http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1131197,00.htmlWhy can José Maria Aznar of Spain go out so smoothly when Tony Blair wallows in ever deeper waters? They both have elections to win for their parties and awkward squads to subdue. Yet observe, and wonder over, the difference. Is it just the culture of politics, or is there something deeper in play here?
The many answers include Baghdad, of course; they reach back into the recesses of old Labour and drag dusty enmities and divides out of the cupboard. But the single answer - the one the political classes seldom chatter about - is much simpler than that. We're bored ... Eleven years of Frasier, nine years of Friends, five years of the Sopranos, seven years of Blair ... We don't care what a twinkling bloke he is any longer. We've had it up to here with mission visions and rictoid grins. Now please, can we switch channels?
In one sense, some of this is Blair's own fault. His style, from the earliest days, has been presidential. He has put himself forward as the fount of all power. He has chased the cameras just as relentlessly as they have chased him. An imperial prime-ministership.
Will Blair get through his difficult week? Probably. But how is he to survive the one after that after that? A systemic problem. George Bush has a solution thrust upon him. He won't be around, at best, five years from now. Term limits call time, a pre-set TV remote. Aznar has a more daring solution. He imposed his own term limits. Maybe, now, Tony Blair should do the same.