Labour's Strategic Defence Review

Labour’s Strategic Defence Review claims to be ‘radical’, leading ‘to a fundamental reshaping of British forces’ while being ‘firmly ground in foreign policy’. Five questions are discussed: 1) Is labour’s defence policy different from that of its Conservative predecessors? 2) Has foreign policy ‘led’ defence policy? 3) How open was the review process and to what extent has Labour succeeded in creating a new consensus on defence policy? 4) Has the SDR successfully addressed the problem of overstretch? 5) Does it provide the ‘modern, effective and affordable armed forces which meet today’s challenges but are also flexible enough to adapt to change’, as it claims? This article argues that on the first two questions the answer is a qualified ‘yes’; that on the third, the process was more open than ever before but that it is difficult to identify specific decisions influence by more open debate; that on the fourth, Labour has attempted a balancing act which may be vulnerable, not least to changes in the economy; and that on the last question, Labour has succeeded in shifting the focus of the armed services towards power projection capabilities as required by their foreign policy baseline.     

New Labour's Escape from Class Politics

The connection between trade unions and parties of the left is traditionally close across Europe. In Britain the link is more than close: it is intimate, defining, and constitutive of what the Labour Party is and has been since its inception. This link allowed the party to survive during bad times and helped it to govern during good times, but during the 1970s it became less helpful, as policies backed by the unions not only failed to work but were also repudiated by union members themselves in what came to be known as the "winter of discontent" in 1979. New Labour was therefore built on the understanding that its past connection to the unions, and hence to a particular sort of "class politics," needed to be rethought and renegotiated. It is the new defining feature of the Labour Party.     

Karl Loewenstein,Max Lerner,and militant democracy: an appeal to ‘strong democracy’

ABSTRACT

In the 1930s Loewenstein responded to the ease with which the Nazi Party rose to power within parliamentary democracy. In America Lerner echoed Loewenstein’s call for a ‘militant democracy’, but identified a different ‘enemy within’ – rogue capitalist interests. Loewenstein’s response to populism was an ‘authoritarian democracy’, whereas Lerner wished to embrace the people in a public engagement. This paper seeks a middle path towards a conception of democracy that avoids the vicissitudes of transient majorities without yielding the ground to either transient or entrenched minorities. In its modern guise of ‘neoliberalism’, corporate capitalism has made inroads into the sensibilities of democrats, and needs to be confronted by a notion of ‘strong democracy’ expressed through the engagement of whole populations.     

A break from the past: The labor party and the political economy of Keynesian social democracy

Arguments about the nature of the Australian Labor Party have been somewhat revived over the past few years. Those who argue that there has been a fundamental break with Labor tradition are criticised from both the right of the labour movement and the Marxist left. Both, interestingly, argue that to see the Hawke‐Keating years as too distinct is to misread history. Both schools of thought argue that those who defend a Labor tradition ‐which is fundamentally different from contemporary Labor are glorifying the past. This paper gives an account of Keynesian social democracy, and employs a comparative case study of economic debate in the 1940s and 1980s, in order to argue that there has indeed been a fundamental change in Labor's approach to political economy.     

Authoritarianism,revolution and democracy: Egypt and beyond

The pro-democracy Arab popular uprisings have been spontaneous, but perhaps not all that unpredictable. They have come against the backdrop of a growing gulf between the rulers and the ruled, political repression, social and economic inequalities, demographic changes, unemployment and foreign policy debacles. Although the uprisings began in Tunisia, it is the case of Egypt that illustrates the situation more compellingly and the impact that it has had on the rest of the Arab world. It is not clear at this stage what will be the ultimate outcome. But what can be said with certainty is that the Arab peoples have set out on a long journey in pursuit of genuine self-determination. The journey will be arduous and unsettling for the Arabs and outsiders, but this has to be treated as part of a transition from a dictatorial past to a politically pluralist future.