May... or may not
So, that's that then. Tony Blair's going next May and he'll announce that in September before the Labour Party Conference. Or so a number of my distinguished fellow commentators predict.
Don't believe a word of it.
I don't mean to suggest that they're making it up. I've no doubt that assorted Blairite MPs or confidants have said as much. I'm simply saying that you need to distinguish between the Westminster war gaming that fills many an idle hour and a plan or decision by the man himself.
What Charles Clarke's musings this week have highlighted is how Tony Blair's prime ministerial horizon is drawing ever closer. His range of possible departure dates are narrowing. Whether or not the former home secretary's remarks were fuelled or coloured by anger, disappointment or calculation, what he said reflects the mood of many in Team Blair who no longer see how he can carry on until 2008.
The party, they fear, may not tolerate another conference at which Tony Blair presents himself as the man of the future and slaps down Gordon Brown's claims to that title. Friends of Mr Brown - whether organised by him or acting as a result of their own frustration - will once again demand clarity about the "transition" just as they did after May's elections.
Then, of course, there's next May's electoral test. Those fearing another hammering in the locals and in the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliamentary elections may demand change. Thus go the conversations that are fuelling the growing sense that Tony Blair will have to say something this autumn and will have to go by next May. That, and the knowledge that he once remarked that Margaret Thatcher should have stood down on the 10th anniversary of her election with her reputation intact.
As you'll recall, that same anniversary comes for this prime minister next May.
And yet... and yet. Until and unless someone is willing to bring Tony Blair down, he remains the master of the timing of his departure. He knows as well that the public will not easily forgive the removal of a man who's already announced he's going.
He knows that Gordon Brown fears the consequences of removing him even more than he hates the prospect of him staying in office. He knows too that his old friend "events" might, once again, throw him a lifeline.
Any real - rather than merely political - crisis would highlight his experience and leadership and shame his critics into staying silent. Thus, the prime minister will not, if recent history is any guide, make any decisions until he absolutely has to.
So, if I were a betting man I'd wager that he won't still be around next summer. But I'm not a betting man and I wouldn't advise you to wager much on this latest proclamation of what Tony Blair will do.
I'm 
Comments
Sounds very sensible. It's always worth remembering that those in the Brown and Blair camps have much more at stake than Brown or Blair themselves. Those that have yet to make a name for themselves are concerned for their own future; a future contingent on powerful patronage. So Brown may be willing to wait longer than some of those in his camp.
All that we can be certain of is that like the second coming, nobody other than the man himself can say when it will finally happen.
May I open a separate line of inquiry? So far Tony Blair has out-lasted 3 91Èȱ¬ Politics Editors. There's an outside chance that Tony will make it to a 4th editor - hopefully one who's more interested in current affairs than wild speculation about whether he will or won't stand down. Of course, all this depends on the state of the economy, the mood of the governors, the length of Andrew Marr's arms and the price of fish. Watch this space!
I may not be an expert at politics, but there is one thing I know about New Labour and that is "use one thing to deflect attention from another"
The only reason Blair made that statement about not serving a full fourth term is to deflect attention from the prospect of a bad result in Hartlepool (and that's the only reason). I am still firmly of the opinion that Mr. Blair will stand down as leader of Labour in November 2008 (having beaten Lady Thatcher's tenure record, which is the ultimate aim of New Labour)
With regards 'events', surely events have the potential to hasten his departure as much as delay it. An international crisis might require Blair’s experience or it may be perceived as his fault for example.
Talk about Blair’s tenure is not wild speculation, but absolutely crucial to any political reporting at this time. Substantive policy, and it’s coverage, are of course linked to whoever is going to be pushing that through.
Finally, beating the length of Mrs T’s stretch might be Blair’s ultimate aim, although I doubt it. However, trying to establish as the unifying aim of an entire political party strikes me as a bit of a straw man if you ask me.
I argue the case for him going in autumn 2007, but allow for the possibility - however remote - that the political climate will turn in his favour, as it did during the summer of 2005.
By the way, I like your "And yet, and yet..." technique, Nick - you seem to use it quite a lot.
You are absolutely right that many people will not forgive Brown if he gets rid of Blair. Its a pity that he and others like the media cannot just get on with dealing with the pertinant issues of the day that affect the people of the UK and the rest of the World. Why there has to be this ENDLESS speculation over a man who the British public voted to spend a FULL term as prime minister beats me. You lot really have too much time on your hands. Why not work out how we can get on better with Islam or increase respect in the comunity instead of the incessant soap opera style of reporting that you are obsessed with.
