Blair going, going...

[Partridge]

Seven quit government in Blair protest
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1865980,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1) (Some lnks in the original)

Seven members of Tony Blair's government resigned today in protest at the prime minister's reluctance to publicly name a departure date.

One junior minister, Tom Watson, quit as well as six parliamentary private secretaries, after 48 hours of leaks and rampant speculation about an exit timetable.

The open rebellion, after Downing Street dubbed reports of Mr Blair quitting next May "speculation" but did not deny them, led the Conservative leader, David Cameron, to describe the Labour party as in "meltdown."

All seven Labour resignations were from MPs who had signed a round-robin call yesterday for Mr Blair to give a public confirmation of a departure date.

The PM hit back at Mr Watson, calling him "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for having signed the letter yesterday.

The six PPSs who have quit are Khalid Mahmood, Wayne David, Ian Lucas, Mark Tami, David Wright and Chris Mole.

A parliamentary private secretary is the most junior role in government, essentially a conduit between ministers and backbenchers.

News of the resignations came as Downing Street described reports that Mr Blair would step down next May as "speculation" but said it would not give a "running commentary" on the issue.

The Sun today claimed that Mr Blair would resign as Labour leader on May 31, sparking an eight-week leadership contest that would see him leave Downing Street at the end of July.

As news of the resignations spread, the prime minister retaliated, calling Mr Watson "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for having signed the document.

Mr Watson - a former chief whip and Blair loyalist - said it was "not in the interest of either the party or the country" for Mr Blair to remain in office.

In his resignation letter to the prime minister he wrote: "It is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country.

"How and why this situation has arisen no longer matters. I share the view of the overwhelming majority of the party and the country that the only way the party and the government can renew itself in office is urgently to renew its leadership."

The prime minister issued a statement saying: "I had been intending to dismiss him, but wanted to extend to him the courtesy of speaking to him first. Had he come to me privately and expressed his view about the leadership, that would have been one thing.

"But to sign a round robin letter which was then leaked to the press was disloyal, discourteous and wrong. It would therefore have been impossible for him to remain in government.

In a Times interview last week, Mr Blair urged MPs to stop "obsessing" about when he would quit, saying he would not be giving a timetable for his departure.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies Campbell, called on Mr Blair today to either name a date for his resignation or go immediately. "What is at issue is the national interest, which is not being served by the continuing uncertainty over Mr Blair," he said.

Reacting to the resignations, Downing Street announced that Derek Twigg would move from the Department of Transport to replace Mr Watson as junior defence minister. Tom Harris joins the government to replace Mr Twigg as transport minister.

After two conflicting round robin letters from Labour MPs yesterday - one calling for Mr Blair to announce a departure date and the other saying that leaving before the 2007 conference was enough - a succession of cabinet ministers have gone public to say indications of a departure within a year were sufficient.

The environment secretary, David Miliband - often tipped as a future Labour leader - yesterday said it was "reasonable" to assume Mr Blair would be gone within 12 months.

Cabinet ministers appear to have coalesced around this choice of words after yesterday's Mirror revealed details of a "farewell tour" to be made by the PM next summer.

John McDonnell, a left-wing Labour MP, has already pledged to stand against Gordon Brown on an unashamedly socialist platform. Mr McDonnell has likened the intrigues of the past few days to the television programme the Sopranos, urging the party to concentrate on policy issues.

Although Mr Brown has maintained a public silence on the issue, some Scottish MPs have expressed outrage at the dates reported in the Sun, believing such a timescale would leave them in a tricky position during the difficult Scottish and Welsh elections on May 3.

Jim Devine, the Labour MP who won Robin Cook's old Livingstone seat last year, said May 31 would be "totally unacceptable" to the Scottish party.

"The thought that we are going to be running an election campaign for the Scottish parliament between April and May with this type of speculation running, accompanied by a Frank Sinatra-type farewell tour, just will not wash," he said.

However, John Hutton, the work and pensions secretary, today told BBC Breakfast his view "and I think the view of the majority of people, is that the prime minister has made his intentions reasonably clear".

In addition to Mr Miliband and Hilary Armstrong, the social exclusion minister, other Blair allies - Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, and Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of Labour's national executive committee - yesterday said they expected a new leader to be in place within 12 months.

If Mr Blair resigned on May 31, it would mean he had been the prime minister for 10 years and 30 days - still short of Mrs Thatcher's 11 years at the helm.

[Partridge]

Old (July 2006), but worth a post:

Leftwinger to challenge Brown for Labour leadership
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1820328,00.html)

A leftwing MP today declared his intention to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership when Tony Blair stands down.

