This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/22/tony-blairs-speech-on-the-future-of-the-labour-party-in-full

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tony Blair's speech on the future of the Labour party in full Tony Blair's speech on the future of the Labour party in full
(35 minutes later)
Twenty-one years ago yesterday I became leader of the Labour party. A lot has happened since then. We discovered winning successively. And now we have re-discovered losing successively. Personally I prefer winning.Twenty-one years ago yesterday I became leader of the Labour party. A lot has happened since then. We discovered winning successively. And now we have re-discovered losing successively. Personally I prefer winning.
I could make a speech to you about how to win. You win from the centre; you win when you appeal to a broad cross-section of the public; you win when you support business as well as unions. You don’t win from a traditional leftist position.I could make a speech to you about how to win. You win from the centre; you win when you appeal to a broad cross-section of the public; you win when you support business as well as unions. You don’t win from a traditional leftist position.
But given the state of the debate in the party right now, I don’t want to.But given the state of the debate in the party right now, I don’t want to.
Related: Tony Blair's speech on the future of Labour - Politics liveRelated: Tony Blair's speech on the future of Labour - Politics live
Because this plays into the single most debilitating feature of the current debate: that this is a choice not only between government and opposition, but between heart and head, between the pursuit of power and the purity of principle.Because this plays into the single most debilitating feature of the current debate: that this is a choice not only between government and opposition, but between heart and head, between the pursuit of power and the purity of principle.
It isn’t. The choice is precisely about principle. It is about what support for our values means in the modern world.It isn’t. The choice is precisely about principle. It is about what support for our values means in the modern world.
Social democratic politics in the early 21st century has one great advantage; and one large millstone.Social democratic politics in the early 21st century has one great advantage; and one large millstone.
The advantage is that the values of our age are essentially those fashioned by social democracy. We live today in a society that by and large has left behind deference, believes that merit not background should determine success; is inclined to equality of opportunity and equal treatment across gender and race; and believes in the NHS and the notion at least of the welfare state. This doesn’t mean to say this is the reality. But even the Tories, in the open, have to acknowledge the zeitgeist.The advantage is that the values of our age are essentially those fashioned by social democracy. We live today in a society that by and large has left behind deference, believes that merit not background should determine success; is inclined to equality of opportunity and equal treatment across gender and race; and believes in the NHS and the notion at least of the welfare state. This doesn’t mean to say this is the reality. But even the Tories, in the open, have to acknowledge the zeitgeist.
What should give the Labour party enormous hope and pride is that we have helped achieve all this.What should give the Labour party enormous hope and pride is that we have helped achieve all this.
However, the large millstone is that perennially, at times congenitally, we confuse values with the manner of their application in a changing world. This gives us a weakness when it comes to policy which perpetually disorients us and makes us mistake defending outdated policy with defending timeless values.However, the large millstone is that perennially, at times congenitally, we confuse values with the manner of their application in a changing world. This gives us a weakness when it comes to policy which perpetually disorients us and makes us mistake defending outdated policy with defending timeless values.
We then misunderstand the difference between radical leftism, which is often in fact quite reactionary, and radical social democracy, which is all about ensuring that the values are put to work in the most effective way not for the world of yesterday but for today and the future.We then misunderstand the difference between radical leftism, which is often in fact quite reactionary, and radical social democracy, which is all about ensuring that the values are put to work in the most effective way not for the world of yesterday but for today and the future.
So when our reforms produced declining waiting lists in the NHS or transformed much of London’s schooling or cut crime these weren’t a betrayal of principles but implementation of them. Betrayal would have been leaving a system of failure in place, even if we created such a system in an earlier time.So when our reforms produced declining waiting lists in the NHS or transformed much of London’s schooling or cut crime these weren’t a betrayal of principles but implementation of them. Betrayal would have been leaving a system of failure in place, even if we created such a system in an earlier time.
So let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.So let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.
