History

Abstract: This paper seeks to throw some light on a simple question–for whom does New Labour really stand? It does so by exploring its policy on two major problems of public health, obesity and alcohol misuse. New Labour claims to have evolved from a party representing a narrow range of interests to one that champions those of the 'national as a whole'. But how often does the 'national as a whole'have a clear readily identifiable interest?.

Abstract The response of national, state-level political parties to the challenges of competing for power at the devolved, regional levels is a neglected research topic. This article seeks to remedy this by analysing how the British Labour Party has responded to these challenges at the sub-national level following UK devolution. British Labour remains formally a unitary party despite devolution.

Devolution in the UK provides a rare opportunity to assess the effect of devolving institutions of government on political parties. Devolution has occurred at a time when one party, Labour, holds substantive power at national and devolved levels so the effects of devolution on the party's organisation and management merits close attention.. This paper explores the impact on the Labour Party in Scotland of the new constitutional settlement.

How has the Labour party adapted to devolution? What are the prospects of Scottish and British Labour parties in government pursuing divergent policy and ideological trajectories? To what extent do the new political arrangements established by devolution lend themselves to the emergence of a distinctively Scottish–given the country's traditions, culture and political complexion–social democratic project?

There is broad agreement that, under its new unofficial name of 'New Labour'the British Labour party has undergone a metamorphosis. About the nature and contours of that metamorphosis there is much less agreement. There has been a voluminous debate about its policies and ideology-about how significant and deep-seated the changes are and what they signify for the actions of Labour as the UK's ruling party. What does New Labour stand for–and for whom?

Devolution raises the issue of potential conflicts between central government and the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly. Currently such conflicts would inevitably raise issues of intra-party discipline and solidarity as long as the Labour party remains the controlling forces in those two nations.

Abstract The paper explores the thesis that Scottish Labour, under the new system of devolved government and operating under different institutional and political pressures, may evolve in a programmatic direction distinct from that of the Labour Government in London. Under devolution the Scottish Executive has direct responsibility for issues of health and education.

In 2001, the Labour party was swept back to power with a majority of 167. It was the second largest parliamentary majority won by any party since 1945–the largest being Labour's own triumph four years earlier. Tony Blair and his 'modernising'supporters set out to rebuild the party as the most formidable electoral machine in British politics and few doubt that this goal has been fully achieved. However, there is much more uncertainty about Labour's purposes in power.

ABSTRACT This paper explores recent changes in the Labour Party's system of policy-formation, revolving around the National Policy Forum, utilising a frame of reference derived from Michels. It suggests that the goal of extending the participation rights of Party members is unlikely to be realised.

This article uses a case study-the introduction in 1997 of new policy machinery-to analyse competing claims about the nature of the Labour Party's organisational transformation. It aims to demonstrate that whilst the new policy process was presented as a move towards greater democracy, both its general design and its modes of operation rendered inevitable the production of a general election manifesto in 2001 (the culmination of the process) whose contents coincided very closely to the leadership's tastes.

In 1999 the Labour government in the UK devolved significant powers to the newly created Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. This article concludes that the British Labour Party, as a national party, has not formally reorganised itself to reflect the new realities of devolution. Rather, the national ruling elite has continued to stress the importance of maintaining the valuable Labour brand to ensure the electability of the party at Westminster and retain the possibility of using party links to co-ordinate policy on devolved matters across Britain. Even so, the regional Labour elites in Scotland and Wales have acquired the freedom to make significant strategic choices in terms of policy and electoral strategy. However, these choices are ultimately constrained by tacit, intra-party understandings and ‘rules of the game’.

The response of national, state-level political parties to the challenges of competing for power at the devolved, regional levels is a neglected research topic. This article seeks to remedy this by analysing how the British Labour Party has responded to these challenges at the sub-national level following UK devolution. British Labour remains formally a unitary party despite devolution. Nonetheless, the national party leadership has allowed the Scottish and Welsh Labour Parties considerable freedom, in practice, to select candidates, conduct regional-level elections and implement some distinctive policies. Meanwhile, the Scottish and Welsh Labour Parties have shifted significantly from being traditional, centralized parties with a single hierarchical organization towards being more pluralist, less hierarchical organizations.

Recently, the policies of two of the strongest social democratic parties in the world, the British Labour Party and the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) have taken puzzlingly, different trajectories. Far from narrowing—as a consequence of imperative structural conditions, predicted by a number of theorists (Coates 2002, Anderson and Camiller 1994, Cerny 1995, Giddens, 1999, Giddens 2000), the institutional configuration of their welfare regimes has (in some substantial respects, though not in others—see later) seem to have ...