Stop Press... Charles Clarke to stay on backbenches until the Second Coming

This story is plastered across the national press to day so take your pick of sources. As ever I choose the trusty Guardian (if for no other reason that it is the first paper I read every day).

Charles Clarke seemed to throw away any chance of a return to the front benches any time this millennium by letting rip with an all-out attack on Gordon Brown, accusing him of "absolutely stupid" behaviour during the leadership crisis. The outburst seems to be the result of a long standing conflict between himself and Brown rather than anything else. Even so colleagues describe this intervention as baffling, unhelpful and ill-advised.

The former home secretary said MPs had been angered by pictures of Mr Brown grinning on Wednesday, at the height of the furore surrounding Mr Blair's future. "A lot of people are very upset and cross about that. It was absolutely stupid: a stupid, stupid thing to do," he said. "What he should have done was come out strongly and distance himself from [backbench rebels]. He could have done that with a click of his fingers. This has been complete madness." He went on to tell today's Daily Telegraph that Mr Brown was a "control freak" who might lack "the bottle" to become prime minister.

Allies of Mr Brown have quite rightly refused to take the bait: "Charles is naturally provocative, but I don't think his remarks will be welcomed by anybody bar the Tories. I don't think he is easy to put up to things; he's very independent-minded," said one minister supportive of Mr Brown. A Blairite colleague added: "Charles is just doing his own thing in his own way; he is not part of a concerted effort. He's kicked both Tony and Gordon recently."

Mr Clarke also attacked the prime minister for a failure of leadership after being sacked as home secretary. The timing of that criticism - shortly before the local elections in May - did not win him friends; one MP yesterday labelled him "petulant". The former home secretary has always retained his independence from the prime minister, and several colleagues thought he might be hoping to return to government under Mr Brown's leadership. One Blair loyalist said yesterday: "I'm surprised by the strength of what he said"

In the meantime, according to an opinion poll in today’s Independent Labour is now seen as being more divided than the Tories during the John Major years. The survey found that 56 per cent of voters see Labour as more divided than the Tories during the Major government, which was racked by bitter divisions over Europe. Only 22 per cent regard Labour as more united. More than a quarter of Labour supporters (27 per cent) believe that Labour is more divided than the Conservatives were in 1992-1997.

The poll also found strong evidence that the public will want an early general election after the change of prime minister. Seven out of 10 people think there should be an election within a year. Some 35 per cent think the new Prime Minister should seek a fresh mandate immediately, with a further 35 per cent believing that he should do so within six months to a year. Only 18 per cent believe the election should be delayed beyond that.

There is logic in linking the two articles: Clarke has shown himself to be an utter fool to talk as he did. It almost certainly consigns him to political oblivion – Even if a Blairite such as Alan Johnson became the next PM would he want such a loose cannon aboard? Far worse, it provides further confirmation to the public that we are utterly disunited.

As for the poll, we party members can scoff at the fickle nature of public opinion but we know full well that it does not take much for public perceptions to become so entrenched that no evidence to the contrary will shake them. We are seen as dangerously divided and unless we can get our act together now, then Cameron will be PM after next. Is that what we really want? The Labour Party is a party of Government. Let’s keep it that way!

Do we need a general election as soon as we have chosen our new leader? No. The 2005 result gives Blair’s successor a mandate to govern. I only hope that Blair's successor does better than Callaghan and Major did in 1979 and 1997 respectively...
Charles
Clarke
Labout
Party
Blair