The newspapers got themselves all in a spin over Tony Blair�s announcement that if re-elected he would serve a full third term but not stand for a fourth.
Unable to take this at face value, many political commentators thrashed about looking for a more conspiratorial explanation.
The simple truth is that the PM�s statement was a sensible way of heading of constant speculation about his future which would have reached a deafening crescendo in a general election campaign. Every interviewer would have asked him � �would you service a full term if re-elected?� if he�d replied no, the government�s critics could have accused us of vote Blair get someone else. If he�s replied yes, he would have been pressed on his appetite for a fourth term.
It is rather refreshing to have a leader who neither declares as Mrs Thatcher did an intention to go �on and on� nor leave their party and country in the lurch by going suddenly when no one expects it.
In most walks of life we expect leaders and managers to set out their intentions clearly. Why not in politics?
It encourages other members of the team to get on with their jobs rather than worry about an imminent vacancy. Those seen rocking the boat in the meantime are likely to be punished by colleagues and party members.
So there is likely to be yet another Conservative leadership contest before there is a Labour one. The mountain the Tories still have to climb was laid bare by their disastrous fourth place in the Hartlepool by-election and a worse poll rating than a year ago under Iain Duncan Smith.
Yes Michael Howard is repeating the same mistake as both William Hague and IDS by veering of to the right. That might excite some of the Party�s core supporters, but it alienates moderate voters. General elections are won or lost on the centre ground.
|