Is it to be May 31st?
So now we know. Tony Blair will resign on May 31st.
Well, maybe but maybe not. I am a little sceptical about the date that appeared overnight in The Sun and has been picked up by many of its rivals. May 31st is not a date in Tony Blair's diary. It is, instead, the the latest possible point on the political calendar for the PM to announce formally that he's standing down as Labour leader.
Why?
Because there's no point in him staying beyond the end of the parliamentary year (the end of next July) and it will take the party a couple of months to elect a successor.
But before you assume that's done and dusted, do not forget that we still don't know whether Labour MPs will be satisfied with the promise that their leader will be gone sometime in a year. Many will say "if then why not sooner so that we can take on the Tories again and avoid disaster in May's elections". Others will insist that they need to hear from the PM himself not merely from "his friends". The Brown-ites want a process of transition like that adopted by a company chief executive handing over to his successor.
That brings us to the heart of Labour's problem. It is perfectly true that unlike the Tories in 1990 there is no ideological split in the party. But there is another split which could - and I do emphasise could - be as damaging. It's the split between Brownites and Blairites which has been festering for a dozen years ever since Tony won and Gordon lost the Labour leadership. It's more about personal animus than policy difference but no less poisonous for that.
The Blairites wanted their man to stay longer in large part because they wanted to find an ABG (Anyone but Gordon) candidate. Once it was Milburn, then Blunkett, then Clarke. Now their hopes are pinned by John Reid.
Even if he can't win they hope he and they can flush out Gordon Brown out (ending what Alan Milburn called a "trappist silence") and force him to publicly pin in his colours to the New Labour mast. He is equally determined to resist.
This story is far from over.
I'm 
Comments
It seems fairly obvious that Blair has put this out to the Sun and will gaugethe reaction before making any public comments.
This is a deeply cynical ploy and its evident to anyone that it was going to backfire on him.
I suspect (and hope) that it will push those against him to take an even harder line.
Labour claim a mandate from last years general election. 37% of votes from only 61% of the electorate is not a majority no matter how you look at it.
Events since then are sure to have substantially decreased this support.
We didn't vote for Brown (and lets face it - we vote for the leadership of the parties during national elections). He's kept too quiet in public showing he doesn't have the courage to defend his own point of view. What makes us think he will do that if he were to become leader of the Labour party?
Blair should resign today and call a general election.
If he doesn't, Its political suicide for Labour. Will the party stand for this?
Carl
There IS a huge ideological split in the Labour Party. Old Labour does exist, and GB is at the heart of this. There is no point disguising this fact simply because it is inconvenient for TB/GB and the Labour Party. If / when GB takes over, do not expect a dramatic change, but the tiller will be adjusted to the Left. This will be even more evident if Labour does badly in Scotland / Wales and the English local elections next year. Brown has indeed adopted a trappist silence but this doesn't mean that he and his ambitious adherents are not busily preparing the way to reverse many of New Labours policies. It is just a pity that so many people decided to back a loser at the last election, to then have the real leader and policies foisted on them a mere matter of months later.
Nick
Can you comment on that supposed leaked No10 document about TB's departure? Surely it was written by a satirist and not by a genuine advisor? Its one of the funniest contribution to the debate for a long time.
A clear situation for Blair.
At some point in the last few months his position has transitioned from one where he could have remained in power, regardless of the difficulties, to that of a person wondering how to avoid having his reputation damaged by the manner of his resignation.
Why is it a clear situation? Because surely even his kids could tell him that there is no way he can avoid such damage, if he stays longer.
Several former leaders from the present opposition, such as Michael Howard, would agree that, once you have decided to leave, you should not try to stay any longer. You cannot change your mind and stay indefinitely - and, by staying temporarily, you do not help yourself or your colleagues.
The pattern is as irreversible and permanent as the second law of thermodynamics, and he should leave before his party's affection for him cools still further.
I disagree this Nick on this one, how can the split between Brown and Blair not be an ideological one? If it wasn't then why is balir and "blairrites" so determined to securer Blair's legacy in a way that cannot be undone by Brown- if they both had the same views then there would be no need to do this. It is well documented that they don't agree on everything, especially y round that of choice and independence from the states purse strings. The difference between labour now and the Tories then is that their split was easy for the public to digest -Europe whilst labour differences are just as deep bit and more detailed
I have a lot riding on this: I made a bet with my colleagues that if Blair wasn't gone by November I would eat some more tinned octopus sandwiches - something I'd really rather not have to do.
In all seriousness though, my gut instinct is that Blair is unlikely to survive very much longer. If the phrase on everyone's lips is "when's he going?" it merely serves to reinforce the notion that the country is treading political water until he's gone.
He made a huge, huge mistake by inviting speculation in the first place; as soon as he said he would not serve past a third term, he was weakened. I think he'll be gone sooner that any of us might have imagined.
At least I hope so, otherwise tinned octopus sandwiches beckon.
I'm a bit sceptical too. i also agree with Carl on the point raised about Brown being the next PM. I for one hope that he never gets in. I always thought you had to get at least 51% of the vote. They (Labour) have got us into a pickle over the last 10 years and i doubt very much if they'll get in next time round. They don't seem to have the cohesion a Government should have. Too much backstabbing going on methinks. Blair should step down ASAP and get a General election called. Stop messing around with our hearts and minds Mr Blair, please?
So Mr. Blair has been forced to do what he said would be far too damaging to do: name a time limit. Oh, except he didn't, he "let it be known" then began to spin, spin and spin some more.
All we have to look forward to now is a lame-duck presidency, full of eye-catching initiatives with which he can be personally associated. No ambitious Labour MP will now back any of Blair's contraversial policies in case they aren't to the next leader's liking.
This isn't what people voted for 18 months ago, and therefore we should have a general election as soon as a new Labour leader is chosen.
Why peg it out?? GO NOW!!
Can he not see the country is SICK of him??, when he's in the country that is, he always seems to be trotting off all over the world trying to be seen to do something good when in fact he isn't, all he is doing is maximising his visibility on world platform for when he does go so he can ensure mega bucks doing after dinner speeches etc.
This government has been more corrupt than the last Conservative government ever was.
And as for talk of a counrtywide tour, YES I am all for that, why doesn't he visit the graves scattered all over the country of the innocent forces people he sent to their deaths to fight a battle that he felt he needed to mislead the country about to ensure our involvement.
Surely it is not sensible for the Prime Minister to give a definitive date for retirement a year ahead. Who knows how critical international or domestic affairs will be at that point? Would we expect our leader to pack his bags if we were in the midst of a crisis, just because he said so 12 months earlier?
If there were a general election tomorrow, Cameron and the Tories would probably win.
That is a dual achievement of Tony Blair (through increasingly undemocratic policies and various scandals) and the Tories (who have learnt just how far spin can go).
The only chance Labour have - and it is a slim one - of winning at the next general election is to dump Tony Blair, very publically and very soon.
This debacle shows the wisdom of the American system of fixed terms.
Blair has gone on too long in office and needs to go for sake of his own health and sanity.
The country will also be better for his resignation.
This whole spectacle is bordering on farce, with 'friends' issuing deniable leaks to a red top owned by
an ex Aussie American on top of revelations that Blue Peter will feature on the farewell tour.
The serious point is that we now have a de facto President, but without any of the necessary checks or balances that would have been built into a properly designed presidential system
As it stands, the whole edifice, royalty, civil service, MPs, you name it, are sitting (expensively) by as No 10 gets more bunker like by the minute.
A very British kind of democracy.
I have a horrible feeling TB's masters over the pond are engineering some kind "threat" that will allow TB to call a state of emergency, and then we will never be rid of him!
