Will Tony Blair ever leave? And why is it entirely up to him? Aren't politicians supposed to be accountable? To decide the date, to decide the date for setting a date -- it's all Tony forever, and this guy Gordon Brown just gets to sit about looking silly and waiting.
See, it's the Canadianization of parliamentary practice. Remember how Margaret Thatcher went? One day the MPs said, Margaret, you won us our seats, but now you look like a loser and you might lose us our seats, so we've chosen this new guy, bye.
That was the fate of every British political leader, and indeed every parliamentary leader in every parliament in the world (except Canada's) until recently. Getting rid of a leader whose time has passed, and doing it without bullets -- that's a vital ability for any political process. Parliamentary governments have always done it brilliantly. The MPs are accountable to the people, the leader is accountable to the MPs, changes are made in the blink of an eye.
Tony Blair is the first British PM to have escaped this accountability. He wasn't put in as leader by the caucus of MPs, so even though his time is long past, they cannot remove him. He was the first Brit PM chosen by one of these damn buy-a-membership, buy-a-vote leadership convention. Which means he can stay pretty much forever, the convention not being recalled until he's willing. It's the creeping Canadianization of British leadership politics.
It has no redeeming features, except it has not yet crept all the way. When Tony B chooses to go, would-be successors will have to be nominated by 12.5% of the Labour caucus (44 sitting MPs). Could Stéphane Dion have managed that? After that, the choice will be 1/3 MPs, one third trade unions, one third party-membership-buyers. All done over six or seven weeks, and the winner to be largely free of accountability to anyone, à la Canadienne.
