Blair is back to give Ed a headache

Not to put too fine a point on things, Tony is pissed off.

Tony Blair is back. The Middle East is aflame, the coalition floundering. Whatever your view of Labour's polarising former premier, he hasn't lost his sense of political timing.

"Blair the 'back-seat driver' tells Ed Miliband to up his game", reported the Sunday Telegraph. "The former prime minister has told Mr Miliband he has risked cheapening his role by intervening too often on too many relatively trivial issues."

Miliband was no doubt delighted with the advice. As Nick Clegg grapples the Monster Raving Loony Party for political survival – and David Cameron strides on to the international stage with all the gravitas and judgement of Dr Strangelove – Labour's current leader needs his predecessor popping up like he needs a hole in the head.

Attempts to brush off Sunday's briefing as part of a "regular" series of conversations between the two men have fooled no one. Blair is, not to put too fine a point on things, pissed off. He's angry at Miliband's apparent junking of New Labour. He's even angrier at attempts to tarnish his legacy with what he sees as misrepresentation of his efforts to bring Muammar al-Gaddafi into the international mainstream.

And he's most angry at what he regards as an effort to use the "Arab spring" as a further stick to beat him, his Iraq policy and his broader policy of progressive interventionism.

Ed Miliband's team believe this anger is now being channelled into a co-ordinated Blairite fightback. Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson, David Miliband and Jim Murphy have all made recent high-profile interventions defending Blair and his foreign affairs record and philosophy. "We know what's going on," said one Miliband supporter. "We're not stupid."

Claims in the Telegraph article that Blair was responsible for recent improvements in Milband's performance and standing have been met with bewilderment. "It would be ludicrous to pretend this is all down to Tony – the unpopularity of the government's spending cuts obviously plays a major role – but Ed is always happy to listen to his advice," said a leadership source.

Those close to the Blairite camp see things somewhat differently. According to supporters of the former leader, Ed Miliband is becoming increasingly nervous at his failure to build a proper support base within the party. "Last time Ed spoke to Tony he wanted his help and advice in shoring up his position," one said. "It's taking much longer to bring people round than Ed anticipated."

There are also frustrations among a number of Blairite supporters with what they see as Miliband's failure to build on his recent tactical success. "The coalition keeps screwing up, and we keep hitting them. But we're not building an alternative case for why people should back Labour. Our only argument is 'at least we're not the Tories or the Lib Dems'."

Yet differing emphases over the response to the tumultuous events in the Middle East are creating the most significant tensions. Miliband's team fervently believes there is no appetite among the voters for further international adventurism. "Even if we wanted to get involved in Libya, the public won't wear it," said one source.

This sits in stark contrast to the interventionist instincts of some members of his own shadow cabinet. At a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London on Thursday, Jim Murphy issued a veritable call to arms. "Britain can and should play an important part in shaping world events and trends, with our armed forces its heart," he urged.

That Britain should have responsibilities beyond her borders, he said, was "not, as some would have it, ideological, but, as we have seen over the last few days, a necessary response to the world in which we live. This is a challenge for the Labour Party. Opposition is about proving your preparedness to engage with the issues you would have to in government if it is to be responsible and ultimately electorally credible."

Compare that to an article Miliband wrote for the Observer four days earlier and the difference in emphasis is striking. He wrote:

The neocons were wrong to think we could impose democracy at the point of a gun. In this new era, soft power will often be a better way to achieve hard results. That is why support for civil society, the promotion of national assets such as the British Council and the BBC World Service, is so important. Our template should be the EU's response to the democratic revolutions of 1989 which helped make change in eastern Europe irreversible, with economic aid, technical assistance and institution-building.

The crisis in the Middle East has forced Miliband to sit down at the chessboard of foreign policy rather earlier in his leadership than he would have liked. Because of that, he has yet to formulate a settled policy agenda.

But he does have one simple rule: avoid getting into the mess Blair got himself into.

It's not a foreign affairs credo the former leader and his supporters are likely to warm to.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.