Left, Right and the Third

Home , Old Left, Third Way

Left, Right and the third way Stephen Driver and Luke Martell English New Labour claims to have discovered a third way between Old Left and New Right, with policy implications that break with established debates and policy alternatives. But what does the third way actually mean in terms of values and its approach to policy? We argue in this article that Labour’s third way does not transcend Old Left and New Right. Left and Right remain important markers for contemporary policy and politics but the third way does combine them in significant new ways. Between Old Left and New Right, we argue, there is not just space for one third way but for many, with varying values and policy positions. Français Le New Labour se vante d’avoir trouvé une ‘troisième voie’ entre la gauche et la droite traditionnelle, avec les conséquences qui s’en suivent concernant les politiques rompant avec les débats et les choix habituels. Mais que veut dire ‘la troisième voie’ en termes de valeurs et d’approche politique? Dans l’article, nous partons du principe que la troisième voie du New Labour ne dépasse pas les concepts de la gauche traditionnelle et de la nouvelle droite. Gauche et droite restent d’importants marqueurs dans la politique et les politiques contemporaines, mais la troisième voie en fait de nouvelles combinaisons signifiantes. Nous pensons que, entre la gauche traditionnelle et la nouvelle droite, il n’y a pas qu’une seule possibilité de troisième voie, mais plusieurs, avec des valeurs et des prises de position variées. Español El Nuevo Partido Laborista afirma haber descubierto una tercera ruta entre la ‘antigua Izquierda’ y la ‘nueva Derecha’, con implicaciones en el programa político que rompen con los debates establecidos y con las políticas alternativas. Pero ¿Qué es lo que realmente significa esta ruta en cuanto a sus valores y enfoque político? En este artículo discutimos que la tercera ruta del Partido Laborista, no supera en términos políticos ni la ‘antigua Izquierda’ ni la ‘nueva Derecha’. La Izquierda y la Derecha permanecen como marcadores importantes en el programa político contemporaneo, aunque la tercera ruta combina ambos partidos de diferente manera. Entre la ‘antigua Izquierda’ y la ‘nueva Derecha’, razonamos que no hay solamente lugar para una tercera ruta sino para muchas con diferentes valores y posiciones políticas.

Key words: New Labour third way social democracy New Right

Final submission 27 September 1999 Acceptance 21 October 1999 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way

The idea of a ‘third way’ is one of a number of to debate. In this article we shall attempt to as- attempts by Labour modernisers to find a syn- sess what Labour modernisers like Blair mean thetic term or language to capture New Labour by the third way? Is it simply a receptacle for all politics. New Labour has been projected as the things New Labour is not, too vague to have any party of ‘one nation’ concerned with ‘the many definite positive implications? Or does it have not the few’, and as a government capable of some substantive meaning which provides a use- undertaking a programme of modernisation to ful guide for public policy making? Does it make build a ‘new Britain’. Ideas of ‘stakeholding’ and the old politics of Left and Right redundant or ‘social exclusion’ and the emphasis placed on does it just combine them in a contradictory and ‘community’ have also figured prominently. The incoherent way? And if it aspires to transcend idea of a third way is attractive to Labour mod- traditional political divides and labels to what ernisers because it appears to challenge extent can the third way still remain a political conventional notions of a political Left and Right project for the Centre-Left? Does it, in fact, – and thus reinforces the ‘newness’ of New La- disguise a shift to the Right, marking a new con- bour. Speaking just a month after Labour’s sensus between Labour and the Conservatives? landslide victory in 1997 to a meeting of the European Socialists’ Congress in Mälmo, Swe- Defining the third way den, Blair said: “Our task today is not to fight old battles but to show that there is a third way, a Our focus in this article is on third way ideas in way of marrying together an open, competitive Britain – in particular as articulated by New La- and successful economy with a just, decent and bour and commentators who have engaged with humane society” (Blair 1997). Labour modernisers and the policies of the La- New Labour’s search for a third way between bour government. Attempts to define a third way the Old Left and New Right comes at the end of fall into two categories. The first begins by stat- a century littered with similar attempts to break ing what the third way is not; the second, what it the political mould. Some of these, like Lloyd is or might be – and obviously the first approach George’s coalition government and later the SDP, can be followed by the second. Clearly it is in have searched for a political middle ground be- the nature of third or middle way politics to rely tween Left and Right. Some have come from the in part on definitions which are negative or rela- Right, whether from mainstream Conservatism tional in character. A third or middle way must (for example, Macmillan’s ‘middle way’) or from logically stand in some relation to at least two far Right political movements. Others have others. What the nature of the relationship is emerged from the Left: democratic socialists, between the elements is significant and cannot social democrats and market socialists search- be deduced: is it a compromise, a synthesis or ing for third ways between social democracy and just the third of three, for example? Stalinism, reform and revolution, or capitalism and communism. Contemporary third way thinking in Britain What the third way is not has emerged out of the reform to the Centre-Left Within New Labour politics, the third way is world-wide since the early 1980s. In Britain and defined as ‘ beyond Old Left and New Right’ the United States, New Labour and the New (Blair, 1998; see also Blair and Schroeder, 1999). Democrats, faced with the hegemony of radical The definitions of ‘Old Left’ and ‘New Right’ conservative governments espousing economic used in third-way thinking are thus significant; liberalisation, have been concerned with finding as is the meaning of ‘beyond’. By ‘Old Left’, a politics which might mark a break with their Labour modernisers have in mind the social dem- own parties’ past and conservative governments ocratic Labour politics of the postwar period – in office (Driver and Martell, 1998). Ideas of a in particular, of a post-1960s liberal hue. Gener- third way have been particularly relevant in such ally, by ‘Old Left’ (or ‘Old Labour’), Labour contexts. Whether they have preceded and guid- modernisers mean the Keynesian, egalitarian ed policy development or resulted from ex post social democrats who tended to favour state and facto rationalising of ideas or a bit of both is open corporatist forms of economic and welfare

