Feature: The Blair Effect

The book is based on a survey of the past four years of Government by 25 of Britain's leading academics and commentators. Mr Seldon looks at the Blair Government's performance.

The first Labour Government for 18 years was propelled back to power with the largest majority in the party's history, 179.

The press was almost unanimous in its praise, the party was more united than it had been for years, the trade unions were quiescent and the team around the Prime Minister more talented than Number 10 had seen for many years.

The Government also enjoyed the windfall benefits of a strong economy and a weak and divided opposition.

No Labour government in history had ever enjoyed such a beneficial inheritance.

It has also been a Government which, more than any other, has sought to shape the media's and thus the electorate's perception of what it has achieved.

The media, which erred on the side of over-friendliness for the first two years, has now become overly-sceptical.

It is thus all the more important that we have an objective assessment of what the Government has achieved. This book follows two earlier books I edited; The Thatcher Effect and The Major Effect.

The recipe is always the same. I select authors who are known for their impartiality, or proven authors who have partisan perspectives where I can balance them with others of alternative persuasions.

They were asked, in their chapters, to address the following subjects.

What was the state of the area when the Tories fell in \1997? What was the state of the area in early 2001? What changed and why? How successful or effective have the changes been? To what extent was the change driven by the Prime Minister himself, and how far from Number 10 in general, by ministers, departments, ideology, circumstances or other influences?

The net record is fairly positive. The Government made important changes to the Constitution, above all with devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; it has improved primary education with its literacy and numeracy strategies; it introduced the national minimum wage, made the Bank of England independent, and introduced important changes in welfare policy.

It has achieved steady economic growth and stability, a rise in employment, some redistribution of income and reduction of poverty. It has battled, with some success, to bring peace to Northern Ireland, and it has continued the modernisation of the Labour party.

What is striking though is not the radicalism but the conservatism of what the Government has achieved, particularly considering the initially high expectations it aroused and all the benefits the Government enjoyed on coming into power in 1997.

Tony Blair had, by early this year, come to recognise the limited extent of his Government's changes, which is why he began talking about this being merely a "foundation Government", preparing the way for a second term that would be much more radical.

Much has been heard from Downing Street about no Labour government in history being returned to power for a second term with a working majority.

Much briefing has also taken place about Labour's problems in managing the economy in the past and hence, the first priority for this Government being to ensure sound finances and competent economic management. This is the reason given for the comparative lack of investment in education, health, transport and the police. There is much truth in this.

Number 10 has always been thinking in terms of two full terms of government. Those in Downing Street have been conscious of the risks of being swept from power due to economic upsets. It therefore limited its spending plans for its first two years and has only marginally increased spending thereafter.

So the verdict of history on Blair's Government of 1997-2001 is likely to be "not great, but not at all bad either".

Much will depend, however, on what happens between 2001 and 2005, assuming, of course, that Labour wins the election, which on current indications is highly likely.

If indeed Labour is able to push ahead with further economic reforms, with reaching a sensible accommodation with the European Union, with introducing welfare reform, which injects greater funds and efficiency into a still Byzantine system, if it can complete the modernisation of the British Constitution, while at the same time improving public services, then not just the second but the first Labour Government will go down as administrations ranking alongside the most innovative and important of the 20th Century, namely, the Liberal governments of 1906-1915, the Attlee government of 1945-50 and the Thatcher governments from 1979-1990.

It has to be said, however, that second-term governments often have far greater difficulty in making headway than governments that come to power after a period of opposition.

Will Tony Blair be able to continue to hold the Labour movement together?

Can Gordon Brown's ambitions be contained?

Will a way ahead be found in both social policy and Europe around which all the party can rally?

Will the Government be knocked off course, as Wilson's second government was, by external factors?

Foot-and-mouth has shown Blair's Government, as BSE did Major's, how vulnerable it is to factors beyond its control.

A downturn in the world economy, a new public health scare, or an outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland, could all unsettle and distract the Government from its purpose.

This was indeed a foundation Government.

For an immediate verdict, I would rate it second of Labour's admittedly disappointing nine governments in history.

The clear victor is of course Attlee's government. The foundations have been laid and we must now wait to see whether the edifice will be placed upon it and if so, what shape it will take.

Will it be a Tate Modern or a Millennium Dome?