Why the Blairites must find a new leader

Trying to reconstruct Labour without those who last dragged it from opposition to government would be deeply damaging.

By Dan Hodges Published 25 April 2011 11:53

The Blairites need a new leader. Actually, we all need the Blairites to find a new leader.

I appreciate that may not be the most popular job advertisement ever promoted by the New Statesman. Many believe the time has come to move beyond Blairism and New Labour. Others view it as a period that should be excised from history while its architect does 50 years for war crimes in Wandsworth nick.

Fair enough. The enduring love of his party was never high on Tony Blair's list of priorities for things to gain, and the Dodgy Dossier and 90-day detention bill were less than alluring billet-doux. But like it or not, Blairism, New Labourism and the whole "modernising agenda" are political strands that remain woven into the fabric of the party.

Those who thought the leadership election had consigned all this to the dustbin were wrong. The fact is that, since Ed's victory, the party hasn't really moved anywhere. That's not another Ed Miliband dig by the way, because even Miliband's most loyal supporters wouldn't argue that he's grabbed Labour by the scruff of the neck and started to drive through a bold new philosophical and political agenda.

Team Ed's pitch is that their man wants to use his time to sit back, assess the landscape, let the policy review programme develop, and within that framework start to construct a new, if not New, Labour prospectus. There are some – I'm one – who are sceptical of that strategy. But it's what we've got, so it's at least worth engaging with on its merits. And any meaningful engagement has to include the Blairites.

Pop-up Peter

The question is: who are they? Or, more precisely, who's their figurehead? Who's running the show?

Actually, let's take a step back. Who shouldn't be running it? Well, for starters, Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Tessa Jowell and Blair himself.

Peter popped up at the weekend to urge everyone to vote Yes to AV. Last time he pulled a stunt like that it was to urge everyone to vote for David Miliband, and look how that turned out. Expect a similar result next month.

The Blairite old guard deserve thanks and respect for what they did for their party and their country. Sorry, it's a fact. New Labour ended in failure, but between 1994 and 2001 it had some radical progressive achievements to its name, and those people were the architects.

But their brand is now contaminated, and every time they pop up they just remind people of that final product recall. They need to move on, and they need to be urged to move on not by their critics on the left, but by the new generation on the Labour right. Indeed, the capacity of the younger Blairites to find a new voice, and quieten the noises off, represents their first defining test.

It is a test they must pass quickly, because the window for debate that is opening up in the party will not remain open for ever. Given the premium the Blairites have usually placed on presentation, its ironic that the launch of Purple Labour, their first foray into new territory, has been so poorly managed.

But that's what comes of having a leadership vacuum. And when you have NEC members like Luke Akehurst attacking Progress for being divisive, you know you have serious command-and-control issues.

All smoke and no gunfire?

The Brownite leadership mantle has settled, after a few bumps along the way, on the shoulders of Ed Balls. The liberal left has found a leader in Ed Miliband, even if there have been one or two recent signs of buyer's remorse. In the negotiation that is about to take place over the future direction of the party, the Blairites need to ensure they also have a seat at the table.

David Miliband, prematurely dismissed by many after his defeat, remains a candidate. But he can't wait beyond the water for much longer, and will need to make his case with clarity and conviction.

Jim Murphy has already been identified as one great Blairite hope, and there are worst negatives than his "Scottishness". Douglas Alexander is another candidate, having finally made the break with his Brownite past, though there are some who think his talents are better deployed behind the scenes than front of house. And some still speak wistfully of luring James Purnell back towards the sound of the guns.

There are other candidates that will emerge. And emerge they must, because trying to reconstruct Labour without those who last dragged it from opposition to government would be foolish, and deeply damaging.

Blairism without Blair. We need it. And if anyone can build it, the Blairites can.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Dan Hodges

44 comments

Tue, 2011-04-26 13:20 — Mike S (not verified)

Maybe it should be channeled into a new party Dan. It is difficult to see how many Labour supporters will buy into the same old same old New Labour nonsense.

As elrob says - what is Labour for?

Mon, 2011-04-25 15:49 — kenny jenkins

I propose Tony Blair as leader of the Blairites.
Then he could lead them all off to Libya where they are needed so much more than here.

