What do you think?
Rate this book
John Smith: Old Labour's Last Hurrah?
The death of John Smith on 12th May 1994 was one of those events which sticks in the memory. He was cut down at the moment that it looked as if he was set to become the next Prime Minister after a long political career and after successive electoral defeats for his party.
This book, published to mark the thirtieth anniversary of his death, offers a comprehensive assessment of his leadership of the Labour Party, with chapters written by academic experts, on their chosen fields, and by those who knew him as advisers, MPs and journalists.
There are two themes running through the book. The first seeks to examine the extent to which there was a John Smith 'effect' in terms of politics and policy and assess whether he succeeded in establishing his own agenda or simply followed that of his predecessor. The second examines the extent to which Smith was a representative of 'Old' Labour or 'New' Labour.
This book, published to mark the thirtieth anniversary of his death, offers a comprehensive assessment of his leadership of the Labour Party, with chapters written by academic experts, on their chosen fields, and by those who knew him as advisers, MPs and journalists.
There are two themes running through the book. The first seeks to examine the extent to which there was a John Smith 'effect' in terms of politics and policy and assess whether he succeeded in establishing his own agenda or simply followed that of his predecessor. The second examines the extent to which Smith was a representative of 'Old' Labour or 'New' Labour.
300 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 30, 2024
2 people are currently reading
3 people want to read
About the author
Kevin Hickson
21 books2 followersKevin Hickson is Senior Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Liverpool, UK.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 29, 2024
I was hoping for a biography of John Smith but it’s actually a series of essays about his brief time as leader of the Labour Party
August 29, 2024
Good book. Smith would have made an exceptional PM.
July 17, 2025
*The book is not a biography but a collection of essays*
A. McSmith, 'John Smith: A Life, 1938-94' (London: Mandarin, 1994) and M. Stuart, 'John Smith: A Life' (London: Politico's, 2005) are biographies that the author recommends.
This book is published to mark the 30th anniversary of his death. John Smith was a decent and honest man. After serving in the Labour Governments of the 1970s, the shadow Cabinet from 1979 to 1992, and Leader of the Opposition from 1992 to 1994, he was set to be the next prime minister.
There are lots of 'What-ifs?' about his premature death: Would Labour have still won the 1997 election, and by what margin? Would Britain have invaded Iraq?
These are interesting questions but there is no way of knowing for sure.
Therefore, this book is not a 'What-if'. It is rather about how John Smith became leader, his relationships with key stakeholders: the shadow Cabinet, the PLP, and the trade unions, the opinion polls, and his policy positions.
However, there is also a consideration of the problems that Smith might have found in government and whether would Labour have won and kept winning.
The overarching question is the extent to which John Smith should be seen as Old Labour or as a leader who could have avoided the tensions within the party under the New Labour governments.
The distinction between 'Old Labour' and 'New Labour,' however, is problematic. The former was used to make a distinction between the party's past and present. There were lots of modernising reforms by John Smith: for example, the union block vote was reduced.
Tony Blair distinguished three types of Labour: old-fashioned Labour, which could never win; modernised Labour, which could win and keep winning; and plain Labour, which could win once, but as a reaction to an unpopular Conservative government. In this typology, John Smith was 'plain Labour'.
I do not agree. Firstly, with the argument: that John Smith could only win once. Secondly, with the premise: that winning should be prized above all else.
There was a lot of scope for a decade of Labour government. Eighteen years of Conservative government had decimated public services, was riven by sleaze, and had lost its reputation for economic competence by 'Black Wednesday'. The New Labour governments were strong on the NHS and poverty but a two-term John Smith Labour government would have been stronger on inequality and regulation.
Notwithstanding these questions, his death meant that we lost a good and decent man. Maybe the best Prime Minister we never had?
A. McSmith, 'John Smith: A Life, 1938-94' (London: Mandarin, 1994) and M. Stuart, 'John Smith: A Life' (London: Politico's, 2005) are biographies that the author recommends.
This book is published to mark the 30th anniversary of his death. John Smith was a decent and honest man. After serving in the Labour Governments of the 1970s, the shadow Cabinet from 1979 to 1992, and Leader of the Opposition from 1992 to 1994, he was set to be the next prime minister.
There are lots of 'What-ifs?' about his premature death: Would Labour have still won the 1997 election, and by what margin? Would Britain have invaded Iraq?
These are interesting questions but there is no way of knowing for sure.
Therefore, this book is not a 'What-if'. It is rather about how John Smith became leader, his relationships with key stakeholders: the shadow Cabinet, the PLP, and the trade unions, the opinion polls, and his policy positions.
However, there is also a consideration of the problems that Smith might have found in government and whether would Labour have won and kept winning.
The overarching question is the extent to which John Smith should be seen as Old Labour or as a leader who could have avoided the tensions within the party under the New Labour governments.
The distinction between 'Old Labour' and 'New Labour,' however, is problematic. The former was used to make a distinction between the party's past and present. There were lots of modernising reforms by John Smith: for example, the union block vote was reduced.
Tony Blair distinguished three types of Labour: old-fashioned Labour, which could never win; modernised Labour, which could win and keep winning; and plain Labour, which could win once, but as a reaction to an unpopular Conservative government. In this typology, John Smith was 'plain Labour'.
I do not agree. Firstly, with the argument: that John Smith could only win once. Secondly, with the premise: that winning should be prized above all else.
There was a lot of scope for a decade of Labour government. Eighteen years of Conservative government had decimated public services, was riven by sleaze, and had lost its reputation for economic competence by 'Black Wednesday'. The New Labour governments were strong on the NHS and poverty but a two-term John Smith Labour government would have been stronger on inequality and regulation.
Notwithstanding these questions, his death meant that we lost a good and decent man. Maybe the best Prime Minister we never had?
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews