Tom Griffin (London, OK): Charles Clarke may not have won much overt support for his attack on Gordon Brown this week, but his thesis that the future of the Labour Party cannot be understood in terms of Blairite and Brownite cliques seems to have won more general assent. At Comment is Free, the Fabian Society's Sunder Katwala has pointed out that many of Clarke's own policy prescriptions don't fit the Blair/Brown New Labour template. In another piece on the Fabians' new Next Left blog (also at Liberal Conspiracy), Katwala suggests the same is true of many younger members of the Cabinet: the generation of 40 and 30-somethings in the Labour Party have no interest at all in carrying the personal allegiances of 1997 around for the next twenty years. Which is lucky – as I doubt Ed Miliband wants to lead a rival army to take on his brother. If there is one thing a ‘Next Left’ is about, it has to be about coming up with new answers, not thinking the work was done a generation ago.  

Tom Griffin (London, OK): As much as Charles Clarke deprecates talk of 'Blairite plots' against the Prime Minister, his article in the New Statesman today will inevitably be seen in that light. However it is worth noting some less predictable and more interesting elements, notably a significant departure from New Labour orthodoxy on foreign policy: Liberal interventionism must be underpinned by military force, but its moral authority was undermined by the glacial progress in preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the ill-considered determination to renew Trident.  Read the rest of this post...

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): The Scottish Claim of Right of 1988 was signed by all the Scottish Labour MPs, with the exception of Tam Dalyell.  In 1997, with the advent of the Labour Government of the UK, one third of that initial cabinet (8 out of 24) had signed that claim and were thus pivotal in influencing the Labour UK Government, which issued the white paper, the Scotland Devolution Bill 1998. The Scottish Claim of Right acknowledged that the Scottish people have the sovereign right to decide the form of government best suited to their needs.  That 'form of government' must include independence as well as devolution, yet those cabinet members do not seem in any great hurry to hold a referendum on independence. When they signed the Claim quite possibly it never occurred to them that the Scottish people might decide to get rid of them altogether. They should be reminded of it at every opportunity.  Rather than display a willingness to hold a referendum on independence, apart from Wendy Alexander's short-lived "Bring it on!", the Unionists claim instead that because there is a Unionist majority in the Scottish Parliament, the people of Scotland have "voted for the Union". It is just possible that the SNP may gain a majority of the Scottish Westminister seats at the next General Election, and if so that will mean, according to Unionist logic, that the people of Scotland have voted for independence. I'm sure they will try wriggle out of that. The Scottish Claim of Right was a principled recognition of the sovereign right of the people.  It is hypocritical of Gordon Brown, and others who signed that Claim of Right, to now deny that same sovereign right to the people of England, especially as recognition of the Scottish sovereign right has moved power away from Westminster in a way that has damaged English voters.

Tom Griffin (London, OK): If The Scotsman is to be believed, Gordon Brown is set to take the advice of Iain MacWhirter rather than Martin Kettle over the fortcoming by-election in his Fife backyard: A final decision has not yet been taken, but it is understood Labour leaders favour either Thursday, 30 October or Thursday, 6 November for the contest. The November date is the favourite simply because it comes only a day after the expected result of the American presidential election, and if Labour was to lose, party managers believe the bad news would be partly buried by the US coverage.  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I just heard a clip of Brown being interviewed in Beiijing on the BBC 8 o'clock news. He used an extraordinary formulation about his future. The presenter said that, asked about his prospects of still being PM when the Olympics came to London in 2012, "He said it was up to voters to decide if he was in No 10 in four years years time". But he didn't. In the actual clip that was carried the unnamed interviewer said, You must be absolutely desperate to still be Prime Minister in 2012 that must keep you awake at night And Brown laughed with his somewhat forced, I saw that coming and have decided in advance to to laugh it off laugh, and replied, That's for the public. That's for the public. He then changed the subject as fast as he could, i.e. immediately: I think er, everybody is looking forward to 2012. Look, the next four years I think for Britain are going to see more and more young people getting interested in sports. The formulation, and it seemed to me to be a deliberate one that he repeated rather than corrected, of "the public" deciding is very much not about voters. The "public" is a contrived entity that only decides things through opinion polls, the press and media, and perhaps canvassing returns. To say that "the public" will decide means not putting the matter to the vote. It felt to me like a clear signal that, if he concludes that 'the public' will not re-elect him, Brown will not stand.

