragmatic politics and Blair realized that it would take a huge amount of effort to get all of their head repairs removed. And this step of getting 650 was one with surprisingly little difficulty. But on the other hand, again, there was a lot of capital politically that Teddy Blair had from his election victory. which was a complete landslide. If he'd wanted to actually get rid of all repairs, it might have cost some time political capital might have made some enemies, but would've been possible. but he just was not willing to, spend, those resources, and and was also very nervous about making enemies to wrap things up. So. where does that leave us on the new labor government? they clearly did achieve a lot more than a given credit for in many ways. But I think a lot of that. Has been a victim of high expectations in what people thought they would achieve and the amount of rhetoric and spin meant that inevitably people were going to be a bit disappointed, particularly those who were further left than, the new labor project and then also Iraq who really undermined the project and reputation, particularly of blood, but serve new labor in general. what would. Be positive and I think is happening now as a reevaluation of putting those things aside, Iraq, putting aside, spin and the personality politics of new labor, how much did it achieve? what is its legacy? what did last and when you look at the list, it's quite a substantial. thank you. That's everything for today will pick up maybe a bit more about, the new labor government in the next podcast. Thanks so much.