91热爆

Why am I not surprised at Robinson's take on Brown ... afterall he won't be happy be to see Gordon Brown beat his favoured choice empty vessel Cameron ....

Gosh I read Cameron's statement on Globalisation and I knew straight away that Brown would have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Robinson better believe it Brown will become PM and he does not need the discredited Blairites i.e. Clarke, Hutton and the rest of those spin masters to restore public's confidence in New Labour.

Briown has proven those pessimistic economists wrong everytime they said the economy will go wrong and he will disprove this Tory Robinson's negative and pessimistic opinion over and over again.

I can't wait for a Brown Premiership where he can be the leader he is capable of being.

Who is going to listen to that sour grape Clarke ... he is old news and I don't care what he says.

Why should Brown always bail Blair? If the PM is as storng as you and his warped advisers think he is, then why can't he fight his battles himself. If Brown frowns he is labelled as deary, if he grins or smiles he is castistigated.

Kathy

Are the comments of a disgraced and grossly incompetent former 91热爆 Secretary really all that important? It seems that this New Labour squabble has given all the old rejects a chance to come out into the open and grab themselves a bit of media attention (Blunkett, Mandelson and now Clarke). I, for one, couldn't care less what these has-beens of British politics have to say. In fact, it's almost pathetic that they believe themselves to still be relevant.

The UK don't want to see a Brown coronation as the Brownites would want.

Is Gordon Brown not entitled to smile? Is he meant to stay glum even if his driver cracks a joke? People can smile on the day of a funeral, it doesn't mean they are not in mourning.

I'm afraid one side is as bad as the other with briefings and counter briefings going on all the time. All are as a result of TB continually breaking his promises to GB - it's no wonder GB is the way he is. TB would never have been PM without GB giving him control after John Smith, yet he seems to have forgotten that and gone power mad. Now he thinks no-one can replace him.

Hence my question Nick, did Tony Blair really say "I'm quitting as PM in 12 months"?

Judging from the press coverage the answer is yes - but read his statement and he says nothing about his role as PM. True, he talks about his departure date - but like a clever lawyer does not say from what. He then said that the forthcoming Labour Party conference would be his last as leader of the party - but again he said nothing about his role as PM.

His position as PM does not necessarily go with his role as party leader. The PM is the MP who can command majority support from other MPs in the House of Commons. Naturally that normally means the person who heads the largest party but (and here the political historians could help out) it could also mean the person who commands the largest block of support - not necessarily representing a formal party - or even an overall majority.

Might this be Tony's last radical idea - to finally ditch the remnant of the old Labour left (along with Brown) by quitting the party and striking out with a new centre-right gathering of like minded MPs? Might he govern as an independent until the next election? After all he did promise to serve a full term (technically until May 2010) and he's not one to break his word (much). Also, he only said he would not lead the Labour Party into the next election - he said nothing about leading another party.

Might we yet see the transformation in British politics envisaged by the Gang of Four who founded the Social Democrats? You have been warned - Gordon Brown might be looking more dour than usual in 12 months time!

I see the Blair faction are learning from Hezzbollah.

Create the circumances.
(being vague about the day of departure. In fact making the potential date delibrately provocative)

Start with a minor attack
(Stephen Byers attacking inheritance tax. Gordon's domain and very unpopular with the voters.)

Which forces the enemy to attack.
(Brown supporters with interives, resignations, letters etc)

Then launch your own counter attack on the unreasonable behaviour of your victim.
(Charles Clarke and I am sure plenty of others today)

You end up with a Labour Party in a similar state as Lebanon a few years ago split into pointless factions.

I am not a great fan of Brown either but if the Labour party want to rid itself of it's current negative image, a cabinet minus "Tony's cronies" would be surely be a positve thing.

I've heard and read criticism of the media for making such a big deal of all of this. Come off it! New Labour, and Blair in particular, has lived by the media. It is only right that they die by it to.

At least Charles Clarke went to the ES with comments directly attributed to him for once - and not 'sources close to the PM' or 'an unnamed Cabinet minister'. A bit of back bone at last!!!

Thanks for your excellent reporting Nick - I'm loving every twist of the tale.