How can anyone think that "It is perfectly true that unlike the Tories in the 1990s there is no ideological split in the party"?
There may not be between Brown and Blair, but there is a clear divide between those who want to push through further, deeper and faster with the 'reform' agenda, embracing markets, globalisation (interesting in this respect to note David Cameron's sceptical tone on globalisation) and an activist foregin policy; and those who want to row back to cosier social democratic territory.
From Iraq to Lebannon and all the other horrors we don't know Mr Blair has repeatedly been found on the side of the war-mongers.
He is after Kofi Annan's job and will stop at nothing to get it. He expects the dead and maimed in Iraq and Lebannon will secure the job for him.
Meanwhile Mandelson is EC trade commissioner, Robertson heads NATO, Brown will be UK premiere. So whats the plan.
T Dan Smith said, when 7 people who head separate organisations work together they can run the country.
Where are the other New Labour architects and isn't this looking like john smith had to go.
If I'm wrong then explain why the labour party sat by and watched their government ship bombs to Israel for use in Lebannon.
The 91Èȱ¬ are not seeing the wood for the trees. Or do you too have a new labour architect editing and directing careers.
If Paul (above) is wrong, and the No 10 document wasn't written by a satirist, then it is a deeply depressing document, showing the level to which stage management and spin have taken the place of substance and honesty.
Well, at least there is some good news from the Labour camp. Blair to go! However, I bet the Tories would love him to stay for longer, as I am absolutely sure it would increase their chances of winning the next election. Blair came in on the "big white hope" ticket, and has, in my opinion, consistently failed Britain in the nine years he has retained power.
I'm surprised no-one (especially the tabloids) has picked up on the fact that Blair might want to stay in power longer than Thatcher did. If I was a power-driven politician, I'd be looking to best my main historical rival. In this case, I wouldn't step down for at least a couple more years.
In response to Andrew:
"He is after Kofi Annan's job and will stop at nothing to get it."
I understand Kofi's tenure will end on 31st December 2006 (just to fuel the speculation on this subject).
But lets be honest, will the U.N really accept a U.S puppet as its leader?
Carl
Blair as UN chief would be hugely contentious and probably paralyse the organisation as I can't see how Moscow and Beijing (and also Paris) would be swayed by Bush poodle. Sure, John Bolton, the American Ambassador to the UN would be very pleased.
If the Sun is right on the date Blair is to announce his resignation, I will have a very happy 10th anniversary. But Gordon Brown will not make much difference. I don't believe he is left of Tony. After all, he spearheaded a number of New Labour policies and is in love with privatisation. He forced the privatisation of London tube which is now going down the pan.
1. Yesterday and today,NRs smiling mug has dominated the political airwaves and contrubted at length to a debate based on the views of one in twenty MPs whose total influence is probably less than zero. Mr Rs wisdom has contributed to the same extent ie nothing. When asked by a variety of presenters like Jim Naughtie and George Alagaiha ? he could have saved the nation a great deal of valuable energy by saying all he knew in three words: I dont know nor does anyone else. Gordon Brown has sai nothing, Tony Blair has said nothing Blairites, Brownites, Ms Dynamites and any other ites are pushing their own agendas and credulous hacks desperate to fill 24 hours of arid news deserts will jump on any molehill and convert it into a whole range of Himalayas. 2. The important news yesterday was T Blairs speech to the Joseph Rowntree Trust in York in which he set out his governments achievemennts in reducing child and family poverty.
If this was his only achievement in 10 years it would be worth his time in office. In the same time, hundreds of political commentators have earned salaries far in excess of that of the Prime Minister yet can any one of them including Nick Roibinson point to anything they have said or done and say:'That is my achievement and I leave the country a better place because of it'
3. Why wasnt his speeech (TBs that is) given more prominence on every news bulletin than this stupid obseesion with the date fo his departure.
What must people around the world think of Britain when they see this political mess being dragged out and constantly fuelled by our elected representatives.
One thing is for sure; the PM has not done himself or the country any favours by pre-announcing his departure. Instead we have been left with this embarrassing squabble about who should be next in line for the top job.
If anything, Mr Blair’s actions have highlighted a major problem within our political system. One that clearly plays a key part in voter apathy.
Our politicians seem to think that this sort of childish behaviour in deciding when a PM has had his day is acceptable. Our MP’s are showing the world that the Prime Minister of Great Britain can only look forward to being retired by what I can best describe as a ‘night of the long knives’ rather than in a timely manner with good grace and grateful acknowledgement for their time leading the country. This immature farce can only paint our country and our democracy in a bad light.
Now call me naive, but I thought that it was I (a member of the British public) who has a say on who becomes the next Prime Minister of Great Britain?
It’s high time that our politicians started to put the interests of the country before their own personal agenda’s. How about they just get on with running the country, after all that’s what we’re paying them to do!
What we need is a system where if a leader of a political party has won an election, that he or she is in place to serve the full term as PM. That’s what democracy is all about, isn’t it?
I find all this talk of ‘Gordon needs time to settle in before an election’ offensive. He has not been elected as Prime Minister. If he wants the job, then an election should be called and he should let us (the British public) decide if he’s the right man.
Put simply, if there are members within the governing party who wish to remove their leader during the term of a Parliament, they should have the courage to stand by their convictions to go to the country in a general election.
You never know, the public might start to have a little more respect for politicians if they started to conduct themselves in a more honourable manner. We may even see more people voting come election time!
Surely now is the time to have a debate to agree a timed structure for the role of Prime Minister with either a limit to the number of times that someone can hold the office of PM, or a system where if a Prime Minister is still successful, that he or she can gain an endorsement from their own party to continue as leader for a further term.
The American system might not always be perfect, but at least they have a civil and dignified handover of power. Unlike our embarrassing and squabbling schoolyard scrap!
Perhaps Nick, you could put this point to the great and the good of Westminster?
Best wishes,
Simon
The winner in this is clearly Cameron who will want it to run and run.
If Blair is not ancient history before the Welsh/Scottish/Local Elections on 3rd May next year, then The Tories will be back on the political map right across the UK.
Whilst there may not be an ideological split between Blair and Brown there is a huge gulf between them and old labour. The leadership contest could be a bit of a slugging match.
That said I can't see Tony hanging on that long either. The knives have not been out away they are being sharpened.
I expect blood on the floor, the walls and the ceiling. As a Conservative I am looking forward to enjoying the spectacle.
This whole affair is a real symbol of the power of the media.
Little over a year ago, the PM got a democratic mandate. TB said "I'll do it for 4 more years if you want me to" - and the people did.
Ever since, he has said "I'll serve a full term" and stick to the promise he made, but because the media refused to let it go, they have caused panic amongst the weaker-willed(or careerist) Labour MPs, who in many cases owe their place in the Commons to TB.
The day that the media wins over democracy is a sad day - and sadly that day has arrived.
May 1st 2007 will be his tenth anniversary as PM - surely that's the day he'll choose to step down?
Blair should announce at the party conference that he will resign at the end of the conference.
Ideally this should lead to a general election, but if not, it must lead to a "leader contest". A crowning of Gordon Brown would not be at all satisfactory to the electorate or I think the Labour Party, who would just find themselves "around again" when they are not happy with Brown.
The interests of the country should be at the top of these politicians minds.
Families are losing loved ones on a daily basis, while we are at war, and the labour party is bickering about the leadership - SHOCKING !
Reading people's comments always makes me laugh.
Stephen - if you think that Brown represents "old" Labour, then you are in for a BIG surprise. Blair, Brown and Peter Mandelson together were the architects of New Labour. Nick is completely right: there is no ideological split between Blair and Brown, it's about personality. Fundamentally, the differences arise in the means, not the end.
