Without new ideas and a clear definition of purpose, Labour will struggle to govern

Dr Keith Darlington

Labour was once a hegemonic force in Wales, but it is now in deep trouble. If it is to recover, it must do more than change leader. It must rediscover a clear sense of purpose and define what it stands for in the modern world.

With speculation already turning to a possible leadership contest, and Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting both seen as potential contenders, the party urgently needs a serious debate and bring new ideas into Labour; otherwise, whoever leads it will struggle in government.

As a teenager in the 1960s, I joined the Labour Party and enjoyed many thought-provoking discussions at meetings. But, with a heavy heart, I left Labour in 2010, not just because of the Iraq war, but I felt it was gradually losing its soul and purpose for governing.

I believe, as I show in this article, that Labour lost its way because of New Labour’s embrace of Blair’s centre politics that prioritised spin over substance and did whatever it thought was expedient rather than what was in tune with the spirit of Labour politics.

It has predominantly continued on this trajectory ever since. But Labour must elect a new leader, reject Blairite politics, and redefine its purpose in this precarious age if it is to succeed again.

Radical Post-War Labour

After WW2, the Labour Party was proud to be radical and idealistic on many issues. The Cold War was at its peak, and Capitalism and Socialism were seen as ideologies that marked sharp distinctions and gave Labour a clear sense of purpose.

Politics was seen as a vehicle for changing the world. Above all, the Labour government in the post-war period embraced radical change in the economy, education, social policy, and so on, all of which followed from healthy debate at all levels of the party. It was during these years that Labour established the NHS and created much of the Welfare State and workers’ rights.

However, following the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the eventual collapse of the Cold War, a tacit assumption emerged that Capitalism was now “the only game in town”. Thatcherism emerged as a distinctive ideology based on free-market wealth creation from growth that would trickle down to the masses. In retrospect, this theory has clearly failed. During that time, Labour evolved into what became known as “New Labour”, and when Blair won power in 1997, New Labour adopted a more compassionate form of free-market Thatcherism.

New Labour and the Middle Way

Blair’s New Labour claimed to represent a new politics based on a middle way called Centre politics. At first, many politicians were drawn to this project because they believed it offered the widest electoral appeal, allowing them to build broad voting coalitions and project an image of calm, pragmatic politics. But Centre politics lacked a purpose beyond seeking a middle position.

The Blairites thought that being in the centre was likely to become more respectable because it would seem more moderate. But the emergence of Reform and the Greens disproves this theory. That Starmer has followed Centre politics has left Labour where it is today: an ideological vacuum, unsure of what it stands for, other than choosing a solution that fits somewhere in the centre of political thinking.

But even this is no longer the case because today, Blair, the high priest of centre politics, supports Trump in ways that would make Farage blush. For example, he supports the Iran war, clearly learning little from the Iraq war disaster over 20 years ago. Blair also now supports abandoning net-zero and is calling for a fossil-fuel economy.

He no longer wants closer ties with the EU, and supports the Trump-Netanyahu approach to Gaza. Many would say that these views are closer to those of Reform than to the Centre. Even so, he still claims to be in the Centre. Being in the Centre is becoming a meaningless cliché.

But Centre politics has become discredited for other reasons: there is no political ideology, only a claim that they are more competent than the other parties at managing the capitalist system. This explains, in part, why Labour’s manifesto was so meagre and vague in its commitments and why Starmer has made so many U-turns. It also means that without a guiding ideology, many voters believe there is little difference between the two main parties.

In a booming economy, this may not matter. However, in a stagnant economy where living standards are falling, the absence of a guiding ideology is a problem for Labour, as they lack a narrative on how to fix it. This is why Starmer’s Labour is in terminal decline – he has never had a story to tell because he never seemed to have one in the first place. Most voters say that they don’t know what he stands for. In the 2024 election, he tried selling Labour as a party of change, yet few know what that change is. Little wonder that after just 22 months in power, Starmer’s Labour is so unpopular.

