Reputation is not the same as impact. Most of the comments on yesterday’s tenth anniversary of Tony Blair’s first election victory, many premature obituaries, have confused the two. Dislike of Mr Blair personally and of his record, particularly over Iraq, has led many to write him off as a failure. But he has unquestionably had a big, and probably lasting, influence on the British political landscape. Mr Blair is preparing to leave office at a low point in his standing, as will no doubt be confirmed in tomorrow’s elections. The Iraq war is obviously crucial, seen by 69 per cent as what Mr Blair will be most remembered for during this time as Prime Minister, according to a Communicate Research poll for The Independent – though 61 per cent still think that he has been a good prime minister.

Some assessments have been so vituperative and one-sided as to be ridiculous. It is nonsense to describe the past decade as a disaster for Britain and the economy. This is not to accept the hubristic picture offered by the Treasury. As always, the truth lies in between. There has been less volatility in economic growth and inflation, but the productivity performance has been weak and levels of personal debt are worrying. But, despite recent problems, we are a world away from the horrors of the 1970s.

Similarly, any analysis of the Blair record should acknowledge the evidence of improvements in health outcomes and school performance, the reductions in child and pensioner poverty, constitutional reform, Northern Ireland peace etc. Of course, there are blemishes and qualifications. As Mr Blair acknowledges, he was slow to develop a coherent programme for public service reform. And when he did, his political authority was undermined by Iraq. He did not fully capitalise on the big political opportunity that he was given by voters in 1997 and 2001.

But, even if you regard the Blair years as a disappointment, a story of too little too late, the terms of the political debate have been changed. The clearest evidence lies not in the Labour Party, which is, at best, only lukewarm Blairite, but in the Conservative Party. Both the election of David Cameron as party leader 18 months ago and everything that he has done since then are a tribute to Mr Blair. The Tory rebranding and the big-tent approach are a deliberate imitation of the new Labour strategy of the mid1990s.

Blair casts himself as EU president candidate

Speaking on French TV, Tony Blair sang the praises of the EU and sketched his agenda for its future, all in fluent French

Multimedia

• The Blair years: video, pictures and analysis

• Interactive Blair Timeline

• BlairTube

BACKGROUND

• The past decade a disaster?

• All about Iraq? Don’t you believe it

• I’ll give Blair six and a half out of ten

Multimedia

• Blair fashion gallery

• Cherie Blair picture gallery

• Brookes on Blair

More significantly, the Tories have largely accepted the fiscal and public service changes introduced since 1997. They are not proposing to reverse the big increases in spending, only to cut the rate of growth, while tax cuts, as opposed to changes in the tax structure, are played down. Similarly, there are no plans to abolish healthcare and schools that are free at the point of use, or state pensions. The main difference is a so far ill-defined Tory preference for a less intrusive and centralised State.

But, just as Blairism built on the economic and industrial relations changes of the Thatcher era, so the Cameron Tory party has so far accepted much of the policy framework of the Blair years. Mr Blair may be widely reviled at present, but his influence will long outlast his departure from office.

Times Recommends

• Baroness Ashton: EU couldn’t make it up
• The other belles de nos jours
• Why too much of a good thing is bad for you