I don't know what Tony Blair's actual views are (He used to be Prime Minister of Britain.  But he isn't any more.  He has converted to Catholicism–something he waited to do until he left office, for to avoid breaking the law), but he inadvisedly let Michael Gerson explain them.  Gerson writes:

But Blair is also critical of an "aggressive secularization," which, he told me, makes it easier to "forget a higher calling than the fulfillment of our own desires." Religious faith, at its best, not only encourages idealism, it provides an explanation and foundation for human rights and dignity, "an inalienable principle, rising above relativism and expediency." This does not "eliminate the painful compromises of political existence," Blair recognizes. But it does mean that "not everything can be considered in a utilitarian way." Blair defends a pluralism without relativism, a tolerance consistent with a belief in religious and moral truth — indeed, a tolerance that arises from within those convictions.

That view–that religious faith "provides an explanation and foundation for human rights" seems to be slightly self-refuting–it suggests that atheists (or for that matter people whose religious views differ from Blair's and Gerson's) cannot explain human rights.  It rejects pluralism at the same time that it purports to embrace it.  We embrace pluralism, one who affirms this view might say, it's just that you're an amoral or an immoral relativist–which has no place in our pluralistic view.

He might say, of course, certain religious doctrines or faiths are not inconsistent with political and moral and religious pluralism.  And that pluralism of the political, moral, and religious variety is not the sole property of any one member of the plural.  He might.  But he didn't.