The Triumph of New Labour

This chapter covers the three consecutive election victories recorded by ‘New’ Labour, under Tony Blair, and assesses the reasons for the party’s remarkable run of success after almost two decades in opposition. The key events of the 1992–7 parliament are recorded, showing how John Major’s Conservatives lost their reputation for economic competence shortly after the 1992 contest and never recovered from the blow of ‘Black Wednesday’. The chapter shows that the Conservatives were also seriously divided in the wake of the Maastricht Treaty (1992), and their prospects were impaired by allegations of ‘sleaze’. By contrast, Labour under Blair seemed fresh and relatively united. Apart from recounting the party’s successful campaigns in 1997, 2001, and 2005, the chapter also examines the reasons for the eventual decline of New Labour, in particular the feud between Blair and his Chancellor, Gordon Brown, but also the decision to support the USA in its war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (beginning in 2003). As a consequence of these troubles, New Labour’s landslide margin of victory in 1997 and 2001 was reduced significantly in 2005, despite the continuing unpopularity of the Conservatives. The anti-war Liberal Democrats emerged as a serious threat on Labour’s left. Changes in voting behaviour are also noted, in particular the continuing decline of social class as a factor in electoral outcomes.

Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don’t: The Use of Prime Ministerial Discretion and the Royal Prerogative

The royal prerogative is one of the most significant elements of the UK’s government and constitution. During the premiership of Gordon Brown and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition led by David Cameron, there was momentum for a reform of the royal prerogative. During the Conservative premiership of Theresa May, the impetus for reform of the royal prerogative has seemingly diminished. This article analyses how the UK Government has made use of the royal prerogative in terms of deploying the armed forces, making and unmaking international treaties and proroguing Parliament. It asserts that while such powers have not been compromised, the ability of Prime Ministers to use them without parliamentary consent has been subject to greater contestation. This has appeared to rein in the discretion of Prime Ministers. However, this article argues that Prime Ministers’ discretion has in fact become more meaningful as their political capital is invested in decisions concerning prerogative powers.

Spelling-gate

Back in 2009, the Labour British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was attacked for “bad spelling” in a condolence letter written personally by him to the mother of a soldier who died in combat, and publicised by The Sun newspaper. “Spelling” here acts as a leveller of hierarchical differences in the national political culture, with ruler and subject both publicly disciplined by the same standard language ideology. Previous research on orthography as social practice has tended to focus on deliberate manipulation of fixed spellings; this article extends the approach to unconventional spellings that have come about ‘by mistake’, and also widens it, to consider aspects of orthography other than spelling, focusing on the look of the Prime Minister’s handwriting. At issue, semiotically, are meanings such as ‘the personal touch’ and ‘respect’.