How will historians come to view Mr Blair and his final period in office? Will it be as a man desperately clinging on in the hope of leaving on a political high or will they marvel at the infighting that marked the end of Labour’s most successful prime minister, just as some believe that the Tories’ assassination of Margaret Thatcher was an act of collective madness?
Mr Blair made a bad error two years ago when he announced that his third term would be his last. He now knows it was a mistake but that he cannot go back on it. He also now accepts that his successor (Gordon Brown unless Mr Blair can find some means of derailing him) will need a decent spell in office for voters to get a good look before the next election. And if it is Mr Brown, the country clearly needs time to fill in what is still a blank page in many policy areas.
The demands by some Labour MPs, however, for Mr Blair to set a date are unreasonable. The protests that have greeted his statement to that effect last week are either synthetic anger and political expediency or plain naivety. It would not be clever for Mr Blair to stand up at the party conference this month and announce the date when the removal vans would enter Downing Street. If his announcement in the autumn of 2004 made him a lame duck, an autumn 2006 departure timetable would make him a dead one.
However, it is legitimate to ask why Mr Blair is determined to hang on at least until next summer. Apart from the Cicero factor (what do I do next?), the obvious reason is that he is seeking to leave on a political high, his sea of foreign policy troubles having calmed and the public giving him some credit on the domestic front.
That is a tall order. The prime minister’s foreign policy positions may be right but they will never be popular, least of all in the Labour party. Iraq and Afghanistan look set to be running sores for years. Domestically, the failures of public service delivery, multiculturalism and immigration will not be quickly turned around. Political reputations do not in any case rely on current poll ratings. No prime minister likes to leave on a low note or be hounded out. But when that has happened, as long as they have gone for the right reasons their reputations sometimes revive. We may even miss Mr Blair when he is gone.
Advertisement
The prime minister, however, has another motive. He has never believed that his legacy is safe in Mr Brown’s hands. Years of dealing with the chancellor have taken their toll. That is why he wants to introduce more irreversible public sector reforms before he leaves. It is why he would love to see other credible challengers emerge. Allowing them time to mature politically is another reason why he does not want to go quickly. Alan Milburn, a prominent Blair ally, sets this out explicitly on this page. Labour should be led by the candidate with the best ideas for regenerating new Labour, not somebody who maintains “a Trappist vow of silence”.
The Tory years under John Major are remembered for sleaze and infighting over Europe. The Labour years under Mr Blair are in danger of being remembered for spin and infighting over the succession. Voters punished the Tories hard, no fewer than three times. Barring a miraculous outbreak of peace ’n’ love, Labour risks suffering the same fate.