The odd couple
Hold the front page. The biggest and most significant political story of the year has yet to be told. You can work it out for yourself if you watch Prime Minister's Questions (not all of it, just a bit) with the sound turned off.
Done that? Notice anything? Yes, Gordon Brown's smiling. Normally he scowls. Is it because he's having another baby? Perhaps but I don't think so. Word reaches me that the Tony and Gordon show is back on the road. They've agreed how to tackle Cameron - by mocking him as Blair did today for changing his policies so quickly and by mocking Tory policy "where it's sensible it's in agreement with the government and where it's not in agreement, it's not sensible". Could there be another reason? Could they have reached another agreement on the handover? I just leave that question hanging... for now.
I'm 
Comments
Oh no! We're not to have more stories about what the Mr Bs allegedly think of each other are we? I thought that that barrel had been scraped pretty well bare over the last eight years. The best thing about David Cameron's arrival and the LibDem leadership contest is that it's given political commentators some other topics to commentate on!
Brown's personal PR effort has certainly stepped up, in the last few days. Saturday's 'Britishness' speech was followed by a live afternoon interview on Sky News (and possibly elsewhere) from Raith Rovers' stadium. A typical bloke going down the fitba on a Saturday afternoon. Then, a couple of days later, who could fail to share the joy of a man soon to be a father again? As you say Nick, a lot of smiles. Even though Rovers' poor run of form continued.
I remain convinced that when it comes to "the handover" it doesn't matter what the Messrs B have agreed, it doesn't matter what the political climate is, and it doesn't matter what's best for the country, the Government, the Labour Party or even Tony Blair himself. What matters to Tony Blair, deep down in his soul, is that he outlasts Margaret Thatcher's record tenure as PM; everything else is of secondary concern. Look for him to hang on by any means necessary until that happens. Roll on 2008.
This new unity might be a result of the embattled state the government seems to be in. A thicket of stories on fringe or non political issues has been erected over the last few days, from pregnancies, kidknap plots, respect and prostitution all vieing for attention. Possibly because there doesn't seem to be a single good news story for the govermnent to sieze upon. From defence (Iraq), foreign policy (Iran), health (NHS funds), the Economy (pensions, trade gaps, unemployment), Education (enough said!) not a single minister could muster a rabbit to be pulled out of the hat at PMQs. Not even any cash to be announced or reannounced. The inexperience of their Tory and LibDem counterparts might well cause them to smile!
But surely a plan of 'mocking' Cameron (e.g. for changing Tory policy) isn't going to work. It may feel good from the Labour side but surely it misses the point. There are many people in the country who are not died in the wool Conservatives but have been longing for Tory policy to change. The more Blair / Brown mock Cameron for changing policy, the more they bring it to the attention of the public that, perhaps, there is a chance of a real move away from the 'nasty' Tories of the past.
On Saturday TB made a speech to the Labour party's NPF in which he said 'Gordon will be' quite a lot. As in Gordon will be moving this forward, Gordon will be looking at this. All very interesting.
If Blair is stepping down hopefully he'll wait until after birth of Young Brown and until after GB's had his two weeks paternity leave.
If that's the best line of attack that the Labour front bench can manage, then they really are struggling. Apart from anything else, the immediate threat to the Labour front bench is not from the Opposition but from their own backbenchers. A Government message that suggests that the Tories and Labour front benches agree on many points is not going to help diminish rebellions, and risks further undermining the Government's authority.
I agree with John R - Blair is planning to hang on for a while yet, despite the hopes of some that the education reform argument will finish him off.
Nonetheless, there is still confusion over Blair's stated determination to hang on for a third full term: how can he serve a full term and yet hand over to Brown in time for the next election? Well, a general election is a moveable feast - some propose that Blair will serve the minimum full term before handing over to Brown for a late election, thereby giving him a "bounce" into the poll.
On the other hand, the sly wink exchanged between Tony and Cherie when he made the "full term" announcement has led some to believe that Blair intends to time his departure from Downing Street to coincide with Bush's departure from the Whitehouse; an acknowledgement of their close association. In doing so, Blair would give Brown a 'clean start' with a new president, untainted by the contentious foreign policy decisions of the Blair/Bush coalition.
Of course, there is more than likely a "third way", known only to Tony and those close to him, but either way, I'm sure that Gordon will be kept waiting for a while yet. And with an new baby on the way, I'm sure he'll find plenty to occupy himself.
In the meantime, those with an eye to party history will know that there is only one thing he should absolutely avoid while he waits: scottish hill-walking holidays.
Disagree with John R and Guilio. Blair will quit on or very shortly after May 2, 2007 - the 10th anniversary of his coming to power. It's not as soon as GB would like, but he'll settle for it given that he will still have three years before he has to hold an election. The only question is whether three years will be enough for the new Chancellor to turn the economy round!
I suspect that if Gordon Brown helps the PM get most or all of his reform agenda through by the summer then Blair may just decide to resign and let Brown take over at the party conference.This will enable Blair to run for the position of UN Secretary General which becomes vacant at the end of the year.
Tony Blair's acolytes say that he'll "mock" David Cameron.
What does that say about his respect agenda?
Don't do as I do. Do as I say.
Like Paul L, my money is on a handover around the ten year anniversary. Whilst TB undoubtedly has his eye on Thatcher's record I think he will try to improve on it not in terms of pure longevity but in the sustainability of power and the smoothness of the exit. To make too close a comparison to MT would also not be in TB's interest - he wants his legacy to stand on its own. Also a ten year handover has the advantage that the timing can appear unconnected to the politics of the day and reduce news stories about 'why he's handing over now'.
Tony Blair will resign around two years before the next general election. Him and GB are basically on the same square and if he stretches out their 'TB goes first' pact, Brown WILL lash back. And it's not as if he doesn't hold any cards, as he has much of parliament behing him.
I dissagree with IAIN SMITH, Tony Blair will never run for the UN secretary general post. He knows he would never win. Too many countries are against him.
Brown could be a burden on Labour but he is a smart man and will soon find a way out. Perhaps he will make good election pledges. Perhaps he will show up Cameron. Whatever, when he comes to power he will be a fair Labour leader.
I am not at all happy that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done a deal to hand over the leadership of the Labour party. For better or worse Tony Blair is the prime minister of my country and it is he who has the responsibility of making decisions that effect me and my own. The job he has is not his to give to his pal in some sort of playground 'marble swap' arrangement. There should be a rule that forbids this type of handover when the party in question is in power.