The Guardian view on Labour funding: time to step out of Tony Blair’s shadow

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/10/labour-setp-out-of-tony-blairs-shadow

Version 0 of 1.

Tony Blair may quietly contemplate his extraordinary trajectory since leaving Downing Street, for none of his predecessors has used the premiership as a launch pad to such wealth and global activity. And yet, it might also be that none of his predecessors endured the level of domestic opprobrium he attracts each day. Normally this would be a matter for personal reflection, but in recent days his reputation has become a pressing issue for the Labour party – a Labour party that cannot afford self-harm just weeks before a general election.

Reflecting the stature of the man of great fortune he now is, Mr Blair resolved to show loyalty to the old tribe by sending £1,000 in funding donations to each of 106 candidates fighting marginals across the country. This was not done on a whim. The idea, mooted last March, was designed to counter claims that Mr Blair, disapproving of the direction in which Ed Miliband has taken the party, was doing too little to support it. It was not done without care. Though he stands on the outside right of the party, the donations were offered to Blair believers and sceptics alike. The accompanying letter was innocuous.

And yet the venture has caused embarrassment, with three candidates spurning his high-profile contribution.

The first rebuff came from Dundee, where the candidate faces an uphill struggle against the Scottish National party and thus might reasonably seek to insulate herself from a damaging association with London money and the Iraq warrior-in-chief. Yesterday, two more refuseniks apparently broke cover – one, Sally Keeble, a former MP first elected during the 1997 Blairite landslide; the other, Sophy Gardner, a former RAF officer who, reportedly, directly linked her refusal to Iraq. Reaction was swift; Alastair Campbell’s tweeted riposte to “attention-seeking” candidates was typically forthright: “1. He won more Labour seats than anyone 2. Tories are loaded 3. Do you want to win?”

For Labour to waste time feuding over Blair times past rather than promoting Miliband days to come is hardly smart electoral tactics. It is said that Mr Blair was obliged to make some symbolic gesture of support and that he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. But he himself increased that pressure with remarks unhelpful to Mr Miliband, such as the reading of the current political scene that he offered to the Economist: “A traditional leftwing party competes with a traditional rightwing party, with the traditional result.”

We learn two things from recent events. One is that both Mr Blair himself and Labour’s hierarchy underestimate the extent to which many in that party still revile their former leader. Tales of his wealth and willingness to strike lucrative deals with nasty regimes take a toll. Another is that Labour must quickly come to terms with its Blairite past and Mr Blair himself. How much of his tenure was a time of progress of which it can be proud, how much a dark period to gloss over? The party must be clear what it thinks. This failure to control its own narrative leaves it vulnerable.

As for the candidates under fire, they may miss Mr Blair’s £1,000 in weeks to come, but they should not be criticised for making their own decisions. They are elected as individuals and stand or fall on their judgment. That is as it should be.