Happy Man: Well, gosh, the Prime Minister has wised up to the tiny amount of UK residents who know what twitter is, and has launched number10.gov.uk, the official website of the Prme Ministers office. Or, as it was apparently billed for a while: “10 Downing Street website, the official website of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair” Oh dear. That link, by the way, from Dizzy Thinks, whose comprehensive coverage is better than anything I'll manage. As he hasn't deigned to use a convenient tag, here's the litany of fail: Read the rest of this post...

 Damian O'Loan (Paris): The Prime Minister has sent a response to the 15,700 people who petitioned him to reprimand DUP MP Iris Robinson following her claim that members of the LGBT community should seek a cure. Predictably, Gordon Brown has chosen only to point to the strong anti-discrimination legislation in place in Northern Ireland, and links to the Equality Commission. Read the rest of this post...

David Marquand (Oxford, oD author): From 600 miles away, British politics seem more than usually dismal, and more than usually petty. The sight of Labour MPs running around complaining about Brown's faults only a year after they gave him the leadership on a plate is deeply unedifying, to put it at its lowest. Nothing new has happened to his character or style since he became leader. He is still the person he has been for the last 20 years and more. If his MPs have now changed their minds about him that tells us more about their gutlessness than about his inadequacies. If he's unfit for the job now, he was unfit a year ago. If he was fit then, he's fit now. But Brown's personality is not the real issue in any case. The first and most obvious point to make about Glasgow East is that it happened in Scotland, and that the Scottish National Party won! I don't think it was a vote against the Union, but I do think it was a vote against the way in which the devolution legislation was framed. New Labour was trying to have its cake and eat it - to appease the manifest Scottish demand for Home Rule, while maintaining the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and the inequitable absurdities of the Barnett formula on finance. It was always likely that this would blow up in Labour's face sooner or later; and in Glasgow East it did so with an almighty bang. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London,OK): After watching the lackluster BBC commentary on Glasgow East through the night I came away convinced that something momentous had happened - as rapidly analysed by Gerry Hassan in OK - but that the pre-prepared conventional wisdom would hold the fort and that everyone would go on holiday and Brown would proceed. In fact it now seems to me after glancing through the weekend's papers and watching the TV news that there is going to be a concerted effort to remove him before the Labour Party conference. The prospect of having to sit and be interviewed with poker faced loyalty and grim smiles is too appalling and unconvincing. It is bound to go wrong and it is clear between the lines that this is what most Labour leaders now think. Losing London and the local elections was a kick in the teeth for the incumbents. Losing Crewe and Nantwich to the Tories was awful. Coming behind the BNP in Henley was terrible. Permitting David Davis to gain a respectable turnout and provide the Tories with the flag of liberty was painful. But now to lose in Gordon's "back yard" to the Nats. The momentum of decomposition is accelerating. Brown cannot now provide a rallying cry for much of his own party to get off what remains its backside. (Remember, only 9 per cent of party members supported 42 days - and that was before the debate.) Something will have to be done. It may be too late to save the election - but it is not too late to save half the party's current seats in the Commons and prevent them coming third to the Lib Dems.  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Prime Minister appeared before the liason committee of chairs of Commons select committees this morning. Seems pretty sad. I am reproing below the blog account from the Guardian's Andrew Sparrow of the initial section of the proceedings on so-called 'constitutional renewal'. The question from Vaz is amusing. His reference to the governership of Burmuda is taken from Diane Abbott's speech in the 42 days debate, when she said that the House of Commons on the Labour side had been reduced to a "baazar". if you saw the clip after yesterday's PMQ when Vaz denied he had been offered a knighthood as his 'appropriate reward' but said there was still time, you may have noticed Abbott sitting right behind him - with an expression of grim satisfaction.