Tony Blair became Labour Party leader in July 1994 (following the death of John Smith), comfortably beating John Prescott and Margaret Beckett in the leadership contest. He led the party to win the 1997 general election by a landslide, with a majority of 179 seats. Further general election victories followed in 2001 and 2005, before he resigned as leader in the summer of 2007. John Rentoul argues that, using the statecraft criteria, Blair can only be judged an emphatically successful Labour leader. With an intuitive feel for public opinion and natural communication skills, he developed a winning electoral strategy by moving Labour policy to the centre. Government was well run under Blair and he won the battle of ideas on many policy areas, such that David Cameron adopted some of them as Conservative policy. Blair’s successes in terms of party management and constitutional reform were less clear-cut. But, in the end, as Rentoul argues, Tony Blair was still one of the most successful prime ministers since the UK became a democracy.
• • •
It is almost as if Tony Blair’s successors set out to draw attention to his strengths as a leader. Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and even Nick Clegg have each provided case studies, by means of contrast, for Blair’s qualities as party leader and Prime Minister. Let me take the five headings proposed by Jim Buller and Toby S. James in Chapter 2 in turn.
First, a winning electoral strategy. This is one plane on which the assessment of Blair ought to brook no argument. No single party has won elections so convincingly under the universal franchise as Labour did in 1997 and 2001. The argument has, nevertheless, been brooked ever since. It has been said that Labour would have won in 1997 if it had put up a donkey with a red rosette as leader – or, without the insulting implication towards him, if the party had still been led by John Smith. This is a strong theme of revisionist Old Labour history: that it would have been better to have won the 1997 election with a smaller majority but on a more socialist platform.
Blair addressed the question in his memoir A Journey: ‘I assessed that there were three types of Labour: old-fashioned Labour, which could never win; modernised Labour, which could win and keep winning, which was my ambition from the outset; and plain Labour, which could win once, but essentially as a reaction to an unpopular Conservative government.’495 Smith’s half-modernised party was, what Blair describes as, ‘plain Labour’. Smith had no patience with the Bennite checklist of so-called left-wing policies – one-sided nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from Europe, public ownership of industry – but he had frustrated Blair with his reluctance to make a bolder pitch for the centre ground.
There is no doubt, however, that the ‘reaction to an unpopular Conservative government’ was a powerful one, after the failure of John Major’s European ERM policy in 1992. The Conservative Party responded badly to adversity, tearing itself apart on the European question, while Major’s leadership seemed weak – although that raises precisely the question now at issue, namely: to what extent can the personal qualities of a leader defy the constraints of history?
Blair’s distinctive qualities can be defined more clearly than Major’s in this period, which tells us something. He rejected the Smith approach – characterised by Peter Mandelson as ‘one more heave’ – of relying on the Tories’ unpopularity to carry Labour into government. When he became leader, Blair took nothing for granted, and continued to move Labour towards the centre. In part, this was because he too was a prisoner of history: many in the Labour Party, but especially the modernisers around Blair, were scarred by the failure of the opinion polls to pick up the shy Tories and the late swing in 1992. They assumed that Labour’s comfortable lead in the polls in 1994 might vanish like a vapour trail when it came to the test, and Blair, in particular, was determined to take no chances. The common view that Labour would have won in 1997, regardless of leader, policy or image, was a retrospective one formed only after the majority of 179 seats was safely counted.
That said, the character of Blair’s leadership was quite different from Smith’s. Both recognised the importance of reassuring the voters that Labour could be trusted to manage the economy, but Smith placed a higher value on keeping the party, and even the old idea of the wider labour movement, united. His view of party reform, after the modernisers had bullied him into securing ‘one member, one vote’ for the selection of candidates and ‘one person, one vote’ for the election of future leaders, was that he wanted ‘no more adventures’. And, although Smith would probably have made some of the policy changes that Blair made as Leader of the Opposition, he would not have made all of them.
Thus, there is the risk that a Smith-led government would have been committed to the UK adopting the euro, when the main European currencies were locked together in 1999, and to a Scottish Parliament without a referendum. In both cases, Smith would either have risked problems in the House of Lords – they may have found a way around the Salisbury Convention (whereby the Upper House cannot block a manifesto promise) – or, worse, he might have actually succeeded in carrying through the policies.