I know Blair has said he'll step down, but I wouldn't be surprised if he does fight the next election. (NB I'm not saying he will, in fact it's unlikely, but just unsurprising if it happens). He has survived so many events that would have spelt the end for other PMs. One major event such as a terrorist attack (God forbid), something in Iran etc and Blair may stay on "for the sake of continuity at this important time" or similar excuse.
At the end of the day all of this talk is speculation-even if the info comes from Tony Blairs best ally- until Tony Blair tells someone when he is going to step down no one actually knows when it will be so I will repeat once again the fact that I am very, very bored of reading and talking about this!! Yawn yawn
My only comments are Politicians and there desperate bids to hang on are these...one well known quote :
All political careers end in failure
and that marvellous Robin Day retort
to the then Tory Defence Minister John Knott...."Why should we believe
you..a if I may say so..a here today
gone tommrow politician "
Nick the point is that PMS and others do not know when to go.
The biggest lies Blair EVER told was when he won in 1997 he said his Govt would be purer than pure ( cue laughter) and "we are the servants of the people..they are the masters"
Oh sure...Blair and his wife are
now drugged with power its a fix they need professional help to quit
like the men in grey suits or in the case of Labour sports jackets.
Why doesn't Blair go soon?
Primarily he wants at least one major substantive completed positive change which he can point to and say "I made a difference".
On the current rate of delivery that is some way off yet so I don't see Blair going quietly for quite some time.
However as poor general election prospects loom closer those who are about to die may feel no inhibitions about a throw of the dice for survival, combine with the Brown Brigade and ditch him.
I don't suppose that Blair and Brown could have cooked up that last re-shuffle to move Clarke and Straw, the other two biggest heavyweights in the Labour Government in recent months, neatly out of their collective paths, could they? I mean, you wouldn't want to interfere with an orderly transition of power, would you? After all we do live in a democracy and not under an imperial dynasty, don't we?
No, no, I must go and instantly purge myself for having such cynical and unwholesome thoughts!
Tom Maxwell is right about PMQs not being a serious examination of the government. It never has been. The geovernment uses it to get issues raised that they want and the opposition parties try to socre points and (in the case of the Lib Dems and until recently the Toreis) remind us all that they exist. And you're wrong about Blair. Blair is the intellectual and political superior of the vast majority of the Commons and is neither lame nor cornered (although I appreciate that by repeating this you are desperately hoping it will come true - rather Gobbels-esque in fact). Although it might be an inconvenient fact fot you, there are a great many people inside the Labour Party and out who are very grateful for what he and the three Labour administrations have done for the country. He will be missed by many when he goes, but Labour Party members will get behind whoever follows him and give the Tories a damn good kicking at the next General Election.
I'm with Harry Hayfield on this. He's aiming to hang on until to equal Thatcher's time in office.
I agree entirely with your 'and yet ....and yet' I do not think that Blair has or ever had any intention of resigning. He will have to be dragged screaming through the doors of No10. He has a reactionary Thatcherite agenda to push through and everything he does is intended to ensure that programme is carried through. Brown has now signed up to every dot and comma of that programme, including Iraq. Therefore he willnot push the issue because it will derail the possiblilty of carrying that Thatcherite programme through.
Blair has said many times he has no loyalty to the Labour Party. If Blair cannot do it through 'New Labour' alone, then he will do it in alliance with the Tories. A defacto Blair/Tory alliance is of course already in operation in Parliamentary votes.
His growing unpopularity and the diminishing ranks of the 'New Labour Project's leaders in Parliament meant he had to respond. The Declaration of Intent to resign was a ploy designed to muddle his opponents by throwing a 'ball of confusion'into their ranks and buy him time. If he can hang on long enough, even if he is rejected as the Labour Party's leader, he can hope to become the leader of a New Labour/Tory parliamentary group in the event of a hung Parliament. Only a threat by the unions to withdraw financial support from Labour will force the issue and put a stop to all this 'waiting for Gordo'.
You say that Blair should take his own advice and step down after 10 years with his reputation intact. Isn't it a bit late for that?
Speculation,Speculation,Speculation. Surely after all these years of New Labour spin, disinformation and pure mendaciousness you can't believe any story about Saint Tone leaving No 10, the hub of the cult of blairism. I will only believe it when i see him carried out kicking and screaming that his work is not finished.
I honestly do not see Gordon winning an election, the conservatives can obviously afford to continue the Scottish thing. Voters have a very short memory, if Labour bring in a Blairite sooner rather than later then there's a chance for some voter recovery - and another 10 years of New Labour. It now seems unlikely that there will just be a simple handover of power in May.
Mr. Robinson, it is begining to look very transparent that you and the 91Èȱ¬ are trying to cover up for 'two stories' Prescott. Either that or you are far too stupid to be involved in spending our license fees !