Steve Richards: Blair wants to exit cleanly, take a bow and leave the political stage altogether

He will play tennis and jog. He will focus on social and religious issues while making a fortune in the US

For more than 10 years Mr Blair has been more or less everywhere. Soon he will be nowhere to be seen, at least in a conventional political context. I would go further than Mr Burton. I will be very surprised if Mr Blair is seen at Labour party conferences once he has left the Commons. He has never been a fan of the annual gatherings even though they are the highlight of the year for some of his colleagues. I had a coffee with Mr Blair during a party conference a few years ago. He asked after a colleague of mine who he thought might have joined us. I told him that the colleague never went to party conferences on the grounds that he could not stand them. Mr Blair expressed considerable sympathy with this point of view.

On leaving Downing Street Mr Blair will make a clean sweep of things and in doing so will underline the enigma of his entire period as leader. He is the supreme political tactician who is not greatly interested in politics. He is the leader that reformed Labour almost beyond recognition and yet has no tribal passion for his party. Probably in terms of conventional politics he will be content by becoming Lord Blair of Sedgefield and making rare appearances in the upper house.

My response to his likely disappearance from the political scene reflects the evasiveness of Mr Blair as a leader. I am disturbed that he will find it relatively painless to step away.

Other former prime ministers continued to take an active interest in their parties and the state of national politics. Why should he not do so? Is it because he is more of a manager of events, a non-partisan leader rather than a Labour Prime Minister?

Yet there is no doubt about it he is contemplating the right course of action. It is much more sensible to take a bow and leave the political stage altogether.

In Britain there is no point to former political leaders. Politicians only breathe when they have a future ahead of them. Without a future they have no purpose at all. Look at the comically vast number of leadership contenders in the Conservative Party. Each dares to hope that their moment has come. Could they be the next leader and then in a few years' time a prime minister? Every statement from a senior Conservative about the present gloomy situation in Britain is made with the future partly in mind, their own futures as much as that of a troubled country. Look also at the cabinet ministers wondering nervously about their futures in the post-Blair period? Will they thrive or sink? Consider also the case of Gordon Brown who has agonised since 1994 over whether he would be prime minister, fearing that another relative lightweight will steal the crown again. Always politicians are looking ahead.

Only former leaders have no future. Those who retain conventional political ambition are regarded humiliatingly as little more than a source of trouble. Conservative leaders have had virtual nervous breakdowns worrying about the appearances of Margaret Thatcher and Ted Heath at party conferences. Where would they sit? What if one got a better reception than the other? They were seen as nightmarish ageing relatives who were bound to wreck the Christmas dinner. After he left Downing Street voluntarily Harold Wilson became politically irrelevant while staying in the Commons longer than was wise. Neil Kinnock hated the Commons after he had ceased to be leader. Like other former leaders he had only a past in terms of British politics. The stifling politics of Brussels, where Mr Kinnock became a commissioner, was a form of liberation. William Hague is the exception to this rule but he became a former leader at such a ridiculously young age that he is uniquely a former leader and a future one too.

Mrs Thatcher shrivelled physically as the power drained away from her. Mr Heath fumed as he contemplated his lost power. Jim Callaghan remained as leader for too long and could not turn away fully as his party turned in a Bennite direction in the early 1980s. Mr Blair is not addicted in the same way. He will play tennis and jog on his treadmill. Probably he will focus on social and religious issues in Britain while making a fortune in the US. There was once speculation that he would be a leading political figure in Europe, perhaps President of the European Union under the revised constitution. Now there is no constitution and anyway the bureaucracy of the European Union would test the patience of Mr Blair. It is not easy finding the equivalent job to being a prime minister with a big majority in parliament. In that sense Mr Blair too is doomed to becoming a former leader and prime minister, a figure with a past and in political terms no future.

I read that the prospect of Mr Blair leaving the Commons will delight Mr Brown as it will give him a clearer political path. I doubt if it will make a great deal of difference. Mr Blair will not seek to cause problems. Acutely conscious as to how he is perceived Mr Blair will be keen to avoid being a grumpy Heath or a treacherous Thatcher. Mr Brown will not give him much ammunition for treachery even if he were tempted to wield a knife. Early on at least as Prime Minister I expect Mr Brown to be more Blairite than Mr Blair partly to deprive political opponents of their intended line of attack: Blair has gone, Old Labour is back.

I assume that Mr Blair will resign as Prime Minister in the autumn of 2007 although no one knows for sure, including Mr Blair. I suspect also that we will be surprised when the announcement is made. When Paddy Ashdown unexpectedly resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats Mr Blair phoned to congratulate him on the manner of the announcement. The Prime Minister added only half jokingly something along these lines: "I am taking notes. It is important to get this right. I will also resign when no one is expecting it".

Mr Blair is good at the choreography of politics, the entrances and exits. Almost certainly he will contrive a relatively dignified departure. But the wider context will matter more. What will be the state of homeland security? How will the economy be performing? Some cabinet ministers believe that the bombs in London have changed British politics permanently. The impact on a fragile economy is not yet known. Mr Brown is gripped by the need for a smooth transition, but the manner of Mr Blair's departure is likely to be the least of his problems when he finally acquires the crown.