John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlingon and chair of the parliamentary Socialist Campaign Group (http://www.scgn.org.uk/), formally announced his intention to stand against the chancellor to allow the party to "openly debate the issues facing our party and the future direction of the country".

Mr McDonnell is the first MP to openly declare his intention to stand against Mr Brown following speculation that the chancellor would be unopposed in his bid for the leadership.

Mr McDonnell, who describes himself as an undeniable "socialist", insisted he was not putting himself forward as "a so-called stalking horse".

"This is a serious challenge for the leadership of the party when a vacancy occurs," he said today.

"I am standing to ensure that thousands of Labour party members and supporters have the chance to participate in deciding not only who should be the next leader of our party but more importantly what policies the party should be pursuing," he said.

Asked why he was waiting until Mr Blair resigned rather than trying to hasten his departure, Mr McDonnell quipped: "We do not do assassinations in the Labour party - we also do not do coronations either, by the way."

Conceding that few outside Labour circles would recognise his name, Mr McDonnell said he planned to spend the next nine months campaigning around the country to discuss the issues and build up support for his candidacy.

"There are many that feel the party has lost its way," he said.

"Many of the policies being pursued in government have broken up the broad coalition of support Labour has relied upon throughout its history to bring it to power," he said.

"New Labour has systematically alienated section after section of our supporters - teachers, health workers, students, pensioners, public service workers, trade unionists and people committed to the environment, civil liberties and peace.

"Spin and allegations of sleaze are causing decent people to lose trust in our party.

"This is reflected in lost votes, lost elections, lost members and a Labour prime minister having to rely upon Conservative votes in parliament to force through legislation.

"There are growing calls from across the party for change. We need to rebuild a progressive consensus, inspiring and giving people hope that another world is possible. We need those who have turned away from Labour to come back home.

"For the first time in decades people no longer feel they have a political voice. This campaign is a challenge to the present political consensus."

A smooth transition from Blair to Brown would see Labour turfed out of government at the next general election, Mr McDonnell said.

"I cannot see any difference between Gordon Brown's policies and his future programme and what there is at the moment.

"If you do not change the policies you will have a smooth transition... to Cameron."

Minister Yvette Cooper was the first within the party ranks to criticise Mr McDonnell's decision. Ms Cooper, a minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, said the party did not need a contest.

"I don't believe this is what the Labour party wants," she said.

"We need leadership which will unite the party, not divide it. We need to look forward to the challenges of the future, not back to the politics of the past.

"This shows why it's so important to have a stable and orderly transition and not lose focus from the real task of delivering a better deal for the people of this country."

Mr McDonnell plans to start the debate on the policies he plans to put forward at next week's Labour representation committee meeting.

These include stopping the contracting out of public services to private companies, pulling out of Iraq, withdrawing from Trident, and ruling out nuclear power altogether.

He insisted he could bring together a "broad coalition" of support which had seen other Labour leaders come to power in the past.

"It brought Atlee to power, and it's what brought us to power in 1997," he said.

Mr McDonnell rejected claims that by standing he was set to scupper the chances of a more recognised leftwing challenger.

"It is perfectly open for others to put in their name and open the debate. What we aim to do is maximise our support."

The 51-year-old MP rejected claims that his early pronouncement would destabilise the party at a time when it is mired in the loans for peerages allegations.

"We have been waiting to declare for the last few weeks," he said.

"But every time we convene a press conference something else happens."

Meanwhile, another prominent Labour leftwing MP added his voice to those believing that Mr Brown should be challenged for the leadership.

Paul Flynn, MP for Newport West, said Mr Brown was no longer convincing and that he was no longer the answer.

Interviewed by the Parliamentary House Magazine, Mr Flynn said Robin Cook's death had left a vacuum.

"The left of the Labour party has no major figure to lead it. I am afraid that I no longer believe that it could be Gordon Brown," he said.

Mr Flynn said the left and right of British politics were being deserted as all parties sought to occupy the "mushy centre" of politics, the area of no conviction".

"The problem is, and the recent two byelections proved this, that it means that those who are on the left no longer love the Labour party and do not believe Gordon Brown is the answer, especially when we see him hugging the virility symbol of Trident," he said.

"He is no longer convincing," Mr Flynn added.

