91热爆

This won鈥檛 help at all! Everyone will just start again with the dates game but with more limited parameters. Election probable for 2009 so how long is a decent run up time? 18 months/ 2 years? So that rules out late 2008 then. So we are looking at late 2007 I鈥檇 say 鈥� just before conference? Though why wait until then though? Not much business happens over the summer so perhaps June 2007 would be better? Though the May 2007 elections are likely to be dreadful again 鈥� so he鈥檇 almost certainly have to go. What's that about a year then? Let鈥檚 count down the days. If anything, this will intensify things 鈥�

Blair's right, all this talk is damaging and distracting.
Let's hope both the government and the entire nation, can now move on and focus completely on Wayne's poorly foot and World Cup glory.

Surely Blair has no intention of giving over to Gordon Brown until he has had at least one minute more in office than did Margaret Thatcher.MMS

Hi Nick, do you not think that Brown (especially his supporters) will want a clean handover and very soon. The longer it takes, the more chance of a proper competition for the leaders position from within Labour and more uncertainty for their man. Tony Blair hanging on does smack of a declining grip on the process of government, something he would do well to remember from the last 18 months of Margaret Thatchers' government. Heaven help him (and Labour) if the bad headlines keep coming and he is forced out with Gordon taking some of the blame. Who would bet against the "new" Cameron being the real sucessor to Blair and not Brown!

I do think that the continual talk of when A-SOT will occur is unhelpful and unnecessary. It seems to me that it is the media, not the general public, who are obsessed with this issue and thoug I am not a labour supporter, I am a keen supporter of allowing government to be focussed on the ISSUES, not the politics of power.

Our media has become so scandal obsessed that the notion of asking policy questions has gone from the agenda and I firmly believe that the entire country is the worse off for it.

Incidentally, we are in danger of doing the same in relation to Mclarens appointment to managing the England team. No sooner is his appointment confirmed than there are calls for him to be replaced. I feel sorry for anyone who takes up the challenge to provide any form of leadership in the UK...

I've got to say Nick I watched that entire news briefing and was as perplexed about it as TB seemed to be. 80%, and that's conservative, of the questions were related to 鈥榳hen he will go鈥� or his relationship with GB (that鈥檚 Gordon Brown not Great Britain, another story!). I don鈥檛 wish to sound like a journo basher but can you or your colleagues not think on your feet, could you not ask him some more relevant questions, particularly on policy.

I understand the questions relating to the reshuffle, Prescott, Straw etc. However, this obsession with his tenure is getting a little boring. Start questioning him on government legislation and policy, or potential future 鈥榠deas鈥�. PLEASE.

I think stand down at Labour Party conference at end of September 2008. That is (nearly) a full 4 year term, gives Gordon 8 months before a May 2009 election and time for a November 2008 Queen's Speech to set out his stall.

beautifully maneouvred! it's turning into tennis!

The Blair-Brown drama, which has been running for quite a long time, including a supposed promise about the succession made by Tony Blair to Gordon Brown some years ago before a general election, is still less dramatic than the Villepin-Sarkozy succession drama across the Channel in France, with its political blackmail and scandal.

Tony Blair has been entirely upfront about this issue and is being punished for it.

He was open in informing the electorate that he intended to serve a full term prior to election and open in saying that he would not run for a 4th term.

Neither Blair, Labour nor the electorate has changed in the past year - the difference is the threat posed by Cameron.

Cameron's only hope is for Brown to win leadership early and for the public to get tired of him. If Brown came in now he'd be PM, but never win an election.

Is there any chance of us (i.e the politicians, who are supposed to serve the people - naive I know) ever introducing term limits? Has any UK administration ever done anything constructive and worthwhile in a late second or third term? Thanks to MT, tired old PM's now have another reason to justify staying in office, even when there are perfectly capable and obvious successors. Virtually no top companies have the same chief execs for ten years; can anybody tell me why the country should be any different? I know this would formalise the 'lame duck' element we have justnow, but at least then we'd know when this situation's definitely going to end instead of this long dragged out nonsense.

