August 4, 2008
Would Blairism without Blair have so many takers?
This should be THE crucial question for Labour as the party faces the possible prospect of civil war over leadership, direction and policy.
The left, and the unions, want to reach out to core Labour voters with policies such as more affordable housing and a windfall tax on energy companies.
The right wing of the party wants to continue on the Blairite path; pro-business, pro-choice, pro-reform, etc.
They are lampooned by Alan Simpson, the leftwing MP for Nottingham South, as: “A group of ex-ministers cruising the corridors and cafeteria of Parliament in search of stray MPs….a group of 20 or so ex-ministers (mostly junior ones) meeting to discuss how they could maintain the flame of the Blairite revolution.”
The dilemma for the leadership - and the grass roots - is trying to deconstruct how much of Tony Blair’s popularity was down to his policies (Iraq war, foundation hospitals, academies, PFI, etc) and how much was down to his personality (persuasive, charismatic, telegenic etc) - at least in the early years.
I suspect the latter has played more of a role than anyone - including Blair’s closest acolytes - would ever admit. Would the Blairite agenda really be a vote-winner in the hands of less persuasive politicians such as Stephen Byers (pictured below) or John Reid? Not necessarily.
This is an important point, I think.
I would just add an extra thought: did the people of Crewe and Glasgow East fail to support the government’s by-election candidates because they were insufficiently New Labour?
Politicians (like business leaders) tend to go wrong when they start believing their own mythology. Wasn’t the 2005 election beginning to go wrong for Labour until they pushed Gordon Brown back into the limelight? (This may be hard to believe at the moment I realise.) Arguably Blairite New Labour had already hit the buffers three years ago, before the recent by-elections
- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6254e0d8-5e98-11dd-b354-000077b07658.html
If he becomes a real leadership candidate, we will see how hard David Miliband pushes his Blairite/New Labour credentials.
Posted by: Stefan Stern | August 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Report this comment[…] The FT asks, wisely, ‘would Blairism without Blair have so many takers?’ […]
Posted by: Crowd goes wild for Blair at Beijing Olympics warm-up « Tony Blair | August 4th, 2008 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentInteresting to see Stefan Stern thinking along the same lines as me on the Death of the Labour party:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/death-of-glue-less-clueless-labour-and-wiki-entry-2050/
I agree that Blairism without Blair is much less sellable. We can rage as much we like at this, and insist it’s all about policies. Our intellect tells us it SHOULD be thus, and not about “personality”. But this obduracy is to deny the obvious. Blair was, like Thatcher, one of a type. Their moulds were discarded and are not recyclable, imho. Major never managed to catch Thatcher’s essence, and nor will any Brown successor emulate Blair successfully.
Apart from persuading, cajoling, BEGGING Blair to return (somehow or other - don’t ask me how!) the only answer for Labour is something new, with some new personality to sell it. That’s today’s all-pervasive media world for you, and politicians who ignore that do so at their peril. Labour has now found that out - a little late.
We all know that parties lose elections if there IS a viable opposition, rather than oppositions winning.
So Blair did not need to work too hard to win in 1997. The country had had enough of Labour especially after the winter of discontent. His landslide will likely NOT be repeated by Cameron.
And today, we’re all Blairites, especially Mr Cameron. He has made the Conservatives worth considering since most people are in agreement that Brown has to go!
I DO believe that had Blair remained in place he would have taken the fight, and the policies, to the Conservatives. Cameron knew this too. Thus the Tories were relieved to see the back of him. Cameron has had an easy target with Brown. Brown the indecisive; the reactionary.
As for new policy areas from the Blairites - well, I’ve got one or two possibilities, if anyone’s interested.
Posted by: BlairSupporter | August 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm | Report this commentCorrection to the above. Apologies - that’s what comes of not checking things properly.
“So Blair did not need to work too hard to win in 1997. The country had had enough of Labour especially after the winter of discontent. His landslide will likely NOT be repeated by Cameron.”
There were two stories going on in my mind here. The Tories winning in 1979 and losing in 1997.
What I meant was:
“So Blair did not need to work too hard to win in 1997. The country had had enough of the Conservatives. They lost easily, and the charismatic Blair won big-time.
And when the Tories won in 1979, it was the right time for them too after Labour’s winter of discontent. On both occasions, the common elements were a charismatic leader of the opposition, AND an unpopular government.
Blair’s landslide will likely NOT be repeated by Cameron. He is NOT that attractive.”
Posted by: BlairSupporter | August 4th, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Report this commentStefan Stern makes the best point here, that the people on the doorsteps of Glasgow East were not demanding New Labour policies. Exactly! Do Milburn etc really think that voters are telling politians that they want more private companies in our schools and hospitals? More right-wing policies, reminiscent of the Tories. Do they hell.
Posted by: politics junkie | August 6th, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this comment[…] would really annoy the Blairites who want to see Miliband as the next leader. Without Blair, some wise commentators say, they lack a solid personality to be deputy. Cruddas could be that […]
Posted by: Will he, won’t he? « René Lavanchy’s Blog | August 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pm | Report this commentRE politics junkie’s comment on Glasgow East. I am not convinced about this.
A little bit of personal stuff.
I was actually brought up in Glasgow East, though I have lived down south for longer than I lived there. I was in that constituency the week before the by-election. All I met - OK maybe it’s the company I keep (and I was NOT canvassing) - were people saying that they missed Blair and wasn’t Brown a disaster and wasn’t Sure Start great etc etc. There is the complexity of devolved responsibilities in Scotland to take into account too.
I am not convinced that the easy “working people want the old NHS and Education systems as they have always known them” is accurate, anyway, whether decreed by Westminster or Holyrood.
And apart from that, parties which think they can win by only appealing to and relying on their core vote are going down the drain FAST.
Haven’t we learned anything from Blair’s three election wins?
Posted by: BlairSupporter | August 10th, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Report this comment