The question of whether Tony Blair may become the President of the European Council is one that the government should not have allowed to get up and running, let alone endorse.

There will be readers of this site who strongly support Tony Blair and others who are his sharpest critics. But from either perspective there is too little to be gained for Labour from this campaign compared to what it stands to lose.

As this argument goes on Blair risks become a lightning rod domestically and in Europe: a focus for arguments in Britain against Europe and arguments in Europe against Britain’s attitude to its EU partners.

Those who think that the mattter of Tony Blair’s support for the war in Iraq is a diversion are quite wrong. What it represents for many Europeans is a willingness – when faced with a US foreign policy mistake of disastrous proportions – to unite with the wrong decision against mainstream European opinion.

A great deal of pro-European opinion believes that if Europe as a political entity is to be able to play a leading role in global politics then it must be a counterweight to the US when the White House is getting it wrong. On this matter Britain was tested over Iraq and found wanting. Whatever the many achievements of a Labour government under Tony Blair – the minimum wage, devolution, the Irish peace process, increased public spending – Britain was seen over Iraq in particular as a bridgehead for American foreign policy. This view is held all the way from mainstream Eureopan socialist parties to many on the centre-right.

It is said that a Blair council presidency would enable Europe to stride the world stage. Many Europeans consider that that is exactly the problem – when Blair last strode the world stage he was at odds with most of Europe over Bush.

European governments may well also be considering whether they wish to opt for a President of the council who did not bring his country into the Euro, despite the enormous goodwill he was able to draw on during his extended honeymoon period and with his large majority.

It must be said that the Tories would have a stronger case if they could link up with other European forces on this point more convincingly – but they are damaged by their own slavish support for the war in Iraq and their own new alliances in Europe.

There are of course arguments for Tony Blair. But the real issue for Labour is this. Gordon Brown benefited from a significant ‘bounce’ following his entry to Number Ten. His message was ‘change.’ Change was the key word of his selection as party leader and his first day as PM. The public welcomed a new face in Number Ten and wanted a fresh start.  However badly things go at any point, Brown ought to be defining himself as his own person. The campaign for Tony Blair sends a different message. To be precise, it undercuts Brown’s own pitch.  It also allows the Conservatives to exploit well-rehearsed Tory lines of attack about the government having run out of steam, about unaccountability, and about the arrogance of power. It gives them a convenient new argument to peddle their Europhobia, through the lightning rod of Tony Blair. In the end it will be damaging to Labour, even if it appears tactically convenient.

I am afraid that the argument that it is unpatriotic not to support a British candidate for the EU council presidency – though it may have some resonance in some quarters – is completely unconvincing. In the short-term it gives the impression of being a good wheeze to box the Tories into a corner. If the French and Germans come out against Blair then presumably the thinking is that the Tories will be embarrassed to have lined up against a British candidate. But I think this is a cul-de-sac.

First, it is self-defeating towards other European governments, inevitably raising whether a candidate promoted on such a basis would really put the interests of Europe as a whole first. But, secondly, only a small number of people really believes that just because someone is British they will inevitably do a better job than someone else. Imagine if the candidate were a Thatcher, Major, even Ken Clarke. Would the Labour front-bench be arguing for them on the grounds they were British?

Backing for a Blair candidacy has all the hallmarks of the elevation of a tactic over strategy. Worse it seems to be tactics rather than strategy.

It clearly has no intention of doing so but the government ought to find a way to gracefully back out of it.