The Postman Always Calls Thrice - *Updated*
Not one, not two, but three letters are about to land on the Prime Ministerial doormat (not a reference to Stephen Byers btw) asking him, with varying degrees of bluntness to bugger off into the history books asap.
What will Tony do? I've always thought that he'd have to be carried out of Number Ten kicking and screaming, but now I'm not so sure. Let's get one thing clear; he's never going to put the interest of the Labour Party above himself.
I think he's in two minds, on the one hand he believes that only he can lead Britain and he is obeying some higher calling. On the other, I think he's feeling pretty worn out. He's been looking tired and ashen for a long time now, indeed he's occasionally looked as though he might crack up in public. In all seriousness I recall several times when I've been watching him live and had the feeling that we were just a tiny margin, just one pointed question away from seeing him collapse on the floor in a quivering, blubbering mess.
So, when will he go? This depends on how this most delusional of leaders imagines his 'legacy' can be best safeguarded. He has three choices: soon, May 2007 or the end of his term.
The latter is out of the question, one hint of that and the knives will come out, so it's late this year or the first half of next year. I believe that he wants to do ten years, but there is a price to pay for that. Will he want to pay it?
I think that he doesn't want a long grind ahead of him where the issue of a timetable for departure is stalking him. He's tried but it just won't go away.
Remember, this is about Tony and Tony's legacy. He's always detested the party, now more than ever.
I think it's becoming more likely that we'll be seeing a John Major moment and Blair might suddenly offer his resignation. If he's feeling vindictive he may even try to force a general election.
Why? Because the steady chipping away at his authority is going to damage his reputation and, in his own eyes, his legacy. Since the last election the top priority has been to protect and preserve Tony's legacy.
A sudden departure may look like a heroic gesture, a statesman standing proud above the ambitious rabble. It must be looking like an attractive option to him, especially if he can shaft Brown in the process.
Update: Blair's Departure Plans: Thanks to Vlad the Impala
The Daily Mirror has Blair's departure plans - who leaks to the Mirror? - backs up a lot of what I said earlier. The memo talks about "As TB enters his final phase he needs to be focusing way beyond the finishing line, not looking at it.
"He needs to go with the crowds wanting more. He should be the star who won't even play that last encore. In moving towards the end he must focus on the future."
...In seeking to achieve this the whole operation should reflect the change in the political atmosphere: TB focusing on his priorities' TB laying the foundations for the future based on his experience in office. This positive approach needs to be reflected not only by TB but by all those who work and support him. We should show how much we enjoy working for TB, what pride we take in our work and how we want his premiership to end on a high."
It would be interesting to find the date on that document, but it does reveal the high level of reality avoidance skills amongst Blair and his advisors. If they really want Tony to bow out with the public wanting more, then we're all in for a very long wait indeed.
The memo is only realistic in an ideal world, not the real one. We all remember him being paraded into Downing Street in 1997 by hords of cheering, flag waving Labour Party members.
Imagine if they tried that same stunt on his departure... he'd be running for his life and being pelted with rotten eggs.
There's no way that Blair
There's no way that Blair will be allowed to throw in the towel by the neocons until there is a successor that they can call their own (someone like John Reid, presumably). After all, they'll be the ones that will protect him once he is out of politics and there is incontrovertible evidence of his treasonable behaviour.
Once upon a time, I watched the BBC for the news. Nowadays, I watch BBC news to see what Tony Blair's next move will be.
Yesterday, there was a lot about how the British armed forces are stretched and underequipped. Earlier in the day, one commentator suggested that this was all Gordon Brown's fault because he had rejected requests for an expansion of the defence budget beyond what had previously been agreed regarding Iraq.
Another tack was to bring "our European allies" into the quagmire of what has become a war in Afghanistan.
Blair looked tired and haggered at the start of 2003. Remember Rory Bremner's caricature of him? You can be sure that Blair's backers will continue to influence our media to keep him afloat long enough for THEIR legacy to be protected.
The neo-cons don't have that
The neo-cons don't have that much influence with rank and file party members. The party is bankrupt and about to dismiss 20% of it's staff and may have to sell the party hq very soon.
There's no money coming in and not likely to under Blair. His fundraiser is under arrest and Blair is likely to be questioned soon. If he's charged he'll almost certainly have to resign.
Labour membership is in terminal decline and they can't find enough activists or candidates to campaign properly in elections. The May council elections are looking like a disaster, one that will rip the heart out of the party.
The neo-cons don't give a damn about Blair, all he has ever been to them is a 'useful fool'.
I always believed he'd only
I always believed he'd only leave no. 10 feet first, maybe in restraints, but the "microphone moment" precipitated an erosion in public perception which - combined with his disastrous policy towards Lebanon - must have penetrated even his newly-golden bonce. My fear is he will draw comfort from the recent poll of Scottish voters that, despite all evidence to the contrary, shows the party's fortunes recovering. This is his counter to the crtics fearing a May election wipe out.
Well, I'm not saying I'm
Well, I'm not saying I'm right - indeed that is one of the joys of writing for Blairwatch as we're not professional pundits pretending we're infallible all-round experts, merely people who think about what's going on.
I'm not saying he will suddenly resign, but I can just about see it happening. The sad thing is that the country has been run for the benefit of one man's ego and his animosity towards his Chancellor.
New Labour will be remembered as a truly dysfunctional government.
With a bit of luck TB will
With a bit of luck TB will be leaving No. 10 wearing handcuffs.
Could it be that, despite
Could it be that, despite being obviously "on the take", his worn, ashen look is actually GUILT.