I have little sympathy for Blair, but I for one hope there won't be a peaceful handover to Brown, as I simply can't muster any enthusiasm at all for the Chancellor. I hope Blair gives him hell and don't just hand over the keys. Brown is many things, but he is no leader.
I can't imagine that this transition will ever resemble a 'company chief executive handing over to HIS (sic) successor'. Surely things in politics never run this smoothly. All this drama seems to have been whipped up out of nowhere and I don't quite see why 'the country' are calling for Blair to go anymore now than they were before the last general election. I like GB, but something tells me that the orderly plan he has to take over just won't happen.
No ideological spit in the party? The party is as split as ever between those who actually believe in Labour ideals and the pseudo-Tories who took over when Blair took power. Just as the Tory party is split between the 'old Tories' and the new Libertarians. Blair and Brown may be on the same side ideologicaly, but their supporters sure as hell aren't.
John Reid has perfect credentials to take over from Tony Blair when Blair gracefully exits sometime next year. For starters he is competent and is by no means dour. Tony Blair has charisma and it is important the next leader is competent, positive and a breath of fresh air. While Gordan Brown has impeccable qualities as Chancellor and the purse strings, he does not come across as charismatic. Hopefully Labour will not lose the next elections. But their choice of PM should resonate with the public and should be head and shoulders above the Conservative leader Cameron.
If TB could just step outside his ego for a moment he would realise the time to start handover is now. Who he hands over to is irrelevant. The damage is already done and he's lost the luxury of choosing a time to leave on a high.
He will be remembered for Iraq. Nothing else.
One thought, and that is about Steven's comment (No.2) above. If the tiller on a boat is moved to the left, the boat moves to the right. :)
I think it would be absolutely foolish for Blair to announce a date and it is stupid that everyone has jumped on this date that the sun has conjured up out of thin air- I am still convinced that we wont get a date from Blair and I don't think he will resign before he is ready
I don't think steve is in too much danger of having to eat octopus sandwiches (see comment 6).
Now a junior minister's gone this morning (11.45am), and the snowball of change is speeding up. Friends of mine were surprised when I said last week that TB would be out by Xmas, but I would revise that even earlier now. Nick is correct that the end of the parliamentary year next July makes an obvious handing-over point, and a nice try on behalf of the No10 apparatchiks, but I just don't think it will wash with the PLP, city, labour members or country. The destabilisation over the next 9 months would be immense. With the new Parliamentary year starting in 2 months, why not change now, or is TB's Queens Speech already sorted?
Why TB let slip his aim to go way back I just don't know. Behind the odious spin and hype, there have been good and just changes in 10 years of the TB Govt, but if he sticks around any longer that won't be remembered at all.
As the Dylan song wisely says "if you gotta to go - go now"
I'm sorry, but I'm really struggling with this "news" story. How can a piece of speculation be the most important piece of news today? I really think the media as a whole has lost its way if it believes that the majority of people in the country most want to know the latest speculation about the possibility that maybe the prime minister may announce he may retire some time next year perhaps.
You have got sucked in to the briefing and counter-briefing by people who should be spending their time running the country rather than jockeying for position.
Let's try and put this in some context. We need Messr's Blair and Brown and their camps to be working on making sure our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are properly equipped and tasked. We need them to be working on imaginative programmes to help our various social and ethnic groups to value and embrace each other. We need them to be taking the best of Britain's political and practical expertise and experience to help sort out problems in Lebanon, Sudan, North Korea, Iran, etc. etc.
Please - move this down the ratings and let the real news move to the top. Blair and Brown will have their day when the time comes.
To be honest, I am so utterly sick of Mr. Blair that I actually don't give a damn whether he goes via an 'orderly transfer of power' or a bloodbath - just as long as he goes. And the sooner the better.
How dare labour mps force the British prime minister to Cleary state when he is to step down from his post do they not understand it is the majority of the British public who decided to return mr Blair to office not a letter signed by 50 labour members of parliament but millions of Britain’s putting an x on the ballot paper therefore it is up to the British public who should be able to chose weather we want Gordon brown or not so I firmly believe the whole parliamentary system needs to changed a general election called on the eve prime minister resignation because the good of the many out way the good of the fifty or so and why should the majority of the voting public i.e. the English public have a Scottish prime minister I cant see a English first Minster of Scotland or Wales can you?
When he announces his departure date, he will be a lame duck president, if he is'nt already. I use the term president in broadest sense since in a democracy, one is entitled to his/her opinions (unlike the status quo that has existed in the labour party for years).
His priority is his legacy, not the country. So what is his legacy? He has won 3 victories for labour, transformed the party, in statistical terms, for the party, he is exceptional.
However, for the county, there is no real legacy apart from one. Iraq and Afghanistan. When you go to war, on the basis of a lie, you will never be forgotton, as was the case with EDEN, and the Suez crisis in 1956.
His incredibly damaging foreigh policy has not made anyone safer. Rather the opposite.
However, i do wonder, given that the sun, has named a date of may 31st, is too long for a prime minister to sit in office.
Tom
Whether or not there is an ideological split between Blair and Brown, the fact remains that Brown has allowed the cult of personality to develop and fester within the Labour Party.
He has had countless opportunities to publicly support Blair over the last nine years, yet has chosen to remain silent and watch as the internecine warfare between blairite and brownite supporters has gathered pace.
For this reason, if no other, then Brown is wholly unsuitable as a leader to replace Tony Blair. If one goes, then the other should go at the same time and allow the Labour party to re-invent itself before the next General Election.
Brilliant!! This is the stuff of parliamentary debate from the touchlines.
Good to see you back by the way, and nice for this current diabolical situation to raise its ugly head just as you get back in the hot seat.
I bet the DPM is pleased as Punch since this current furour will defelct from his rather dodgey run of flak of late. Personally I think he should be para-dropped into Afghanistan but that is a personal view. I lost a hundred quid bet when he failed to resign recently so it is significant that we now have a possible party leader looking to name the date.
I have learned my lesson, however, so the most that I am prepared to bet is a plate of oysters that he, Tony Blair, steps down before the New Year. Before half the nation write in to take me on I'm limiting that bet to my two close freinds (who fleeced me over the DPM weeze)
Its rather funny watching the Labour Party fall apart like an old, overworked boiler.
Gordon Brown looks set to explode !!
I remain convinced that the discussion surrounding Prime Minister Blair isn’t about personality or policy, it’s about ego. Instead of dragging up past mistakes and pointing fingers, really, this a moment for Labour Part members, as well as Parliament as a whole, to examine their own maturity. Also, I would remind Nick Robinson of his lecture earlier in the year about the media. If Parliament, media, and politicians are to move Britain forward in a positive way, it is beholden on all of us to improve.
Only yesterday, I had a meeting with a local politician and Council official. I had hoped things would conclude with a significant positive consensus. While I am happy to admit I may have been aiming to high and been too rigid, the politician was too risk averse and selfish. What could have been an opportunity to develop strategies, policies, and concrete improvement on the ground was lost because his ego got in the way. This is the same ego I see in my City Council Chamber, which only exists to posture and squabble.
The way I see it is simple. Politicians and media have developed bad habits, which is reflected in the childish behaviour in Parliament and the media. They talk of and demand improvement but they can’t stop being obsessed with old ways and petty differences. This puts up barriers between people and destroys substantive progress. Would these people put up with this sort of behaviour in their own homes or private offices? No. Why, then, do they not pursue a better standard in public when they’re taking the publics money?
You are what you do.
I agree that there isn't much of an ideological split between Blair and Brown. It's been very useful for New Labour for Brown to be able to hint that he would do things differently in power, but unfortunately he can't control his friend - the classic good cop-bad cop routine. It keeps a lot of people on board who would not support Blair.
