Labour fires back at Blair over New Statesman piece

The party says it is right to challenge "old ways of doing things" after Blair warns against a shift to the left.

Labour has just issued a response to Tony Blair's sharply critical piece in the centenary issue of the New Statesman (180 pages, out today). A party spokesman said: 

It is always important to listen to Tony Blair because he has important points to make, including in this article where he emphasises our top priority must be growth and jobs.

As he was the first to recognise, politics always has to move on to cope with new challenges and different circumstances.

For example, on immigration, Labour is learning lessons about the mistakes in office and crafting an immigration policy that will make Britain's diversity work for all not just a few.

It is by challenging old ways of doing things, showing we have understood what we did right and wrong during our time in office that One Nation Labour will win back people's trust.

In other words, Ed Miliband's position remains as before: Blair's "third way" does not represent an appropriate response to Britain's current economic and social problems. 

It is notable that rather than rejecting his warning not to "tack left on tax and spending", the party chose to highlight the example of immigration (he urged the party not to "tack right on immigration"). Blair is known to disagree with Miliband's recent decision to apologise for not imposing transitional controls on migration from eastern Europe, which he regarded as essential to fill gaps in the labour market at a time of growth. For Miliband, this is a useful example of how he is moving on not just from New Labour's excessive economic liberalism but also what an increasing number in the party view as its excessive social liberalism. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference on November 19, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.