Please remember that T.Blair, however his name is spelled, is the person who led us into a predictably disastrous invasion of Iraq on a pack of lies.
None of us can now believe a word he says

Nick keep talking to him about standing down as long as you can.....its better than his off the cuff policies (which rarely materalise). Just maybe he won't screw up on hospitals, education and immigration etc so much if he spends most of his time thinking about servival.

I'm in full agreement with GH of #10 posting.

At least, Blair provides us with lots of entertainment.
Brown is death by a million yawn. God help us even more.

Nick

You saw the Prime Minister in the flesh at this mornings news briefing - but Iv'e never seen him look so ill at ease and under stress. You might have even thought his meeting with his own MP's, due later today, had been brought forward !

Even his known 'standard bearers' from the media appeared to have deserted him. To the extent that it would not suprise me at all that come the next election we will find the Sun telling their readers to vote Tory.

I find the whole issue of Gordon Brown's claim to be the next "divinely-appointed rightful PM" as frankly arrogant and annoying to the point of turning away many of the (formerly Conservative) voters who have elected "New Labour" to power three times.

GB's presumption borders on the realms of arrogance to such an extent that it demonstrates his inability to see reality. Brown's time has already passed; he ought to accept that!

Blair was elected in 1997 because he was seen as having a young and fresh approach to politics. TB's time to pass on the torch may be coming (I know - bad Tory logo analogy!), but there is absolutely NO logical reason to exchange him (age 53) with a 55 year-old Scotsman with no more political experience in government than running the Treasury for nine years.

The next PM will be decided either by a General Election, or a Leadership Election of Labour Party members - GB seems to be forgetting that and foolishly assumes he will win both.

If, by poor judgement, the Labour Party members elect GB as the next leader, they will be allowing the next generation of politicians to come to power (ie David Cameron, age 39).

Nick 鈥� during your next interview with a GB I would be grateful if you could question this idea of 鈥渉eir-presumptive鈥�. If his comments yesterday are anything to go by, he will scupper his chances for good by his answers!

Gordon Brown will never be PM 鈥� that I think is the message of the past few days. GB has had ample opportunity to stick the knife in Blair over the last couple of years, but he lacks the courage to do it. By the time Blair finally does go, I am sure the Labour Party will have tired of this uncharismatic man who would be king, but hasn鈥檛 the balls (even if he has Ed Balls) to do what is necessary. It also seems clear that Blair will do anything to prevent Brown from inheriting his crown, even if it ends with Labour back where it belongs 鈥� in opposition!

Why are the British media so addicted to negativity? I guarantee that by the autumn we shall be hearing how David Cameron has squandered his advantage, and the Lib Dems will be looking for a successor to Ming Campbell.
Blair, Campbell, Cameron, it seems Gordon is at a disadvantage not having a Scottish surname.

It's pretty clear that Brown heads the lesson of Lord Heseltine 'he who weilds the dagger never inherits the crown'. I watched the press conference and one has to say Blair came across well as usual. What shall be interesting is how he performs in front of his backbenchers tonight.

RE Post No.11

While your argument for a fixed term is valid. I fear that it would not fix the 'lame duck' situation that Blair is heading toward. You only have to look to the end of the Clinton administration and now Bush Jr for answers.

The Brown as PM issue is potentially fatal for a Labour Government. I feel that Brown will look like the Old guard compared to Cameron (who gives good media). just look at the poor Lib Dems who have pretty much disappeared under the stewardship of Ming.

I totally agree with Margaret, TB will not retire before November 2008 when he can pass Margaret Thatcher's term of office.
I think he will go in January 2009, that gives up to 15 months for his successor to learn the ropes before the latest time for the next election.

Perhaps it's about time for someone to call that fancy restaurant again, and book Tony and Gordon in, at their favourite table.....

Gordon Brown's electoral appeal is more likely to be enhanced the less the British public see of him , not more. If Labour MPs thought he was more likely to get them re-elected in the marginals Blair would have been routed last election; only the Lib Dems grabbing the disaffected Labour vote saved most of them. Blair knows the only way to protect his legacy is to win a fourth term and he knows there is a real question mark over Brown's ability to deliver against combination of a resurgent Conservative party and the lack lustre Lib-Dems. And the Labour MP's know this. The real question is not when Blair goes but can a more youthful and more popular figure emerge to carry the marginals, and that takes time. And time is all Blair has to offer but that could be criticial to Brown's burning ambition.