We should forever stand for social justice, for power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few, as our constitution puts it.We should forever stand for social justice, for power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many not the few, as our constitution puts it.
But that is not the challenge. That challenge is: how to do it in the modern world.But that is not the challenge. That challenge is: how to do it in the modern world.
And here is where the challenge deepens.And here is where the challenge deepens.
The most important characteristic of this world is: the scope, scale and speed of change. Change defines it.The most important characteristic of this world is: the scope, scale and speed of change. Change defines it.
Technology alone is a revolution with vast consequences for every sphere – business, public services, lifestyle and government. Globalisation is opening the world up, with attendant opportunities and of course risks. Individuals – partly through these changes – live quite differently, with infinitely more choice over their own life. Businesses grow and decline with bewildering speed, making a thriving entrepreneurial sector a necessity. Development of human capital becomes vital for the future economy. And the fall out from all this creates new problems – like social care for increased numbers of elderly – and new victims like those left behind or disadvantaged by the changes whirling round them. Technology alone is a revolution with vast consequences for every sphere – business, public services, lifestyle and government. Globalisation is opening the world up, with attendant opportunities and of course risks. Individuals – partly through these changes – live quite differently, with infinitely more choice over their own life. Businesses grow and decline with bewildering speed, making a thriving entrepreneurial sector a necessity. Development of human capital becomes vital for the future economy. And the fallout from all this creates new problems – like social care for increased numbers of elderly – and new victims like those left behind or disadvantaged by the changes whirling round them.
This change requires new thinking. And 2015 is not 2007 or 1997. So yes, move on. But don’t move back!This change requires new thinking. And 2015 is not 2007 or 1997. So yes, move on. But don’t move back!
If we do, then the public won’t vote for us, not because our thoughts are too pure but because they’re too out of touch with the world they live in.If we do, then the public won’t vote for us, not because our thoughts are too pure but because they’re too out of touch with the world they live in.
So we should use defeat as an opportunity. We have to rebuild. But approached in the right way this is exciting not depressing. How?So we should use defeat as an opportunity. We have to rebuild. But approached in the right way this is exciting not depressing. How?
The SNP and Ukip have clouded our sense of direction because they seem to point away from the centre. But our response should be likewise based on principle. The answer to the problems of Scotland is no more about being more “Scottish” and leaving the UK than the answer to the problems of England is being more “English” and getting out of Europe or blaming immigrants. So take them head on. I don’t know whether this is a winning strategy, but at least its one I believe in.The SNP and Ukip have clouded our sense of direction because they seem to point away from the centre. But our response should be likewise based on principle. The answer to the problems of Scotland is no more about being more “Scottish” and leaving the UK than the answer to the problems of England is being more “English” and getting out of Europe or blaming immigrants. So take them head on. I don’t know whether this is a winning strategy, but at least its one I believe in.
We won elections when we had an agenda that was driven by values, but informed by modernity; when we had strength and clarity of purpose; when we were reformers not just investors in public services; when we gave working people rights at work including the right to join a union, but refused unions a veto over policy; when we understood businesses created jobs not governments; and where we were the change-makers, not the small -c conservatives of the left.We won elections when we had an agenda that was driven by values, but informed by modernity; when we had strength and clarity of purpose; when we were reformers not just investors in public services; when we gave working people rights at work including the right to join a union, but refused unions a veto over policy; when we understood businesses created jobs not governments; and where we were the change-makers, not the small -c conservatives of the left.
We won not because we did what we thought was wrong as a matter of principle but right as a matter of politics; but when we realised that what is right as a matter of policy is right as a matter of principle.We won not because we did what we thought was wrong as a matter of principle but right as a matter of politics; but when we realised that what is right as a matter of policy is right as a matter of principle.
Labour shouldn’t despair. We can win again. We can win again next time. But only if our comfort zone is the future and our values are our guide and not our distraction.Labour shouldn’t despair. We can win again. We can win again next time. But only if our comfort zone is the future and our values are our guide and not our distraction.