Going but not gone
Two newspapers have been speculating today that Blair might announce a date for his departure at the Labour Party Conference in September. This is, of course, assuming that the cash for peerages sleazefest doesn't force him to stand down sooner.
The Telegraph thinks he will go next year after 10 years in Downing Street.
Senior Blairite MPs said that high-level discussions were going on to prepare for a transition to an expected Gordon Brown premiership.
If Mr Blair announced a timetable at or shortly before Labour's annual conference at the end of September it would defuse the growing restlessness in the party over the succession.
[…]
Labour MPs feel certain that Mr Blair has made up his mind to go next spring. Everybody at No 10 believes that he will be gone within a year and acknowledges that power and authority is haemorrhaging away.
The Guardian is more circumspect, proposing that Blair will merely give Brown some meaningless non-specific assurances to quell the speculation at the conference.
The autumn conference is seen by No 10 as the next hurdle to be negotiated in the path towards a seemly handover of power. It has not yet been decided by those closest to the prime minister whether he needs to name his departure date, or whether he can seek a private understanding with Gordon Brown that will quell speculation without being specific. But the objective is clear: to ensure the two men get through conference week without damaging each other.
I doubt Gordon Brown will be fobbed off with another of Tony's Granita 'guarantees'. He wants a specific date, as does most of the country. Blair's support and authority have all but evaporated and he is now the most unpopular Labour prime minister in modern times and the least popular European leader. And Brown's position is hardly any better with him somehow managing to be even less liked than Blair.
With this level of unpopularity, surely it would be better to hold a proper leadership contest now before the party conference rather than to allow Blair's scorched-earth policy to continue. I know… Dream on.
"...he is now the most
"...he is now the most unpopular Labour prime minister in modern times."
I don't know when modern times started, but let's face it, it is not a very extensive choice now, is it? It's a bit like being the worst striker away from home at Sunderland football club. I suspect when he polishes his medals he is more likely to scan the General Election results than YouGov (who never polled when the other Prime Ministers were around, so the Telegraph's polling comparisons need a fistfull of salt) polling results. Anyway, he has been the most unpopular Labour Leader in this house for 10 years!
Why does everyone seem to
Why does everyone seem to accept that Gordon Brown will automatically succeed Tony Blair. We already have one Royal family with its feudal traditions of primogeniture - why do we need a second, masquerading as the prime-ministership?
If Blair leaves, let's see this 'succession' myth for what it is and go for the full democratic process of finding a new PM - or maybe even eliminate the system which allowed T. Blair and M. Thatcher to happen.
Bah! Humbug!!
Bob What you say is true;
Bob
What you say is true; there haven't been that many Labour Prime Ministers to compare with, but of those four (I think) since Ramsay MacDonald, he seems to be the most unpopular. If I understand the Telegraph article correctly they used Gallup polls going back to 1938 as well as YouGov, but as that still leaves the important omission of Ramsay MacDonald, yes, pinch of salt needed. Nor would I call 1938 the beginning of modern times. However the article does show just how unpopular Blair currently is. And when Blair does polish his medals (including his Congressional Gold Medal presumably) he probably will scan General Election results rather than what pollsters said. He can reflect on his last election win which he managed with a spectacular 22% of the electorate. Your last sentence is heartily seconded.
Anonymous
Agreed! There should be a proper, transparent democratic leadership contest. Anything else is a sham.
IRAQ and PFI are two reasons
IRAQ and PFI are two reasons for NOT voting in Brown.
If he were a Socialist, or wise, he would have surely gone on one or the other.
Two strikes, and OUT .
Even if the creaking zombie
Even if the creaking zombie of the Blair government shuffles off into the grave at long last, will Gordon Brown really be any better? He's the man behind Nu Labour's adoption of PFI, he's just as religiose, he supported the illegal Iraq war and he has never once spoken out against the government's trampling of our rights and civil liberties. Plus ca change...
About the only thing you can
About the only thing you can say for Brown is that he suffers less from the managerial incompetence of Blair - any New Labour policies of which one might guardedly approve (like the renationalisation of Railtrack) seem to emanate from his office (in the case of Railtrack, in the face of fierce opposition from Andrew Adonis).
Still no reason to vote for the bastard, though.
You're all forgetting that
You're all forgetting that in any dictatorship, the succession is always determined by the man in charge - unless there is a coup d'etat.
Although there have been
Although there have been very few examples of a successful succession in any historical dictatorship* - generally it's found that the previous incumbent had an essential streak of nasty (or mental illness) that any successor lacks. It's for this reason that the 'argument' for invading Iraq 'because Saddam, although aged 66, would hand over to his sons when he got too old' doesn't ring true for me.
* Papa/Baby Doc perhaps?