Talk:New Labour

Purpose of this article

I've added a little information to the lead, mostly taken from the History of the British Labour Party article. I think if this article is to exist it needs to focus on the branding more than policies and history. This means it's going to remain a stub. I expect other users will question whether this article needs to exist at all, given that this information could possibly be incorporated fully into the main article.

I can see however that when the article with this name was previously redirected "New Labour" was a current branding and the party was in power. Now that the New Labour branding has been dropped this article may have some purpose. But I wanted to raise this issue to the main editor(s) of this article, just so you can expect this.

Well, hopefully this article can be expanded a little further! -- Peter ^{Talk page} 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your comments and improvements. I agree that there is much more that needs to be added to this article - I started with the history simply because I personally find it the easiest place to start from. I intend to add sections on their political philosophy, critics, electoral successes and failures, and anything else. I think the article is certainly notable enough to warrant its existence: there are plenty of books on New Labour itself, and many more books on the Labour Party which dedicate significant attention to it. While I agree that New Labour was a branding of the party, it also marked a significant change in British politics, giving success to the Labour party and drastically changing its whole political philosophy. New Labour is discussed elsewhere (here and here); however, those sections do not go into a lot of detail (because they are only sections in an article). I think that the sources we have more than justify the existence of a separate article, because New Labour is widely discussed as its own phenomenon, separate from the rest of the Labour Party. I would more than welcome anyone who wishes to help expand this article - I know more than anyone else that there is much more work to be done. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but in what respect did New Labour give lasting "success to the Labour party"? And, given how New Labour lacks any history, real ideas or grounding in political philosophy - how could make useful changes to the Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.146 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting topic for an article, looks like it is in decent shape thus far. I've made some copyedits and I'll leave some more suggestions here for now. The article looks good, the one thing that really seems to be missing is descriptions of how academics and commentators have described New Labour. i.e. "Christopher Hitchens said that New Labour was the best thing since sliced bread" or something.

• "and 60 000 demonstrated in Manchester before the Labour Party Conference, with the issues including British occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan" I'm confused about "with the issues", does that refer to the issues that brought the demonstrators there, or the issues being discussed inside the conference?
• "US strikes on Afghanistan in 1998" Probably want to link this.
• In the third paragraph of "History" you use "protest" "prompted" and "demonstrate" quite a bit, see if there's a good way to cut down on the use of these words.
• In Political Branding "government" is repeated a lot.
• "Charlie Whelan, Gordon Brown's press officer, was often in conflict with Campbell because of his attempts to brief the press by his own initiatives; this continued until his resignation in 1999." Who does the "his" refer to here?
• "Gordon Brown was an important figure in Blair's Labour government and played a key role in developing the party's Third Way philosophy." Is he important because he played a key role in the third way philosophy? The use of "and" leaves open the possibility that these aren't cause and effect.
• There are a few times that you could probably just put "Blair" instead of "Tony Blair".
• "New Labour tended to place more emphasis on social justice than equality, as previous Labour governments had done" I'm a little confused here, which did previous Labour governments place emphasis on?
• The word "Need" is used a lot in the "Social Justice" section.
• There are some long sentences in the lead, you should probably try to break them up or trim them down. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that review, I appreciate it. I've made all the changes that you've suggested (except for the Gordon Brown one, because he was not just important because of his contribution to the Third Way, and using 'because' would suggest that he was. I've been meaning to write a reception section for a little while; I'll try to do that soon. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, this was a fun article to read. BTW, you should ping whomever brought A Journey up to FA once you need a peer review or advice on the article, that article has a bit about New Labour in it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Brown image?

I question whether there needs to be an image of Brown on this page. If we have one image of Brown then that opens the floodgates for images of every other person listed. While Blair is undeniably the key figure of "New Labour", Brown less so. We have Blair saying that New Labour stopped as when he left, and many see Brown as a lurch backwards.

The placement in the article is a little awkward too, since we have the Blair image near the top and the Brown image near the bottom and that gives the impression of an organised article. I think it would be better to have both images grouped together, but then crowding would be an issue.

I think in this case simple is better. I'm not going to argue strongly for the removal of the Brown image, but I do feel the article would be better without it. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. It might be useful to have an image of Brown, so that we have a picture of New Labour's two leaders. Still, if you want to remove it, I won't complain. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One Nation Labour

Anyone want to start an article about One Nation Labour? I've created a One Nation Labour redirect to Ed Miliband, but there seems plenty of stuff around that we could use for a stand alone article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurzweil 1000

Would you believe, Kurzweil 1000, a text-to-speech programme which provides access to Wikipedia articles, doesn't recognise the search term "New Labour". 86.135.227.51 (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"New Labour Era"

This article seems to confuse the "New Labour Era" with "New Labour". The era of New Labour Government may have ended but people are still refered to as having a New Labour allegiance and New Labour is not the era. --BozMo talk 09:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. New Labour as an ideology still exists, although those who now lead the party have dropped it as their political ethos. Ed Miliband now talks about "One Nation Labour", but there are still many on the right of the party who regard themselves as advocates of New Labour. Whether it's correct to say "New Labour" or "New Labour Era" is something I'm not sure about. There were certainly plenty of column inches written on the issue, particularly around the time of the 2010 general election arguing that it spelled the death of New Labour, so perhaps it is correct to say it was an era. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Era or Error? For might not the article reflect the view of many true Labour supporters that the Tory-lite ideas of New Labour should have been consigned to the Dustbin of History? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.146 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph needs checking