All this talk of Blair wanting to outserve Maggie (Nov 20, 2008 is I think the relevant date) reminds me of the final part of the House of Cards trilogy, when Francis Urquart's wife has him assassinated on the day he was due to beat Thatcher's record. The assassination may be metaphorical, but will life imitate art? I think the pressure to go before that will be irresistable but I fancy Blair would at least like to make it to the decade mark. He could do it by announcing in around March next year, before local election meltdown (maybe even preventing it?), with the process completing around June.

Nick,

I understand that the Tories want Blair out asap so that, come the next election Gordon Brown cant lay any blame for the status quo at Blair's door.

But Gordon Brown's camp also want Tony out sooner rather than later - for whatever reasons, best known to them.

They cant both be right, so which do you think is?

Mr Blair may have been joking when he asked you what area of policy you wanted to talk about, and we know you are asking the questions that the news wants to report on, but this endless speculation on a departure date is boring and unnecessary so can we please talk about the things that matter- i have no problem with giving Blair a hard time, but at least ask him about important things and he does have a point when he keeps reminding everybody that it was only 1 year ago that we elected him to power!

It鈥檚 unfortunate how history has a habit of repeating itself. A three-term government, a leader hanging onto the reigns of the nation to the bitter end, a man set to succeed with all the charisma of my chair, and a ministry wrought with ever increasing levels of corruption and scandal! Sounds familiar somehow.

I think Enoch Powell got it right when he said that all political careers end in failure. Blair's has been in freefall for the last year- he didn't get a bloody enough nose over the Iraq scandal in the election last year and things cannot get better for him, only worse. Time to quit Tony. What on earth is the point of going on?

Isn't it obvious to everyone that Tony Blair wants to stay in office as PM just long enough to be in power longer than Margaret Thatcher was. I'm sure once he reaches a day more in office than she was he will announce his resignation.

TB is looking as though he's done eighteen years in office, not nine: time he thought about his family, took Cherie out of the endless talk about her pretensions to being a royalty-kicking President's wife and got on with being a normal human being - a role for which he has been guitar-practising and football-kicking whenever he can. Gordon Brown may or may not have it but he's been waiting long enough for some of the perks. Who is going to have the Chancellorship: we ought to be far more worried about that.

As one who spent far to long in pubs up and down the country I can vouch that the best barman NEVER makes the best landlord. Brown is undoubtedly an honest, hard working, caring man of the highest possible integrity but he is not PM material.
BTW could someone remind Blair that last May the electorate voted for the Labour party to run the country, not for him personally to be prime minister; it was NOT a presidential contest.

Foot and mouth, the petrol crisis, Bernie Ecclestone, Mandelson's various "indiscretions", Iraq, Dr. David Kelly, Blunkett part 1, Blunkett part 2 (aka Son of Blunkett!), ID cards, The De Menezez murder, Jowell and her "problematic memory", cash for peerages, two jags and his elephantine libido, get out of jail free cards for foreigners and the NHS.

All this talk of A-SOT is immaterial. We don't need or want this appalling Government to secure a fourth term, no matter which monkey is at the helm.

New Labour, same old problems.

Nick, you say that there is nothing that certain factions within the Labour party can do to challenge Tony Blair without somehow destroying the party. It seems to me that the party deems that it has already been destroyed or is being so? I watched in shock and awe as the current Prime Minister spoke for the future one during todays breifing. He specifically highlighted areas where no seperation in mindset will be found and frequently suggested that changing from Tony to Gordon was somehow no change at all. You have to wonder?

Around whom can they unite :-
* Blair
* Brown
* A N Other ?

Only Brown I suggest!

The re-shuffle showed that loyalty to Blair does not pay-off. Now lacks a quorum of support. Brown now in control, with a veto over any big issues pursued by Blair without support.

Blair will complete 10 years, Brown will enjoy a 1 year honeymoon and go for general election in May08.

