'This is a very unhappy time for Blair'
Turmoil in Iraq and party disunity fuel speculation that the prime minister is becoming a liability
Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Friday May 14, 2004
The Guardian
When Labour MPs sat in silence in the Commons this week as Michael Howard accused Tony Blair of losing his grip over Iraq, they knew their man was in trouble.
As Iraq continues to inflict severe damage on the prime minister, there is intense speculation about whether he is moving towards a "Thatcher moment" - the point at which he becomes a liability to his party.
From the outright opponents on the left to the dwindling band of adoring Blairites, all agree on one thing: the prime minister is facing the most perilous period of his pre miership. One supporter said: "This is a very unhappy time. Tony Blair is undoubtedly taking a pounding because there is deep unease about Iraq."
At this point, however, opinions divide. A large number of backbenchers believe that to compare the prime minister's fate to that of Lady Thatcher in 1990, when her shrill approach to Europe triggered her dramatic defenestration, is laughable. "This is about the difficult business of being in government," one loyalist said.
"What people do not realise is that we have had the longest honeymoon in British political history. It is bound to get choppy. It is like the fall of Crete and the sinking of the Prince of Wales - nobody said we should start talking to the Germans at that point."
Another said: "Things are difficult, but the sands of time are not going to run out on the prime minister in the sands of Iraq."
However, a large group of backbenchers and ministers is wondering how much longer Mr Blair should - or will - continue as prime minister. At Westminster, there is intense talk about his future.
"Tony Blair will be gone by the autumn," said one supporter of Gordon Brown. "He will go at a time of his choosing. He knows he is becoming a liability to the party and will go."
Asked whether Mr Blair's departure was part of the so-called "Granita II deal", the reported new pact between the two architects of New Labour, the MP was unequivocal: "This is not Granita II. It is Granita I - the original deal of 10 years ago."
One explanation of the original Blair-Brown deal held that Mr Blair would stand down towards the end of his second term. But speculation about a handover infuriates Blairites, who wonder how much would change under Mr Brown.
Illustrating the fraught relations between the two camps, one Blairite asked: "So what are we talking about? Tony walks the plank for being too close to George Bush to be replaced by Gordon, who is infinitely more pro-American."
Another well-placed Blairite laughed off the idea of a dramatic resignation like that of Harold Wilson, who famously shocked the political world when he quit in 1976. Even those who regularly took to the airwaves to defend Mr Blair, now speak about him in noticeably dispassionate terms.
"Tony Blair is certainly not the shiny new coin we had in 1997," one said.
A number of factors lie behind Mr Blair's inability to inspire the loyalty he might expect as the most successful leader in Labour's history. His confrontational approach to the party, which brought many new voters from Middle England, has left little goodwill on which he can draw.
Advertiser links
Volunteer Internationally
Experience a country from a whole new perspective by signing...
crossculturalsolutions.org
Volunteer in 24 Countries Worldwide
Volunteer travel and TEFL training. Projects in...
hypertracker.com
Volunteer in Nepal
The Global Volunteer Network has volunteer opportunities...
volunteer.org.nz
Some MPs simply have no sympathy because they regard the prime minister as the author of his own misfortune, a point he appeared to recognise in the Commons on Wednesday, when he took full personal responsibility for Iraq.
Unease at Mr Blair's apparent determination to support Mr Bush from the moment the president decided to confront Iraq in summer 2002, was revived this week when he initially echoed Washington's less than contrite response to the Red Cross report on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
But friends say that as the full horror of the Abu Ghraib abuse sunk in, Mr Blair changed his tune and will now be less "one dimensional" when he talks about Iraq.
Those MPs who desire a prime ministerial slap down of the president, may be encouraged by signs of a new approach involving a charm offensive carefully targeted at the Democrats.
But many MPs fear that the crisis in Iraq, combined with the looming European parliamentary and local elections on June 10, present Mr Blair with a punishing month.
