BLAIR'S SUCCESSOR IS; HOWARD'S WON'T BE (via Tom Corcoran):

Did they foul up my Third Way? The New Statesman wondered if Iraq and other recent reversals had shaken the faith of new Labour's founding ideologist. But as he reveals here, Anthony Giddens remains resolute and unrepentantly Blairite (New Strateman, 6/07/04)

New Labour has precisely what the Conservatives lack--a distinctive political philosophy. The Conservatives simply have not been able to put together what they need for electoral success: in effect, a right-of-centre "third way". The Tory experience, from William Hague to Michael Howard, shows that changing leaders does not make much difference--it is the policy mix, and the voters' appraisal of it, that count.

Which brings us neatly to the next question. Is Gordon Brown a "third wayist" and would he keep the Third Way going as PM?

Absolutely he is and certainly he would. I defy anyone to find, in Brown's speeches over recent years, more than a slither of difference from Blair. His Third Way credentials are impeccable. In most respects, he is a revisionist par excellence. He believes in entrepreneurship and enterprise. He emphasises the need to foster a dynamic economy and stresses the importance of flexibility in labour markets. He is a believer in welfare reform, discarding passive benefits in favour of tax credits geared to job creation. He rejects First Way views on the role of the state. Old-style social democrats, he argues, saw the state's role as intervening in cases of market failure and propping up or taking over favoured businesses. Today, we must recognise that the state has to intervene in the opposite direction--to make markets more efficient.

Brown wants Britain to become a society that combines the economic dynamism of the US with the social protection characteristic of Europe. It is not a self-contradictory ambition, so long as economic reforms march in tandem with technological investment and continued welfare restructuring. Brown, like Blair, rightly emphasises the importance of jobs and of getting people into work. A country with high levels of employment can more easily free up revenue to spend productively on health and education.

Isn't Brown rather old Labourish on foundation hospitals, university tuition fees and the principle of choice in public services?

I don't think so. He may have misgivings on some policy details, but he would not dream of putting billions into an unreformed state sector. He says there are areas of public activity where market principles cannot operate cleanly and should not be allowed to penetrate too far. But every "third wayer" can agree about that.

I would put it like this. In market situations, we are "consumercitizens". Choice between products, and the pressure this puts upon producers, is the main guarantee of quality and efficiency. The role of the state is confined to providing an overall regulatory framework. Other areas, especially health and education, are different. Here, we are "citizen-consumers". The state, and not-for-profit agencies, have a much larger part to play. Patients, for instance, can never be simply consumers, because they cannot acquire the specialised knowledge needed to assess the quality of medical treatment.

Given the Tory inability to learn from Margaret Thatcher, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard, and George W. Bush they're likely to lose a couple elections to Gordon Brown too.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 6, 2005 6:32 PM