As a matter of fact Nick ,Tony Blair has as far as I can recall never repeated his pledge to serve a full term since he originally made it 18 months ago.It is the 'outriders' like John Reid who keep claiming Blair will serve a full term,more in hope than belief because they want to maximise their own chances of chalenging Brown for the leadership themselves.
David Blunkett has just said something very interesting on channel 4 news-He has talked of the certainty of 'the next few months' ,implying that Blair might be planning to step down in the next 12 months and thats why he doesnt want to pre announce his departure

I recall that when Leader of the Opposition Tony Blair offered John Major the advice "Go and go now". I think he would do well to remember this advice which appears to apply even more to him that his predecessor.

PLEASE Nick, stop talking about Mr Blair's tenure. 91热爆 News is starting to get very BORING.

Now that Mr Blair has been honest enough to set a window of departure - lets stop talking about this. I hope 91热爆 stop talking about this - or your audience is probably going to go down!

Talk about policy we want to know about the things that are going to change our way of life in the future.

The media exaggerate everything - you create a feeling of suspicion in every political event. The bottom line after todays events is this - there is no point firing shots when there is nothing to aim at.

Please Nick - stop.

Would you PLEASE stop squandering your question on the transition?!?

Mr. Blair is absolutely right in the answer that he gave about 20 times during the press conference! He has been completely open and honest about his intentions, and this endless speculation serves only to make government even more difficult and to put the public off politics.

I agree....boring.

After a year or so of pestering Blair about his timing, what have the press discovered ? Nothing that we didn't know a year ago. Zero, nada.

And, since it would be political suicide for Blair to give them anything more, and he does not yet appear suicidal (except, possibly, with boredom at all these questions repeated again and again by unoriginal hacks) that's what we are going to get.

There are plenty of issues out there to explore, investigate....things that might even, who knows, bring down Tony Blair. But that would involve hard work and orginality.

So, Nick, when are you retiring ?

Soon after the last election - outside No 10 with lips trembling Blair used words like ' I we the government ' or ' we the government.
In the last few days I have only heard ' I have won the election .... only 12 months ago etc'
What a transformation!!

Why Gordon Brown as successor to Tony Blair?

GB doesn't look like a natural leader and his talks of renewal look pretty hollow?

Cameron is already up and running with his renewal of the Conservative party.

GB and stalking horse(s): pair, team, or herd. The Labour party is in danger of leaving things too late.

Does the public care? Probably not, they just want a change.

Nick, you used the phrase 'like a pilot walking away from the flames' -in a purely political sense -regarding Mr Blair's political flame-proofness (is that a word ;-) the other day - marvellous.

But maybe we should pause to consider that, while our groomed leaders worry about their political status, 1 British woman, 4 men, and several more Iraqi citizens died in an incident surrounding a downed helicopter in Iraq as a result of political decisions.

Why don't politicians ever just give up and admit they have failed?

When I go to bed at night, I may well rue my failures throughout the day - but at least I can sleep easy.

Cheers

Nick

p.s. I write silly science articles for the 91热爆 sometimes - one was about getting wet in the rain.

Nick,
I am not sure Gordon Brown has got what it takes to be PM. Great statesmen do not wait patiently around for their just desserts. They make them happen.
Either Gordon does a Brutus to his Emperor, or he may well be elbowed aside in the rush that follows the Great Helmsman's departure.

Labour had a mere 36% of the popular vote - only 3% more than the Conservatives in the 2005 election. Wasn't this the shakiest, flakiest, of mandates? ... And this was BEFORE we knew they were so criminally negligent in releasing so many foreign criminals to disappear back into, and prey upon, the unsuspecting law-abiding community. Surely, Labour has forfeited any moral right to govern. Still the nauseating spectacle of this guy (the actor-par-excellence), with utter delusions about his own greatness and his "reforms" and his eye firmly set on Mrs T's record, goes on .... As for Labour's alternative, just recall the Dunfermline by-election!

You suggest that Brown has to accede to Blair's timetable or risk detroying his inheritance.

This presents the Prime Minister with a blank cheque.

While Blair remains in power his acolytes, such as Lord Adonis, are free to pursue their market obsessions - leaving the rest of the Labour Party with the choice of going along with quasi-Thatcherite dogma or being stigmatised as part of an 'oppositionist' far left.

I'm pleased the Prime Minister has dealt with a crisis caused and fueled by people who are putting themselves before their respective parties, organisations, and nation.

