Burnham's problem is that he purportedly wishes to make Ed Milliband his Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be a disaster. As Energy Minister, he is already consigning the British population to the among the most expensive energy prices in the world. I'd feel much happier about him if he chose the other Milliband (i.e. David).
The truth is that all of the purported candidates for the Labour leadership are lightweights. Rayburn is a complete lightweight and Streeting is not much better. Starmer is the ultimate Hollow Man.The most compelling candidate by far would be Shabana Mahmood who, by virtue, of her background, would have a far greater range of political latitutde to handle hot button issues that have induced people to gaze longlingly at the faux populism of Nigel Farage's Reform: namely, immigration, and law & order. She can handle these issues without the charge of "Islamophobia" leveled against her. And she sounds pretty sensible as far as economics goes.
Problem is that she isn't a declared candidate and her only chance is if Burnham loses the by-election. Nonetheless, it behoves the Party to listen to Blair. I think many of his ideas are outdated, but as you note, he is the most successful Labour Party leader since Atlee, so to treat him as a poltical pariah strikes me as stupid in the extreme.
You are so so right about all this Ian. I know Blair a little bit from when I was working for TBI in Sierra Leone. Maybe one of his greatest skills is a clear assessment of what the situation actually is, not what ideological convictions or whatever dictate it is, and a *very* realistic approach about doing something about it.
The point about Blair being "excited about the future rather than nostalgic for the past" struck a chord. He came to office in 1997 with that very same relentless focus on new, new, new, and a lack of care or interest in the past. He's never been interested in the history and context. It was a weakness then, and it is now.
Yes this is well said, especially how you clearly show the thoughtless positions taken by those current Labour leaders (neoliberalism, council housing etc). I thought Blair's piece was pretty solid, though there is one exception to "I don’t believe Blair set out to convert his party to a particular political strategy or policy program", and that is his minor but ever present obsession with digital ID.
Which is not too say that his prescriptions are all correct. At a time when we have finally achieved competitive electricity generation costs and have projects under way to address bottlenecks in distribution and storage, it would be crazy to roll back to reliance on fossil fuels.
(Though we can and should charge retail customers the reduced cost of production rather than the inflated strike and support rates.)
There’s a reason Norway and Canada are backing away from climate commitments and drilling. Wind and solar are cheap to generate but very expensive to distribute and require big and inefficient investment in back up capacity. I don’t know why Britain should want to be the outlier here. Everyone is trying to get energy costs down while we’re marooned with the highest costs around. On North Sea I don’t see the case against new licenses, there’s no opportunity cost. It won’t bring prices down but it will raise tax and improve balance of payments. It’s just ideological path dependency that’s stopping us.
You are quite right that production won't bring prices down. What really drives costs up is lack of storage capacity.
Renewables are getting cheaper to produce all the time. At present, we aren't passing that on to the customer. This isn't ideology: it's accountancy. And something that can and should be fixed now. It's another area where we are an outlier.
Speaking of which, we all know that our accounting simply misses as externalities many of the costs of fossil fuel production. But these will arrive in the books in due course. Taking action to minimise these costs isn't "ideology" either.
When you look beyond the attack lines at Labour's actual programme of cheap energy initiatives, they begin to look very like solid delivery against a clear eyed vision: exactly what Blair is rightly asking for.
Why do you think there is no real depth of thinking or philosophy behind Blair's analysis?
Given he has the time and freedom to think about these things, why is it all about "efficacy" (and why, in response to Ted below, do you consider that a strength)?
Charging off in search of AI, AI, AI seems too much like a quick fix mirage, compared to fundamental reform e.g. of Education, Education, Education ... which, combined with a proper cross-government strategy on mental health, is the only sustainable, long-term way to reduce welfare dependency.
Where Blair says the definition of a 'radical centre' is "you begin with the question what is the right answer?", I would say "you begin with the question what is the right question?" - that is, what is the most urgent problem we must address this side of the next general election?
