John McTernan: Like it or not, Labour must listen to Blair's message

The lesson of Labour's recent history is not to avoid conflict - it is to pick the right fight and to win it

Solidarity is the defining value of the labour movement. As the trade union banners used to say: "An injury to one is an injury to all." Yet, from the response of Labour's leadership candidates to Tony Blair's memoirs you would have thought that the true (unspoken) slogan was: "If I ever see you again, I never saw you before."

Faster than vampires in sunlight they have been scattering. They may not literally have broken bread with Blair, but they sat round the Cabinet table with him. Yet now it's a case of: "Look, the name rings a bell… Not sure where from… Give me a minute… Nah, officer, I'm totally stumped."

What's their game? No doubt yesterday morning's papers terrified them. The acres of coverage about "A Journey" are intimidating. Imagine it, you spend months criss-crossing the country arguing passionately for your vision of social democracy, democratic socialism, New New Labour - whatever. The result? A downpage nib in the East Lothian News Shopper. And then this guy, who's not been around for three years, who didn't even canvass in the last election, rocks up and he bosses the news agenda.

On top of which there's the headlines: anger, shouting, splits, division, and most-feared of all - civil war. That last is the fear stalking the Labour Party. The consciousness of every generation is formed in adolescence. For those, like me, who grew up during it, the Cold War is the fundamental political prism - a Manichaean struggle between good and evil. For the leadership hopefuls it was the 80s - not just the dominance of Thatcher but the suicidal Bennism of the Labour Party that tolerated, indeed supported, the ultra-left's jihad against moderate Labour figures.

Never again, think Andy, Ed and the Milibands. So, one by one, they denounce - and renounce - Tony Blair and all his works. At one level they are right. The public hate a divided party and will never put them into government. So, from that point of view they are right to steer clear from conflict. Yet, having never participated in a civil war they don't understand its full benefits - you defeat your enemies, kill some, force the rest to make peace with you. And it can be cathartic.

The danger is that the Labour Party is learning the wrong lesson from history. A divided party is bad - but a civil war that rids you of Trotskyists is not. Worse than conflict is the suppression of profound difference - because it can't be suppressed forever; it will return and often at the worst time.

Blair is not the problem, nor is his eventual honest disclosure of the real violent (and passionate) relationship he had with Gordon Brown. No, the problem was that he didn't have his fight when he should have had it, when he would have won it.

The acute reader of the Blair memoirs (or the Campbell diaries or Lord Mandelson's book) will conclude - if that Chancellor had been my child he'd have spent a lot of time on the naughty step. Because, as Jimmy Hoffa used to say, a crisis ignored is a crisis increased.

Think how the Labour government would have been if New Labour had started with a square go between Blair and Brown, a fight Blair would have won, which is why Brown didn't run against him for leader.

So, in a way there's a dangerous degree of denial going on. The lesson of Labour's recent history is not to avoid conflict - it is to pick the right fight and to win it. The stream of recent books - from journalist Andrew Rawnsley to Blair - spell out in numbing, and ultimately boringly repetitive, detail the cost of papering over the cracks.

There's a strong case to say that a brilliant Labour leader could be put together by combining the strengths of all the candidates. Add Diane Abbott's wit to David Miliband's gravitas and Ed Balls' attack (particularly on the economy) to Ed Miliband's charm and Andy Burnham's easy communication (and beautiful eyelashes - or so every woman I know tells me) and you'd have a winner. But only one of them can win - and whoever it is has to be the leader, not a leader.

That is Tony's message. For all that he generously, and correctly, sets out Gordon Brown's talents and contribution, the underlying message is crystal clear - the Labour government suffered from having two centres of power. After this leadership election whoever wins has to be ruthless and unsentimental. No-one is owed a position or control of a policy because they came second, did better than expected or was praised in the media.

Winning isn't everything - but losing is losing, and when you lose you are owed nothing.

It's a commonplace that too often governments fight the last war - preparing against a threat or an enemy that they will, in truth, never have to face. The paradox for Labour is that the wannabe leaders aren't prepared to fight the war they need to. Unsaid in any response to Tony Blair's memoirs is an acknowledgement that not only did he win an unprecedented, and probably unmatchable, three elections in a row, but that the May defeat was devastating.

The 2010 election was one of Labour's worst ever General Election results. The architects of success - Blair and Mandelson - are not seeking to start a new and vicious internecine war. They believe their experience. - both good and bad - has in it learning for the future. Most people learn from their own mistakes, truly smart people learn from other people's.

Of course, it is a danger to get trapped in your own history - but to ignore it is to risk re-running it, albeit in a new context. The most honest response to Blair would be if any of the candidates were to say: "Look, that time has passed, those choices are gone, and the personalities with them - but I, for one, will never as leader let anyone else determine my agenda."

Instead, sadly, at the moment Blair is like the woman in the Fast Show who speaks utter sense and is ignored by everyone. But it only takes one person to point out the truth - the party, and the people, are waiting.