How much of a Conservative is Tony Blair?
Ever since he appeared on the Labour scene in 1983 Blair has been perceived by more traditional party
members as ‘not really one of us’. He confirmed some of this impression as leader by immediately
removing the sacred Clause Four of the 1918 Labour Party Constitution and seems to relish taking his party
on. Clearly Blair was out to change the party fundamentally and distance it from its leftwing heritage
rooted in the social disadvantage caused by industrialism. Since 1997 the complaints have, if anything,
increased in intensity and it is apposite, perhaps, to consider the question in more detail: how Conservative
is Tony Blair? First the case for the critical position is adduced and then the case against it followed by an
attempted judgement.
The Case for Blair as a Conservative
Cultural Arguments
This group of points may seem a little nebulous but in British society cultural factors are very important
signifiers. Blair looks and sounds like a Conservative: clean cut, well spoken ‘received pronunciation’
diction; as anyone would expect of Fettes (top Scottish public school) and Oxford (posh St John’s college)
education. He could easily pass for the Conservative MP his father aspired to be.
When he arrived at Westminster he sounded so much like a Conservative that he was invited to dine by
Michael Howard and Norman Lamont who wanted to find out ‘why on earth he claimed to be a socialist’.
At the end of the evening they decided: ‘the reason .... was Cherie.’ He had met Cherie Booth at his
barristers’ chambers and fallen in love with this Liverpool born daughter of the hard drinking television
actor Tony Booth who had bestowed upon her his passionate socialism.
Blair is clearly comfortable in the company of rich businessmen and has never attacked capitalism.
His close friend Peter Mandelson- often seen as an alter ego- even said (notoriously) that ‘New Labour is
intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich’.
Finally, Blair has no roots in the party like Brown or even Mandelson, whose grandfather was Herbert
Morrison, a former Labour Home Secretary. Significantly many of his greatest fights have been against his
own party members who have complained he is betraying party principles to which he feels no loyalty.
Economic Policies
Blair’s critics point to a number of features:
* The independence given to the Bank of England in 1997. Socialists claim it is absurd to surrender control
over one of the major engines of Britain’s capitalist economy.
* The curb on spending for the first two years of the Labour government after 1997.
* Blair’s refusal to contemplate any increase in income tax for those on high incomes e.g. a 50% rate for
those on salaries of £100,000 p.a. which would yield about £5billion in tax revenue (66% of party members
favour this measure).
Iraq War
Critics argue that this ‘imperialistic’ war in support of an oil fixated USA is essentially a Conservative
policy. Certainly members of the leftwing Labour Campaign Group, not to mention a large section of the
party in parliament (139 rebels in March 2003 and probably many more who did not openly rebel),
were -and are- hotly opposed to the joint action which has evolved into a major and tragic disaster.
Failure to find the weapons of mass destruction has further disgusted the left, whipped on by Clare Short
and, more decorously, by Robin Cook.
Reform of the Lords
In the 1997 manifesto Labour promised to reform the second chamber to rid it of hereditary peers and to
make it more democratic. After a deal with the opposition it was agreed to abolish all but 92 peers until the
new structure could be agreed. However, no agreement has been reached and Blair has let it be known that
he favours the (Conservative) status quo whereby the Prime Minister nominates members and the Lords
does not offer any substantial challenge to the Commons. Blair plans to create a score new peers to
strengthen Labour’s position in the chamber where it currently only has 185 peers. The Lords has reacted to
this lack of decision by defeating the government 63 times in 2003 and being a genuine thorn in Blair’s
side.
Market Forces introduced into Welfare State
Blair has complained of the ‘forces of conservatism’ holding back his reforms and has mostly meant public
sector unions resisting his plans to introduce market forces into their activities:
* NHS had the ‘internal market’ introduced by the Conservatives, meaning that general practitioners had to
‘buy’ patient care from hospitals who themselves had to purchase services from other agencies. By forcing
money to follow patients the Tories hoped to introduce more efficiency. Blair’s ministers have mostly
accepted this arrangement though Labour parties in the devolved regions have not done so.
