Sorry for yet another long post on British politics. This will be the last one for a while, I promise. Starting with this Sunday’s Best of the Week, I’m going to be less political for the time being. 

Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters love to differentiate themselves from the legacy of former British prime minister Tony Blair, and to a lesser extent, his successor Gordon Brown. For the so-called ‘Corbynites,’ Blair represents neoliberal economics, an aggressive and even neo-imperial foreign policy agenda, as well as social policies which were excessively tough on crime and invasive of privacy.

Now by no means are Blair and Corbyn exactly the same. There are plenty of differences between the two, the greatest of which is that Blair places far greater faith in the international world order, and its capacity to bring peace and prosperity to the world. For Blair, supranational institutions like the IMF, the EU and NATO are crucial to ensuring a stable balance of power amidst the rise of new superpowers such as China, India and Brazil. For Corbyn, these institutions represent Western overreach. The West should not be trying to impose its values on the rest of the world, as to do so would be a form of post-colonial oppression. Corbyn also sees supranational institutions as products of global capitalism, which try to impose neoliberal economics on individual nations, particularly in the developing world.

But in many ways, Corbyn and Blair are actually quite similar, particularly relative to the general population. The obvious area of similarity is immigration: they are both vehemently pro immigration. Perhaps for slightly different reasons- Corbyn’s defence of immigration is essentially humanitarian and rights-based, whereas Blair would place a greater emphasis on the economic case for immigration. But both are very comfortable with Britain’s increasing multiculturalism, they both see a more multicultural society as an inherent good.

Immigration is just one example of both men’s social liberalism. Both support rights for homosexuals and the transgendered. Both are pro-choice on the abortion issue, though Blair’s Catholicism may affect his personal views on the matter. Both seem to support constitutional reform, and aren’t as wedded to the monarchy, the House of Lords or other aspects of the British constitution that could be seen as anachronistic. Corbyn has gone as far as to say he would consider legalising marijuana.

On economic issues, Corbyn is seen as being to the left of Blair, and this is largely true. But the two are far closer than either would like to admit. Far from being a Soviet-style communist, Corbyn is essentially a passionate social democrat. Labour’s manifesto didn’t promise to abolish the rights of inheritance, nationalise the means of production, or anything else genuinely Marxist. The vast majority of Labour’s policies- renationalising the railways, raising levels of corporation tax and healthcare spending to the OECD average, making universities free- would be seen as centrist or even Christian Democrat in most of the EU. Equally, Blair is much further to the left on the economy than Corbynites perceive him. He rapidly increased government spending in almost every area during his tenure. Particularly on the NHS and education, Blair increased spending at a far faster rate than what Corbyn proposed in 2017. In fact, the only discernible difference between Corbyn and Blair on economic views is that the former sees public ownership of key utilities as vital, the latter views the issue of ownership as secondary to having appropriate regulations and ensuring fair competition.

What unites Corbyn and Blair above all, is that they both see themselves as being on the right side of history. They believe that they are on the side of social justice, along with the likes of civil rights activists in America, the pro democracy advocates in the Middle East, and the anti-apartheid fighters in South Africa. For both, a sense of moral duty comes before loyalty to one’s country. It is why both have talked to the IRA and Hamas despite them being terrorist organisations that hate Britain and its alliance with the United States. This is a profoundly unconservative disposition. Its why I’m very uncomfortable with Blair being labelled a ‘Red Tory,’ I believe his outlook on life is fundamentally different. Corbyn and Blair believe history is a progressive teleology towards greater freedom and social justice. They may perceive the means by which justice should be attained; Blair believes the West ought to spread the Western notion of freedom around the world, by force if necessary, whereas Corbyn would rather a desire for justice emerge organically in the polities of the extra-European world. But the progressive ideology is at its heart the same.

The common outlook of Corbyn and Blair has as many weaknesses as it does merits. One the one hand, it’s perfectly reasonable to place ideas and values above nationalism, which both men see as a bourgeois tribalism. Both men are acutely aware of the need to prioritise human rights and basic human needs in politics, even if it means violating national sovereignty- which neither man rightly sees as absolute. Their view of history is comforting in its optimism, even if the recent rise of authoritarian populism and illiberal democracy around the world would lead one to believe that such optimism is misplaced. Similarly, both men may be too positive in their view of human nature, which is far more self-centered and parochial than anyone in Labour would like to admit.

The crucial flaw in the mentality of Corbyn and Blair is that they both believe there is such a thing as the public interest. Both men’s policies are aimed at pleasing everyone, which in reality, isn’t possible. Corbyn is slightly better than Blair in this regard. The Labour manifesto in 2017 admitted that the top 5% of earners would have to pay more taxes if the welfare state and public services are to be sufficiently funded. But the manifesto also included middle class giveaways such as free university tuition fees and subsidised social care for everyone, not just the poor, because Corbyn was trying to please everyone. In reality, this can’t be done. University graduates, who will earn more, will benefit from free tuition fees at the expense of those who don’t go to university. Regarding taxes, far more people will have to pay far more in tax than Labour admits if they are to fund everything they want. Most significantly, Corbyn’s deliberate fudging of Labour’s Brexit position will come back to haunt him: Remainers will be angry that Labour wants to leave the Single Market, and Leavers will be angry that Labour doesn’t want to reduce immigration. If Corbyn were truly honest, he would admit that you can’t please everyone and take definitive positions in the class war and on Brexit, rather than pretending there’s a common ground we all share.

Blair was just as bad. He increased public spending rapidly, claiming it was in the public interest. The reality was that the new spending wasn’t evenly distributed. Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and to a lesser extent London and the North, got the vast majority of the new funding. The rural South and Midlands were left with relatively little. At the same time, the effects of the Thatcher-era deindustrialisation were allowed to fester, while the expanding financial sector was a boon to the richer parts of London and the commuter belt. This created two economies with very different interests: one half of the country that loved all the new spending and in some cases, devolution, but ultimately lacked private sector growth. And another half, that grew wealthy from financial deregulation, but resented the unnecessarily high deficit and public spending that was being intentionally directed elsewhere. Rather than uniting the country, Blair made it even more divided than when he first came to power.

Finally, it would really help the Labour Party if both men admitted how much they had in common. It would unite the party behind the common cause of promoting the public interest, even if in reality it can’t be done. Freed from the politics of internal division, Labour could operate with frightening effectiveness. Faced with a hopelessly divided and ever-incompetent Conservative Party, achieving power would be relatively straightforward. But as ever, the issue of Europe may prove to be their downfall. Blairites are unlikely to unequivocally support a movement that backs leaving the Single Market, which they see as crucial to the doing business with ease across borders. And however privately, Corbyn views the Single Market as a Thatcherite, neoliberal construct that prevents Britain from being a true socialist nation. Britain’s unique degree of Euroscepticism is not only dividing the country as a whole, it is dividing every major political movement within it. Given that the Article 50 clock is ticking fast, the country’s future is looking as gloomy as ever.