Yves here. Even though this post keys off an overly-long treatise by the vampire Tony Blair, I hope readers outside the UK will take note, since the sort of case Blair tries to make is sure to be taken up elsewhere. Blair’s warmed-over neoliberal advocacy uses AI to legitimate further reductions in average worker protections and safety nets. Worse, in an insult to intelligence, he tried to depict strongly conservative, pro-owner-class positions as radical centrism. The only radical part is the brazenness.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future
Tony Blair has published a 5,600-word essay through the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change this morning, which is being presented across the right-wing and mainstream media (is there a difference?) as a warning to Labour about moving left. That, though, is to misrepresent what Blair is saying. This is a blatant and desperate attempt to revive the neoliberal centre by dressing it up as realism for the age of AI.
I commented here, only yesterday, on the Thatcherite term TINA – there is no alternative- and suggested that there is in the form of TIARA – there is a real alternative. Blair remains in full denial of that fact. His article is full-on TINA.
Blair’s core argument is straightforward. He says Britain is entering an era of immense disruption driven by artificial intelligence, geopolitical fragmentation, declining Western dominance, climate pressures, demographic change and a new global economic order. He argues that politics as we have known it is becoming obsolete, and claims Labour has no coherent response to this transformation.
So far, so good, then, even down to Labour having no answer to those things, because it very clearly has not. What Blair does not notice is that this is because neoliberal politics – of the sort he and Bill Clinton helped create – is not designed to have those answers. Its whole purpose is not to answer questions, but to suggest that these may be found in the market.
Implicitly accepting this point, according to Blair, Labour’s instinctive response to political difficulty is to retreat into what he calls the comfort zone of centre-left politics by suggesting:
- more or better social security,
- more regulation,
- higher taxes, especially on wealth,
- stronger labour rights,
- scepticism about business, and
- attachment to environmental targets that, in his view, damage competitiveness.
Or to govern in the interests of people, in other words. He thinks this is electorally dangerous and economically self-defeating.
The essay instead advocates what Blair still laughably calls the radical centre. In practice, it would seem that this would mean accepting that growth is always and unarguably good, whatever the consequences, with these things following from that assumption:
- a much more explicitly pro-business economic agenda;
- embracing AI and technological disruption as inevitable;
- restructuring what he calls welfare to force greater labour-market participation as if we are all to be slaves to the machine of increasing the wealth of a few;
- weakening what he sees as anti-growth regulation;
- prioritising cheaper energy over rapid decarbonisation;
- expanding links with global capital and private-sector delivery, and
- rebuilding Britain’s geopolitical strategy around economic competitiveness.
It also means ( and I base these observations on his Radio 4 interview this morning):
- much more private involvement in the NHS as the private sector has the knowledge to transform healthcare that health professionals lack;
- embracing the full power of AI;
- denying that we have more people with disabilities now, because their number must be reduced as they are unaffordable, which is stated as a matter of fact, and
- there is now no difference between the left and right.
The last point is especially important. There is, he says, only one solution now, and that is the one he proposes. What that means is that he thinks what is called here the single transferable political party exists, it should exist, and there is no room for anything else because, Blair suggests, it answers the challenge of democracy, which is that it provides choice, and he has a problem with that because choice, he argues, gets in the way of business delivery. What Blair says then is fundamentally anti-democratic.
This is also implicit in his argument that Brexit cannot realistically be reversed, and that Britain should seek a more structured relationship with Europe over time. Choice is not an option in this case, then, a claim that is also implicit in his insistence that the UK must adapt to a world increasingly shaped by major power blocs and technological oligopolies dominated by the US and China. When doing so, he exonerates Trump and suggests that those challenging him, like Mark Carney in Canada, miss his point. Blair’s claim is that Trump is right: it is not, he says, the job of the USA to defend other countries. No wonder he is on Trump’s Board of Peace.
What is striking, however, is what Blair does not appear willing to confront.
First, the essay assumes that technological acceleration is inherently desirable and that the role of politics is to adapt to it, rather than exercise democratic control over it. AI is treated as destiny, not choice.
Second, Blair continues to frame economic success primarily through the lens of competitiveness, growth and business confidence, which are precisely the assumptions that helped create the insecurity, inequality and political fragmentation now destabilising Western democracies. He explicitly rejected Andy Burnham’s challenge to neoliberalism in his Radio 4 interview, suggesting Burnham is confused, when on this issue, he is anything but that.
Third, the essay largely ignores the deeper question now confronting politics everywhere, which is what happens when technological change destroys social cohesion faster than institutions can rebuild, resulting in crises in security and belonging?
And finally, there is a profound irony at the heart of the whole intervention. Blair presents himself as diagnosing a failure of political imagination in Labour, whilst simultaneously proposing a return to the very neoliberal settlement that generated many of today’s crises in the first place.
The result is an essay that is important not because it offers convincing answers, but because it reveals the intellectual exhaustion of the neoliberal centre itself. Blair can see that the world is changing rapidly. He can see that AI is destabilising labour markets, politics and social identity. He can see that old assumptions are breaking down.
But his answer remains the same one neoliberalism has offered for forty years: trust markets, trust technology, trust business, liberalise faster, adapt harder, and hope growth eventually resolves the resulting social tensions. He is saying TINA, in other words, when TIARA exists: we can have a politics of care and an economics of hope, and that is increasingly important when Blair’s worldview is precisely what very many rational people no longer believe.
Henry II of England about Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?“
Or: “Can’t we just drone this guy”
Ha!