It is not immigration. It is welfare dependency.
So, as well as Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden - who is getting so much stick today for making exactly the right 'Blairite' observation of his colleagues - Starmer and, if not him, whoever is leading the government into the next election, needs to sit down with Peter Fonagy and Simon Wessely and Gillian Baird, leading the independent review into mental health, to come up with the right joined-up answer.
It will need a new 'Beveridge'-type response, as the problem extends across all 5 Giants: "Want; Ignorance; Idleness; Squalor and Disease" - with Depression as the invisible hand that feeds whichever one is holding out his hand next in the ever-revolving queue.
NB. Beveridge: "The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man". I don't think Blair would depart from those values, but that remains his biggest mistake and he can only really regain credibility when he properly reconsiders it - if not through personal analysis (or God), then ongoing dialogue with Cherie and the children (who came across as genuine "ballast" in the Ch. 4 documentary).
That said, Blair's achievement already is that he has carved out a space for Kemi Badenoch, Jeremy Hunt, and the current government to agree a cross-party approach to public sector reform and radical devolution of responsibility for how the things that matter can get done.
They might make a better start if they lay off the monstering of McFadden.
All in all, the essay is a well-timed intervention that has succeeded in reinvigorating debate.
PS I don't know whether Alastair Campbell had a hand in its authorship or not, but I got a sense of a dialogue between Blair, Campbell and Rory Stewart - agreeable disagreement - through the essay.
PPS the 'wrong answer' is the USA (see Deaths of Despair by Nobel prize winning economist Angus Deaton and Anne Case).
“Voters are feeling miserable because … they’re living in a low growth country” struck a chord with me. Politicians seem obsessed with ‘growth’ and GDP, although these, while important, are abstract concepts which I’m sure resonate very little with individuals. Should I be excited because GDP has gone up 0.1 % this month? Or even if it has gone up 10%? Not unless I can feel the difference in everyday life, and honestly, who can? That increase in GDP could be a rounding error some months, or an accounting statistic, demonstrating that the same output can be produced at lower cost (expect more of this with the replacement of human jobs by AI)… Nonetheless, the point seems to me to be a good one. People are depressed because they sense they are living in a depressed economy, where there’s no sense that we really do or produce anything of significance any more. Everything from the food we eat to the cars we drive seems to be imported. Major manufacturing - the kind that used to generate meaningful jobs and significant income for large numbers of ‘working’ people seems to be dead. Local economies seem to rely on nail bars, barbers, fast food outlets and ‘the charity sector’. Employment prospects for our children seem to be shrinking at an alarming rate. This might not be a technical recession but it feels like the opposite of the kind of booming economy that puts a spring in people’s step and gives them confidence in the future. It’s hard to see the meaning and purpose of Britain any more. It’s hard to see what we’re ‘for’. No wonder we’re depressed and increasingly turning to seemingly radical alternatives.
I have read the essay and note the following.
1 The term ‘essay’ and the 6000 word length are suggestive of university days of a certain era
2 Likewise the term ‘exam question’
3 Such essays follow a standard format.
4 The format is taught and understood by all students.
5 The art lies in adhering to the format artfully.
6 A strong message is delivered tentatively, with adequate preamble.
7 The question is answered according to a frame of reference chosen by the essay writer.
8 This can be done transparently or with artful manipulation.
9 A persuasive essay is most persuasive when there seemingly no other options
10 History, too can be rewritten.
11 Lying by omission is best.
With all that in mind, what is the essay about?
1 Asserting Blair’s credibility.
2 Diminishing that of both Labour leadership candidates
3 Setting out a foreign policy agenda based on power alliances
4 Saying this is the time for a New World Order.
5 Asserting the primacy of the US Europe alliance.
6 Provocatively omitting the decisive Soviet role on the Eastern front.
7 Creating a new history of US and Europe aligned in fighting Nazis and defeating communism.
8 Proposing renewal of this alliance with Trump as the leader.
9 Distracting the media with further Labour party drama.
Burnham's problem is that he purportedly wishes to make Ed Milliband his Chancellor of the Exchequer, which would be a disaster. As Energy Minister, he is already consigning the British population to the among the most expensive energy prices in the world. I'd feel much happier about him if he chose the other Milliband (i.e. David).
