“The desire for socialist change … has produced a record which contains far more success than failure, including policies which have vastly improved the lot of those Labour exists to serve. All those associated with this party should feel justly proud” (p. 5). This book, conceived to mark the centenary of the formation of the British Labour Party, has a broadly upbeat message—the party has been a success, a qualified success perhaps but still a success. The evidence in support of this judgement appears here not as a chronological narrative but as a series of essays dealing with different aspects of the party's history. The essays are on the party's political thought (by José Harris), its economics (Jim Tomlinson), Labour and welfare (Pat Thane), Labour and international affairs (Stephen Howe), constitutionalism (Miles Taylor), gender (Martin Francis), trades unions (Alistair Reid), its membership (Duncan Tanner), the electorate (Nick Tiratsoo), a comparative perspective (Stefan Berger), its myths (Jon Lawrence), and finally one on New Labour (Steven Fielding).

In some ways the times might seem unpropitious for the judgement that the Labour Party has been even a qualified success. The state socialism of the communist block is surely discredited, and even the social democratic consensus of Keynesianism and a welfare state might perhaps best be described as having been in retreat since the late 1970s. In addition, most historians, especially those on the left, have been dismissive of the party's claims, seeing it as theoretically unsophisticated compared to its European counterparts, as lacking socialist vigour, as neglecting issues of gender and race, and as a mere extension of the trade-union interest. This book sidesteps many of these latter criticisms by insisting on judging Labour in its own terms. The party has always acted within certain constraints, among which the two most important here are the electorate and its own internal divisions. Any attempt to bemoan a lack of socialist vigour can thus be met by saying there was no alternative given the constraints. Within these constraints, this book suggests, the Labour Party's record compares favourably with that of all its rivals.

The book highlights the Labour Party's achievements in several areas. Surely the most important is its dedication to improving the lot of impoverished sections of society. Anyone who grasps just how awful the condition of the working class in Britain was between the two world wars must allow there has been enormous improvement. Again, even if some of the ideas behind the welfare state came from without Labour, others did not, and anyway it remained to the party to provide the political energy that passed the necessary legislation. In addition, the party has a reasonable, if flawed, history of fighting against prejudice. No other British party, for example, has done more to promote equal opportunity for women. Finally, the Labour Party has taken a moral stand on certain issues, and sought thereby to lead public opinion, even when this has been harmful to its electoral chances.

In highlighting these achievements, several essays in the book standout as of particular interest. The essay by José Harris on Labour's political thought, particularly when read in conjunction with Jim Tomlinson's on the economy, does much to show that Labour's thinkers were more consistent, rigorous, and sophisticated than is normally believed. The studies by Stephen Howe and Stefan Berger suggest the party, including its leadership, was more international, and less insular, than the stereotype of British socialism suggests. And the essays of Alistair Reid and Duncan Tanner give us a sense of the party's activists as fallible but engaged and passionately committed individuals working to better the human condition for little reward and often in difficult conditions. In these ways, and others, the book manages to rescue the Labour Party—its thinkers, politicians, and activists—from the condescension of posterity.

Generally I applaud this book both for the stance it takes to the Labour Party and for the high quality of the individual essays. However, I would like to express one note of caution. In taking an internal perspective on the history of the party and in judging it on its own terms, this book does not allow sufficiently for the extent to which the party is implicated in the very constraints under which it operates. The fratricidal battles within the party, for example, have done much to increase the suspicion it arouses among the electorate. Likewise, the role in the party of trade unions with a masculine culture surely was one of the most significant constraints on what the party could do on issues of gender. Now, if we open up the possibility of the party transforming the constraints under which it operates, then we must allow that had it acted differently—say, taking a stronger line on gender and race—it might have transformed the constraints—say, creating a more powerful constituency in favor of positive discrimination—in a way that might have enabled it to do considerably more. Debates about what the party might have done thus remain open to a diverse range of voices. These voices speak, moreover, not only to the past but to what the party now might do and how it might do it. To write about the party's history is to enter current versions of those passionate, heated, and divisive debates that have been such a prominent part of its past.