Categories Finance

Tony Blair’s “Radical Centralism”: A Familiar Perspective

  • 2026年6月1日
  • Estimated read time 15 min read
  • 0 comments

And that book was authored by Larry Ellison.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent essay, titled “The Labour Party Is Playing With Fire Over Its Future and the Future of the Country,” has ignited significant discussions since its release. For the past two years, Blair has been a notable behind-the-scenes influencer within the Keir Starmer administration, both through his foundation, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), and through key cabinet members aligned with his ideology.

With this latest essay, however, Blair has positioned himself back in the public eye. Some commentators even express the wish to see him return as Prime Minister…

The essay is widely interpreted as a critique of both Starmer and his primary contenders, whom Blair claims lack “any coherent strategy” for addressing the country’s challenges. Yet, Blair appears to overlook the fundamental truth: the current difficulties in Britain can be traced back nearly fifty years of neoliberal policies, a system he played a significant role in establishing. He even chastises those on the Left who believe that “nothing positive emerged from the past ‘40 years’ of neoliberalism.” A poignant response follows:

In my view, Blair’s latest intervention reeks of desperation. The Starmer project is unraveling at a critical juncture for both Blair and his corporate benefactor, Larry Ellison.

The foundations of the so-called “AI revolution” remain unsteady, while public opposition to AI surges on both sides of the Atlantic. Simultaneously, the Labour Party’s leadership crisis deepens, with nearly half of the populace now asserting that Starmer should resign instead of contesting a future leadership election. His possible successors—Andy Burnham, Wes Streeting, and Angela Rayner—fail to inspire confidence.

It is hardly surprising that mainstream media has downplayed the conflicts of interest surrounding Blair’s recent rallying call, attempting to frame his essay as a notable presence in British political discourse…

A more grounded perspective emerges…

Blair’s essay is teeming with what he describes as “radical centrist” suggestions (including economic deregulation, cuts to welfare spending, pension reductions, and increased privatization within the NHS). These proposals could have been penned at any point in the last three decades by either of the two major political parties.

As Richard Murphy highlights in his recent blog post, which we cross-posted here, Blair’s assertions lean heavily on the TINA (There Is No Alternative) framework:

Blair’s central argument is direct. He contends that Britain is entering an era of substantial disruption driven by artificial intelligence, geopolitical fragmentation, diminishing Western dominance, climate change, demographic alterations, and a new global economic landscape. He argues that traditional politics is becoming outdated, claiming Labour lacks a coherent response to this evolution.

While Blair is correct in noting Labour’s deficiency in responding to these challenges—because it clearly has none—he fails to understand that this gap exists precisely because neoliberal politics, of the type he and Bill Clinton helped forge, is not structured to entertain those responses. Its whole premise is not to provide answers but to insinuate they might be discovered in the market.

That said, Blair correctly identifies two critical points: it would be detrimental for the UK to rejoin the EU from its current position of economic and political fragility, particularly if it entails relinquishing the pound to join the eurozone, something one senior eurocrat has proposed.

Blair presents three notably contentious recommendations, which deserve emphasis:

  1. The UK should cultivate closer ties with Trump, on whose “Board of Peace” Blair currently serves. Blair insists that the U.S. must trust the UK as a reliable ally, irrespective of the prevailing political figure. During a discussion on the Newsagents podcast, he stated: “It matters not whether you align with [the current occupant of the White House] on policy; maintaining the American relationship matters. As Prime Minister, it’s your duty to convey that to the public.”
  2. The UK should take a more proactive stance regarding the U.S.-Israeli conflict involving Iran. This aligns with the longstanding positions of Tony “Butcher of Baghdad” Blair. To my knowledge, there is no U.S.-led military action Blair hasn’t supported since NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999. He is also among the most enthusiastic pro-Israel advocates in British politics, which is quintessential considering the degree to which Israeli lobbying has infiltrated British political structures, especially since collaborating with the Blairite faction of the Labour Party to oust Jeremy Corbyn.
  3. The UK should abandon its Net Zero commitments and embrace affordable energy, with Blair describing the Starmer administration’s move to phase out oil and gas licenses as monumental errors. This is not the first instance of Blair opposing climate change initiatives. In April 2025, TBI initiated a call to “reset action on climate change.” As is often the case with Blair, financial incentives dominate his motivations. Affordable energy is pivotal for the data centers essential for the AI systems his foundation has championed for years. In addition to the substantial financial support received from tech giant Larry Ellison, TBI is partially funded by oil corporations and petrostates.