Despite tiresome arrogance he must know he has committed treason, he must know he has committed war crimes.
GUILT or FEAR?
re: "... the country has
re: "... the country has been run for the benefit of one man's ego..."
we agree with almost all you say Q.
But; we also think that with the disclosure of Bliars "secret" offshore bank accounts (totally ignored by the patsy press here) there are grounds for investigation of charges relating to corruption (at least) and almost certainly treason.
We simply dont believe that ANY Briton could force through so many policies, laws and war actions that are so totally contrary to UK interests and so totally subservient to US interests without some kind of pay-off. The obvious payoff is money and there is precedent for this in Major's sinecure with Carlyle.
"Might crack up in
"Might crack up in public"?
I think his idea of labelling foetuses as criminals shows he's already reached that stage!
The Mirror's revelation of a
The Mirror's revelation of a Departure Master Plan (think Nuremburg lite) was such a summation of all that has gone wrong with the Nu Labour project that it is tempting to see it as a Bremner parody. The thought of him going amongst us, healing wounds and raising the dead, to general applause, underlines the extent of the divorce between number 10 and reality. I seem to recall that several years ago, Blair apparently commented to one of his aides "they really hate us, don't they" apropos of the general public. He should remember that. I suggest sealed trains and a rapid exit before the new populism, fuelled by blogs such as this, really does force the political establishment into something resembling accountability and responsibility. BTW, the Mirror mentioned the planning document's reference to Iraq as "the elephant in the room" and wondered if Blair were up to tackling it as part of his triumphal exit tour. Doesn't that just sum up the terminal disconnect between political expediency (his) and the wreckage caused by a policy build on deceit. Any chance we could get the triumphal tour directed to the International War Crimes tribunal? Nah, didn't think so...
Words that sum up Blair's
Words that sum up Blair's time in power:
Iraq, liar, poodle, Go Now!
The Neocons,as we know, control every aspect of Blair's life, presumably his date of departure too. If they are planning an attack on Iran they will need Blair or another puppet Prime Minister (Reid) in place to support them.
So maybe Blair cannot go now even if he wants to - he has to have "permission to stand down" from his bosses.
Personally, I can't see him
Personally, I can't see him going while the Yates investigation is still going on. He won't want to leave under a cloud of suspicion and once he's no longer PM he won't have the influence and protection that he currently does.
My guess is he'll hang on hoping for the ten years. I can't see this milestone being marked with many chants of "ten more years!" though somehow.
It's quite easy to work
It's quite easy to work around the problem. All he has to do is say he will go once policies X,Y and Z have been implemented. Depending on how tough X, Y and Z are, he can be around for a short time or a long time.
Depending on the attractiveness of X, Y or Z to the Brownites, its all rather funny. Do they do what they don't want to do, to get their man into the hot seat, or do they fillibuster X, Y or Z, delaying their man's acsession.
Nick
What I can't bear is the way
What I can't bear is the way people on the BBC keep a straight face as the cabinet ministers explain why it would be so unconscionable for the public to know a departure date. It's good enough for America, and it's a huge sense of security for them. Not only are terms and elections on a regular timetable so everyone knows about it, they have an overlap of 3 months for that "orderly transition", and they have an 8 year limit which they brought in after Roosevelt. Why can't we have this? Why do we have to put up with the those in power lying that it's to our benefit?
Anyway, it's not about Blair's authority. The real reason for not knowing Blair's departure date is to frig the game, to fix the field so that the chosen successor can be notified secretly so he can get into an advantageous position (and presumably also for the not-chosen one to be lied to to trick him into being in the wrong place at the wrong time). That's what this is about. That's why the positive effect is that all the candidates are forbidden to campaign. There's not supposed to be an election of any kind for the next leader in this post, which is effectly an appointment for life and comes with tennant's rights. This will be Blair's legacy.
I hope it will be John Reid, the most lying weaselly thuggish man in the cabinet. I'd like to see the BBC trying to explain to us how he is the fair democratic choice of this country, and we should all be content with it, and that the system is not broken beyond all recognition.
Goatchurch is not being fair
Goatchurch is not being fair to weasels.
Blair on Blue Peter?
Blair on Blue Peter? Presumably that's to show how to reconstruct Iraq with some washing up bottles and sticky-back plastic? (Oh, sorry, that was Blair's description of Saddam's WMD programme).
"Haggered" ? Peacewisher I
"Haggered" ? Peacewisher I wish i'd invented that one, so much more expressive than "haggard".
More transitive, somehow ! Like bugger and buggered. An ongoing process, so long may TB be "haggered", and I hope it hurts.
Some wicked and misguided posters seem to believe that the newPM will be selected by somefing like the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, Rupe Murdoch, and other asssorted NeoCons.
These totally ridiculous and paranoid imbeciles need to be reminded that Gordon has never stepped far out of line on their agenda, so they will not be intervening .
Ho ho! - not so long after
Ho ho! - not so long after my insistent posting that the Man will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of No 10, we have letters from his underlings, sorry, subunderlings saying that time's up and,er, could you go, er, soon? 17 MPs, including one (1) junior minister and four (4) aides - that's all that could get up the moxy to do this. Meanwhile, 49 other MPs have signed another letter saying, `S'allright, guv, give a year, see how you feel by then.' 17 say go, 49 say a year - I don't think he'll be terribly worried.
But a year? 12 months?? As ranted before, I don't know if I can stand another 12 days!
A year! If a week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity (certainly its felt like several eternities since, ooh, about 2000). Who knows what may happen in a year? The king may die, the thief may die, or the thief may even teach the king's horse to talk (assuming you know the story....)