It is rare for former prime ministers to engage in debates about public policy nearly 20 years after they left office. Other than the most general observations, they tend to avoid interventions. So, when Tony Blair offered 5,700 words of criticism directed at the party he led for 13 years, it was obviously significant. Much – though not all – of his analysis was manifestly aimed at Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Claims in Blair’s essay included Starmer’s apparent lack of vision, his drift over difficult decisions (most obviously welfare reform), his government’s failure to prioritise economic growth, and the absence of a consistent account of what it is actually doing in office.
Labour’s time in government has indeed been disappointing for many supporters. And the former prime minister was also critical of the leading contenders to challenge Starmer, Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting. Changing the leadership was, he indicated, a distraction.
At the same time, it was hard to know quite what to make of the Blair essay. He covers so much ground and flays out at so many targets that it comes over at points as little more than a rant. The former premier lines up targets and proceeds to knock them down very quickly – sometimes without explanation. Net zero environmental targets? Abandon them. What’s next? (A subsequent article by Blair was softer on some points, particularly on the economy and the idea that the market “is always the answer”.)
In the initial essay, there is a curious lack of self-awareness about the UK’s predicament. This is all the more puzzling from a politician who was at the centre of Westminster for more than a decade. Things started to go wrong, according to Blair, around 2007, when Labour moved to the left. Remind us – when was it that he left office? That would be 2007. Apparently, it’s been downhill all the way since.
New Labour shaped the UK as it is today – including some of the difficulties it currently experiences. Labour took the country into a prolonged military engagement in Iraq that helped to destabilise the Middle East. It was the same administration that saw net migration into the UK increase dramatically. Meanwhile, a “loans for honours” scandal and the rise of political spin in these years probably contributed to a decline in voters’ trust in politics more generally.
The shape of social democracy
In the 1990s and 2000s under Labour, the UK enjoyed a period of impressive economic growth (around 3% per annum). It was remarkable, but whether it was sustainable – and whether the 2008-09 financial crash could have been avoided – is another matter. Labour’s boom years relied on a growing financial sector and the tax receipts that came with it. Since then, growth has been elusive.
In many ways, Starmer’s struggle to define Labour’s outlook resembles troubles that Blair encountered back in the 1990s. It was never very clear what New Labour stood for. At the time, the then Labour leader made much of his “Third Way” (a kind of middle ground between capitalism and socialism). But it was unclear what this actually amounted to in practice, and ultimately it was dropped.
The emphasis in Blair’s essay on policy before politics is actually in many ways similar to the technocratic orientation of Starmer’s administration: what is the problem and what might solve it? Both reflect the pragmatic and practical character of Labour’s social democratic outlook.
Within social democracy, reformism is the broad idea of gradually securing greater equality through redistributive state intervention. Rather than being part of a rigid ideology, it revolves around the real-life activities and decisions of governments that are shaped by circumstances, norms and longstanding practices. This can lead to complex decisions, some of which will be contradictory.
Sean Aidan Calderbank/Shutterstock
As such, social democracy is articulated by context, trade-offs and pursuing goals. It reflects the multidimensional nature of political parties and the circumstances within which they find themselves.
This characterisation of social democracy applies to Blair’s administration as much as the government of Starmer. Each has governed implementing a programme based on a perception of contemporary challenges, available resources, and policy legacies. Each has sought power through diverse electoral appeals, building up a coalition of voters.
Under each leader Labour has operated across distinct dimensions: as a governing force, as a campaigning entity and as an organisational structure. These involve complex systems and a myriad of relationships in order to make decisions, adjust to circumstances and negotiate compromises.
Throughout its history, Labour has focused on immediate improvements in people’s living standards and welfare – “jam today”, as the old adage goes. For critics of Starmer’s apparent lack of vision, the party’s current timidity is manifest. To others, it is offset by things like raising the minimum wage as market forces undermined take-home pay, interventions to improve workers’ rights in the labour market, and environmental regulations to reshape energy markets.
All of these measures are shaped by the legacies of the Conservative administration, including tax cuts and levels of national debt. In the 1990s, Blair’s administration negotiated domestic pressures with some success through such measures as tax credits and myriad New Deals on work and welfare. Whether Labour under Starmer has the capacity to navigate its own set of competing demands is what will determine its success.
