Tony Blair had a bad day yesterday as he accepted the resignation of David Blunkett from the important British cabinet portfolio in charge of work, pensions and welfare.
It is the second time Mr Blunkett has had to resign from the cabinet within a year. And yet Mr Blair persisted in giving him another chance. He trusted Mr Blunkett with a key job and resisted letting him go until it was impossible to hold on to him - as was the case previously with Peter Mandelson. That raises issues of political judgment. It focuses unwelcome attention on Mr Blair's future as prime minister, well before the time he would want that to happen. And it could reinforce the impression that he is vulnerable to political pressure within his party, even prey to lame duck status, unless he retrieves his position smartly.
Mr Blunkett's departure reveals that whatever his undoubted talents, he is an arrogant and vain man, willing to disregard established procedures. His fall this time was because he failed to inform a cabinet standards committee about his business dealings after his first resignation, which resulted from the fallout of his affair with a married woman. Those business dealings included buying shares in a company only weeks before he expected to be brought back to the cabinet last May. Mr Blair had no option but to accept his resignation yesterday when the full extent of these dealings was made clear to him. While the two men were very close politically, questions are now being raised about why Mr Blunkett was given one of the most important tasks in this government, with responsibility for reforming welfare, pensions and invalidity benefits. Mr Blair has made this a top priority on which he wants his political achievements to be judged. It will be more difficult now to pull it off.
Mr Blair has said he does not want to lead Labour into the next election, but has given no indication of when he will resign. That is only prudent politically - but it requires careful attention to such pitfalls of judgment which could accumulate rapidly beyond his control. Labour backbenchers will be cautious about encouraging this so soon after they were re-elected; but there have been flurries of independence recently over smoking and education reform. Should the Conservatives choose David Cameron as their leader, and should he prove to be effective at the helm of the opposition, there will be pressure to resolve this sooner than expected.
Mr Blair must now be concentrating on securing his achievements in domestic politics and international affairs. He has led Labour back to power for an unprecedented third term and overseen major reforms based on a strong economic performance. He is determined to cap this record with an enduring reform of the welfare state. That was why he appointed Mr Blunkett who has let him down badly, not least by departing amid a sordid tale of personal enrichment just as he was about to cut benefits. Mr Blair still has a huge stock of political capital. But after this affair he looks suddenly more vulnerable.