"That's enough, Ed"
AUSTRALIA: Thus Tony Blair tried to put a stop to the questions about his departure from Number Ten. "We've had enough of those questions," he told me this morning at his news conference with the Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
It was, though, his answers to those questions when asked by Australian interviewers that kicked this story off.
First, he was asked whether it was a "strategic mistake" to have signalled in advance his departure. "Maybe that was a mistake," he said, although Downing Street insists that that wasn't really what he meant and that he would have made that clear if he hadn't been interrupted.
Today on breakfast telly he agreed that politicians have an expiry date and then said that they liked to keep that date to themselves.
His aides are infuriated by this and complain that we in the travelling press corps have gone stir crazy after too long in the air. There is clearly a danger that this appears to be a semantic row fuelled by journalists obsessed with anticipating which precise day Tony Blair will step down. Yet I believe this story does matter.
Tony Blair has now effectively accepted in public what many of his closest allies have told him in private - that his announcement before the last election that it would be his last as leader has backfired. Far from stilling speculation about his future as was hoped, it has fuelled it.
What matters now is that the prime minister is painfully aware that less than a year after being re-elected there is a lively debate about how long he can and should stay in office. He has told aides that he already has a timetable for his departure in mind - he's not revealing what it is, beyond making clear it's not imminent. What is clear is that he is now determined to stay around long enough to see through reforms to the NHS, education and, having changed his mind, the House of Lords too.
At the same time he knows that he must reassure his party that the transition from a Blair to a Brown premiership will be orderly. His difficulty is finding a way to counter the story being told by his enemies - the story of a man clinging to office.
PS
The reason Aussie journalists posed so many questions re Blair's retirement was not to do their Pommie colleagues a favour. Their PM John Howard originally said he'd retire when he was 64 and on his third term. He is now 66, in his fourth term and unless he announces a change of mind soon or the polls change, he's headed for a fifth.
I'm 
Comments
I would be interested Nick, as would many other people I'm sure, to know your views on where this comment by Blair leaves the Blair-Brown relationship, or indeed whether it might actually be symptomatic of a further deterioration in said relationship. You will of course be aware of the rumours circulating that the loans-for-peerages row has caused a major bust-up between the two, and I have covered this in some detail on my own . You are closer to these people and events than I am, and if there's no connection at all I'd happily take your word for it. But I think it's a valid question to ask whether Brown's alleged involvement in the Jack Dromey ambush might just have caused Blair to change his mind about an orderly handover.
Nick, do you think that the reason TB is refusing to set a date is that he is looking for something positive to be remembered by? The oft-mentioned legacy? At the moment his premiership will be remembered, primarily, for Iraq and the controversy before, during, and after the war. Otherwise taxes have risen; the health, education and social sectors are still in disarray; pensions have fallen apart and he's currently mired in scandal over buying peerages. If he wants to be remembered in history, do you think he wants to wait until either his education bill, or the ID cards, or some other blue sky reform goes through?
You know,I am sick and tired of hearing that its up to Tony Blair when he should sttep down.He's not a dictator and I believe in a democracy it should be the voters,and the labour party as a whole who decide,via opinion polls and election results when the PM stands down.It's clear that the failure of Blair to make clear his approximate time of departure is causing a lot of instability to the government and crippling the legislative process.It is the height of vanity for Blair to keep secret his preferred date of retirement as if its some kind of game or something.Its clear that he intends to stay longer than Brown would tolerate and thats why hes keeping it a secret.If he doesnt accept that a smooth transition means he will have to compromise with Brown and hand over by the summer of next year at the latest then it will lead to an inevitable split in the Labour party which will hand the keys to Downing street to David Cameron.
Its up to Tony Blair whethe,and he will face up to the reality of the situation at last,and set a date for his departure within 18 months at most
Well Nick,
Their right are they not? You journalists are obsessed with anticipating the precise day TB decides to go. I bet you political editors even have a private 'bet' between you. The truth is Joe Public doesn't really care.
As for us political addicts, the real question is WHY SHOULD WE?
Hi Nick
Tony’s changed his mind on quite a lot of things throughout his political life. Perhaps he’ll change his mind over retiring and go for another term [scratches chin facetiously].
What’s your view on there being a seamless transition from Tony to Gordon? Won’t other party grandees want a chance to run for number 10? And doesn’t the wider party (if not the public) deserve a say in who they want as leader. Will, in your opinion, Gordon be crowned unchallenged?
Gordon seems to have acquiesced to Tony a number of times over the leadership. What does that say about his political judgement and his ability to negotiate for what he/the county needs? Seems a bit spongy to me.
