91热爆

This whole thing has a feeling of inevitability to me. Previous wobbles haven't felt anything like this to me (as a member of Joe Public).

I think Blair will be de-stabilised and it's only a matter of time until a formal challenge is mounted.

What are the Labour rules on this?

Perhaps Blair should resign the Govt....That would set the cat amongst the pigeons and scare the pants off G Brown

In all the talk about when Blair should step down, will Brown succeed him, who can work with whom, I only hear self and party interest, never the country or constituents. Could it be that fear of job losses is the prime mover in all this.

The country's had enough, now his party's had enough - why on earth won't Blair quit while he's still got a vestige of dignity left?

His thinly veiled vanity in trying to secure a place in history as a 10-year prime minister is doing untold damage to the country.

Lets face it, Blair has already squandered two huge electoral mandates and failed to capitalise on a healthy third majority.

The government could have changed Britain forever, but lacked the guts to deviate materially from what is, in reality, a tired parody of the policies meted out by the foregoing Tory administration.

In all honesty, I cannot see a situation whereby Tony Blair can hold on for many more weeks, let alone months.

When a PM loses the support of significant number of the payroll vote, his position looks increasingly untenable.

Labour Party rules make it very tricky to challenge a sitting leader from what I understand - but a challenge may well be mounted.

It might be that a challenge is planned and TB is offered a chance to resign prior to it being launched.

There is no way now that he can leave in a blaze of glory. As with all political careers, his will end in defeat.

It is clear that Brown has not got the killer instinct required for this game. I think Blair will struggle on for some months yet, unless an independently minded senior minister (other than Brown or his acolytes) has the strength of character to go public and resign.

In the meantime, the Labour Government has become a complete shambles in every respect since the last election and I don鈥檛 see how a change of leadership is going to change that 鈥� they are out of touch with the public mood which has shifted decisively to the right.

Blair is currently undergoing the "death of a thousand cuts". We have come to accept that he has no shame, but it now appears that he has no honour either. His position is now clearly untenable, he commands neither the loyalty of his party, or the trust of the country. Who was it who once said, "For God's sake, go." ?

For the Labour Party to try and bounce the Prime Minister out of No.10 so soon after he was re-elected is a big mistake and they will reap the electoral consequences.

Unfortunately a substantial proportion of the Labour party seems oblivious to the fact that the country does not vote for divided parties. Assuming Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, the behaviour of his allies (if they are his allies) guarantees that his would be the last Labour Government for a generation. On the basis of no major difference of policies (between Blairites and Brownites) and with a clear understanding that Blair will resign anyway, this cabal seems determined to risk the future of the Labour Party. Does Brown want to lose the next election?

The media clearly taste blood in the water. They "got" one Conservative leader (Duncan Smith) and one Lib Dem leader (Kennedy) by simply refusing to shut up about whether he would have to go or not. Now they are going for the full set - it's Labour this time, and it's the Prime Minister.
Funny way to run a democracy.

The Prime Minister may be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one.

From what I can tell, this is just a very high-stakes game of poker... and personally, I don't think Mr. Brown has the nerve to show his hand.

It appears that the relatively low poltical station of the people who have already resigned ensure the threat to Mr Blair's leadership is not yet overwhelming. It does serve to undermine the current cabinet however and that can only be a bad thing for the (still very current and still pushing policy changes) Prime minister.

It remains to be seen whether officials with a higher office will follow the coup. If Watson et al are trying to curry favour with Brown should he become Prime Minister I hope that any ensuing promotions under the next PM are treated with suspicion by the public. It can only weaken a party to be openly so divided.

Good luck to Mr Blair (although please leave ID cards well alone)

"we can't know whether Tony Blair will be here for eight more months as he hopes, or just weeks."

err Nick, shouldn't that read days? ;-)

Perhaps all of them should resign, from every single party & we can all then start all over again with the issues that actually matter?

This is a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. I hope these disloyal, talentless people who have been happy to ride on Tony's coat tails for years, and who would have never even seen Government without him, will remember this moment when they are looking for a proper job after the next election. Look what happened to the Tories when they ditched Maggie, downhill all the way. Cameron must be choosing curtains for No 10 already.

I can just see Teflon Tony escaping this for another few months but the opportunity for a delay in his depature is rapidly slipping. He needs to name a date that allows a succesor to be in place before the local elections next year. Anything less than this will be unsatisfactory to large parts of his party and i think we will see a much quicker end to poor old Tony in the Thatcherite way.

It would be best for the Brownites to follow through and force Tony Blair's hand. No good is going to come out of prologing the issue.

Yes yes but if he goes or stays, if it's Blair or Brown, what does it matter? Both are implicated in the failure properly to modernise the Lords, the failure to bring in PR (and proper democracy), a failure to grasp the issues of the EU and the Euro, a failure to solve the healthcare crisis, bodging devolution (so MSPs have undemocratic power over English/Welsh voters) and of course Iraq. Does it really make much of a difference who leads? Labour threw away it's mandate in 1997 and has done very little radical.

Its time for Mr Blair to leave while he is still walking or face humiliation of been dragged out of no 10 like Margaret Thatcher . Mr no one in the country wants you, so do us all a favour and JUST GO!!!!

Mr Blair has brought this saga on himself by announcing his intentions... if this is how he organises his affairs what does that say of his policies? I'd rather teach a lame duck not to quack than to take any notice of the rhetoric that come's out of New Labour... too much spin far too much and arrogance.

How can New Labour function as a government with all the in bickering of 'I want the job' that has already kicked off.

If they really cared as a government they would get it over and done with 'now', but no it's playing personal gain and achievement - that's how it has been all along from day one and the reason I have no time for them.

David
Leigh, Lancs

Why do these MP's believe that the position of PM is for them to decide. At the last election I voted for Tony Blair not Gordon Brown or indeed anyone else to be PM. A recently elected PM should not be effectively removed from office by mis-content MP's. Their arrogant behaviour to ignore the electorate will certainly hurt them at the next election.

Harald Wilson got to do his ten years even if in two stints. As a non lobour voter I would have thought as soon after Blair's ten soon enough.

Nick,
If you are correct, and I think you are, in saying that the Blairites "don't want Gordon Brown to become PM. They wanted their man to stay in office so someone else could emerge" then the answer is clear the Brownites have to follow through and remove Blair. This time things have already gone too far for a resumption of normality. Blair has been fatally damaged and if Brown doesn't move now he will never achieve his ambition to be Prime Minister.

Nick's point about 'calling the dogs off' is a good one. But it is not in Brown's interest to do so if, once a leadership election date is known, others outside the coteries start angling for a candidate. He'd need an awful lot more dogs to do a lot more barking. Instead of a quick result, he'd end up looking like a savage megalomaniac bent on supremacy rather than the healing, sensitive rejuvenator of Labour fortunes and Labour Party morale.

If GB thinks that IF he sees off a Blairite successor all will be well and he'll step in, he's assuming all will go much more smoothly than it is likely to do. That would be his mistake. It's not exactly analogous, but an Alec Douglas-91热爆 could - could - come from somewhere unexpected by the carefully plotting groups.

