Tony Blair can no longer count on his party's loyalty

As time rolls on and the backbencher is blamed for every government decision, the sycophancy wanes

After nearly six years of Tony Blair's premiership, it is probably no more than a truism to suggest that we are nearer to its end than its beginning. And as we approach the halfway point in the present parliament, Labour MPs are already subtly turning their attention to their own prospects for re-election. The battle for reselection is also beginning, and there will be a few anxious moments in front of fractious local party general management committees.

In the early stages of a government elected with an overwhelming majority, it is easy for everyone in the party to see that the personality of its leader was one of the principal reasons for an election victory. Few newly elected Labour MPs who gained their seats from Tories were under much illusion that it was upon the Blair coat-tails that they were swept to victory that spring morning in May 1997.

I recall my own first celebratory drink in Downing Street after the Tory win 18 years previously, when Margaret Thatcher asked me how many votes I polled and what was my majority. "I got over 31,000 votes and a 486 majority". She glowered before replying, "No, I got the 31,000. You got the 486."

But as time rolls on and the poor old backbencher is blamed for every government decision that impacts adversely upon the electorate, the sycophancy subtly wanes. Labour MPs have certainly now reached that point, and last week's rebellion was a watershed in their relationship with Mr Blair. Authority and discipline have not collapsed, but the methods of control no longer yield automatic responses. Any backbencher elected in 1997 who has not already become a minister, a whip or even a junior parliamentary private secretary is unlikely now to receive preferment. For the rest of their careers, whips and pagers will have a diminished influence, and the word of the Prime Minister no longer the word of God.

Indeed, it is quite likely that they have, instead, become an assiduous member of a select committee and accommodated themselves to the role of "hard-working MP". The initial jealousies over colleagues who have been promoted to junior front-bench jobs have probably given way to relief at not now being on the payroll. In addition, there are about 40 backbenchers who have already been ministers and have either resigned or been discarded. These are a powerful group who, providing they retain the confidence of their constituency parties – and they usually do – have no need of ingratiating themselves for patronage with the whips' office.

There is also an interesting difference in the concepts of party "loyalty" between Labour and Tory backbenchers. The Tory party has a historic, residual and deferential concept of loyalty to the party leader, and backbenchers who transgress this can invariably expect trouble from their constituency parties. Labour's interpretation focuses rather more on loyalty to "the Labour movement". Dennis Skinner once put it more directly when he said "I don't go in for this leadership thing". General management committees are more likely to upbraid the leadership for ratting on the manifesto or party conference resolutions and to support and encourage their MP for holding the Government to account.

It is no coincidence that other rebellions are also putting government MPs at odds with the leadership. This week more than 100 MPs tabled a Commons motion opposing foundation hospitals. While this may not translate into much of a division-lobby revolt, it is, nevertheless, another reminder of back-bench frustration.

In a shrewd move, Liam Fox, the Tories' health spokesman, appears to have given a guarded welcome to these proposals. While this reinforces public perception that there is little to choose now between the parties, there is nothing better designed to anger Labour MPs than the prospect that the Government might be dependent on the Tories to carry its policies. On the face of it, this also poses a dilemma for Tories. Should they not exploit Labour divisions by joining the rebels in the lobbies – as they did in the last parliament when they opposed the Government's proposals for privatisation of the air traffic control system?

But the more Mr Blair is seen in the division lobbies with Iain Duncan Smith, however, the more infuriating this is for Labour MPs and the more likely this will be taken as confirmation by Labour activists that the Prime Minister has hijacked their party. His Iraq adventure with President Bush is more likely to define his premiership than Europe, the economy or any other issue. It will either end in tears or cheers, but even if it is with cheers it will be at the price of rupturing his relationship with the party as a whole. In the short-term, his premiership is probably more in the hands of George Bush and Jacques Chirac.

Prime Ministers ultimately still depend on retaining the confidence of their own backbenchers in the House of Commons. But it is now much easier to imagine circumstances, especially if constituency parties no longer regard Mr Blair as an election-winning machine, in which Labour MPs come to realise that their chances of re-election depend more on their own efforts than on those of the Prime Minister. At which point, Mr Blair's future will be decidedly uncertain.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk