I continue to drop in on British TV coverage of Tony Blair. It doesn't make for pretty viewing. The coup, you sense, is imminent; the pressure intense; the moment inevitable.
Hard now for Blair to ignore those friendly voices that are saying: it's for the good of the country, the good of the Party. And, they add, ultimately it's for your own good.
The voices behind the first political coup of the 21st century however were to be heard yesterday in Ramallah, far from home for Blair, and exposed in a sane report you can find at BBC online.
The logic for Blair going now is apparent to those close to him: you will have scant legacy Tony, if you stay. You'll be remembered as a guy who couldn't let go of power rather than a guy who used power wisely.
Why?
Because the record is determined by the press and television and they are determined to get you.
What is the argument for Blair staying in power rather than quitting?
His proposed successor Gordon Brown is untested on any political issue other than finance. He's not done social affairs, foreign affairs, defence, diplomacy, education, home affairs... he's a well known politician who's also unknown. And he's likely to cave in to popular pressure rather than stick to a principle.
But leave that aside, Blair will be telling himself the clamour for his departure is really being plotted by the press, with the BBC at the helm.
Yesterday's events in Ramallah reminded anybody watching, just how big the grudge is between Blair and those who report on him, especially the publicly-funded national broadcasting service.
Imagine. You are with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Hundreds of people have died recently and you're a player in the fragile peace process. You emerge for a press conference.
Here are the questions the BBC put to Tony Blair: 'Do you fear for an absense of leadership once you have left office?' And: 'Gordon Brown is coming under extraordinary attacks from within his own Party. Will you defend him?'
Article comments
1 - RJ Elliott
The Brits have been generally lucky in the Prime Ministers they have had over the last century.
Blair's time in office was one of economic prosperity at home and military/diplomatic strength abroad.
Thatcher was a huge historical figure of great stature (the British version of Reagan...and perhaps even more so).
Churchill was one of the greatest political leaders of the 20th Century.
You also have had PMs like Heath, Attlee,
Baldwin, and Macmillan, all of whom rose to the level of greatness on occasion.
But does anyone here seriously believe that Gordon Brown will one day even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as these greats?
Didn't think so...
2 - Bliffle
Reporters everywhere seem to be obsessed with intramural party politics instead of the Big Issues. I suppose they're small-minded.
3 - steve
and people wonder why governments keep information from the press. They are detrimental to western governments with their socialist agendas. I take what they say with a grain of salt.