148 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2 governance within the context of a mixed econ- in others’ terms, you allow them to determine omy. Labour modernisers accuse this ‘Old Left’ your agenda” (Dahrend orf, 1999). There is, of being too statist; too concerned with the re- moreover, the tendency to create soft and often distribution (and tax-and-spend policies) and not ill-defined targets which turn complex political the creation of wealth; too willing to grant rights formations into caricatures (see Vincent, 1998 but not to demand responsibilities; and of being for a good discussion of ‘old’ and ‘new’ ideolo- too liberal and individualist in terms of social gies). New Labour’s view of the Old Left, for behaviour and social relationships such as the example, is a catholic one (Shaw 1996; Hirst family. So, if the ‘Old Left’ are all of these, then 1999). It combines disparate political positions New Labour’s third way is concerned to find al- under one label – from the social democracy of ternatives to state provision and government Tony Crosland in the 1950s and 1960s (itself a control; to promote wealth creation by being fis- ‘middle way’) to the state socialism of the Alter- cally ‘prudent’; to match rights with native Economic Strategy in the late 1970s and responsibilities; and to foster a culture of duty early 1980s. New Labour’s view of the New within ‘strong communities’. Right has similar faults. In particular, it suffers By ‘New Right’, Labour modernisers have from an exaggeration of the neoliberal influence their sights fixed on Thatcherite Conservatism. on Conservative governments in the 1980s and New Labour accuses successive Conservative 1990s – any government which continues to governments – and here they echo significant spend over 40% of GDP can hardly be described voices on the Right (Gilmour, 1992; Gray, 1993; as laissez faire – at the expense of acknowledg- Scruton, 1996) – of being the slave to neoliberal ing their Conservative social interventions, the dogma by favouring market solutions in all cas- growth in economic regulations and the central- es; by having a laissez-faire view of the state; by isation of government. promoting an asocial view of society; and by The advantage to Labour modernisers of this championing economic individualism which negative or relational approach is to highlight – places the value of individual gain above wider and exaggerate – the novelty of New Labour. social values. So, if New Labour opposes the Continuities with the Old Left – or at least parts New Right way, as well as the Old Left way, of it – are downplayed, as are continuities with then a third way could promote wealth creation Conservative policy making in the 1980s and and social justice, the market and the communi- 1990s – except, of course, where it suits New ty; it could embrace private enterprise but not Labour to appear ‘tough’, on inflation or trades automatically favour market solutions; it could unions, for example. This is not to suggest that endorse a positive role for the state – for exam- New Labour is simply a more up-to-date version ple, welfare to work – but need not assume that of a postwar Labour government – there are too governments provide public services directly: many important discontinuities – and nor is New these might be done by the voluntary or private Labour simply a continuation of Thatcherism. sectors; and it could, above all, offer a commu- But it seems reasonable to suggest that if a third nitarian, rather than individualist view of society way is neither Old Left or New Right, then it – in which individuals are embedded in social re- or the political territory where it might be found lations which give structure and meaning to – can cross the centre ground of politics from people’s lives – and that it is the role of govern- Left to Right: and that a third way politics might ments to promote ‘the community’ as a way of embrace not just the Centre-Left but include more enriching individual lives. traditional ‘one nation’ strands of Toryism, as There are obvious problems with defining the well perhaps as more recent notions of ‘compas- third way simply in terms of what it is not. It can sionate conservatism’ (see Dionne, 1999). appear negative, lacking substance. As Stewart This brings us to the question of what ‘beyond’ Wood suggests, it is “product differentiation means and to the nature of the relationship be- without really knowing what the product is” tween the various ways. Does ‘beyond’ here (Halpern and Mikosz, 1998: 7). Ralph Dahren- mean further on in comparison with (ie, with the dorf has argued that this negative approach is Old Left and New Right); or superior to; or sim- significant because “when you define yourself ply apart from or in addition to? Is New Labour’s

149 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way understanding of a third way – indeed, what the management to achieve full employment, government is doing in practice – a break or con- partially repudiated by James Callaghan in the tinuation with the past? Blair’s position on the mid-1970s and again under question during La- third way is that it represents a ‘modernised so- bour’s Policy Review in the late 1980s, is seen cial democracy’. In other words, the third way is as redundant in the context of a global economy. a path on the Centre-Left of modern politics. This The economic liberalism of the New Right qualifies the meaning of ‘beyond’. While it might Thatcher governments, which “in retrospect” retain some sense of progression - the third way brought about “necessary acts of modernisation” is at a (better) point further on – there are strong (in particular, “exposure of much of the state in- connections with the past. So, Blair argues, the dustrial sector to reform and competition”), third way offers an opportunity to advance tra- ultimately failed because of a political dogma- ditional Centre–Left values using new policies tism which prevented it from dealing with the which reflect the changing circumstances of the consequences of globalisation, such as social modern world. dislocation and social exclusion, which required more active government (Blair, 1999: 5–6). Third way thinking supports the view that glo- What the third way is: conditions and balisation brings with it greater risk and values insecurity, and that it is the role of policy mak- Blair’s attempt to substantiate a third way falls ing not to shield individuals from these but to into three parts: first, the general conditions for provide the ‘social capital’ and ‘proactive’ wel- a third way; second, its values; and third, the fare states which enable them to respond to them means required to achieve the ends given the and prosper in the global age. And where glo- conditions outlined in the first place. balisation is bound up with the new digital The general conditions for third way politics information and communication technologies rest on the argument that contemporary society and the ‘knowledge economy’, individuals need is undergoing profound and irreversible chang- the education and training appropriate to these es; and that these ‘new times’ call into question conditions. Public policy should support busi- established political and policy-making frame- ness in the creation of ‘knowledge-rich products works. The central theme here is ‘globalisation’. and services’ which will be the source of future In a speech in South Africa in January 1999, Tony economic growth (Leadbeater, 1998). As a re- Blair suggested: sult, it is suggested, the competing goals of economic success and social justice/cohesion can The driving force behind the ideas associ- be squared. Government promotes economic ated with the third way is globalisation growth by creating stable macro-economic con- because no country is immune from the ditions; and its supply-side social interventions massive change that globalisation brings enhance individual opportunity (social justice) ... what globalisation is doing is bringing and increase non-inflationary growth, which to- in its wake profound economic and social gether bring greater social cohesion by reducing change, economic change rendering all social exclusion. jobs in industry, sometimes even new jobs As we shall argue later, there are within third in new industries, redundant overnight and way thinking important divergences over the sig- social change that is a change to culture, nificance of globalisation and how a third way to lifestyle, to the family, to established politics might or should respond to it. There are patterns of community life. (Blair 1999) different views on the extent to which governments can or should control, regulate and respond A third way, then, is required to cope with these to the global free markets at the heart of eco- ‘new times’. For Blair, the Old Left – postwar nomic globalisation. There are also markedly social democracy – “proved steadily less viable” different responses to the social changes which as economic conditions changed as a result of Blair alluded to in his South Africa speech. globalisation. In particular, the linchpin of post- If these, then, are the general conditions for a war social democracy, Keynesian economic third way, what about the values that a third way