Larry Fink thinks you could be a terrier-ist. / ;)
https://x.com/i/trending/2054477341783453743
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLvIlTaJPPs
You can’t make this stuff up.
Chesterton Beast, please!
The plan is use algorithms to automate their evil worldview and hatred of humanity.
Don’t adopt the “middle-man”, rent seeking algorithms.
Was Blair always this evil? He didn’t seem to be back in the 90s but that was thirty years ago. These days I can’t stand hearing about this creep as, like Ursula, he reeks of corruption and greed.
I guess that depends on the definition of “evil”. If willfully lying about national security, war, and attacking a sovereign country resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands of innocent people is evil, then: hell yeah he was evil, at least in 2003 or earlier.
Well I was always a bit leery of him, when he was shadow home sec he had gained the sobriquet of ‘baton blair’ due to his stout law&order enthusiasms.
Plus his ‘humble stammer as sign of humility’ nicked off richard branson always grated.
People forget that the tories at that point were (and were at the last election) an incontinent highwire act with a bottle in its hand.
If they were lead by Jimmy saville, labour would still have walked it.
That they were an improvement on the previous regime is without doubt, but not nearly enough.
As it was, miranda dwindled in popularity at each election and dumped the mess in the broonasaurus’ lap as a last FU to his ungrateful electorate (and his deputy prime minister).
Plus he went to fettes , the priciest school in Edinburgh set me off
Most of his young life is not murky, but completely opaque
yes, with hindsight he was this evil. he is a c you next tuesday
but back in the day his comparator was the previous tory government. a very low bar.
If we lived in a just world where the law was applied equally, Blair would have written the piece in prison, and we could all have a laugh. Instead we see him and his buddy Bush Jr. and the rest were never held to account. Instead, they have made a killing. Crime might not pay, but crimes in high places certainly do
But my opinion is in the minority fringe: Blair is regarded as a senior statesman and voice of authority, a philanthropist and pillar of society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvs3Lgj1Qs
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/tony-blair-net-worth-how-wealthy-is-the-former-labour-leader/
I never get that impression, more like he’s quietly resented by his marks.
But his legacy still hangs heavy,as evidenced by Starmer,Mandelson and many other equivalent genetic landfill
Should be pilloried.
Didn’t the Iron Maiden, err Lady say that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair? It’s a big club and they were both in it. Blatcherismo…
I think she was trying to steal the establishment’s thunder there.
He was bourne to run
Òne is always surprised to find that someone hasn’t followed Tony Blair back to his crypt and put a stake through the monster’s heart yet.
He doesn’t seem to realize how he tries everyone’s patience each time he reemerges like this.
Give the guy a break, he’s spent his whole life sucking off his betters, he’s too old to learn to code/prompt/live on universal basic income now
Blair is currently Larry Ellison’s fartcatcher, which could explain why he’s so high on AI
Thanks, Yves and evryone for your comments.
Blair’s in the entertainment phase of his career, a pretentious, grifting and Godforsaken Archie Rice rapidly disappearing before our eyes in a wave of vapid, dreary nonsense.
Ba_AI is so great, we must continuously prostrate and make human sacrifices to him to express our gratitude.
Thatcherism’s Greatest Achievement
In 2002, twelve years after Margaret Thatcher left office, she was asked at a dinner what was her greatest achievement. Thatcher replied: “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
As Tony Blair himself told: “[Thatcher] was immensely kind and generous to me when I was Prime Minister… Politicly, certain reforms she made, for example in Trade Union Law…, we kept the basic legal framework… We didn’t renationalise many of state industries that she privatized… I always thought my job was to build on some of the things she had done rather than reverse them… Many of the things she said… had a certain creditability… Whenever I wanted to ask her for advice, she would always give it… in a genuine, spirited way.” (BBC News, April 8, 2013)
Ha! as in read the comments before…
Kinda like how Obama was low key a fan of Ronald Reagan ::puke::
Didn’t he say once that his political positions would have been called Republican ones from that era?
Probably. Sounds like the fraud that he is.
I saw you, Alice! And I remember her saying this at the time.
Hoping for Colonel Smithers to chime in.
Alas, it is all too true.
I’m hoping to overthrow the system and enlighten the people. Though I have that backwards.
Centrism: a political philosophy with the fundamental belief that pushing on the middle of the seesaw will lift one or even both ends.
Thank you! That’s a keeper.
Ahso… the seesaw is (now) nearing the end in favor of the ownership class. The times swirl as do the many.
Yes, it’s more like centrism is pushing on the center of the seesaw to look like you’re trying to get it back in balance, but without any leverage to change things.
Clever and funny, but not really accurate when referring to actual power politics, not just political philosophy.
I see “centrism”/ “the center” as labels The Establishment (for lack of a better term) uses for itself to be able to tar all opposition as extremist (“far right”, “far left”). The Establishment Center is by no means idiotically “pushing on the middle of the seesaw”, it’s ruthlessly and effectively pushing untold masses of people down.
They call it ‘centrism’ but in beliefs it is a far right ideological with zero tolerance for anything resembling the left – though it is accommodating to even more far right beliefs.
Is there no way of finally sealing this ghoul in its crypt forever? 🙄
And to think that I used the term “radical center” as a derisive epithet — this creature is actually proud of it!
Where is Remo Williams when you need him?!
Speaking of AI:
Tribeca to Premiere Fully AI-Generated Iranian Resistance Movie ‘Dreams of Violets’ (via Hollywood Reporter)
Liberals are the absolute family-blogging worst …
Unherd says it’s time to bring back Tony Blair!
Blair is the monkey; Larry Ellison is the organ-grinder.