When the end of Blair's leadership comes we must see a proper leadership race with several candidates. Just because Mr Brown feels the job should be his doesn't mean it should. He is behaving like a power hungry madman and the British public have never liked that trait in a leader.

Gordon just does not look fit to lead government. David Cameron is likely to be PM after the next election regardless of who wins the labour leadership because the divides within Labour will remain, and remain in full public view. Popcorn anyone?

With all due respect, and without doubting for one second your integrity, don't you (and by you, I mean political editors in general) have a personal interest in seeing this 'war' (what a strong word, no one has died in case you hadn't notice) go on and on?

Although I can appreciate that Clarke's comments are clearly worth reporting, I can't help but get the feeling that its importance is often exagerated for the sake of a story, which let's face it, is a blessing for political commentators.

I'm sure that everyone in the Labour Party wants to calm down, but that would be less of an interesting story. Which is why I personally get the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you relish any signs, no matter what they are, that could remotely indicate that more friction is to come.

How interesting that Clarke has made these comments, which effectively end his chances of a Ministerial career in a Brown administration. We know Clarke loved being in office, so could there be more to it? Is Clarke setting up a run at the leadership himself (maybe he detects enough anti-Brown sentiment out there to give him the opportunity to win the top job, if he can paint Gordon as Blair's assassin and himself as the sacrificial lamb 'stop-Gordon' candidate?) Perhaps Clarke simply blew his top and decided to speak out, or perhaps this is an effort orchestrated by the Blairites to stop Brown by filling the airwaves with the idea that he is the cause of the turbulence. Either way, it has put Brown on the back foot for the first time in this whole crisis, and guaranteed that Clarke will take the credit for doing so. Should Brown fluff his leadership bid, whoever wins - if not Clarke himself - will surely offer CC whatever job he wants in return. Also interesting is his highlighting of Brown's smug photo, which is the element most of the press is latching on to. This image could be seriously damaging.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I've gone down your list of 'Blairites' that Brown might need to work with, and with the exception of Hutton, and the possible exception of Falconer, I would be really more than happy to see the back of the lot of them. If I never hear of Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn again it will be too soon. You're making the prospect of a Brown premiership even more attractive than I could have imagined.

So Nick, why won't you tell us which cabinet minister said Brown would be f-ing dreadful?

Or is that to be your little secret?

Nick, I don't suppose you could shed some light on whether Brown, or people close to him, are giving any clues on what would be substantive differences in policy direction might be for a Brown Government? The Guardian seems to have taken a stab in the dark on what PM Brown might push forward (a Social Justice Commission to investigate the poverty gap鈥mm), and the cheeky press monkeys have even started the betting on what a Brown cabinet might look like.

Will Brown use his conference speech to set out his stall will a distinctive policy agenda? The Labour Party seems to be itching for an electable but distinctly Labour policy base and the unions are putting on the pressure to ditch acres of policy they don鈥檛 like. Isn鈥檛 it Brown will ignore them (the unions)?

Also are any other senior Blarites, other than the charming Dr Reid, beginning to show some ambition? The Guardian excluded Hutton from its Cabinet predictions, (Johnson having picked up the Deputy Leader position), so could he possibly challenge the Chancellor? Is a serious challenge to Brown a possibility for all the talk of Blairites wanting to stop Gordon鈥�

Isn't it the aim that 'this madness runs and runs' ? The 'Anyone But Gordon' camp want time to destroy Brown's leadership hopes. Everyone's got something to hide, I wonder what Gordon's got to hide ? Perhaps we'll all find out ... in time.

Nick - could you enlighten us to the identity of the cabinet minister who so vigorously commented on the un-suitability of Brown as premier?

Is it true that he authorised you to use the comment 'any way you wish'?

Surely this comment was therefore on the record and can be sourced?

I'm sure John Reid won't mind.

This is all utter madness. If you want a reason why election turnouts are declining you need look no further - who in their right mind would vote to put these kinds of people in power?

We are fighting a war abroad, a war at home and growing ecological problems, to name but three. Both Blair and Brown should be ashamed of themselves to squander so much precious time on childish bickering and infighting about a matter that no-one outside Westminster gives a damn. Get on with your jobs and stop this argument.

