Yves here. This article reflects on a lengthy essay by Tony Blair that many readers, including those from outside the UK, should consider. Blair’s arguments seem poised to influence discussions elsewhere as he leans into a revived, warmed-over neoliberalism, using AI as a means to justify further erosion of worker protections and social safety nets. To make matters worse, he presents firmly conservative, pro-business ideas as radical centrism—a bold misrepresentation of his true agenda.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future
This morning, Tony Blair has released a 5,600-word essay through the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, widely reported by both right-wing and mainstream media. They frame it as a warning to the Labour Party against shifting leftward. However, this framing misrepresents Blair’s intent. His essay is simply a desperate attempt to revive the neoliberal center, disguised as a realistic approach for the AI age.
Only yesterday, I commented on the Thatcher-era slogan TINA—”There is no alternative”—and proposed the counterargument: TIARA—”There is a real alternative.” Blair, however, clings to the TINA perspective.
Blair’s main assertion is clear. He states that Britain is entering a period of significant disruption, driven by artificial intelligence, geopolitical fragmentation, declining Western influence, climate challenges, demographic shifts, and a new global economic landscape. He argues that traditional political frameworks are becoming obsolete and claims that Labour lacks a coherent response to these changes.
While he accurately notes Labour’s shortcomings, he fails to recognize that neoliberal political frameworks—like those he and Bill Clinton helped establish—are not designed to provide answers to these challenges. Their purpose is to suggest that market solutions exist.
Blair implies that Labour instinctively retreats to the comfort zone of center-left politics when faced with challenges, endorsing:
- increased or improved social security,
- additional regulations,
- higher taxes, particularly on wealth,
- stronger labor rights,
- a skeptical view of business practices, and
- commitment to environmental targets that he argues hinder competitiveness.
Essentially, this approach is about governing in the interests of people. Blair argues that this strategy is electorally risky and economically counterproductive.
He proposes instead what he naively refers to as the radical center. In practice, this translates to accepting that growth is universally beneficial, regardless of its consequences, and involves:
- a more explicit pro-business economic agenda,
- embracing AI and technological disruption as unavoidable,
- restructuring welfare systems to encourage greater labor-market participation,
- weakening regulations viewed as anti-growth,
- prioritizing cheaper energy over rapid decarbonization,
- enhancing ties with global capital and private sector initiatives, and
- reformulating Britain’s geopolitical strategy to focus on economic competitiveness.
Blair’s argument also appears to include (based on his Radio 4 interview earlier today):
- significantly increasing private sector involvement in the NHS as they possess knowledge that health professionals lack;
- fully embracing AI’s capabilities;
- denying the rise in disability numbers due to their supposed unaffordability, stating this as a fact; and
- arguing that there is no distinction between left and right in politics anymore.
The last point is particularly noteworthy. According to Blair, there is only one viable political solution—his own. He suggests that a singular, transferable political party should exist, as he believes it addresses the issues of democracy by providing choice. He perceives choice as obstructive to business effectiveness, indicating a fundamentally anti-democratic stance.
Blair further implies that Brexit cannot be reversed and that the UK should pursue a more structured relationship with Europe over time. In this scenario, choice becomes irrelevant. This belief also extends to his argument that the UK must adjust to an international landscape increasingly influenced by major power blocs and technological oligopolies led by the US and China. He even exonerates Trump, suggesting that those who challenge him, like Mark Carney in Canada, are misinterpreting the broader picture. Blair essentially aligns with Trump’s assertion: it is not America’s responsibility to safeguard other nations, no surprise given his association with Trump’s Board of Peace.
However, what stands out is what Blair fails to address.
Firstly, his essay presumes that technological acceleration is inherently positive and that politics should merely adapt, rather than exercise democratic oversight over it. AI is portrayed as a predetermined fate, rather than a series of choices.
Secondly, Blair frames economic success predominantly through the lenses of competitiveness, growth, and business confidence—assumptions that have contributed to social insecurity, inequality, and political fragmentation destabilizing Western democracies. He dismisses Andy Burnham’s criticisms of neoliberalism during his Radio 4 interview, asserting that Burnham is confused, when he is anything but.
Thirdly, the piece largely disregards a pressing question facing politics globally: how to maintain social cohesion when technological advances outpace institutions’ ability to adapt, leading to crises in security and belonging.
Finally, there is a profound irony in Blair’s critique. He accuses Labour of lacking political vision while simultaneously advocating a return to the very neoliberal principles that have contributed to today’s crises.
The central takeaway from Blair’s essay is not that it provides compelling solutions but that it highlights the intellectual fatigue of the neoliberal center itself. Blair recognizes that our world is changing rapidly; he sees that AI is disrupting labor markets, altering political landscapes, and affecting social identities. He acknowledges that prior beliefs are crumbling.
Nevertheless, his recommendations remain consistent with the neoliberal narrative that has persisted for forty years: trust markets, rely on technology, believe in business, liberalize more swiftly, adapt more vigorously, and hope that growth resolves the ensuing social tensions. In essence, he continues to echo TINA, despite the existence of TIARA: a call for a politics of care and an economics of hope. This perspective is increasingly vital, especially as many rational individuals begin to question Blair’s worldview.
