To look like Blair is one thing. To govern like Blair is another.
“We ran for office as New Labour. We will govern as New Labour.”
With these words in his victory speech of 1997, Tony Blair cemented his relationship with the British public.
Electors had voted for a transformed party to defeat the washed-up, sleaze-ridden government of John Major. They did so believing that Labour’s change was genuine and that there would be no return to the futile leftist politics that had kept the party out of power since the days of Jim Callaghan.
Blair kept his word. New Labour really was New Labour. Two further election victories followed.
Many observers are struck by the parallels between 1997 and 2024.
Again, there is a Tory government completely out of ideas and mired in sleaze. Again, there is an opposition leader who has jettisoned socialistic baggage in favour of electoral appeal. This week, Starmer even posed like Blair and produced his own version of the New Labour pledge card that I used to flourish as a candidate in 97.
But let’s look at some of the differences.
Although he has gained a lot in confidence — 25-point poll leads tend to have that effect — and is presenting himself in a very professional way now, Starmer is no Tony Blair. He doesn’t have the natural charisma of the former Prime Minister and lacks his predecessor’s intuitive — almost supernatural — ability to read politics.
His pledges are less specific than Blair’s too. Of the six headline messages, only one (related to teachers) actually mentions figures.
So the trappings of the Blair era are there — perhaps courtesy of Peter Mandelson — but the substance is not so obvious. As in 1997, there are a handful of quite plausible and realistic promises designed to be quick wins. But with the high tax burden and mountain of debt that Labour will inherit, no one wants any hostages to fortune.
While Gordon Brown promised to stick to Tory spending parameters for two years on reaching office, one senses Rachel Reeves doesn’t want to signal any particular date on which the purse strings might be loosened.
Blair looked optimistic and dreamy in some of the 1997 photoshoots. Starmer looks determined and gritty. His pledges don’t even begin to cover the really serious stuff he’s going to contend with. The housing crisis. The worsening geopolitical conflicts around the world. The growth of artificial intelligence. The calamitous tipping points we face with the climate.
It’s easy to feel there’s something of cargo cult science about Labour’s positioning in the mid-20s. By dressing like Blair and pledging like Blair, you will end up governing like Blair and having the same level of success. With No 10 there for the taking, it’s fake it until you take it.
I do believe that Labour can win big. It’s even possible Starmer may achieve a better result than Blair because of the absolute collapse of the Tories after the disgrace of Partygate, the farcical interlude with Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng and the growth of Reform. I doubt very much that his period in government will be anything like as smooth though.
And will Starmer be seen — in the way that Blair was — to live up to his promises? Will his new New Labour administration govern as new New Labour?
There are some major issues here, because it’s much less clear what Starmer really believes to begin with. And that’s because he’s probably the least ideological Labour leader ever to assume the office and only came belatedly to politics. I’m not sure he believes in a great deal at all other than decency and that he can do a better, more competent job than the shower currently in government. And on these points, I’m sure he’s 100% correct.
Look at the confusion though. Labour signalled that its workers’ rights legislation was going to be watered down, which caused understandable agitation among its union backers. After a meeting with them, apparently the policy was restored to its former glory, leading the union barons to claim that they had achieved a great victory.
So which Labour Party agenda is the public actually voting for this year? The modestly pro-worker one or the more assuredly leftist alternative?
Starmer talks about how he’s changed Labour, but how deep do the changes run? Blair literally knocked old Labour down with his rewriting of Clause IV and effectively rebranded and rebuilt the whole enterprise.
Starmer has worked a miracle in restoring credibility after the Corbyn era, but he’s done it super quick. Blair built on the foundations of Neil Kinnock and John Smith, who painstakingly worked for a decade to turn the ship around.
At one level, we should just say hats off to Sir Keir for doing in four years what previously took fourteen. But is there a danger there’s no solid rock here?
What if Labour wins a very large super-majority in Parliament? It’s now not beyond the bounds of possibility. Numerous candidates, who might never expect to be elected in normal circumstances, will find themselves on the green benches of the Commons. Many of them are young by historical standards. How far will their idealism and ideology sit comfortably with the pressures of government?
What if the credible opposition to the government comes from the left rather than the right? From within Labour’s ranks. How well equipped is Starmer to plot a steady course without getting buffeted by events?