Assuming Brown does indeed get into power, he will start having to defend all the same choices that Blair made or would make.
TB treats the UK like his personal plaything. It is time he acted honourably (for once) and resigns, resigns quickly and forgets any egotistical ideas of a public "farewell tour".
I agree that we need to seriously consider fixed terms, that way the electorate and the politicians know the sell by date.
How can he go on a high at the end of May next year? Even the rank & file of the Labour Party are declaring a trouncing in the May elections already.
There isn't a "Grand Plan", he's living from day to day. We shouldn't forget he only came out with his "I won't serve a fourth term" to appease the clamour in the Party for him to go back then. He didn't choose to set this deadline for himself he used it back in 2004 to buy himself room hoping the country would think better of him in time.
He can't avoid going before the May elections now, the only question to me is if he can hang on until Christmas. Get the Queen's Speach in and go seems most likely.
There is one unique way Blair can guarantee the success of the as yet unproven "anyone but Gordon" strategy. He has every constitutional right to go to the Queen and ask for the dissolution of Parliament and call a General Election. Our constitutional system gives this prerogative to the sitting Prime Minister and Monarch, with the latter's response is a pure formality. I cannot imagine a more gracious and democratic exit that one at the poll, and GB and his Scottish cronies couldn't do anything about it. Go on TB, make history and everyone's day - do the unexpected!
Blair should go immediately.
The leaked document detailing an orchestrated crescendo of public appearances before Blair might go is possibly evidence of a conspiracy to misuse public funds for personal gain and an abuse of office. As such it should be investigated by the appropriate body.
Hopefully that would be followed by various war crime tribunals with respect to Iraq and the supply of weapons to another state (Israel) which was carrying out attacks on a civilian population.
It would appear that all those who are trying to de-stabilise our Prime Minister have conveniently forgotten that weapons of mass destruction are but 45 minutes away, and that nothing must be done to jeopardise our national security.
"It is perfectly true that unlike the Tories in 1990 there is no ideological split in the party".
I can't believe that someone hand-picked by the 91Èȱ¬ to fill it's most important political reporting role could write such a sentence. I'm not a Labour supporter, but I can imagine the simmering resentment felt by everyone with a social conscience at Blair's abandonment of everything they hold dear. In contrast to the unprincipled triangulation that swept "New" Labour into power, I am sure there are many who are counting down the days to the time when they can consign gesturing to the playground, and re-establish intellect as the driving force behind political decision-making.
No ideological split, eh?
In any normal resignation of a chief executive officer, the outgoing CEO would have a job to go to. Blair's problem is that there is no job beckoning apart from rubber chicken lectures in the USA, which he's probably not quite ready to stomach.
So the delay allows him to work out a dignified exit strategy, perhaps.
He's not going to succeed to Secretary General of the UN. There is no sign of NATO offering him a position as commander in chief. He failed over the European constitution so his remaining Eurochums are unlikely to find him a sinecure in Brussels. He's too young to become Chancellor of a world-class university.And he can't run for President or Vice-President of the United States. He hasn't got the money to launch his own charitable foundation (unlike Bill Gates or Warren Buffett)
Nick...can you please explain how on earth Gordon Brown can automatically assume that he will be the next PM and Labour Party leader if Mr Blair resigns? Surely the whole party has to VOTE for a new leader in a democratic process? Has Blair become so deluded that he now sees himself as quasi-royalty and can appoint his heir?
It seems we are no longer a democracy. Surely, as in the past, if the PM resigns, the Deputy PM stands in until the new leader is elected by the party. Perish the thought!
The part of all this that made me laugh out loud was a comment in your main news story today (https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5319328.stm): "Meanwhile, leading Brownites are calling for the prime minister to make a public declaration about when he will go, so that he cannot go back on it."
If it were in any sense true that Bliar could not go back on his public declarations (remember top-up fees, anyone?), I suspect that there wouldn't be nearly so many people clamouring for his resignation.
I do not think it is a case of ideology or politics but more a case of personal ambition and the need for Global recognition. TB is not concerned about the effect that his dogged intent to stay may have on the Country or his Party but is fuelled by his own perception of his own importance and is reluctant to relinquish the base in which his ego feeds off. This is a case of the self importance of the man overiding the needs of the electorate and the country.
Yawn... Nick, there is a more interesting dimension to this story (or lack of one) which you and the rest of the media seem to be leaving alone. WILL BRITAIN ELECT GORDON BROWN?
I really don't think he is popular in the country, and for the same sort of reasons that Anne Widdecombe, for example, isn't electable, (but to a lesser extent obviously).
With the LibDems now offering only an old face, isn't the new 'Mr Nice Guy' Blair replacement more likely to be man called David Cameron?
Tony Blair should have resigned after it was proved that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Because he did not do so, it appears that he took the country to war on false pretenses. His credibility is badly damaged. It is a testimony to his determination that he has managed to stay in power and win a third election, however he did so purely on the basis of a strong economy managed by the Chancellor. How many of the 37% of New Labour voters at the last election in fact voted for Gordon Brown? The argument that he has a mandate to stay is not a sound one. I hope he goes sooner rather than later.
Gordon Brown is keeping schtum as he found out a long time ago that Tony Blair is a liar and not to be trusted.
Thinks of all the money we would have to spend on hospitals, schools and other public services if we were not engaging our delpleted military in ill advised combat all over the world, and taking up our police time on anti terrorist operations. This is all down to TB.
Surely the strangest aspect of this story is the fact that in 12 years the Labour party has failed to produce credible younger candidates. If that had happened, there would be no chance of going back to Brown, he would appear too old and dated.
I think the problem is that Blair is now floundering around like that helpless whale in the Thames a few months back. There is simply nowhere for him to go. On the one side, he has his own MPs urging him to go, never a good sign and surely compounded by the resignation of Tom Watson. On the other hand, the general public consensus seems to be that people are fed up with what they see as "bodged" government policy, particularly when it comes to intervention by our armed forces overseas, and we seem to be hungry for a change.
I think the main issue here is not when he should go. (I think he should have gone already). It is about how the Labour Party go about appointing a successor. Anything like a "coronation" of Gordon Brown would seem to me to be a total fudge. there are clear differences between the Blairites and the Brownites. My opinion is that they need a real leadership contest to sort those differences out, or the Labour Party will be in real, serious trouble.
How exactly did Brown "lose" the leadership for Labour when he never stood?
Blair won a landslide in 1994 against Prescott and Beckett.
What's wrong an annual election or re-election of the party leader? I suppose the answer is obvious.
To the cronies and appointees it would look dangerously similar to democracy.
Without a democratic system there is little point in being a L.P. member. Yesterday I resigned.
That fact that the Sun get to know everthing that Tony Blair is doing / thinking before anyone else including members of his party really sums up his obsession with spin and his own inflated ego.
The fact that The Sun is read and believed and followed by so many of the British population is something we should all be ashamed of.
Are we not approaching a situation where the nominal Leader of the majority party cannot be claimed to command the support of the majority of the House? Would GB be any stronger than TB? Except that this would send the Labour Sheep scuttling back to their fold, should not an interim PM be found until a General Election can sort out this mess?
As ever the Media presentation of these issues leaves me confused. I have not a clue who I am going to vote for at the next election, so I am not bias in favour of any one person/party. Further, I do believe Blair got it right on Iraq. Not withstanding this I dont beleive Nick Robinson is presenting a balanced view re the TB -V- Gordon Brown -V- The Labour Party -v- the World issue. He has seems to have a private vendetta. His reporting has not, in my view, been balanced as I would expect the 91Èȱ¬ to be but has seemed to be a personal attack on Blair in particular. Why!!
I dont even believe the 91Èȱ¬ now.
