As Peter Riddell noted in this newspaper yesterday: “Tony Blair no longer commands. Teflon Tony is dead.” The Prime Minister now needs to accept that this is the case and ponder how to adapt to a world where policies could regularly get stuck on the political pan. For understandable reasons, he may want to dismiss his debacle over the Terrorism Bill as a “one-off” and to defy his critics, some of whom constitute the Fidel Castro fan-club wing of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He would be unwise, however, to divorce himself from reality and to endanger his own administration and reputation by not being able or willing to rethink.

Mr Blair’s defeat on Wednesday was in part due to his inability to differentiate between strategy and tactics. The strategy should have been the broad thrust of the Terrorism Bill; the tactics lay in the detailed provisions on the period of detention without charge. It is perfectly possible for honest people to agree with the Prime Minister on the danger posed by al-Qaeda and yet be deeply disturbed by the notion of incarceration for a three-month period without bringing charges. Several of those people in his parliamentary party, out of sincerity, not personal animosity, could not back him on this measure. He needs to win such MPs back to his cause.

This will not be done by impugning their honesty or intelligence. It will be achieved by listening as well as lecturing and adopting a vocabulary on crucial matters such as the necessary reform of schools and the overhaul of an insane benefits system that is reassuring. It should not, if executed skilfully, involve any compromise on philosophy or policy. It does, though, demand a deft switch in style, words and tone.

Such a shift may not appeal much to the Prime Minister in his present mood. Hardened by eight years in Whitehall, but liberated by not having to face the ballot box again, he has appeared a quite different political character lately. He looks as if he would far prefer to “go down with all guns blazing” rather than accept advice that he should use his bullets a little more sparingly and attempt to shoot straighter. His stance has its admirable features and it punctures the myth that he is simply an electoral salesman devoid of enduring principles. Too much self- belief, nonetheless, can be as damaging as too few of the correct political ideas.

Mr Blair is properly interested in the question of his personal legacy. If so, he should inquire of himself whether this is a legacy for his conscience or a legacy for his country. Is he trying desperately to make up for lost time and fears that he failed to grasp several nettles forcefully when enjoying vast majorities in the House of Commons, or is he prepared to do whatever is necessary to enact sensible legislation in significant policy fields which others can and will build on? If he is too messianic, not only will the new Labour project wither and die as he departs office, but the Tories may conclude that to claim a mantle as “Blair’s heir” is no longer shrewd politics.

Mr Blair is right to believe that he should not leave the scene until the ideas of choice and competition are embedded in the public services. He is right not to waste his time aspiring to convince certain of his unreconstructed comrades in the Commons of the virtue of his plans. But he does need to carry those who are persuadable if an astute pitch is offered. Britain has entered an era of post-Teflon politics. If Mr Blair does not adjust, he will become seriously unstuck.