150 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2 politics might promote? There have been a the state but should also accept their individual number of attempts to pin these values down and responsibilities and duties as citizens, parents and we shall focus on the four identified by Tony members of communities. A third way should Blair in his third way pamphlet for the Fabian promote the value of ‘community’ by support- Society: ‘equal worth’, ‘opportunity for all’, ing the structures and institutions of civil society ‘responsibility’ and ‘community’. – such as the family and voluntary organisations The first, ‘equal worth’, is the old liberal nos- – which promote individual opportunity and trum that all human beings are equal and should which ground ‘responsibility’ in meaningful be treated as such and not discriminated against. social relationships. The second, ‘opportunity for all’, reflects the As we shall develop in this article, there is New Liberalism in New Labour’s third way: that broad agreement over these values among third substantive (or positive) freedom requires that way writers (for example, Giddens, 1998; Har- individuals have the resources to develop their greaves and Christie, 1998; Le Grand, 1998), talents and exercise their liberty – rather than though problems emerge over the interpretation being concerned solely with the legal conditions of these values and the extent to which they de- which support individuals to lead free lives (neg- fine a Centre-Left political project (White, 1998). ative freedom). Equal opportunities do not only Meanwhile a key question concerns the means go beyond the New Right, though. Blair attempts by which Centre-Left values are put into effect, to make a distinction crucial to his third way: the third part of a substantive definition of a third that ‘opportunity for all’ is principally concerned way. with opportunities and not outcomes:

The Left ... has in the past too readily What the third way is: means and the downplayed its duty to promote a wide role for government range of opportunities for individuals to Blair’s pragmatic view of means is indicative of advance themselves and their families. At much third way thinking: worst, it has stifled opportunity in the name of abstract equality. (Blair, 1998: 3; These are the values of the Third Way. see also Brown 1997) Without them, we are adrift. But in giving them practical effect, a large measure of By ‘abstract equality’ Blair means equality of pragmatism is essential. As I say continu- outcome. While he goes on to suggest that “the ally, what matters is what works to give progressive Left must robustly tackle the obsta- effect to our values. (Blair, 1998: 4) cles to true equality of opportunity”, and that these might include “gross inequalities ... hand- For Blair, as times change, so must the means to ed down from generation to generation”, Blair achieve centre-left values; and it is these values, offers a meritocratic understanding of equality – not the policies in themselves, which matter. This albeit qualified by ideas such as ‘lifelong learn- is the core of New Labour’s case for a third way ing’. As we shall suggest later, the debate about – and of Blair’s assertion that the third way is a equality goes to the very heart of third way pol- Centre-Left political project. itics. Leaving aside whether means and ends can be The third of Blair’s four values is ‘responsi- separated like this, the third way debate about bility’ and links closely with the fourth, public policy reflects the Left’s long preoccupa- ‘community’. ‘Responsibility’ reflects Blair’s tion with the question of the appropriate role for ethical turn spelt out in his 1995 Spectator lec- government (and the state more generally) in a ture that “we do not live by economics alone”: market society. As Bill Clinton and the New “a society which is fragmented and divided, Democrats have claimed, the third way offers a where people feel no sense of shared purpose, is new role for government between the liberal unlikely to produce well-adjusted and responsi- Left’s attachment to ‘big government’ and the ble citizens” (Blair, 1995). In a decent society, conservative Right’s attempts to dismantle gov- individuals should not simply claim rights from ernment; and this, in part, can be seen as a debate

151 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way about the balance between the state and the called ‘joined-up government’); the welfare state market and the character of public policy instru- working ‘proactively’ to help individuals off so- ments. What is common to the third way is the cial security and into work (‘employment-centred notion that there is an active role for government social policy’ or the ‘social investment state’), in contemporary market societies; and that this not leaving it to market forces or direct state pro- breaks with the state versus market approach vision; government working to provide public which, it is suggested, typified the Old Left and goods (such as childcare, education and train- New Right (it is questionable whether either of ing) to underpin greater equality of opportunity these were so dogmatic in practice). New La- (‘asset-based egalitarianism’); government tar- bour’s third way pragmatism, Le Grand (1998) geting social policy on the socially excluded, and argues, lies in the fact that it has no automatic at the same time encouraging greater individual commitment to either the public sector (as Old responsibility for welfare provision (eg ‘stake- Left social democrats did) or the private sector holder pensions’); and government redrawing the (as New Right neoliberals do). New Labour’s ‘social contract’: rights to welfare matched by third way approach to public policy breaks with responsibilities, especially regarding work. A the state/market approach in part by being more third way government might, then, be distin- pragmatic and less ideological about them. As guished from an Old Left one by its willingness Downing Street policy adviser Geoff Mulgan to find new forms of public intervention in the suggested in 1993: economy and society, in particular, by giving up its role as the direct provider of public goods; The changing balance between public and and from a New Right one by its willingness to private sectors, state and market solutions, embrace a wide definition of public goods, es- cannot be separated from the organisation- pecially in social policy, and a more active and al forms and competences which each interventionist role for the state. brings to bear. It is with these, and with To be sure, the fact that a government espous- public and private organisations’ practical ing a third way pursues such policies does not ability to recognise and solve problems in make them original or exclusive to the third way. everything from energy to prisons and Many of the public policy instruments and re- from universities to childcare, that any forms, like public–private partnerships or useful argument now has to begin. (Mul- ‘reinventing government’, now seen as being at gan, 1993: 47) the heart of New Labour’s third way were in fact significant features of previous Conservative Although, as we shall argue, the question of administrations from which the third way is means – the types of public policy and agencies meant to be clearly distinguished. In this way, through which values might be pursued – also current third way thinking can be seen as mark- divides the third way internally: means and ends ing some degree of consensus between Left and are less easily separated in practice. Right; and the Labour government’s reforms as Put more substantively, a third way approach revising previous Conservative reforms, not to public policy, as a theoretical construct and overturning them entirely (for example, the re- something the Labour government is doing in tention of the purchaser–provider split in the practice, encompasses a number of features: the NHS despite all the rhetoric about ‘abolishing state working in ‘partnership’ with the private the internal market’). And not all third ways can and voluntary sectors (eg the New Deal and the be seen as coterminous with New Labour. There Early Years Development Partnerships); govern- might easily be different third ways between Old ment regulating and acting as guarantor but not Left and New Right. The fact that governments direct provider of public goods or of basic stand- of the Right, whether at state level in the USA or ards (eg of local government services and the national governments like that of Aznar in Spain, minimum wage); the reform or ‘reinventing’ of are attracted to so-called third way public policy government and public administration (eg gov- instruments presents problems for any attempt ernment departments and agencies working to identify the third way as a uniquely Centre- together to tackle complex social problems – so- Left political project. Furthermore not all New