The truth is that all of the purported candidates for the Labour leadership are lightweights. Rayburn is a complete lightweight and Streeting is not much better. Starmer is the ultimate Hollow Man.The most compelling candidate by far would be Shabana Mahmood who, by virtue, of her background, would have a far greater range of political latitutde to handle hot button issues that have induced people to gaze longlingly at the faux populism of Nigel Farage's Reform: namely, immigration, and law & order. She can handle these issues without the charge of "Islamophobia" leveled against her. And she sounds pretty sensible as far as economics goes.
Problem is that she isn't a declared candidate and her only chance is if Burnham loses the by-election. Nonetheless, it behoves the Party to listen to Blair. I think many of his ideas are outdated, but as you note, he is the most successful Labour Party leader since Atlee, so to treat him as a poltical pariah strikes me as stupid in the extreme.
You are so so right about all this Ian. I know Blair a little bit from when I was working for TBI in Sierra Leone. Maybe one of his greatest skills is a clear assessment of what the situation actually is, not what ideological convictions or whatever dictate it is, and a *very* realistic approach about doing something about it.
It’s sad that this is so rare in politics!
Thinking needed, yes, but joined-up thinking needed to relate policies to each other.
The point about Blair being "excited about the future rather than nostalgic for the past" struck a chord. He came to office in 1997 with that very same relentless focus on new, new, new, and a lack of care or interest in the past. He's never been interested in the history and context. It was a weakness then, and it is now.
Well, strength and weakness
Yes this is well said, especially how you clearly show the thoughtless positions taken by those current Labour leaders (neoliberalism, council housing etc). I thought Blair's piece was pretty solid, though there is one exception to "I don’t believe Blair set out to convert his party to a particular political strategy or policy program", and that is his minor but ever present obsession with digital ID.
This is spot on and why for almost the first time I didn't vote Labour in the recent elections.
And despite his faults it was a pleasure to hear from Blair again!
Well yes. It's well past time we faced the music.
There are two obvious smell tests:
1. "We can muddle through without radical change" and
2. "We fearlessly gave the need for radical change. But don't worry: somebody else will pay for it…"
I'm still waiting for:
"This is what we need to do. It's going to hurt. And this is why it isn't going to be a catastrophe for people like you".
Which is not too say that his prescriptions are all correct. At a time when we have finally achieved competitive electricity generation costs and have projects under way to address bottlenecks in distribution and storage, it would be crazy to roll back to reliance on fossil fuels.
(Though we can and should charge retail customers the reduced cost of production rather than the inflated strike and support rates.)
The data is clear. The problem with renewables is no longer the cost of production. It's storage and distribution. These are not insoluble.
Just about every other develop country is using either fossil fuels or nuclear alongside renewables
There’s a reason Norway and Canada are backing away from climate commitments and drilling. Wind and solar are cheap to generate but very expensive to distribute and require big and inefficient investment in back up capacity. I don’t know why Britain should want to be the outlier here. Everyone is trying to get energy costs down while we’re marooned with the highest costs around. On North Sea I don’t see the case against new licenses, there’s no opportunity cost. It won’t bring prices down but it will raise tax and improve balance of payments. It’s just ideological path dependency that’s stopping us.
Bums: for "support rates" read "spot rates".
Rats! For "gave" read "face".
You are quite right that production won't bring prices down. What really drives costs up is lack of storage capacity.
Renewables are getting cheaper to produce all the time. At present, we aren't passing that on to the customer. This isn't ideology: it's accountancy. And something that can and should be fixed now. It's another area where we are an outlier.