I'm sure the people who voted for the recently resigned MPs are delighted by the loyalty they've shown their Boss! With friends like these...

In fairness to them though, why should they stick with a guy who's said 'I'm off' when they could start sucking up to the Boss-in-waiting now, to secure some cushy Junior positions next year?

I can't put my finger on it, but there's some phrase about 'rats and sinking ships' that rings a bell!

Mr Blair is interested in one thing only "His place in history" What happens to this country is of minor importance. Whether he goes now , or in ten years time is of little importance and the damage he and his party have done to this country is irreversible

禄 Until we know the answers to those two questions, we can't know whether Tony Blair will be here for eight more months as he hopes, or just weeks.

... or even days (following to-day's events)!

Who cares? Blair has discredited himself over his inability to tell us the truth over Iraq and the WMD fiasco. Brown has pummelled business, the middle class and married couples so hard that they will abandon him at the next election. Only sadness is that the Tories are still not burying this self-indulgent, hypocritical and ineffective government.

it is overdue for Blair to leave and it is disgusting, if the only reason for staying any longer is to prevent Brown from joining Nr. 10.

It is time for the schr枚ders, blairs and other "spin doctor" invention to leave so europe can return to more serious politicians.

Blair has lied about the iraq war proposal, he introduced higher student fees (a result is the fewer from the working class confident to join the university), he was in favor of privatising everything without suitable reason, he producing a bigger gap between poor and rich!

the NHS is an ongoing discrace for the the sixth biggest economy in the world! transport systems are a joke in the UK! usw.

it was never "new labour" but always "old tory" policy What Tony "Thatcher" produced

Tony Blair has the gall to describe Tom Watson "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for signing a letter urging him to go.

That about sums up what I think of Blair's behaviour when persuading us that war on Iraq was necessary.

Out of the two signing a letter is the lesser of two evils. Unless of course it is criticising our 'untouchable' leader.

To be honest I'm not sure Gordon Brown will be an improvement. Blair gave him almost free reign to run domestic policy.

It is Brown who should account for his role in the Tax Credits fiasco

It is Brown who is responsible for the practical meltdown in pensions, thanks to changes in the rules and his raid on pensions to the tune of 拢5billion per year (That is a staggering 拢45billion since NL came to power).

We currently have increasing unemployment, increasing inflation and increasing interest rates.

It is Brown who has allowed public spending to go out of control. Indeed it is Brown who is responsible for the movement of jobs from the Private Sector to the public one. Indeed if it was not for the increase in public sector employment, the unemployment figures would have been going up a lot earlier.

Even here, in Holland, just by listening to the radio, I can sense Blair's time is running out. He was very foolish to announce his departure and then hanging on for dear life. Just like his beloved Maggie, TB doesn't know when enough is enough. And I think Gordon Brown's fate will be tragic: he'll never be a Prime Minister.

Am I missing something here? Surely if Blair goes then the Public - remember us? - should have a say in who becomes Prime Minister of our country. It is called democracy.

If one man quits, resigns, or is pushed, the only true mandate for the replacement person has to be through a General Election.

It is Corporate Governance of the highest order for the highest office surely.

Blaire MUST go and the sooner the better. He has been killing Great Britain and staying on will only "kill it (GB) dead!".

However, what gives Mr Brown and his supporters the right to an automatic coronation? Surely there has to be an honest and open (that would be a change) election by the Labour Party to determine who takes over from Mr Blaire.

This whole scenario makes a soap opera look professional!

I do not want Mr. Blair to be allowed the dignity of choosing his own departure date. I want him to be held to account for his role in making Britain the terrorist target that it now is due to his naive and incompetent handling of world affairs, and for the removal of civil liberties, which he thinks will alleviate the consequences of his actions. The Labour Party must now have the courage to stop protecting him.

Whilst all this feverish speculation regarding the Prime Minister continues , the Country is not getting the full attention it needs from it's Government. Perhaps Mr Blair should put ego second to the priorities of the Electorate.

The Labour Party is starting to act like a party in Opposition rather than in Government.

The more it becomes preoccupied with its own internal affairs, the more likely it is to be defeated at the next election.

Brown's friends may think that they are doing him (and themselves) a favour by their letters and leaks but all they will achieve for him is defeat in a leadership election or the shortest tenancy of No.10 in recent history.

If Blair wants to be remembered as the man who condemned the country to another decade of Conservative rule he should hang on. If not he should go now and give Brown a chance to lead Labour into the next election.

Blair is suffering the consequences of slavishly following US foreign policy and ignoring the views of the British public and his own Labour back benchers. Nightly reports of British soldiers being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as constant reminders that Blair鈥檚 decisions have real consequences. His refusal to condemn the attack by Israel on the Lebanon and call for an immediate cease fire demonstrated how detached he has become from reality in the pursuit of his own glorious legacy.

The problem if Blair goes in the next few months is that Gordon Brown is likely to be the only credible successor. Today鈥檚 Telegraph summed his track record up quite nicely. 鈥淯nder Labour, Britain's growth rates have been shored up, not by genuine out performance, but by a combination of government profligacy, covert welfare dependency and reckless consumer borrowing.鈥�

One can only hope that the public wake up to the fact that Brown has conned the public into feeling wealthy through low interest rates which have created a massive house price bubble while undermining their wage growth through mass immigration and increased taxation.

What a choice Nu Labour offers, a war monger or a discredited finance director.

There is a sense of the same momentum which saw Thatcher (and IDS) toppled. Blair has to understand that he canlonger choose when to go. A group of electors far more influential than the public, i.e his own backbenchers who fear for their seats next time round, will decide it for him. I am constantly astonished by the hubris which afflicts those in power. They must have brilliant antennae to get to the top, but once there, they ignore the lessons of history and the evidence that everyone else can see.

Can blair be impeached when Parliament returns?

The attempt to impeach in the last Parliament never really took off. Given that impeachment is intended to deal with matters that can not be dealt with by the law courts, i.e. Cash for Honours can not cause impeachment.

Presumably impeachment could be started citing 'political paralysis'. It would be a suitable legacy, an illegal war AND impeachment, it would take some topping by Gordon

There are times when I start to believe in politicians, their ideals and commitment to the common good, but that is all pushed to one side when you present them with an opportunity to further their own ambition. It continues to amaze me just how self-serving and destructive politicians are.

We all saw the horrific way the Lib Dems went about dismantling their own leader as a result of his personal problems, and now we see the Labour people behaving in a way that will only bring turmoil to the current Government set-up.

Blair fans will be repulsed at what they are seeing, the Conservatives will be rejoicing, and the floating voters will be put-off voting Labour again because they will not any distinction between any of the main parties.

Coup or no coup - it should make for a fun conference.

As I understand it, a leadership challenge can go ahead if 20% of sitting labour MPs support it. Then there's the vote, with the labour MPs, party members, and trade unions each getting a third of te votes.

