Times they are a-changing
"Blair at bay" says the Daily Mail. No surprise there, you may think, before turning to the Guardian.
It declares: "The Tories are back".
At the end of this election year, Westminster buzzes with talk of an end of an era. The Tories have changed their leader to someone who, at last, is making the political weather.
If you wonder what all the fuss is about just look at the polls. For a decade the Conservatives have flatlined at 30-and-a-bit percent. Those days appear to be over and that’s what's driving politics.
The Lib Dems dithered over whether to ditch their leader and have, instead, merely wounded him. Come the New Year the talk of ditching Kennedy will return until attention focuses on the big one – when will Blair go?
You think I’m overdoing it? Just look at the behaviour of Labour MPs once mocked for being automatons with pagers (Do you remember the old gag about the Labour MP who dropped dead when a hairdresser removed his earphones? The baffled barber picks up the earphones to hear Peter Mandelson saying "Breathe in, breathe out").
The man who taught the Labour Party the value of discipline, John Prescott, now symbolises its absence.
The curiosity about all this is the gap between the real world and the world of Westminster. Is the country in the midst of a crisis? No. The IMF and the Bank of England have just confirmed that the economy is picking up again and inflation is – despite all the fears – under control.
Has patience with the war in Iraq run out? Things aren’t obviously worse than they were and arguably better, politically at least.
The only explanation I have for this is Blair-weariness. Take the collection of problems which allowed the Mail to talk of Blair at Bay – Europe, education and smoking. In each case, it’s Tony Blair’s rhetoric that lands him in trouble.
He prepared the country for a battle with the old enemy to protect the rebate and slay the Common Agricultural Policy. Had he not done so he could, as he struggled to do on Monday, so easily have heralded the deal he got as a victory for British diplomacy and the EU expansion.
It was he who proclaimed a schools revolution with every school governing itself, leaving the hapless education secretary to tell her MPs that her White Paper in fact only represented evolutionary change.
It was he who said that every time he carried out reform he wished he’d gone further, leaving many in Labour baffled why this injunction doesn’t apply to a smoking ban.
Now, you may say and you’d be right, this happens to anyone who’s led for as long as he has. You may say and you’d be right again that reality will soon kick in. Finally, you may say, the Cameron honeymoon can’t last and even on these polls he wouldn’t win an election. Right again.
And yet and yet change is in the air.
I'm off to see the prime minister's final news conference of the year. Let's see what he's got to say about it.
I'm 
Comments
TB's main mantra should be read as "I say this to appeal to the majority of voters, additionally I add this to appeal to the rest"
You refer to DC's honeymoon period, I think in the minds of some of those who voted for the Conservative leader, doubts will already be to the fore, having seen their man savaged by TB. DC's scripted ad libs are not being delivered with best practice, that of timing.
Tony Blair puts me in mind of a very clever and precocious child born into advantage and unaware of the reality of ordinary mortals. He is able and accomplished, has achieved a lot of good and is born along on his energy, ambition and messianic vision. Unfortunately not many people can stand him now. He's just too clever for his own good and his prophetic rantings and 'trust me' appeals have ruined his actual achievements. And of course, Iraq!
I'm not sure how you think Blair could have heralded giving away billions of our money in return for a meaningless "review" of the CAP which can be vetoed by France as a victory for British diplomacy.
Haven't we learned from history that appeasement does not work?
The question isn't really "when will Blair go?" it's more a case of "will it make a blind bit of difference?".
For all his prudence with the financial reins, it's hard to believe that Gordon Brown has any fundamentally different strategies for dealing with the issues that surround Government at the moment: he's already baulked at progressive pensions solutions and fully backed the Prime Minister's justification for the invasion of Iraq. What makes anyone think that he'll be anything other than Blair-lite?
What to make of the people who are now prepared to vote Tory because they like the look of David Camera Man, without there having been any actual changes in party policy since the last election? If the British public is really so gullible, then the charisma bypass that is Gordon Brown had better watch out.
Personally, I would have sacked Brown years ago; his barely concealed contempt for the PM and grudging last minute 'support' have been a disgrace. His 'people' may think they've successfully distanced him from Blair, but they've actually made him look as twisted and conspiratorial as 'Peter the Crab'.
Predictions for 2006: Tory progress halted by succession of front bench scandals; Kennedy replaced by Mark Oaten to no discernible advantage; recent revivial in poll fortunes prompt TB to speculate about fighting one more election...
HO! HO!
Anyone seriously think that David Cameron as PM wouldn't have invaded Iraq with Bush?
Nick, in all your interviews with the PM have you ever managed to ask him why he pre-announced his departure in the way he did? Blair's grip on power seems to have loosened dramatically since that time. Is he blind to the way he fatally wounded himself, or does he think he can soldier on regardless?