* Education: a raft of targets have been set and league tables introduced showing how well schools have
been performing the idea being that failure will be exposed and improvements set in train. Critics complain
it is the catchment areas of schools which create differential results and that tables do not compare like with
like.
* Private Finance Initiatives (PFI): this system involves the private sector building new hospitals and
schools and then the state renting them off the private companies involved. At first these initiatives did not
attract much support from the private sector as it felt that the risks were too great and the returns too slight.
Consequently Labour improved the terms for the private sector and the PFI has taken off in a big way.
However studies have shown PFI enterprises to be significantly more expensive than the old state funded
way of building and running services- sometimes up to 200% more so. Unions point to the fact that
workers employed or re-employed under private contracts do so on less favourable terms creating a two tier
welfare workforce.
Underlying the whole issue of private sector involvement is that they will move in to run services more
cheaply, sacking workers or employing them on draconian contracts. Critics say Blair has applied the
Thatcher syllogism of ‘private sector good; public sector bad’; further evidence, they allege, of his basic
Conservatism and dislike of unions and the labour movement.
Foundation Hospitals
This idea sets out to reward efficient hospitals by giving them: enhanced status; the ability to borrow
money for developments; increased local control through democratically elected boards. This proposal was
passionately resisted by Labour members, notably the former Health Secretary Frank Dobson, as the first
stage on the way to making successful hospitals wholly independent (a Conservative favoured idea);
creating a two tier system in which people who lack money and do not live near a foundation hospital are
disadvantaged. In July 2003 the government won the vote but only by a majority of 35.
Top-Up Fees for Universities
Another Conservative favoured policy- though they opportunistically opposed it at the vote- was the idea
that some of the cash required by universities to modernise and remain comparable with rivals abroad could
be raised through introducing variable student fees: universities could charge up to £3000 a year for
courses. Critics were outraged by a scheme which was seen as the first stage towards privatisation of higher
education on American (and Conservative) lines. A battle royal ensued in January 2004 with the
government just squeaking home by 5 votes compared with their actual majority of 161.
Privatisation
In opposition Labour attacked each successive privatisation of nationally owned enterprises and utilities
and promised to renationalise. In office however Labour has been prepared to accept Conservative
measures as fait accompli. Even though they have extended state control of the ailing railway system
Labour has fought shy of formally renationalising.
Employment Laws
Mrs Thatcher passed a number of repressive employment acts in the 1980s which Labour promised to
repeal. Once in power however, Blair has resolutely refused to do so and has even colluded with the
rightwing Silvio Berlusconi in support of even more ‘flexible’ labour markets: i.e. weaker rights for
workers and more power for employers.
Inequality
In 1995-6 17% of the population had incomes less than half the national mean; by 2001-2 the figure had
increased to 19%. Over 14 million people are thus living in poverty. At the other end of the spectrum the
rich are even richer. There are 123 directors who are paid over £1million and 364 half a million to a million
pounds. While the average paid have received wage increases of 3-4% a year in the last three years, highest
paid executives have enjoyed salary increases of 21% in 2000; 19% in 2001 and 16% in 2002. UK is
moving into line with the USA where inequality has rocketed in the past two decades.
Altogether this makes quite an indictment but what about the case for the ‘defence’?
The Case for Blair not being a Conservative
Cultural Arguments
Blair’s defenders would argue that appearance, education and background are not as relevant as a
commitment to change things for the better. Attlee, Crossman, Crosland and many of the great figures from
Labour’s post 1945 government, went to public schools and often to Oxbridge. Few argue that their
commitment to Labour’s cause was adversely affected by their social background- indeed, the reverse
might be more persuasively argued. Blair may accept free enterprise as the appropriate motor for an
advanced society but so too do most former socialist parties in Western Europe. Perhaps New Labour has
tried a little too hard to woo business but, given the importance of a dynamic economy, and Labour’s image
of being anti business, it is understandable. Moreover, Labour can no longer win elections on the basis of
its working class constituency as this group has shrunk so dramatically as technology has removed the need
for unskilled workers. Consequently Blair has had to woo the middle classes in order to win power for his
party and so a more conciliatory attitude to business and middle class concerns, over tax for example, was
necessary. It needed a person who appeared ‘safe’ to the middle classes to change Labour to make it
electable again.