This ridiculous boil has to be lanced - Blair has to go clean, and go now. The party cannot continue to alienate the public with this self-indulgent and petulent playground feud or it will risk irrepairable meltdown. In which case no legacy, no legs left in New Labour project at all- just the faint hangover of mere impression management government and the intellectual crime of Bush toadyism.

Blair or Brownites shouldn't the ministers be representing there constituents and not themselves?
What is there argument for change and shouldn't this be made public?

I sincerely hope that when Blair goes, Brown does not succeed him, and certainly not in the much vaunted Coronation that everyone is focussed on. This is a parliamentary democracy; there should be no possibility of such a handover of Prime Ministerial power from one person to another.

Tony Blair should go now..he can move out over the weekend.

If it wasn't for Iraq Blair would have more support. Now he has just upset too many people over a too long a time. The tide is against him. To win back respect he needs to resign fast and bow out gracefully - in the interest of the country and all that. In this fashion the Blairites would win some ground so that they are well placed should Brown stumble. From the Brownites point of view it would then be 'be carful what you wish for!'

For many of the public (the electorate) Blair has become a tarnished image which the Labour Party can well do without. He is paying the price of blindly following Bush's foreign policy instead of listening to those who put him in power. We deserve better, whether it be Gordon Brown or A N Other he couldn't drag the UK much lower in the world's esteem.Blair must go, the sooner the better.

Napoleon stated that good luck was an essential quality for a general and leader.
Whether Blair was right to participate in the invasion of Iraq, history will be the judge but the blunders, the lies the crass ineptitude have ensured that this premeirship has been dogged with bad luck. It has been for Blair what Vietnam was to L.B.Jdespite the much smaller scale of British casualties compared to the U.S in Vietnam.
Without the events there, Blair would be basking in his third term with a larger majority.
Roland

Those calling for a March hand-over are right: there is nothing to be gained by having Blair stay on longer, except to satisfy his vanity by letting him be PM for 10 years. Who's ever going to care about that? I'm not even sure why he does. Unfortunately, Blair has already lost his chance to quit while he was ahead. Like Thatcher, he is now destined to be remebered as a Prime Minister who had to be crow-barred out of office.

I agree with Ed Clarke - is this the crack in the dam that cannot be fixed?

Blair's departure from office looks like it will happen sooner rather than later. It's probably for the best that he goes in good time if Labour is to have a decent chance of sorting itself out and rising to the challenge posed by Dave and the Tories. What gets me is the way Gordon Brown and his merry men feel they are the rightful heirs to the premiership. After all it was the Labour Party under Tony Blair that won the last election. Although Gordon Brown has obviously done alot for the economy, who's to say the public would have voted for a Labour Party led by him? I'm not sure I would.

It's all very sad.

All the good that has been done over the period of the government is being tainted by the usual petty behaviour of Labour MP's. The lid was kept on for a long time but the self destructive nature of the party has finally broken free.

The Tories know they will now win the next election due to the internal mess that Labour is spiralling into. Old habits die hard for Labour.

If I was Tony I would now walk away with dignity and leave the rest of the lunatics to decide who will captain the sinking ship. The Labour wilderness years are calling agin.

I have just typed in John McDonnell into a well known Search Engine and his website came up. He has already launched a Leadership Campaign website !

I know politics is a grubby game, but it's still pretty unsavoury to see that it's the unpaid PPSs who get to fall on their swords while the real contender keeps his hands spotless.

Shades of World War 1... and it's almost exactly as likely that this one will all be over by Christmas.

The resignations today certainly have been a massive blow to the PM. It just adds more fuel to the fire. Certainly, one gets the feeling that there is no authority left with the PM, hence, with that situation, he would have to consider what is best for the party and the county.

"If they can bring themselves to work with Brown, perhaps he'll call the dogs off. Perhaps."

That does not leave much for the PM. As soon as he announces his date for departure, his position is really untenable for that period of time.

Accordingly, brownites will probably want time to settle in. May 31st (as given by the sun)is still a long way off, and a date at this stage would paralyse the PM.

If he should go, it should be sooner rather than later to allow whoever takes over, time to settle in. At this time Brown is not v popular, but over time that can change.

Is the time commodity running out from Brown?

Tom

Oh well. I was hoping Blair would stay on. He was doing a fine job of making Labour u0 electable. I feel Brown can do this job just as well as Blair though. As long as Johnson does not win the leadership election we can look forward to Mr Cameron's premiership.

It is sad to see this happening to someone that has been and still is such an energetic pm and I truly belive that Mr Brown will let the public know that he supports the pm in that such a gesture would not only galvanize the party members but also the public in general behind the labour party.The two men are mature enough to be able to act as such.

Will all be a storm in a tea cup, no senior labour ministers will want to get involved with fear of Labour collapsing to the Tories gain. He will go, no doubt. Everyone knows that he cannot set a deadline for departure as then all his power will diminish. As before, we'll have to wait.

It seems to me that Blair's time is fast running out. Whether that is a good thing or not is another matter. I think you hit the nail on the head in your 10 'o' clock News broadcast last night - if Blair stays he'll have no authority and things won't get done, if he goes we get Brown (probably).

This situation does need to be resolved, quickly, for the good of the country.

This looks like a bunch of ambitious nobodies are nailing their colours to the Gordon Brown mast and being very vocal about it, in the hope of better prospects under him than they currently have under Blair. The damage they are actually doing to Labour concerns them less than their own ambitions.
At the same time, the Blair camp are desperately hoping for an anyone-but-Brown contender to emerge and are deliberately fudging.
Surely the two most powerful men in the UK can come to a private agreement and stop washing the dirty linen in public, and turn their attention instead to keeping the Tories shut out.

I think "disloyal" Labour MPs are like turkeys looking forward to Christmas. The longer Gordon Brown is PM, then the longer he is a target for the media and the opposition and the more accountable he is for the state of the country. I believe he would have a better chance to win the next election the shorter his time in office before it.

I think that once again politicians plays for power are damaging the government and by extension, the people of this country. If the government is to seriously address voter "apathy" then these leadership fiasco's must be dealt with better than this. Blair should have set a timetable or not started this speculation in the first place; and certainly not started it before the last election where it became, I think in a lot of peoples eyes, a reason for voting for labour, and as such a sort manifesto promise.

Bravo Labour. They seem to be in self destruct mode. Whilst Tony Blair is not popular, he is (even now) more electable than Gordon Brown. The smart labourites know it. The middle classes know that Brown is much more a thowback to old labour...as the union and far left clamourings show. Get him in now I say....guarantees Cameron an easier run in with a REAL labour PM to oppose.

What a load of babys and these people help run the country. what statment do they put out by saying if you don't name the date I'll resign well good go if it means the someone who can do, and whats to do the job can come in. You are the ones who are de-stabilzing your goverment. I think you should all grow up and get on with the jobs you are paid to do and run the country (that what the electorate wants) unless of course you don't belive in Labour anymore I'm sure Mr Bliar will name the date in good time for his party. As for Mr Brown He should show some loyalty to His Boss and stop all this stupid bickering in what will be his future party or he will inheret all these babys

It seems Blair's premiership will now suffer a 'death by a thousand cuts'. Ultimately - as in all political leadership struggles - who leads the party will boil down to parliamentary party room numbers. One can only speculate that those in the 'first wave of revolt' have begun to sound out those numbers which may in turn prompt others to publicly declare their intentions. It seems as the days begin to draw in the 'night of the long knives' also draws closer for Blair.