Blair showed some skill, therefore, in removing policies that would have not only discouraged people from voting Labour, but would have detracted from Buller and James’s second test of leadership – governing competence – to which I shall come in a moment.
Getting the basic policies right was a condition of Blair’s success in building a winning electoral strategy, but, on its own, it fails to account for the scale of the triumph. Indeed, Deborah Mattinson’s research in 2012 suggested that ‘policy’, as such, did not feature among the qualities people value in leaders. The qualities identified by her survey were, in order: being a ‘strong communicator’; decisiveness; integrity; being a good listener; vision. The research was into political leadership in general, but it offers a good basis for judging Blair’s success as an opposition politician.496
Since the reaction to Blair really set in among commentators, after 2005 his skills as a communicator have tended to be seen in a negative light. The negative connotations of ‘spin’ – a label attached to Blair and New Labour during the first term of government – curdled into something more toxic by the time Blair left office. By then, being a ‘good communicator’ was part of everything that was wrong with his time as Prime Minister.
Before 1997, however, Blair’s communication skills were regarded overwhelmingly positively. With his fresh face, plain speaking and young family, he embodied optimism, can-do and compassion. In one line in 1993, Private Eye captured his appeal: ‘The only member of the Labour Party a normal person could ever vote for.’ That he spoke ‘normal English’ on television was one of his greatest strengths. Indeed, it was for this reason that I thought, when interviewing him for the BBC in 1992, that he would be leader of the Labour Party one day: what I called his ‘bipartisan reasonableness’ in natural speech ‘cut through’ on television, which was then, and still is, the dominant medium of mass communication.
Of course, there was nothing normal about him, and, although he sounded natural on television, this was partly an artifice of learned skills and an unnatural degree of self-control. When I first wrote a biography of him, in the months after his election as Labour leader in 1994,497 I interviewed John Lloyd (my former editor at the New Statesman), who had been a member of the Hackney South & Shoreditch Labour Party general committee alongside Blair in the 1980s. I said that one of Blair’s great strengths was that he was so completely normal. ‘Oh, he’s not normal at all,’ said Lloyd. ‘I think he would regard himself as completely exceptional.’ So he did, and so he was – as we can now see clearly, especially since his own memoir has offered such an insight into the workings of that unusual mind. Typically, he commented on his own communication skills in A Journey as if observing someone else:
When people say to me, ‘Oh, so-and-so, they don’t believe in anything, they’re just a good communicator’ – as a statement about politics, it’s close to being an oxymoron, certainly for the top person. At the top, the scrutiny is microscopic. It is soul-penetrating.498
Although coming across well on television is partly innate – some people do and some people never will (one of the cruellest lessons of politics) – there are skills that can be taught and can make a big difference. Blair had good teachers in Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell, Anji Hunter and – before any of them – Gordon Brown, but he also had a fine understanding of the art of communication himself, and he was always learning. His self-control went far beyond editing out the ‘um’s and ‘er’s that disrupt genuinely natural speech; he thought ahead to how words and colourful phrases might be reported by journalists, always eager to report gaffes and splits. To take a small example, in a news conference during the 1987 election, he said Margaret Thatcher’s housing policy was the product of ‘an unchecked and unbalanced mind’. This was seized on as, ‘Labour says Prime Minister is mad.’ It was not a mistake he made again. One of the few times his care with words let him down was when he accidentally committed himself to ban fox-hunting on live television. He was always his own best spin doctor.
By contrast, Brown, although he could turn a phrase (‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ being the most celebrated example), could not deliver it. One reason Blair overtook him to become Labour leader in 1994 was that Brown, as shadow Chancellor, was mired in the mechanical delivery of sound bites, and failed to convey a clear message. Much later, Brown was able to turn his uncommunication style somewhat to his advantage, contrasting himself with his polished predecessor as a badge of integrity.
