At least two, but possibly three letters have been signed by a significant number of Labour MP’s demanding that Tony Blair names the date he will stand down. Frustrated by his insistence in a recent interview in The Times that he will not announce such a date at the Labour Conference, MP’s, including a majority of the 2001 intake, have decided that enough damage has already been done by Blair’s current profile and precarious position as leader.
From The Guardian:
The letter has been coordinated by two formerly ardent Blairite MPs, Sion Simon and Chris Bryant. Its contents were being kept secret yesterday. However, its existence suggests the prime minister is by no means free from the political pressure that grew last week for him to stand down before his preferred, though unstated, private date of 2007.
t is understood the letter was organised at the weekend in the wake of Mr Blair’s decision to announce that he would not give to the Labour conference this month a date, or timetable for his departure. It was not clear last night whether the letter had been sent.
Last night, the BBC reported that a second, similar letter from the 2005 intake was being prepared. Others may be being drafted in what could be seen as a pincer movement against the prime minister.Mr Simon refused to comment yesterday, saying: “If such a confidential letter existed, its existence and contents would remain confidential.” Mr Bryant was not available last night. However, one of the MPs involved in the letter said: “If the prime minister has decided that to set a timetable will undermine his authority, and his authority is already undermined, the obvious thing is for him to go now.”
A total of 38 Labour MPs were elected for the first time in 2001. Not all of them have signed the letter, but No 10 will have been struck that it has been organised by two MPs who had seemed to be an integral part of the New Labour project
It’s actually difficult to imagine that Blair could survive a significant backbench movement against him; as the momentum increases, more and more allies will jump ship.
Is it too early to book a removals van Cherie?
Sphere: Related Content
I am now expecting a huge ‘diversionary tactic’ by about 1pm today - probably along the lines of a terrorist threat…
We’ll wait and see!!!!
I don’t think they’ll resort to that, Richard, because that’ll make people reflect more on the Iraq war.
Perhaps something to do with the NHS, not very compromising indeed because Rupert will be watching.
But in my view from this far away is that the countdown has started and it’s going fast.
Prescott has no “constitutional” role - DPM doesn’t exist constitutuinally. Furthermore, it would be hard to argue that JP could command a majority in the Commons, a pre-requisite for a PM.
The fact is, we live in a Monarchy and the Queen chooses her PM. If TB were suddenly gone, the Cabinet would probably meet and agree on a person (probably Brown), whose name should be given to an aide to the Queen so that she knows who to call to the Palace. JP would become Leader of the Labour Party (not “acting” Leader - as Margaret Beckett knows so well) and overseas the election for a new Leader of the Party.
In reality, when Tony goes, he’ll likely stay on as PM and Leader of the Party until a new leader is elected, or even stay on as PM and let JP become the party Leader for a short period - nice cherry on the guys biography.
That’s my assessment for what it’s worth.
Alex
Interesting…so could it be a race between Old Old Labour Prescott, and Old New Labour Brown…with Ken Livingston as the ‘wild card’ ?
Hi Alex - I refered to the Labour Party rules (not the British monarchy). Constitution is the wrong word I guess. I don’t imagine JP has any interest in leading beyond overseeing a leadership election.