who came to power in May 1997, the young and popular leader of the Labour Party, Tony Blair, seemed to be well placed to implement his electoral programme, which in some respects was as radical as that of his illustrative predecessor in 1945 or that which led Margaret Thatcher to 10 Downing Street in 1979. Four years later, supporters and opponents of New Labour did not agree on the state of play. For the disused blame, the promising speech of the first months was not accompanied by facts, and communication took precedence over content. From this point of view, Tony Blair, often presented as the heir digree of the Dame de Fer, is in line with the neo-liberals of the 1980s. For others, the fundamental reforms introduced since 1997, particularly those of the institutions, represent a real cut from the past. They see it as a revolution, expected for too long, in the political, social and economic life of the country. On the contrary, some complain about a backsliding which endangers the achievements of the Thai era and even risks the break-up of the United Kingdom. Pragmatism and electionalist caution or ambitious reforms, alternation or continuity with previous governments, the conclusions drawn from the first four years of the New Labour Government continue to diverge. While the final assessment is still not easy to draw up when Tony Blair comes to the end of his first term of office, this debate is more exciting than ever.