Would be spending or will be spending

You don't often hear Tony Blair disagree with current UK foreign policy - or US policy, for that matter - but he did, this week.
The new international Middle East envoy was in Bethlehem, as part of his efforts to build the Palestinian economy into the bedrock of a Palestinian state.

Mr Blair's enjoys a level of security unavailable to most tourists

At a briefing held in the swank of the Intercontinental Hotel, Mr Blair talked repeatedly about how Bethlehem was "safe", along with other biblically rich towns on the West Bank.
It was so safe, indeed, that the former prime would be spending the night in the Intercontinental. Other tourists should follow his lead, he said.
It seemed churlish to point out to Mr Blair that he travelled with the sort of gun-laden, earpiece-wearing retinue unavailable to most tourists.
But I did ask him how his assertions sat with the travel advice from the British and American governments - which is, in essence: do not go to the Occupied Territories unless you really have to.
Mr Blair was plain: "I think it is time to reconsider the advice," he told me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was so safe, indeed, that the former prime would be spending the night in the Intercontinental. Other tourists should follow his lead, he said.

Why is it necessary to wrte that the former prime minister would be spending the night at the Intercontinental?

There is no hypothetical situation in the given context.

I would write the prime minister will be spending the night in the Intercontinental.