What is New Politics?

Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a paradox.

He is an older politician in a time where politicians seem to be getting younger and younger who appeals to the youth. He’s an inexperienced politician with no ministerial posts, a backbencher who rose above the rest. He is, by all accounts, an ancient relic which has been dusted off and now wiped, being used as the face of far left politics. To further this, he is – according to his own words – a champion of “new politics.” This is a phrase in politics which has always confused me. 

If you spoke to someone in the Edwardian era, they would claim the Labour Party was New Politics, a break away from the Burke/Fox/Mill/Gladstonian and imperialist traditions of the 19^th Century. It was a time where political parties, in their modern form, truly meant something. Gone were the days of policy-coalitions – the Liberal Unionists simply had folded in the Conservative Party, the more radical voices were being compelled by the new trade union movements developing across the whole country. 

I guess you could say 1928 was another New Politics moment. Well, specifically, 1929. It was the Second Government for the Labour Party – a minority led by Ramsay Macdonald. This election was the first to have women enfranchised, changing the electoral map much like the Reform Acts and enfranchising acts of the century before. But this was different; this meant that a whole new group who had never gotten a voice was now speaking. It had quite a large effect on politics in Britain, obviously. 

Decades later that difference was illuminated by a Cabinet minister of Edward Heath’s challenge his leadership, that minister being a woman, Margaret Thatcher. She introduced a politics to Conservatism which was condemned by former party masters like Heath and Macmillan (who as Chancellor of Oxford University, refused to grant her an honorary doctorate in a controversial move). Whether you like Thatcher or not, she help make much of the modern political atmosphere with her long reign in government. 

Then we arrive to 1992: New Labour. Is this not the height of New Politics? It showed Labour abandoning what was seen as an ‘outdated platform’ and going onto a more modernist approach to its politics. It helped, five years later, win a historically memorable parliamentary majority. It is one of the most contemporary accounts of New Politics and arguably, the most contemporary. However, personally, I think this assessment is an incorrect one to make. Because despite not having much claim to it now, there is another group to consider: the Liberal Democrats. 

In the height of their popularity, they were a party which excelled on being a new alternative. But the funny thing is, the Liberals are older than Labour (alright, so the LibDems aren’t but half the party was made up one of the oldest in Britain) and considerably older type of politics. Yet, they were seen as a fresh face in the lead up to the 2010 Election. I remember it well, being thirteen at the time and seeing Clegg was my political voice and engaging me in politics for the first time.

They were someone new and I was new to this world so clung to their moderate voice. “A little bit of everything” I remember thinking as I would watch each leadership debate, as precocious young sprout I was. 

So, from this short 500 wordish history, you can gather the concept of New Politics isn’t that new at all. There’s a recurring theme too; this sort of politics was built on being a straight-up, more practical politics for the people. While it may not seem as such in retrospect – Thatcher, the National Labour Government and the Liberal Dems being a few examples – that’s what their rhetoric was all about. You trusted Thatcher to bring results, the Lib Dems were trusted to do what they say, etc. And now, the New Politics is attached to Labour’s leader. 

So does the New Politics label go to those who ascribe to radical (in that they are shifting something not necessarily left wing politics) platforms? I mean, the SNP/Plaid Cymru and Greens could be counted as New Politics by that account. They all ran Anti-Austerity platforms, all were hitting Labour from the left during the election. 

We seemingly aren’t talking about them as much since Corbynmania has dominated our headlines despite the SNP’s “scary majority” over Scotland. But it’s not necessarily being some big game changer; it’s not like they could’ve even negotiated with Labour to form a coalition. So in that case, their New Politics didn’t really have much change and wasn’t won radical agendas. 

So what is it? What is ‘New Politics’? From what I can gather, it is not necessarily anything to do with policy. All of these parties share not an ideological platform but a platform of attempting ‘straight up’. They were all claiming to be straight talking, honest, principled characters who spoke to the people directly. Their relationship was direct, firm, they claimed command because they were the ones who knew best what the public was thinking as one giant mass. It is this similarity in New Politics where we discover just how pragmatic it is; when it succeeds, New Politics is coercing us to ideas that a leader has into thinking they are our own.

“By Jove, I want this because Jeremy Corbyn, who leads us, is saying it so it must be what I want” that is a victory for Corbyn and for all those who like New Politics. 

Now, without delving more into parliamentary history (because I really could), what does this say about Corbyn? I would never say he doesn’t believe what he says. In fact given how he’s handled Syria I think we can guarantee that he does [albeit that can be quite subdued which is hindering at times]. But all it says about New Politics is that it is not ours. It is, instead, a political strategy built on Machiavellian principle without us even realising. 

If we look to the Bedford Speech – “we’ve never had it so good” – as Harold Macmillan said in 1957, that was hugely believe in the 1960s. Arguably this is what politicians should be doing. They give us ideas and platforms for us to follow and we like them so vote for them. Is that not what democracy is built upon? The trouble is of course, by suggesting this, it doesn’t give us much authority as an electorate. We are not allowed to decide where politicians focus their attention. A primary example of this can be found currently in US Politics – many Democrats who are blindly following Clinton currently chose not to engage the issue of her emails. 

But should it occupy undecideds who is it to say that CNN shouldn’t covering each email in detail? Surely free democracy means getting to decide what we think is important and posing that to our politicians even if they think it’s beneath them? In fact I’m pretty sure Corbynites who say that’s the trouble with the Tories – that’s they’re not listening to us folk. New Politics should be founded on that principle. This is not to say that Corbyn doesn’t listen to people or the public but, maybe his New Politics isn't that new at all.