Hate him or love him, a tough act to follow

No other politician in the modern era had such expectation surrounding the beginning of their prime ministership as Tony Blair. The expectation of much of a nation that had brought a renewed, redesigned Labour government to power for the first time in a generation was palpable. As the project is ending, has it fulfilled its promise?

Blair’s leadership of New Labour has certainly transformed the ideological landscape of Britain, reshaping moderate politics, and for this reason his legacy is an important one. The rightwards shift of Labour’s economic policy — of endorsing market economics and, for many, neo-liberalism and its concomitant policy prescriptions — shot the most dangerous Conservative foxes and moved Labour politics within the dominant economic paradigm. With the beginnings of a relationship with the City of London; a commitment not to raise the top rate of income tax; a pragmatic attitude towards trade unionism; independence for the Bank of England; and acceptance of the Thatcherite economic settlement, New Labour had ‘modernised’. More appropriately, Blair had de-radicalised what was already a moderate, social democratic organisation under John Smith.

The result of such change has been three consecutive election victories including two historic landslides. The era of Blair has been the decade of dominance. Through intelligent marketing he has made New Labour the housewife’s choice or put another way the choice of ‘hard-working families’. Yet the greatest political achievement was to engineer Labour’s appeal across a broad spectrum of voters which included middle-class professionals; the people who saw in Blair a reflection of ambition and success that they could relate to. With many ‘hard-working families’ and professional middle class voters opting for New Labour, Blair had succeeded where no other Labour leader and prime minister had — namely, in building a diverse range of support to go with the traditional Labour constituents of public sector workers, trade unionists and the poorer, urban working class. This broad spectrum has been fundamental to the electoral success of New Labour and if Gordon Brown can continue such a coalition of the willing — even after twelve years of Labour in government — he will have a fair chance of winning the next general election.

Blair’s tenure has been one of political dominance and electoral success. It has also been one that has defined the terms of contemporary political debate. The advent of a centrist Liberal Democrat in the person of Sir Menzies Campbell and the emergence of a Conservative leader desperately trying to move his party leftwards in an attempt to capture the centre ground is evidence enough of political dominance. The new Tory leader is striving to demonstrate that he, David Cameron, not Prime Minister-elect Gordon Brown is the ‘heir to Blair’. This is one of the greatest compliments a prime minister can be paid. For better or worse British politics is a battle over a small piece of philosophical real estate and it necessitates a ‘big tent’ mentality that is loathe to exclude or offend potential voters. A consequence of this is that genuine ideological politics recedes and inoffensive centrism flourishes. Rarely does a prime minister force his competitors to ape his own politics. Attlee and Thatcher set the ideological tone for their successors but Blair’s dominance has forced both Liberals and Conservatives to react in a deliberate, copycat way. Cameron in particular is currently battling with his party in parliament and in the constituencies to make them an alternative to New Labour. If he succeeds and can attract those southern English voters who voted for Blair then his chance of winning next time is better than fair — it is very good.

No commentary on Blair’s legacy could be complete without mentioning Iraq. Britain is now more united in its conviction that Blair gave undue credence to sketchy intelligence concerning Saddam’s alleged WMD programme. The war was easily won but the peace is proving far more difficult. This is Blair’s foreign policy legacy, whilst successful interventions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan fade in the public consciousness. Britain and Blair are now globally renowned and depending on your attitude to the Iraq war this is either a tribute or a travesty. At home Blair’s supporters will point to an unprecedented period of economic stability and near full employment; the minimum wage; high levels of investment in health and education; Good Friday Agreement; signing up to the Kyoto protocol and taking the global lead on poverty reduction in Africa. Critics outside of the Labour Party will point to three emergent cultures affiliated to New Labour: spin, targets and political correctness. They will remember cash for honours, the post-9/11 clamp down on civil liberties, and the break up of the UK and rising taxation.

Critics within the Labour Party will point to the lost opportunities that three consecutive electoral victories and two massive Commons majorities offered Blair. They say he should have been more radical. Perhaps, in the area of social and economic affairs he lacked the one virtue that he is most proud of — conviction. What must be said is that this arena was largely controlled by Brown and that was part of their compact. This begs the question: Was Brown too cautious and conservative?

Unusual in modern times he gets to leave more or less on his terms and historians will no doubt place him near the top of Labour’s most successful prime ministers. It is currently too soon for most Labour members and supporters to cast a final judgement but my reckoning is that many will feel that the Blair years were a period of Labour dominance and electoral success, of great promise and missed opportunities.

Matt Beech is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Hull. His forthcoming edited volume with Simon Lee is entitled, ‘Ten Years of New Labour’ (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).