Editorial: Blair should not stick around long

Opinion

Teflon Tony is no more. The British general election has proved yet again that flawed decision-making catches up with even the most adroit and charismatic of politicians. The erosion of public trust, which has plagued Mr Blair since he pitched Britain into an unpopular war in Iraq, has finally ensnared him.

He will return to Downing St as the first Labour Party leader to win three successive elections - but, more significantly, as the lamest of lame ducks.

The dominant theme in the wake of the savaging of the Labour vote will be how long Mr Blair can remain Prime Minister. He may once have wished to stay the whole term, but it is now likely that he will see out only a fraction of it. This election was a referendum on his personality and credibility, as much as Labour sought to steer it down a different path. He failed that examination and, in the process, forfeited the powers of persuasion that once generated policy momentum.

Leaders in his precarious position might just cling to power if there is no obvious heir apparent. But that is not the case here. Gordon Brown, having patched up his differences with Mr Blair before the election campaign, will be loath to put his leadership ambitions on hold for long.

His case is reinforced by the fact that, in many ways, he was the guarantor of Labour's return to power.

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Brown has orchestrated a prolonged period of prosperity. Britain's economic growth, inflation record and unemployment have, under his stewardship, generally bettered those of its European neighbours.

In the North and Midlands, the economy provided the offset that allowed Labour to overcome the widespread unpopularity of Britain acting in cahoots with the United States in Iraq. Mr Blair might have secured re-election with comfort had the economy remained the focus of the campaign past the halfway point. But at that time, the leaking of the Attorney-General's legal advice on the war brought Iraq back to the centre-stage.

The ensuing furore would, it was widely assumed, benefit the Liberal Democrats, who had consistently opposed the war - perhaps to the extent of giving them a powerful third-party influence. The main surprise of the election was that this did not happen.

There are two probable reasons. First, personal distaste for Mr Blair was such that many former supporters were ready to oust him by the only viable means, a vote for the ineffectual and also pro-war Conservatives. Teaching him a lesson by strengthening the arm of a third party was not considered sufficient punishment. Second, the Liberal Democrats erred by failing to engage the major parties on issues that cropped up during the campaign.

Mr Blair should go sooner rather than later. The British public have shown their disaffection, and he faces further problems with the disaffected left-wing rump of his own party. The chance of decisive policy-making in areas such as health, education and the public service has virtually evaporated.

Most immediately, Britain faces a period of sterile, inactive government. That will undo much of the progress made under Labour. If Mr Blair is to put his country's interests above his own ambition, he will go quickly.