What's going on behind closed doors.
If Nick Robinson has a private issue re TB should he be reporting on the matter for the 91Èȱ¬ or would he be better off at the News of the World.
If the Brownites want their man to be PM sooner rather than later then they're bigger fools than the Blairites.
When Brown becomes PM then the public will wake up to what a boring, micromanaging, interfering busy body he really is and "oh whoops" there goes the next election for labour.
They'd be better off letting Blair run until the last year of this government and then have him take over just in time for the election.
Andy
Agree with all the above suggesting that this is a ploy from Labour to flush out people's opinions on this particular departure date.
My own thoughts are that The Party wants Blair to absorb as much of the poison from Iraq before handing over to Brown (ideally with us withdrawing shortly before/after the handover).
What's making me smile is all the people gunning for the back of Blair and supporting Cameron, who is a sort of Blair 1.1. What kind of change is that?
I think we need to some neuroscientists to examine the correlation between power and collective amnesia. New Labour repeatedly went on about how it had learned decisively from its own implosion and that of the Tories in the early 1990s.
Nine years in office and implosion is exactly what they are embarked upon. This happens to coincide with the first serious electoral competition they have had in that decade. Isn't it interesting there was no serious threat to Thatcher from her own party until Kinnock looked electable? Political loyalty is truly skin deep - another reason why the general public has a contempt for politicians.
Blair loyalists are fast abandoning the sinking ship for Brown's vessel: pity it's the Titanic...
The longer Blair stays the more divided the party will become and the more difficult it will be for his successor to overcome the public’s perception that the government is obsessed with itself and has nothing to offer in terms of taking forward important policy initiatives. All David Cameron needs to do at the present time is sit back and hope the backbiting continues for as long as possible. For once in recent memory it is the Conservative front bench that looks united whilst Labour MPs are dividing themselves into cliques, repositioning themselves for when the new leader takes over and plotting and scheming against each other. All of this is not a very edifying sight and it is unclear how long it can be sustained.
Who would have thought that it would all end like this. Mr Blair is in danger of being remembered for the manner he left the premiership rather than his time in office. It’s the ultimate irony that the man who made Labour electable after 18 years in opposition is in danger of being responsible for its demise.
Blair's epitaph "Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know"?
Too many conspiracy theorists in here for me. If anyone was 'in the know' then they wouldn't tell us, and as you aren't 'in the know' you can't tell us. The rest is just entertainment - there are far more serious issues than a resignation date.
John
I agree with others, Blair to go now!, Brown never to get in!, and This country to have a new General Election!
We are being let down by Labour which ever way we turn, I hate to say it but at least I had money in my pocket when Thatcher was in!!
Given the pathetic lap-dog way that nick robinson acts as a spin doctor for no 10 - in return for titbits in time for 10 o'clock news-
will he do the decent thing and resign at the same time as Blair ?
This is all rather reminiscent of the film "Downfall" about Hitler's last days in his bunker!
I want to know what this farewell tour is?? and if it goes ahead who will actually be cheering Blair on for his bright and happy and quids in future along it??
I do not want Brown as our next PM, I do not believe a scotsman should run England, we are the only country in the UK who does not have its own assembly etc... we have been told this is because Parliment is classed as ours, so therefor shouldnt we only have an Englishman for the job?? I'm sure the Scots and the welsh would love it if an Englishman were to run there parliments and assembly's.
I want a general Election it is the only choice and the fairest choice for the country.
Even historians know dates mean less than facts themselves. You may get the date wrong, but nothing changes the fact that William I defeated Harold, or that the Allies defeated the Germans. What does this date mean? Well, not having come from the Prime Minister's mouth it means less than nothing. We had the promise from Tony that he would step down before now, but he has shown no interest in doing so. That a date has been named only serves as a successful delaying tactic. I don't see Tony as ever going gracefully and so he is using the chance to put his leaving date off to give himself a chance to turn things around. Those that think Tony will honour this spurious date are foolish and naive (even if he did settle the date himself).
The Government is in total meltdown, if Tony Blair is serious about the Labour party he would do the honourable thing and resign.
Now that he has begun to lose the support and loyalty of his backbenchers he needs to resign.
Is it not right that the party realises that this process may lead to them losing the next election.
David Cameron and the revitalised Tories are now a serious threat. Tony Blair must go now
I'm sure the SNP love the idea of Tony Blair's 'triumphant trip round Britain' - every time he sets foot here, Labour's chances of winning the Scottish Parliament election next year fall!
I'm in the ABG -'Anyone but Gordon' camp. I blame Gordon Brown personally for the pensions mess whereby several thousand private sector employees have been left with no company pension, because the companies cannot afford to pay their pensions. Many contributed to pension funds for more than 40 years.
I also think that his attitude to Inheritance Tax is 'old fashioned' labour - like an ostrich with his head in the sand. Thousands of home owners are facing the prospect of paying IHT because of increases in house prices. But equally, I do not want to see a cut in basic rate income tax.
Unless the Labour Party has the sense to elect a leader who is likely to be popular with the electorate - and GB will not be - then I shall vote for David Cameron. I have never voted for the Conservative Party, and the Lib Dems no longer have a viable leader. I think Ming is too old - and I'm almost 60!
I would back Margaret Beckett.
Why does the media have so much power? Tony Blair will step down as and when he is ready to do so. He is the Prime Minister of this Country and we should respect that. Nobody, especially the media, should have the power to oust him out of his job.
The people of this country elected the Labour Party lead by Tony Blair to lead this country. We did not elect Gordon Brown or anybody else and therefore we should decide who is the next leader and possible Prime Minister. Why do we think this country would be any better off under Mr Brown - in my view it would be considerably worse!
Leave Mr Blair to get on with running the country and if members of the party do not like it then it's time they left their job!
I can only assume the story has come from "spin doctors" who have nothing better to do!!
I don't think Brown can afford to wait until after the Holyrood elections.
If this festers on until then, it must increase the chances of an SNP/Lib Dem coalition emerging in Edinburgh comitted to a referendum on Scottish independence.
The constitutional implications of that would not be a happy note for Brown to start his premiership on.
I wonder what the the odds are for a bet placed on Teflon Tony being ousted well before then? Good he's going, now wouldn't it be good if the media could get back to the issues that really matter? I never liked Thatcher but my gods looking back woman said something and did it. She may have crippled us but she had the balls to tell us she would do it. Teflon Tony has managed to bring in so many rules, laws, idiotic ideas that can't be blamed on the EU, by the back door so that no-one realised til they got hit by them. The damage caused by their handling of foot and mouth was phenomenal, the majority of people I know who lost their businesses etc never got a penny compensation. But the world of political destruction is odd when voters have such short memories. War after war, done in the name of this country, done in the name of a god who is not my god (I am Pagan), the mess of the NHS, the fact our PM seems to be Bush's lap dog ... I call him Teflon Tony because it doesn't matter what he does, nothing ever sticks. So the sooner he gets out of Downing Street the better, tomorrow would be good. Today even better. He's going, now let's hope they get on with running the country in the meantime.
Nick,
Could you explain why no one is mentioning a leadership challenge? Surely if they don't want him to stay they should trigger a leadership election and vote him out? There must be enough ex ministers and backbenchers out there that will oppose Blair until he goes. It reminds me of Francis Urquhart in the 'Final Cut' - losing the plot and hanging on for dear life. Why? I'm not quite sure.
Can someone explain (Nick?) what all the fuss is about? Why should Mr Blair name a date? He is doing a perfectly good job - what is the problem? He has said he will go before the next election, giving time for his successor. All these 'Brownites' clamouring for a date, causing feverish speculation - is there any rational basis for their thoughts? The country at large couldn't care less when Mr Blair goes.
