Andrew Grice: The Week in Politics

Sleepless Blair pushed to the limit, and perhaps to a sacking

The words rippled round the room as Tony Blair and other cabinet ministers joined journalists at a champagne party on Monday to mark the departure of David Yelland as editor of The Sun: "Doesn't Blair look tired?"

Saddam Hussein claims he sleeps easily; Clare Short confesses to sleepless nights; and Mr Blair's aides admit he is not getting enough sleep, blaming calls in the early hours from George Bush and John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister. And there is baby Leo.

Mr Blair, understandably, is showing the strain as he faces the most challenging few weeks of his life. Although he was shaken by the bigger-than-expected Labour Commons rebellion on Wednesday, it has not deterred him. Rather, it has made him more determined to do his "duty, even if that costs him his job".

"Tony has balls of steel," one close ally told me. He is going to need them. The idea that events are careering out of Mr Blair's control misses the point. True, he hoped he would not have to chose between backing unilateral action by the United States and sticking with Britain's European partners. But he knew full well which way he would jump if the moment came. "We have known all along where this was likely to end," the Blair ally said. "I cannot imagine the circumstances in which he will not back the US."

Threatening a war to avoid one is a difficult act. Mr Blair said President Saddam responds only to pressure, and the UN weapons inspectors would not be within 1,000 miles of Baghdad if it were not for the troops gathering on Iraq's borders. The Prime Minister does not understand why many Labour MPs and French and German leaders don't get this message. "They are giving comfort to Saddam," moaned one Blair aide.

The Iraq crisis has confounded even the best brains around Mr Blair. He has sent many conflicting signals. The "moral case" for removing President Saddam sits uneasily with saying he could save his regime if he disarms. Mr Blair is at his best when he keeps it simple, as he did in his Commons statement.

His critics may respect Mr Blair, but they do not trust Mr Bush. The Prime Minister has failed to shift the impression that Mr Bush decided long ago to go to war. Even Blair loyalists admit they will struggle to prevent a stream of party members resigning if war begins. One constituency party even suspended its parliamentary selection process and sent two members to sit in the public gallery to make sure its Labour MP rebelled. He did. The concern goes right to the top. After the vote, Ms Short rushed to Frank Dobson, the former secretary of state for health among the 121 Labour rebels, and gave him a hug and kiss. At Thursday's cabinet meeting, not only Ms Short and Robin Cook said the Commons mutiny made a further United Nations resolution even more critical. Other ministers privately accuse Ms Short and Mr Cook posing as "the Cabinet's conscience".

A messy war might only be the start of it. It might be over in three weeks, yet it might take three years to stabilise Iraq. Mr Blair may have to press Mr Bush hard to ensure the UN has a pivotal role in running a post-war Iraq. The Prime Minister told the Commons the UN's role should be "well protected". That does not chime with leaks from Washington, which suggest Iraq would be run by the US.

As Mr Blair lies awake, perhaps he sees different endings. In the nightmare scenario, Colin Powell resigns, finally beaten by the Washington hawks. Yet Mr Blair still backs Mr Bush, though there is meltdown in the Labour Party and ministerial resignations. In the dream scenario, tearful Iraqis hug US troops liberating Baghdad.

Friends say Mr Blair wants five more years in Downing Street so he can "do" the euro and public services. He is determined to go out on a high, at a moment of his choosing. But he knows it could all be over suddenly and very soon.

On holiday in Lanzarote last week, I failed to cure my addiction to newspapers. Every day I bought The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Independent (of course), and sneaked a free look at the Daily Mail and The Guardian in the shops.

My excuse was that I needed to keep up with Iraq, and I started to pile cuttings on the living room table. Then something strange happened. A rival pile of clippings began, about the latest crisis to engulf the Conservative Party. By the end of my week, the Tory pile was bigger than the Iraq one.

I read the Tory saga with disbelief, and a sense of déjà vu. In 1997, William Hague promised a "fresh start" to reach beyond the Tory heartlands. Halfway through the parliament, he retreated to a "core vote" strategy to safeguard himself against a leadership challenge.

Now Iain Duncan Smith is making the same mistake. Like Mr Hague, he seems obsessed with plots by Portillistas, suspecting that everyone outside his tiny inner circle is out to get him. That is why he ousted three staff at Tory HQ. His pals rubbished Theresa May, the party chairman and a moderniser.

Tory officials invoked "Campbell's law", invented by Mr Blair's director of communications and strategy: if a media story runs for 11 days, the spin doctors have failed. The Tory saga ran for 12.

Perhaps Mr Duncan Smith should have a word with Mr Hague, who was too loyal to criticise him. Mr Hague said his successor was "right to deploy a different style and emphasis from mine," and a "clear political strategy" based on public services.

Perhaps both main parties will have a new leader in a few months.

a.grice@independent.co.uk