BRITAIN: British Prime Minister Mr Tony Blair faced fresh calls for an early "exit strategy" on Iraq yesterday as his deputy, Mr John Prescott, fuelled speculation about Mr Blair's eventual departure from Downing Street.
Number 10 signalled a "new plan" to fast-track the development of Iraq's internal security apparatus as the US-led coalition prepares to hand power to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June. However, the Prime Minister's official spokesman insisted the new strategy was not a response to calls by Labour MPs, led by former foreign secretary Mr Robin Cook, for an exit strategy allowing the withdrawal of British troops following January's planned elections and the establishment of a representative government in Iraq.
Mr Cook's call for Mr Blair to distance himself from Mr Bush came as a Sunday Times poll suggested almost half of British voters think Mr Blair should step down before the general election, and as rebel Labour MPs demanded a Commons vote before extra troops go to Iraq.
Defence Secretary Mr Geoff Hoon rejected that demand as he and a string of senior ministers rallied to Mr Blair's defence while speculation about his future reached new heights.
Mr Prescott was obliged to say there was "no race for the Prime Minister's position" having told the London Times that ministers were positioning themselves with an eye to the succession.
Mr Prescott had actually intended to defend Mr Blair, warning his presumed successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown, not to assume a Labour "coronation", and making light of media speculation by implying he was privy to Mr Blair's intentions.
However, he effectively confirmed a shifting balance of power when he said: "When (tectonic) plates appear to be moving, everyone positions themselves for it."
That forced a loyalty pledge yesterday from Foreign Secretary Mr Jack Straw, who, according to some reports, has forged an alliance with Mr Brown.
Asked on BBC Radio 4's World this Weekend programme if he was one of those ministers positioning himself in anticipation of a leadership change, Mr Straw replied: "Certainly not, and I'm not going to either."
And as Scotland's Sunday Herald claimed Mr Prescott and Mr Brown met last weekend to discuss a "peaceful succession" - a claim denied by both last night - another potential leadership contender, Commons leader Mr Peter Hain, insisted Labour would be "crazy" to dump Mr Blair over Iraq.
Mr Hain's condemnation of US abuses of Iraqi prisoners last Thursday was seen as further evidence of the growing pressure on Mr Blair to distance himself from Mr Bush. Speaking on GMTV's Sunday Programme, Mr Hain said: "This is the most successful Prime Minister in living memory. Why would anyone want to dump him now? I cannot understand that. It would be crazy to just duck for cover and panic and run around in a frenzy as the media wants us to do."
Warning that Labour divisions could allow the Conservatives back into power, he continued: "Who really wants to get rid of the Prime Minister? Michael Howard does. Who really wants Tony Blair to go? The Tories do. They know he's been the biggest Labour winner ever in the party's 100-year history."
Mr Hoon told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme he knew Mr Blair was "absolutely determined to see this job through", while Mr Straw insisted: "There are difficulties, but people misunderstand our Prime Minister Tony Blair if they somehow think he is going to run away from his responsibilities because there is a lot of speculation in the newspapers."
Mr Straw said it would be wrong for Britain to distance herself from the US administration. The US was "the most important ally for the United Kingdom and for the EU as well".
The Liberal Democrats will use their Commons debate on Iraq this afternoon to press for a fresh vote before any further deployment of British troops.
The party's leader, Mr Charles Kennedy, agreed the government would have to respond to any request from commanders on the ground for reinforcements necessary for present undertakings or for the safety of troops already there. However, that was "very different indeed" from any proposal to expand the British presence either in terms of geography or field of operations.