Of the party leaders who followed Blair, Clegg was probably the most like him in his communication style. The Liberal Democrat surge during the 2010 election campaign was driven by a notably Blairite performance in the first of the televised debates. Clegg came across as youthful and energetic, exploiting his position as the emphatically reasonable centrist, and employing a rehearsed gimmick of looking directly into the camera at important points. But Clegg lacked Blair’s attention to policy detail, and thus found himself in serious difficulty as soon as he was in government – the U-turn on tuition fees being the most striking example.
Blair’s skill as a communicator was not merely as a performer, however. As well as an intuitive feel for public opinion, he had a good understanding of how the media worked. In particular, as Leader of the Opposition, he understood the opportunity offered by the pining of many leading commentators, editors and proprietors for the moral certainties of Thatcherism. He saw his chance to step into a vacuum – a chance Smith was unsuited to exploit. ‘That is the Grade I point to understanding the politics of that era and to understanding the genius of Tony Blair,’ said Charles Clarke at the time.
Thus it was that Blair’s attempt to neutralise the hostility of the Daily Mail and The Sun – which had been so damaging to Neil Kinnock – was more successful than he could have hoped. The attack of the Mail was blunted and The Sun even urged its readers to vote Labour. At the 1997 election, Labour, for the first time, commanded the support of more than half the newspapers, in terms of sales. Figures compiled by Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Andrew Blick and Stephen Crone for the Democratic Audit found that Blair was backed by newspapers accounting for 61 per cent of total sales in 1997, 71 per cent in 2001 and 58 per cent in 2005. Before then, Labour’s highest share had been 44 per cent at the 1970 election. Afterwards, at the 2010 election, it fell to 15 per cent.499
As for decisiveness, Blair – once gently mocked by Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, as a ‘flibbertigibbet’ – was flattered by the contrast with his immediate successor. Brown’s tenure as Prime Minister was nearly destroyed on the launch pad when he dithered over calling an election in the autumn of 2007. He seemed incapable of understanding how the speculation would take on a life of its own in the media – something that Blair would have felt, almost without thinking. In this dimension of leadership, Blair is more similar to Cameron. Indeed, civil servants who experienced the transition from the Brown government were full of praise for the speed and volume of Cameron’s decisions. There has always been a veneration in the ‘permanent’ side of government for the ability to simply make decisions, regardless of quality. Making decisions and sticking to them is certainly a necessary part of good government, even if it is not sufficient on its own.
Miliband was nearer the Brown pole of decisiveness than the Blair one. As a minister, especially at the Cabinet Office, he had a poor reputation among civil servants for decision-making, and several of his parliamentary colleagues said that he ‘cannot make a decision to save his life’ as Leader of the Opposition. This did not become evident publicly in the way it did with Brown’s election that never was. Miliband’s style generally was closer to Smith’s ‘one more heave’ than to Blair’s ‘permanent revolution’, but times change: the Labour brand was strong, whereas in 1992–97 it was ambiguous. Miliband had none of Blair’s personal charisma, so maybe it made more sense for Miliband to lead in a lower key.
Mattinson’s three other qualities – integrity, being a good listener and vision – are rather less easy to assess. Integrity is one of the central problems of politics, and became more of a problem in Blair’s time, after the Iraq War, and in Brown’s time, as the MPs’ expenses scandal contaminated much of public life. ‘Being a good listener’ stands for the related problem of politicians being seen as ‘out of touch’ – a problem of which Blair was always acutely aware. Despite his use of opinion research – especially focus groups carried out by Philip Gould, who began as a Labour Party pollster but ended up as a US-style political consultant to Blair personally – Blair seemed to regard the erosion of trust in him as inevitable. His aim was to slow down the process as much as possible, and to try to husband his declining store of ‘in-touchedness’ for as long as he could.
As for ‘vision’, that is probably one of those things that the voters say they want until they actually get it – unless it simply means a clear sense of general purpose and character, in which case it is much the same as being a good communicator.
The second dimension of leadership in Buller and James’s taxonomy is governing competence. Here, again, there is a popular myth – which grew up largely after the event – that Blair, in his arrogance and inexperience, did not understand government, and thus rode roughshod over the principles of sound administration – which was eventually to be his downfall.
