Steve Richards: Forcing the PM to resign early isn't going to solve any of Labour's problems

Parts of the Labour Party are going mad. They call for Tony Blair to go now, as if that would bring a new cathartic calm to their party and once more they would travel a rosy path towards a general election victory.

Apart from misreading the dire consequences for Labour of an immediate, enforced prime ministerial departure, they ignore what happened last September in the brutally effective coup against Blair. In particular they fail to understand precisely why that strangely shapeless rebellion was so successful.

I continue to read references about the "failed September coup", as if it was a matter of undisputed fact that the act of insurrection had not achieved what it set out to do. The opposite is closer to the truth. The coup was so triumphant it is close to a work of art. Like a minimalist painting, each time you look at it there is nothing to see, and yet one discovers something new on each viewing.

In particular those involved last September achieved their contradictory objectives of forcing Blair out and yet allowing him to go on his own terms. If the coup had not taken place there would still be no publicly declared limit to Blair's tenure in power. Given his wilful determination to cling on now, I wonder whether he would have gone of his own accord this summer if the coup had not taken place.

But if the coup had removed him immediately last September there would have been overwhelming sympathy for Blair and fatal contempt for his successor. Voters are more ambiguous about Blair than the screaming headlines suggest. They have bought all the simplistic assertions of our time about Blair being a war criminal and liar, and yet they would never have forgiven Gordon Brown if he were overtly removed against his will.

In the surreal world of new Labour, the contradictory aims were resolved: as matters stand, Blair is being forced out at a time of his choosing. After all the storms, there is still the prospect of a relatively smooth transition. Such a prospect is being jeopardised by those contemplating a bloody revolution now.

Admittedly, Blair looked at the events of last September through the wrong end of the telescope. From his perspective he had been given another year of power and he resolved to make the most of every second of it. His friends would have served him better if they had advised him to pull out at the Labour conference a few weeks later.

Instead he delivered a farewell speech of perfect pitch and returned to his desk a few days' later, a third way in political departures. But the insurrectionists constructed a device in which they got rid of him in a way that looked as if he was departing voluntarily. They should cling gratefully to that device now.

Apart from other party-based considerations, to do otherwise would cause a constitutional crisis, allowing an eccentric police investigation to bring about the premature departure of an elected prime minister. Already the investigation is a political nightmare for Labour. Senior figures have no choice but to acknowledge its corrosive damage and in doing so fuel the story making it more damaging still.

A BBC interview last week with Neil Kinnock was typical. Kinnock argued that Blair was a figure of integrity, but accepted the obvious that the inquiry was causing immense damage (he could hardly argue the opposite, that it was causing no damage and all was fine in Downing Street). It was only Kinnock's latter observation about the damage that made the bulletins and heightened the sense of drama. Yet Kinnock was implicitly criticising the police for dragging out the inquiry for such a lengthy period.

Inspector Yates better be on to something big or face the prospect of arrest at half past six one dark gloomy morning and being charged with wasting police time. In the meantime, I hope he has some spare moments to investigate who is leaking stories to newspapers about second e-mail systems in Downing Street that do not exist and sensational private diaries that have not been written. Who is this "police source" feeding stories that are so unequivocally denied they cannot be true? It would be the biggest scandal of the lot if an elected prime minister were kicked out on the basis of unreliable leaks.

Instead, those Labour MPs and anonymous ministers calling for another coup should calm down. It is too easy to assume that the removal of Blair would solve the current difficulties whirling around the Government. Would his sudden removal address the almost impossible attempts to find a consensus for reforming the House of Lords? Would Iraq and Afghanistan become more tranquil? Would interest rates fall dramatically? Is there really a paralysis in government if he stays for a bit longer?

We are only talking about a few months, in which it is pretty clear where Blair's priorities will lie, mainly in foreign affairs and Northern Ireland. It is not entirely fanciful for him to argue that his expertise and experience will help the Northern Ireland peace process at a pivotal moment, contribute to another throw of the dice in the Middle East and achieve more progress internationally in relation to climate change.

As a bonus he would take the hit for what will be Labour's calamitous performance in the local elections in May, a showing that would be even worse if the party plunged into a civil war by another attempt to remove him now. The headline "Brown humiliated in elections" would almost certainly bring a Gordon Brown prime ministerial honeymoon to a permanent end.

Instead of fuming about how awful it all is, senior Labour figures should be making much more use of the rare political space that has opened up. So far the campaign for the deputy leadership has been a drearily uninspiring and tepid affair. The large field of candidates should be daring to speak up about Britain's role in the world in the light of Iraq and Blair's relationship with Bush. Specifically are they all convinced, apart from the only non-ministerial candidate, Jon Cruddas, that Britain should spend a fortune on renewing Trident? If not, they should say so.

They should be proposing daring ideas on the environment and the reform of public services. Blair is in no position to sack any of them if they breathe a little political fresh air.

When a new leader is in place the space will close. Unavoidably, the emphasis will be on unity and discipline as Labour looks to the next election. The idea of a fertile political speech will be limited to a fresh attack on the Tories. How the aspiring deputy leaders and others will regret failing to throw a few pebbles in the pond when they had a rare chance to make waves. The strange interim should be seen as an opportunity for Labour to think daringly rather than serve as an excuse for mindless conflagration.

s.richards@independent.co.uk