[Partridge]

Blair faces crisis over resignations
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1865980,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)

Tony Blair today faced an implosion of his authority after seven government members resigned in protest at his refusal to publicly name a departure date.After today's Sun claimed Mr Blair would resign as Labour leader next May and step down as PM in July, a junior minister and six parliamentary private secretaries quit in rapid succession on a day of high Westminster drama.

Although all seven resignations were from junior posts, the fact that each MP had been a loyal Blairite led the Conservative leader, David Cameron, to claim the government was "divided and in meltdown".The Liberal Democrat leader, Menzies Campbell, said the national interest was "not being served by the continuing uncertainty over Mr Blair".

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, was spotted leaving the rear of Downing Street earlier today after what was reported to be an angry and uresolved conversation with the prime minister.

Unlike in previous crises, there was a conspicuous lack of cabinet ministers taking to the airwaves to defend the prime minister.

However, the former cabinet minister David Blunkett warned Mr Brown and his supporters to "back off".

"It is now in Gordon Brown's - and the Labour party's - best interests for those seeking the prime minister's immediate departure to back off," Mr Blunkett said.

"This is not only to avoid our opponents exploiting the impression of disintegration and division, but also to avoid the split of our party, which would have lasting consequences."

Mr Brown has made no public comment on the unfolding events today.

Problems mount ahead of conference

Labour now appears to be facing an imminent and serious crisis, with little more than two weeks to go before the party conference in Manchester.

Although Mr Blair went into last year's election promising not to stand again, his declaration to serve a "full third term" was quickly changed to allowing his successor "ample" time to settle in.

In a Times interview (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2340279.html) last week, he made it clear he would not set a public departure date. Today's report in the Sun was not denied outright by Downing Street, with a spokesman instead describing it as "speculation".

The first resignation this morning was the junior defence minister, Tom Watson (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-7104,00.html), followed by six parliamentary private secretaries.

All had yesterday signed a round robin letter calling on Mr Blair to publicly state his exit date, thereby making their official government positions all but untenable.

The six PPSs who have quit are Khalid Mahmood (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-7228,00.html), Wayne David (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-6331,00.html), Ian Lucas (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-6518,00.html), Mark Tami (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-7383,00.html), David Wright (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-8392,00.html) and Chris Mole (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/0,,-11049,00.html).

Their departures followed 48 hours of leaks and rampant speculation about an exit timetable.

A parliamentary private secretary is the most junior role in government, essentially a conduit between ministers and backbenchers.

In his resignation letter, Mr Mole wrote that the discontent was not from "usual suspects, but mainstream, supportive colleagues who fear for the interests of the party and country".

Loyal cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt said it would be "madness" for MPs to dictate terms to Mr Blair.

Major dates on the political horizon include the return of parliament in October, the Queen's speech in November, Scottish and Welsh elections next May and the chancellor's comprehensive spending review - which will set spending limits until 2011 - in the summer.

The PM also faces questioning in the police investigation into Labour's role in the alleged "cash for peerages" affair.

Blair: minister disloyal, discourteous and wrong

In his resignation letter (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1866017,00.html) to the prime minister, Mr Watson wrote: "It is with the greatest sadness that I have to say that I no longer believe that your remaining in office is in the interest of either the party or the country."

The PM hit back at the junior minister, calling him "disloyal, discourteous and wrong" for having signed the letter.

In a statement, he said: "I had been intending to dismiss him, but wanted to extend to him the courtesy of speaking to him first. Had he come to me privately and expressed his view about the leadership, that would have been one thing.

"But to sign a round robin letter which was then leaked to the press was disloyal, discourteous and wrong. It would therefore have been impossible for him to remain in government."

The deepening crisis comes ahead of a likely visit to the Middle East by Mr Blair.

Reacting to the resignations, Downing Street announced that Derek Twigg would move from the Department of Transport to replace Mr Watson as junior defence minister. Tom Harris joins the government to replace Mr Twigg as transport minister.

After two conflicting round robin letters from Labour MPs yesterday - one calling for Mr Blair to announce a departure date and the other saying that leaving before the 2007 conference was enough - a succession of cabinet ministers went public to say indications of his departure within a year were sufficient.

The environment secretary, David Miliband - often tipped as a future Labour leader - yesterday said it was "reasonable" to assume Mr Blair would be gone within 12 months.

Cabinet ministers appear to have coalesced around this choice of words after yesterday's Mirror revealed details of a "farewell tour" to be made by the PM next summer.

In addition to Mr Miliband and Hilary Armstrong, the social exclusion minister, other Blair allies - Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, and Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chairman of Labour's national executive committee - yesterday said they expected a new leader to be in place within 12 months.