I lost a lot of repect for Claire Short after she was duped by Blair into remaining in the Government following the invasion of Iraq. I regained that respect watching her on Newsnight last night. She was spot on - Blair has delusions of grandeur and regards himself as infallible. But this crisis has momentum and his time has come. This Government has entered the John Major drift.

I'll never vote Labour again. I'll never vote again.

I am still perplexed as to why Gordon Brown and his minions feel he has the god-given right to takeover as PM without consulting the party faithful or considering *gasp* a contest.

Mr Blair is reaping from what he sowed over Iraq. Once a Prime Minister misleads the House of Commons and the electorate then the damage is done.

The problem Mr Blair faces is that no one believes him, not even the Deputy Prime Minister, and as such he has lost credibility.

By trying to hang on to power and talk about a 'triumphant'resignation he will only further damage the country, the Labour Party and loose the little respect that people have for government.

Tony Blair should leave today - I sent him an email to that effect.

He is damaging the UK and is again demonstrating that he does not care what the people he serves think.

Is it really the Blairites who want to keep him in office?

Or is it the Puppetmaster in the White House???

In all this furore - what about the people these politicians are supposed to serve?

To the writer who said that he had voted for Tony Blair as a Prime Minister, I would simply like to reply that I didn't, nor did almost all the 40 million electors. I voted for an MP, and would prefer MP's to challenge PM's rather than let them have an easy ride. This "party" nonsense is the ruination of parliament.

It's like watching the dying days of thatcher all over again. The tragedy of politics is that Prime Ministers or leaders never know when their time is up and their goose is cooked.

It's a total catch 22, the blair crew want a dignified on their own terms exit, the others just want a detailed timetable. Either way in this scenario there is no win-win that both sides can be happy with. Fascinating stuff.

The situation appears to me to be clear
Tony Blair Blair now in my opinion will not give a date to retire because he no longer wishes that as the limelight is too important to him.
All this situation is going to do to the labour party is ensure that it will not be returned for another term.
At least that is certain

I think Tony should resign and hand over to his deputy JP.

We've had Laurel and now it's time for Hardy.

I just don't understand why the majority of the press corps make the huge assumption that Mr Brown will succeed Mr Blair and that there will be an agreed handover between those two men.
Surely the democratic process will be followed and that the Labour Party membership will be allowed to choose their new leader using OMOV.
If they take Tony Benn's advice, choosing Mr Brown will merely give them more of the same (New Labour / New Tory).

In this state of affairs, the Prime Minister cannot lead the government: for months, his slackening grasp on the premiership has been the only story in politics. He simply must resign.

For a while now an increasing amount of news coverage has been devoted to when Tony Blair will leave office. The news is no longer about what the government is doing but about Tony Blair himself and the discontent surrounding his refusal to name a specific date.

It's all very well his supporters refusing to name a date - but this primarily became an issue when Mr Blair himself said that he wouldn't run for a 4th term. Since the moment he said that it's been downhill.

Wasn't it Alastair Campbell who said something along the lines of "When you become the story it's time to go"? I couldn't agree more.

I wouldn't trust Chris Bryant or Sion Simons further than I could throw them. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'letter' had been engineered by Blairites to flush out those who think Blair should go and then leaked by Bryant. But maybe I'm getting as hysterical as those inside the bunker?!

All this talk of "anyone but Brown" reminds me of the election to replace Margaret Thatcher when the cry was "anyone but Hesletine".

We got John Major and a government split down the middle unable to govern.

CJ (3:59 pm 6-Sep) & P Heeley (4:24 pm 6-Sep) are right, in that Tony Blair seems to have forgotten the point of being PM being about leading the government, and instead is only set on achieving a landmark in length of service for his own personal esteem. He's already Labour's longest continually serving PM, and he doesn't appear to be in a position to overtake Margaret Thatcher's record (which is what I think he secretly wished to do) so why doesn't he just go now? Is the prestige of being in the 10 Year Club that important to him? I guess he's that self-serving that it is.

I cannot see the point of Blair announcing his planned departure date as nobody believes a word he says anyway.

*When is he going to make a statement about his resignation?

When is someone heavyweight going to do the decent thing and take his elbow and lead him off the stage?

*oooh, rumour has it...tomorrow.

The problem is that the one thing worse than Tony Blair going is a Gordon Brown premiership. Surely there must be someone in the Labour Party with real leadership credentials!

Blair lost the last vestige of respect the world might have for him when Bush addressed him as "Yo, Blair" and put him firmly in his place. It is now urgent that we replace Blair with someone who can regain some honour and respect both at home and abroad. Sadly, it seems unlikely that Brown is that someone, but maybe a change, any change, is better than the status quo.

Blair should forget his planned tour of Britain to bid farewell.
He needs to make two public statements:

1, an apology to the people of Iraq for having caused massive death and destruction in their nation.

2, an apology to the British people for having presided over a complete failure to deliver any meaningful improvements in public services despite huge tax rises, placing the British people at serious risk of international terrorism by his flawed foreign policies and of enacting some of the most authoritarian laws in my lifetime.

In short, he has presided over nine years of complete failure at home and abroad at very high cost. His legacy will be one of shame in large measure.

This is all self-serving posturing and positioning on behalf of labour party members and frankly I could not care less. Blair is marginally more palatable than Mr Grumpy (who I don't think anyone in their right minds would elect).

The point is, either you are a Labour voter (in which case this matters to you), or you vote for someone else (in which case this does not matter as the wrong party is in power, regardless of who is in charge of it).

Blair has been kind enough to tell The Annointed One that he will get enough time. There was only an election last year : surely there is still time before it could be considered that he has reneged ? Blair should resign immediately if the heat gets too much and then call for an immediate General Election. That would give them something to think about.

The Blairites project must surely be to cast Brown as a Helseltine style Brutus figure.

If they are able to represent Blair's early ejection from office as a consequence of Brownite plotting, then it may be easier to foist Alan Johnson on to the party.

Mind you, who knows what they are up to? The naivete and grandiosity of the Blair bunker is such that:

1 They thought that creepy ex -Trot Alan Milburn was a suitable successor.

2. They haven't noticed that the best interests of the country are probably not best served by Tony staggering along until he can reach his tenth anniversary as PM. Meaningless record setting at the expense of a damaging lame duck coda to his term in office is absolutely unacceptable from a public interest viewpoint.

Could Nick or anybody else please tell me why the Blairites don't want Brown to be PM?

Is it just a personal thing? I thought Brown and Blair were ideologically qutie similar.

