Blair Described New Labour as a ‘Revolution’, But Was it Really?

By James Fishwick, Third Year History

What is a revolution? If you ask Tony Blair, the creation of New Labour would provide an apt example. In this piece, The Bristorian investigates the legacy of the New Labour governments, and examines whether such a grandiose claim is warranted.

According to Labour peer and New Labour minister Andrew Adonis, Margaret Thatcher, upon meeting Tony Blair, said to him that ‘we have both succeeded in destroying socialism’. 

From its inception, New Labour (1994-2010) oversaw an ideological shift to the centre. It attempted to distance itself from the socialist dogma of Wilson, Foot, and Attlee to a point where its political stances blurred the lines between them and their Tory counterparts. 

It is this move to the political centre that makes New Labour frontman, former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s description of New Labour as a ‘revolution’ a hotly contested debate.

Dubbing the New Labour government as a ‘revolution’ is where the irony lies for many. Historically, revolutions have been overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, associated with socialist movements. Images spring to mind of 1917 Russia, Mao in China, and Che Guevara liberating Latin America. Movements that liberated millions from imperial powers and championed the rights of the subjugated populace (though it should be noted that such regimes were by no means perfect). Less so are revolutions associated with the centre ground, contemporaneously decried as bland, tired, and reactionary. 

While revolutionary movements and radical actions are not exclusive to the Left, for the purpose of this article I will take the stance that revolutionary movements are on the Left of politics.

Furthermore, philosopher Johnathan Pugh describes radical politics as “the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system, often through social change, structural change, revolution or radical reform”.[1] It can be credibly argued that this was the intention, and indeed possibly the outcome of the New Labour era.

New Labour as a radical force in British politics can be aptly seen in Gordon Brown’s 2009 speech to the Labour Party Conference, his final address as Labour leader. Brown reels off policy after policy that he believes is the ‘Britain we’ve been building together’.[2]

“Look at what we’ve achieved together since 1997: the winter fuel allowance, the shortest waiting times in history, crime down by a third, the creation of Surestart, the Cancer Guarantee, record results in schools, more students than ever, the Disability Discrimination Act, devolution, civil partnerships, peace in Northern Ireland, the social chapter, half a million children out of poverty, maternity pay, paternity leave, child benefit at record levels, the minimum wage, the ban on cluster bombs, the cancelling of debt, the trebling of aid, the first ever Climate Change Act; that’s the Britain we’ve been building together, that’s the change we choose.”

Gordon Brown, 2009

Undoubtedly the New Labour governments were transformative to British society. Brown describes policies that effected the introduction of a minimum wage, there being more students than ever, and half a million children lifted out of poverty. New Labour changed the social fabric of the nation and improved the daily living standards of millions of people. 

But were they revolutionary? Actions and policy implemented by New Labour don’t exactly conjure pictures of Blair wearing a soviet beret, or Brown waving the red flag. So much more could have been achieved by the New Labour governments, especially when you consider that in 1997, they had one of the largest parliamentary majorities in British history at their disposal: their 418 Commons seats commanded a majority of over 100.

In support of the New Labour governments, I fundamentally believe that the great work of its ministers and MPs was undermined by Tony Blair, the antichrist to socialists and Tories alike. What could have been a revolutionary government, that could have possibly won a 4th general election in 2010, was compromised by the Iraq War dispute. 

Source: YouGov

The Iraq War carved a deep line of mistrust and anger between the New Labour government itself, the Labour Party, Labour voters, and indeed the general public. It is a line that continues to permeate British politics, so much so that in 2016 Jeremy Corbyn felt obliged to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for its involvement in the Iraq War.

Blair concentrated significant amounts of his legislative agenda on fighting the Iraq War, through Parliament, through the courts, through protest, through judicial commissions. So much more could have been achieved that would have helped lives, rather than destroyed them. 

Furthermore, most of the hurt and upset that emanated from the public derived from a feeling that they were lied to in the reasoning for going to war in Iraq. The accursed dossier compiled by Downing Street Communications Chief Alistair Campbell is a case in point; when questions were asked by the Chilcot Inquiry of the factual validity of the dossier, Campbell was forced to resign. It further stoked the flames of distrust. 

The political film ‘Taking Liberties’ (2007) is a satirical documentary examining the early 2000s, and the crack down on civil liberties of the individual and society orchestrated by Blair’s New Labour in the name of the ‘War on Terror’. It covers tactics used such as secret courts, rendition, torture, and detention without charge. Through this policy pattern Blair was shaping the blueprint for tyranny and autocracy – not quite the setting of a progressive revolution.

Brown, who was Prime Minister from 2007-2010, on the other hand was well respected in his time as Chancellor. One of his first policies in 1997 was to heavily tax and regulate the private utility companies who were making millions in bonusses and tax cuts. This money went on to pay for schools, hospitals, and sure start centres. It was positive, well received and validated the opinion that Labour was strong on the economy and could perform in the interest of the everyday person without overwhelming the wallet of said everyday person.

This gradual move away from being a tax and spend party of the Left, arguably solidified Labour’s credibility, but more importantly Brown’s own credentials. Was this action revolutionary? No. Radical? Yes. After decades in opposition Labour was displaying its prowess in government, it was serious about changing the state of the nation without bankrupting it. 

Brown carried this reputation as the capable money man throughout the rest of his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, avoiding recession and economic downturn and embracing a moderate view of the economy. Not socialist, not neo-liberal, down the middle and slightly to the left. This helped come 2008, when the global financial crisis came crashing down like a thundering tsunami.

This was Brown’s shining moment, heads of Government and Heads of State from Barack Obama to Shinzo Abe, applauded and praised Brown’s handling of the 2008 global financial crash. The 2021 BBC documentary series ‘Blair and Brown: The New Labour Revolution’, details that Obama singled Gordon out as the leader, thinker, and architect behind the plan that saved the global financial system. 

Whilst others may have preferred to watch it burn as part of some grandiose dialectic on capitalism, Brown prevented countries from slipping into deep economic turmoil. The failure of Brown’s Labour was to not take the credit for this or market it as such, instead the downturn was used as a pawn against them by a ravenous re-branded Conservative party under David Cameron. 

Brown’s action on the global stage in 2008 was radical, yet he failed to bill such radicalism as a success and as such paid the price at the ballot box. However, I think there must be a distinction between the Blair and Brown governments, one which makes clear that the Blair governments were far more ‘New Labour’ than Brown’s. 

In conclusion, the most revolutionary and radical aspects of the New Labour governments are not found in its constitutional devolutions to the nations of the UK, peace in Northern Ireland, Surestart, more students than ever and certainly not the Iraq War. The revolution, if any, was found in the ability to coax many millions of voters, across the political spectrum, into voting for Labour.

Blair however disorientated the legislative agenda through the Iraq War, and thus hampered the possibility of real revolutionary, radical reform. It is because of this that Tony Blair was wrong to call the New Labour governments revolutionary. Through his own actions he prevented them from being able to fully realise the wide range of social justice and progressive policy plans that would have warranted anointing New Labour with the descriptor of ‘revolutionary’. 

[1] Johnathan Pugh, What is Radical Politics Today? (2009)

[2] https://www.ukpol.co.uk/gordon-brown-2009-speech-to-labour-party-conference/