It is certainly true that Blair, and most of his Cabinet, lacked government experience. As Blair said in his memoir: ‘On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government.’500
This inexperience caused some problems, although they are not usually the ones that animate Blair’s critics. Blair should not have carried on with the Millennium Dome, for example, but it was a Conservative project to which he had agreed in opposition. Nor would a group more seasoned in ministerial office have brought in the Freedom of Information Act in the form in which it was enacted in 2000. Looking back, Blair was stunned by his mistake:
You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it … For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead,’ and handing them a mallet.501
But these instances are not what most of his critics mean. For them, Blair was responsible for politicising the civil service with special advisors, running an informal sofa government and therefore making decisions on foreign policy with which they disagreed.
Actually, the Blair governments were pretty well run – well enough run, in any case, to merit re-election twice. The 2001 election is often overlooked. In many ways, it was the most uneventful election in modern voting history. Labour lost six seats, the Conservatives gained one, and Blair’s majority was reduced from 179 to 167. Yet, it was also one of the most interesting. Not only had Blair been exceptional at the first aspect of leadership – campaigning for election – but he was good enough at the second aspect – governing competently – to win by a huge margin twice. And, not only that, he governed competently enough to defy entropy, as well as an elite consensus that the Iraq War was a disaster, to be re-elected a third time by a comfortable margin.
Ultimately, there is no objective measure of governing competence except the test of re-election, so this part of the assessment of Blair’s leadership qualities also ought to brook no argument. Indeed, the ‘sofa government’ critique collapses when Blair is compared with his successors as Prime Minister. Brown’s weaknesses as an administrator were nothing to do with the supposed politicisation of the civil service, and, if Blair had been accused of informality in decision-making, Brown was to demonstrate what that really looked like. Brown’s use of personal email in addition to formal paper records, for example, caused confusion.
Then, when Cameron became Prime Minister, he quickly replicated three of Blair’s administrative innovations, including the expansion of special advisors (which Cameron and Clegg had criticised fiercely when in opposition). Under Blair, the number of special advisors reached a peak of eighty-four. Under the coalition, the total had reached 107 by its final year. Despite Cameron’s promise in opposition to ‘cut the cost of politics’ by limiting each Cabinet minister (apart from himself) to one special advisor – and also Clegg’s promise that ‘special advisors will not be paid for by the taxpayer’ – the coalition agreement put the limit up to two special advisors per Cabinet minister, with nothing said about their being paid for by the political parties themselves. By 2014, nine Cabinet ministers had three special advisors, and Clegg had hired twenty for himself as Deputy Prime Minister.
Cameron also reinvented the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit – the tiny target-setting and progress-chasing unit run by Sir Michael Barber in Blair’s second term – after it had been absorbed into the Treasury and allowed to atrophy under Brown. It was called the Implementation Unit, reporting directly to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but the idea was the same. Linked to this was Cameron’s continuation of Blair’s ‘stocktakes’ – meetings with individual ministers (‘making sure that the government is delivering on things we said we would do’) that take place outside the formal structure of Cabinet sub-committees. These were complicated by the need, sometimes, to include Clegg, but otherwise followed the Blair template.
A fourth reinvention, which would not have been notable except that the Conservatives had criticised Labour’s ‘top-down targets’ while they were in opposition, was the renaming of targets as benchmarks, metrics or standards. It would be hard to imagine any government operating without setting itself measurable objectives.
In the end, the main test of governing competence, however, lies in securing prosperity and stability for the people, and the avoidance of mistakes. Andrew Graham, the economist who is now chairman of the Scott Trust (which owns The Guardian), said, at a Fabian conference before the 1997 election, that the greatest achievement of a Labour government – if elected – would be ‘not to mess up the economy’. Well, Blair personally dodged that one. The first cracks in the long-rising slope of economic growth showed a few weeks after he left office in 2007, although the crash, when it came the following year, was his joint property with Brown. Some of the prosperity of Blair’s later years turned out to have been built on the sand of a credit boom, and those levels of national income per head have still not been recovered at the time of writing. But much of the rise in living standards was real, and the improvements in public services – the NHS, and schools and universities, in particular – have been sustained. He avoided mistakes on the scale of the poll tax or the European ERM, and it is always worth remembering that, for most voters, the biggest mistake of the Blair government was not the Iraq War, but allowing too much immigration.