Who is this Gordon Brown character everybody is talking about? Whoever he is, he has not contributed much over recent months to the debates and problems the UK faces. Why hasn't he supported Tony Blair and say he will abide by TB's decision on when he goes like a loyal, true Labour Party member? It doesn't say much for his potential as the next Prime Minister when he leaves all the dirty work and skulldugery to his supporters. I just hope he never makes Prime Minister and, if there is no general election soon, I hope it is one of TB's supporters that wins the Labour Party vote to succeed TB.

When Blair announced to the country that he was going to step down, he must surely have realised how people would react. Now that his supporters have given in to pressure to reveal a date for his departure, surely it is now just a matter of time until he is forced step down. The vultures are circling at Westminster once more.

How can anyone think that Gordon Brown will be an acceptable Prime Minister. His constituency is in Scotland. Why should he be allowed to make decisions for England that will not affect his own constituents. I'm simply amazed that this situation has still not been properly addressed. Plenty of talk about it but very little action! The best way for Labour to lose the next election is to go into it with GB at the helm....

Have any pundits asked Mr Brown, on the record, what he would do differently to Mr Blair if he became Prime Mnister? On every major issue war etc,economy he seems to be in full agreement with Mr Blair so why change?

Surely it makes no sense for Blairites to work with Brown for a stable and orderly transition, if at the end of it there will be a leadership contest that Brown might not win. Nothing much can be done now until the new leader is definitely known, and as soon as the votes are counted, Blair will be in the limo on the way to the Palace.

The real question for both Blairites and Brownites is whether they can go into next May's council elections under Blair. If they do, the disaster will be much worse than the polls suggest, because Tory and LibDem supporters will turn out and vote while Labour supporters stay at home.

I heard M.P Mahmood on R5 last night not prepared to put his head above the parapet as to whether he had signed the letter or not. This is the calibre of people behind this attemted coup (gutless guttersnipes) and Tony Blair is a giant in comparison. If they get their way we will end up with an inferior P.M. The labour party won the last General Election with the voters beleiving that Tony Blair would be our P.M for a full term, they have no right to undermine the power of the electorate

If the labour party spent as much time and effort getting this country into shape and moving us forward then there would be less terroism, more jobs, a better NHS, fewer wars, a growing economy, a police force that we respected, schools that taught our children well, nurses that were motivated, a good energy policy, lower taxes............need I go on? Stop acting like a bunch of six year olds and do what you were elected to do! Run this country........

Tony Blair will cling to the last trappings of power until he is kicked out. He, and his wife, have "milked" the system for all it is worth.

He, together with his administration,are totally without shame, honour or integrity.

"Come back Guy Fawkes, all is forgiven"

Brown is a complete coward. He has not shown one ounce of support for his leader and allows his cronies to do his dirty work for him. He has shown no leadership qualities whatsoever in the past few months. Where has he been hiding? I want Blair to go because I disagree with him, but I would never vote for Brown because he has no integrity (and he's Scottish; another good reason he should never be P.M)

Is this pressure from the Brownites because Gordon wants to jump ship from the Treasury before he has to deliver more bad news on the economy?

With unemployment rising, inflation rising, many jobs being created in the public sector just when public sector spending has to be reigned in, Brown won't want his reputation tarnished just when he's trying to become P.M.

I just feel this whole situation could have been prevented....or maybe they despise each other too much that they want to destroy their party as well. If Brown is behind this move, it is a huge mistake in my opinion. If Blair is forced from ofice in this way, Cameron will go from hung parliament to outright winner I think....Gordon you might get in but for how long?!! I know people might dont like Blair much these days but he only won an election last year for heavens sake! Shame on you Labour.

I felt last Christmas Blair wouldn't last till the coming one. Now I feel he'll be gone within a month. He's got no real vision or authority left and increasingly he's the only one which doesn't know this but soon, very soon, he'll see this too and then he'll walk away, the cherished 10 year mark never arrived at, shown to be the trivial thing it always was.

Blair might be wrong. Indeed he has been wrong in many things. But the way in which Bown's supporters are behaving in extremely miscalculated and will have them pay. Right now it is the British public and labour party that suffer.

Tony Blair has just been voted in, he has the right to disclose when he intends to go by himself and not by giving in to miscalculated pressure.

If Brownites believe that Brown is worthy to be PM, they should the electrorate decide and vote him in, rather than force TB to hand him the PM on a plate by force. Are they afraid that Brown does not have what it takes to be voted in?

I am not a Blair supporter. However the behaviur of Brownites is very miscalculated, selfish, and detrimental to them, the party, and indeed the whole country

I am dissapointed that I am being diverted from the serious policy issues of the day by the internal power struggle within the Labour party.

If I am being diverted, imagine how much time the Prime Minister, Chancellor and entire machinery of government is wasting on this issue.

What is required is a clear timetable agreed between the key players and a plan to achieve the succession.

I find myself with a spring in my step and a song in my heart...before my very eyes new labour seems to be imploding.
All the worst qualities once attributed to the 'old' tory party,and so enthusiastically laid bare by the labour party, are now knocking (with a 14lb sledge hammer) on His Toninesses door...and its great!!
I just hope that this drags on and on and on...for me,the highlight of it all would be Jonny...'show us your knickers luv'...Prezzcott at the party conference rallying the party unfaithful...somehow I cant see it happening...shame...
It would be nice if the blair gang can get a man in place to spike brown gordon's unchallenged coronation before the muck really hits the fan....if the plotting by brown gordon is as nick has just suggested on the 6 oclock then this will cause monumental rifts within the beast for the fore seeable.....utter joy...ta ta

apologies for any spelling,grammar erorrs,but I was educated by those shemeful tories, before new labour came to power and failed to benefit from all the improvements to our educatshun system

I have never voted for a Prime Minister. I've voted for a party. Blair however has really demonstrated how powerful the role of PM is under our unwritten constitution. In many ways he has more personal power than a US President.

Perhaps it's time to think about radically amending the constitution to make the PM directly elected by us the voters.

The Labour Party in UK may went to learn from the experience of Canada's Liberal Party which was in a similar situation. The seating Prime Minister was forced out by his own colleagues in favour of his Finance Minister. The result: The Finance Minister became PM; but the Party never recuperated from the in fighting.The Liberals now are in opposition.

There is a lesson here for the British.

Frantz Pierre-Jerome
Ottawa (Canada)

Number 10 has for the time being at least, ceased to be the centre of power, Mr. Blair is quite simply no longer in control of events.

Number 10 is now simply his bunker where he is surrounded by those who feed his vanity and assure him that yet another manicured delivery of exhausted cliches can restore public trust and this coven of spinners scuttle about with only a very brittle grip on reality.

This grotesque scenario is compounded by the fact that there is almost universal acceptance that Bush's poodle will be succeeded by Blair's poodle. Surely we deserve something better. Born into the Labour party and having supported it for four decades, I feel helpless watching its highjack and destruction at the hands of these political careerists and carpet-baggers.

Is there even a modicum of sanity and dignity left in Number 10 ? Or for that matter a potential candidate within Labour ranks who can restore a sense of decency and even demonstrate a belief in the principles of equality and justice ?

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!"

Someone said it before me!

"Could Nick or anybody else please tell me why the Blairites don't want Brown to be PM?"

