"The Third Way", Tory rightwinger Michael Howard complained in the New Statesman in April 1998, "is a phrase with unfortunate connotations. It was used by fascists in the 1930s, by Eurocommunists in the 1950s and by pan-Arab nationalists in the 1960s."

Since Eurocommunism did not exist until the 1970s (the word is first cited by the Oxford English Dictionary in 1976), Howard’s accuracy is obviously of roughly the same standard as the belief in civil liberties he exhibited when Home Secretary - that is, very poor. Considering that Howard was not only the most hated, but almost certainly the most illiberal, Home Secretary for many decades, I was surprised to see him tell the NS "New Labour’s Third Way... has no respect for minorities" (this from the man who clamped down on gypsies, travellers, and ravers); he continues, "it is blind to individual freedom" (this from the man who extended police search powers, virtually abolished the right to silence, and advocated limiting the right to trial by jury).

But enough about Howard. What is the "Third Way" (apart from a phrase used by assorted ‘extremists’ over the last three-quarters of a century)? It is Tony Blair’s latest way of describing the political movement that he is trying to construct. (It has also been called, rather humorously, "radical centrism".) It is a third way "beyond" the "tired old dogmas" of left and right - an approach that rejects both neo-liberalism (the New Right) and social democracy ("the old left") - but in favour of what?

The "Third Way" is not to be interpreted simply as a middle way. If anything this is clearest from the fact that Blairism too often seems rather closer to the New Right than to social democracy. In economic matters, particularly fiscal matters, Blair’s agenda has so far differed little from a neo-liberal (Thatcherite) one. On industrial relations, the picture is a bit better, but disappointing by the standards we would expect of those who still profess social democratic values. On welfare, it is too early to say. So far health has been dealt with fairly well, and education fairly badly. On crime, Blair’s way seems little more than a continuation of Howard’s.

In any case: the main differences between Thatcherism-Majorism and Blairism, as seen one year into a "New Labour" government, would seem to be as follows:

• The Blairites are intent on greater democratization of the British state.
• The Blairites support some very limited interventionism, such as a minimum wage and trade union recognition if the majority of the workforce want it. (These commitments do not cut much ice with leftwing critics, because most of the western world takes such things as a minimum wage for granted. Even the USA.)
• The Blairites have an internationalist foreign policy, and a more pro-European one, although they are still lamentably very attached to the old Atlanticist bond.

Blairism differs from social democracy in that:

• It eschews class politics and is suspicious of unions. Moreover, it sucks up to big business.
• It does not seek to extend public ownership. It advocates "public-private partnership".
• It appears to reject redistribution of wealth. Blair sees the "equality of outcome" advocated by former Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley as outdated. Blairism does not advocate raising taxes or making taxation more progressive.
• Blairism accepts several of the neo-liberal criticisms of the welfare state, and affirms the need for "welfare reform".

In accusing Labour of cutting down on freedom, Howard comes up with no good examples whatever ("Lord Irvine has told barristers how much they should earn"). But there have been concerns on the left, too, about New Labour’s apparent social authoritarianism. Most of this concern has been centred on issues where Howard would not hesitate to be authoritarian himself. For example, New Labour briefly echoed the Tories in advocating traditional families and seeming to scapegoat single mothers. This kind of attack alienates minorities. But it is not something Howard has ever objected to. Fortunately, Labour seems to have given up this line for the time being. Brown’s budget in 1998 was morally nonjudgemental of single parents.

Most of the time, New Labour has been socially liberal. I have not come across any statement of what the proper Third Way is on such issues, but, for example, it is likely that very soon the gay age of consent for sex will be equalized at 16 with the heterosexual one. Labour is more open to environmentalism, and liberalization of immigration controls, than the Tories were.

The most important question that should be asked at the end of the day will be, how much is Labour doing for the poor and the disadvantaged, for the disabled, for ordinary workers, for students, for minorities, for its traditional constituencies? How much, and should it do more?

©1998 Richard Pond