The more this goes on the more Labour look as though they need some time in opposition to sort themselves out...

What do you think the chances are that this internal warfare will abate once the new man takes over, Nick? Seems to me that the battle lines have been drawn and open warfare of the kind that plagued John Major after Thatcher's ousting is the only likely outcome.

Drama Queen Robinson's recent commentaries on the Labour Party leadership situation has been very reflective of the media in general, I mean, let's be honest the media have really got excited about this story and have been partly responsible for stoking this endless and pointless speculation regarding the Prime Minister's remaining tenure in office.

At last a focus on the really troubling aspect of all this. I am not a Blair fan by any means, but I would take him over Brown any and every day of the week. How can people possibly think that a man who has shown such disloyalty, such self interest, such desperation for power as Brown has, be fit to be considered as Prime Minister of this country even in an election, let alone the "shoe in" he expects. Being rude to hosts at official dinners etc is one thing, publically trying to bring down a sitting PM in your own party is another. I do not want such a person at our head. Good luck to the labour people who wish to stop him!

The fact that this is a blatant attempt by Clarke to place himself as the compromise candidate for a future leadership contest doesn't make it any less true.

Brown's psychological flaw is that he knows deep down he only wants power for powers sake. As an architect of New labour he is aware he has nothing startingly new to offer the country in terms of policy or ideology. This is why he can't force himself to sieze power and has to engineer Blair into giving him the power he feels he deserves.

There's daggers in men's smiles.
Macbeth, 2. 3

Although I'm no fan of New Labour these days, I still despair. A return to Conservative Government looks ever more likeley the longer Blair clings on.

Blair has tried not to give a clue about his departure date. He was desparate to avoid his enduring legacy being Iraq and wanted to push through bold reforms of something. He failed.

Yesterday he announced that he was now formally a lame duck. Labour needs to choose a new leader NOW. Goverment cannot function when nobody knows who will be in charge in a year. Even Mr Blair should realise that he will accomplish more once he has gone in the elder statesman role of Lord Blair than he ever will as a lame duck PM.

I imagine that, if people looked elsewehere in Westminster at the moment, Mr Cameron's smile might eclipse Mr Brown's!

Does anyone know what odds are being given on Tony saying, as he leaves 'I'm a Tory through and through, just wanted to scupper Labour for another few years. Good luck Gordon!'?

Why are you refusing to disclose the source behind the 'Gordon Brown would make a f***ing dreadful PM' quote?

Blair is the new Thatcher, he just doesn't know when to quit. His cronies within New Labour are equaly stubborn. We were all led to believe King Tony would serve 2 terms then abdicate in favour of Brown. Blair reneged, how come anybody's surprised that Brown has had to resort to pushing him out the door. !BROWN AS PM - NO MORE IRAQS.

Nick, Who said Brown would be an "f-ing dreaful prime minister"? WHy won't you tell us, when it was said on the record?

It is your job to inform the public and this could well be the most important thing in this whole story!

Nick,
The thing that I find such a turn off is that Brown come out yesterday and said that he told the Prime Minister- you know, the leader that people actually voted to run the country 18 months ago, that it was up to him to set a date and that Blair had "his full support". Frankly, given the actions of some of his friends,it just made him look dishonest and his talk about the electorate was in my view a little bit patronising. Labour are obviously not too bothered about getting in again, because this, it seems to me, is exactly how to get voted out.

It's such a load of old tosh and it emphasises the very reasons that ordinary people don't trust politicians. They are liars, schemers, manipulators and cheats, and it's these "qualities" that make them successful in theor chosen game.

The attributes that should be lauded and encouraged, humility and integrity, are sadly absent from ALL the big names.

Two insights come into mind. First, the suggestion that Mr Brown may be igniting too many battle fronts at once can only weaken the party support when he takes office. He may find himself with little margin to act. Second, is this ongoing war of accusations, suspicion and resignations likely to affect Labour's position in next year local elections? I am afraid if this clash of egos goes on, it will likely be the case. That would be a massive blow for Labour and will probably have to be shouldered by Mr Brown

Gordon Brown's public comment yesterday that he will support the PM's decision as to when he resigns as PM beggars belief. Does Brown think we, the electorate, are completely stupid? In my view he is out of touch and lacks judgement,as demonstrated by his actions this week in (seemingly) sponsoring the turmoil in the Labour Party. I'm certainly no fan of Blair, but I cannot see how Gordon Brown has advanced or improved his standing either in the Labour Party or in the Country.

