David Clark: Labour no longer needs Tony Blair to win an election

As Tony Blair considers his Government's prospects for the year ahead, he will do so with perhaps greater apprehension than at any time since he became Prime Minister. On the face of it, his position could hardly be stronger. The Conservatives appear to be fading into almost terminal irrelevance. Many question whether they will govern again, let alone pose a credible threat to Labour by the next general election.

Yet, for all Iain Duncan Smith's woes, an unmistakeably mid-term mood is taking hold in Whitehall; the sort of pervasive sense of unease that remained absent during Mr Blair's first term. Look at the range of issues confronting the Government and it is difficult to identify much that is going well.

The Chancellor's revised projections for growth (down) and borrowing (up) are already being criticised as too optimistic by many analysts. Declining economic confidence threatens a collapse in consumer spending and house prices that could push Britain into recession. Pension funds under-perform as ministers warn us to prepare for an old age of work and thrift. On top of this, tax rises are due to hit an anxious public in April without any accompanying evidence that public-service delivery has improved.

In at least one area – transport – the Government's ambition now seems limited to slowing the rate of decline. Scarcely noticed amid the tedious dissection of Cherie Blair's flat-buying activities was the wholesale abandoning of the transport strategy on which Labour was elected in 1997 in favour of the same mix of under-funded railways, extra road building and rising congestion that has failed Britain so dismally in the past. Also lost was the news that, in October, Britain registered its largest monthly trade deficit since records began three centuries ago.

The public's loss of confidence in the Government appears to be matched by the Government's loss of confidence in itself. The can-do attitude that Labour brought to office five years ago, and led it (erroneously) to build the Millennium Dome, has been replaced by weary resignation to the limitations of office. Witness the reluctance to stump up the cash for a British Olympic bid or Mr Blair's crippling inertia on the question of the euro. These are the symptoms of a Government no longer confident in its ability to make a difference. Little wonder, then, that morale on the Labour benches has reached its lowest point since Neil Kinnock was defeated in 1992.

This malaise affects the Government as a whole, but in one sense it presents the Prime Minister with a personal set of problems. He owns this Government in a way no prime minister has owned a government before. His concerns and prejudices, along with those of his immediate circle, determine the direction of policy. Parliament, the Labour Party and Cabinet colleagues are mere ciphers for translating his Project into action. When they dissent, he uses it to define his leadership by making a virtue of his isolation and his ability to enforce his will.

Through the good times, this worked to his advantage. Every success was his success, bolstering his authority and securing his pre-eminence more firmly. But success never lasts in politics and Mr Blair never took the trouble to ask what would sustain him in the bad times. One unforeseen consequence of abandoning collective governance has been to erode any sense of collective responsibility for what the Government does, presenting potential enemies with an alibi of plausible deniability for when the day of reckoning arrives.

That day may be nearer than Mr Blair thinks. Throughout all the unpalatable changes he has imposed on his party, his leadership has been sustained by one thought and one thought alone; that Labour needs him far more then he needs Labour. Yet the latest Mori poll suggests that his net approval rating has fallen by 28 points during the course of the year and now stands at minus 16. This trend, when set beside the inability of the Conservatives to make a dent in Labour's overall poll lead, carries some ominous possibilities.

It used to be argued that Mr Blair's popularity was all that stood between Labour and a return to the wilderness. So what happens when his popularity slides and the prospect of any serious electoral challenge remains so distant? The political choice that has cowed New Labour's critics for the last eight years – Blairism or barbarism – suddenly loses its potency. Is it stretching a point too far to suggest that Michael Foot could have beaten this Tory party? Possibly, but the idea is not as ludicrous as it would once have been.

Like other vanguardist movements that succeeded in capturing power, New Labour has failed to move beyond its conspiratorial phase to build an enduring base of support. Until now that hasn't mattered. But as the aura of infallibility that has protected Mr Blair for the past eight years wanes, he must find new ways of generating the loyalty that successful governments depend on. He can only do that by opening out, re-engaging with his party and giving it some sense of ownership over the Government.

If the Labour leader refuses to change, it might not be long before Labour itself decides to change the leader.

dkclark@aol.com

The author is a former Labour special adviser