In all three proposals outlined, Blair is effectively advocating for his own interests, as he typically does. And notably, that narrative finds its origins largely in Larry Ellison’s influence.

Ellison stands as TBI’s primary financial supporter. Between 2021 and 2023, he contributed $130 million to the foundation, with an additional $218 million pledged since. As documented by Agenda Publica , Ellison’s contributions have elevated TBI into a separate niche among UK think tanks:

Thanks to Ellison’s donations, TBI has expanded to nearly 1,000 employees operating in at least 45 nations. Its funding and influence rival that of U.S. organizations, with TBI’s turnover reaching $145.3 million, while UK counterparts like Policy Exchange and the Institute of Public Policy Research reported incomes of £4.3 million in the last financial year.

Although Blair does not draw a salary from TBI, the foundation has successfully recruited talent from prestigious firms like McKinsey and major tech players like Meta. Before the surge in funding from Oracle’s founder in 2018, TBI’s highest-paid director earned $400,000; in 2023, the top salary rose to $1.26 million.

A former staff member noted that the influx of cash created a “toxic culture,” with others describing it as an AI advocacy that stifles nuanced discussions and tests the limits of lobbying for Oracle. Several TBI staffers—many of whom left due to this atmosphere—have reported that the influx of funds has resulted in a culture of nepotism, characterized by an overwhelming optimism towards AI that suppresses diverse viewpoints and pushes boundaries on lobbying for Oracle.

If implemented, each of the aforementioned proposals would directly benefit Ellison by relaxing energy regulations and regulatory hurdles for AI development, or indirectly, by bolstering the UK’s official relationship with the Trump administration, which Ellison fervently supports, and reinforcing the unquestioning allegiance to Israel, of which Ellison, a staunch Zionist, is a significant donor.

As we discussed in our piece Larry Ellison’s Dark Vision for “OUR” Future, Ellison possesses a nearly religious fervor for AI, labeling it “perhaps” the most critical discovery in human history—more significant, it seems, than fire, the wheel, language, steam, electricity, or the atom. He ardently advocates for the adoption of AI-driven surveillance and control technologies, emphasizing the importance of biometric identifiers:

As the world’s fourth wealthiest individual, Larry Ellison harbors a vision for the future that few would endorse if given the choice (which, of course, would not be the case). This vision fundamentally involves amassing and storing a nation’s data, encompassing all personal details, in a centralized repository, allowing AI systems to sift through it. This data should comprise economic statistics, electronic healthcare records (including genomic data), geographic data, agricultural information, and infrastructure data.

“I must provide the AI model with comprehensive information about my country,” Ellison recently stated during a discussion with his longtime associate Tony Blair at the World Governments Summit. “We need to consolidate all national data into a database accessible to the AI model, empowering it to answer any question we pose. That’s the missing component.”

Today, Ellison is intent on turning his dystopian aspirations into reality through his extensive connections with contrasting governments: Donald Trump’s second term in the U.S. and Keir Starmer’s Labour administration in the UK.

Ellison also seeks to escalate AI-enabled surveillance and control systems to unprecedented levels by centralizing them, despite the associated security risks. Moreover, he envisions a future without traditional passwords and personal identification numbers (PINs), where access to technological platforms will rely solely on biometric identifiers. As he claimed in the following clip during a conversation with Blair, “This is the last year you’ll log into an Oracle system using a password… biometric logins are the future.”

Ellison emphasizes the requirement for national governments to establish their own “sovereign” data centers to support their AI systems, likely translating into new revenue avenues for Oracle, the leading company in database management.

In a meeting with Oracle’s financial analysts last September, Ellison proclaimed that AI will usher in a new surveillance era, gleefully asserting that it will ensure “citizens will exhibit optimal behavior.” This rhetoric evokes comparisons to Orwell’s *1984* and Huxley’s *Brave New World*, but with a distinct business orientation.

In September of last year, the New Statesman published a report outlining growing concerns among TBI staff regarding Ellison’s detrimental impact on the organization. The injection of funds has cultivated “a culture dominated by a form of AI advocacy that, from their perspective, amounts to lobbying for Oracle.”