It seems to me that Brown has done a 'Portillo'. Desperate to become leader but lacking courage to confront the issue head on and instead resorting to back-stabbing and devious manipulative actions in allowing his supporters to undermine Blair's position. Brown is not fit to lead.

Clarke is absolutely right. Brown's personal ambition is clouding his political judgement.

Not very impressive for a self-appointed 'Premier-in-Waiting'.

Is Brown v. Blair a re-run of Brutus v. Caesar?

Come on Nick - tell us who the Cabinet Minister was that described Brown's premiership in such colourful language!

For goodness sake, he was smiling because he was having his picture taken. He used to be pilloried for NOT smiling!

Like a bad smell, this will remain for some time. Agree with you, Nick. Only thing though, after years of Labour wandering in the wilderness, it seems set that they are going back there again. The Tories cant believe their luck. And the man to blame is Gordon Brown..who should have shown himself as a PM in waiting rather than a hawk.

The Labour party are ripping themselves apart, and while on a party political front I'm loving every minute of it, the truth is that they are doing a great diservice to politics in general.

If politics is about which individuals get what post at government level, then so called politicians should have nothing to do with politics and leave it to the public servants who are running Britain on a day to day basis - that is the message being conveyed by this farce.

This circus is having an effect on all politicians from all political parties.

If Blair was absolutely serious about putting people first then he should resign today and let a leadership contest commence, or as Nick Robinson says, this will go on and on, creating even greater disillusionment with politics.

TB is just show and I don't rate him at all, If GB becomes a premier then we'll all be biting our finger nails as to whats going to happen next - didn't do a good job with the pensions did they?

It's not TB and it's not GB it's the sheer arrogance of the whole bunch of them that is letting them down.. each almost everyone of them, there are just too many examples to mention here.

The next election will surely prove interesting and I hope it's goodbye.

David
Nr Manchester. UK

The only good thing about Tony Blair being Prime minister is that Gordon Brown isn't!

Can you now reveal the name of the Cabinet Minister who told you that Gordon Brown "Would Make a F* Dreadful Prime Minister".

You have the person's permission, so why the secrecy?

The man in the street knows that the most stable and controlled economy in British history was no fashioned by Tony Blair but by Gordon Brown. He also knows that the man who took us to war in the Middle East was Tony Blair (BLiar?) not Gordon Brown. The man who is key to the honours scandal is Tony Blair not Gordon Brown.

Does Charles Clarke think we are all stupid? Probably. So he's another one that's not leadership material then.

And why can't Gordon Brown have people he has fallen out with in his cabinet? Where's your sense of history? Friends close and enemies closer!

Isn't Charles Clarke slightly missing the point. By continuing this he's clearly trying to damage Gordon Brown but by continuing the bickering he's damaging labour as a whole.

It is becoming increasing obvious that when Gordon Brown becomes PM, that it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Until Tony Blair steps down, the Blairites and Brownites will continue to snipe at each other, and once Tony Blair does go, Blair's 'chums' will continue to snipe from the sidelines. All of which means that the Labour party will be tearing itself apart until the next election.

All of this plays into the hands of the opposition, who will no doubt spend the next few years, taking advantage of the Labour party's divisions. At the moment, given the polls and the behaviour of the Labour party, it's hard to see how they can win the next election.

Gordon Brown might as well try and enjoy his 'victory' as best he can. I doubt he'll be in No. 10 for long.

The London chatteratti, of which you are a leading operator Nick are obsessed by the tittle tattle of politics, unfortunately and perhaps unsurprisingly so it seems are so many of our politicians.

Personally I'm amazed that this Labour Government survives at all considering the relentless media campaign to humilate and drive Blair from office.

Up here in Sheffield, The Labour Party increased control of the local authority in the last local elections as the city booms as a result of government policies.

