The family spat
The Labour Party is dusting itself down after its latest family bust up. Senior figures are wagging their fingers at the troublemakers and telling them not to be so silly.
They - in words any parent will recognise - insist it's not their fault and, anyway, they didn't start it. The prime minister then dismisses the whole thing as a soap opera unconnected with governing the country or the things that really matter to ordinary voters.
If only it were that simple.
It's true that the subject matter of the latest string of spats between Brownites and Blairites scarcely matters - even to those of us paid to follow them.
But what DOES matter is that they are symptomatic of a battle about both power and policy. These often apparently petty squabbles are a proxy for a battle over whether the prime minister should stand aside for Gordon Brown sooner - early next year - or later, 2008 or 9.
They also represent a struggle over Labour's policy direction - on pensions, the NHS, schools and Lords reform. A poll out today - albeit a far from scientific one - suggested that a third of the public were sick and tired of the Blair/Brown feud.
Anyone who's lived through a family feud would say the same BUT that's a very different thing from saying it doesn't matter.
I'm 
Comments
Nick -
I know it all does matter: but could you give us your view on:
a) how much of this is to do with real differences and difficulties between Blair and Brown?
b) how much is generated by unlicensed briefing by "persons close to" Blair or Brown who are fearful of the fallout for them if events go the wrong way?
c) how many of these stories are down to print journalists who are (wittingly or unwittingly) being "used" to carry messages by one camp or the other?
In all the furore about Blair/Brown, one basic question persists, in my mind.
Is it Democratic for an elected leader to hand over power to an unelected leader, without consulting the electorate? Even though this has happened historically, I cannot see how this seemingly private battle complies with the basic principles of our political system, as it moves into the public domain.
Can you please explain how this works, speciallly in the light of the push to export our brand of democracy to other countries, whether they desire it or not.
Of course it matters, it keeps chaps like you employed and gives chaps like me something to read!! I'm just back from France where their political commentators are similarly over-excited by the Sarkozy-de Villepin spats. Pas ça change, plus c'est la même chose!
Anyone who has worked in any major outfit will have observed similar 'feuds' at the tops of their organisations - they are inevitable when intelligent people work closely together. Nearly all PMs and chancellors have had differences of opinions on policy, it would be astonishing if they didn't.
Our politicians can't win. If they agree on everything they're called clones, if they disagree they're called disloyal!
I'm glad we have two such able people as Mr Blair and Mr Brown at the heart of our government.....
Yep, bored to tears by the Blair/Brown issue. They're running out of time anyway.
It is coming to something when a Minister of the Crown is prepared to claim to a national newspaper – The Guardian – that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately set out in his Budget to damage Labour’s chances in the May elections, in order to harm the Prime Minister.
This is more than a family spat. This is gloves-off warfare. Anyone who suggests that government can be business as usual, when Blairites and Brownites in the Cabinet are at each others’ throats and looking for any opportunity to embarrass the other faction, is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
There is one thing that Mr Blair and Mr Brown surely should agree upon - they are both wrecking this country. Mr Blair through the dismantling of our democracy and Mr Brown through his mishandling of the economy.
I'm not weary of the Blair/Brown spat, I'm weary of Labour's constant attempts to destroy British freedom/democracy. Limiting trial by jury, Blair trying to get his cronies elected (London mayoral election anyone?), bringing in identity cards and demanding that people sign up to a life tracking register or be heavily fined, and now they are trying to ram through a bill that would allow Ministers to make laws without any Parliamentary scrutiny.
It's absolutely disgusting.
Fairly confident most people would still say no if you changed the question to 'does it matter'.
Hello Nick
I think there is a democratic angle to this that seems to be being overlooked at present. Many people, including some of the press and his own party, are talking of Blair going in 2006. However if he does, in my view, we should have a general election. I did not vote for 4 years of a Brown leadership. I he becomes PM during 2006/7, then for me, I voted under false pretences at the last election. "It's not what was written on the tin."
Labour are on dangerous ground here. Encouraging Blair to step down is one thing, getting impatient and shunting him aside, well, we all remember what happened to the last party to ditch a thrice winning leader. They didn't even begin to recover really until last November, 15 years later.
Of the one third of people who were fed up with the Blair/Brown fued, I'd be fascinated know how they would answer the questions:
What difference will it make to you who wins the Blair/Brown fued?
Is it just that there is too much of this uninteresting story in the media, instead of fascinating, pertinent stuff that affects real people?
Is there any supposed news item that more than one third of people would not be fed up with?
Therefore, is it news that one third of people are fed up with this story?
In my humble view Blair allowed Gordon Brown to get to powerful in the Treasury, after the 2001 election Blair as PM who had just won a 2nd election should have moved Brown to the Foreign Office in the longer run I think it would have helped the Chancellor improve his image as well.
I'm personally in full agreement with Andrew Rawnsley who wrote in the Observer yesterday that Blair should set a date for his departure. Blair should really come out post local elections or even before and say that he is going to serve a full 3rd term and will resign from the post of PM on the 1st January 2009. Basically giving Brown a challenge to put up or shut up. Blair has been elected to serve a full 3rd term by the electorate and if Brown does not like it then for once he should come out and challenge Blair directly. What do you think Nick? Is there any chance of Blair setting a date for departure?
Are you really so convinced of the importance of a Blair-Brown handover? You don't explain the substantive policy innovations that would follow such a change.Are there any? For the general public surely it seems a question of personal ambition and conflict taking centre stage ahead of the public good. No wonder we sigh and roll our eyes. I enjoy your blog /column by the way.
The Blair/Brown so called spat is overhyped by the media.
