This should not come as a surprise, even to those who suspect Brown is a closet socialist. Brown and Blair, despite the Cain-and-Abel-like rivalry that damned their personal relationship, were co-architects of New Labour. If on the one hand Brown sometimes seems more egalitarian in his policies than Blair, he has, on the other hand, pushed a tougher, more populist agenda, using nativist-sounding language (“British jobs for British people”) that Blair in his later days would not have gotten away with. Blair’s role in the Iraq War cost him the support of large chunks of his party, making it harder for him to drive through controversial policies. Brown, however, still basks in the honeymoon of his leadership, granting him a de facto mandate to do what would otherwise be politically risky. When Brown last week announced withdrawals that would reduce the British presence in Iraq to 4,500 troops by the end of the year, the move was warmly received — but Blair was on course to do the same thing had he remained in office.

If Blair seems to have vanished, it’s partly because Britons weary of a war they see as a failure were hugely relieved to see him go. But it’s also because so many politicians have converged on the Blairite centre ground that Blair is simply crowded out. In the political mainstream, the lunge to the centre is universal. Blair once embraced Margaret Thatcher’s market reforms to move his party rightward. Ditto Brown, who recently invited to tea the very same Iron Lady he once derided for her “far-right, far-fetched, far-out dogma.” The same goes for Cameron, who seeks to prod his party to the left by embracing a green agenda. Among electable politicians these days, it sometimes seems everybody is everybody else’s heir, and some of the credit for that must go to one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, wherever he may be.