Blair's Supporters Must Face Reality

The prime minister must be in more trouble than I realised. The best that Gerald Kaufman could manage in his defence on these pages was Hilaire Belloc's advice to hold on to nurse for fear of something worse - not exactly an unqualified encomium. Even I (excoriated for not supporting Tony Blair) have written that he must be allowed to go in his own time and in his own way. Nothing Kaufman said was so supportive. With friends like that ...

I am not sure what my anxiety to avoid a Labour civil war reveals about my state of mind. No doubt David Aaronovitch could tell me. For, in his comments this week, he attributes my doubts about Blair's leadership to a subconscious regret that I have not made the ideological journey from egalitarian socialism to whatever philosophy the PM currently espouses.

Aaronovitch - having completed the grand tour of the political spectrum - may be an authority on the psychology of footloose conviction. But there is a simple explanation for my criticism of the PM. To misquote President Clinton, it is policy, stupid. I want the leader of the Labour party to be Labour. That is not an unreasonable ambition.

Policy is the one subject that the PM's praetorian guard did not discuss. Kaufman implies that without Blair Labour would not have won the last two elections. Aaronovitch claims that opponents of the "project" are motivated by envy and spite. Both bogus theories provide a necessary alternative to serious thought. How would either defender of the new faith have justified Tuesday's promise - made by a Labour foreign secretary to the CBI - that accession to the European constitution would not result in British labour laws being as worker friendly as those of continental Europe.

Both Kaufman and Aaronovitch demonstrate the Blairite determination to ignore truths which cannot be denied. Aaronovitch takes exception to my use of the word emasculate to describe the impotence of constituency Labour parties. He must know that they have been intentionally denied any real power. Kaufman is censorious about the suggestion that the PM has become an electoral liability. He does no favours to the man by flinching from reality. Blair has lost trust and credibility. Those essential attributes of leadership can only be regained by changes in policy.

Too many Blairites suffer from a disability which they attribute to the inner-city families which they have neglected - shortage of aspiration. I am not surprised that a new school has been built in Kaufman's constituency and that unemployment has fallen. I take it for granted that a Labour government will be better than the Tories. But, in Trafford, 10 miles from Gorton, the old system of 11-plus selection still flourishes and throughout the country the number of homeless families has increased in the last seven years. Canonisation ought to be postponed until Labour becomes Labour again.

The Blairites' most corrosive effect on Labour has been encouragement of the belief that winning is, in itself, enough. I spent 10 years helping Neil Kinnock to make Labour electable again. Our aim was to make the party electable for a purpose. By their refusal to examine policy, Aaronovitch and Kaufman make floating voters wonder what New Labour's purpose is.