This week Tony Blair published his memoirs that have become an overnight best seller.

In them, he revealed himself to be a true Tory. After all, he distanced himself from the Gordon Brown inspired decision to reinstate a more Keynesian economic policy in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. In fact, he condemned the use of state intervention to facilitate economic growth and, in particular, the running of deficits to stimulate demand. Without these measures, Britain (and the world) would have suffered a severe depression and not a recession in 2008. But deficits and interventions aren't good for our Tony. Oh no, no. Like a good Thatcherite, he would have raised the UK equivalent of GST, the value added tax (VAT). Also he would have cut public spending to the bone and reinstituted further reform of the health, education and welfare systems to enable their respective privatisations. If Blair had not been toppled by Brown, these moves would have seen what remained of the left wing of the UK Labour Party split off from the Blairite wing. Not only that but Britons would have become further disillusioned with party politics as there would have been even fewer differences between the Tories and Labour on key economic issues. As one trade unionist reflected this week, Blair and New Labour sided with the captains of industry and business rather than with ordinary working people.

On Iraq, he repeated his contention to the Chilcot Inquiry that he didn't regret making the decision to invade. His revelation, though, that he had wept over the death of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan sound like he did shed crocodile tears. One of his most outspoken opponents Reg Keys, the father of a slain British soldier who stood against Blair in his former Sedgefield constituency in the 2005 election, reflected that they were such as both he and other military families have shed real tears at the needless loss of many sons and daughters in combat.  In my view, every casket that has come home to Britain since the Afghan invasion in 2001 has borne not only the name of the fallen soldier but that of Blair as the indirect killer of that young person.

The memoirs unsurprisingly reveal the difficult relationship that existed between Blair and Brown. At the same time, Blair acknowledged the role that his internal nemesis had played as chancellor. Moreso, he made the salient point that, despite the differences over technical and other policy matters, at the end of the day Brown essentially agreed with much of the New Labour programme and philosophy. In reading between the lines, it appears to confirm that Blair and Brown are ideological twins whose rivalry was fuelled more by ambition than policy differences. However, it must be acknowledged that despite all of Brown's numerous faults, he did begin shifting Labour back towards the left after Blair left office. In my belief, this factor contributed to Labour only lagging behind the Tories by only 50 or so seats at this year's election as, if Blair had remained leader, the loss would have been even more catastrophic.

Therefore, for both Blair and his glove puppet Peter Mandelson to state that any further shift by Labour to the left would be suicidal is plain wrong. Right now, Labour is holding a leadership election and the frontrunner is said to be David Miliband, the former foreign secretary and ardent Blairite. David has a slight lead over his younger brother Ed who is more to the left. Blair's intervention during media interviews for his book this week revealed that he is a David supporter. However, both Milibands worked as advisers to Blair before going to the House of Commons as MPs and I would caution that  Ed has only shifted to the left in order to acquire the exhausted preferences of genuine left-wing candidate Diane Abbott (as the ballot is being run under the single transferable vote system).  Still, Blair's intervention caused ructions to re-emerge between the Brown and Blairite wings, even as Labour tries to move forward following this year's defeat.

One of the most seized upon revelations in the memoir was that, as a supposed teetotaller, he came to rely on alcohol as a prop on difficult days. While Blair was not immune to the health problems that bedevil people who hold high office, this coming out as a drinker shows that the image conveyed of him was more spin than substance. And speaking of spin, he outlined that he wasn't that close to his former media adviser and svengali Alistair Campbell. Despite that, Blair's early years would have been more difficult without Campbell's bullshitting prowess.

Blair's memoirs reveal that Labour was re-made in the image of Margaret Thatcher. This has, in the long-term, contributed to the party's decline in stature and standing, particularly amongst its core supporters. If Blair has any sense or conscience, he should do the right thing - go and join the Conservatives as he really is one of them! And while he's at it, he might as well take Peter Mandelson, Frank Field and other right-wing incorrigibles with him. While he might say that he still loves Labour, does the party still love him? The answer is increasingly not given that Ed Miliband and Diane Abbott are set to do well in the leadership contest despite David Miliband being favoured to narrowly win. If the result is this close, then Labour might be on the road back to being a more social democratic party and on its way to victory. And that  result, if it transpires, will represent a much needed defeat for Blair and Blairism within the Labour movement.