Minimum Wage
When urging the introduction of a minimum wage, Conservatives claimed it would result in an additional
2 million unemployed. However, unemployment continued to fall once the measure was introduced and the
Conservatives have now been forced to rescind their opposition. In March it was announced that the new
level would be £4.85 an hour for over 21 year olds in October 2004, going up to £5 the following spring.
Blair claimed this would benefit over 1.6 million low paid workers.
Economic Policies
*Blairites would argue that the Bank of England’s independence was a politically ‘neutral’ measure which
has provided a useful brake on inflationary tendencies in the economy. An advisory committee ensures the
bank’s director receives the most expert advice available. Britain’s steady inflation rate at under 2.5% bears
witness to the efficacy of the measure, together with the overall success of the economy which has been the
only one of the developed economies to survive recent world recessions while sustaining steady growth of
around 2% a year. In addition unemployment has hit an all time low at about 4% of the workforce- the
equivalent of virtual ‘full employment’.
* The two year curb on spending was justified in that it helped build up a huge revenue surplus which could
subsequently be spent on the public services.
* The refusal to increase income tax at the higher rate was necessary as the Conservatives showed in 1992
how destructive they could be in representing Labour as a high tax, spendthrift party. The middle class vote
has to be reassured say Blairites.
* Employment laws, as presently constituted, make British economy more ‘flexible’ than our competitors
and hence gives us an advantage over them.
Devolution
Blair came to power pledged to devolve power to Scotland and Wales. Conservatives were hotly against the
plans so he cannot be accused of such bias in this case. He pushed through devolution fairly quickly and
successfully apart from a tendency to interfere with the personnel in charge. Devolving power to London
under an elected mayor was similarly successful but here again he tried to veto Ken Livingstone’s
candidature.
Lords
Blairites would say this is a complex issue but an elected second chamber, as most critics want, would
endanger the ability of a Labour government to push through necessary reforms. They would also point out
that hereditary peers have been virtually abolished- something the Conservatives would never have done.
Iraq
Defenders of Tony Blair would argue that the war on Iraq was not a ‘Conservative’ policy even though
they urge, if anything, egged on by euro-sceptics in their ranks, an even closer relationship with the USA.
Arguments for a ‘socialist foreign policy’ have been around for a long time and have never quite
convinced. In 1945 Ernest Bevin, ignored leftwing advice and pursued a defensive policy against Stalin
which relied on utilising the wartime alliance with the US to defend Europe against communism. Blair has
decided that, with only one super power in the world, it is best to keep close to it and seek to moderate its
actions. Thus it could be argued that Blair was responsible for Bush’s efforts, albeit somewhat reluctantly,
to involve the United nations in the conflict. [Sadly he has had no luck in keeping Bush along the ‘roadmap to peace’ in the Middle-East.]
Welfare State
Blairites would argue the need for more market discipline in the welfare state is needed as:
1. PFI
Despite its drawbacks the PFI is the way to optimise the inflow of private capital into public services.
2. NHS
* The internal market produces more efficiency than the traditional state funded system as the differences
show between Scotland which retains the old system and England which uses the new one.
* Professor Nick Bosanquet of Imperial College claims Scottish consultants are 20% less efficient than
English ones claiming that the Scottish Executive is hostile to ‘user choice’ of the kind which the internal
market provides. When money follows patients rather than being bureaucratically allocated, hospitals have
incentives to reduce waiting times and attract patients.
* The result, according to the Economist 19th April is that the ‘old’ system soaks up money while retaining
inefficiencies, while the ‘new’ one gives more value for money in term of waiting lists, survival rates from
major illness and longevity.