Just need to check the following paragraph for accuracy, so am posting it here for easier access to sources, etc. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Content follows

He had taken over as party leader in October 1983, just after the party's worst postwar general election result and two years after the right wing of the party had split to form the Social Democratic Party, which in turn formed an alliance with the Liberal Party.In 1987, Kinnock managed to cut into the Conservative majority as well as weaken the challenge from the Alliance,In 1992, the Conservatives managed to remain in government in spite of the recession and rising unemployment, although prime minister John Major was now left with a 21-seat majority compared to the triple-digit landslides that his predecessor Margaret Thatcher oversaw at the previous two elections. Kinnock then resigned as leader to be succeeded by John Smith,who died in May 1994 and was succeeded by Tony Blair two months later.

Comments There is a danger at least some of this could fall into the original research category. Generally sources should discuss the main topic, and anything relating to it should be discussed in that context. While the sources provide some background to the pre-New Labour era they don't actually do so with reference to that subject. I can't help thinking this paragraph would be better placed in the main Labour Party article, where there would be no problem. As this has been assessed as a good article we need to keep it in shape. If we can find a better source that discusses all of the above then the information can be included, but I'll take it out for now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes on this page

I support what you've done there. The electoral support section is about how New Labour attempted to widen its electoral support. The fact that this was influenced by Kinnock is relevant; the successes/failures of Kinnock is not. I'm happy with mentioning that Kinnock had tried it before (we might briefly mention to what extent he was successful); we don't need a great deal of detail on it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Another concern I had was the editor who added the paragraph has a bit of a history of dubious sourcing. That sort of thing can present problems if it goes unchecked. I guess there should be plenty of refs about discussing Kinnock's attempts to rebrand the party, so adding something should be easy enough. I'll take a look and see what I can find. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Refdump

• "Defence of Welsh windbag". Times Higher Education. News International. 6 September 2002. Retrieved 21 March 2013. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Article discusses some of the changes Kinnock made to the Labour Party

• "The road to New Labour". Socialism Today. October 2010. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

• Discusses Kinnock's efforts to modernise Labour

• "Neil Kinnock". BBC. August 2009. Retrieved 21 March 2013.

• Biography of Kinnock crediting him as having sown the seeds for New Labour

Reversion of significant changes

Twice today, I've reverted significant changes to this article by an anonymous editor who appears to want to push the One Nation Labour ideology. While One Nation Labour should be mentioned in the context of New Labour's successor, I have concerns about the neutrality of the edits I've reverted, and we should do our best to keep this article balanced, and maintain the GA quality. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

New Labour, New Danger

I don't know where best to add it, but we should definitely link to "New Labour, New Danger" from here. Equinox (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

How about one of those little quote boxes? It need only say something like "New Labour, New Danger -- Conservative election slogan". I'll see if I can find out how to make them. Rothorpe (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Made a See also instead. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Table of ministers

An IP user has been attempting to add a table of what looks like all the ministers of Labour at a certain unspecified point in time. I have removed this - it is much better covered where it currently is in the articles Blair ministry and Brown ministry. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Labour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625025947/http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party_gb to http://www.labour.org.uk/history_of_the_labour_party_gb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221003420/http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/New%20Politics.pdf to http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/New%20Politics.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi JudeBellinghamBCFC, thanks for your recent edits to this article - they are much appreciated. I just had a couple of questions regarding some souring. There are three points where you added a source half way through a sentence:

1. History section: "During the period from 1994 to 1997, after Blair's election as party leader, Labour managed to reverse decades of decline in party membership by increasing the number by around 40%, increasing its capacity to compete for office, whilst also legitimising the leadership of Blair."
2. Political branding section: "Kinnock undertook the first wave of modernisation between the 1987 and 1992 general elections, with quantitative research conducted by Anthony Heath and Roger Jowell indicating that the electorate viewed Labour as more moderate and electable in 1992 than in 1987, arguably legitimising the arguments for increased modernisation."
3. Reception section: " For example, Lord Rothermere, the proprietor of the Daily Mail, defected to the Labour Party, stating "I joined New Labour because that was obviously the New Conservative party", underlining the significant ideological shifts that had taken place, and indicating why the reception of New Labour was negative amongst traditional left-wing supporters."

In each of these, you present a fact, reference it, and then provide some sort of evaluative comment. Do these comments come from the references, or are they your own opinions? If the former, then the reference should be moved to the end of the sentence. If the latter, then the comments need to be removed entirely - Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which means that any conclusions you come to in the article must be the reflected in the sources and not just your own thinking (in this regard, writing Wikipedia articles is different to writing university essays).

WJ94 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead too long?

Tbf69, you recently tagged this article with {{lead too long}} - could you please explain in more detail why you think it is too long? The lead in the article is three paragraphs long and MOS:LEAD recommends no more than four. Are there any specific parts which you think could be more concise? WJ94 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the intro just seems to make the article a bit "top-heavy" IMO. The paragraphs are quite long and not very easily readable. Tbf69 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Tbf69. I had a second read through and agreed that it was a little bloated. I've removed some material, and moved some material further down into the article. I think what remains has the right level of detail and is written in the summary style appropriate for an introduction. What do you think? WJ94 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit, looks good. --Tbf69 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)