The Realignment of the Labour Party, 1987-1997 (AQA A Level History: Component 2: Depth study): Revision Note

Labour under Neil Kinnock

The scale of the problem after 1987

• Labour lost its third successive general election in June 1987

  • The Conservatives won 376 seats, with a majority of 102

  • Labour increased its total to 229 seats but remained well short of government

• Kinnock had already begun reforming the party after becoming leader in 1983

  • The 1987 defeat showed that organisational change alone had not been enough

  • Labour also needed to reconsider policies that had continued to deter some voters

Taking on the hard left

• After becoming leader in 1983, Kinnock confronted the Militant Tendency, a Trotskyist group working inside Labour that dominated Liverpool City Council

• At the 1985 Labour Party conference, he publicly attacked Militant's handling of Liverpool, where deputy council leader Derek Hatton was its best-known figure, showing voters he was willing to take on the hard left

• From 1986, leading Militant members were expelled from the party, the clearest sign that Labour was moving back towards the centre

Changing Labour's policies, 1987–1989

• Kinnock launched a major policy review within weeks of the 1987 defeat

  • Every major area of Labour policy was reassessed over the next two years

  • By 1989, much of the programme associated with the 1983 manifesto had been abandoned

• Labour moved away from several policies that had proved difficult to sell electorally

  • Support for unilateral nuclear disarmament was dropped

  • Labour abandoned its commitment to withdraw Britain from the EEC

  • Plans for higher income tax on top earners were reduced

• The party also moved towards accepting the market economy

  • Labour no longer promised to reverse most Conservative privatisations

  • Instead, it argued that markets should be managed more fairly

• These changes did not mean Kinnock accepted Thatcherism

  • At the 1988 Labour Party conference, he argued that Labour could accept markets and competition without accepting Conservative ideas more broadly

Approach: The source is useful because it shows how he defended reform to Labour members. He rejects the claim that accepting markets and competition meant a “concession to Thatcherism”, showing that he wanted to modernise Labour without presenting the changes as an abandonment of its values

However, this was a speech aimed partly at reassuring internal critics, so his language should be compared with the actual policy changes being approved

Professionalising the party

• Kinnock also changed the way Labour organised and presented itself

  • Peter Mandelson, Director of Communications from 1985, played a major role

  • The Shadow Communications Agency helped reshape Labour's campaigning and public image

  • The red rose replaced the traditional red flag as the party emblem

• Labour's public presentation became more tightly controlled

  • Party conference appearances and broadcasts were increasingly stage-managed

  • The aim was to present Labour as more disciplined, modern and capable of government

• Critics argued that Labour was changing its image more quickly than its underlying beliefs

  • This remained a problem when voters judged whether the party had changed enough to govern

Reducing trade union influence

• Kinnock also moved Labour away from its traditional dependence on the trade unions

  • In 1989, Labour ended its support for closed shop agreements

  • Union influence over policy was reduced

• However, the trade union block vote at the party conferences remained in place

  • Reducing it further was left to Kinnock's successor, John Smith

Why Labour still lost in 1992

• Labour's reforms made the party more competitive

  • It led the Conservatives in opinion polls for much of 1990 and 1991

  • Labour remained ahead for a period even after John Major replaced Margaret Thatcher

• However, many voters were still not fully convinced that Labour was ready to govern

  • Major's campaigning presented him as a more moderate Conservative leader

  • Labour's own campaign also faced criticism

    • The Sheffield rally shortly before polling day was later portrayed as overconfident

    • Some voters still had doubts about Kinnock personally as a future prime minister

• The Conservatives therefore won again in April 1992

  • They secured a majority of 21

  • Labour won 271 seats

• Kinnock resigned four days after the defeat

  • He left behind a party that was significantly more moderate, professional and electorally competitive than the one he inherited in 1983

Kinnock's record

John Smith and party reform

Smith as leader

• John Smith became Labour leader in July 1992, after Kinnock resigned following the general election defeat

  • He had been Shadow Chancellor since 1987

  • He was widely seen as a serious and reliable figure, particularly on the economy