152 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2

Labour policies, on the definition we have (Blair, 1998: 1, italics in original). But some outlined, can be seen as third way. Attempts to modernisers have their doubts. As Stuart White give a third way meaning to foreign or defence argues, the third way “can all too easily be taken policy, for example, artificially expand the third to imply that we need, not to modernise, but to way to anything which can be defined as differ- exit the social democratic tradition in pursuit of ent to two alternatives, whatever they may be. something wholly new and distinctive” (White, In the rest of this article we shall raise two 1998; see also Marquand in Halpern and Mikosz, interrelated questions. First, does the third way 1998). as outlined mark a significant break in political thinking and policy making? To what extent does it move ‘beyond’ notions of Left and Right – and Beyond Left and Right? what does ‘beyond’ really mean in this context? John Gray is the leading advocate of the argu- Second, is there one third way or a number of ment for a new politics which transcends possible third ways? And if there is more than established political frameworks: one, are all of them equally social democratic? This second question, we shall suggest, goes to The place we occupy is not a halfway the heart of the debate on the third way. Do the house between rival extremes. Our posi- kind of values which Blair and others suggest tion is not a compromise between two clearly define a third way? Or is the debate over discredited ideologies. It is a stand on a the interpretation of third way values (the ques- new common ground. (Gray, 1997) tion of what type of equality, for example) indicative of significant lines of division within Elsewhere he argues for his the third way? ... conviction that the established traditions Does the third way mark a of British political thought: liberal, Con- servative and socialist, cannot meet the radical break? challenges posed by the technological and The basic framework of third way arguments is cultural environment of Britain in the late that in changing economic and social circum- modern period. New thought is needed, in stances, a new politics is required which departs which debts to the past are light. (1996: 7) from the major political paradigms of the postwar years: namely social democracy (Old Left) The ‘debts’ Gray alludes to include, crucially, and Thatcherism (New Right). But to what ex- political values not just policy instruments – the tent does the third way dispense with the dominant theme in New Labour thinking. He traditional divide between Left and Right, and argues for a politics “beyond the New Right” with the established political categories of liber- (1993) and “after social democracy” (1996). Sig- al, conservative and social democrat? Does it, nificantly for any debates about the third way, as Bobbio (1996) has asked, transcend and make Gray suggests that such categories redundant? Or is it simply a cob- bling together of different intellectual positions Social democrats have failed to perceive which may or may not give rise to principles and that Thatcherism was a modernising project practices which are contradictory and mutually with profound and irreversible consequenc- undermining? There is a degree of ambiguity es for political life in Britain. The question between and within advocates of a third way on cannot now be: how are the remains of so- these questions. Blair, for example, argues that cial democracy to be salvaged from the “the third way is not an attempt to split the ruins of Thatcherism? but instead: what is difference between Right and Left”, suggesting Thatcherism’s successor? (1996: 10) not a middle way but something more novel. He then states that the third way offers a new syn- For Gray, the ‘communitarian liberalism’ that he thesis between liberal and socialist thinking: the advocates rejects the social democratic value of third way “marks a third way within the left”

153 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way equality and seeks instead to develop notions of Our argument is that the third way involves the ‘fairness’ and ‘local justice’. combination rather than transcendence of Left Others have suggested that contemporary and Right. Principles such as equality, efficiency, politics is undergoing a ‘cultural turn’ in which autonomy and pluralism, over which the Left and questions of identity have become paramount and Right have long been divided, get mixed togeth- that this culturalisation of politics is blurring Left/ er rather than left behind. The novelty of the third Right political distinctions. Anthony Giddens way lies in this combination of Left and Right: (1994 and 1998; see also Driver and Martell, it is a mixture which is neither exclusively of 1999) argues that ‘emancipatory politics’ – con- the Left or of the Right. In this way, the third cerned principally with questions of political way offers a politics which is beyond the closed economy; with the distribution of rights and re- ideological systems of Left and Right; but which sources – is giving way to ‘life politics’ – still combines them both and remains within the concerned principally with questions of identity tradition of middle way politics which has been and the quality of life. Giddens suggests that a feature of much of 20th-century British poli- these shifts in contemporary political culture blur tics – most notably New Liberalism, postwar distinctions between Left and Right outside the social democracy and one-nation conservatism. domain of party politics: Blair has argued that public policy “should and will cross the boundaries between left and right, ... a whole range of other problems and liberal and conservative” (Blair, 1995). In his possibilities have come to the fore that are Fabian pamphlet, he suggested that the third way not within the reach of the Left/Right offers “a popular politics reconciling themes scheme. These include ecological ques- which in the past have wrongly been regarded tions, but also issues to do with the as antagonistic” (Blair, 1998: 1). So, a third way changing nature of the family, work and stands for social justice and economy efficien- personal and cultural identity. (Giddens, cy, individual autonomy and equality, rights and 1998: 44). responsibilities, a successful market economy and social cohesion. It overcomes these bipolar Left and Right concerns cut across these areas divisions by suggesting that they are mutually and they also sometimes fail to encapsulate dif- supporting. Blair offers practical examples of ferences between points of view on life politics. third way policy positions which he sees as cross- Giddens also argues that traditional attach- ing traditional political divides: cutting ments of Left and Right to radicalism and corporation tax and introducing a minimum conservatism respectively were becoming less wage; giving the Bank of England independence and less meaningful after a decade of Thatcher- and developing a programme of welfare to work; ite neoliberal radicalism and in a cultural reforming schools and tough policies on juve- environment he calls ‘post-traditional’. New nile crime; giving central government ‘greater Labour has since conformed to Giddens’ thesis strategic capacity’ and introducing devolution; by embracing a brand of social conservatism. For more money for health and education and tight Giddens this makes it seem that Old Left–Right limits to the overall level of government spend- associations do not work any more: particular ing. For Blair, the distinctiveness of these policies views are no longer exclusively the property of in terms of a third way is the italicised ‘and’ in one or the other. This is reinforced by the fact each case: it is in the combinations that the orig- that popular attitudes do not so easily divide into inality of third way thinking lies. And it is the consistently left or right positions as they used combination which produces a politics which is to. On many issues people divide into liberal or both new – “beyond Old Left and New Right” – communitarian camps, for example, rather than yet also rooted in Centre-Left values. Left and Right ones. The notion that freedom might need equality; Such views suggest the moving of politics to that a strong community is the basis for individ- areas beyond categories of Left and Right. But ual autonomy; that economic efficiency should does this mean that Left and Right are transcend- be tempered by social justice, and that rights must ed or synthesised or that they merely coexist? be balanced with responsibilities is, of course,