If he can mistakenly judge an announcent on his 'retirement', a plainly effective speaker, and barrister too, how can we trust his judgement on more complicated matters? I.e. war, labour relations, ties to the US etc.
This is no longer about when he retires but why. The longer he remains at the helm of the Labour Party the more difficult it will be for Brown to eventually take over why? because as we are finding out through the cash for peerage row Mr Blair has not been squeeky clean with his party or the electorate, the NHS is in crisis with the low paid workers paying the price for financial mis-management, His obsession with ID cards, the debacle in Iraq, his hand in the great pension robbery, I could go on.
And what of Gordon Brown? if he is simply going to stand up and say 'more of the same' then I would suggest he does'nt bother moving his furniture from number 11 to number 10 because he won't be there very long.
Further, if he granted made 'mistakes' why is he following them up with further mistakes by telling us he made them? Will Iraq be a mistake too in ten years time, or the errosion of civil liberties when he is no longer in power?
SUCH a relief that someone can write about Blair without using the dreadful and meaningless word "legacy". Thank you.
This totally infuriates me - we should not have the electoral system we do but like it or not Blair was elected less than a year ago - he has said he will not fight the next election. He is still ahead in the Polls despite a resurgent opposition. His reforms are slowly progressing and people who predicted a major upset sooner in the House have been proved wrong. In the real world which Journalists like to forget people are striking, others are working, studying, trying to live and this story is not of interest. He still has the mandate, will and like it or not the backing to continue and he should do so. Yes it was a mistake to say when he might go only because it gave ammunition to the only people interested - the media - who it has to be said would be pursuing this story whether he had made those comments or not. Go report some news please.
As a man continually obsessed with his own place in history, I feel that Blair is hanging on to complete a round decade as PM. Similarly, the current spate of potential reforms reek of Torschlusspanik.
Realising that the Tony Blair of the history books will be the man who took the UK to Iraq, he is scrabbling to re-write the text of his tenure in a more positive light. I fear, however, that the shadow of the War will dim any such attempts. What's more, I think he knows it too.
You have been obsessing about Blair and when he is leaving and Brown for too long. It is dull and it is not what the country is thinking about. We elected Bliar to serve a full term and you ´óÏó´«Ã½ people should stop stirring things up all the time as it is deathly dull. Get lives why don't you?
The Blog is entirely right - the Prime Minister himself has fuelled this debate by announcing his resignation years in advance. How did he ever imagine that would be a good idea? No one would do that in any workplace and he is (apparently) leading the country. So of course, that was the wrong decision and he has just made it worse by admitting to that. This is the Long Goodbye...
Just to move the story along slightly, does anyone think there will be a leadership contest when Blair resigns? And if so, who will run? Gordon Brown, obviously, but what about the likes of Jack Straw or John Reid? They are Foreign Secretary and Defense Secretary but have somehow avoided too much criticism over Iraq because the public lays most of the blame at Blair's door. So who will run? Any thoughts out there?
To endorse Blair's opinion that his career plan announcement was a mistake, as much of the media is now doing, is clearly wrong. The announcement served its purpose well; bolstering a faltering election campaign with a Vote Blair, Get Brown boost for Labour supporters and activists, bringing the Chancellor back to the role of campaign leader that Alan Milburn was making a complete mess of and, eventually, helping to secure another General Election victory.
The career plan announcement was never going to put off speculation for long. No one at the time or since ever seriously thought that it would. We need only look at the US example of how a President is a lame duck within months of a second term victory and that serious positioning for an endorsed succession starts within hours of that second electoral victory.
Blair might regret that his plummeting personal ratings in early 2005 and the inability of his acolytes to run a proper election campaign forced him to sate the public demand for leadership change by playing into Brown's hands. But he can't say it was a mistake. He has his 2005 election victory to prove it was anything but.
Looks like TB is still trying to work out what he wants to be remembered for. Messing up the NHS or Education.
I think the news journalists should concentrate on reporting the real issues the country faces today. The general public has more interest in healthcare and school reform than how long Tony Blair will stay in power. Also please do not forget that in all likelyhood he will be judged as one of the finest prime ministers ever to govern this country.
Is this obsession with TB's stand down date driven by lack of other news or the obsessions of the press pack.
While this may seem a jolly good jape for journalists the public are being turned off by a subject that does not rate as highly as journalist think it justifies.
When the day comes what will you write about then, it will be over and you will have to search for another insider angle on his replacement; a subject which then may interest the public if by which time you have not sent them all to sleep.