Great, super, magic. TB out GB in. GB out DC in. MC out CK back in... maybe. Its a wonder any work gets done at HP.
Am I the only one who just doesn't care whether or not he makes public the date he's decided to go, and doesn't understand why there's such a big fuss about it?
I can perfectly well understand people's views on why he should or shouldn't go and I'm not discouraging debate about that, but that doesn't give an answer as to why he should go public?
It seems to me to be a media/Westimnster-driven plot to unseat him asap.
I'm not a Blair apologist, I completely disagree with his policy in Iraq etc, but still fail to see what any of this has to do with this apparent forced obligation on his part to announce when he's leaving.
And people going on about how ineffective he'd be if he were to announce it? You think so? Blimey, there's a surprise. Maybe if we actually let him do his job and not make such a big deal out of when he is/isn't going he might actually be effective (I say 'might' but I'm not hopeful).
Whatever the eventual date of the Prime Minister's departure, it is clear (but seemingly not to Brown-ite Labour MPs)that Mr Blair will not leave office before the Middle East issues (and those include Israel and the Palestinians, Iraq and Afghanistan)have been resolved sufficiently not to tarnish the 'Blair legacy'!
Any delay to the departure date will be 'in the interests of national security and the safety of HM Armed Forces' ['said a No. 10 spokesman'].
[Serious Labour Party noises off].
To Andrew, who made an earlier comment, George Robertson has not been at NATO for some years...
Will he go? Won't he go?
Who will take his place - Gordon, Alan, David or maybe even John?
At the end of the day I don't care and I suspect the vast majority of the UK don't either. Politics these days seems to be about personality and sound-bites, with the media frenzy only serving to satisfy the politicians themselves (though much of it is probably 'leaked' by them anyway). We are fast becoming a mirror of the USA; with the media deciding who gets the winning lottery ticket. And the reality is it is too late to stop it. We as the public find it too easy to be duped and coaxed into believing what we are being told, both by our politicians and the media.
Whoever ends up running the country will be no different to the current PM. It's all the same cloth, just a different shade. The real questions that politicains should be asking is how best to engage the dis-interested public who are becomg dis-enfranchised from the very people they put into power - both local and national. Pity.
Dear Mr Robinson
Many of us find it difficult to understand the furore around Mr Blair's leadership.
Last year we won an election with a reasonable majority, enabling him to stay in power until 2010. He made the mistake of stating that he would not fight a further election which has helped fuel rumours.
The Conservatives are not ready for the fray. If there were an election tomorrow I am not sure Mr Cameron would be able to dispel the doubts about his policies (what policies?).
I would have thought that Mr Blair will stay in power until he surpasses Mrs Thatcher's record. Is that not feasible? None of you political journalists gives it much credit.
Why should there be an orderly transition to G Brown? Shouldn't he by rights have to fight an election? No-one discusses that.
Mr Brown is Scottish. I've never heard political journalists mention the West Lothian question in Mr Brown's connection. How credible will he be implementing policies for England which Kirkcaldy will not have to adopt?
Whatever his faults, Mr Blair is a world figure. Might he not reasonably hope to win more support when people realise the alternatives?
As a country our demand for TB's departure means we are asking the Parliamentary Labour Party to apppoint a new Prime Minister. These are the same people who maintain John Prescott as the Deputy Prime Minister.
I think we all need to be careful what we wish for. Who from the current crop of Labour MP's would you want to represent us in all our needs and on the world stage? None seem able to carry the words 'Great' Britain or 'United' Kingdom. It is not enough to say TB must go, we must think what happens next.
Get in the running Nick.
We can't trust Blair, Brown, Cameron or any of these career puppets.
You have more cred than all of them.
Lets get out of these wars.
I don't think Mr Blair should resign. I feel it would be more appropriate if he was arrested before leaving office and made to answer for his involvement in an illegal war at the Hague. Only then would my faith in democracy, (and countless others I have spoken too), be restored.
I hold no brief for Tony Blair. He took us into a deeply unpopular war and which will be his legacy. After ten years in power he has few friends left, hence his disasterous reshuffles. As to the current uprising let us be under no illusion, Labour MPs fear for their own constiuency futures not the Labour Party.
All these posts seem most unfair on a Premier who has served us well, who has established a unique place for us in the world's affairs and has done for world peace what even George Bush could not do. He should be allowed to go in his own time - and the farewell tour needs good weather, so it is senseless to think of allowing him to go before next summer.
Blair wants to entrench his approach (Blairism) so it survives when he has gone. His approach seems to have two main strands.
One is a rather naive late 20th century change management technique. It used to be called BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) pushed by the big IT suppliers in the late 80's to improve service and cut costs. He has just caught the bug - 20 years after everyone else. It leads directly to big IT projects such as those in the NHS and 91Èȱ¬ Office. In the 80's/90's a typical IT Director survived about 3 years pushing this agenda.
The other strand is the familiar Bush's poodle approach.
No wonder Brown doesn't want to be tied to this.
Emperor Blair has no clothes.
Presumably the Prime Minister of the UK now needs the joint approval of the President of the USA and the owner of the Sun newspaper before he can resign.
Should not the backbenchers be writing to those American authorities, not to their British puppet in Airstrip One?
Dear Nick,
Thanks for bringing the entire debate live for your viewers.
For people whose home countries are dictatorships and political chaos, these MPs must remember they are being watched.
I have read the entire letter written by Honorable Watson and Mahmood.
Have you read Watson's letter? Can you understand the reason his is resigning?
His letter is unconvincing, and there is no real link between his praise of the Prime Minister and the announcement of his depature.
You have a wonderful Prime Minister, and other than Iraq, people should give him the credit he deserves.
The response of the Prime Minister to Honorable Watson tells all about your leader: a humble, rational, logical and intelligent person.
His successor, probably Gordon Brown, desperately need to lean on and not against him to get as far or beyond his legacy.
Six junior members of the government resign plus Tom Watston? And Blair says he was going to sack him anyway. What else could he say - and who believes him? So now it boils down the point that Tony's ego is so inflated that no one is allowed to criticise him. Oh yes, it's definitely time for him to go - the pressure is mounting but is his arrogance so all encompassing that he will stick around despite being a liability?
Beware you circling buzzards, there is life and more tricks in the old dog yet! Beware the presumptus vultures and political scavengers. They will fly away when it matters. The smell of the rich food at the table of power is intoxicating. Be careful you do not tuck your napkins in too early, before grace is said (and given to TB)!
TB is far from perfect but at least he is English, has vision and should stay for at least another year! GB should stay as chancellor until TB resigns then go himself and make way for a completely fresh phase of New Labour government,a different chancellor and a new PM. Please, please not old Unions ways slow public sector cross dressing as a new start.
Tony, here's I really easily way to get out of this mess, stand for a fourth term!
At least your policies will be the safe with DC.
This situation bears an uncanny similarity to what happened to the Liberals in Canada three years ago. The incumbent leader held off resignation in favour of his his undoubted successor until the last possible moment. This split the party split in two and ruined the transition, which came to be seen as more of a personal feud than a transfer of leadership. For this, and the corruption of the previous regime which subsequently came to light, the party's long mandate in power was annhilated in the following election. The lesson is a simple one: power corrupts, and when leadership becomes too focussed on one man, the party loses badly.
Given that the Scots have their own Parliament, am I the only one who's concerned at the increasing proliferation of Scottish MPs holding ministerial posts in Westminster where the decisions that they make on behalf of England & Wales frequently don’t apply north of the border?
Mr. Blair should be forced to leave office immediately for one simple reason. His actions of the last 2 years have proved he has become increasingly & now totally, insane. He cannot therefore 'lead the country' a day longer.