154 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2 hardly original – these are concerns which run ally complement one another. Equally, it could right through, for example, New Liberalism. But be argued that Labour’s policies in other fields, what Blair’s third way often appears rhetorically such as family and welfare, can complement one to do is to reconcile what are in the end irrecon- another (see Driver and Martell, 2000 for fur- cilables. Where Left and Right mark out political ther discussion). It also allows the Labour positions which offer distinct and robust views government to have a more pluralistic approach on, say, liberty and equality, economic efficien- to policy making, in the sense that certain prin- cy and social justice, and even on the balance ciples operate in some spheres of policy making between such principles, New Labour’s third way and not in others. For example, rights-based lib- can at times appear as if, as Albert Hirschman eral individualism in constitutional reform but (1996) puts it, all good things go together – when social conservatism in education and the crimi- very often they don’t. It is in the end impossible nal justice system. to synthesise the counterposed options of Left We would argue that this more pragmatic and and Right, social democracy, liberalism and con- limited notion of politics and public policy, not servatism. There are essential and irresolvable the more radical and synthetic one, better defines tensions between them and their principal val- any third way – and in fact what the Labour gov- ues: equality, liberty and authority. What is ernment is doing in practice. Finding some possible is to manage the relationship between balance or modus operandi between the demands these political traditions: to find compromises of competing political values; recognising that not resolutions (see Martell, 1993 on the middle different values (or combinations of values) may ground between socialism and liberalism). And be more suited to different policy areas. These such compromises come with price tags as prin- are the approaches which better define a third ciples and values have to be traded off against way and which better encapsulate what the La- one another. bour government is doing in practice. While this This is what we believe the third way to be interpretation of New Labour recognises that essentially about: a more pragmatic political reciprocity and mutual dependency between dif- project which is willing to break free from what ferent values and policies is possible in particular it sees as the straightjacket of left/right politics circumstances, it is also aware that different in- (see also Powell, 1999). And for this reason, the terests remain at work and that tensions remain third way offers a wide and potentially fertile permanent features of the political and policy- landscape for public policy making, although not making landscape. For example, giving the Bank one without pitfalls: for example, the internal of England independence to set interest rates and coherence of public policy when different agen- establishing a welfare-to-work programme may das are in play (see Paton in Powell, 1999 on be a clever mark of third way policy making, Labour’s health reforms). For if compromises are balancing the principles of economic efficiency to be struck and balances are to be found be- and social justice. But such public policy does tween different values and principles, then it is not resolve the inherent tensions in any market at the policy coal-face that such deals are to be economy between the inegalitarian outcomes of made. Such a political project may actually be the market (outcomes which Blair and Peter in a better position to tackle complex social prob- Mandelson have publically endorsed) and those lems, such as social exclusion, for the very reason egalitarian outcomes – ‘opportunity for all’ – that it is relatively light on ideological baggage which social justice demands. While a strong – or at least willing to make compromises on its economy does support and underpin high rates contents – and so can approach policy analysis of employment, as Blair and Brown argue, the and prescriptions whatever their origins so long principle of equality may demand public poli- as they work (Glennerster, 1999). The New Deal, cies which directly impinge on the inegalitarian important elements of which have been import- dynamics of the market, in particular through ed direct from American welfare conservatives, higher taxes to pay for social security and public is a good example. The New Deal also illustrates services how the principles of autonomy, opportunity and rights balanced with responsibilities might actu-

155 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way

A new consensus? the Labour government is doing things previous Tory administrations did, it is also doing signif- But is this more pragmatic notion of a third way icant things that they didn’t; and this combination simply the mark of a new consensus between Left is challenging the Right to think again. ‘Beyond and Right – in particular, a consensus based on Left’ is also too simplistic because the third way the Thatcherite reforms of the 1980s and 1990s beyond Blair, and beyond the third way itself, which New Labour has adopted and which has still includes distinctively Left-wing positions. replaced the postwar social democratic consensus on Keynesianism and the welfare state? Does Third way or third ways? the third way debate obscure the more significant development of a post-Thatcherite Third way thinking, then, is not as radical as it consensus where on the big issues there is agree- often appears. But what are its dimensions? As ment between the major parties and it is only on we have suggested, the space between Old Left detail that political actors part company? And and New Right may not be as narrow as it first does the notion of a third way, and the consen- appears. If there is one third way in that space, sus which may lie behind it, raise concerns that there may be room for others (see Dahrendorf, debate about genuine contested political alter- 1999; Freeden, 1999). Different third ways might natives, the heart of an open, liberal democracy, be more or less Centre-Left in orientation: some is being foreclosed? For many critics the con- social democratic, others not – and some to the solidation of Thatcherism is what New Labour right of the political divide. We want to examine amounts to and Blair is little more than the ‘son in greater detail the substantive meaning of third of Margaret’ (Hall, 1994, 1998; Hall and Jacques, way values and the politics and policy-making 1997). options they imply. Certainly the political agenda shifted to the Right under Mrs Thatcher and the main political parties now are fighting on a similar post-Thatch- Giddens and Blair: new times and social erite terrain. If this is true, however, it is not democracy evidence for the ‘beyond Left and Right’ view. Anthony Giddens is often styled as Blair’s third The new consensus consists of a shift from Left way guru. But in terms of the issues to which to Right, not one which goes beyond both to Giddens sees the third way as being a reaction, something new. The occupancy of positions has on what he says underlies and shapes it, and, moved but the old divides on which they are consequently, on some of the positive meanings based still remain. The ‘beyond Left’ view is also, of the third way, there are differences of empha- on a factual level, too simple. The case for con- sis between him and Blair. What kind of sensus is based on Labour’s adoption of an individualism? What kind of civil society? What orthodox macro-economic policy which has low kind of politics? What kind of equality? In Blair’s inflation as its central policy objective and in- and Giddens’ answers to these questions there terest rates as the key policy instrument. While are differences in third ways between Old Left giving the Bank of England the power to set and New Right. Giddens gives different empha- monetary policy marks a point of departure from ses to the social trends he sees as important – previous Conservative governments, it is in oth- globalisation, detraditionalisation, value change er public policy areas – the labour market (the in society, changes in social structure and eco- minimum wage, the Social Chapter), constitu- logical problems. Where they do identify similar tional reform, public spending on health and significant social changes (for example, globali- education, the scale and scope of the New Deal sation and individualism), Giddens and Blair – in which it is possible to identify imprints of sometimes define them differently. As we shall the Left. Many of these differences involve a see below, Blair sees globalisation and the rise combination of small practical measures based of individualism differently to Giddens and plac- in Centre-Left values and involve important sym- es less emphasis on factors such as the growth bolic differences from the Right. Put simply, the of ecological problems. Variations in the posi- third way is worth taking seriously because while

