Mark Seddon: Can 'lucky' Blair survive the Iraq crisis in his party?

We have become attuned to the leader of the free world, President George Bush, pronouncing on matters of life and death while improving his handicap on the golf course. So it came as something of a relief when Tony Blair maintained an icy silence when questioned by assembled journalists over Iraq while demonstrating his prowess with a tennis racket last week. There is – it seems – a time and a place for such things and, by implication, a limit to the Americanisation of British politics.

But this touching display of traditional British reserve covered a multitude of sins. What on earth was Blair doing practising his serve for the benefit of schoolchildren – but more importantly the media – while across the Atlantic Dick Cheney was upping the war rhetoric by declaring that "regime change" was more important than getting the weapons inspectors back into Iraq? Such uncharacteristic trappism encouraged some newspapers to publish some not very flattering pictures of our racket-wielding PM the following day. And we have seen Tony Blair centre court on enough occasions to know that he can play tennis well. But what we – or more precisely the Labour Party – would like to know is whether Tony Blair intends to continue to act as ball boy for the bellicose Bush of if he will stand with the dove-ish German Chancellor, Herr Schröder and the rest of Europe?

We are unlikely to receive our answer for some time – at least not until the stormy conference season is over – and notwithstanding Tony Blair's long overdue statement on Iraq that he delivers tomorrow. An operation is under way to calm the frayed nerves of the Labour movement, whose two wings – the trade unions and the party – will be gathering separately in Blackpool over the coming weeks. This remarkably lucky Prime Minister has never had to lose much sleep over his party, for it has largely done his bidding and been refashioned in his image. Yet the crisis over Iraq will prove the biggest test of Tony Blair's political mettle so far.

He is acutely aware that his Cabinet and parliamentary party are divided, and that grass-roots trades unionists and party members are unremittingly hostile to any replay of Desert Storm. It will be impossible to prevent a debate on Iraq at the TUC conference, with Bill Morris of the T&G possibly leading the charge. The party's general secretary, David Triesman, is already on record as saying that if the Labour Party wishes to do the same there can be no stopping it. Scores of resolutions are heading towards party HQ demanding a peaceful solution under the auspices of the United Nations.

So if Downing Street has any strategy over the next month it is likely to be to dampen down the war speculation, while attempting to get the Washington hawks to use the return of the weapons inspectors as the tripwire for Saddam. And for once, the Labour conference will be allowed full throttle in order for Tony Blair to demonstrate to those same hawks just how difficult any final decision will be.

Labour has an historic affinity to the United Nations and an inbred hostility towards an American foreign policy that reeks of the old British imperialism which the left was instrumental in dismantling. But it is not for these reasons alone that Downing Street is urgently pressing the Americans for a return to the United Nations. Tony Blair knows that he needs more time to persuade the military chiefs of staff and the public that war against Saddam is the only real option.

Which is why the wording of the resolutions to be tabled for Labour's ruling National Executive Committee, the TUC and the Labour Party conference are so crucial. None of these parliaments of the Labour movement will bind the Prime Minister, but such are the stakes that the wording needs to leave no doubt in Mr Blair's mind that he is on his own if he departs from British and European opinion and backs Bush. There can be no hiding behind weapons inspectors if the Bush administration's first priority remains "regime change". So any of the resolutions that go forward will hopefully make it clear that a Labour government would never sanction an assault on Iraq unless that country launches an attack itself.

And while any final United Nations agreement over Iraq must allow weapons inspectors – free of American intelligence agents – free reign in that country, it is as well for the Labour movement to understand that if the Iraqi government has played hard and loose with the totemic issue of weapons inspectors in the past, so has our own. When I went to Baghdad in April with other journalists, we were informed by Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, that an approach had been made to Tony Blair. An offer had been made to the British government to allow the inspectors – with journalists in tow – full access, but no response had ever been received. The wily Aziz would have known that such an offer should have been transmitted to the United Nations Security Council, but if Aziz's offer had been made in good faith, why was it never made public by our own government?

These questions, and others too, will dominate the coming conference season. Those accustomed to getting their way through spin and manipulation must surely know that on this occasion a by now well-versed Labour movement will be looking for deeds, not words.

seddonZQ1@aol.com