The anticipation surrounding Rachel Reeves’ Mais lecture on March 19th stirred up a classic case of New Labour-style spin. Initial coverage hinted at direct praise for Margaret Thatcher, but the speech didn’t explicitly spell it out.
Instead, Reeves’ call for “a decade of national renewal” evoked Thatcher’s era, prompting various reactions and debates within the Labour Party and beyond. Although Reeves didn’t mention Thatcher by name, her use of a phrase associated with the former Tory prime minister raised eyebrows.
Momentum swiftly challenged the notion of Thatcher’s “national renewal,” citing the hardships endured by working-class people during her tenure. Former Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the negative impact of Thatcherism on the economy and society.
Rachel Reeves (Credits: X)
Others, such as Tax Justice campaigner Richard Murphy, outright condemned Reeves’ speech. However, progressive economist James Meadway took a different approach, engaging with the substance of Reeves’ proposals. He cautioned against dismissing the need for institutional shifts in Britain’s political economy and highlighted the importance of securing consent for reform.
Meadway acknowledged Reeves’ recognition of the weaknesses in British capitalism, particularly regarding low productivity and investment. He noted that her proposed solutions diverge from traditional Thatcherism or classic social democracy, resembling instead the industrial strategy deployed after the 2008 financial crisis.
Rachel Reeves Giving Speech (Credits: The Independent)
Meadway expressed concerns about the feasibility of Reeves’ vision, particularly Labour’s expenditure constraints and the challenges of achieving broad-based growth. He emphasized the necessity of planning for green growth, especially in the face of recent announcements diluting Labour’s commitment to environmental investment.
Despite the strategic vision outlined by Reeves, many argue that her policies still reflect elements of Thatcher’s legacy, particularly concerning housing, privatization, and welfare. Some critics accuse Reeves of straying from Labour’s progressive values, pointing to her past statements advocating for stricter welfare measures.
As speculation mounts about Labour’s direction under Reeves and Starmer, observers await to see how these policies will manifest in practice. The tension between pursuing economic renewal and maintaining Labour’s core principles remains at the forefront of the party’s agenda.