To quote Frankie Goes to Hollywood ...."When Two Tribes Go To War.... None Is All that you can score"

There you go Nick - you can trail your report with that tonight.

But if you go beyond the mindless tribalism, there are some policy differences between the two camps and there are some cultural differences.- Gordon's gang tend to be a bit more rooted in the party, have a bit more ideological baggage to check in before they become ministers, are bit more union focused and a lot more Scottish. Gordon's gang can remember factories and shipyards. In the absence of factories and shipyards they tend towards pumping up the non London public sector as a not-so- covert exercise in regional policy.

Tony's gang are, by contrast, a bunch a bunch of metropolitan, focus group - driven robo politicians, drowning in meaningless management consultant speak, and with a fawning attitude to the wisdom and disciplines of the private sector (an easy mistake to make as few of them have ever had a private sector job that didn't involve PR or Lobbying.)

Put it this way - if Tony and Gordon had been around in St Petersburg in 1917 - Gordon would have been a Bolshevik with several stints in jail under his belt. Tony would have been a recently defected Tsarist cavalry officer who had learned to sound like a revolutionary.

That lies at the heart of the tribal split.... The deep suspicion that Tony has never been the real McCoy. Gordon and co have had to suffer as they've sold out their youthful beliefs. Tony never had any in the first place - although he does believe that he's seen Jackie Milburn play, stowed away on a plane and God know what else.

I was raised in a miner's Labour household, I cheered for Harold Wilson when I was in the VI Form, I was an early joiner of the SDP, I was sad when John Smith died, I voted with great reservations for my local Labour MP in the second election because she was doing a decent job - but mainly to keep the Tories out.

I have never trusted Tony Blair's shallow judgement nor his coterie of sycophants - and unfortunately they have proved me right with every life lost in the Middle East, every civil liberty restricted, every abuse of the royal prerogative, every side-lining of Parliament, every ill-considered knee-jerk law, every self-promoting sound-bite.

The bottle of champagne has been in the fridge for too many years now - like this Government it is probably past its sell-by date - but I look forward to opening it very soon and it will evoke a memory of my parents' mood in their celebrations on VE Day.

Fascinating all this....but can Blair fill the vacancies caused by the resignations? Who's going to take them? Any word on this angle, Nick?

Me thinks Teflon Tone as finally lost his non-stick coating... :)

Life under Gordon looms like the spectre of death.....Hang in there Tony or call a General Election! Tony's legacy is running into the sand, and the respect of the electorate is vanishing as it appears he clings on to power to get to the magic 10 years and beat Thatcher. If that truly is the case, then Blair deserves all the criticism he is getting. If however he is genuinely trying to keep the horrendous pension plunderer and stealth taxmaker general Gordo "pick-pocket and gerrymanderer" Brown from getting into No 10, then stick with it Tone! The true inheriter of Blairism is Cameron - Blair was never true Labour, and if he wants to protect his legacy he needs to get the Tories in. For the sake of the country he definitely needs to keep Brown out whatever he does.....

Whilst I would like Tony Blair to go. I do not want to see Gordon Brown as PM. Blair should stay to make the country thoroughly sick of him so that we can have a change of government. His avowed intention to stay to complete some reforms is a bit stale, as he has had nearly ten years, what difference can he expect to make in a few months?

I think Blair will have to go. History shows that this type of thing does not go away. However if I were a Labour Party activist, I would not be very happy. It appears that they will not be getting very much say in deciding who will be the new Leader. The Conservatives in the end had to have participation from the Party members, so will Labour. The Leader needs the support from the ordinary members.

Tony Blair accuses Tom Watson of being 'disloyal and discourteous' over a leak to the press??! Who's he kidding!

Often, a tipping point seems fairly innocuous at the time. Only later is it revealed as being more momentous. Well, folks, this was it.

I agree with so many of the comments made about Mr B on this blog, especially concerning his vanity. But he's always had 'smarts'. And they will shine through on this occasion too.

Make no mistake: TB will resign within a week.

You heard it here first!

I have a sense of deja vu.

A relatively unpopular Prime Minister manages to win a series of majorities while forging an effective working relationship with his leadership rival, who is given charge of the government's fiscal policy.

In due course, the Minister becomes impatient for his "turn" as Prime Minister. His allies undertake a number of rebellions in the hopes of forcing the PM out.

I'm not talking about the UK, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but rather about Canada, Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

In due course, the Martinites forced Chretien out. With no serious challenge, Martin assumed the leadership of the Liberal Party and became Prime Minister.

Then the wheels fell off.

It became apparent that, having spent his adult life trying to become PM, Paul Martin had given nary a thought as to what he wanted to do with it. His dithering led him into an electoral setback - a minority Parliament - followed by a humiliating defeat.

It's deja vu all over again.

Is it not time that someone reiterated the parliamentary comment directed at Neville Chamberlain in 1940 when the Germans were overrunning the Continent: (leading to his resignation & Churchill becoming Prime minister)--"for Gods sake go"!!!!!!!!!.In the days when we had real men, not wimps, in Parliament.

Brown will not get the opportunity to take over just before the election, as Major did. So he needs to push this through to its conclusion as soon as possible before Blairite spoilers can mount successful wrecking job.
He is seen as lacking the 'killer instinct', and the longer this skirmishing goes on the worse things will get. Waging war against a determined opposition who are on home ground must be done decisively.
This is Brown's chance and he will need to take it now, or he will never get the chance to lead the country with some semblance of statesmanship.
I hope for his sake he has a solid and distinctive programme ready, and can steer us away from Blair's increasingly mad excesses without falling foul of the gutter press.
I also hope it will be possible to extradite Blair from the US to face corruption charges.

Tony has to get on a bus to Islington and many will come at once. If he does not get on one he will have to walk home

Blair will tear the labour party apart. He's the only one who thinks he can run this country alone (with or without the lab party). He's turned on the unions, his party and the people of this country.
The rest of you remember that it should not take just one man to decide the policies of this nation. That leads to dictatorship.

issues that matter..

what, like getting elected?

Blair has to go, and go quickly, surely? The government is in disarray and meanwhile the Tories get further ahead in the polls. How on earth does Blair think he'll get a legislative programme together for the Queen's speech? Who will listen to him on his own benches? Let's have a leadership election and a proper debate on the future of the party, but let's do it now. Why wait until next year?

The arguement is that Brown would be good for the scottish and welsh elections - he may well be. However it is unlikley middle england will warm (or vote) for Brwon and I would bet he wil be a couple of years PM before doing a major

Blair has to stay. In the event he resigns it would mean John Prescott running the country and that is simply too absurd to contemplate.

I see the end of the Labour government nearing. I, for one, am disgusted by this obscene display of infighting. I vote for policies, not political coups in the middle of a governing term. My vote's going blue next May.

The soooner that Blair goes the better. I think that the majority of the electorate and his own party are sick to the back teeth of him and can't wait to get rid of him. It seems that it is only his personal arrogance and ambition to serve 10 years and put himself in history that drives him on. Oh, and also his 'personal belief and conviction' in matters such as Iraq, terrorism and Lebanon. I can understand why Gordon Brown sits frustrated. Long live Gordon!