My capacity for enduring disruption and negativity has hit bottom, and I would rather a more rounded and mature approach was taken by all stakeholders in British politics.

Rather than dwell on this, I would like the remaining years of Prime Minister Blair to be one of positive consensus, achievement, and something of value everyone can take pride in.

To wish otherwise is a moral evil.

Taking into account both Tony's comments and the cabinet reshuffle, one thing we can be certain about is that no change of leadership will occur within the next year, and if two weeks can so radically affect the standing of the leading party, then think of the possible forward steps that Labour can take in a whole year. I personally believe that Gordon Brown is the best man to lead us into the next election, BUT I feel that Tony has still a great deal of potential, and a lot to prove to himself. Hopefully he will see this next year (most likely two) as an opportunity to push Labour hard and fast in the right direction; and even though Ming may be the Olympic runner, Tony will be the sprint finisher.

If Brown does not stop this pointless clamouring for Blair to go he seriously risks losing support. Blair was voted in 12 months ago and we expect him to serve a full third term. Blair was given a mandate by the British people. Brown was not voted in, and I doubt he would get voted in ahead of Cameron. Can we all just focus on issues that affect us all and stop this soap opera style circus. There is war, famine, disease and all the British media worries about is the 'Tony and Gordon' show. Grow up!

It must be very galling for you media-types to get it wrong about Mr Blair yet again. He is still Prime Minister, has a majority in the House and will go when he's ready, not when you lot say so. To avoid getting it wrong again, why don't you all just run the headline "Blair to go sometime in the future", and then get back to reporting the news instead of trying to make it.

In reply to Glenny # 39

It is remarkable to see how there are still staunch supporters of TB who reject reality.
Journalists work on tip offs of "friends" of the leaders. Is it being suggested that these should be ignored and act as promoters of TB's propaganda instead? No, thanks. We already have enough of that troughout the day from the various Reid, Jowell, Hewitt and Beckett. Let the journalists be independent and give us the real stories.

Whatever happened to democracy? Surely GB should not be annointed as the crown prince, but should have to prove himself in an election even if it is just for Labour Party members.

Is there any chance of the 91热爆 following a news agenda based on matters that effect peoples working and living lives? Westminster village piffle is just not 'News'!

Nick

I often think the media is woefully guilty of creating ,rather than reporting, the news.

But not this time. Despite their constant denials of any rift, the body language between Blair and Brown tells you differently. They clearly dislike each other to the extent they cannot hide it. All the cover up tales from Reid and Prescott makes the situation all the more pathetic.

Unless they are prepared to put their personal animosity to one side -and actually do this with conviction this time around - then the spectacle of their gladiatorial infighting will continue to grab the headlines. And the Labour Party will continue to suffer as a result.

Nick - As is normal at these briefings the PM rattled off his pre-prepared answers about "transition" and then gave us a couple more scraps of info (i.e. Gordon's the man - first time we've actually heard that!)

However, I was personally more interested in the issue that Jon Snow focused on, about Jack Straw being moved:

The PM insisted that it had been in the pipeline and wasn't due to displeasure - from the leaders on either side of the Atlantic - which seemed to make sense at the time. However, with Margaret Beckett already using slightly different language at the UN meeting, I wondered if there was any briefings (maybe by Jack Straw's people) that indicate otherwise??

Rob mason (5), complains that the media are to blame for the state of politics in this country. Whne it was the labour party who devauled parliament by releasing policy in press conferences rather than discussing them in the chamber. And they also a to blame for bringing personality politics to the front(re David is a lizard & Howard is a pig).

Despite this outcome there still remain some unasked questions. Do we all believe that Brown is capable of setting things right, bearing in mind his unequivocal support for so much of what has gone before? And do we actually trust him after his performance as Chancellor in increasing stealth and direct taxes, raiding pensions etc?

Then there will be the great blood-letting after a successor is appointed - what will that do to New Labour's stability?

The later Blair leaves office the slimmer are Labour's chances at the next election - that's if they have any at all.

'Ample time' - in whose opinion, for whom and to do what?