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The Leaders of the DUP and Sinn Féin are meeting Gordon Brown at Downing Street today amid signs that Peter Robinson's planned nomination as First Minister on Thursday may not be the formality that had been expected. It looks as if Sinn Féin are taking the opportunity to try and redress the pattern identified by Robin Wilson in a presentation to the Constitution Unit last month: "Whether it is the devolution of policing and justice (was due, according to St Andrews, in May), legislation on the Irish language (was due before devolution was even established), a new sports stadium plus 'conflict transformation centre' (aka 'terrorist shrine', according to the DUP) at the old Maze prison, or the abolition of the '11+' transfer test (this by far the most relevant to the public at large), the Catholic parties have played the role of demandeurs. And the DUP has answered, respectively: not till the IRA army council disbands, confined to the 'dustbin', too expensive, and the minister is 'living in cloud-cuckoo land'." A statement issued by Gerry Adams Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): All the papers are reporting this morning that Government concessions on 42 days detention have convinced a number of Labour wobblers to back Brown. Reassurances given by Jacqui Smith to the PLP last night and an unholy alliance with the DUP might be enough to swing it for the Government by the narrowest of margins. Now, putting aside for one moment the many compelling arguments against the 42 days, what would be the best outcome for Brown? Common sense says it would be a government victory since it surely looks bad when the PM can't even control his own party. But there is another view – a view held by 31% of Politics Home's "authoritative survey of expert and inside political opinion" (who it seems are permitted to discuss the politics, but not the principle) . This view says that although defeat may be damaging in the short term, in the longer-term it would allow Brown to portray the Tories and Lib Dems as weak on terrorism and himself as tough and principled. It's true that defeat over the 90 days wasn't disastrous for Blair. It brought him popularity with the Murdoch press and, one assumes, with certain sections of the white working class. But I don't buy this view myself. I think he's damaged either way. Brown was popular after the failed terrorist attacks last summer when it looked like he was going to make a break from Blairism and adopt a "consensual" approach to counter-terrorism. He didn't. Groups like Liberty were consulted but in the end Brown listened to the Police who, as David Davis pointed out yesterday, "always want more powers". In the process Brown has alienated his natural constituency of "Guardianistas" but failed to win over the knee-jerk authoritarian vote. It looks bad either way.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): "At some stage — perhaps very soon — the English Question will explode into British politics, and will decisively change the political landscape," Frank Field argues in a Telegraph piece today. The front page of the Sunday Times suggests that Field is not alone among Labour MPs. The anti-Scots backlash has been prompted in part by the humiliation of the Crewe by-election where Labour’s campaign was run by a Scot, Steve McCabe, a government whip. He has been criticised for running a negative campaign caricaturing the Conservatives as “toffs” that backfired among English voters. The paper quotes Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, calling for Jack Straw to be installed as an English Deputy Prime Minister, and MPs Keith Hoyle and Steven Ladyman demanding more English voices in the cabinet. There are four Scots in the cabinet, including Brown and Darling. Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary from Renfrewshire, and Kilwinning’s Des Browne, the defence secretary, are both highly rated by the prime minister, but some English MPs question their ability to communicate with voters south of the border. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Doesn't it strike you that the political system itself is ill? At one moment Brown bestrides the scene like a colossus and the Tories are wet kleenex. The next and Brown is the empty box - but everyone is saying the way out for him is to show he is 'strong' and demonstrate 'leadership', as if the direction of march is irrelevant. See Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian but this is only one example of many. As often the case, in a land where most commentators are wrong, Matt d'Ancona is at least half right: the situation cannot be saved by Gordon 'being himself'. There is a structural collapse within the Labour Party. Nonetheless, d'Ancona implies that had Labour not dropped the brilliant Blair as leader all would have been OK. Not so - I'll return to this in an overview of what has happened to the New Labour project. And he is right that a leadership contest was needed so that Brown took over with a programme rather than as an untouchable 'father of the party' , read "nation" (although I am not sure that Matt argued this at the time as I did in OurKingdom). But given that it is so obviously the case that we are looking at a system failure why does everyone think it is all about 'the man'? And that perhaps another man could solve it - or he could if only he behaved differently? For a country that once prided itself on sang-froid there is a hysterical desire for strength through leadership. In its obvious manifestation this goes back to the Falklands and Britain "becoming the country it once was" in Thatcher's words, through a small victorious war. I am NOT 'blaming' her so please don't dump on me for looking back with dry eyes to that formative moment. She was the expressive symptom not the cause of what was a new form of the British disease. Blair picked it up perfectly and took this love of power to where it belonged ("Up the arse of the White House" - his words not mine.) Read the rest of this post...