The 'disloyal, discourteous, etc' amongst the younger MPs should be honoured in their attempt to see off a man who from the outset considered himself both a visionary and a power greater than the national conscience. Additionally, he mimiced tory policy, US foreign policy and then "says to the Nation" that history will be his judge. Well, methinks Mr Blair's judgement as been around for some time. Even the crows on the street want this man out of office. GB at least had the solidity to focus on our best ecomomic boom ever. Let's please have GB, even if it just allows us a sigh of relief and some governement based on principles... Blair's New Labour's dead and gone, it's morality died a long time ago.

There is only one person that is to blame for the current infighting within Labour; Tony Blair. Its sad and wrong that the Labour party should be bickering in this way but this is because TB announced he was leaving before the next election.

Had he kept his mouth shut to the media (who are not to blame, they will allways speculate about future political developments) about his thoughts of retirement then this mess within Labour wouldn't exist.

It is HE who is showing disloyalty to the party by putting his own interests ahead of the good of the party and more importantly; the country and those who voted Labour.

As a Real Labour voter it angers me that he not only hijacked the party and turned it into a neo-tory party, cosied up to bush and effectively slapped a big bullseye on the British isles, but also decided his final act would be to destroy the party.

My only hope is that this will allow an opportunity for the real labour members to get the party back and its core supporters.

I have been wondering about this brown succession question for years now. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats all had leadership elections with multiple candidates. What do we see with Labour? The leader/prime minister is appointed not elected after constantly undermining the current leader (not someone I am a fan of but still). Why is there no proper democratic leadership contest? What are they afraid off?

With the economy showing signs of trouble then Gordon must want to pounce now before any mud sticks.

Hang on Tone please, the longer you stay the better the chance that we will get back a decent, (Tory) government and begin to get our country back from the P.C. brigade you lent it to.

Lets face it mate you promised us the moon and delivered turds.

Lets hope the next lot don't promise a lot but get on with the job of governing.

As Mr Blair has done so much for Labour and declared that he was going to go, I thought that it was just that he should choose a date. It seems to me that Mr Brown (?) is doing his best to get in now. So be it. Should he be successful he will not get my vote for tearing the Labour Party into two and maybe more pieces and as there is still not a proper Opposition, what is all this doing for the Country?

Could someone please,please tell Mr. Brown to come out of hiding, and tell us just why he thinks he would make a better PM than Blair and what the difference in his policies would be. But don't hold your breath!

At school, I was taught that society should learn from history. So why does the country (media led) seem to be turning back the clock to the last days of Thatcher?

The politicians should consider the voters (or the lack of them) as this episode will do nothing to increase the turnout at the next election which is the key to a strong democracy.

It's obvious that TB can't get through this latest coup (attempt?). This one looks far more devastating and the killer blow can only be just around the next corner (fingers crossed). So why doesn't he fight back, put Gordon in his place by sacking him?

TB's a gonna so why not put a spanner in the works for GB plans???

This isn't about country, this isnt about policy failures or so called 'lies' in Iraq. This is about self obsessed incongruent deceitful junior politicians shuffling for position. To all those luvvies that herald a new dawn with Cameron (or Brown)? Nothing is gonna change.

PS. I am always amazed at the high regard Blair is held in every country that I travel to - bar the UK.

To James Maskell

You don't really believe what you wrote... do you?

Get real!

The electorate may put a cross in a box beside a particular candidate but rarely is this intended as suppport of same. Rather, it is support of the Party that the candidate represents, as symbolised predominantly by its leader.

One thing no one has mentioned is the up-and-coming report into the cash for peerages scandal. If this goes badly for Blair all this talk about timetables and hanging on for another year will become irrelevant. He'll be out of office, period. So what's happening with the report? Any leaks?

This UK Labour situation is very much like what the Liberal Party of Canada went through in the struggles between PM Jean Chretien and his rival (and financial minister) Paul Martin. In that fight too, Chretien had hoped to drag out his ouster long enough to groom a successor more to his faction's liking, but to no avail. The Martin won out in the end and he got to be PM, but not before a lot of ugliness had divided the party. The bitterness of that fight did not die down, and contributed to their later defeat by the Conservative party.

Blair's situation is even worse in many ways, and he should have stepped out right after the last general election when he still had some (damaged) dignity. The last grasp at "legacy building" is a farce. He has spent years already purging any foreign policy dissenters within his own party. What tactic is left to silence those who simply want his job? Party discipline no longer works. Dire predictions of electoral losses if he is gone may have worked before, but now that he's Labour's biggest liability, that will fail too.

His credibility at home is evaporating, and abroad he has none (aside from Washington). It's too late for him to author his own legacy - things like Iraq have written it for him. All that he can do now by hanging on is drag out this bitter fight and drain his party of the last of its dignity.

Gordon Brown and his acolytes; Tom Watson, Ed Balls, Dawn Primarolo etc remind me of the line from Richard III:

"Why! What a brood of traitors have we here!"

Nick

What price a cabinet reshuffle - a last moment of madeness - and exit stage left GB?

Whichever way this pans out - and my money is on Blair resigning as leader within next four weeks - I am reminded of Jeremy Thorpe's quip about MacMillan. Clearly somethings never change.

Blair should remember the lessons of former Prime Ministers that by definition every political career ends in failure. The closest to avoid this was the sudden resignation and departure of Harold Wilson.
Blair has been the architect of his own downfall by saying something too soon. As soon as he said it - he was on the way out and a lame duck. You can't be a little bit pregnant!

After reading his column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, I can't help feeling that Gordon Brown is already angling for a far more important job than just Prime Minister of the UK. And it may well be a job in which he could do more good overall.....

Why doesnt Mr Blair do the decent thing and ask the Queen to disolve Parliament resign as leader of the Labour Party and let the electorate decide if Gordon Brown should be Prime Minister because I dont think we do.Mr Blair would then have some credibility with the electorate if not the Labour Party.

Tony Blair was re-elected, only 15 months ago, by the British people to serve as Prime Minister for a full term.
There is absolutely no conflict between Mr Blair leading the country and for his intention not to stand at the next election. The President of the USA can only serve two terms in office, yet his authority is not diminished due to that fact.
Personally, I don't agree with every single policy made by the Government. However, I firmly believe Mr Blair's leadership will only be fully appreciated when it is too late.

Now that TB will announce a date, or thereabouts for his final farewell, he will become a "lame duck".

When we talk about disloyalty, you also have to remember that the relations between brown and blair from goes back some time, its blair not brown that was supposed to hand over / set a timeline for a handover on two / three occasions. Its Blair that went back on his word then, so it is of NO surprise that the belief in him is so negligible.

His legacy is now set in stone. Apart from his parties 3 historic victories, they are in most peoples eye overshadowed by the one factor that he will never get rid of. IRAQ.

However, when is set, he will be a sitting duck. The resignations yesterday were absolutley devastating, and perhaps will entice him to go sooner rather than later.