"There are lots of variables, such as voter turnout, so it is difficult to define a bad result on June 10," one said. "But an obviously catastrophic result, in which we came third in the European elections, would be very dangerous."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1216429,00.html
Turmoil in Iraq and party disunity fuel speculation that the prime minister is becoming a liability
Nicholas Watt, political correspondent
Friday May 14, 2004
The Guardian
When Labour MPs sat in silence in the Commons this week as Michael Howard accused Tony Blair of losing his grip over Iraq, they knew their man was in trouble.
As Iraq continues to inflict severe damage on the prime minister, there is intense speculation about whether he is moving towards a "Thatcher moment" - the point at which he becomes a liability to his party.
From the outright opponents on the left to the dwindling band of adoring Blairites, all agree on one thing: the prime minister is facing the most perilous period of his pre miership. One supporter said: "This is a very unhappy time. Tony Blair is undoubtedly taking a pounding because there is deep unease about Iraq."
At this point, however, opinions divide. A large number of backbenchers believe that to compare the prime minister's fate to that of Lady Thatcher in 1990, when her shrill approach to Europe triggered her dramatic defenestration, is laughable. "This is about the difficult business of being in government," one loyalist said.
"What people do not realise is that we have had the longest honeymoon in British political history. It is bound to get choppy. It is like the fall of Crete and the sinking of the Prince of Wales - nobody said we should start talking to the Germans at that point."
Another said: "Things are difficult, but the sands of time are not going to run out on the prime minister in the sands of Iraq."
However, a large group of backbenchers and ministers is wondering how much longer Mr Blair should - or will - continue as prime minister. At Westminster, there is intense talk about his future.
"Tony Blair will be gone by the autumn," said one supporter of Gordon Brown. "He will go at a time of his choosing. He knows he is becoming a liability to the party and will go."
Asked whether Mr Blair's departure was part of the so-called "Granita II deal", the reported new pact between the two architects of New Labour, the MP was unequivocal: "This is not Granita II. It is Granita I - the original deal of 10 years ago."
One explanation of the original Blair-Brown deal held that Mr Blair would stand down towards the end of his second term. But speculation about a handover infuriates Blairites, who wonder how much would change under Mr Brown.
Illustrating the fraught relations between the two camps, one Blairite asked: "So what are we talking about? Tony walks the plank for being too close to George Bush to be replaced by Gordon, who is infinitely more pro-American."
Another well-placed Blairite laughed off the idea of a dramatic resignation like that of Harold Wilson, who famously shocked the political world when he quit in 1976. Even those who regularly took to the airwaves to defend Mr Blair, now speak about him in noticeably dispassionate terms.
"Tony Blair is certainly not the shiny new coin we had in 1997," one said.
A number of factors lie behind Mr Blair's inability to inspire the loyalty he might expect as the most successful leader in Labour's history. His confrontational approach to the party, which brought many new voters from Middle England, has left little goodwill on which he can draw.
Advertiser links
Volunteer Internationally
Experience a country from a whole new perspective by signing...
crossculturalsolutions.org
Volunteer in 24 Countries Worldwide
Volunteer travel and TEFL training. Projects in...
hypertracker.com
Volunteer in Nepal
The Global Volunteer Network has volunteer opportunities...
volunteer.org.nz
Some MPs simply have no sympathy because they regard the prime minister as the author of his own misfortune, a point he appeared to recognise in the Commons on Wednesday, when he took full personal responsibility for Iraq.
Unease at Mr Blair's apparent determination to support Mr Bush from the moment the president decided to confront Iraq in summer 2002, was revived this week when he initially echoed Washington's less than contrite response to the Red Cross report on the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
But friends say that as the full horror of the Abu Ghraib abuse sunk in, Mr Blair changed his tune and will now be less "one dimensional" when he talks about Iraq.
Those MPs who desire a prime ministerial slap down of the president, may be encouraged by signs of a new approach involving a charm offensive carefully targeted at the Democrats.
But many MPs fear that the crisis in Iraq, combined with the looming European parliamentary and local elections on June 10, present Mr Blair with a punishing month.
"There are lots of variables, such as voter turnout, so it is difficult to define a bad result on June 10," one said. "But an obviously catastrophic result, in which we came third in the European elections, would be very dangerous."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1216429,00.html