156 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2 tive content of their third ways arise from such emphasise active individualism where Blair’s is underlying differences of emphasis. to stress moral responsibilities and standards as While they both stress the role of globalisa- an antidote to the individualism he identifies, a tion, Blair does not put the emphasis that Giddens more communitarian response. In this respect, does on institutions of global governance which third way ideas can be divided between ‘post- might counteract economic globalisation (see traditionalists’ like Giddens and ‘social moralists’ also Held, 1998). Blair stresses the need to ac- like Blair. cept and learn to live with the global market Giddens also gives greater emphasis to post- economy. For critics such as Hutton (1998), for materialist attitudes and quality of life issues example, Blair is too acquiescent to the perceived expressed in ‘life politics’ or ‘sub-politics’. He globalisation of the world economy and to the is conscious of risk, scientific uncertainty and limits this places on national economic policy ecological problems. He does not propose replac- making (see also essays by Marquand, Vanden- ing governmental politics with ‘sub-politics’ but broucke, Hirst and Hutton, in Gamble and does suggest the latter should have a more im- Wright, 1999). Where Blair does discuss tran- portant role. Blair’s politics are less about quality snational political coordination it is focused of life issues beyond conventional economic and mostly on leadership in the European Union and social policy concerns: while the Labour gov- prioritises the need for transparency and democ- ernment has developed a quality of life index, it racy in EU institutions rather than the more remains peripheral to the main body of policy expansive ideas for global governance that Gid- making. The core of New Labour has little inter- dens discusses. Blair’s emphasis is more passive est with active democratising processes for and adaptive to globalisation than Giddens’, al- citizens in everyday life outside mainstream pol- though during the Kosovo crisis Blair did talk of itics. To the disappointment of many permanent structures for international interven- environmentalists, feminists and others, there is tion in humanitarian crises. little in Blair’s politics which is a direct response The growth of individualism is another phe- to contemporary radical social movements or nomenon Giddens and Blair both see as an incorporates their concerns. The democratisation important influence on politics – but they have programmes of New Labour are of government different analyses of it. Giddens argues that the not beyond government. When Blair discusses sort of individualism that has grown in society the need for ‘a strong civil society’ and ‘civic is not economic egoism and cannot be attributed activism’, it is not social movement politics he to Thatcherism (Giddens, 1998: 34–7). It is a has in mind. His concern is with individuals ful- product of detraditionalisation and increases in filling their responsibilities as parents, criminals choice; and more about moral uncertainty than shouldering individual responsibility and the role moral decay. For Giddens, the growth of this sort of the established institutions of the voluntary of individualism requires, as a response, more sector and the family rather than radical, infor- active responsibility, reflectiveness and democ- mal social movements. ratisation. There are cross-overs here with Blairite ideas of individual responsibility and self-reliance concerning welfare reform, but also Third way values in question: equality key differences. Blair explicitly does locate the and community growth of individualism in, among other things, Stuart White offers his definition of third way the Right’s economic egoism, the Left’s social values (White, 1998). These, he suggests, are: individualism and a more general process of mor- ‘real opportunity’, ‘civic responsibility’ and ‘com- al decay. The active, reflective citizen in a radical munity’. They tally more or less with those offered democracy is Giddens’ model. Blair puts more by the Labour leader we examined earlier. These emphasis, in his response to individualism, on values, White suggests, offer a ‘general norma- the notion of duty, on moral cohesion and those tive framework’. However, unlike Blair, White institutions such as education, family and the suggests that they are open to different interpre- welfare state which he believes can and should tations, not all of which will fall on the enforce good behaviour. Giddens’ solution is to Centre-Left. This leads him to suggest two lines

