The past few months cannot have been comfortable for Tony Blair. Having lived in (and for) the headlines for so long, he has had to make strident efforts to avoid publicity. This is partly out of a sincere desire not to upstage his successor, but also because he is aware that the topic that continues to excite interest is his volatile relationship with the man who was then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, a subject that would not do the Labour Party much good if aired entirely frankly. The price of Mr Blair's silence, however, is that he has not been able to defend the decisions that he took in office. His participation in a series of television programmes with David Aaronovitch, previewed in The Times today, thus represents his first chance to explain himself and respond to critics within the Labour Party and beyond it. This alone makes these conversations intriguing.

For, in truth, it would be understandable if Mr Blair has been rather frustrated since leaving Downing Street. At the Labour Party conference in Bournemouth in September he was almost airbrushed out of history with a token nod of appreciation from Gordon Brown. Even some of those who had been part of his inner circle appeared to be distancing themselves from him. The rhetoric instead was all about “change”, as if Mr Brown had replaced a Tory and not a Labour Prime Minister. Meanwhile, David Cameron, who had spoken of being the “heir to Blair” distanced himself from that ambition because he sensed the public mood had shifted. But it has shifted again. There is a secret longing for Britain for the Blair days even if it is not expressed in terms of loving devotion to the former Prime Minister himself.

The political share price of Mr Blair lately has been at a level matched only by banks with spectacularly large exposure to imprudent lending. The intelligent speculator should calculate, nevertheless, that now may well be the time to buy into the departed Prime Minister's reputation. The more that becomes known about Mr Blair's tenure in office the more it becomes clear that his instincts on politics and policy were worthy. Others have been able to claim exclusive credit on, for example, Bank of England independence, when it is apparent that the policy was championed by Mr Blair. It is also plain that he would have moved further on the reform of the public services had it not been for obstruction within the Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party. His involvement in Iraq, outlined in detail in this newspaper today, was the consequence of conviction about the intervention and not of weakness.

Nor is Blairism to be dismissed as something that had a value in the 1990s but a limited shelf life. Under Mr Blair, the unique selling point of new Labour was the realisation that progressive ends were only likely to be realised by applying market means. It is far from evident whether Mr Brown accepts or understands this argument. His deeds as Prime Minister suggest an excessive confidence in the State and an endless capacity to micromanage. The Conservatives should be seizing the space that Mr Brown has repudiated, but remain too tentative to adopt political positions that will annoy public sector employees. Ultimately, one of Mr Brown or Mr Cameron will have to return to the Blairite formula. For now, Mr Blair is about as fashionable as kipper ties or flared trousers. Fashion, though, has a habit of turning full circle. It will do so in this case.