Gordon Brown will take over in about 18 months/2 years, anything else will just help the Tories.
I find the whole thing disturbing. The underhanded sly discussions about who supports who and such like. If such a thing was happening in a company there would be all hell to pay.
For some reason we accept our leaders acting like children.
The Blair/Brown feud will matter when it finally concludes with Blair's departure from office. When that happens you'll have some news. Until then its just a load of froth and bickering, particularly amongst the small fry.
I wonder if Bush has had something to do with Blairs rethink.I would be surprised if that were not the case.I get the impression/feeling at times from Blairs face/body that he would like to pack it all in?.Then he seems to come back and burn like a bright star again,it`s very confusing but it is taken it`s toll on him.I think he will go sooner then later he is a man that is running out of steam fast and he knows it.
I think that the point about the spats is well taken but as long as the Labour Party is on the middle ground and can attract the support of the majority of the electorate they are not significant. The differences in policy outlook are meaningful to the small number of interested people but let's face it what do the voter's care as long as they are not being antagonised? They make for good copy at least and keep conspiracy theorists happy. I am more concerned about the likelihood of a hung parliament if all of the major parties become centreists.
I actually believe Blair is fatally damaged so it's just a question of time before he goes; I would give him 3-6 months (or less). But as you say, most people are sick of both Blair and Brown, or rather Blair & New Labour, so may not be too enamoured towards Brown. The winds of change are blowing and the New Labour project looks like it is unravelling, and may die altogether without its chief architect.
The simple truth is, the PM can pick his time and there is not a damn thing anyone can do. He has done more than enough to be in the history books. In fact, in 20 years time he will be remembered for mostly positive things since by that time people will begin to realise that on some aspects the PM was ahead of his time. As far as the rest are concerned, including the media, what can any of them do - not a jot. And to be frank - that is the reason why they are all getting worked up. You see, if the silly people in labour cause too much strife - they loose. Not the PM - he has got what he wants, and when he steps down, he will still command greater respect on the world stage than most PMs - so he cannot loose. The losers will be the ones who disunite the party. Remember the Tories !
I don't think I can cope with Blair/Brown squabble stories going on untill early next year let alone 2008! What happened to the dual premiership we had two weeks ago?
This pair of idiots have ruined UK PLC- please leave ASAP- both of you -and get people into power who actually care about their citizens.
If I where a member of The Labour party I would by now be really miffed. Blair and Brown are treating the party as though it where a medieval fiefdom to be barted over. There are other views in the party and I would expect an election not a coronation when Blair stands down.
As Tony Blair has given his notice to quit but not the date, do you know what the current Labour party rules are for what happens when a leader resigns?
I am quite sure that just about everyone is sick of this blair/brown feud. I am just sick of it being on the front page every single day, however for the first time yesterday, when I saw Blair on a TV interview, I realsied I was actually sick of seeing him. This doesn't mean that I think he should go now, but perhaps should just stay out of the media for a couple of weeks and get on with his job, and to all the newspapers, please give it up with these speculating headlines, WE ARE BORED
I think the only people who still get enthusiastic about the Blair/Brown feud are the political journalists. The reason is simple; it provides them with a continuous flow of stories without ever having to reveal their "sources" or "friends of Brown/Blair" or "Brown/Blair's inner circle" etc. But the best thing about the whole Blair/Brown feud is that after so many years the journalists are still clueless about what was being said during dinner at the Granita restaurant.
It seems a very healthy thing for the country that these arguments take place over major policies and results in better government.You only have to look at their joint record on the economy and jobs which is the best of any government in my adult lifetime(35 yrs).The record in other areas also pretty impressive such as education,NHS,devolution,science etc.Not all 100% of course but major improvements-sometimes at substantial cost and perhaps not always best value for money-but we should remember many governments have achieved nothing in these areas-eg Major.
Do you not think that Tony said he would leave,because at the time he was worried about his health, but since that seems to have been sorted out, he rather regrets having said it. Here also is a thought to worry Gordon, Tony didn't know at the time that we would win the Olympics, could he rather fancy still being Prime Minister then?!
Tony Blair must be aware that no one, at home or abroad, has more than a passing interest in anything he has to say anymore.
Assuming he gets the job as PM,Gordon Brown should be given the longest time possible in the role so that we can see if he is as good as he obviously thinks he will be
I'm no fan of Gordon Brown any more than I'm a supporter of Tony Blair, but I do think that our current Prime Minister has become something akin to a dinner guest whose overstayed his welcome.
He banters on convinced that we are all enthralled by him and appreciative of his presence, when in reality the novelty of his company has long worn off and we're all just hoping it wont be long before he gets his coat and goes.
I think it would also be helpful if correspondents such as yourself were more open about the sources of information. All that 'friends of' or 'sources close to'. Why not just say who it is - this might have the secondary advantage of stopping most of it.
Why should I care which one of them is in power - they're both in favour of banning demonstrations outside Parliament, using ASBO's on peace protesters, the police arresting people for wearing an anti-war T-shirt, locking people up without charge or trial for 90 days, abolishing Habeus Corpus, and in the latest outrage - legislation that would let Ministers amend the law without Parliament voting on it.
Why haven't we heard more about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - it pretty much abolishes Parliamentary democracy as we know it?!!!! Speaking as a former New Labour supporter - this govt is seriously beginning to scare me. We are going to find we are living in a mink lined prison - free to shop, drink 24 hours a day and gamble our life's savings away - just not allowed to challenge the govt.
Is there likely to be a credible challenge to oppose Gordon Brown becoming leader of New Labour ?