As a Tory, there is nothing I like better than to see a Labour Party tear itself apart after years of political stagnation, and I use that term advisedly. Since 1997, 'New' Labour has not delivered, and I believe that Blair's political epitaph will be the monicker of "style rather than substance." I challenge any Labour activist to name an implemented policy which will have far-reaching benefits for this country, and will be looked upon with gratitude by future generations.
Hi,
I must admit to being totally fed up with so called pundits banging on about when Blair will resign. Have any of these people like Nick Robinson ever done anything useful for the country? I know that Blair has.
It's like silly children in primary school running around talking behind backs and spreading gossip from other silly children.
I think we are in the end-game, but a creaking gate can hang quite a long time.
Blair would love to stay for ten years, and it is Cameron's interest for Labour's labours to go on as long as possible. So whilst Cameron would like to make it seem he is pushing, he shouldn't really want Blair to go yet.
Assuming Brown has his own old-labour agenda, the longer the evil day is deferred the better for the country. After all the ABB silent majority might coalesce around an alternative candidate. What about Margeret Becket ? She's done it before...Don't laugh.
The first mistake was his biggest - to actually admit that he was not contemplating completing his third term as PM in full. From thereonin it has been downhill all the way. Old Labour has been waiting for this moment to seize defeat from the jaws of victory and 12 years of pent up bile and hatred of New Labour is now starting to spill out into civil war. He should have just said nothing or made no comment on the possibilty of a handover. Now this particular genie is out of the bottle he would do well to go now and forget about any farewell tour.
If Blair is now to termed a 'lame duck' prime minister within a year of giving up power. Then so to is every American president who ever came within a year of the termination of a second term. He has been a great PM, posibly the greatest ever and ably assisted by a splendid Chancellor. There was much to be done when they came to power, not least reducing the servicing costs of Public Service borrowing inherited from the Conservatives. They raised employment enabling 2ml to now contribute to the Treasury instead of being on benefit. Such disciplines in the first two years enabled the unprecedented massive spending on the Public Services have paid a rich dividend
He has taken us into war in Iraq, he has underestimated the Taliban, poodle judgement. Just GO so ordinary voters can think again of voting Labour. As for the UN post, who does he think he is?
Is it not time that voting was compulsory, and the adding of a 'non of the above' box to the ballot paper. We would all then relaise the serious mess our politics is in -
I would predict more than 50% would state none of the above.
Here's for some outside perspective, as I am not from the U.K. Tony Blair is one of the most respected leaders in the world - us, the rest of the world, wish we had such a leader.
Look at the US, look at Russia, look at France - Blair is as good as it gets, with all his quirks.
He made a huge mistake with the Iraq war, but frankly Blair's speech on WHY it is important to free Iraq was the only thing that made sense. He wanted to go in and free the world of a terrible dictator. He believed in it.
He failed because Bush and his corrupt cronies never wanted that. They wanted oil, they wanted power, and in the end the chaos in Iraq is a direct consequence of the moral corruption of the occupiers. Blair thought he could use bad intent for good deeds, and it's now been proven that this does not work.
I was and I am a supporter of Blair's reasoning for occupying iraq. Bush's motives were much more sinister and this is why we got what we got.
Once Tony Blair is gone England will wake up and notice how good he was.
Those of you wishing to pass the mantle onto DC because of his so-called environmental credentials should read the section on the environment in the 2005 Conservative manifesto, which he was prominent in writing. DC has learned the lessons of spin extremely thoroughly and will not hesitate to carry them out if (and I emphasise if) he gets into power.
Should he do so, expect a repeat of the current unedifying mess in, say, 2016.
Blair is displaying his usual arrogance and pseudo presidential mantra which made me sick of the man from the moment he stepped into no. 10. He ought to have sacked his disloyal team members instantly not be second guessed by their resignations.
But like all his decisions these have been flawed and his leadership abysmal during his term of office. He is no more a Statesman more a third rate act on vaudeville the sooner he goes the better. He ought to have sacked Brown years ago, one chancellor is very much like another, the policies should be dictated from the ideals of the party and Brown if anything would be worse than Blair: at least the PM had charisma but that is all and he is shallow and a political nonentity. Brown has nothing to commend him and lacks the charisma of Blair. We need to make sure no PM or Cabinet member can ever reign again for more than 4 years to keep them sane and honest. Blair honestly believes he is God's gift and that is extremely dangerous for any leader.
So Gordon Brown says it is not good enough that Tony Blair's departure date is only confirmed publically by Tony's friends and allies and not by Tony himself.
And how do we know what Gordon thinks? Its not from Gordon's public declarations but from those by Gordon's friends and allies.
Bernard vanHaeften is not alone in his concern for the increasing number of Scottish ministers. I do think that a Scottish PM and a Scottish 91Èȱ¬ Secretary would be a little too much, given the still unresolved West Lothian question.
Gordon Brown's current silence: is that because he believes his accession to the throne to be a 'done deal', or does he not want to damage his chances by opening his mouth?
I'm sure I'm not alone in being concerned about a transfer of power from one to another, although it's happened before, of course. Last time I don't remember any "We didn't vote for him!" arguments when Major took over.
The story seems to be unraveling as the day progesses, and Blair is evidently unable to cotrol events. Whatever spin his aides try to apply, his ability to lead the country is being irretrievably damaged, and he should go now. I do not support labour, new or old, but I feel sorry for the PM nonetheless, and I dread Gordon Brown succeeding him. These are bleak days for Labour, but the Tories would be well advised to resist gloating too publicly. Cameron's leadership is not fully proven, and the opposition could have done with much longer to sort themselves out.
Politics will get a whole lot more interesting over the next few weeks.
The anti-Scottishness on here is downright insulting. I may not agree with Gordon Brown's policies but to dismiss him purely on the basis of his nationality is simply racist. By all means, oppose him based on policies or personality but not on his nationality.
As for the Scottish MPs voting on England-only legislation, you can blame TB's botched devolution settlement for that one. Perhaps there should be more focus on these MPs, pressuring them not to vote on issues I have seen little in the way of solid, written, proposals to rectify this problem other than the usual bluster and hot air.
As for the comment regarding TB 'at least he's English'. He is, of course, Scottish born and Scottish educated but you're right, we certainly, don't want to claim him.
The 'tea leaves' are not looking good for TB or the Labout Party. But I think he will surprise us all by announcing his resignation at the Labour Party Conference.
Like it or not Blair was elected to serve a full third term and this is what I believe he should do. I think this whole episode shows, like when Thatcher was deposed, what a thoroughly unpleasant and untrustworthy lot politicians actually are. They should actually concentrate on doing their jobs instead of getting rid of their boss. If I behaved like that where I work I would be rightly sacked, as should these disloyal MPs. No wonder most of the public can't be bothered to vote. As for Gordon Brown, he should only become leader of the Labour party or PM if he is democratically elected either by MPs or the country. It is not acceptable that he thinks that he should have the job as he has been waiting for it for a long time. He deserves the job no more than I do. The idea of him being PM is as abhorrent to me as the idea of Cameron getting the job which he will do unless the government start doing their jobs properly instead of acting like the petulant and immature bunch of public school boys that they are.
Blair won't go until he has something to go to. There's nothing for him in the EU, post Iraq. The UN is an impossible prospect. He doesn't know much about business or economics and is deeply unpopular with the majority of the electorate. He has a big mortgage to pay on the 6 Million Pound house. His wife's law practice is not doing that well - otherwise why was she chasing work in Malaysia ? He still has two fairly young children to support and he's not that old. I think he will hang on to the bitter end, to spite his critics. He is now completely arrogant and overfed on power. The military leader role has made him worse in this respect. He is in a very deep hole and keeps on digging - perhaps he hopes to emerge in Australia, where I'm sure they will welcome him with open arms. Brown will not be the next leader. The party will go into meltdown to match that of the Militant Tendency era and there will be so much blood letting that even David Cameron could be voted in as PM. Having voted Labour for 30 years I might even be one of those who vote him in, just to get my revenge on the pathetic behaviour of Labour over this leadership question.
