New Labour Beyond Blair

Abstract

IN September 2006 Tony Blair delivered his last speech as leader to the Labour Party conference. Because his premiership draws to a close attempts to evaluate his ten years in office have now begun in earnest. Moreover, the future direction of the Labour party is now being openly debated in a way unknown since the early 1990s. As such, now is probably as opportune a moment as any to discuss academic critiques of New Labour. I thank Mark Bevir for his reply and would like to comment first on what he terms the ‘tired’ phase of New Labour. Bevir argues that since around 2003, New Labour entered a ‘tired’ phase, engulfed by widespread criticism, disasters and divisions.1 During this time, much good-will towards the party has been expended with some commentators speaking of wasted opportunities. Bevir cites a range of issues that have created problems since 2003, including foreign policy. It is possible to view many of the problems New Labour has experienced as the inevitable depredations of any government in office for an extended period of time. Or, perhaps, as Bevir suggests, it is a consequence of fatigue born of the gap between what New Labour's agenda aimed to create and what has been achieved. While accepting that New Labour has become weather-beaten in a fairly typical way, I want to emphasise the centrality of the Iraq issue to the current ‘tired’ era.