• Smith also benefited from problems facing the Conservative government

  • After Black Wednesday in September 1992, Conservative claims to economic competence were badly weakened

  • Smith was well placed to challenge the government from the opposition benches

• Modernisers criticised his cautious approach as a "one more heave" strategy

  • Figures such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown believed Labour still needed more substantial reform

One Member, One Vote, 1993

• Smith's most important reform was to reduce the formal power of the trade unions inside the Labour Party

  • Trade union block votes had long influenced both party decisions and the selection of parliamentary candidates

• At the 1993 Labour Party conference, Smith secured the introduction of One Member, One Vote (OMOV)

  • Individual party members gained a direct vote in selecting Labour parliamentary candidates

    • This reduced the influence of trade union block voting

• The reform was difficult to achieve

  • Smith faced opposition from several major unions

  • It passed by only a narrow margin

• Smith did not remove union influence entirely

  • He rejected attempts to extend OMOV to all conference votes on party policy

  • Some modernisers therefore believed the reform had not gone far enough

Approach: Blair was speaking at the 1995 Labour Party conference, after becoming leader and while pushing Labour reform further.

The source is useful because he gives both Kinnock and Smith credit for laying the foundations of New Labour. He presents Labour’s transformation as a gradual process rather than something that began only with his own leadership.

However, Blair also had a reason to stress continuity. By praising his predecessors, he could present his own reforms as the next stage of an accepted process rather than a complete break with Labour’s past.

Smith's sudden death

• Smith died suddenly from a heart attack in May 1994, aged 55

  • Labour was leading strongly in the opinion polls at the time

• His death left an unanswered question about how far he would have taken Labour reform

  • One view is that Labour may already have been capable of winning the next election under Smith

  • Another is that his cautious approach would have slowed further reform and left Labour more vulnerable to Conservative attacks

The emergence of Tony Blair and 'New Labour'

The 1994 succession

• Tony Blair became Labour leader in July 1994, after John Smith's sudden death

  • His main potential rival within Labour was Gordon Brown

  • Brown agreed not to stand against Blair after a private agreement

    • Brown remained Shadow Chancellor, a post he had held since 1992, and took a leading role in shaping Labour's economic policy

• Blair and Brown had both entered Parliament in 1983 and belonged to Labour's modernising wing

  • Both believed that Labour needed to change further if it was to win back voters who had rejected the party in 1987 and 1992

• Blair therefore inherited a party that had already changed substantially under Kinnock and Smith

  • His aim was to make those changes more visible and push them further

Rewriting Clause IV, 1995

• Blair wanted a clear symbol that Labour had moved away from some of its traditional socialist policies

  • Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution committed the party to the common ownership of industry

  • Although it had not dictated Labour policy for many years, it remained strongly associated with the party's socialist tradition

• Blair announced his intention to rewrite Clause IV at the October 1994 Labour Party conference

  • He secured approval for the new wording at a special conference in April 1995

  • The revised clause dropped the commitment to common ownership

    • Instead, it stressed spreading power, wealth and opportunity more widely

• The change had considerable symbolic importance

  • Hugh Gaitskell had unsuccessfully tried to remove Clause IV after Labour's 1959 election defeat

  • Blair's success showed how far Labour's internal balance had shifted by the mid-1990s

What 'New Labour' meant

• The term New Labour was used from 1994 to emphasise that the party had changed

  • It was particularly aimed at voters who had been unwilling to support Labour in the previous elections

• Economic policy was central to this change in image

  • Labour wanted to weaken the Conservative claim that it was a "tax and spend" party

  • Gordon Brown promised that Labour would follow Conservative spending plans for the first two years after taking office

  • Labour also promised no increase in the basic or top rates of income tax

• New Labour therefore accepted more of the existing market economy

  • It did not propose returning most privatised industries to state ownership

  • Business was presented as a partner rather than an opponent

  • Labour also retained legal restrictions on trade unions introduced under the Conservatives