Mon, 2011-04-25 15:51 — thinkov

Blairites are tory bastards

Mon, 2011-04-25 15:54 — Nathaniel Myers (not verified)

It's a fair point Jesse. I'm shocked, every time I think about how quickly we have elected a prime minister, worse than Gordon.

But is that a real argument in favour of Ed, his leadership, and his potential as prime minister? The fact that we have somebody in power at the moment, that a year before taking office, looked utterly ridiculous as a potential PM? I would say not.

Sat, 2011-04-30 00:35 — Reginald-Fah-fah

In the words of Lord Sugar: the Blairites, "you are fired!!!" "I have no time for 'time wasters'..nor...no time for 'Ass-Kissers'..aahhhhh!

How dare you sir? The Blairites are not Tories!!!

Mon, 2011-04-25 16:51 — JDub (not verified)

Dan, The Blairites need a bit of rebranding and a cogent approach before they can apoint a saviour.

There is something slightly sad about younger members of the party strutting around conference with "things can only get better," on their playlists, trying as hard as they might that it's still 1997. The faction needs a clear and fresh approach before it has a new spokes person.

A broader identity must be found. Whilst coinciding the launch of the Purple book with the local elections was ill timed it does help to refresh New Labour thought from the TB, PM and AC days. It is a step in the right direction but one that needs to be taken before estaablishing a spokes person.

As for said spokesperson... David Miliband seems the least divisive candidate but this is not a positive argument in favour. Having seen Jim Murphy speak on several occasions, he is largely good on content but less impressive on delivery. A part of me wants Andy Burnham to step forward but I imagine he is too in to his loyal to Tony, loyal to Gordon, loyal to Ed thing. And I still find it hard to forgive James Purnell for compounding our loss after 2009 Euro/local elections.

Douglas Alexander would be my most realistc prefered choice it is just a shame he is stuck in the shadow foreign office where it is more difficult for him to publicy contribute. There ends my less than comprehensive musings.

Mon, 2011-04-25 16:57 — Jesse (not verified)

No it is not a great argument for him, I just don't think that not appearing like a PM will stop him. Labour surely can only get more seats than 2010 and have shot up massively in the polls (not that that means Labour are going to do amazingly well - just they can only get closer to being able to form a coalition).

A lot of people still hate Labour and I can't see a strong Blairite candidate making a breakthrough either. I just think that where we differ is that I would prefer Ed to be leader when Labour scrape through into a coalition, rather than a Blairite.

Wed, 2011-05-11 11:40 — Union Steve

New Labour is dead The whole project was built around letting capitalism off the leash and creaming a bit off for social spending. Look were that got us. The systems broke new thinking is required Ed is the best option so far, not a return to neo-liberal madness. The country will pay for the policies of Mr Posh and Mr pledge Labour must not follow.

Mon, 2011-04-25 17:23 — Jesse (not verified)

I believe a lot more people than that hate Labour. There has just been thirteen years of Labour government and it ended pretty badly. It will takes a while for that to ease. The Tories are still haven't recovered from their last time in government!

Wed, 2011-04-27 15:33 — Matt Hurst (not verified)

The problem with Blair and his "ites" is that they believe he and his policy alone can only win an election for Labour. Nothing else would make Labour electable.

Check on elections in 2001/2005 Blair did not romp home with a landslide; he lost an amazingly large amount of support.

We need a history lesson and start uniting the party, not looking for a faction leader that will leave an incompetent government in power.

Mon, 2011-04-25 19:14 — Luddite (not verified)

We don't need fucking leaders, we need policies and politics that fucking work!!

Mon, 2011-04-25 19:25 — Jesse (not verified)

I know Luddie but the article is about choosing a Blairite leader. I always thought the whole point of Blairism was to do whatever it takes in the name of modernisation to get elected.

Mon, 2011-04-25 21:47 — adam (not verified)

The trouble is all the rising stars like Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasy, Sadiq Khan etc, are all non Blairites.

Who have the Blairites got? Caroline Flint? Hazel Blears? Enough said.

Jim Murphy would be total disaster,a turn off to the electorate; sort of like a Labour John Redwood, and Murphy seems to relish the Iraq adventure a bit too much.

James Purnell not much better the electorate don't warm to him, he comes across as wishy washy even more pallid than the bland Andy Burnham.

