Patrick Diamond

The Case for Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in British Political Studies: New Labour's Political Memoirs and the British Political Tradition

This review article explores the memoirs of six major figures from the New Labour era, while also reflecting on the contribution made by this genre of memoirs and political autobiographies to the study of British politics. In so doing, it takes issue with the claim made by Rhodes that there is a tendency among political scientists in general, and UK political scientists in particular, to neglect political biographies or ‘life histories’ on the grounds that memoirs have little to offer the empirical study of politics. Contra Rhodes, the view presented here is that biography has made a tangible, yet often understated contribution to the field of political studies in Britain. We concentrate on what political biography can offer accounts that explore the complex relationship between ideas and institutions in British politics.

The Progressive Dilemmas of British Social Democracy: Political Economy after New Labour

This article traces the roots of ideas currently influencing the Labour party relating to the role of the state in Britains political economy, exploring the trajectory by which such ideas have entered contemporary debate and how they continue to shape the partys agenda. Subsequent sections explore diverse interpretations of New Labour, the economic legacy of the Blair and Brown governments, the re-imagining of British political economy undertaken by Labour under Milibands leadership, and the interlinking ‘progressive dilemmas’ that have so far emerged. The article concludes by suggesting that the ambitious rediscovery of interventionism will only be realisable if Labour confronts historical dilemmas relating to the structure and efficacy of the British state. Such a confrontation requires serious engagement between the doctrines of British social democracy and the overlapping and interlinking narratives of liberal political thought.

Governing as New Labour: An Inside Account of the Blair and Brown Years

The experience of governing at the strategic centre of the UK political system raises many important questions about the philosophy of public management and delivery, and the scope and scale of the British state. This article sheds light on those debates by offering an inside account of government at the centre during the Blair and Brown years, albeit from a particular ontological standpoint given the authors role as a Special Adviser in the Prime Ministers Policy Unit. Among the most insistent themes is the gap that so often opens up between the intentions of those in 10 Downing Street and Whitehall, and the reality of what actually happens on the ground. The drive to expand the strategic centre during the New Labour era was intended not just to improve the performance of government, but to change the nature of British society. There were, nonetheless, many unintended consequences and outcomes that resulted from New Labours governance and Whitehall reforms.

The Westminster system under the Cameron coalition: ‘Promiscuous partisanship’ or institutional resilience?

This article applies Aucoins paradigm of New Political Governance derived from the comparative literature on Westminster systems to review changes in the UK machinery of government during the Coalition era from 2010 to 2015. The paper examines whether coalition government imposed ‘checks and balances’ that prevented Conservative ministers from enacting a further wave of New Public Management-style reforms of the permanent bureaucracy comparable to New Political Governance. The central argument of the article is that the institutional resilience of Westminster systems, particularly their capacity to safeguard norms of public service impartiality and non-partisanship in the face of the politicisation and externalisation of the policy-making process, has been underestimated. Nevertheless, Aucoins concerns about the erosion of non-partisan affiliation in the civil service of the Anglophone countries remain apposite.

Labouring in the Shadow of the British Political Tradition: The Dilemma of ?One Nation? Politics in an Age of Disunification

The British state is in flux and the Labour party is struggling to shape an effective response to the politics of disunification. This article reflects on the nature of Labours governing project and its conception of modern statecraft which has evolved since the party became a serious contender for power in the aftermath of the First World War. We argue that Labours initially pluralising instincts cultivated in opposition have been checked by the ongoing reality of a state-centric mode of governing, in which the party continued to robustly defend the Westminster model operating within the parameters established by the British Political Tradition (BPT). Ed Milibands conception of ‘One Nation’ Labour threatens to reinforce this historical pattern of reversion to the Westminster model, at precisely the moment when devolutionary forces are destabilising the existing political settlement. To break out of this impasse, Labour must look elsewhere in its ideological lexicon for inspiration, chiefly to the tradition of socialist pluralism and associationalism.