Modernising Labour's image

• Blair placed much greater emphasis on how Labour communicated with voters

  • Alastair Campbell became his press secretary in 1994

  • Labour worked to improve its relationship with newspapers and respond quickly to hostile stories

• Party communications were tightly controlled

  • Spokespeople were expected to stay "on message"

  • Peter Mandelson remained important in shaping Labour's presentation and campaign strategy

• Blair also tried to broaden Labour's appeal beyond its traditional working-class and trade union base

  • The party increasingly presented itself as attractive to middle-class voters, women and younger voters

  • Blair himself was promoted as a younger, modern political leader

Approach: This was Labour’s 1997 election manifesto, so it was written to persuade voters that New Labour represented genuine change

The source is useful because it clearly sets out how Labour wanted to distinguish itself from both Old Labour and the Conservatives. It accepts the market economy but rejects both state control of industry and a completely free-market approach

However, as an election manifesto, it shows how Labour wanted to be seen rather than proving how differently it would govern once in office

Blair's position by 1997

Reasons for the Labour victory of 1997

Labour's own transformation

• Labour entered the 1997 election after around a decade of reform

  • Policies that had damaged the party in the 1980s had been dropped

    • Unilateral nuclear disarmament

    • Withdrawal from the EEC

    • Higher income tax on top earners

• Labour no longer promised to reverse most Conservative privatisations or restore extensive state ownership

  • This made it harder for the Conservatives to use older attacks against Labour

    • Claims that Labour would sharply raise taxes or spending had less supporting evidence

    • The Conservatives also claimed that Labour had simply copied their policies, which undercut their other claim that Labour was dangerously left-wing

• Blair also broadened Labour's appeal

  • New Labour targeted middle-class, female and younger voters as well as the party's traditional supporters

  • The party presented itself as moderate, business-friendly and economically cautious

Organisation, message and the media

• Labour's election campaign was tightly organised

  • Peter Mandelson coordinated public statements and campaign strategy

  • Alastair Campbell worked closely with the press and responded quickly to hostile stories

  • Labour spokespeople were expected to remain "on message"

• The party used a pledge card to promote five clear promises:

  • cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year olds

  • introduce faster punishment for persistent young offenders

  • cut NHS waiting lists

  • help 250,000 under-25s into work

  • avoid rises in income tax rates

    • Each promise was linked to an identified source of funding

• Press attitudes had also changed

  • Newspapers that had attacked Kinnock in 1992 were more supportive of Blair or remained neutral

    • This reduced one of the disadvantages Labour had faced in earlier elections

Approach: Philip Gould was a Labour strategist and adviser to Tony Blair, writing in 1998, shortly after the election victory

The source is useful because he had direct knowledge of Labour’s campaign strategy and explains the importance of changing voters’ long-standing fears about the party

However, Gould had a strong interest in presenting the strategy he helped design as successful. His claim that New Labour had created a complete break with Labour’s earlier image should therefore be compared with the reforms already made under Kinnock and Smith

Conservative weakness

• Labour also benefited from serious problems inside the Conservative Party

  • The Conservatives had been in government for 18 years

    • Some voters increasingly felt that it was time for a change

• Divisions over Europe remained visible throughout Major's premiership

  • They weakened party discipline and repeatedly produced public disagreements

• Sleaze allegations also damaged the government's reputation

  • Scandals involving MPs and ministers continued into the election period

    • In Tatton, Neil Hamilton lost his seat to the independent anti-sleaze candidate Martin Bell

• The Conservatives had still not fully recovered from the political impact of Black Wednesday

  • Even though the economy later improved, their reputation for economic competence had been badly weakened

• The Referendum Party, founded by James Goldsmith, also fought the election on the issue of Europe

  • It won no seats

  • However, it may have taken enough votes from Conservative candidates to affect some marginal constituencies

Why Labour's campaign was effective

• Labour's strategy worked partly because it reduced the number of issues on which the Conservatives could attack

  • Tax and spending commitments were tightly controlled

  • Policies were presented in a simple, memorable way

• The party also benefited from the contrast between Blair and Major

  • Blair was presented as younger and more modern

  • Major led a tired government plagued by years of infighting

• The Conservatives' 'New Labour, New Danger' campaign, including the 1996 'demon eyes' poster of Blair, failed to revive voters' fears of Labour

