news details |
|
|
| Blair is going to quit — but when? | | |
William Keegan
Tony Blair has led the British Labour Party to an unprecedented three election victories in a row — now all the talk is how the party can get rid of him.
BRITISH PRIME Ministers seldom leave the stage gracefully, and Tony Blair looks like being no exception. The infighting within the U.K.'s ruling Labour party, and between Mr. Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in particular, is now out in the open. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Mr. Blair will only step down with the greatest of reluctance and that he is far from enthusiastic (I use British understatement) about being succeeded by Mr. Brown, who has been the hot favourite for longer than most people, not least Mr. Brown himself, care to remember.
Mr. Blair, in many ways the consummate politician and survivor, made a crucial tactical error when he let it be known two years ago, that if re-elected (which he was in May last year) he would not serve a `full term.' His object was to calm speculation about whether he wished to be in office indefinitely, but the effect was to ensure that speculation about his possible departure date merely intensified.
It is no secret that Mr. Blair has long been unpopular within his own party. But after many cries of wolf, the last few days have seen open revolt, with even formally loyal Blairites insisting it is time for him to go and demanding a publicly announced date.
When the Conservatives in 1990 decided that Margaret Thatcher had become an electoral liability, the majority of her Cabinet moved swiftly to despatch her. Things move fast on such occasion. A senior British broadcaster was assuring me on Monday that Blair was certainly safe until the summer. This morning I awoke to hear the very same commentator saying it was not at all certain that Mr. Blair would last that long.
Mr. Blair's authority has been eroding fast, so that even an indication from a friendly Cabinet Minister, Environment Secretary David Miliband, that Mr. Blair would definitely bow out next summer was not enough. So far from putting out the flames this has merely fanned them.
Whatever happens from now on, one thing seems clear: the idea of an `orderly handover' of power from Mr. Blair to Mr. Brown is for the birds. It is not good for political parties when they wash their dirty linen in public. There is a strong suspicion that the Blairites have wanted to delay Mr. Blair's exit in order to encourage the emergence of a serious challenger to Mr. Brown. The Brownites have an interest in a leadership contest as early as possible.
It is all looking very messy. But then in British politics it usually is. It was not just Mrs. Thatcher who had to be dragged tearfully from Downing Street. Winston Churchill was most reluctant to go. So was his successor Anthony Eden, whose Suez adventures were every bit as damaging to him politically as Mr. Blair's Middle East forays have been to him. The only British Prime Minister to depart voluntarily in recent decades was Harold Wilson in 1976, and even that departure was reluctant — he decided to go because he could tell that his mental faculties were fading It's tough at the top — and very tough when the inevitable fall comes. —
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