In the end, though, it was party management – the third of Buller and James’s tests of leadership – that did it for Blair. He was eventually forced out by a Labour Party that was tired of making the compromises he demanded, although the party mistook voter fatigue – Blair having become over-familiar after eight years at the top – for a willingness to vote for a slightly more ‘left-wing’ leader and programme. The John Smith thesis, if you like, was finally tested, and found wanting, thirteen years later.
From the moment he was elected Labour leader, Blair had used his party apparatus as a foil to dramatise and reflect his centrism to the voters. The debate over rewriting Clause IV of the party’s constitution was a reversal of the truism that divided parties are unpopular. Blair deliberately divided his party, which voted for the change by 65 per cent to 35 per cent in 1995, and secured a substantial dividend from the bank of public opinion. He had taken a risk, shown leadership and won the argument.
The pattern would be repeated in government. Partly because of the size of his majority, but partly because of his permanent drive towards the centre, governing-party MPs rebelled more frequently than they had done before, despite the claim that New Labour was a ‘control-freak’ government. Even though Blair notionally had a huge majority, he came within five votes of losing in 2004 on tuition fees.
In opposition, when the ‘control-freak’ label was first applied, Blair’s attitude to his party combined ideological distance with micro-management. In opposition, you cannot do, you can only say – as Blair was fond of saying – but something you can do in opposition is fix party organisation, which is why his team devoted an inordinate amount of time and energy to managing Labour Party conferences. However, this may have been a misallocation of resources. Blair might have done better to have focused on promoting local parties as campaigning organisations, and (at the other end of party management) on better succession planning – it may not have prolonged his leadership, but it could have made a difference to what happened after he had gone.
Although Blair and his Labour critics both conspired to present him as a leader alien to the traditions of the party, it should be remembered that he left behind him a parliamentary party (and a party in the country) that was essentially Blairite in outlook. In the 2010 leadership election, party members voted for David Miliband over his brother by 54 per cent to 46 per cent, and Labour MPs by 53 per cent to 47 per cent. It was only because the national machines of the three big unions – Unite, GMB and Unison – used their control over their membership lists to deliver the union vote to Ed Miliband by 60 per cent to 40 per cent that David was defeated. If Blair had not lost interest in organisational reform – admitting sheepishly, when Ed Miliband pushed for individual trade unionist affiliation and the abolition of the electoral college in July 2013, that ‘Frankly, I should probably have done it as leader’ – David Miliband would have become leader in 2010.502
The contrast between Blair and Ed Miliband in party management is striking, although, as Blair’s praise for Miliband’s changes to the union link demonstrated, they were not polar opposites. And Miliband’s assiduous maintenance of party unity was, to an extent, forced on him by the fact that he was not the choice of his own MPs. Nevertheless, Miliband sought to keep the party together by balancing a ‘leftier than before’ rhetoric with – when forced to choose – some pragmatically centrist policies. How much good that did him, given his failure to construct a strong election-winning strategy, became clear at the 2015 election.
The fourth of Buller and James’s tests is the extent to which a leader builds a political argument hegemony. This is a test that Blair knew he was being set when he had watched as Margaret Thatcher was hailed by the fashionable thinkers of the 1980s – led by Martin Jacques, the then editor of Marxism Today – for having established a hegemonic dominance over British politics.503 As Labour’s employment spokesman, Blair even wrote an article for Marxism Today in October 1991, in which he discussed how the state could become a ‘vested interest in itself, every bit as capable of oppressing individuals as wealth and capital’.
Mind you, by the time of that article, Thatcher’s ‘hegemony’ had proved itself to be more fragile than some of the trendy Gramscians had thought, and she had been replaced by the less-than-hegemonic Major.
In any case, it was not clear how much Blair actually learned from Thatcher. The nature of his ‘project’ (a Marxism Today word) was a lot vaguer than her liberal market economics, and he started by building the widest possible support, whereas she had started by asserting herself against the consensus, arriving at temporary hegemony by force of character and good luck (the Labour opposition split and General Galtieri overreached himself).