Once the confidence and authority is gone, as leader, u really have no choice but to be shown the door. I would imagine that also being the opinion of the majority of the country, let alone the labour party.

Tom

Tony Blair your country does not need you or Brown. For God sake the two of you should go now.

If Blair has any savy he will defy all and state later today that he is going to complete a full-term, sack Brown and his cronies and face a possible leadership election. That way, the real feelings of the labour crew will be discovered one way or the other.

Gordon hasn't made his case for being PM. He's been the Invisible Man.

It's not enough for it to be 'his turn'. The UK is not a toy to be played with and handed about by spoilt boys.

As a Tory voter I am greatly looking forward to Gordon being PM for a while. His inability to articulate his views, his history of taxing us all to penury and his inability to build political alliencies within his own party let alone the country will consign the Labour party to a decade or more in the wilderness.

Bring on the TaxMaster General.

The one alternative member of the Labour Party to Gordon Brown - with international experience ( Olympics )
running a Country ( London is bigger than some Countries ) running a transport sysptem ( London's more difficult than most countries ) and an economy ( London as big as most counties ) KEN LIVINGSTON...Wouldn't it be FUN if he went for the Prime
Minister Job. Diane Abbot could go to Lords as Leader of Lords and Ken
get her safe seat...Politics would
really become exciting.

I freely admit to not being knowledgeable about parliamentary process and etiquette, but I understood a Prime Minister to be 'first amongst equals'.
Our politics, like our TV, have become about individuals and celebrity, with no focus on ability. In my view Blair has never been an able leader of the country; he has got his way, by and large, through by-passing parliamentary process and cronyism. I will admit to voting in the past for my local Labour MP on the basis of the Party's policies (or more precisely lack of an alternative), but I did not vote for Tony Blair as PM. Thus, the standard argument of '...the country voted...' him in for another term is a mystery to me.
If the Government will fall apart because Blair or a Blairite isn't at its helm then it doesn't deserve to be in power anyway. No politician is indispensable, and never should be.

Some people are saying that Blair should go whilst he still has some dignity. He has no dignity, he lost it by telling lies over our illegal attack on Iraq, he should have gone long ago.

Gordon Brown is either a coward for not resigning before the invasion of Iraq, or a fool for supporting Blair, either way he too is not fit to lead.

For ex labour supporters like myself none of the proposed candidates are acceptable. The only person who would get my vote would be Bob Marshal Andrews.

John at post 146.

Well, at least we now know where you travel - just the US and Israel then is it ?

In some places Blair is despised.
In most, he is just a figure of fun.
The poodle image is very well entrenched, in most countries, people are shocked about how the UK/Blair are prepared to debase themselves.
For those claiming to be "Real Labour", and expecting some full-on anti-Americanism from Gordy : be aware that Brown is probably closer to the US than Blair.

With all the talk of Brown as the recipient of the New Labour leadership and the premiership, is there actually any democracy in the Labour Party that might give their members some say in the choice - like a vote, perhaps?

Having been highly critical of Mr Blair I know find myself feeling sympathy with his position which is brought about more due to Members of Parliament thinking of their own careers than their country. If they believe that these actions are regarded as acceptable by the vast majority of Party members they are greatly mistaken. Mr Brown may well have made an excellent leader but he know runs the risk of being tarnished by the actions of a small group of MP,s whose sole interest appears to be their own jobs and careers what a sad day for the party.

History tends to show that once a government enters a spiral dive, as this one clearly has, nothing, even a change of leader, will halt its decline. Those people wising to see Gordon Brown take over should remember that he has been alongside Tony Blair in the cabinet and voted for all the policies to which they object. If Blair is guilty then so is Brown. Poor old Gordon will eventually inherit an unelectable rabble, so any tenure at number 10 will be mercifully brief. To top it all, England (by far the largest constituent of the UK) may accept a Scot as Prime Minister, but not one sitting for a Scottish seat before the outrageously one-sided and unfair devolution arrangements have been amended to allow England the same self-governing status as Scotland. England will not forget that Brown was heavily involved in drawing up the flawed devolution plans. If he gets the keys to number 10, I wouldn't advise him wasteing his time on re-arranging the furniture!

It is sad to see a Government fall apart like this and it seems that for the future to come there will always be a clash between the brownites and the blairites. I feel sorry for the blairites of what will happen to them after his departure. A party is suppose to stand behind their leader whatever happens and it really does seem that Mr Brown is so power hungry that they decided on a coup.

Ruth Kelly did nothing to calm the vultures when touring the tv studios this morning, instead trying to give the impression it's 'business as usual', when all around her there is problems for Tony Blair.I'm fed up of hearing about a smooth transition of government. Blair cannot blame the media for all this. Last weeks interview in The Times has lit the torch for an explotion waitig to happen. Mr Blair should have quashed these rumours weeks ago. Instead he is being forced into admission.

It's time for a change in direction.

Tony Blair led Labour to a third historic term? They won the 2005 election despite him not because of him.The economy was strong primarily due to Gordon Brown and the majority would have been much higher if Blair had resigned after the Iraq debacle.The Tories were going to run the campaign on "Vote Blair,get Brown" but the public seemed happier with this than they imagined.

For me Blair should be gone before Christmas and any Cabinet minister hiding in the shadows muttering about a Brown Premiership should go to

Corporal Mark William Wright is the latest solider to die in Afghanistan and all Blair can think about is how soon he has to pack his bags at no 10. It shows how far he is from reality. It's not his son that's dying in the "war on terror". Does he really think we can achieve what the Russians failed to do? Afghanistan is and always has been ungovernable. The extent to which Blair has involved us in the Middle East wars shows how little he understands about military matters and the history of that region. Time for him to go and the troops to come home.

I think the saying You have sat here
for too long, in the name of God go is quite apt here with regard to Blair.
Why can't people get it into there minds that this country is a parliamentry democracy, we elect parties to office, we do not elect
Leaders as is the case in a Presidential Democracy. In the past
Prime Ministers have resigned and been replaced by the parties duely elected new leader.
As for the Blair legacy, well he has one already, it's called Iraq and
Afghanistan.
If Blair truely had the interests of the country and his party at heart he
would go soon, in fact the sooner the better.

The interest of the country was and is not really on top of Tony Blairs political agenda. He followed US foreign policy every single step and it is still very obscure to me what he got out of is for the UK.
Today he just wants to keep control about when he should leave the goverment. Tony's personal interest #1 and the UK interests #2. I would like to remind also Tony Blairs role to weaken as much as he could the European Union.

Let's send Tony Blair and George W. Bush to Guantanamo. Nothing really to worry about as they seems now to discover the Genfer Convention.

If Blair wants to be viewed as a statesman, he will sack Brown for insubordination and risk the consequences. It might turn the corner for him.

Failing to act decisivly will confirm that his power base in inextricably linked to cronyism.

Brown is not a statesman and never will be. He will always be a No 2 with pretentions. I could say worse, but it's not printable.

After doing the above, cool it for a few weeks then call a general election so that the British people can make their choice. We don't want Mr Blair's choice.