Alastair Stewart: Two blasts from the past just enlivened the dormant tussle over Labour’s future direction

We attended a local horse show organised by our friend Floss, whom we originally met through her mother, Sheila Baigent. Sheila was one of the early stars of women’s show-jumping and later became a judge in her retirement. She was always gentle and supportive of our two youngest children in their early days of competing, when youthful exuberance sometimes got the better of them. They learned so much from her, and the sport has now become a major focus in their lives. Like us, Floss is a keen supporter of the Ebony Horse Club, which normally sends a team to this event. Sadly, they could not attend this year and were greatly missed by everyone. There was a wide range of attendees, both adults and children, not just the “snooty set” that some on the Left would have you believe. Yes, there were landowners, but also the people they employ, rural workers, local businesses, and many others. It was good to see our feed and bedding supplier there; they told us they were having a strong day commercially. There was also the inevitable food wagon serving bacon and sausage baps, tea, coffee, and cold drinks. It was a fun day for all and provided business opportunities for others, too.In the world of politics, two blasts from the past enlivened the dormant tussle over Labour’s future direction. First, Labour’s most successful former leader, Tony Blair, weighed in with a profound critique. In an essay, he argued that the government is “playing with the future of the country” and has held back business and growth since winning the election. He observed that the world is changing, with a more belligerent and intrusive USA, while NATO and wider security issues remain under pressure. On the economy, he criticised increases in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the Workers’ Rights Bill, aspects of Net Zero policy, rises in the minimum wage, and called for reform of the state pension triple lock.Coincidentally, this intervention was followed by another significant contribution from Alan Milburn, one of the leading figures of Blair’s former Cabinets. Milburn highlighted what he described as a crisis in youth unemployment, with around a million young people neither in education, employment, nor training, the so-called NEETs. He argued that this figure could rise further without urgent action. Milburn also observed that more money is spent providing benefits than helping these young people get into work. Our own children have the work ethic in spades. Both of our older children worked while at university: Alex in a café, and Clem in an upmarket fashion shop, where she still often buys clothes today, alongside her successful career in education. Milburn concluded that Britain risks creating a lost generation. The response from parts of Labour’s soft Left struck me as weak. They dismissed Blair because he had not focused on inequality or redistribution of wealth. Blair and Milburn come from a tradition that believes wealth must first be created before it can be redistributed. In my view, many of Labour’s fiscal policies since taking office have hindered that process, despite the constant emphasis on growth.I know Milburn reasonably well. He is a bright and thoughtful man who famously sought help from the private sector to reduce NHS waiting lists. During one of several interviews, he told me that Labour’s relationship with private healthcare should not be viewed as a “one-night stand”.Andy Burnham, also a former Health Secretary, may well differ on that point, as perhaps would Wes Streeting. Yet Milburn’s performance before the press underlined how much some people miss the Blair years, when senior politicians often appeared intellectually confident, capable, and quick on their feet. Labour really is in trouble. When Blair spoke about the need for a vision and a larger purpose, I was reminded that I was in the hall at Blackpool when he announced the removal of Clause Four from Labour’s constitution — the symbolic roadmap of traditional British socialism, much of which has since been embraced by the Greens.It also reminded me of Margaret Thatcher’s vision of a productive, resurgent economy, with trade union reform, privatisation, and all that followed. Comparing Burnham and Streeting to either Blair or Thatcher may be unfair, but Blair was clearly challenging today’s Labour leadership to think on a bigger scale, while Milburn was offering them a substantial project to tackle. Our politics seems to have fallen into an intellectual drought. When will we hear serious plans to provide young people with meaningful work experience and help employers offer affordable jobs? Rachel Reeves has made both harder for many businesses. It seems quite extraordinary. That is one reason why Reform and the Greens are thriving. Labour and the Conservatives should take note. Burnham echoed some of the arguments from Labour’s soft Left, while Streeting said little or nothing. Milburn, meanwhile, concluded that youth unemployment represents a moral crisis for which Britain currently has neither a coherent plan nor an effective system to solve it. His report is only an interim one, with more detailed proposals promised in the autumn. If Burnham wins Makerfield, a seat described by The Sunday Times as being on a knife-edge according to recent polling analysis, it looks as though Britain may face a contest between relatively modest political figures for the premiership. As the Conservatives keep observing, the problem is not just Starmer; it is Labour more broadly. The likelihood is that Reform or the Greens could ultimately deny Burnham victory. We shall see.