• Labour, therefore, entered the campaign with both fewer weaknesses of its own and more Conservative weaknesses to exploit

The result

• Labour won a landslide victory, taking 418 seats, a majority of 179, and 43.2% of the vote

  • This was Labour's largest-ever number of seats

  • In 1983, the Conservatives had won a majority of 144, so Labour reversed one of its worst defeats in only 14 years

• The Conservatives fell to 165 seats on 30.7% of the vote

  • This was their lowest seat total since 1906 and their lowest vote share since 1832

  • They also failed to win a single seat in Scotland or Wales

  • Michael Portillo's defeat in Enfield Southgate became one of the symbolic moments of election night

• The Liberal Democrats won 46 seats with 16.8% of the vote

  • Tactical voting helped both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in some constituencies

• Turnout fell to 71.4%, while around 120 women MPs were elected

  • This was roughly double the number elected in 1992

Why did Labour win the 1997 election?

• This question weighs Labour's own transformation against the collapse of Conservative support

  • Some key evidence is outlined for each side below

Labour had transformed its electoral appeal

• Ten years of reform under Kinnock, Smith and Blair had removed many of the policies that had previously cost Labour support

  • Unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the EEC had been abandoned

  • OMOV reduced trade union influence

  • Blair's rewriting of Clause IV provided a visible break with Labour's traditional commitment to common ownership

• Labour also reduced Conservative attacks over economic policy

  • Gordon Brown promised to follow Conservative spending plans for the first two years

  • Labour promised no increase in the basic or top rates of income tax

  • This made the traditional accusation that Labour would simply "tax and spend" harder to sustain

• The party's organisation and presentation were also much stronger

  • Peter Mandelson helped coordinate Labour's campaigning and public message

  • Alastair Campbell developed a more effective relationship with the press

  • The pledge card reduced Labour's programme to five clear and costed promises

• These changes helped Labour win voters it had struggled to reach in previous elections

  • Around 1.8 million people who had voted Conservative in 1992 switched directly to Labour in 1997, according to Labour strategist Philip Gould

  • Blair made significant gains among voters in Middle England, which had been central to Conservative election victories since 1979

Conservative support had collapsed

• The Conservatives had also accumulated serious political problems by 1997

  • They had been in government for 18 years, increasing the appeal of a change of government

  • Black Wednesday had damaged their reputation for economic competence

  • Divisions over Europe repeatedly exposed disagreements within the party

  • Allegations of sleaze gave Labour another line of attack

• Conservative divisions were still visible during the election campaign

  • The Referendum Party challenged the Conservatives from a more Eurosceptic position

  • Some voters who might previously have supported the Conservatives therefore had another option

• Labour also led the Conservatives in the opinion polls for much of Major's premiership

  • This suggests Conservative weakness began before Blair became Labour leader

  • However, Labour had also led in 1990 and 1991 under Kinnock and still lost in 1992

    • Conservative unpopularity alone was therefore not enough to guarantee a Labour victory

Approach: The Bruges Group was a Eurosceptic campaigning organisation, set up in 1989 with Thatcher as its president, writing after the 1997 election, so it had a clear reason to explain Conservative defeat through Major’s European policy

The source is useful because it shows how Eurosceptics interpreted the collapse of Conservative support, particularly the impact of party division and dissatisfaction among traditional activists

However, its focus on Europe is narrow. It should be compared with other explanations such as Black Wednesday, sleaze and Labour’s own transformation before accepting Europe as the main cause

Approach: Major wrote this account in his 1999 autobiography, two years after losing the election

As the defeated Conservative leader, he had an obvious reason to emphasise long-term problems such as sleaze, Europe and earlier policy mistakes rather than his own leadership

However, his admission that Labour had “managed not to seem frightening any more” is particularly useful. It acknowledges that Labour’s own transformation contributed to the result, even within an account largely explaining Conservative failure