157 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way of division within the third way. The first between even argue that lower ability (or even lesser ef- ‘Leftists’ and ‘Centrists’ concerns the nature of fort) should not be a basis for economic equality. Like Bobbio (1996) he identifies equal- inequality. Such a view supports policies such ity as a crucial issue which divides those on the as increased taxes to fund higher public spending Left from those further Right. The second line is on education and health; univeralism in welfare between liberals and communitarians and con- as a basis for common citizenship; and a more cerns the degree of individual freedom in relation directly interventionist state which are to the left to community enforced norms. of Blair’s third way. There are two points of note which we shall The leftist position contrasts with Blair’s and pick up and develop from White. First, the inter- Gordon Brown’s more meritocratic concept of pretation of third way values is significant and equality (Brown, 1997). Blair’s rhetoric stresses marks out different political positions within the fairness and equality of opportunity rather than third way. What kind of equality is involved and redistribution; and criticises the Old Left for hav- what kind community and how much of each? ing “stifled opportunity in the name of abstract There are divergencies among third ways on such equality” (1998: 3). To date, Brown’s budgets, questions. Second, the third way is concerned although mildly redistributional, have been more with means as well as ends. The varying means concerned with inclusion – getting people back intended to achieve third way ends – governmen- into work – than with equality and the distribu- tal or more voluntaristic, for example – may also tion of wealth and income in society. The Labour lead to a differentiation of third ways. government’s approach to welfare reform has White’s first line of division is between Left- been to target government help especially on the ist-egalitarian and more Centrist-meritocratic working rather than non-working poor and on third ways (see also Holtham’s distinction be- families with children. The question this raises tween the ‘Centre-Left’ and ‘radical Centre’ in is where the Leftist-egalitarian position stays Halpern and Mikosz, 1998: 39–41). Leftists within a third way beyond New Right and Old would like to see greater redistribution of income Left or where it begins to stray back into the ter- and wealth rather than of just asset-based oppor- ritory of Old Left. White, who labels himself as tunities; and critics such as Roy Hattersley a Leftist-egalitarian, and others like Will Hutton (1997a, 1997b; see also Levitas, 1999) have con- (1995), have suggested stakeholding, a more tra- demned New Labour’s shift from equality of ditionally social democratic idea, as a more outcome to meritocracy and inclusion as the prin- definite label for what they believe in. cipal aims of the third way. Differences between A second line of division identified by White Giddens and Blair are evident on this question. is between communitarians and liberals: between Giddens is more egalitarian and launches a stern those who have a broad understanding of the attack on the inadequacy of meritocracy and range of behaviour for which the individual may equality of opportunity alone: be held responsible to the community, and for which the state may legitimately intervene, and Many suggest that the only models of those who have a much more limited notion. equality today should be equality of op- White argues that any third way view must have portunity, or meritocracy – that is, the some commitment to civic responsibility. And it neoliberal model. It is important to be clear is New Labour’s communitarian understanding why this position is not tenable. (1998: of civic responsibility – its apparent willingness 101; also Giddens, 1999) to set public policy which challenges liberal notions of the private sphere – which is distinctive For Giddens equality of opportunity without and which has drawn fire from, among others, egalitarian redistribution is self-undermining the liberal Left for being too Conservative, too because it allows inequalities to grow which then prescriptive, even socially authoritarian (most prevent more equal opportunities. Inequalities recently in Marxism Today , 1998; see also, threaten cohesion and send those at the bottom Dahrendorf, 1999; The Economist , 1999). In- of society the demoralising message that they deed, one of the central Blairite arguments is that deserve to be there. Leftist egalitarians might the Old Left were too socially individualist; and

158 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2 that family arrangements, for example, had be- ern teaching methods and support for non-nu- come too subject to matters of choice and clear family forms, for instance) or a more individual fulfilment over and above parents’ ‘conservative’ sort of community (which empha- responsibilities to their children and to the sises more traditional norms for teaching and the community. On welfare reform, in particular, the family). ‘responsibility’ for individuals to find work and Also glossed over by the liberal-communitar- to be self-supporting is evidence of the Labour ian distinction is a difference between government taking a third way position which is voluntaristic and top-down communitarians. strongly communitarian. This aside, it is impor- Again, the difference is not over whether greater tant to qualify the degree to which New Labour’s community or shared moral norms are needed third way is, as some have suggested, illiberal. but, in this case, where these come from – state On family policy, for example, where Blair has action or more organically. Those who stress the been accused by some of ‘social authoritarian- latter can include one-nation or ‘compassionate’ ism’, the actual policies often support diverse conservatives or Leftist communitarians of more family forms: the Labour government, especial- voluntaristic, civil society and social movement ly through Brown’s budgets, has proved more traditions, in search of more community but not neutral on the family than many expected (Driv- through state action. Those, like New Labour, er and Martell, 2000). who stress the former see governments – through This liberal-communitarian distinction con- exhortation, symbolic action and legislation – ceals further differences in third ways – among taking the lead in fostering community in society. liberals and among communitarians. Some who This is an example of where third ways di- are liberal on social matters, for example, may verge on means. How far does the third way be Left-egalitarian; less interventionist socially involve the initiative of civil society or state? but in favour of greater economic intervention- Should welfare be delivered by the state or by ism and equality. It is conceivable that some who greater delegation to the private and voluntary are liberal on social intervention could be more sectors? Can a government committed to strong Centrist-meritocrats, although this combination social objectives deliver on them without the old begins to move us to the Right rather than Left levers of powers – at least without resorting to of Centre. Similarly those who are sympathetic new ‘cattle prods’ (see Coote, 1999)? Should to Labour’s communitarian interventionism on welfare be universal or more targeted – and how social matters may be Leftist-egalitarians or more might a shift to greater targeting impinge upon Centrist-meritocrats when it comes to questions social democratic values? Does the third way of economic equality. So between liberal and imply global governance or national or local ac- communitarian third ways there may be differ- tion? To what extent is cooperation between state ences and within each yet further third way and other actors, whether governmental or non- approaches can be distinguished. governmental, the best path forward? In this way, These distinctions leave out a third set of axes the third way can diverge on means – and the to do with the nature of communitarianism along choice of means in each of these cases will af- which there is space between Old Left and New fect the character of the ends reached. Right for third ways to differ. Different sorts of communitarianism can be progressive or con- Left, right and the third way servative, voluntaristic or statist. As we have suggested, criticisms of Labour’s communitari- The third way is initially a negative programme, anism are often liberal and suspicious of to go beyond Old Left and New Right, especial- prescriptive moralism. But another line of criti- ly applicable to Anglo-American contexts where cism could come within communitarianism from these alternatives have been prevalent. This is anyone at odds with its conservative content combined with an attempt to modernise in tune (again, see Marxism Today , 1998). This raises with new times in the economy, society and cul- issues not of whether community should be pro- ture. But beyond this basis in negative opposition moted but of what sort of community – a and modernisation there are positive meanings ‘progressive’ community (which promotes mod- in terms of values (versions of equality and com-

