Steve Buckler

Can fair be efficient? New Labour, Social Liberalism and British economic policy

Prior to the 1997 British general election, the then Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown famously referred to the importance of post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory. Ridiculed in some sections of the media for the use of impenetrable technical jargon, he has rarely made mention of this economic theory again in public. However, the influence of endogenous growth theory is manifest in Brown’s economic policy and provides a central element in New Labour’s strategy for the realisation of a particular conception of social justice in a market setting. Many commentators have been inclined to see New Labour as having adopted a broadly neoliberal agenda, particularly in relation to its management of the economy, with an emphasis upon inflation targets, labour-market flexibility and supply-side policy. When combined with New Labour’s stated commitment to social justice, this appears to make for a pragmatic and uneasy mixture of traditional social democratic principles with a neoclassical economic framework, rather than a coherent ‘third way’. We shall argue that, in fact, New Labour has consciously adopted a more distinctive economic approach, one congruent with a conception of social justice that is itself distinguishable both from traditional social democracy and from neoliberalism. We will suggest that New Labour’s broad agenda reflects a distinctive ideological position best characterised as social liberal. The aim of the argument is not to present a general defence of New Labour’s ideological position: such a defence would involve a combination of technical arguments (about the validity of endogenous growth theory) and moral arguments (about the acceptability of a particular conception of social justice) and is not our intention here to adjudicate on either of these. Thus the present argument can be construed as a defence of New Labour thinkers only in relation to the criticism that they are incoherent and not in relation to the criticism that they are wrong. Equally, however, characterising the New Labour approach in this way allows us a clearer picture of the key assumptions underlying that approach, particularly in relation to the economy. The validity or otherwise of these assumptions may hold the key, ultimately, to the success or failure of the New Labour agenda.

Ideology, party identity and renewal

The article explores the phenomenon of ideological renewal, where a political party seeks to effect a radical break with the past and to present itself in a new light. This exploration is placed in the context of questions concerning a partys ideological identity and, in particular, how a suitable sense of identity can be sustained in the context of renewal. We suggest an analytical framework that identifies the imperatives that a party has to meet, in terms of the ideological construction and rhetorical articulation of ‘newness’, if the renewal process is to have a chance of success. This framework is then deployed in the examination of the construction of ‘New Labour’. Finally, some implications of the framework for the prospects of ideological renewal in the Conservative Party are explored.

Historical narrative, identity and the Holocaust

Attempts to tell the story of the Holocaust have invariably proved controversial and the continuing problem as to how we can speak about the event has prompted a conviction that it represents an ’unmasterable’ episode in our history. What precisely this means is somewhat unclear. Additional light may be shed upon the theoretical character of the problem by reference to an examination of a particular instance of fragmented Holocaust debate. This particular problem consists in the emergence of differing perspectives sceptical empirical inquiry on the one hand and personal memory on the other which, in this case, appear not only as different ways of exploring the past but also as standpoints peculiarly at odds with one another. At the same time, each standpoint fails in one way or another to escape looming questions of veracity. These problems can be generalized to reflect the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust itself and, I want to suggest, can best be explained by juxtaposition with the requirements involved in a narrative conception of history. The Holocaust arguably resists the full development of an historical narrative articulating an agreed version of events and offering a firmer footing to the otherwise uncertain voices of empirical inquiry and memory as contributions to that narrative. As a result, we are left confronting the Holocaust

Machiavelli and Rousseau: the standpoint of the city and the authorial voice in political authorial voice in political theory

A systematic comparison is made between the respective political theories of Machiavelli and Rousseau. Initially, the comparison centres upon key substantive claims made by each theorist with a view to estab lishing a general, thematic contrast. This is used as a basis for structur ing a further comparison between the respective authorial standpoints adopted by Machiavelli and Rousseau. It will be suggested that this comparison establishes, (a) that a connection can be made between sub stantive theory and authorial standpoint and, (b) that, in comparison, the authorial standpoint adopted by Machiavelli reflects a fidelity to the political which is absent in Rousseau.

Plagiarism and Citation

Students are often unsure of exactly what plagiarism is and how it affects them. Cutting and pasting from electronic resources has in recent years made it extremely easy to ―lift‖ text and to present it as your own. Be aware that this is not acceptable academic practice under any circumstances and that there are sophisticated Web sites and techniques specifically aimed at tracking down this kind of plagiarism. Ignorance or carelessness is no excuse for plagiarism. Plagiarism essentially is the stealing of others‘ words, thoughts and ideas and is treated like fraud. Accusation of plagiarism is therefore a serious charge and will be dealt with very severely.

Remembering the 20th Century

Remembering the key political events of the 20th century has arguably to be thought of as a highly reflexive task. The more extreme political projects of the period saw erasures of memory, negations of the past, of an unprecedented sort and, in turn, the lapse of any criteria transmitted from the past that might impose limits upon the ways in which human beings are treated. Remembering events of this kind is likely to be an undertaking permanently mediated by questions concerning the nature, and the point, of historical memory itself. One need only think here of the problems that continue to surround the Nazi Holocaust as a historical event, with its astonishing susceptibility to emasculation or denial, and also the sustained controversies around attempts at public memorialization of the event, with attendant criticisms of ‘forgetful monuments which erase as much history from memory as they inscribe in it’.1 Such problems might be taken as evidence that the more breathtakingly brutal aspects of the 20th-century experience may at best be objects of what Lawrence Langer has described as ‘anguished memory’ which, far from being redemptive, collapses into uncertainty, and so forms an impoverished basis upon which to make historical judgments.2 In view of this, we are challenged to reconsider how we relate to the past through historical memory and also, in the light of the kind of crimes of which an amnesiac society appears capable, to consider how we reassert the connection between the possibility of memory and the possibility of humanism. These questions have a central place in recent volumes by Hannah Arendt and Tzvetan Todorov. Responsibility and Judgment collects together a number of shorter pieces by Arendt, previously unpublished or uncollected and written mostly during the last decade of her life, which contain reflections upon key moral questions thrown up by the experience of totalitarianism, questions that resonate through subsequent controversies and which frame critical assessments of more contemporary political events. In Hope and Memory, Todorov looks back at the 20th century from the vantage point of its close and poses the