It seems as though time should be running out for Blair now but the arrogance of the man defies belief, He states thet he was going to sack Mr Watson. When?
He will try and cling on by his fingernails not caring about the damage he is causing. Mind you as the leader of a government fed on spin and the best liar on the world stage he will still think he is right and the rest of us are wrong...
Labour cannot win another election with Blair as leader. He will always be sunk by Iraq. If, as many of us do, we hope to see Labour win the next election it needs to remove Blair as soon as possible. I wonder if he knows how to spell the word 'hubris', or knows the context in which it is used?
I can't understand why everybody's so worked up about all this. It strikes me that the media (newspapers, radio & TV) simply spices things up in order to generate a story and creates the bandwagon that everyone then jumps upon, which then feeds on itself. Other than the "Westminster Village" most people couldn't care less on precisely which date he goes. What a fuss. Obviously I'm missing something!!
It look slike Blairs finished now.I can't see him getting through conference with this kind of open rebellion going on.Unless Brown says something to save him I think Blair may have to resign at or before the conference-and thats what I think G Brown wants.Brown knows he has to take over as PM now before hes tied into a Blairite agenda
It rather strikes me as I wake to yet more portentious words from Jon Humphrys of a morning ... that I very much doubt that the country as a whole is even a fraction as interested and bothered with Tony's departure/non-departure/refusal to name the date as the politerati and the westminster reporting media are. The lack of a country-wide sense of perspective to most of the discussion, and indeed the actions of various labour politicians is pretty disappointing. I suspect that most of the population of the UK only perceive there to be "some sort of issue" over TB's departure plans because there is a media storm over it, not because they find it intinsically troubling. After all, the primary "consequence" that the backbenchers and the interviewers talk of is "damage to the party" and "not enough time for an orderly transition". Both of those, if one reads them literally, are fudnamentally internal/local concerns. It's all very self-absorbed of the political classes to wind themselves up over this, thus essentially avoiding discussion of matters which do actually impact people on the ground.
See this for what it is - a desperate greedy media faced with filling 24 hour news coverage, and a boringly successful government and country. An excellent, statesmanlike economically-astute (and especially labour)prime minister is not in their interests. Some kind of story is. They are desperate to see change, can't pin dirt, gossip, sleaze on Tony Blair and are facing a non-story in the continuing smooth running of our country.....hence their increasingly hysterical clamour to find some angle. Its life or death for them. "Brown and Blair don't like each other", "everyone needs to know exactly when he's going", "voters are hung up on their respective body-language", etc etc etc.. Rubbish! If you believe in democracy don't believe the hype. This is about a handful of selfish media moguls trying to make themselves even richer, thats all. Meanwhile they are cynically destroying the electorate's belief in the positive power of democracy - but only if we listen to them. Don't be distracted.
A former Prime Minister commented that "week in politics is a long time"
If Mr Blair were to remain position until next May the ensuing 10 months going to seem like an eternity.
During his time in office he has overturned many long standing institutions that has helped this country through good and bad times.
He as linked us with a despot tyrannical dynasty in Washington and its fib ridden foreign policies.
Whats next invasion of Iran and Syria?
Why don`t his backbenchers do the same to him as the Tories did to Major and Thatcher?
A large proportion of the debate on Blairs refusal to give a timetable to go seems to focus on him lining his nest for his post-PM years, and crafting his personal legacy. But remember that Tony and George have unfinished business with Iran. Many pundits had predicted that the USA, the UK and Israel would have attacked Iran by now, but given the slow process of obtaining UN sanctions, and then demonstrating their ineffectiveness against Ahmandinejad to give Bush & co. an excuse for military action, could this be why Tony is buying time?
Let us hope not.
" * Bernard vanHaeften wrote:
Given that the Scots have their own Parliament, am I the only one who's concerned at the increasing proliferation of Scottish MPs holding ministerial posts in Westminster where the decisions that they make on behalf of England & Wales frequently don’t apply north of the border?
"
Rest assured you are far from alone, Bernard. A side-effect of 'devolution' has been an upswell of resentment from the English, who find that they are ruled by Scottish MPs with a Scottish agenda. Add to that the £2.7Bn per year extra Scotland gets under the Barnett Formula (oh, and the fact that a majority of English voters chose Tories, and Labour have a majority through their provincial seats) and you have a pretty resentful majority.
The problem facing the Labour Party is that they risk making themselves unelectable, whenever the next General Election is called. None of the names in the frame for Party Leader will appeal to the electorate in the same way as Blair did in 1997.
The Party mandarins need some "out of the box" thinking.... for example, offer the electorate their first woman Labour PM and I think they'll stand a better chance - and I think Patricia Hewitt is the woman for the job. She has had as much government experience as any of the men, and I think the public would warm to her - possibly the only way Labour will beat David Cameron!
I find this amusing and disturbing at the same time that people will write their own opinions to this site and believe that their views are shared by the 'majority'.
I do not share the views of the conspiracy theorists so stop commenting on my behalf.
I'm tired of this. We pay these monkeys to run the country for us, instead for months on end they are running around scrabbling in their own interests.
I recall that before the last election the general consensus was that an early handover from Blair to Brown was advantageous to Cameron and that a later handover was advantageous to Brown.
The thinking went as follows:
1. Tony Blair resigns, the Labour party has a contest and Gordon Brown is elected with a huge majority under Labour Party rules.
2. He recieves a huge short term popularity bump and Labour rises in the polls.
3. He makes a couple of small policy changes in policy that establish his "I'm different credentials" and allow the Labour party to unite around the elected leader so reinforcing the new found popularity of the party.
4. He calls a general election before he has to make any big unpopular decisions that can only lose him votes.
By becoming PM earlier Brown as well as negating the positive aspects of the above would also alienate a section of the voting public that believe it should be their right to elect a PM and not a few MPS and unions.
To all those who are complaining about the media trying to oust TB from the PM's job: you should look at what is being reported. TB is being called on to stand down by his own MPs and members of the Government. None of these individuals are members of the media. The only reason we haven't had a stalking horse and leadership contest like with Thatcher in the 90s, is that the Labour Party constitution does not allow for one.
In a Parliamentary Democracy, the PM gains his legitimacy from his own back-benchers. TB has clearly lost this, and the fun will start with the next session of Parliament, when we will see more and more legislation either fail or get through only with the support of the opposition. Lame duck PM: definitely.
Tony Blair must be safe for the time being. Tom Watson is no Geoffrey Howe.
Nikolaus :
With all due respect, TB and Bush took us to war with Iraq over alleged WMDs not for regime. TB has not once apologised for misleading the British electorate over the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. The paradox is that whilst Saddam's regime was despicable there was nothing, legally, we could do about it without concocting some reason.
With regards to a media driven campaign to oust Blair it has long been recognised that the fourth estate is probably the most important in British politics, Burke (1729-1797) was quoted as saying "...there were three Estates in Parliament, but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sat a fourth Estate more important far than they all" (Carlyle, Heroes and Hero Worship in History, 1841)
It is quite right that having played a part in the current furore the media should see it through to the end (and lets not forget the fuss about Blair's length of time in office started with an alleged agreement between Tony and Gordon). We the electorate should start to demand higher standards from our press as well as more openness from our government - after all if there are no "behind closed restaurant door" agreements there can be no conjecture.