Labour’s centre politics has failed

Aside from the Corbyn leadership years, Centre politics has been the dominant paradigm of Labour thinking since Blair came to power almost 30 years ago. It has been the undoing of Starmer’s Labour. In the New Labour years, it was thought that being in the centre on an issue would keep both sides happy, but it has clearly failed.

Many Blairite Labour supporters claim that his Centrist politics were successful because he won three elections. But that does not hold up under scrutiny because, despite winning three terms, Labour lost over 5 million voters during their period in government between 1997 and 2010. And Blair’s third victory in 2005, like Starmer’s in 2024, had more to do with flaws in the First-Past-the-Post voting system. In both elections, Labour won with the support of barely one in three voters, but still won a majority in Parliament. Labour also lost Scotland when Blair was in power and has never won it back.

Centre politics has been discredited by ambivalence and a lack of clarity about beliefs. This leaves many voters feeling that our politicians lack conviction. That goes some way to explaining the rise of Reform and the Greens. It also explains why Starmer is seen as weak and as someone who doesn’t believe in much. It is why he records such abysmally poor ratings with voters. It also leads to stagnant politics and a fearful mindset that tinkers around the edges rather than makes bold changes. This is typically done by setting up independent reviews to buy time and deflect political pressure.

A good example of this is social care. The Blair government recognised that social care was a major problem in a 1998 speech. But despite this early recognition and reviews, the party left office in 2010 without delivering a comprehensive overhaul of long-term social care funding.

This has led to major problems for the NHS, as beds are often taken, not by patients in need, but by elderly care patients with nowhere else to go. Successive governments have lacked the courage to deal with this issue. Review after review has followed. Yet, Labour, after 14 years in opposition, came to power in 2024, offering nothing more than another review that won’t even report its final recommendations until 2028.

A social care funding solution is as far away as ever. This final report will be published just in time for the next general election, but addressing this problem is becoming increasingly urgent, and our politicians show no will to do anything about it.

Labour must develop new ideas

A replacement leader is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Labour to recover. Labour must have a proper leadership contest in which issues are fully debated. Wes Streeting is right when he recently said: “Change begins with an argument. You don’t make progress without one”. He says that he wants a battle of ideas in a proper Labour leadership contest. He is right, it can’t come quickly enough if Labour is going to survive.

They need, as Andy Burnham said, to move away from a point-scoring to a problem-solving party. As a step in the right direction, Labour stalwarts might look at how other countries solve particular problems effectively. For example, I was in Costa Rica many years ago, and was very impressed with the concordance they have with their citizens on environmental issues.

Costa Rica is a globally renowned model for environmental sustainability. Also, last week, it was announced that there are now over a million, or 13.5%, young people in the UK not in education, employment or training – so-called NEETS. Yet, in the Netherlands, there are fewer than 5%. What are they doing better there that we are not doing here?

They might also look towards New Zealand as a model for improving UK Parliamentary democracy. They abandoned the First-Past-the-Post voting system in 1996 and replaced it with a Mixed Member Proportional system. The benefits to their democracy appeared immediately. Their Parliament was instantly more reflective of the country, both in terms of parties and demographics and has widespread support.

First-Past-the-Post

The UK Parliament is still the only country in Europe, apart from Belarus, that continues to use the First-Past-the-Post voting system. It was a system well suited to the two-party system in the 19th and early 20th century. But it is no longer fit for purpose because, with five now contesting elections, it could lead to a scenario in which a single party has a working majority on 20% of the vote share.

This can clearly have dangerous consequences and make a mockery of democracy. Finally, Westminster Labour might also look at our new voting system in the Welsh Senedd as a possible alternative to the First-Past-The-Post system.

The results of the Welsh Senedd voting system earlier this month meant that Plaid Cymru, the largest party, had a 35% vote share with 44% share of seats. A much fairer outcome than the UK Labour Party, which in 2024 won a lower vote share yet had 66% of seats.