John Kampfner: The longer that Tony Blair stays in office, the deeper his party's malaise

A movement denuded of energy, original thought and activism does not deserve power

For the best part of a decade, the Prime Minister's political longevity has been a parlour game. The Westminster village has obsessed over the power struggle between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, while failing to understand the far more fundamental problem that afflicted them both. Now it really is serious, but possibly not for the reasons commentators would have one believe.

The longer Blair stays in office, the deeper Labour's malaise will become. Indeed, the party is dying on its feet. Part of the blame lies with the leadership, but only part. A political movement denuded of energy, original thought and activism does not deserve power.

The calamitous events in Lebanon testify to the weakness of the party and government Blair leads. The Prime Minister has, since the events of September 11, allowed Britain's foreign policy to become an appendage of US interests and to be reduced to simple tenets about good and evil. Even after the mistakes of Iraq, he has been allowed to continue in the same vein, with barely a murmur.

I have lost track of the members of the Cabinet who have expressed to me their private reservations about the Iraq war. It is always easy for journalists and others to deride politicians for a lack of boldness. Resign, we shout, knowing that ministers usually have only one opportunity to take the ultimate step, and more often than not their careers do not recover. This was even harder during the first two terms of the Government, because Blair's stock was often high and the Conservatives were not posing a threat.

Now the situation has changed. It was not Blair's decision to pre-announce his resignation that undermined his political power base; it was the fact that Labour won the previous general election only because Brown rallied to his rival's aid.

Look back at the videos of campaign events involving the two men, read the reports at the time, and see for yourself. Blair's small but disproportionately influential core of opinion-formers have since tried to rewrite history. They have been largely successful, while the Chancellor and his people watch silently, aghast.

Blair is still around only because Brown and others in the Cabinet have not had the courage to force the pace. When challenged, they insist that such action would cause deep and lasting damage to Labour's cause. Some damage undoubtedly would have resulted had they dared, but the alternative now appears to be even more disastrous.

Two incidents shed intriguing light on Blair's role in the latest Middle East debacle. One was the declaration by Mark Malloch Brown, the experienced number two at the United Nations, that hopes of a successful negotiation over a ceasefire would be enhanced if Britain kept a distance. The other was Blair's choice of audience to set out the latest rendition of his clash of civilisations thesis.

With Lebanon burning, one would naturally assume that, in a healthy democracy, the Prime Minister's position would be fully debated in the two most important forums - the Cabinet and Parliament. It may be fortunate coincidence for Blair that the Commons is in recess, but in any healthy system Parliament would have been recalled and/or emergency meetings of the Cabinet would have been called. Instead, Blair's briefers parade their pleasure at not having to go through these hoops, while disparaging the role of the Foreign Office.

There is much wishful thinking among Blair's detractors that Lebanon has caused him harm. It may have caused the country harm, but I doubt it has changed the political balance of forces. Predictions of turmoil at each annual conference have over the past decade been largely a media myth. Once in a while, a motion is voted down; once in a while, Brown gives a speech that is interpreted as a challenge. Little of consequence has resulted from either.

It is probable, but not certain, that this year will follow the same pattern. The apparent decision to provide for only two keynote speeches, by Blair and Brown, at the Manchester conference is intriguing. It is part of a plan by Hazel Blears, the ultra-loyal Party Chairwoman, to make debate more "relevant". Given that the purpose of conferences has long been to close down difficult debate, one works from the assumption that glasnost is not top of Blears' list of priorities.

I have no evidence, however, to support the suggestion that any deal has been struck between the Blairite and Brownite camps that would allow for a show of unity between the two to be combined with an announcement by Blair of his planned departure date. Such an indication by Blair before or during conference would be helpful. But, of itself, it would not stop the rot at the heart of the Labour Party. It will take much more to solve a crisis in confidence that goes beyond one man's leadership.

On one point, Blair does have legitimate grounds for complaint. It is fair for them to criticise journalists for failing to note that, for all the problems, good work and interesting thinking is being done by this government, both on the domestic and international front. For example, ministers currently do seem to be developing some new ideas on the transport/environment front (a national road pricing scheme, for example, is a start); John Reid may be demonstrating some candour in seeking to open up the debate on immigration and criminal justice; strong work continues on international development.

However, the silence of the lambs over Lebanon has been remarkable to behold. An off-the-record briefing from a cabinet minister to a journalist is no substitute for an open discussion of the problem. Indeed, one could argue that it is the ultimate demonstration of cowardice.

Under the rules of collective responsibility, all ministers approve all acts of government unless expressly deemed otherwise. Those who have openly supported Blair - either for reasons of personal loyalty or because they agree with the policy - do not have to search their consciences. But those who have disagreed with Blair, while doing nothing to stop him, are more culpable.

Where is Brown on all this? As ever, he is keeping his counsel. On Iraq, he may have expressed quiet disapproval about various decisions and methods, but he fell into line when it counted. Was this a quid pro quo for a deal with Blair to stand down? If so, it backfired. Was this an attempt to save the party from further trouble? If so, it hasn't worked. Was this for fear of Rupert Murdoch or others in the media? Probably.

Brown will have to demonstrate, when the time comes, that he will learn not just from past mistakes, but from the way decisions were taken. It will take more than an announcement of a departure date for confidence to be restored.

The writer is editor of the 'New Statesman'