I don’t like the sensationalism, or the over simplification of it all. The antithesis to the end of New Labour is, surely, a reversion to ’Old’ Labour – or at least that’s what you’d expect, since no attractive phrase has yet emerged to fill the gap (‘Less New’ Labour? ‘Slightly Older’ Labour? I can’t see either catching on).

Of course, the Government has had to do a few things over the last couple of weeks which, taken at face value, do seem decidedly un-New Labour. But that is only on the face of it. Beneath the surface of tax and spending increases, there are a few underlying principles which appear to remain in place. To claim that this is suddenly the anti-climactic end to a project a decade in the making is just a little wide of the mark. So before you dust down your Stuart Holland socialist manuals, therefore, I’d urge a little caution.

The questions I ask are: If this is the end of New Labour, what would have been a standard ‘New Labour’ response be to an economic crisis of this sort? How could the Labour government have responded in such a way that would have stuck to New Labour principles? These are questions none of the critics can answer. It seems to me that New Labour was expected to stand back and rely on the strength of the market, since its critics claim New Labour is built on a shaky footing of laissez faire and neo liberalism. When this didn’t happen, the project had reached its end. But this reveals a basic misunderstanding of what New Labour was in the first place, and in fact its response to the crisis is helpful in further illuminating Labour’s social democratic principles.

New Labour has been built on the principle that we are a party able to represent not just the working class, narrowly defined, but are a party capable of representing a wider electorate. A government ready to defend middle class aspiration as well as working class need. Indeed, a Labour Party prepared not to think in terms of class. Do the measures taken in last weeks Pre-Budget Report mitigate against this? I can’t see that they do. A 5% tax rise on earnings over £150,000 hardly represents a return to class based politics, but rather an acknowledgement that the wealthy should shoulder some extra burden at a difficult time. There is nothing un-New Labour in this.

New Labour’s critics attack from two flanks and in two seperate batallions, both striking at the same target for different reasons and with different objectives. For those on the left, ‘the end of New Labour’ is a comfortable narrative as it signals the destruction of the neo-liberal project, proof that we are doomed whilst we rely on the market, and indicative of the need for the Government to own significant controlling points of the economy to avert further disaster. For the right, ‘the end of New Labour’ is an equally attractive idea because, as I said earlier, it suggests that Labour has fled for the left wing. If they are not new, then they must be old. But, given what we’ve heard over the last fortnight, neither interpretation fully adds up. Dig a little below the surface, and you’ll find that what we currently have is a Labour programme built on New Labour assumptions. New Labour is not dead: it is just harder to spot.

The PBR, in keeping with Labour’s approach since the beginning of the crisis, is an excersize in damage limitation, a dose of social justice to make sure that, whilst the crisis works its way through, the most vulnerable (who are always the hardest hit) are given a lifeline, and a little extra cash to boot. But this does not signal a significant change of economic philosophy. The Chancellor tells us that, by 2010, the economy will be recovering and growing again. And it is here that I sense strongest the continuing relevance of New Labour. There is this underpinning theme that, in time, the economy will recover. The market will rebalance itself, and growth will resume. The dividing line between Labour and the Tories doesn’t fall on this issue. There are calls for greater responsibility in the financial sector, but I don’t sense that this is accompanied by any belief that the nationalised banks should remain nationalised once the crisis is over.

The dividing line between Labour and the Tories is what to do in the meantime. The consensus is that, by 2010 (and election time), the market will have recovered and will begin to perform again. The question of what to do between now and then, however, causes disagreement. The Tories, some of whom still think that a recession could be a good thing, want to do nothing. Let the market take its course. Leave it alone and let do, or to use the French phrase: laissez faire. The Tories have reverted to pretty standard dogma over this.

The Labour response is actually broadly inkeeping with the principles of New Labour. A faith that the market can and will recover in time, and that it will again broadly be a useful tool. But it isn’t a perfect one. The state has a role to play in correcting its worst excesses, in helping the people at danger of falling off the bottom rung of the ladder. And that whilst we wait for the economy to grow again, a little Government help for both the market and those positioned most vulnerably within it is both possible and necessary. New Labour isn’t going to stand by and do nothing. Indeed, it never did. And it would be foolish to believe that some ameliorative measures taken in extraordinary times add up to the implosion of a tried and tested political approach.

New Labour is not dead. It is merely having to come up with different solutions to new problems. Beneath those solutions lie the same assumptions that have served the Party and the country so well for ten years – a faith in a strong economy balanced by a Government prepared to step in when it is needed. By continuing to stick to these principles, we haven’t yet seen the last of New Labour.

So what, I hear you cry, is the purpose of the Liberal Youth organisation? Is it to organise and represent young people on bodies such as the NUS? What about as an organisation to campaign for real change across the world, reviving youth and student activism?

Helpfully, we are provided with a mission statement:

Our aim is to create a permanent bloc of young Liberal Democrat voters. Our strategies identify young voters, engage and educate them in issues and campaigns, and then use traditional and innovative methods to turn out the vote.

So Liberal Youth is nothing more than a vehicle to get more people to vote Lib Dem. How inspiring! Also I would take issue there with the ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ methods of turning out the vote. Forgive my basic grasp of the English language, but I was rather under the impression that the word ‘traditional’ means ’the way we’ve always done it’, and ‘innovative’ means ‘finding new ways to do it’.

So, yeah, watch out guys, here come Liberal Youth! Labour Students must be shitting themselves…