With the conclusion of the half-term break, it’s time for a brief quiz. As you read these lines, can you identify the recurring theme? This week, the political arena in Westminster has been captivated by the remarks of Peter Mandelson, a prominent figure from the Blair era, particularly his critical exchanges with fellow supporter Pat McFadden. Last week also featured a significant essay by Tony Blair, which was soon followed by a report on youth unemployment authored by Alan Milburn, Blair’s former health secretary. The narrative for this summer appears to focus on a contest for the Labour leadership between Andy Burnham, who Blair praised as “an outstanding member of my government,” and Wes Streeting, a noted admirer of Blair.
Did you catch that? It seems that if extraterrestrial beings were to visit Britain, they might conclude that the country is governed by someone named Tony Blair. While he may not be the formal leader, he certainly has a commanding presence. If he isn’t in the limelight, another figure from the 1997 class is quickly brought forward. Recently struggling in local elections? Better bring Harriet Harman and Gordon Brown to No 10 for some photographs. This pattern continues with other figures like Jonathan Powell, Michael Barber, Liz Lloyd, and Tim Allan. And if you need someone to engage Donald Trump? Well, it seems Peter is the go-to.
I will refrain from sharing my opinions on Blair’s latest piece; you’ve likely heard enough from others, which is part of the issue. According to the Guardian’s research team, a review of national newspapers from early last week revealed a striking statistic: Tony Blair received three times the media coverage of both Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood combined.
A man who exited the political stage nearly twenty years ago garners more attention than the current Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. He continues to participate in major interviews, provoke numerous responses, and set the agenda for discussions. But why is that?
Despite what some publications might suggest, Tony Blair is not an enigmatic figure who has suddenly re-emerged for a significant intervention. Over the past two years, he has expressed his views on various topics including Iran (arguing we should have intervened alongside Trump), digital identification (which he supports), and climate policies (which he opposes), among other interests. He seems to make more comebacks than Bruce Springsteen.
His motivations are not to satisfy a public craving for his commentary. In a recent poll, respondents deemed Blair less credible than Boris Johnson. Instead, his primary audience appears to be the political elite and the media.
We are now further removed from the inception of New Labour than New Labour was from the time of Harold Wilson. Can you envision Blair appointing Barbara Castle as a wages tsar? Or bringing Joe Haines on board for communications? Such notions would have been ludicrous back then; today, they seem to carry a sense of seriousness.
Centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, during the Anglo-Saxon period, a poem titled The Ruin depicted the remnants of an ancient city—believed to be Bath—as if crafted by a lost race of superhumans. It suggested that civilization had reached its zenith long ago, leaving the present as merely an epilogue.
This analogy aptly describes Keir Starmer’s combination of hesitance and reverence for his predecessors. Those ancients were titans; we appear as mere Lilliputians. They were triumphant; we are fortunate survivors. They had innovative ideas; we seem to rely on a photocopier.
Some of the blame lies with the aides surrounding Starmer, who, with his approval, have eliminated any independent thinkers from within the party. Regardless of the reasons, to regard the Blairites as possessing eternal wisdom misinterprets both history and current events. Even setting aside the serious missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blair presided over the loss of a million manufacturing jobs, a significant decline in council housing, and the creation of a financial bubble. As Bryan Gould aptly noted about Mandelson, the same applies to Blair: “He was often disappointing as someone touted as a visionary for the Labour party. He had a strategy for winning elections, but not a clear plan for societal change.”
Blair departed from Number 10 in June 2007, just as the credit crunch began to unfold. Within months, Britain faced a banking crisis followed by the most significant financial collapse in its history the following year. At that juncture, every justification for the Blair approach—allowing finance to flourish to fund public sector jobs and focusing on the knowledge economy—was rendered invalid. It was a critical moment for a complete reassessment of the UK’s political economy and the Labour party’s mission. Evaluate for yourself how much progress has been made in the two decades since. This summer, Burnham’s challenge will be to demonstrate how his ideas have evolved since he served as a junior minister under Blair.
Within the Blairite faction itself, there appears to be little introspection or re-evaluation. Recent exchanges between Mandelson and McFadden, which resemble a dialogue from Beckett’s Waiting for Godot—minus the humor—highlight this. McFadden proposed that Labour MPs focus on just one question: “Who can we tax to provide benefits for others?” There is some merit to this, which explains the frustration some feel toward an economic strategy that seems to boil down to “something about wealth tax.” This is still preferable to the Blairites’ approach, which appears to prioritize “whose benefits can we cut to reduce taxes for others?”
“How do we counter Reform?” McFadden now implores Mandelson. “And what unifying message can we offer?” Mandelson responds, “You unite people around winning for Britain.” This is neither a coherent policy nor genuine political strategy; it sounds more like a pitch from advertising executives after a three-bottle lunch. Elsewhere, the advisor encourages Starmer’s team to “embrace Knowledge and Risk on everything that will contribute to economic growth,” asserting that there is a significant appetite for investment in the UK.
