Tony Blair's memoirs, long awaited, cover the struggle and frustrations of opposition, the creation of New Labour and the daily grind of government over 13 years. As a not disinterested spectator I opened them with some curiosity, wondering if I would recognise the journey.

Much has been said already about the relationship between Tony and Gordon Brown. It was complex, undoubtedly, but should not distract from Labour's record in office. That said, you cannot write the history of the past 15 years without acknowledging two things. First, we would never have won so convincingly in 1997 without their combined effort. Second, towards the end, their deteriorating relationship and the increasing stridency of their disagreements destabilised the government and did our reputation great harm.

Tony makes the point that for "most normal people" politics is "a distant, occasionally irritating fog". He is right. As a result, in the absence of strong and readily understood policies or ideas, personality is the thing that will cut through this fog. And it did. One day there will no doubt be a fair account of Gordon's premiership, and his role in the Labour party. It won't be uncritical  no politician can ever expect that. And it's well known that he and I too had our dark moments. I read with wry amusement how Tony Blair felt after much agonising that he couldn't sack his chancellor. History has a habit of repeating itself.

Having said that, New Labour could not have been brought into being without Gordon's drive and intellectual underpinning, something Tony generously acknowledges. It was Gordon who changed our policies on tax and spend, and welfare to work. These changes were made in the face of internal Labour party opposition but they chimed with the electorate, a necessary requirement for winning a general election.

It is true that Gordon found yielding to Tony after John Smith's death difficult. And that was something that never went away. The truth is that Tony Blair was the right leader in 1994. He had, and to a large extent still has, an ability to talk to people in a way they understand. He recognised how, in the 1990s, we had to break out from our traditional support, not at its expense, but to reach out to the widest possible constituency. We had to acknowledge how the world was very different, to convince millions of people we had something to say. Tony was the man to do that. As he rightly says, as a politician he was very non-political in his approach. And he caught the mood of the time.

Much of this book is, not surprisingly, about New Labour. Of course "New Labour" means different things to different people. Indeed, there are times when reading this book you might be forgiven for thinking that for Tony it meant, "New Labour  c'est moi". For me, while the brand may be "of its time", its underlying premise remains as true today as it was then. Whatever our party colours we must govern for the whole country. Middle Britain remains as important now as it was then. We forget the lessons we learnt then at our peril. The Labour party cannot and will not win by retreating into our laager.

Tony's attitude to the party then and now is striking. We know he wasn't born into it, and certainly would not regard himself as part of a "movement". Then again, neither would I. Reading his memoir, "semi-detached" doesn't do justice to where I think Tony is now  which is a pity because he still has a lot to say. Maybe this detachment influenced his view of cabinet government. Indeed he says that what is needed is not so much politicians as project managers. Towards the end of the book he wonders if the House of Commons is the best place to produce ministers because of their lack of managerial ability. That cannot be right. It is judgment that counts in politics. You can always hire a good manager.

I sat at the Cabinet table for 13 years. On too many occasions we didn't discuss issues, in principle, well before the die was cast. Tuition fees, a policy which has worked, was never discussed properly, so the result was no collective ownership. On Lebanon there was little discussion. And because he thought it was the right thing to do, he was prepared to ignore public opinion and any reservations there may have been in the Cabinet.It was only on the single currency that Tony expended a great deal of energy, including exceptional Cabinet consultation, trying to get us to join. I'm glad we didn't. And despite Tony's protestations, in the 10 years I served under his premiership my recollection is that the economic side of things was largely left to Gordon.

On public service reform, on which Tony was far more right than wrong, he laments his inability to deliver more radical reform. Wider ministerial buy-in would have helped. But I also wonder how much more we could have done in terms of domestic policy if Tony had not been so distracted by four separate conflicts  critically Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tony is quite right that, left to their own devices, there are still people in our party who instinctively look at public services from the point of view of the producer, not the consumer. We should always be on the side of the people for whose benefit services are provided. But Tony's lesson for the party is two-sided. There were times reading this book when reform seemed to become an end in itself.Reform is necessary, but no use unless you convince people that the end you're trying to get to is where they want to be.

I am grateful for his very kind remarks about my chancellorship. And yes, his guess at my frustrations is spot-on. However, what he has to say about the economy leaves me slightly uneasy. I agree with his views on tax and spend, on incentives, on the need to win business support. I always have. I also strongly agree that Labour has to be about aspiration. And the signals we send on that are important.

But in his postscript, written in the aftermath of the banking crisis and after the election, I part company with his critique. He is wrong to suggest that those of us who supported a Keynesian response to the economic crisis thought "the state was back in vogue". It is an incontrovertible fact that in times of such crisis only the government can step into the breach. That is quite a different thing from suggesting that the state should do everything. Some may take that view, but many of us don't. And to characterise Gordon as having taken that view is wrong.

Part of the reason that we did not nationalise Northern Rock immediately was because neither Gordon nor I wanted to own one bank, and far less four of them. The government had to act, not because of some return to an outdated ideology but because, as Tony might have said, it was "common sense". And it worked.

The top rate of tax went up, not as a matter of ideology, but because frankly it was fair that those who were better off and who had benefited most during the good times helped to get borrowing down. Tony tackles head-on the reasons for Labour losing the general election. And this is relevant to what is still a central question for the Labour party. Did we lose because we weren't New Labour any more? Tony's answer is clear and in the affirmative. It is true we did lose some of the broad constituency that had maintained us in office. But Tony should take comfort from the fact that he moved the political centre of gravity not only of the Labour party but of the country. And he deserves great credit for that.

The truth is that we had been losing for some time. Our victory in 2005 had as much to do with Michael Howard, the then Tory leader, as it did with us. People weren't enthusiastic. Five years later we were tired. We failed to articulate a clear sense of direction and conviction. If you're weak on the policy, you're back to the personalities, and on that we lost. Tony was and is a formidable politician  the Good Friday Agreement is testament to that. But as he says, being right isn't good enough unless you can take people with you  and as he notes, towards the end he didn't.

This is a good read and shows us what can be done when we have confidence, clarity and a clear sense of purpose: we can win and change the country for the better.

Alistair Darling is MP for Edinburgh South West and shadow chancellor of the exchequer.