W.G. Runciman is a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a former president of the General Council of British Shipping.
MORE BY THIS CONTRIBUTOR
RELATED ARTICLES
3 July 2008
The Great Education Disaster
22 March 2007
Ten Years of Blair
30 November 2006
Thatcherism
16 November 2006
The Fifties
7 March 2002
The Debt to Kinnock
2 July 1998
Notes on the NHS
21 May 1998
On Classes and Cultures: England 1918-51 by Ross McKibbin
RELATED CATEGORIES
History, 1900-1999, 1946-1999, 2000-present, Politics, Labour Party, Europe, Western Europe, UK
Vol. 28 No. 12 · 22 June 2006
pages 17-21 | 5875 words
What happened to the Labour Party?
W.G. Runciman
I am old enough to remember listening to the results of the general election of 1945 and sensing the surprise at the size of Attlee’s majority shared by Conservative and Labour supporters alike. And I remember the comment then made by one of my relations to the effect that the problems facing the country in the aftermath of the Second World War were such that no government would be able to address them without losing popularity, so that the Conservatives could plausibly look forward to being returned as the unintended beneficiaries next time round. It was, in its way, a prophetic remark. But the Attlee government was, nevertheless, an authentically reforming one inspired by an explicit set of principles and committed to a legislative programme which was duly put into effect in accordance with pledges the electorate had been given.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
- print this article
Letters
Vol. 28 No. 15 · 3 August 2006
From Roger Fieldhouse
I was appalled to read W.G. Runciman’s analysis of what has happened to the Labour Party since 1945 – not because of his interesting historical assessment but because of the conclusion he draws from it (LRB, 22 June). He is correct that the Labour Party was never a socialist or Marxist party, but his argument that a fundamental change of attitude in the British electorate brought about by growing affluence during the second half of the 20th century has shunted a commitment to fairness and greater equality off the political agenda is a flawed apologia for New Labour. New Labour’s meek submission to the selfish attitudes so encouraged by Thatcherism make an alternative political programme harder to promote now, but the collapse of democratic-socialist aspirations was not inevitable. As Runciman himself says, ‘affluence didn’t, after all, overwhelm the social-democratic ethos of egalitarian and bureaucratic but also prosperous Sweden.’ Even within its social-democratic traditions there are many ways the Labour Party could still free itself from the shackles of New Labourism, distinguish itself from the Conservative Party and win a general election. Of course it would have to protect the affluence to which British society has become accustomed, but ‘fairness’ rather than the divisive and fallacious notion of ‘choice’ should be the basis of its political philosophy and policies.
Roger Fieldhouse
Exeter, Devon