159 Stephen Driver and Luke Martell: Left, Right and the third way munity) and means (the role for government). Blair, T. and Schroeder, G. (1999) ‘Europe: the On such issues, Blair’s third way combines rather third way/Die Neue Mitte’, London: Labour than transcends left and right but, in doing so, Party. produces new configurations which in them- Bobbio, N. (1996) Left and Right: The signifi- selves may be neither Left nor Right. Combining cance of a political distinction , Cambridge: Left and Right like this can be contradictory and Polity Press. mutually undermining, but not necessarily so. Brown, G. (1997) The Anthony Crosland Left and Right can coexist in the third way. In Memorial Lecture, 13 February. fact they can form mutually dependent and re- ciprocal relationships. Coote, A. (1999) ‘The helmsman and the cattle But the positive implications of taking a third prod’, in A. Gamble and T. Wright, The new way are not pre-determined or singular. There social democracy , Oxford: Political Quaterly / are different possible meanings of what can be Blackwell. between Old Left and New Right. Variations in Dahrendorf, R. (1999) ‘Whatever happened to social changes identified will lead to different liberty?’, New Statesman , 6 September. positive contents for the third way. And third Dionne, E.J. (1999) ‘Construction boon: it’s no ways can vary on the content of values such as accident that the GOP is being rebuilt by its equality, community and individualism, what governors’, Washington Post , 14 March. these should mean and how much of each there should be. In identifying third ways old political Driver, S. and Martell, L. (1998) New Labour: labels continue to be useful. Versions of the third Politics after Thatcherism , Cambridge: Polity way are more Left or Right, more or less social Press. democratic, more liberal or conservative; and Driver, S. and Martell, L. (1999) ‘New Labour: criticisms and defences of Blair’s third way of- culture and economy’, in L. Ray and A. Sayer ten break down along such lines. This casts (eds) Culture and economy: After the cultural doubts on Blair’s oft-repeated claim that the third turn, London: Sage Publications. way is necessarily a Centre-Left project. A so- Driver, S. and Martell, L. (2000) ‘New Labour, cial democratic third way, whether it is actually work and the family: communitarianisms in called that or not, is discernible (see Gamble and conflict?’, in H. Wilkinson (ed) The family Wright, 1999, on the ‘new social democracy’). business, London: Demos. Equally apparent are third ways to the Right which share little with the Centre-Left however The Economist (1999) ‘Tony Blair and liberty’, defined. In this way, Left and Right divisions, as 2 October : 19–20. Bobbio (1996) argues, as well as those between Freeden, M. (1999) ‘New Labour and social liberals and communitarians, progressives and democratic thought’, in A. Gamble and T. conservatives, have not been left behind. They Wright, The new social democracy , Oxford: rear their heads once again and define the posi- Political Quarterly /Blackwell. tions on which we stand. Gamble, A. and Wright, T. (1999) The new social democracy , Oxford: Blackwells. References Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right , Blair, T. (1995) ‘The rights we enjoy reflect the Cambridge: Polity Press. duties we owe’, Spectator Lecture, London. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Blair, T. (1997) ‘Speech to the European renewal of social democracy , Cambridge: Socialists’ Congress’ , Mälmo, Sweden. Polity Press. Blair, T. (1998) The third way: New politics for Giddens, A. (1999) ‘Better than warmed-over the new century , London: Fabian Society. porridge’, New Statesman , 12 February. Blair, T. (1999) ‘Facing the modern challenge: Gilmour, I. (1992) Dancing with dogma , the third way in Britain and South Africa’, London: Simon and Schuster. speech in Capetown, South Africa.

160 Policy & Politics vol 28 no 2

Glennerster, H. (1999) ‘A third way?’, in H. Le Grand, J. (1998), ‘The third way begins with Dean and R. Woods, Social Policy Review 11 , Cora’, New Statesman , 6 March. Luton: Social Policy Association. Levitas, R. (1999) The inclusive society? Social Gray, J. (1993) Beyond the New Right: Mar- exclusion and New Labour , Basingstoke: kets, government and the common Macmillan. environment , London: Routledge. Marxism Today (1998) ‘Wrong’, November/ Gray, J. (1996) After social democracy , December. London: Demos. Martell, L. (1993) ‘Rescuing the middle Gray, J. (1997) ‘Speech to the NEXUS/ ground: neo-liberalism and associational Guardian conference’, London. socialism’, Economy and Society , vol 22, no Hall, S. (1994) ‘Son of Margaret’ New States- 1: 100–13. man, 6 October. Mulgan, G. (1993) ‘Reticulated organisations: Hall, S. (1998) ‘The great moving nowhere the birth and death of the mixed economy’, in show’, Marxism Today , November/December. C. Crouch and D.Marquand (eds) Ethics and markets: Cooperation and competition within Hall, S. and Jacques, M. (1997) ‘Blair: is he the capitalist economies , Oxford: Political greatest Tory since Thatcher?’, The Observer , Quarterly/Blackwell. 13 April. Powell, M. (ed) (1999) New Labour, new Halpern, D. and Mikosz, D, (1998) The third welfare state? The ‘third way’ in British way: Summary of the NEXUS ‘on-line’ Social policy , Bristol: The Policy Press. discussion, London: Nexus. Scruton, R. (1996) The Conservative idea of Hargreaves, I. and Christie, I. (eds) (1998) community, London, Conservative 2000 Tomorrow’s politics: The third way and Foundation. beyond, London: Demos. Shaw, E. (1996) The Labour Party since 1945 , Hattersley, R. (1997a) ‘Just one per cent on top Oxford: Blackwell. tax wouldn’t hurt’, The Guardian , 24 June. Vincent, A. (1998) ‘New ideologies for old’, Hattersley, R. (1997b) ‘Why I’m no longer Political Quarterly : vol 69, no 1, Jan-March, loyal to Labour’ The Guardian , 26 July. 48–58. Held, D. (1998) ‘The timid tendency’, Marxism White, S. (1998) ‘Interpreting the third way: Today, November/December. not one road, but many’, Renewal, vol 6, no Hirschman, A. (1996) ‘Politics’, in D. 2, Spring. Marquand and A. Seldon (eds) The ideas that shaped post-war Britain , London, Fontana. Hirst, P. (1999) ‘Has globalisation killed social democracy?’, in A.Gamble and T. Wright (eds) The new social democracy , Oxford: Political Quarterly /Blackwell. Hutton, W. (1995) The state we’re in , London: Cape. Stephen Driver School of Sociology and Social Policy Hutton, W. (1998) The stakeholder society , University of Surrey Roehampton Institute, Cambridge: Polity Press. UK Leadbeater, C. (1998) ‘Welcome to the knowledge economy’, in I. Hargreaves and I. Luke Martell Christie (eds) The new social democracy , School of Social Sciences Oxford: Political Quarterly /Blackwell. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

161