Government by ‘Permanent Campaign’

This chapter’s purpose is to examine how far Whitehall has been captured by the ethos of the ‘permanent campaign’. The concept of the ‘permanent campaign’ is centred on the idea that the government machinery should be used to advance partisan objectives, entrenching the electoral dominance of the governing party. Civil servants not only work for the government of the day, they respond to the demands of the political party in power. Under NPG, partisan campaigning and public administration are effectively merged. The separation of ‘politics’ from ‘administration’ elaborated by Weber in Politics as a Vocation has been egregiously undermined in the British machinery of government. The constitutional independence and authority of the permanent civil service is subject to unprecedented attack.

The Growth of Political Advisory Staff

This chapter will examine the causes and consequences of recruiting an increasing number of political staff from outside the permanent civil service. The evidence is ‘politicisation’ has grown in recent decades as a consequence of the influx of appointees. The threat posed to the traditional Whitehall model from the escalation of partisanship is significant, upending the once sacred civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy advice. The debate is nevertheless more nuanced than depicted by images of shadowy special advisers. The nature of the policy process has changed radically over the last thirty years. The growth of policy-relevant research, the impact of new technology, and the demand for ‘user-driven’ public services led Ministers to seek varieties of specialist advice from outside the permanent bureaucracy. Politicisation ought not to be confused with the legitimate search for expertise.

The Personalisation of Appointments

The principle of appointment on merit is at the core of the Whitehall paradigm. Merit-based appointment was intended to attract the ‘brightest and the best’ into the British civil service. Following the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of 1854, officials no longer depended on ministerial patronage. There is evidence the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement is now being undermined. In the Anglophone democracies, Ministers are intervening to influence the appointment of civil servants. In the UK, both Cameron and May sought a formal role in the appointment of permanent secretaries. The evidence is officials who lose the confidence of Ministers are likely to be removed. As a consequence, civil service careers are more fluid; officials are dependent on ministerial patronage as never before.

A ‘Promiscuously Partisan’ Bureaucracy

The cumulative effect of these changes makes the central government machine in the UK ‘promiscuously partisan’ (Aucoin, Governance, 25, 177–199, 2012). Officials are expected to support the government’s agenda. The norms of ‘impartial loyalty’ are displaced by partisanship (Bakvis and Jarvis, Introduction: Peter C. Aucoin: From New Public Management to New Political Governance. In From New Public Management to New Political Governance. McGill-Queens University Press, 2012: 17). The civil service always counselled Ministers on the political dimensions of policy decisions; yet now, substantive advice is outweighed by partisan considerations (Van den Berg, Policy Sciences, 50, 63–84, 2016). Civil servants are required to advocate government policies, persuading the media and stakeholders the government’s measures are in the public interest (Aucoin, Governance, 25, 177–199, 2012). As the civil service ‘monopoly’ over policy-making is weakened, officials are compelled to demonstrate allegiance to Ministers. This chapter will consider the dramatic growth of ‘promiscuous partisanship’ in Whitehall.

Introduction: The Progressive Dilemma in British Politics

This special edition reflects on the contemporary relevance of the insights and concerns of David Marquands book The Progressive Dilemma. In this Introduction, the editors set the scene for these reflections. They consider the structural changes that have occurred in politics since the 1990s: the impact of globalisation, the erosion of class identities, the rise of ‘identity politics’ and the continued fragmentation of the party system. There has been no reconciliation between the parties of the centre-left, nor any re-examination of the ‘liberal tradition’ and the potential for a new synthesis with revisionist social democracy. On the one hand, Corbynism is a radicalised metropolitan species of liberalism, while on the other there are plenty in Labour who stress the need for the party to re-engage with the traditional, socially conservative values of the working class in a new ‘postliberal’ appeal. Yet the authors argue that those who broadly identify with progressive causes in British politics—animated by the various overlapping strands of social liberalism, social democracy and liberal socialism—have still to work out how to address the historic failings that Marquand so eloquently exposed, to create a new and inspiring intellectual vision that unites and energises the left and centre-left.