LONDON -- No European leader rode higher in the reaction to the Sept. 11 attack in New York than Tony Blair. The British prime minister immediately rallied to the American cause, enunciated the need to fight terrorism in ringing tones and committed troops to fight in Afghanistan. At last he had emerged in the part he had long seen for himself, playing a pivotal world role and acting as a bridge between the United States and Europe.

Five months later, the prime minister finds himself in an unexpectedly awkward position. He still dominates the domestic opinion polls, and enjoys a large parliamentary majority with elections not due for another three years. Britain's economy is working relatively well, and the Conservative opposition is still trying to pull itself together after crushing defeats in the general elections of 1997 and 2001.

So the growing perception that Blair is losing ground both at home and abroad may seem strange. But this is not something conjured up by his opponents. Many of his problems spring from those who are, or were, his friends. That makes them all the more difficult to deal with.

Internationally, the closeness of his relationship with U.S. President George W. Bush is coming into question. Blair does not approve of further moves against Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Photographs of the prisoners from Afghanistan being held in wire cages in the U.S. base in Cuba went down badly in Britain. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was impolite enough to remark that Bush's "axis of evil" reference in his State of the Union message was a just a bit of domestic politics.

Above all, there is a mounting belief that, despite having been a useful cohort in the weeks after Sept. 11, Britain is no more than a very junior partner, and that Blair's influence on the president is strictly limited. That undermines his claims to occupy a "pivotal" place in the world, while his incessant globe-trotting is becoming annoying to the British.

The electorate that voted New Labour into power in 1997 and renewed its mandate nine months ago is more concerned with domestic matters than with the international preoccupations that have become Blair's main focus. There was strong support for the war in Afghanistan, and the importance of the antiterrorism campaign is recognized. But people are starting to regard those issues as having been dealt with, while the prospect of the prime minister trying to sort out Africa's difficulties arouses little enthusiasm.

Instead, the British look at the poor state of their health service, deficiencies in the state education system and the bad performance of the transport system, and ask what the government is doing about such everyday concerns. The failure of New Labour to invest adequate funds or attention in making public services work better is coming to haunt Blair, exacerbated by the government's insistence on promoting partnerships between the public and private sectors in areas such as the London underground system, which many people believe will not deliver better services as quickly as commuters want.

Blair made fresh enemies -- or reconfirmed old hostilities -- with a speech in February in which he appeared to denounce trade-union opponents of the public-private schemes as "wreckers." His spin doctors rushed in to say that he was really talking about the Conservative opposition. But the damage had been done: The unions have been running full-page newspaper advertisements showing nurses holding babies and asking if they can be considered as wreckers.

Having developed a presidential style of leadership, the prime minister has few close allies within the Cabinet. His deputy, John Prescott, is widely expected to stand down at the next election and is not a figure of great influence. There is even speculation that Blair may try to bring back into government his one-time lieutenant, Peter Mandelson, who helped him to forge the New Labour movement before being forced to resign twice following scandals.

Blair's biggest difficulty in government, however, is his relationship with the powerful chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who was, himself, set on becoming Labour leader at one point, and is widely believed not to have given up that ambition long-term. With his grip on government finances, Brown has been the dominant domestic figure of the administration and does not intend to relinquish an inch of his power. He has refused to commit himself to Britain joining the European common currency, which Blair would like to achieve as a crowning act of his second term. But without Brown's approval, winning a referendum on membership of the euro would be beyond even the prime minister's powers of persuasion.

As a man who reshaped a major political party, led it to victory twice and then walked tall on the world stage, it is understandable that Blair should not relish the hard slog of improving the health service or making sure the trains run on time. That is not the job for a man of the status he has acquired. But his subordinates are not doing too well at getting such everyday matters satisfactorily sorted out while their leader jets round the world.

This leaves a vacuum of leadership that the British are finding increasingly irksome. Were the United States to take action on the lines trailed in the State of the Union address, Blair's predicament would be made much worse. He would face not only questions at home, but also sneers from European countries like France and Germany, which have made public their doubts about U.S. policy.

If a British election were held tomorrow, Blair would undoubtedly emerge as the winner, if only because of the weakness of the Conservative opposition. But the turnout would also continue the sharp decline seen at last year's poll. The British are in an irritated mood, aware that, in many ways, their country works less well than its continental neighbors.

Blair is quite right to say that improving infrastructure and public services takes a long time. But, having been in power for five years, he has had the opportunity to make a serious start that would impress the electorate. Instead, the British are left with an image of a prime minister who takes it on himself to settle the problems of the world while ignoring those who put him in power in the first place. That is an image he is going to have to do something about fast if his once golden relationship with the people is not to be seriously tarnished.