T H Green and the Development of Ethical SocialismNew Labour's Old Root
Revisionist Thinkers in Labour's History 1931–1997sFightback! Labour's Traditional Right in the 1970s and 1980s
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6311192 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eric Shaw (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 60 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 363-369 |
| Publication date | 2007-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Parliamentary Affairs (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-2290 • E-ISSN: 1460-2482 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/pa/gsm002 |
| OpenAlex | W2033385113 |
| Language | EN |
All these three books, in their various ways, seek to cast light on the origins and character of New Labour. The two theoretical books—by Carter and Diamond—differ considerable in shape and purpose. Carter's has its origins in his doctoral dissertation and much of it is devoted to exploring the role played by T. H. Green's idealism in shaping the philosophical basis of New Liberalism and ethical socialism. Diamond's book is an edited compilation containing extracts of works from those he sees as key revisionist thinkers, ranging from Douglas Jay, Tony Crosland, and Hugh Gaitskell to David Marquand, Giles Radice and Roy Hattersley—to name but a few. Dianne Hayter's ‘Fightback!’, in contrast, is about politics in the raw: the struggle by Labour's right to recapture control of the party. Each of the authors, it is worth noting, have practical experience of Labour party politics: Matt Carter as a former General Secretary of the party, Patrick Diamond as a number 10 staffer (Tony Blair wrote a preface for his volume) and Dianne Hayter as both a long-time chair of the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society and as a member of the party's National Executive Committee
Character (mathematics · Communism · Liberalism · Political science · Politics · Socialism · Sociology · Law · Political and Economic history of UK and US
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |