| Recently,a surge of anti-globalization and populism can be witnessed in the West.Coincidentally,almost no European social democratic parties survived the surge,with office and electoral base suffering great loss.Seven years have passed while they still cannot manage a way out.Britain has always been an alienated European country and its "out" vote in the Brexit referendum in 2016 did not bail its social democratic party--British Labour party--out of the general fortune of the social democratic parties on the Continent.Ed Miliband in 2012 ambitiously brought forward "One-Nation"agenda to rescue the Labour party out from dilemma,which died away before the general election of 2015.The Labour party unexpectedly suffered a disastrous defeat in the 2015 general election and Miliband thus resigned.What's more unexpected is the election of Jeremy Corbyn,a left-wing veteran,as the party leader.Since Corbyn's election in 2015,the Labour party has witnessed an incredible increase in membership--a soar of 340,000 by January 2017.The 2016 leadership crisis,waged by the Blairites within the party in excuse of the Brexit referendum,ended with Corbyn's success which even enabled Corbyn to expand his support within the party.However,a comfortable victory in leadership election does no necessarily lead to a general election success:polls indicate a rather low supportive rate of Corbyn among British voters,which means the future of the party and its ideology--social democracy--still remains vague.Deep reflection should hence be provoked:what dilemmas are British social democracy and the Labour party actually in?Why do the Labour party leaders' plans fail to appeal?Where does the future of British social democracy and the Labour party lie?The thesis is therefore trying to offer answers to these questions.The thesis concludes three main dilemmas that British social democracy and the Labour party have encountered in post-New Labour era.Firstly,social democracy has become structurally dependent on capitalism not only in Britain but also in other European countries after decades of liberalization.Hence social democracy has to revise itself in accordance with capitalist cycle rather than to seek for a clear future.When capitalist growth is in downward pressure,it will take social democracy and social democratic parties a long time to redefine themselves.Secondly,social democracy has been historically relied on instruments of state institutions,which is unfavourable for the Labour party's credibility as a government after the failure of neo-liberalism was successfully interpreted as the extravagance and incapability of the government,leading to crisis of public faith in state machines.Be that as it may,Miliband's "One-Nation" agenda still includes many top-down initiatives such as predistribution,tax increase in financial sectors,and energy costs freeze.So do Corbyn's "People's Quantitative Easing" and his support to renationalize public utilities.The third dilemma lies in social democracy's traditional faith in solidarity.Globalization has made countries both economically divided and culturally diversified,yet the New Labour governments have concealed the inequality and diversity through emphasis of equality of opportunity together with celebration of multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism.Such concealment is far less possible in the current wave of anti-globalization and populism stirred up by the financial crisis of 2007.Solidarity,for sure,cannot be thus given up;but the way to promote it should be devised seriously rather than to employ certain concepts to justify the ignorance of economic inequality and cultural diversity.With all the dilemmas,the British Labour party hence lacks an effective guiding ideology to either tackle current plights of Britain or win back voters they have lost,both of which make it barely possible for the party to return to office in the near future.Social democracy,as a broad concept,is hard to reach a universally acknowledged definition.In Britain,it was bom as Labourism which consisted of strong and militant unions and acted as representation of unions and workers to fight against social risks that were unequally distributed in capitalism--radical but limited within Britain's pragmatic tradition and venerable parliamentary democracy.After the Labour party was formed in 1906,the Fabian Society,the most radical camp within the party,incorporated its faith of the role of state in implementing the collective interest into the party's constitution and thus produced the famous Clause IV as the party's socialist creed.At the time,social democracy was also about to secure the workers an equal distribution of fruits as well as risks,with the key instrument to implement the distribution clarified as public ownership.Its further fusion with Keynesianism helped to endorse the Labour party in the general election of 1945.Since the end of WWII until the fall of the consensus politics,social democracy was not only about to promote the worker's right but also to respond to vast inequality—the corresponding policies included universal welfare,progressive taxation,democratized education and state intervention to steer market force.Then in face of the great challenge from Thatcherite reforms and the triumph of globalization,social democracy was gradually transformed to neo-liberal in economic regulation,liberal in social and ethical issues,and illiberal with regard to security,social order and benefit fraud.Underlying the transformations,the core social democratic value equality was transformed to equality of opportunity in place of the previous advocacy of equality of distribution.The transformations brought three straight election successes for the Labour party,and cooperated with the development of globalization in building the dilemmas for social democracy and the Labour party,though not intended.We can currently observe two paths that social democrats have devised in the dilemmas--to retreat to their radical tradition or to restore the Third Way.Since the defeat in 2010 general election,the Labour party has been on the first path.Miliband's One-Nation agenda was actively constructed to win the "squeezed middle-class" back through policy instrument as "predistribution" to tackle inequality caused by globalization and the Conservatives,fiscal austerity.However,the agenda gradually faded away in 2014,for it was ideologically incompatible with the Labour party and Miliband's left-leaning stance;besides,the One-Nation policies such as fuel price freeze and long-term investment failed to appeal its target voters.During Corbyn's tenure,the Labour party went further to radical left.For instance,Corbyn has always been enthusiastic re-adopt nationalization and state control--to renationalize British rails and energy companies,to strictly tax,to promote "People's QE" and "National Investment Bank"--which cannot take any effect in the globalized world where capital is mobile and finance is rather footloose.The radical stance can also make the"middle Britain" leave the Labour party.However,the Third Way faction within the party also failed to propose electorally plausible agenda to overcome the hardships and to create a dynamic economy.As the crisis persists,time still exists for the Labour party to devise plans and gather forces,but it remains unknown how long it will take.The only thing for sure is that nostalgia is not going to bring a bright future. |
PDF Full Text Request