Cllr. Gavin Ayling

In John Major’s government, rebellion became a feature that has come to epitomise his period in leadership and led, eventually and with other factors, to the election loss in 1997.

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 - eleven years that were not perfect, by any measure, but brought about significant and necessary change. No-one likes change immediately, but many understand the need for it and, looking back, we can all see what tangible benefits she brought about for the UK. Towards the end of her leadership she lost her infamous ability to make decisions that may have seemed unpopular but which turned out okay. That ability deserted her and the Single European Act and the Poll Tax were just a couple of her awful decisions.

Tony Blair has been Prime Minister since the 1997 election which can be described, without exaggeration, as a landslide. Thatcher’s policies are very obviously Blair’s inspiration and his meglomania also caused him to want to beat her term as leader. Eleven years, he thinks, will solidify him as a Prime Minister that will be remembered. Gordon Brown, then, cannot expect Blair to relinquish power before 2008. And Labour MPs are beginning to look like they won’t allow an entirely smooth hand-over of power from Blair to Brown…

Brown will have much more chance of becoming leader if Blair relinquishes power sooner rather than later. And maybe 2008 will be too late for him. The time from the new leader’s inaugoration until the next election will also be decisive for his chances of winning an election. Many Conservatives, myself included, think that the longer Brown is in power, the more likely it is that he will not be re-elected.

So, on one hand there is a dichotomatic problem for Labour that is growing more, and less, serious as time passes. Blair cannot have a legacy of longevity unless he hangs on until 2008. 2008 may be too late for Brown to be assured a smooth inheritance.

And on the other hand, Brown wants and thinks he deserves, to become Prime Minister. But he also does not want to be the first sitting Labour Prime Minister to be defeated since 1979. He wants the hand-over to be soon to protect him from Alan Milburn, but he wants it to be reasonably close to the next election so that he does not break the country before then.

In Major’s government there were 22 rebels on Maastricht; in Blair’s third term there were 49 over the 90 day detention aspect of the government’s terrorism bill. Of those 49, 14 were elected for the first time in May 2005! Blair has managed to lose the support of people who, six months before, stood for election under his leadership.

So Blair has more rebels than Major had and he doesn’t have the support of the party’s newest intake. What of the future for him? Will Blair’s endorsement of Brown damage Brown’s chances when the time comes? Many commentators have taken different amounts from this rebellion. One thing is for sure, in the long-term this is good for David Cameron or David Davis, is good for the Conservative Party and, most importantly, is good for the UK.

As a Conservative I hope Brown does not become Prime Minister at all. If he must I hope he loses public support (more than Labour’s low percentage of the vote in May did already). 3% is not too much for the Tories to overturn and Blair’s charisma could account for a massive amount of their vote.

But as an Englishman I hope that the economy does not suffer with Blair’s departure. Brown has done serious damage as Chancellor but as an unfettered (by Blair) Prime Minister we may be heading for genuine disaster.