John McDonnell, a left-wing Labour MP, has already pledged to stand against Gordon Brown on an unashamedly socialist platform.

If Mr Blair resigned on May 31, it would mean he had been the prime minister for 10 years and 30 days - still short of Mrs Thatcher's 11 years at the helm.

[Partridge]

The day Blair accused his chancellor of blackmail
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1866401,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)

· Brown demands PM go by Christmas
· Shouting match as PM refuses joint premiership

An all-out power struggle between the chancellor and the prime minister, culminating with allegations of blackmail by Tony Blair and a ferocious shouting match between the two men, appeared last night to have forced Mr Blair to publicly declare as early as today that he will not be prime minister this time next year.That may not be enough for Gordon Brown, who is understood to have demanded that Mr Blair quit by Christmas, with an effective joint premiership until a new leader is anointed by the party.Mr Blair's statement - possibly to be made when he attends a north London school with education secretary Alan Johnson today - will effectively confirm what cabinet ministers, including David Miliband, have been hinting about his intentions in the past few days. It represents a further shift in position as the prime minister struggles to cling to office and prevent a meltdown in the party.

But last night Mr Brown found himself under pressure to repudiate the move by some MPs to force Mr Blair from office now. The Treasury hinted last night that it could accept a deal in which Mr Blair stood down by the beginning of May, so long as the prime minister made a public declaration of this intention within the coming months.

In probably the most astonishing day in the annals of New Labour, the use of the word blackmail to describe Mr Brown's actions over the past few days by Downing Street staff was authorised by Mr Blair, and reflected his view that Mr Brown is orchestrating a coup against him. Downing Street claimed the resignation yesterday of the junior defence minister Tom Watson and six parliamentary aides came with Mr Brown's agreement. The seven men quit the government demanding that Mr Blair stand down immediately. Later in the evening, another of the letter's signatories, Iain Wright, resigned as a parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Health.

Downing Street's allegations led to counter accusations from the Brown camp of intimidation of backbench MPs by No 10 aides desperate to cling to office. As a result, the chances of the much prized stable and orderly transition between the two men looked to have collapsed.

The recriminations came after meetings between the two men at Downing Street ended yesterday afternoon with Mr Blair rejecting Mr Brown's terms for allowing him to remain in office, including an accelerated timetable for Mr Blair's resignation by Christmas, and an effective joint premiership in the interim.

Blairites claimed that Mr Brown also demanded a public endorsement of the chancellor's leadership candidacy, and repudiation of the idea of a fundamental debate about the Labour party's future. Mr Blair's aides demanded that Mr Brown distance himself from what the chief whip, Jacqui Smith, described as "an attempt to bundle Mr Blair from office".

At one point Mr Blair was also warned that unless he relented on the date and terms of his resignation there would be more senior resignations from government today. A more emollient account was given by the Treasury, asserting that Mr Blair recognised that he would have to move on his position that he would not state whether he would go next year.

The two meetings between Mr Brown and Mr Blair, totalling three and a half hours, occurred after Mr Watson and the parliamentary aides resigned. They were part of a group of 15 MPs who wrote privately to the prime minister claiming that he was now an electoral liability. News of the letter leaked to the Guardian on Monday.

In the letter, released yesterday, the 15, many of them previously loyal backbenchers, described themselves as modernisers and wrote: "Sadly, it is clear to us - as it is to almost the entire party and the entire country - that without an urgent change in the leadership of the party it becomes less likely that we will win the next election. That is the brutal truth. It gives us no pleasure to say it. But it has to be said. And understood."

Ominously for Mr Blair, the leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, went to see him to underline the pressure on him. The transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, refused to pledge support. And the environment secretary, David Miliband, said in an interview that only Mr Brown could save the party, and urged his colleagues to avoid civil war. But the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, accused the letter writers of madness, saying they were forgetting the lessons of Labour's strife in the 1980s, and adding: "It looks as if they are trying to engineer a coup". Three of Mr Blair's cabinet allies, the culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, and the home secretary, John Reid, were all abroad.

At the height of the breakdown in relations yesterday, one Blairite and former cabinet minister close to the discussions said: "Threatening a serving prime minister in this way borders on the unconstitutional. We are a democracy, not an autocracy living in the era of the Soviet Union circa 1956. There is no way people can be muzzled in the way the chancellor is demanding." The rivals' second meeting came at Mr Blair's request. Earlier Mr Brown had called on him to declare that he would quit the leadership before the end of May. Mr Blair refused. The second meeting also appeared to end in deadlock.

