Stormy waters ahead for Blair

Stormy waters ahead for Blair

By Andrew Marr BBC political editor

At moments such as these, political journalists are almost bound by contract to be hysterical: Tony Blair is on his last legs, the Labour Party is about to split and the post-1945 world order is tottering.

The Palace of Westminster is badly ventilated and an easy building to overheat, yet this is a huge crisis, and there is no history to guide us.

So, hysteria aside, what is the likely outlook for Mr Blair?

If the United Nations, even now, assembles a security council majority for war - even if it is then vetoed by France - then there will be a substantial Commons rebellion, possibly larger than the 122 Labour MPs who revolted last time.

A growing number of Labour MPs now see the prime issue as one of Tony Blair's survival

On her own words, Clare Short would be expected to resign from the cabinet; one or two others might go too.

But Mr Blair could ride the storm.

A war that then went badly, producing many casualties, or which was followed by a restless peace, with further terrorist attacks and continued violence in the region, would put him back into trouble.

Yet of all the many variables in this, America's overwhelming military might makes war, perhaps oddly, a relatively predictable part of the equation.

The far harder and more difficult question is what happens if the UN security council cannot find a majority to support the US, Britain and Spain.

International law

The next hours and days will resolve this, but things are looking very tight for Mr Bush and his allies.

If the pro-war party thinks it will fail to get a convincing majority, the British view is that a vote should be avoided; it would make a bad situation even worse.

Siding with the US could be dangerous for Tony Blair

Yet vote or not, going to war without any security council majority is Mr Blair's nightmare outcome.

He could fall back on Resolution 1441 for legal cover, but it still means that he has to argue that Britain is fighting to preserve the UN and international law, yet doing so having failed to get the backing of either for that fight.

Some believe such a position would actually be illegal under international law but in any event it is the problem most likely to provoke resignations and rebellion.

Reading the state of many local parties, you would assume Labour would fragment in a historic crisis.

Things are unlikely to be quite that bad for several reasons. First, a growing number of Labour MPs now see the prime issue as one of Tony Blair's survival.

Unreasonable French

He has won them two elections and they are unwilling to give up on him just yet.

"This is no longer about Iraq, it's about supporting Tony," is being heard in the corridors just now.

Going to war without a security council majority is Blair's nightmare

Second, the tough behaviour of France is seen by some MPs as intransigent and unreasonable.

Third, MPs report a clear class and gender split, with men and working class supporters likelier to favour war than middle class and female members.

It is often MPs with university backgrounds and more affluent constituencies who are the most hostile to the war.

Even so, siding with America rather than a UN consensus takes Mr Blair into very dangerous waters.

He will survive, certainly in the short term. But life as prime minister, which has hardly been easy recently, is likely to become harder.

A future of more rebellions, and of a terminal rift with a large swathe of Labour support, beckons.

It is not inviting.