ABSTRACT
In an influential essay on politics in the United States, Stanley Greenberg summed up the confused state of the relationship between the analysis of politics and the actions of the electorate thus: Those who rush to overinterpret are as likely to be surprised by the future as those who assume that the old rules still apply. Every election now is an expression of this new era where revolt is commonplace.’1 The two ideas wrapped up in this quotation are at the heart of the purpose of this volume: it is the first academic attempt to stand back from the slightly intoxicating atmosphere of Labour’s landslide victory in the general election of 1997 and ask: what does this mean? Its central methodological assumption is that contemporary historical and political science analysis, coupled with the experience of practitioners, is the best way of trying to find an answer to this question. The danger of rushing to overintrepret is very real, as is the danger of falling foul of the bias amongst historians against the notion of ‘relevance’ and the tendency amongst some political scientists towards ‘presentism’.2 However, the historical and political moment seemed of such significance to the editors that we felt it was worth attempting to challenge a little the notions which limit contact across disciplines. The second part of Greenberg’s quote, on the volatility of contemporary electorates, highlights the central political question of this volume: What are the prospects for New Labour in power and what are the ideological underpinnings to the policies it will be pursuing? We have not attempted to rival the Nuffield and other general election studies and analyse the content and spread of Labour’s vote, but have rather asked three central questions: What can we learn about the New Labour Government from the last three periods of Labour in power? How will changes over the last 20 years in national and international political economy and in the role of the state make this Government different? Which lessons and battles from the past are relevant and which can the party afford to leave behind?