It also emerged that an attempted mediation between the two camps organised by the Blairite Lord Falconer and the Brownite industry secretary, Alistair Darling, fell apart on Monday.

[Partridge]

Ten years of pacts, pettiness and feuds
The Guardian (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1866494,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1)

· Uneasy relationship built on Granita pact unravels
· Leftwing MP likens recent feuds to episode of The Sopranos

The leftwing Labour MP John McDonnell yesterday described the events of the last few weeks as being like an episode from The Sopranos. The Blair-Brown feud has never reached the levels of blood-letting in the mafia television show but easily matches it in personal viciousness, paranoia, scheming and general pettiness. The two-hour showdown at Downing Street has been a long time coming, dating back to the Granita pact in 1994, when the two men met at the north London restaurant to carve up the Labour leadership. That deal, far from a peace pact, created a dysfunctional relationship that has disfigured the government for a decade. A former Downing Street aide was asked a few years ago why, when the two had a disagreement, they did not just sit down and talk. The aide provided a glimpse of their relationship when she said in exasperation: "Don't people shout at each other in most marriages?"

They met for the first time as new backbenchers at the Commons in 1983 and a political alliance was formed that helped create New Labour. Mr Brown was initially dominant but that changed when Labour lost the election in 1992; Mr Blair, fearful of another election defeat, pushed for faster reform. Mr Brown began losing the support of many parliamentary colleagues when, as shadow chancellor, he knocked back a string of proposed spending plans.

When the Labour leader, John Smith, died in 1994, Mr Blair was better placed to succeed and at the Granita meeting, Mr Brown grudgingly stood aside.

After that meeting, Mr Brown briefed a group of his supporters, one of whom recalled him producing a memo he had written at the restaurant listing 12 points, including promises of posts in the shadow cabinet for allies, a promise to stand aside for Mr Brown in the second term and control not only of the Treasury but of other domestic departments related to the economy.

The promise about domestic control meant that when Labour won the general election in 1997, Mr Blair was deliberately left in the dark by Mr Brown about much of domestic policy and the prime minister began to focus more and more on foreign policy, with disastrous results in the case of Iraq. There were disputes in those early years about not only domestic policies but Europe too. And there was pettiness: for example, Cherie Blair was angered by Mr Brown's unwillingness to reach a compromise over accommodation in Downing Street.

In 1998, when Mr Brown was hosting a reception at No 11 attended by mainly fellow Scots, a voice floated in from another room, declaring them to be "the official opposition": it was Mr Blair. At the time, it was ambiguous, possibly a joke. But each year that passed, the bitterness became more and more apparent.

Mr Brown, along with a few trusted colleagues at the Treasury, became increasingly paranoid about the Blair camp but too cautious to strike. The paranoia was reciprocated on the Blair side, who were sure that Mr Brown was repeatedly trying to undermine them.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq in 2003, Mr Brown said nothing about the rights and wrongs of joining the US in the conflict but the two had yet another disagreement when the chancellor challenged the costs involved.

In the autumn of that year, there appeared to be a new pact, with Brownites claiming Mr Blair would leave in the summer of 2004. But when Mr Brown was overseas, Mr Blair announced in the summer of 2004 he would stay on for a third and final term, a move described by one of Mr Brown's colleagues at the time as "an African coup".

Mr Brown was subsequently reported to have said: "There is nothing that you could say to me now that I could ever believe" - a remark he has since repeated several times.

With relations worsening, the two went weeks without speaking. In last year's general election, Mr Brown was initially left out of the campaign planning but when the party ran into trouble, he was drafted back. But when Mr Brown and his wife, Sarah, flew to London for the election party, the two were twice snubbed by the prime minister and his wife.

Symptomatic of the poor relationship, the chancellor, though a champion of the developing world, was not invited by Mr Blair to the Group of Eight meeting at Gleneagles a few months later. One of the Brown camp, resentful on behalf of the chancellor, said: "It was like Hamlet without the prince."

Mr Blair had been planning to stay in office until at least next year and possibly to 2008, in part to spite Mr Brown for what the Blairites see as repeated disloyalty and obstructionism. He would then leave to make money on the lecture circuit, write a book and set up a Blair foundation. Staying in office as long as he had planned now no longer looks feasible.

In the early years of the feud, Mr Brown at least respected Mr Blair's political acumen. But that too has now gone. The Brown camp believes Mr Blair has lost his political instincts and is an electoral liability.

Fourteen years after Granita, Mr Brown has finally struck.