Humanitarian intervention and foreign policy in the Conservative-led coalition

This paper examines the role of humanitarian intervention as a tool of foreign policy in the Conservative-led Coalition. The first section of the paper provides historical context and assesses the traditional approaches to humanitarian intervention as an instrument of foreign policy of Conservative governments since the end of the Cold War. This analytical narrative considers the Major Government's response to the Bosnian War. The second section of the paper considers the Conservative-led Coalition's approach to humanitarian intervention in two ways: first by an examination of the influence of Blair's humanitarian intervention and secondly, by an evaluation of British involvement in the Libyan Revolution of 2011. The third and final section of the paper offers an explanatory interpretation of the Conservative-led Coalition's humanitarian intervention. This interpretation is predicated on an English School theoretical framework for understanding international relations and, in particular, advances the argument that the global worldview of David Cameron, William Hague and their liberal Conservative colleagues can be understood as solidarist

Blue and purple Labour challenges to the welfare state: How should 'statist' social democrats respond?

This article explores two influential strands of thinking about the welfare state, Blue Labour and Purple Labour, that have emerged following New Labour's defeat at the 2010 General Election. It is argued that although both of these new approaches raise some important issues about the relational and associational dimensions of social welfare as well as diversity and pluralism, those committed to universal and egalitarian goals should not abandon the ‘statist’ social democratic approach to the welfare state

Labour parties ideas transfer and ideological positioning : Australia and Britain compared

As part of this special issue examining policy transfer between the Labour Parties in Australia and Britain, this paper seeks to explore the relationship between the two on ideological positioning. In the 1990s there was substantial ideas transfer from the Australian Hawke-Keating government to Blair ‘New Labour’ in Britain, as both parties made a lunge towards the economic centre. This paper analyses how the inheritors of that shift, the Rudd/Gillard government in Australia and the Milliband and Corbyn leaderships in Britain, are seeking to define the role and purpose of labour parties in its wake. It examines the extent to which they are learning and borrowing from one another, and finds that a combination of divergent economic and political contexts have led to strikingly limited contemporary policy transfer

Brexit and the decentred state

The aim of this article is to examine Brexit through the lens of decentred theory as articulated by Bevir (2013) in A Theory of Governance. Decentered theory regards the British state as neither a monolith (as per modernist social science) nor a myth (as per post-modern theory) but rather as a repository of norms, customs, practices and thought acquired by elite actors, professionals and policy-networks. The central thesis of the article is that the idea of the decentered state, as an explanation of state governance, can be seen in the phenomenon of Brexit. The article uses literatures on governance and contemporary history to examine the relevance of the concept of the decentered state. Then it considers the case study of British politics in the 1970s as a precursor to the decentering effects of Brexit on state governance. The article then moves to consider three dimensions of the phenomenon of Brexit which can be understood as decentering practices in and of themselves: the referendum vote; the negotiations; and competing ‘imaginings’ of the United Kingdom in a post-EU membership environment. The article’s findings represent a fresh and novel means by which scholars can utilise the idea of the decentered state as an intellectual tool to explain the phenomenon of Brexit

The Progressives

The chapter on New Labour in the first edition of this volume was finished in 2003. Tony Blair resigned in 2007 and Gordon Brown left office in 2010. This chapter seeks not to cover previous ground but to take the long view. By that I mean to explain New Labour and its successors as a project which, in the fullest sense, sought to revise Labour ideology from the mid-1990s. This revisionist project focused on emphasising economic, social and constitutional liberalisms. This project would make Labour more centrist and therefore appealing to floating voters. It would also give this new breed of Labour politicians, if elected, a mandate to reform the United Kingdom. In the post-New Labour era this type of Labour worldview continues. It is espoused by Labour politicians such as Liz Kendall, Alison McGovern, Chuka Umunna; think-tanks such as Policy Network and Progress; contributors to The Purple Book: A Progressive Future for Labour; and by many intellectuals and activists. In the first edition I argued New Labour was the ‘new right-wing of the Labour Party’. Whilst no longer a new addition to the broad church of Labour thought, I maintain it was, and is the correct designation. The successors to New Labour including former Blairites and Brownites are best described as the Progressives

Blue or purple? Reflections on the future of the Labour Party

The purpose of this article is to examine the future ideological direction of the Labour party by analysing two intellectual offerings that have appeared in the post-New Labour era: ‘Blue Labour’ and The Purple Book. First, the article sets out the strategic context of these ideological conversations: Labour’s defeat in the 2010 general election; the formation of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition; economic austerity resulting from the banking crisis and the global financial crash; and the changing political climate which ostensibly suggests a move from the ‘politics of the state’ to the politics of ‘localism’. Next, the article discusses the main features of ‘Blue’ and ‘Purple’ Labour. Finally, the article provides an explanatory evaluation of the two divergent ‘futures’. The article aids both scholars and students in the ongoing intellectual task of explaining British politics in the post-New Labour era and, more particularly, helps one to understand the ideological future of the Labour party

David Cameron has created a new vision of Conservative foreign policy, one which is far happier to intervene to stop suffering and expounds a bigger, and more liberal, view of Britain’s interests in the world

Tim Oliver and Matt Beech contend that the Conservative Party changed its philosophical approach to humanitarian intervention during its years in opposition. David Cameron and William Hague have articulated views of humanitarian intervention that bridge the gap between more traditionally realist Conservative views of humanitarian intervention, focused on order, sovereignty and a narrow conception of Britain’s interests, and a more justice-centric view of foreign policy which includes consideration of questions of justice and war for humanitarian ends

Divided by values: Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and England's 'North-South Divide'

This article explores the sociocultural divide in England exposed by Brexit. The metaphors of ‘North’ and ‘South’ are used to explain this, where the former is seen as more culturally conservative and the latter as more cosmopolitan. We examine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn and show how its values have shifted away from its northern heartlands. The article uses a range of data including by-elections, local and general election results and statistics from the 2016 referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union

Why the Beliefs of Parliamentarians Matter: An Interpretive Approach to Legislative Studies

In this article, we argue, following the interpretive approach, that parliamentarians’ beliefs, and the intellectual traditions on which they draw matter. Parliamentary behaviour and legislative practice is the contingent product of the historically discernible beliefs, values, and assumptions of legislators and officials. We argue more particularly that decentred theory can explain change, including transformational phenomena such as Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite much fine legislative studies scholarship (dominated by institutionalism, rational choice theory, and historical institutionalist narratives), the importance of beliefs, traditions, and change can often be overlooked or taken for granted. The time is ripe for scholars to embrace an interpretive approach and decentred theory as fruitful agendas of research in the field of legislative studies