Stephen, the public may have 'more interest' in healthcare etc, but they are certainly 'more interested' in things like when Tony Blair might step down. Things like this really matter. I mean, we've had him built up as president over the last ten years. We understand that he's going, we know that when he goes will make a real difference to who gets to take over. We know that who takes over will have real impact on what the policies of a Labour government are. We understand that it could all go horribly wrong if the leader hangs on for too long. The fact that he was elected a year ago means nothing. There is real live politics here.
I feel that the importance of Tony Blair's retirement date has been heavily played up by journalists. I doubt that Bob Marshall-Andrews and friends would be acting in a different way if Mr Blair had kept quiet about it and cannot see any other impact the decision to tell us when he'd go could make.
I agree that it will lead to some interesting news once his retirement comes, but if the journalists keep pre-empting it then it'll be a bit of an anti-climax in sensational news terms.
One thing we can be sure of though, is that he'll be out before he's 65.
Forgive me, but this is a blog, not a report. It is surely the musings of someone who loves his job and the world in which he operates and wishes to banter about it. As Nick said in the introductory blog, "It's a chance for me to add a thought or an observation from my political front row seat"
Regarding the comment that the public are more interested in healthcare and school reform than how long Tony Blair will stay in power - that's interesting because from MY persepective, Blair manages all these things personally and so the length of his tenure of Number 10 is of paramount importance to those interested in such things.
As ever, Mr Blair has an eye on his place in history. To outstay Mrs Thatcher and be the longest serving PM for almost 200 years, Mr Blair will have to stay until December 2008. I think you will find that is the date he has in mind.
Nick, first time I have read your blog (first time I have read any blog come to that), but rather enjoyable it is. Your last comment about Blair clinging to power - I think Tony Blair will cling to power until the 11th hour and 59th minute, and frankly, why not push into the tomorrow with a 4th term? Do you not think this is a possibility? Don't you think that he is beginning to set the conditions for a renouncement of his assertion to leave at the end of a 3rd term? I mean, think about it - a man of such vanity (as you would need to be in that job) I am sure could not contemplate the possibility of life after No 10, of being the centre of gravity for a nation. I mean, what on earth is he going to do? I hardly think Gordon is going to invite this ex-PM into his inner cabinet. So, public speaking engagements versus leading G8? ´óÏó´«Ã½/CH4 (depending on how well you treat him) on Kosovo/Iraq/Sierra Leone/Bosnia documentary appearances versus directing the War on Terror? I think not. There is no legacy to speak of, and what more can a PM want than to win immortality through altering the historical perspective. Your view?
I think that were Blair not to have stated that he would not run for a fourth term, the speculation - and plotting in the Labour Party would be much worse.
I'm sure that some Labour MPs voted for the education bill, purely because they thought: "well, if we give his this, then he'll go."
Can you begin to imagine if they thought that the education bill was the start of a second wind?
Any body could be mistaken in beleiving that Tony lost the last election (referendum of Iraq etc) but the fact is that he won the mandate of the people to go on.
The Tories and his enemies within are naturally upset and are miffed at being disowned by the electorate, but such is politics.
Tony will go when he is ready and that suits just about everybody that also beleives in Democracy.
Gary
What is wrong with journalists, don't they like any suprises at all? I bet they all spoilt Christmas for themselves by looking for their presents.
Blair's already indicated he will stay until pretty-much-the-end of his term; that's quite a long time away! Why isn't that enough information?
Referring to the previous post, TB may well go down in history as one the finest PMs to govern the UK, but given his apparent close involvement in the recent sleaze scandal that has rocked his government, and his past attitude to sleaze in his own ranks, Mr Blair may well join Charles Boycott (and others) as an unwitting contributor to the English language.
Blairism anyone?
Contrary to some of the views above, many people in the country ARE fascinated by the Blair-Brown situation and all that it implies.
We discuss these matters regularly and definitely need Nick and his colleagues to give us glimpses from inside the polical hothouses: Nick's insights are refreshingly clear and occasionally indiscreet. Go for it, political correspondents!
People who are NOT interested should not be reading this blog! - and certainly not wasting time in commenting on it if they think it's all so trivial.
What we all tend to miss about Blair is his vanity. Having survived the Iraq/´óÏó´«Ã½ saga which, if it had gone the other way he would have surely resigned, he has suddenly twigged he can outlast Thatcher's time in office - so surely a place in history. If he is not tripped up by anything until then, my long shot bet is G Brown might not be the next PM.
