Ours will strive for Britain to be shed of all isolationist and xenophobic attitudes towards the management of our nation's foreign affairs. Hence, we support Britain's responsibilities within the European Economic Community, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United Nations and the Commonwealth. Ours will commit Britain to become a constructive and progressive force within these trans-national bodies – in order to meet the challenges faced by the modern global community, such as arms control and third world poverty. We whole-heartedly reject the isolationist tendencies which dominate the Labour Party today.

These words formed the core of a set of foreign policy ideals that drew the author as a schoolgirl to the embryonic Social Democrats. They outlined a vision for the UK's role in the world that was collaborative, not competitive, and that understood the importance of multilateral institutions and the rules-based international order. They rejected isolationism and unilateralism, on the one hand, and jingoism, on the other. They implicitly acknowledged that the world had moved on from the Empire and that Britannia no longer ruled the waves, but they provided enough vision to begin to respond to Dean Acheson's immortal words: ‘Britain has lost an Empire and not yet found a role.’ The language may now seem somewhat dated, the Labour Party may no longer be isolationist, but at a time when the forces of populism and isolation have led to the abandonment of treaties and international law, the values of the Limehouse Declaration are even more vital than ever.

Four decades ago, the SDP was born in the midst of deep divisions, both political and economic, within the UK. The political landscape saw right-wing conservatism trouncing an increasingly left-wing Labour Party. The SDP appeared to offer something of a middle way, embracing aspects of capitalism but recognising that the state had an important role to play in creating social justice. As in economics, so in foreign policy: Social Democrats steered a middle course, supporting a strong defence and being willing to intervene internationally to pursue progressive policies or overturn injustice, while eschewing narrow nationalism.

As domestic politics polarised, so did parties’ foreign policy preferences. The difference was at its starkest during the 1983 general election.