I have never rated Mr Brown as a potential Prime minister, he is too dull and has poor people skill, and he is a Technocrat, able to run departments but not inspire people to follow him at a general election. The Labour Party made the choice between Brown and Blair in 1994. They were right in their choice then and nothing has changed since then. Mr Blair has given them 3 general election victories. What else do they want?

91热爆 Secretary John Reid said that in-fighting within the Labour Party should stop as Tony Blair had been voted in last year & therefore he has a mandate from the people to rule until the full term of this government. This implies that New Labour has changed Government from collective cabinet to presential.
I this is the case can we assume that when Blair hands over to Brown the people can vote & give Brown a mandate also?

Well, if Tony Blair says 'trust me', surely that's end of story then?

I think the 91热爆 is correct to persue this issue. To those bloggers who say that it is wasting a question I can only say that to not gain a sufficient response to one asked is a true waste. This is and remains an important topic of conversation as without clarity discussion of the future becomes hearsay.

Richard #63 suggests that until there is a reply to the question, it should continue to be set.

But since it is impossible for Blair to answer the question until the day he is willing to relinquish power, he will not reply with any more clarity than he has already done, except possibly in private to Brown, and that too would possibly be lethal.

So what's the point ? Blair has a quite legitimate reason for not replying, whether people like that or not.

So pin him down on something else - there are lots of areas where he has no excuse for obfusceration and where he can more plainly be held to account if he tries.

But maybe that sells fewer papers and makes for less (superficially) dramatic news flashes. Which is all this is about.

I would like to know why politicians think that our taxes pay them to engage in endless infighting and backstabbing, rather than getting on with running the country.

Arguably, this should be a resignation issue. Any politician who ignores his job description to this degree (I'm pretty sure it isn't part of their contract to rubbish each other) doesn't deserve to represent the people.

Why does Brown want to get into No. 10 as fast a possible?
Surely he wants to get away from the mess he has made in his present job.
Ruining pensions, enormous debts building up "Off the Books", etc etc.
Why should we have confidence in his ability in any other job?

Can the 'news' media actually begin to tackle and report important issues, such as policy (or the lack of in the case of the Conservatives!), rather than creating a soap opera over personalities?

In reply to John, #53

What is the issue at hand John? Too many times the media have asked Mr Blair the same old question. Quite simply - it is boring. Find another way to bring him down if you want to 鈥� I am sure there are plenty more issues.

Don鈥檛 feel obliged, but count the times it was asked or when jornalists tried to tread down that path.

Let鈥檚 have no talk of staunch supporters and Blairites. Of course there were mistakes in this government. This is the single largest organisation in Britain - there are going to be mistakes. You have to expect that 鈥� and you have to expect successes which go unseen.

As for friends - John has it ever occurred to you the amount of "friends" Nick has encountered (or did not want to encounter - because it would not make news) who have support for this PM (yep 2/3鈥檚). Nope - just the one Harriet who comes out of his hole to say something bad about him reaches the news.

Imagine people asking you when you will retire in your job 30 times a day. Someone should come back to reality.

Glenny

P.S. When Mr Blair finishes his term - this country will see what they missed.

We receive political information through the media.Two sorts:
Factual reporting-more than enough to damage the government recently.
Analysis/speculation/hype/anonymous sources(Robinson's stock-in-trade).
It insults the intelligence.Can any member of the real world explain why politicians-of all people for God's sake-need to make comments on an anonymous basis?If all the Blair/Brown reports had been on an attributed basis it would be a footnote-as it will be in history.Why should we believe comments from a reporter on his say so without attribution?Can you imagine the judicial system similarly run?'M'lud I have it on anonymous sources this man murdered his wife'.It's one big joke-at our considerable expense.

I'm with Andy (#57). Nick, what's the real story of Jack Staw's demotion? It can only be seen as that, particularly given the Condi love-in last month! I'm amazed that JS took the brief rather than doing a Charles Clarke.

And is Labour serious about Lords reform?

I would point out that the reason it is important that we know if Blair is going or not is because he is responsible for creating government policy but on two major issues now the Parliamentary Labour Party has voted against him. Blair has therefore become a lame duck leader since he cannot get policy enacted into law. We therefore need a new leader that at least can manage to get his own party to back his policies. As far as the electorate are concerned it is pretty clear that most ordinary people voted labour only because they wanted Gordon Brown to stay as Chancellor thus ensuring that mortgage rates stayed low - as soon as Gordon moves into any other role then Labour's chance of winning another election evaporate.

