³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I now believe there is a shift in TB's attitude to GB's takeover; the cynic in me feels this is not directly as a wish to benefit GB, more as a measure of how TB may be assessed. Once TB has gone to that great speaking circuit in the states his, legacy will be effected by how easy is GB’s transition to power. This will be twofold, if GB becomes leader of the Labour party that will be fine, but if he becomes leader of the Labour party but subsequently loses the next election, fingers will be pointed at TB for allowing his personal feelings affect the Labour party’s status. There may be a defence for TB, that of the new Conservative leader, having assessed DC since the Conservative election campaign I feel this will be an unsustainable argument.

If Tony Blair had the interests of the Labour Party in mind he would have already gone, giving a clear transition for Gordon Brown.

However his insistence on staying on as PM with a number of projects, such as ID cards, yet another change in education, the attack on incapactity benefit etc seems to be delibrate to cause Brwon grief.

The projects will cause friction within the party are designed to upset Brown forcing him to openly revolt and therefore makiong him sackable

and the longer Brown is Chancellor the more likely there will be a crisis that will damge his credibility as a prudent man.

It is almost as if Blair would prefer to see Cameron rather than Brown to be the next PM, however I believe Tony is hoping Gordon will fall so he can promote a crony.

First, get well soon, you have quickly established yourself in the seat once occupied by Andrew Marr and you are doing a better job. I always felt he was a bit too New Labour to seriously question their policies.
I can think of three reasons for Gordon Brown to smile. One his family and that's fine by me. Two Tony has said 'help me get the school reforms through and I'll resign early'. Possible but unlikely unless the UN job or similar is looming. Which leaves the third reason. The school reforms will involve some form of cost saving for the treasury and thus help get Gordon Brown out of a hole. I don't like that reason.

Good to know that the boys regard the post of party leader (and Prime Minister) as something to be sorted between themselves, without all this silliness about involving the Labour Party in choosing the party's direction.

Lind you, in a contested leadership election Brown might find that Blair's endorsement was more a handicap than a boost.

I am not sure Brown will take over from Blair. As far as I can make out from my sources, the next three years are to be used to nurture one or two new promising stars for New Labour. Whilst that happens - it’s important to keep Brown and friends happy - any they are now. However, Labour also know that if they don't unite behind Blair, and allow DC to take the centre stage - then it’s only a matter of time before they fall. Remember MT - she was underestimated by Labour (and the Tories) and then 17 years of Tory rule. Is Labour that stupid that they will loose just to get their knife into Blair? Maybe!

A united front at the top will do nothing to subdue the tensions on the backbenches. This merely appears to be a publicity campaign to try and quell the very un-natural Labour reform proposals. It might work on John Prescott but it wont work on the public or the Labour rebel MPs.

Oh and Nick, get well soon!

Could it also be that GB has finally understood his own figures which show that of the £5500 we taxpayers provide annually for each secondary pupil only £2500 of it reaches the schools with the majority going in LEA costs? The LEA system has been an expensive and essentially impenetrable bureaucratic system which has in two generations failed to provide an equal opportunity of education for all in the state system. GB is savvy enough to realise that his future premiership will be saddled with the economic consequences current profligacy and inefficiency. Surely better for him that Blair carries the can now for structural & policy changes in the state system which simple accounting will force on any government in the near future?

TB's problem is timing- too early and GB maybe eclipsed by DC and shown not to be up to it, too late and GB may not have a chance to shine at all.
Blair's fault for saying he would go

Good point Chris Wills - the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ political commentary IS better since Mr Robinson took over. Please don't die Nick - it'd ruin my access to political coverage. Mind you, in fairness to Mr Marr I have to say that politics has been more interesting generally since Nick took over: a government with a majority less than 4 figures, a photogenic teenage opposition leader, and a Liberal Party with more skeletons in its closet than Sweeney Todd. Virtually the only thing to talk about for the last few years has been whether Tony or Gordon is running the show – so please don’t revert to that tired old story Nick!

If Tony Blair is dependent on Gordon Brown to get a major plank of his policies through the Commons, then Blair is seriously deluded as to how long he can physically remain in office. Let's be honest, a PM with a majority of 60+ in the Commons should be able to do a lot of things, Major limped on with 21, for example.

Unfortunately, Blair hamstrung himself the moment he announced that he wouldn't be seeking a fourth term, instead of being seen as a PM with everything to play for during this third Labour term, he has become a lame duck. His enemies know that he is on his way out, and most of the electorate are looking for something new as well. Therefore, they are not going to worry about their jobs and positions, especially if Brown takes over in the foreseeable future. Personally, Blair did himself unrepairable damage with the Iraq war and his constant support of Bush. Regardless of your opinion on that, the oposition towards the war, would have made any PM think twice, the riots about the poll tax were a crucial factor in Thatcher's downfall.

Blair must act quickly to ensure a smooth transition if he wants to secure a fourth Labour term. The longer he remains in office, the less time Gordon Brown has to stop the Conservatives and offer his own vision for Britain. One wonders if Blair is acutally remaining on to see either a) the end of Bush's second term in office or b) to ensure that Brown suffers at the next election.

i know no one is going to believe this but blair is more of a conviction politician than a remember me for my legacy one - he really is just too busy doing what he thinks is right and too pragmatic to believe that nothing but the iraq war will be remembered most of all. he will stay until the end of this parliament or just before because he said so. he is pragmatic enough to know that some things so right and others go wrong in politics and as a politican you just have to bear this. i find it quite amusing how much analysis goes into bbc politics or should i say how little real analysis!

What always puzzles me on this subject is why Gordon Brown actually BELIEVES that Blair will resign and make his accession as straightforward as possible. Does Brown genuinely trust Blair on the "handover" front when we have had so many stories about them falling out, and Brown being let down or misled time and time again? Do you think, Nick, that he honestly believes Blair will do the "honorable" thing? Surely he is being very naive?
PS HAve just discovered your blog - I know I will be hooked.

But surely TB knows that Brown’s electoral chances are severely handicapped by the fact that Gordon is (whisper it quietly) a socialist!