Thu, 2011-05-19 13:35 — Trajan (not verified)

What Sarah said

Why even bother supporting an opposition party if you want to make it completely and utterly interchangeable from the Tories? The Blairites are market totalitarians and represent everything that was wrong with the last Labour government. You should know Mr. Hodges, your articles reak of Blairite cronyism.

Tue, 2011-04-26 20:37 — Chris Baldwin (not verified)

I'd prefer them to join the Tories and leave the party to actual socialists.

Wed, 2011-04-27 18:55 — K Rodgers (not verified)

@almanc, I pretty much agree with all you have said.

Blair and co may have got the Labour party elected, but at what cost. They seemingly abandoned the working class and stood further right on some issues than the LibDems.

As far as I am concerned the Blairites can all run off and make a new center right party and stop wasting our time. Rather than another New Labour we want to return to our old Labour roots whilst bringing policy up to date to deal with the Uber-Capitalist state we find ourselves in.

Labour is about the workforce (labour) ie its about looking after the welfare of working class people. Rather than trying to win the vote of the middle classes we should be looking to educate and engage people from working class backgrounds so as they realise who is going to be there for them (by working class I include pretty much anyone who has an earned income below 35k per year)

We dont need to try and please everyone (like the Blairites want) we should make clear we dont care about the rich as they became rich by not caring about others. Labour is the party of the community, we are the ones who try to make life better for the biggest percentage of our society and for the future of all. Lets stop allowing ourselves to be dragged to the right just to curry favour with people who will still vote for the LibDems or the Cons.

Mon, 2011-04-25 23:11 — Ricardo (not verified)

There are plenty of young parliamentarians on the right of the party, just not Blairites in that they either:

a) entered Parliament in 2010 and therefore weren't present in the Blair era; or

b) are a different kind of Labour right to Blairism.

Many of them are climbing up the greasy pole under Ed's leadership too - just because they benefir from Ed's patronage doesn't mean that they don't sympathise with the Labour right. There are also some prominent new entrants who say they are from the left of the party who I can picture drifting rightwards in the future, no names mentioned.

I don't think that any of the names mentioned in the article are credible leadership candidates. Murphy is a methodical, plodding speaker, good in what he says but lacking the charisma to lead. Alexander is a backroom figure. And Purnell... there is more chance of Cherie Blair becoming leader than James Purnell, so hated is he amongst the Labour grassroots. He is also more of a theorist, a thinker, than a thrusting leadership personality.

Tue, 2011-04-26 21:24 — almanc (not verified)

Dan

Bit surprised you chose to take the word perfect literally but at least it makes me check my own hyperbole so thank you. I of course meant that his approach to policy creation is in my view the correct one for the circumstance, and his general political outlook seems to be a truer mix of labour's professed values, a desire to be electable, and attempts to create new left politics, than any of the other candidates that stood.

But whilst I realise the real point of this article is about the fact that Blairites retain significant power in the party, I still maintain my conclusion. If there is a faction within the party that will keep distorting the contents of its own constitution (I'm not criticising the clause 4 thing, the word socialism was clearly an irritating commitment to only one of the many potential left wing futures), towards, for want of a more accepted concept, 'neoliberal' policy, then don't give it a leader!!! Let it die. Let it peter out into the books of history. Or let it splinter off. Let's not forget that the SDP was formed not in the middle of the wilderness years, but barely two years after the Thatcher ascension, and a year after a leadership change. This is the time of change, when the party reassesses what it thinks, and if the Blairites end up at odds with official policy and modern leftist thinking, then there is no reason why they should not consider departing and letting labour regrow properly. The only downside I can actually see to this is the amount of time it would allow the tories to play with the country if the period of party regrowth took too long. But who knows, maybe a Labour and 'Purple party' coalition (done properly over months with public mixed manifestos, not this libcon joke) would allow for a government who's constituent parts are clearer on their political outlook, instead of the more behind closed doors confusion and infighting that went on for 13 years.

Giving the Blairites a leader whilst staying in the party allows them to keep the control of the party that should be grabbed from them. And if they can't find a leader to take them out of the party then that's fine. Labour can hang on to some more middle class votes for a few years and the Blairites can pass away leaderless on the backbenches anyway.