Speaking of which, we all know that our accounting simply misses as externalities many of the costs of fossil fuel production. But these will arrive in the books in due course. Taking action to minimise these costs isn't "ideology" either.
When you look beyond the attack lines at Labour's actual programme of cheap energy initiatives, they begin to look very like solid delivery against a clear eyed vision: exactly what Blair is rightly asking for.
Why do you think there is no real depth of thinking or philosophy behind Blair's analysis?
Given he has the time and freedom to think about these things, why is it all about "efficacy" (and why, in response to Ted below, do you consider that a strength)?
Charging off in search of AI, AI, AI seems too much like a quick fix mirage, compared to fundamental reform e.g. of Education, Education, Education ... which, combined with a proper cross-government strategy on mental health, is the only sustainable, long-term way to reduce welfare dependency.
Where Blair says the definition of a 'radical centre' is "you begin with the question what is the right answer?", I would say "you begin with the question what is the right question?" - that is, what is the most urgent problem we must address this side of the next general election?
It is not immigration. It is welfare dependency.
So, as well as Alan Milburn and Pat McFadden - who is getting so much stick today for making exactly the right 'Blairite' observation of his colleagues - Starmer and, if not him, whoever is leading the government into the next election, needs to sit down with Peter Fonagy and Simon Wessely and Gillian Baird, leading the independent review into mental health, to come up with the right joined-up answer.
It will need a new 'Beveridge'-type response, as the problem extends across all 5 Giants: "Want; Ignorance; Idleness; Squalor and Disease" - with Depression as the invisible hand that feeds whichever one is holding out his hand next in the ever-revolving queue.
NB. Beveridge: "The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man". I don't think Blair would depart from those values, but that remains his biggest mistake and he can only really regain credibility when he properly reconsiders it - if not through personal analysis (or God), then ongoing dialogue with Cherie and the children (who came across as genuine "ballast" in the Ch. 4 documentary).
That said, Blair's achievement already is that he has carved out a space for Kemi Badenoch, Jeremy Hunt, and the current government to agree a cross-party approach to public sector reform and radical devolution of responsibility for how the things that matter can get done.
They might make a better start if they lay off the monstering of McFadden.
All in all, the essay is a well-timed intervention that has succeeded in reinvigorating debate.
PS I don't know whether Alastair Campbell had a hand in its authorship or not, but I got a sense of a dialogue between Blair, Campbell and Rory Stewart - agreeable disagreement - through the essay.
PPS the 'wrong answer' is the USA (see Deaths of Despair by Nobel prize winning economist Angus Deaton and Anne Case).
“Voters are feeling miserable because … they’re living in a low growth country” struck a chord with me. Politicians seem obsessed with ‘growth’ and GDP, although these, while important, are abstract concepts which I’m sure resonate very little with individuals. Should I be excited because GDP has gone up 0.1 % this month? Or even if it has gone up 10%? Not unless I can feel the difference in everyday life, and honestly, who can? That increase in GDP could be a rounding error some months, or an accounting statistic, demonstrating that the same output can be produced at lower cost (expect more of this with the replacement of human jobs by AI)… Nonetheless, the point seems to me to be a good one. People are depressed because they sense they are living in a depressed economy, where there’s no sense that we really do or produce anything of significance any more. Everything from the food we eat to the cars we drive seems to be imported. Major manufacturing - the kind that used to generate meaningful jobs and significant income for large numbers of ‘working’ people seems to be dead. Local economies seem to rely on nail bars, barbers, fast food outlets and ‘the charity sector’. Employment prospects for our children seem to be shrinking at an alarming rate. This might not be a technical recession but it feels like the opposite of the kind of booming economy that puts a spring in people’s step and gives them confidence in the future. It’s hard to see the meaning and purpose of Britain any more. It’s hard to see what we’re ‘for’. No wonder we’re depressed and increasingly turning to seemingly radical alternatives.