Claire O'Brien (Florence, EUI): Brown will not come back from this. £120 cashback or not, his premiership appears to draw closer to twilight with every passing day. The one thing that could resurrect it would be to set a fresh progressive course for Labour and for Britain in tomorrow's draft Queen's speech. It seems inconceivable this will happen. Which means a new leader, from a new generation, who can articulate that agenda is essential. It is clear by now that if Labour does not offer a new direction, the Tories will.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Neal Lawson, chair of Compass, has an article in today's Independent calling on Brown to step down and return to the Treasury. He offers an analysis not dissimilar to Anthony's in Why Brown is Doomed, blaming the PM's plummeting popularity on his failure to make a decisive break from Blairism:  Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): On Friday after the local election results and before London had been announced I wrote an analysis of why Gordon Brown could not lead his party to a recovery (First thoughts on Labour's Debacle). Contemplating the ruins now after a sunny weekend in Dorset both a deeper analysis and superficial gossip confirm the diagnosis.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): As Fair Deal predicted earlier this week, The DUP are driving a hard bargain over their position on 42 day detention. The Financial Times suggests that Gordon Brown is attempting to appease the party's 9 MPs by allowing Northern Ireland to retain £2.2 billion from the sale of public assets: 'Earlier this week Gregory Campbell, DUP MP for East Londonderry, told the FT he and his colleagues had not decided which way to vote. They are to discuss terror detention with Jacqui Smith, home secretary, within days. “If we remain undecided on how to vote on 42 days then the issue of bases could come into play. Are we prepared to negotiate? We haven’t ruled it in or out,” Mr Campbell said. But last night he made clear Mr Brown had not gone far enough to guarantee their loyalty. “It is a worthwhile offer but doesn’t address the issue of the military bases and doesn’t address our demands on the military bases,” Mr Campbell said.'

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): At yesterday's PMQs, Gordon Brown distanced himself from Wendy Alexander's call for an early referendum on Scottish independence: "The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Labour Party have joined together in setting up the Calman Review, the commission on devolution," he said. "I hope we can make progress in that commission, and we will review the progress before making any further decisions." Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Brown can't win the next election. More serious, any democratic reform agenda is now in jeopardy. Brown can't win because the moment of genuine popularity of his first three months of office, when he appeared to be different from Blair, is long gone. That positioning has been shot to pieces not least by himself. From now on he has to fight on his record of continuity. But already the voters have given this the two-fingers. Their verdict could only be reversed by a brilliant economic revival. This seems inconceivable. The heart of New Labour's strategy was the embrace of globalisation as the deliverer of wealth plus Gordon's supposedly robust and prudent management of the economy leading to unrivalled stability as well as growth. Today the UK faces the prospect of an economic downturn, a collapse of the housing market and the inflation of staple commodities. This is the harvest of backing the US model over that of the EU, which Brown orchestrated. At the same time the explosion of the super-wealthy, which is one consequence of this strategy, has fatally undermined Labour's claim to be the party of fairness that is central to its appeal. Brown is doomed. Read the rest of this post...