BRITAIN: It's been a difficult year for Tony Blair - some of it was his own making but new Tory leader David Cameron also hit his mark, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
He was the future once." It was a great line, which could never be repeated, and David Cameron deployed it to maximum effect in his debut appearance at Prime Minister’s Questions just 24 hours after his emphatic victory over David Davis in the Conservative leadership election earlier this month.
Albeit by a margin of more than two-to-one, Tory MPs and activists had taken a terrific gamble on the 39-year-old Etonian in just the fifth year of his Commons career. They had abandoned their fixation with ideology for the appearance of stardust and were understandably nervous.
True,William Hague consistently shone at the despatch box and still got short shrift from the electorate in 2001. Yet solid performances at PMQs would be vital to establishing and maintaining authority over ever-mutinous
Tory MPs. What if he fell apart at the first attempt against the brilliant showman who had delivered Labour an unprecedented third term in power? They need not have worried on that count at least.
Even as he promised to abolish the "Punch and Judy" spectacle at Westminster, with those five words Cameron ripped to the core of Labour’s divisions and the personality fault line at the very heart of government. Blair was visibly stung, while we could only imagine the thoughts of chancellor Gordon Brown sitting beside him on the frontbench.
Cameron’s target was the threatened revolt by Labour backbenchers against the government’s controversial proposals for parent power and independent schools.
His strategy here, as on issues like welfare reform, is to embrace a "modernising" prime minister while casting him as constrained by reactionary colleagues, the trade unions or, from time to time, by his own chancellor.
In the same instance, Cameron also reminded the public of the further changes to come in the political leadership of Britain, and many LabourMPs of their preoccupation with one question above all others – when?
Blair’s indignation at the temerity of the young Tory upstart would be understandable. Just last May, after all, he had confirmed himself as Labour’s greatest election winner to date. Yet he has no one to blame but himself as the Conservative press characterises him as being in office but not in power, while Tory MPs routinely preface their questions to "the retiring prime minister".
Blair had opened himself to questions about a "lame duck" premiership the moment he confirmed he would seek to serve "a full third term" but would not lead Labour into a fourth election.
The doubts about his authority and durability were compounded by the unsatisfactory nature of this year’s victory after an election campaign derailed by the war in Iraq and the question of "trust".
This was evidenced by the need to hug Gordon Brown close throughout a campaign which persistently failed to take shape around the issues Labour planners had intended. It was also confirmed by the results, returning Labour to government with fewer than 36 per cent of the votes cast.
That realisation prompted predictable postelection calls for Blair to go sooner rather than later. Robin Cook, whose subsequent death so shocked the political world, demanded: "How can he imagine the millions of voters who deserted Labour over Iraq will return while he remains as leader?"
There was even speculation that Blair might cut and run after a successful conclusion to the G8 summit in July. As it happened he did enjoy success there, with Bono and Bob Geldof dismissing the detractors and acclaiming the Gleneagles package of aid and debt relief for the world’s poorest countries.
There was an unexpected feel good moment when London won the right to host the 2012 Olympics. But it quickly faded and political respite came in the most unwanted form 24 hours later on July 7th when four "home-grown" British suicide bombers attacked London’s transport system, taking 52 lives.
For a time Statesman Blair was deemed to have all the requisite skills to lead a country instinctively seeking unity of purpose in face of the untold terrors planned by terrorists prepared to kill without limits.
But then, again, the war and trust lost cast its shadow when he backed a proposal to let police hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge and defied the Tories to defeat him. With the help of the Liberal Democrats and Labour rebels they did, inflicting Blair’s first Commons defeat on an issue where he had claimed compromise would endanger the nation’s security.
Some wondered why Blair should continue, having failed to carry his own party on an issue central to the government’s most fundamental duty to protect the citizen. Loyal ministers rallied, suggesting this was not a manifesto issue and that the defeat in no way diminished his authority or ability to carry the domestic reform agenda on which all MPs had been elected. However that rationalisation will not be available if the prime minister fails to carry his education reforms next spring.
The alternative nightmare scenarios currently on offer would have Blair winning the day courtesy of Tory votes – or losing and probably finding himself forced from office. Such an outcome would mark the most extraordinary success for the Cameron strategy to uncouple Blair from his party and watch Gordon Brown assume the leadership, Labour having redefined itself as neither "New" nor Blairite.
While the question of the eventual succession will continue to attend every issue, the calculation in 10 Downing Street will be that Labour MPs are not stupid enough to play the Tory game and that Gordon above all knows those are not the conditions in which he wants to inherit.