Blair he goes again

Surviving the Westminster essay wars

Wow - what a week for fans of essays.

First we were treated to Tony Blair’s 5000+ word plus essay on the state of Labour. In his long diatribe, Blair criticised the Starmer government as well as the prospective candidates to replace him.

Then we got Andy Burnham’s response, in which he argued that “The simple truth that Tony Blair has ignored” was that inequality is the main driver of voting intention.

Who could forget Wes Streeting’s classic retort essay: “Blair wants to leave our future to the markets.” - you can’t help but feel it’s a little derivative.

And then, of course, Starmer’s response: “Tony Blair might not like my plan, but he’s wrong”. A nice piece, but a bit one note.

Oh how the essay gods treat us. But, wait - there’s more! Fearful his original essay was misunderstood, Tony Blair emerged with another sequel essay, with the less than catchy title: “The future demands a radical response based on understanding the world we live in”.

Westminster is in an all-out pen swinging contest as to who can put forward the most compelling, cohesive argument in the most engaging prose.

Here’s the verdict: Blair, agree with him or not, won that battle. And as well as being a clear and persuasive writer, he does make some good arguments.

What Blair got right

It is certainly true that Starmer does not have a political credo: he simply has a string of policies randomly tied together in a bid for popularity. You see the lack of a political belief in his U-turns: there is no underlying strategy there, just frantic, repeated spins of the policy wheel in a bid to mollify his backbenchers and appease the polls.

And Blair is right that Labour wins from the centre. Andy Burnham’s bid to push Labour to the left will please the die-hards, but it won’t win over the country and it certainly won’t drive all important growth.

Blair advocates for Radical Centrism (perhaps he’s been reading the Monday Memo) which I completely agree is the right approach: big reforms instead of piecemeal changes; pushing for change instead of process and paperwork; a coherent, visionary story for voters instead of a series of pledges. But above all, it means starting with the right answer wherever it comes, and making it happen.

And finally, he’s right on AI. As I’ve written countless times, AI is the most substantial change to the working world certainly since the Industrial Revolution and one that government is not taking nearly seriously enough. Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is hitting new highs and government is looking to blame everything except AI. For decades, people have warned that automation will take jobs and so far it has not: it is finally happening, and now nobody seems to care.

While the risk is huge, the opportunity is also enormous: public sector productivity surge, an increase in our national wealth, millions of Brits working less and earning more. But achieving that will mean difficult, radical choices (including on tax and welfare) and Starmer has not been prepared to take that big bet.

What Blair got wrong

Blair makes the case that politics isn’t about chasing what’s popular, it’s about chasing what’s right and then persuading the country. And yet, on net-zero, he’s done the opposite.

Of course net-zero isn’t popular. It’s expensive

But it’s also the clearest solution to the biggest problems we face as a nation. On cost of living, this is a long-term route to abundant, affordable energy. On growth, it is the cheat code for the creation of thousands of well-paid, skilled jobs. On security, it’s the only path to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas.

I’ve argued before that net-zero will be the space race of the 21st century. A lot of people will question why, when it so expensive and difficult, we should race to net-zero. People asked the same of JFK about going to the moon, and as he responded: we do these things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.”

He is also wrong to suggest our role in the world should be an unassailable ally to the US. The vast majority of Brits will connect Blair’s name not with his string of election wins, or the economic boom he oversaw, or his record-breaking welfare spending but with his ill-fated decision to enter the Iraq War. His essay suggests he has not learned his lesson.

It would be ludicrous to suggest Britain can stand alone in the world, or even can become a great power - but we can cement our role as a crucial middle power and. To do that, we must do three things in tandem.

First is to boost our sovereign capabilities (eg in defence, energy, tech) so while we may be backed by the US and EU, we are less dependent.

Second is to increase our soft power internationally: investing in international development projects, deploying our aid spend in ways that advance our place in the world, and so forth.

And third is to recognise that diplomacy even with our closest allies is not about being a lap dog to the US President, but a critical friend.

Lesson for Starmer

Tony Blair’s essay, for its faults, is a reminder of what the former Prime Minister was great at: making a coherent case to the country.

Starmer needs to take on the job of persuading the country of his plan and his capabilities.

Starmer is stunk in a bunker mentality, cooped up in Number 10 desperately hoping the scandals and criticism won’t hit him. He needs to get out of the bunker and into a tank: on the front-foot, pushing through his policies with force, allowing the criticism to brush off him.

Ultimately, Starmer needs to move away from the managerialism. Blair’s essay serves as both a reminder of the power of a clear credo. Time for Starmer to articulate a vision and deliver on it: he could start by addressing the urgency of the AI revolution and bringing the country along on the net-zero transition.