The "Successes" of Tony Blair

As Blair once again prances around in the limelight like a two year old looking for attention, those old rose-tinted glasses have come on for some. For there are those in the Labour movement, probably still in shock that they were booted from office earlier in the year, who look to Blair and remember that he managed to do one thing that his successor (and many of his predecessors) failed to do - he could win elections. Three of them, in fact. Making him - for some - the most successful Labour leader of all time.

But let's interrogate this idea a little more. How successful was Blair actually? He won three election victories, sure - the first one against a Conservative party more hideously unpopular than it had ever been before in its history, the second against a Conservative party broken by the electoral drubbing they got in '97, and the third one was a much less convincing victory against a Conservative party only just starting to recover. Furthermore, the local election results of the final Blair years don't show a popular leader at the peak of his powers; they show quite the opposite. Had Blair fought the 2010 General Election, he'd have lost.

So yeah, three election victories - impressive, but not as impressive as it might first appear. I suppose Blair looks good compared to other Labour leaders and their electoral performances. Take Kinnock - fought 2, lost 2. Foot - fought 1, lost 1. Callaghan - fought 1, lost 1. With this in mind, the norm for a Labour leader is Brown rather than Blair; of course he looks good by comparison. In fact, since World War Two, only two other Labour leaders have been able to win general elections (compared to seven for the Tories); Attlee and Wilson. Yet Wilson actually did better than Blair, if winning elections is the key qualification for success as a Labour leader. He won in 1964, 1966 and managed to scrape into government in both of the elections in 1974. By this logic, Wilson should be the example the Labour party should follow, not Blair.

Furthermore, those in the Labour party wishing to venerate Blair for winning elections should remember precisely how he did it. It wasn't through being a crusading politician, winning people to his cause through brilliant oratory and ideological commitment. No, he won power by stripping his party of any real ideology and instead selling a bland empty shell of a party to a country that just wanted the Tories out. Blair made Labour non-threatening for some, but in doing so he also made it practically worthless.

So, yeah, wear your rose-tinted glasses and praise Blair 'til you're blue in the face. But his only real success was replacing a moribund Tory government with an empty facsimile of the Labour party. Which is hardly the blueprint for a brave new Labour party now, is it? Honest to God, winning elections is not the be all and end all of politics - particularly not if a grinning homunculus has to sell the soul of your party in order to achieve it.