However, Blair succeeded in changing the terms of trade. While the Marxism Todayers had simply wrung their hands at Labour’s apparent powerlessness against the Tory promise of cuts in the basic rate of income tax, New Labour managed to win three times by challenging the Tories on where the public spending axe would fall. Even in 2010, a defence of public spending against fiscal stringency was fought to a draw – except that the Liberal Democrats changed sides after the votes were cast.
Indeed, if the test is the extent to which your opponents feel they have to change to accept your ideas, Blair was hegemonic. Just as Labour had accepted the privatisation of utilities and restrictions on trade union power, the Conservative Party under Cameron accepted the minimum wage, no increase in selective schools, the establishment of academy schools, gay equality, and generous foreign aid. Just as Thatcher did by being in power so long, Blair was able to change the tenor of the times – in his case, towards a moderate social democracy.
The final test proposed by Buller and James is bending the rules of the game to make winning elections easier for the leader’s party. If anything, Blair appears to be guiltier of the opposite. By designing a workable plan for devolution of power to Scotland, he not only undermined the case for Scottish over-representation in the House of Commons – the number of Scottish MPs was cut from seventy-two to fifty-nine with surprisingly little fuss in 2005 – but he also created a power base for the Scottish National Party, whose impact against the Labour Party’s interest was seen in 2015. I say ‘appears to be’, however, because it seems plausible that devolution merely crystallised a problem that would have needed to be faced at some time or other – perhaps to have denied Scotland devolution at that point might have harmed Labour even more.
Similarly, the creation of a directly elected Mayor of London provided a base first for Ken Livingstone – a left-winger expelled from Labour, who won as an independent in 2000, before being readmitted to the party in 2004 – and then for Boris Johnson, who won two terms as a Conservative from 2008.
Otherwise, there was little system change under Blair. Directly elected mayors in other cities had a patchy take-up, and John Prescott’s plans for elected regional assemblies fell at the first hurdle – a referendum in the north-east of England in 2004. The only other change was to the law on political funding – to make donations public, to ban foreign donations, and to cap election spending. The leader most disadvantaged by the new regime turned out to be Blair himself, when loans taken by Labour before the 2005 election to avoid disclosure (donations were disclosable but loans were not – a loophole in the law) embarrassed him in 2006, after he sought to nominate some of the secret lenders for peerages.
The scandal was another weight that dragged Blair down towards setting the final limit on his time as Prime Minister. He had already defied political gravity, leaning heavily on Brown’s reputation as Chancellor to get him over the line in the 2005 election, but now an aftershock of the Iraq War – in the form of Blair’s support for Israel in the Lebanon – convulsed Labour MPs and forced Blair to announce that that year’s party conference would be his last.
He lasted a little longer than ten years as Prime Minister, having won three elections with average majorities greater than Thatcher’s (137 to ninety-six), although she outlasted him at No. 10, staying for eleven and a half years. Like her, he was never defeated in an election, but was deposed by his party among fears that the leader had become a liability. Those numbers of prime ministerial longevity and cumulative majorities are crude measures, but they are the main objective index of effective political leadership.
On that basis, he was Thatcher’s equal – and comparison with his various successors helps to explain why. Blair was a better communicator than Brown or Miliband, and more decisive than either of them. He was more rigorous than Clegg, and more attuned to public opinion than Cameron. He was, therefore, one of the most successful leaders since the United Kingdom became a full democracy.
495 Tony Blair, A Journey, London, Hutchinson, 2010, p. 83.
496 Deborah Mattinson, ‘What is leadership?’, Britain Thinks, July 2012, accessed 3 March 2015 (http://britainthinks.com/sites/default/files/
WhatIsLeadership-print.pdf).
497 John Rentoul, Tony Blair: Prime Minister, London, Faber Finds, 2013.
498 Blair, op. cit., p. 73.
499 Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Andrew Blick and Stephen Crone, ‘The Democratic Audit of the UK 2012’, Liverpool, p. 330, Figure 3.1i.
500 Blair, op. cit., p. 1.
501 Blair, op. cit., p. 516–17.
502 Tim Bale, Five-Year Mission: The Labour Party Under Ed Miliband, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2015.
503 See: Stuart Hall and Martin Jacques eds, The Politics of Thatcherism, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1983.