"Methusaleh" Blair to go on and on and on

Among all the speculation about when Blair will quit, this piece by David McKie on the Guardian's Comment is Free blog, is one of the best.

Enjoy!

Campbell and Cable: About as balanced as Geoff Boycott's wonky grin

We keep hearing that the Liberal Democrats contain the "brighest and best" young talents in British politics, as well as the most promising batch of new women MPs.

So why is that, hard on the heels of the election of 64-year-old Ming Campbell as party leader, the party has now elected the 62-year-old Vince Cable as his deputy?

I am no ageist, but parties have to try to maximise their appeal to all age groups, especially when they are confronted by a phenomenon like David Cameron.

The deputy should either have been a woman - preferably Susan Kramer - or one of these bright young things we are endlessly being told about.

So will Hilary sack Ashok?

Following on from yesterday's post, International Development Secretary Hilary Benn has now disowned his parliamentary aide, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland MP Ashok Kumar, over this article in which he called on Tony Blair to quit.

Meanwhile Downing Street has attemped to stay out of the row, saying it is a matter for Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip.

That, of course, is nonsense. Hilary Armstrong can't chew gum without Tony Blair's permission, so she's unlikely to do anything as radical as sacking a PPS for saying something many in the Labour Party will agree with.

I think that what happens to Kumar could be a very interesting litmus test of the mood within Number 10 vis-a-vis the handover. If they are prepared to make a martyr of him over this, it would suggest to me that Blair is digging in for the long haul.

4pm update: He's kept his job. In other words, the most junior members of Mr Blair's administration can now openly call for the Prime Minister's resignation and not be sacked for it - an interesting reflection on the strength of his current political position.

Milburn makes his move

You can tell something's amiss in the byzantine world of New Labour politics when arch-Blairites Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn launch what is obviously a co-ordinated attack on Chancellor Gordon Brown.

You would also have to be very naive not to believe it was in any way linked to the Prime Minister's comments at the weekend about maybe having made a mistake in pre-announcing his resignation.

I think it is steadily becoming clearer that the Blairites are holding Brown responsible for the Jack Dromey ambush in the loans-for-peerages row and are, at the very least, firing a warning shot across his bows that they are prepared to challenge him for the leadership.

I have posted a comment on Nick Robinson's blog which goes into this a bit further and I will be interested to see if Nick himself returns to the issue.

Meanwhile loyalist North-East MP Ashok Kumar has become the latest Labour politician to call on Mr Blair to stand down this year.

I think this is a particularly noteworthy contribution to the debate as Kumar has shown absolutely no Brownite sympathies until now.

Regional government not dead then?

In a Guardian article guaranteed to raise the blood pressure of the Campaign for an English Parliament and others, UCL Constitution Unit head Robert Hazell has today argued that there is a future for regional government in England after all.

"Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both versions of the English question. It could help give England a louder voice within the union, and help decentralise the government of England. But defeat in the North East referendum in 2004 has raised the bar," he writes.

"Any future proposals for elected regional assemblies will need to offer a stronger set of powers and functions. The GLA provides a possible model, with London's Olympics bid showing that a strategic authority can make a difference in promoting a region, both within the UK and to the wider world."

I think I shall just light the blue touchpaper, and retire....

Blair-must-go watch: So is he staying after all?

What are we to make of the situation regarding Tony Blair's leadership following his admission that he may have "made a mistake" in pre-announcing his decision to resign at the end of a third term?

Downing Street is predictably trying to play down the comment, but as far as the Brownite Guardian commentator Jackie Ashley is concerned, it's a declaration of war.

Ashley's argument is that there is agreement on an handover date to Gordon Brown and that the Prime Minister means to stay on as long as he possibly can - all the better if that means an alternative succession candidate has a chance to come forward.

In this context, I would draw attention to an extraordinary piece is currently running in the Press Gazette's Axe Grinder column. Although it has not been followed up by the MSM, that of course does not necessarily mean it is not true.

I can't link to it as the Press Gazette is a subscription only site (growl) but the gist is that the loans-for-peerages revelations have caused a near-irreperable breakdown in relations on both sides - on Brown's side, because he believes Blair is tarnishing the Labour Party, and on Blair's, because he believes Brown's people blew the whistle on it.

"One senior ex-minister told Axegrinder the disclosures were the last straw for Brown, who believes the loans have dealt a hammer blow to his and the Government's reputation for financial probity. Extraordinarily, the veteran politician said: "Gordon has told Tony ‘I didn't get you on education, but I will get you on sleaze'."

Incidentally, the UKPG piece goes onto say that the Guardian's decision to call for Blair's head has caused consternation in its "Blairite" political team which might explain why Mike White was so keen to disassociate himself from it on Sky News last week (see previous posts.)

But I digress. What is becoming clear is that Blair intends to try and go on to that 10th anniversary of his coming to power next May - whether Gordon likes it or not.

Whether he manages it will depend largely on events, in particular whether there are any further damaging sleaze revelations, whether there are further major backbench rebellions on key legislation, and whether Labour's position in the polls starts to deteriorate.

But I have to say that if any of the above rumours are true, then things are not looking good for that fabled "orderly transition."

If the Blairites sincerely do believe Gordon was behind the loans-for-peerages disclosures, or that he is trying to use them to bring about the Prime Minister's political assassination, they will not forgive him.

They will run an alternative candidate against him - Milburn or Miliband are the most likely contenders - and, although Brown will still win, he will inherit a fatally divided party that will go on to lose - and lose bad - in 2009/10.