Perhaps Mr Blair brought this on himself, but the constant media harping about an exit date is reminiscent of the kids in the back of the car chanting "Are we there yet?" - it won't make the end come any faster, it's taking attention away from more important things and it's extremely annoying. Knock it off.
Blair is playing games with the media. Don't you think that this is no more than a diversion from the embarrassment of the payments for peerages, the financial crisis in the NHS and the pensions crisis?
I'm intrigued by the fact that Blair still claims he will serve a 'full term' before quitting.
How can this work? Can he really stay on as PM until he goes to Buckingham Palace to request a dissolution of Parliament, returning to Downing Street to announce both a General Election and a leadership contest? This seems to me to be inconceivable and a surefire way of throwing Labour into power-losing turmoil.
I suppose that the alternative is that he 'does a Major', calling a party leadership election while not resigning as PM. Presumably, this would have to be some weeks or months before going to see The Queen - in either event, stretching the credibility of the 'full term' line as he would effectively be in office but not in power from that moment on. It also raises the interesting possibility of the leader of the largest party in Parliament (presumably Brown) not being PM for a considerable period of time after becoming leader, which would no doubt make for interesting Cabinet meetings. (When was the last time a majority party leader was in the Cabinet but not as Prime Minister?)
Nick, have you contemplated how a 'mechanism' might be found that doesn't make Blair's 'full term' claim look dishonest but which also works constitutionally?
Was it really such a mistake ? This debate would have been around anyway.
In a year or so's time, we'll be asking why TB can hand over the Prime Ministership without any need to accelerate the next General Election.
And the answer will be - because he won a mandate to do just that by announcing those plans before the previous election. End of discussion.
TB's successor will be grateful, as will the Labour Party.
kim
What is a reasonable time to give Gordon Brown to establish himself as an electable prime minister before the next election? John Major was given 2 years, but even with a tired opposition he only scraped back in with a 6 seat majority. If Blair is concerned about the party rather than his own personal interests, surely he has to stand down within the next 12 months?
What amazes me is that Tony Blair should still have the chance to decide whether to go or stay. On the basis of his performance he should be fired and a General Election called without delay.
It strikes me that whatever Tony Blair says or does now, and no matter what he had or had not said about his departure last year, the speculation would have been there anyway.
It seems like there is a natural maximum shelf life of around 8 years for a PM or even the same party in power, beyond which time speculation, dissatisfaction, and comments of time for a change will mount.
I still agree with Alex in #21 - if Mr Blair had not announced an intention to stand down from office by a given date, if people expected him to go on and on, and given he took us into a controversial and increasingly unpopular military project, then there would have been a lot more interest in deposing him, both inside and outside the Labour Party. He damped it down by leading people to believe that he would go anyway - and the effort of getting rid of an unwanted political leader always makes trouble. There is a price - if he chooses not to go then he'll be in awful trouble.
I believe it is the nature of political leadership that we grow increasingly disenchanted with Mr. Blair, and if Mr. Brown does succeed him then we will immediately start a process of growing increasingly disenchanted with him, so Mr. Blair does Mr. Brown a favour by staying on in office and being unpopular instead of Mr. Brown being unpopular. Whether they see it that way is unclear, but Mr. Brown appears to bear up with fortitude under the shame of holding down the second most important job in the country, fielding compliments regularly, for the best part of ten years.
I think the mistake he made was not to resign when it became clear he'd misled parliament about the quality of the intelligence on WMD.
To those who seem to think that only the press are interested, I ask why on earth they'd think such a thing? Any of them Labour supporters/members by any chance? Forgive me for my cynicism if I'm wrong but New Labour do have a track record for dressing their partisan supporters as ordinary members of the public.
I the real world I live in, very many people desperate=ely want Blair to resign. I certainly do. (And I don't work in the media. And I'm not "old left" either. I'm left centre in the way Blair used to claim to be.) consider myself very much centre left). Many people feel the press have been far too soft on this. He's been let off the hook too many times. He should go. Now.
Leadership changes are the interesting things in politics. With both parties being so similar it the debate is now about the means rather than the ends over education and the NHS etc. Also Tim, Major got a 21 seat majority in 1992.
Well there is always time for a little bit of fun Nick what about readers of your excellent blog recommending a title for THE BOOK that outgoing Prime Ministers always write about there years in number 10 and make a considerable amount of money from?.Thatcher was rumoured to have made 20 million pounds from hers?.Tony Blairs should make more?.My suggested title for his book would be "I was always RIGHT".