In a democracy parties must have one ear to the ground of public opinion if they want to be elected.
Ideology must take second place.
Public opinion has shifted in the UK since the economic catastrophe of 2007-8 and the ideas which move the electorate today would not have moved them before.
It is fine for Ed Miliband, and good for the party's chances of re-election, to try and put a lid on the Blairite past, but it is not right to forget the contribution Tony Blair made to a party which before 1997 had been out of office for eighteen years.
When Tony came to power in the first outright Labour election win since 1966 it was regarded as the party's renaissance moment, following years of opposition.
The demons he had to deal with then were the power of the unions and the lobbying of the far left.
The big issues of his time in office which threatened to split the party were his opinions on free trade, a pandering to the rich which was distasteful to many of his supporters, and the Iraq war.
Looking back now it would not be difficult to construct an argument suggesting he was wrong on all three, but in the context of those years, of increasing world trade, a blossoming economy and the paranoia which gripped the world following 9/11, Blair could be forgiven for the position he took.
The world has moved on since then and the political landscape Ed Miliband inherits is far different to the one Tony inherited in 1997.
The electorate now fear the greed of industrialists more than they fear trade unions.
People want the markets to have less freedom not more.
And there is general unease at the way the base of the world's manufacturing is fast shifting eastwards.
These are conditions in which it would not be impossible to predict greater regulation than is currently planned for the markets and for big company mergers, more centralised control of the banks, more concessions to unions and their members, and some stimulus at home to give UK businesses a boost and individuals a chance to compete in a global market.
Protectionism and interventionism are still bogey words in a politics which panders to the IMF and the CBI, but some renewed form of both may be necessary if Ed Miliband is to convert some of his ideals into reality, and given the new feeling in the country, he may find less resistance to radical measures than was the case in Blair's day.
Ideology must take second place.
Public opinion has shifted in the UK since the economic catastrophe of 2007-8 and the ideas which move the electorate today would not have moved them before.
It is fine for Ed Miliband, and good for the party's chances of re-election, to try and put a lid on the Blairite past, but it is not right to forget the contribution Tony Blair made to a party which before 1997 had been out of office for eighteen years.
When Tony came to power in the first outright Labour election win since 1966 it was regarded as the party's renaissance moment, following years of opposition.
The demons he had to deal with then were the power of the unions and the lobbying of the far left.
The big issues of his time in office which threatened to split the party were his opinions on free trade, a pandering to the rich which was distasteful to many of his supporters, and the Iraq war.
Looking back now it would not be difficult to construct an argument suggesting he was wrong on all three, but in the context of those years, of increasing world trade, a blossoming economy and the paranoia which gripped the world following 9/11, Blair could be forgiven for the position he took.
The world has moved on since then and the political landscape Ed Miliband inherits is far different to the one Tony inherited in 1997.
The electorate now fear the greed of industrialists more than they fear trade unions.
People want the markets to have less freedom not more.
And there is general unease at the way the base of the world's manufacturing is fast shifting eastwards.
These are conditions in which it would not be impossible to predict greater regulation than is currently planned for the markets and for big company mergers, more centralised control of the banks, more concessions to unions and their members, and some stimulus at home to give UK businesses a boost and individuals a chance to compete in a global market.
Protectionism and interventionism are still bogey words in a politics which panders to the IMF and the CBI, but some renewed form of both may be necessary if Ed Miliband is to convert some of his ideals into reality, and given the new feeling in the country, he may find less resistance to radical measures than was the case in Blair's day.
SHARE