Who am I kidding. This will never happen. The party and the west will continue marching into evolving neoliberalism until our economy is so horrendously unstable that we're so busy being kettled (to stop us revolting you see) that we don't even notice that China bought up all our remaining currency on the cheap.

Long live the right wing revolution. Hail the con-lib-lab party, protector of our iphones and fixed rate mortgages. Down with the powers of the East who threaten to be who we used to be but different. I'm having a "happy new year 2020" crude oil party at my Sellafield wigwam, and I even managed to import some real potatoes! Anyone want to come?

Wed, 2011-04-27 19:36 — Will (not verified)

"You've been writing less and less Dan. What's the matter? Busy propagating lies with the Tories for the No to AV campaign?" - Paul

I thought that too. I assumed he'd been given work with the Tories for his sterling work for the No campaign. There's not many people bare-faced enough to lie to the public to serve the Murdochian status-quo.

Perhaps Dan Hodges could be the new Blair?

Tue, 2011-04-26 22:31 — trev1959ad

Purple book,Blue Labour...more Neocon bullshit.

Tue, 2011-04-26 00:35 — elrob

strong contribution therealmanac, very good.

I think as another has said a lot of people hate Labour. In fact, I do myself. Almanac mentions NewLabour failed to increase class mobility, and reduce inequality. Let's make this concrete and understandable. Millions of people int he UK cannot afford a home. This is probably the first time since McMillan. And that has happened under a Labour govt, and Mr Hodges, under a New LAbour govt.

For that you should be ashamed. But it gets worse. The problem was sorting itself out, as capitalism went into crisis mode (Marx), or renewing itself via creative destruction (Schumpeter) - take your pic, comes down to the same thing. But what did Labour do?

It not only saved the banks, but allowed them continue as before, and told them not to allow the house price correction. People who did no wrong (refused to lie on selfcert mortgage applications) have been kneecapped by Labour in power, while those who were bailed out of their unaffordable mortgages or bankers guaranteed their bonuses by Brown/
Darling's actions are not even grateful and have voted Tory and LibDem.

If Labour goes back to that - under Ed M or anyone else, they will deserve repeated defeats and even its own destruction.

almanac has an answer to this, do you Mr Hodges?

What is Labour for?

Wed, 2011-04-27 22:30 — Mark (not verified)

I'm feeling the Tony Blair love here. :) A man who won us three elections isn't one to be dismissed. Let's stop being masochistic.

Mon, 2011-04-25 12:05 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

I reckon Steve McClearn should be the new leader.

Mon, 2011-04-25 12:07 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

With Phil Neale as deputy leader and Kenny Daglish as opposition foreign minister.

Tue, 2011-04-26 11:04 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

elrob,

I think some of your criticism of New Labour is valid.

But tat doesn't alter the fact that the Blairites retain influence, and that influence needs to be channelled.

Mon, 2011-04-25 12:49 — Paul (not verified)

You've been writing less and less Dan. What's the matter? Busy propagating lies with the Tories for the No to AV campaign?

Wed, 2011-05-04 17:40 — Sarah Brookes (not verified)

Please please please no more Blairism, or Blatcherism as Simon Jenkins so cleverly puts it in his book "Sons of Thatcher." If you want a neoliberal leader, go and join the Tories!! Be honest for goodness sake, do not hi jack the labour party to provide a pretend alternative to the conservatives. The labour party is about fairness and equality, not lip-service to the poor and sucking up to the rich, the banks, the tax havens and and the global corporations. Labour needs a leader with principles and guts!!!

Mon, 2011-04-25 12:51 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Paul,

No, writing as much as ever.

You've obviously be spending too much time following your mate Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems.

Mon, 2011-04-25 13:48 — David Talbot (not verified)

Dan,

Sounds suspiciously like a job application. Joking aside, whilst I don't necessarily wish to see the resurrection of the Blairite wing of the party (as I hopefully coherently argued in my recent Labour Uncut piece) I do recognise that a significant proportion of the party are fully signed up Blairites and, as such, are a potentially powerful faction. The erudite Jim Murphy has impressed at Defence, but how much of a following does he have? Douglas Alexander, once a child of Brown, suffered horribly post the botched 2007 election-that-never-was but I doubt he can be labelled a fully fledged Blairite.