Kim 64 writes:

"So pin him down on something else...."

There in lies the problem. It is difficult to pin this man down, his feild craft is impressive. Now seems to be the correct time to outflank and dispose of him.

An uncomfortable third term, internal rifts and backbenchers handing the leader the whisky bottle and the revolver. It did for the Conservatives in 1990 - so no wonder Tony and Gordon are pleading for an orderly handover of power.

I know that we elect the governing party rather than a leader. But I do think that the decision on who should be Prime Minister should rest with the voters, and should not be subject to a secret carve-up between Labour's warring factions.

Richard (# 73)

(btw, this sounds like we are at an ice skating rink....come in number 73 your time is up...).

I agree, he's a tough guy to pin down, that's the nature of the beast. As is possibly misplaced arrogance and just a bit of ambition. It's a requirement for the job, that's how he got there.

But asking him, repeatedly, for the answer to the Question He Must Not Answer isn't subtle, clever, or penetrating. It will elicit no answer. It achieves nothing.

Except for the journalist, who can then report (with baited breath to his adoring audience) that the PM didn't answer HIS question. Forget the fact that it's been asked zillion times before in the previous 10 minutes. It was HIS question, so it's special.

One day, when TB is ready, he'll give an answer. Until then, a million opportunities to question and embarrass the PM will have been wasted and a million self-regarding journalists will have filed their self-important reports about how they asked The Question.

Fearless lot.

kim

Kim 76

I have to agree that at some point we must move on. I simply see an opportunity for a concerted effort to remove him. I think that public opinion of Tony Blair is clear, I also feel that a certain amount of collateral damage is being inflicted on the Labour party by his continued presence. The idea of four more years of division within and without paints a bleak picture for the future of the United Kingdom. It's likely that we'll be forced to continue skating round the issue though.

It is NOT the media generating this. It is the current ministers, former ministers, Brownite MPs and even fairly loyal MPs in the PLP who are doing this. When they stop putting themself up for interview/ commenting and briefing on this, the media will stop reporting it. If Nick and his colleagues start ignoring this then they are not doing their job. This is the debate which is taking place in Westminster and they owe us a duty to report that - is anyone discusing anything else?

I think Blair is toast. The media smell blood. Its similar to what happened with John Major when the media started digging around for every little sleaze story they could find. I see Ruth Kelly is now the subject of attacks for hyprocrisy because of this "nimbyism" story. The media won't rest until they have hounded Blair out of office, and every move they make will be supported by Brown and his pals who no doubt are feeding these stories to the press. Blair won't last the year.

I just wanted to say this. Tories made gains but all original publicity was about cabinet changes. If self indulgent labour MPs and ex-ministers had kept their mouths shut the publicity would have been positive and the Tories would have been kept off the front pages.

I personally am of the belief that Tony Blair should remain in power for as long as possible. He is an effective politician who lately seems to present arguments that he believes are right - education, pensions, nuclear power etc (that is coming from me a Tory supporter). And in response to a comment made above - Iraq was a legal war - remember resolution 1441, not to mention the fact that the UN is NOT a neutral organisation - five countries dictate the security council voting in their own interests - there is therefore no international law in the first instance.

Cameron has not as of yet come up with hard policies and for that reason it is difficult to vote for him with any conviction. Ming Campbell and the Liberal Democrats are laughable.

Brown is problematic - likes tax rises, has made errors in the economy (eg selling off our gold at a reduced price, continual borrowing of money when the economy is not in trouble, breaking his own golden rule etc) He is Scottish and therefore is not as accountable as Blair was for policies that he introduced which affect England. Hes an old Labour man - tax the rich until the pips squeek!!!

None of the leaders above give me any great confidence in the political arena at the moment - the answer Anne Widdecombe for Prime Minister!

SORRY to hear about the death of MR
ERIC FORTH a real parliamentarian
and a BRILLIANT opposition MP maybe
the only real one.A very skilled
political infighter i did not agree
with the man but he was VERY GOOD.
R.I.P.