WHEN TONY BLAIR stands up at lunchtime today to address Labour MPs he will know that while the electorate may have wanted to give him a bloody nose in the election there will be some among his audience who would wish to go much further and see his removal as Prime Minister.

How Mr Blair responds could well turn out to be a defining moment for his own future and for the direction his Government will take in its third term. He will need to show that he is not just in office but also in power. That he will not be forced out of office by those who, by and large, have never accepted Mr Blair as leader of the Labour Party.

Ever since his election in 1994 he has had to face a vociferous minority from within his own party who have opposed new Labour and its often successful attempts to reconcile what were, at one time, seen to be conflicting issues: patriotism and internationalism; rights and responsibilities; wealth creation and social justice.

For these critics, opposition is always the most attractive option — a far easier approach than actually taking on the responsibility of finding answers to some of the difficult questions that our country faces. In recent times this group has been joined by those who were fundamentally opposed to the decision to go to war in Iraq. While they will receive disproportionate media exposure, we should recognise that they are a minority.

They need to be isolated and exposed. It would be intolerable for 30 or so Labour MPs to seek to subvert the democratic will of the British people who returned the Labour Party to power with Mr Blair as its leader and with a healthy majority.

Those who now seek the early departure of Mr Blair need to reflect on the consequences for the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher’s forced removal as Prime Minister in 1990. Unbeaten in three elections and never rejected by the electorate, both the fact and manner of her ejection from office led to bitter divisions within the Conservative Party and a loss of confidence and lack of direction. As a consequence it has spent years adrift in the political wilderness.

Those in Labour who seek regime change are making the same mistake. The forced removal of Mr Blair would be damaging and divisive. It would make the task of winning well at the next election much more difficult.

At that election we will be defending a number of highly marginal seats — no less than 42 would be lost on a swing against Labour of less than 2.5 per cent. Of these, the Tory party is second in 36 so it would be a mistake to narrow the appeal of the Labour Party by shifting to the left.

So the task for Mr Blair today is to show how we can regain that broad coalition of support that delivered landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.

He has announced that he will not lead Labour into the next election. I am confident that the vast majority of Labour MPs want to see a smooth succession take place. But it is also true to say that this essentially loyal group of Labour MPs wants Mr Blair to find a tangible way of demonstrating that he has been learning and listening.

The issue that hung over the election campaign was that of Iraq — not just the conflict itself but also the legality of the action taken and the manner in which inaccurate intelligence was presented to the public. Both these issues then fed into the question of trust. The Prime Minister has said that he cannot apologise because he acted in good faith, that Iraq is a better country without Saddam in power and that the world is a safer place.

I think he is right in this approach but I have no doubt that the majority of Labour MPs would welcome fresh consideration to be given to the role that Parliament plays in deciding whether troops should be deployed into an overseas conflict.

At present the formal situation is that the House of Commons has no role. A decision to deploy troops in a war is taken under the royal prerogative. This has to change. In a modern democracy a decision to go to war needs to be authorised by the House of Commons. It is true that a debate and vote was held in the Commons before troops were committed to the Iraq conflict. But this was not part of the formal authorisation process.

If Parliament is to be given a decision-making role then other consequences follow. First, MPs would need to receive the advice of the Attorney-General on the legality of the proposed course of action. I appreciate this would be breaking the convention in relation to law officers’ advice but in these circumstances an exception would be appropriate.

Secondly, if it is relevant to the decision, a way has to be found to inform Parliament of the available intelligence.

Having been in the Cabinet and seen intelligence reports, I can understand the concerns people have that by making the intelligence reports publicly available then sources could be identified and put at risk. A way around this difficulty might be to give the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee the task of considering the intelligence in private and then reporting to Parliament in a form that does not compromise the sources.

A review of the operation of the royal prerogative would be welcomed by many and demonstrate that the Prime Minister has really been listening and learning.

The task ahead in this third term will not be easy. We cannot afford the self-indulgence of introspection and infighting. We have been elected to Parliament to do a job and that job is not to plot against Mr Blair who has delivered Labour’s first ever third consecutive term in office. Our responsibility is to work with him to deliver a sound and stable economy, improving public services and to secure improved opportunities for all our people.

Stephen Byers is Labour MP for North Tyneside

Join the Debate
Send your e-mails to debate@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Treat Africans as part of the human jigsaw
• Too bitter a pill for me to swallow
• This Bill is a panic measure in a tarnished age