Liam Byrne is an uber Blairite and pretty competent too, he also has the added ability to be able to influence future policy with his role on the policy reviews. He must be in the frame.

Mon, 2011-04-25 13:52 — almanc (not verified)

No. No you see we really don't need that in the only large (potentially) left of centre party in Britain. We do not need to keep sidling further right in the pursuit of votes, the blessing of American foreign policy and the giving hand of finance capital and Murdoch. The party is labour, as in the main aim of it is to maximise the social power of labour i.e. those who do not possess capital. Ed is the perfect leader. A left leaning individual with the smarts to consider new forms of left wing policy and governance, to think long term, and to actually listen to the members and public for a sustained period in order to make the most of what diverse opinion and individual experience can teach us. Then when the coalition crumbles, any regaining of power by Labour will go in the right direction. The failings of Blair and Brown were not just Iraq and a dossier. They completely and utterly failed in their mandate to reduce inequality and increase social mobility. Welfare dependence increased, as did inequality, and social mobility does not look much better. This happened because they responded to international pressure to deregulate, benefit finance capital, and depoliticise/externalise alot of economic matters. Basically Thatcher in a consolidated period. This is not what the Labour party should be doing, and its members should not allow Blairites to do it in the name of 'keeping up with the times'. Something will have to be sacrificed to achieve greater social power for those citizens who count as "Labour" (most of us these days, we're all working class now), and if it's our place as a top dog on the international scene or our current understanding of property rights (so well propped up after Thatcher's right to buy scheme) then so be it. Blairites, go and make your own party, you are not wanted here.

Mon, 2011-04-25 14:02 — frances smith (not verified)

the obvious mean comment here is what about david cameron?

Thu, 2011-04-28 01:07 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Will,

"There's not many people bare-faced enough to lie to the public to serve the Murdochian status-quo."

You'd be surprised...

Mon, 2011-04-25 14:18 — MultiJoe

@ almanc Nice writeup, good to see there's still some economically literate leftists around here!

Thu, 2011-04-28 02:06 — Will (not verified)

D'oh!

One day I'll leave a comment that makes sense. Mark my words, Hodges. That day is coming and I'll make sense all over your brazenly undemocratic behind

Mon, 2011-04-25 14:30 — Nathaniel Myers (not verified)

Well, I don't think I have ever agreed with a recent piece in the New Statesman, so much. There is a strong leadership deficit that nobody really seems in any rush to plug. It feels as if the elements within the Labour party, that Tony had to fight so strongly against in the first place, in order to modernise the party, have come back with a vengeance.

At the end of the day, we can have this debate about ideology, philosophy, the direction of the party, etc. But I have a simple question, that I defy anybody to answer with anything other than a brief, 'No'. Can you see Ed Miliband as our prime minister? It's then natural to ask, can you see him heading off to the G20 to meet with Barack Obama or Nicholas Sarkozy? Can you imagine him standing outside No. 10 as PM?

We're just wasting time pretending that Ed is going to be leader of the Labour party, come a 2015 election. Let's just stop prolonging the inevitable and oust him now.

Tue, 2011-05-03 16:20 — Mark S (not verified)

"As far as I am concerned the Blairites can all run off and make a new center right party and stop wasting our time. Rather than another New Labour we want to return to our old Labour roots whilst bringing policy up to date to deal with the Uber-Capitalist state we find ourselves in. "

Fine, so long as you believe that that is a message that will win elections and not guarantee Cameron five more years in power. I don't because I think society has changed, and while there is certainly a constiuency for social justive - probably to be much swelled after five years of Cleggeronism - I also think there is a constituency among "natural" Labour supporters for aspiration that in some respects at least clashes with "Old Labour" ideology and, very inconveniently for Labour as a whole,with some of the more obvious responses to social injustice.

Insofar as Blairites understand that better than others in the party their presence is essential to its success.

Mon, 2011-04-25 14:46 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Almanc

"Ed is the perfect leader".

In fairness, even he wouldn't make that claim...

Mon, 2011-04-25 14:52 — Jesse (not verified)

Nathaniel - Could you see David Cameron being Prime Minister this time last year though? He was a bit of a joke and couldn't even get a majority fighting against Brown. It just about seems normal that he could be PM after almost a year.

The same will probably happen with Ed eventually (he won't get a majority either).