It was around 2014 that I started to notice tracts warning about the dangers of populism from organisations with a close affiliation to New Labour. Over the decade since, little has changed: injected with the rocket fuel that was Brexit and Trump, it remains uncanny how many of those denouncing “populism” here in the UK have close links to Tony Blair. As for Blair himself, his new Institute for Global Change has a whole work-stream dedicated to confronting Populism, with one of its papers reflecting on “Populism in Power, 1990 to 2020”. Yet among its examples of populism of the period, there is a glaring omission: that led by Blair himself.
In 1993, the political consultant Philip Gould wrote a paper for internal Labour Party consumption advocating a “new populism”, based on the time he had just had working on the successful Democratic Party campaign for Bill Clinton. In his later book, The Unfinished Revolution (a bible for New Labourites), Gould said his memo went down “like a lead balloon” with the party machine. However, it proved influential with the young modernisers rising through the ranks, including Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson. Gould went on to work on Blair’s leadership campaign the following year and then served as a pollster and trusted communications adviser in opposition and government. He died of cancer in 2011.
The day after Blair was selected as leader, Gould wrote another of his lengthy memos, its message eerily prescient as Starmer sets out his pitch to the Labour Party faithful today:
“I argued that the real political agenda was a combination of Right and Left. It was Right-wing on crime, welfare, immigration, discipline, tax and individualism, but Left-wing on the NHS, investment, social integration, opposition to privatisation and unemployment. People wanted change, but they didn’t yet want Labour… There is still a lurking fear about unions and the loony Left; there is potential concern about Labour because of its liberal social positions; there is anxiety about tax; there is almost no idea what Labour stands for.”
In 1999, after Blair’s first landslide, Gould wrote once more of this “new populism always seeking to hear the voices of those not often heard”. Crucially for him, this did not mean the unions and minorities, who Labour already paid a lot of attention to, but “working-class achievers and the middle class under pressure”. These were the people he had grown up around; he saw them as natural Labour voters who the party had repeatedly betrayed. “I came from the land that Labour forgot,” he wrote.
To get to these people, reassure them and to make them vote for you requires a lot of work: part of what Clinton referred to as the “head game” of politics. In his foreword to the revised edition of Gould’s book, Blair himself acknowledged this: “Politics is far more intellectual exercise than people ever think… You will always end up with a strategic definition of your overall political position. The question is therefore: do you impose it on yourself or do your opponents do it for you?”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“…the consensus established in the New Labour years, of relying on arms-length, extra-governmental bodies staffed by fellow travellers to help push through policy choices under the guise of independent expertise”.
They love to give the veneer of democracy through “Have your say” and “evidence” through opinion polls. They have nothing but absolute contempt for the electorate.
The focus groups and polling was, at one point, based on the idea of listening to people’s needs and concerns so politics could fix things and make the world better.
Unfortunately it developed into a process of testing how to sell and package backroom policies that were already decided. Find the best nudges, talking points and persuading methods (eg labelling or name-calling). Ignore what people actually want or were worried about.
A bit like these ‘citizens’ assemblies’ arranged to include just the right people to give the ‘right’ results
A fine analysis. The progressive consensus
… and the risk with populism is that it that people might democratically prefer something else, something the political elite might not be comfortable about.
Which is why ‘populism’ is being spun as low brow and objectionable. By both major parties. Which is why Brexit, Boris Johnson and Liz Trust (and Trump, Meloni, and so on elsewhere) had the Establishment stacked against them. Populism by its very nature is anti-Establishment.
“in doing so it turned against its own democratic spirit, bypassing the people it was meant to serve. Rather than seeking to do what people want, centrists of the New Labour stripe generally seek to manage them away, imposing their own preferences and presenting them as the only sensible, reasonable approach”.
Brilliant analysis, we see this process currently with Welsh Labour. They’re securing their hold on the Senedd with increasing the number of members to strangle the independents, who they fear more than anyone else.
There is no opposition in Wales. The Tories don’t stand for anything and Plaid Cymru has only one policy.
Please understand this: Blair is the dominant figure in Starmer Labour now. Starmer had no real political programme, and as the terrifying prospect of actually being in charge has become real he has bought in a ready-baked programme from outside. Vote Starmer get Blair.
Correct. At present, it looks like Labour will win the next election with a big majority. It will be a restoration of New Labour without the elan; a technocratic administration living in a bubble and probably unable to respond to the popular – populist? – currents in society. Ironically, the ruthless centralised disciplined campaigning model that is enabling Starmer to win power risks being his downfall once in government. If one wants parallels, think of the SNP government in Scotland but without the sense of mission or Obama without the ability to inspire.
In particular, I see no sign that Labour have a thought through solution to the corrosive effects of real wage stagnation or decline for a large chunk of the electorate. If this challenge is not responded to then U.K. politics may follow the US pattern. We will get Starmer next but perhaps the British version of Trump populism in the following election – after Labour technocratic rule singularly fails to inspire.
MGBGA in 2030?
This analysis is correct. Labour is now the servant of the more powerful ruling anti democratic permanent Technocracy established by Blair and the EU. A victory simply restores their full power and sees of the first great peoples revolt against their failure (Brexit). And there will be another rumble and revolt. Why? Because the underlying progressive ideologies of this New Order are ALL creating economic chaos – mass migration and population growth, suffocating taxes, an aggressive and broken NHS monster, heavy legal Vetocracies crippling housing markets and employment and the total insanity of Net Zero which will end the era of cheap power and usher in permanent recessionary degrowth. The Tories bowed to this System so return in full it will. So our fate is sealed.
Moral of the story:
Populism is good if the right person is popular.
New Labour was an exception because the key debate was not about the euro with Britain having been flung out of the ERM earlier in the 90s.
Instead, this deceitful group of people maximised the number of labour migrants who arrived from the former Eastern Bloc. Then Brown refused to hold the promised referendum on the new EU Lisbon Treaty.
Cameron followed suit until he was held up by the real British populist in the 2010s.
Cameron called himself “the heir to Blair” and referred to Blair as “the master”.
An excellent article. At their conference this week Labour seems to have nothing to say about the existential issues facing the West, while concentrating on its traditional tinkering with private schools, borrowing “to invest” and refighting Brexit.
Starmer gave the game away when he let slip that he prefers the company of the Davos elite to that of elected Parliamentarians. After that, none of his attempts to appeal to popular feeling over topics such as immigration can be taken at all seriously.
This year Starmer pretended to be a new boy at Davos, but he had been a member of the Trilateral Commission for several years.
https://labourheartlands.com/sir-keir-starmer-the-establishment-candidate-the-labour-leadership-race-and-the-trilateral-commission/
“In effect, they therefore reject Hegelianism as a continuing process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
So … the self declared identification as End of History and the Last Man. Marvellous. We all know what happened to the Last Man, too.