* An opinion poll in the same journal also shows that 75% people prefer to have choice over which hospital
or school they use; 50% also said the NHS was ‘badly in need of reform to allow patients more control’
suggesting the public shares Blair’s convictions regarding reform.
3. Spending on Public Services
In 2002 Gordon Brown announced spending on public services would amount to an extra £60 billion in
three years. This was not enough to make good the atrophy of the Conservative years, it was argued, but
enough to bring UK up to average European levels of spending on health and to vastly improve education
standards and infrastructure. In the case of the NHS spending was £68 billion in 2002-3 and should reach
£92 billion by 2005-6. The 2700 queue of people waiting for serious operations has already been cleared
and average waiting times have reduced from 10 to 3 months. There has been a 70% increase in staffing.
80% more patients are treated now than 20 years ago. [However, public satisfaction ratings with NHS and
education are still worryingly poor though some evidence suggests that while people are happy with it
personally, they perceive the service overall as still being poor.] Reports in the spring of 2004 suggested
long waited improvements in the NHS were finally arriving.
There is no way the Conservatives would have spent anything like this, say government supporters,
though they have now adopted a ‘matching Labour spending’ policy to the public services.
Inequality
In a capitalist economy it is inevitable that there are winners and losers; a dynamic for inequality is built
into the system. However, the benefits of a system which rewards effort and innovation with material
benefit, is, on balance, held by most of those left of centre, to outweigh its disadvantages for society as a
whole. The answer, say the left, is to ameliorate the harshness of the system by redistributing wealth to the
poor and giving them the chance to become winners themselves.
* The ‘working person’s tax credit’ system was introduced to provide additional income to those on low
incomes and to give the unemployed incentives to work. The Policy Studies Institute study in August 2003
showed the tax credits had made a major contribution to raising poor families out of poverty. In 1999 41%
of out of work families were in severe hardship but by 2001 this figure had fallen to 28% among lone
parents and 22% among out of work couples.
* Gordon Brown’s budgets have slowly redistributed income so that 1.6 million children have been lifted
out of poverty.
* Improved child care subsidies have enabled thousands of women to return to work.
* Welfare to work programme has virtually solved the problem of the young unemployed claim the
government.
* Sure Start Programme has poured resources into preschool children’s education in an attempt to emulate
programmes in the Nordic countries. Research shows that it is the first few years of a child’s life which
determine later development.
* Research has shown that Labour has presided over mild redistribution of income while the Conservatives
1979-90 boosted inequality dramatically with poorest losing income by - 2% and the richest gaining by 7%.
Conclusion
The arguments suggest that Blair is clearly no Conservative but maybe his social background, combined
with his desire to appeal to the middle classes has made him appear to be what he is not. His record is one
of ameliorative reform and some bold constitutional initiatives; nothing to equate with Gladstone or even
Attlee but nothing to be ashamed of either. In this note I’ve concentrated on the major policy areas, but if
crime and asylum seekers are examined, the similarity to Conservatives is clearer cut (though while the
rhetoric is as shrill, the practice seems more liberal).
His big mistake was Iraq which was pushed through in the teeth of opposition in party and country
and which has left a residue of lack of trust and anger which is contaminating all aspects of government.
Maybe, as Hugo Young maintained in the autumn of 2003, the time has come for Blair to step aside and let
Brown, untainted by the Iraq adventure, to try his hand at leading the government. Needing a swing of
11.5% to win the next election it seems unlikely that even a revived Conservative Party will win next year’s
election.
Further Reading
Anthony Sampson, Who Runs This Place? John Murray, 2004-05-17
John Rentoul Tony Blair, Prime Minister, Time Warner, 2001.
Andrew Rawnsley, Servants of the People: The Inside Story of New Labour, Hamish Hamilton, 2000.
Hogo Young, Supping with the Devils, Atlantic Books, 2004
Bill Jones 16th April 2004