The TBI has been favorably received by Keir Starmer’s Downing Street operation, which features numerous individuals allied with the former Prime Minister. Notably, Peter Kyle, an advisor during Blair’s second term, was appointed technology secretary and has called on government officials to demonstrate “humility” towards major tech enterprises. An August 2024 paper by TBI on “Preparing the NHS for the AI Era” identified “sound reasons” for constructing new digital health records leveraging an existing Oracle system.

In January 2025, Starmer’s government announced the establishment of dedicated AI Growth Zones to expedite the “rapid” development of data centers. As David Powell reported last year, these AI Growth Zones signify a fundamental transformation in the UK’s approach to industrial advancement, circumventing standard environmental assessments and community consultation processes:

This parallels the Freeport model—special economic zones where conventional regulations are sidestepped. While the government hasn’t overtly confirmed tax incentives for AI Growth Zones (our Freedom of Information requests are still pending), the trajectory is apparent: deregulation, expedited planning approvals, and corporate subsidies masked as economic development.

Regulatory discrepancies with Europe are glaring. While the EU has enacted comprehensive AI oversight via the AI Act, the U.S. and U.K. have taken a more laissez-faire stance, exemplified by JD Vance’s term “hands-off approach.” This creates a regulatory haven, permitting practices in the UK and U.S. that the EU considers too perilous.

Blair’s essay concludes with a ten-point strategy for political reform, with the first point exemplifying this mentality:

1. The private sector must navigate a process of adaptation to this novel AI landscape; hence, businesses and entrepreneurs need the assurance that the government is in their corner, removing barriers to business growth as they undergo this significant adjustment process. Therefore, all the aforementioned measures that hinder business must be addressed or alleviated.

Yet, those very barriers are crucial for shielding local communities from the negative repercussions of AI. While firms like BlackRock profit from managing British pension funds directed towards data infrastructure, residents near these facilities are burdened with a range of health, environmental, and financial challenges, reminiscent of experiences in the U.S.

Meanwhile, BBC’s premier political discussion program, Question Time, is hosting a debate on AI that consists solely of pro-industry representatives, including a TBI member:

Despite the BBC enforcing strict limits on discussions regarding AI, public dissent is rapidly escalating. This reaction is predictable, considering AI represents a political endeavor aimed at “denying agency to everyone, everywhere,” as Karen Hao, author of *Empire of AI*, articulates in the brief clip below.

The digital public infrastructure that AI technologies will establish—most notably, digital identity and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—primarily focuses on surveillance and control, a point we’ve been underscoring since 2022. As Professor Richard Werner noted in his recent dialogue with Tucker Carlson, the ultimate objective is to micromanage and control human existence.

However, for these systems to function effectively, a fully operative digital identity platform is “critical,” as Blair explicitly states in point #9 of his strategy, which he considers the most vital:

9. Above all, government must reorganize itself to leverage the 21st-century technological revolution. Every government moving forward will function in the age of AI. Those that grasp it will prosper; those that ignore it will falter. This challenge spans all sectors, including welfare and health (digital ID is merely one vital aspect of it). This will define the trajectory of the British economy, which, ironically, holds a strong position in technology, yet one we risk squandering.

The dilemma for Blair and Ellison is that the UK currently lacks a functioning digital identity system. Moreover, the Starmer government’s attempts to roll one out have been “poorly timed” and “ineffectively communicated,” as stated in a recent Home Affairs Select Committee report.

By suggesting that digital ID would become de facto obligatory for job seekers and then hastily retracting this statement, Starmer has prematurely revealed the plan, jeopardizing public trust alongside private sector faith, according to the report.

Public skepticism about national ID systems is longstanding; as NC reader Michaelmas pointed out in a recent comment:

Every nation has its unique cultural nuances, akin to the U.S. right to bear arms. In the UK, it’s the longstanding norm of never being required to carry identification for law enforcement.

In a bid to regain public faith, the Starmer administration launched a public consultation regarding the proposed digital ID. Yet, when the government’s chief AI advocate, Darren Jones, was queried about potential cancellation should the expert panel reject the proposal, he essentially dismissed the idea.

By pretending to facilitate a public consultation where the outcome has been predetermined, the Starmer administration risks further eroding what scant public trust remains regarding its digital identity initiatives. Meanwhile, grassroots movements opposing data centers gather momentum, especially in the United States…

Is it any wonder Blair and Ellison are concerned?


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Centrist Victory in California, AIPAC Defeat in New Jersey, Platner Under Fire

The Impact of Propaganda and Misinformation on Humanitarian Efforts

A Modern Food Philosophy