Deal with some issues that ordinary people are interested in

As a tory supporter I am rubbing my hands with glee.

wHY DOESN'T bLAIR JUST DRAW THE POISON AND SACK bROWN ?

What an unedifying expression of naked ambition and a pathetic attempt to cling to the remnants of power. A plague on both these inadequate politicians.

The infighting is clearly becoming increasingly bitter - and increasingly crude!! A couple of years ago, Brown was described merely as 'psychologically flawed'. Yesterday Nick Robinson quoted a senior minister as saying that Brown would be a 'fg disaster as Prime Minister'.

Perhaps Blair should go soon, to enable Brown to live up to his reputation and so present a gift to David Cameron.

All this is not before time - Labour has got away with too much for too long - far too long to be healthy for any political party in government.

As someone who is a "green liberal" with no affiliation with any party (despite the fact this seems to be the audience all want to get to) I find the whole thing more amusing than anything else. Lets face it, the world will not stop if NL stop producing legislation for a bit: they have done too much of that anyway. Putting so much importance into a grin is frankly ridiculous.

I'm rather suprised that Charles Clarke feels that Alan Milburn has leadership potential? I'm not sure that someone like Milburn has support in the Labour PLP or the wider membership. But I think Clarke sum's up alot of doubts people have had in recent days about Gordon Brown's conduct. No doubt Brown's supporters will try and protray Clarke as 'yesterdays man' but at least Clarke has come out and made his comments in public rather than just briefing in private.

I personally think Clarke's intervention carry's much more power given his recent policy interventions:

Labour's fault lines open up:

Towards the progressive century:

In both of these interventions he has criticsed Blair and Brown on a range of issues i.e the way they conduct policy debates and the way they carry out policy. Also given his highly critical remarks of Blair and Reid a fews months ago one can hardly describe him as an ardent 'Blairite' (whatever that actually means). It's often been said in the media that Clarke would return to the Cabinet under a Brown Government, so for Charles Clarke to make these comments about the Chancellor clearly show there are deeper problems with Gordon Brown. Perhaps Alister Campbell was right all those years ago when he said Gordon Brown had 'psychological flaws'.

I've just watched Brown's so-called 'Britishness' speech and it was really very drab. Surely Labour can do better than Gordon Brown? I also wonder if Gordon Brown will submit himself to an interview with Paxman in this next week or two? As I car'nt actually recall him appearing on Newsnight for a number of years.

Sometimes you really have to be in awe of the self-deluding sanctimonious hypocrisy of politicians

Charles Clarke berates Brown for creating a division in the Party - and how does he do it? By re-opening an even wider division in the party!

Brown has shown his complete unsuitability for a premiership role for years. Now we have the plotting but what about the sulkings and the silent treatment that have gone on for years. Do we really want an overgrown child in charge?

What is the matter with labour members? Blair has said he will go, so just accept that and stop acting like spoilt brats. Brown may get his day but I doubt if any other labour politician could match Blair`s record of three election wins in a row.

There must be a lot of Conservatives out there who are hoping that Brown gets to be Prime Minister. Cant see many of the public voting for him in an election, must be the charimsa by-pass he seems to have had together with the knowledge that he really is Old Labour and will tke even more out of your pocket than Blair has allowed him to do up to date.

I dont like Tony Blair and wish he would go now not later, however the idea that he will be 'suceeded' by Gordon fills me with horror. This man inherited a good economic situation from the Conservatives and then managed to destroy both pensions and the economy, this and his snide actions over the years have proved he should not have the top position. If Tony goes someone must stand against him or he will destroy whats left of this country.

Nick

It seems to me that over the last (say) 6 months the New Labour leadership (aka Blairites) have somehow lost their nerve. From being a group of confident people who had a clear and overriding aim - to remain in office - they now seem to have decided they'd rather be in opposition than change to adapt to the world of 2006 and accept the admittedly flawed Gordon Brown as premier.

Maybe they are feeling guilty about claiming a mandate with 35% of the vote and 25% positive endorsement? Or are they just tired?

Roll on a hung parliament and electoral reform!

You list the people who Brown has supposedly fallen out with - what a fine competent and sincere crew they are. You only need to add Geoff Hoon to complete the set! If Brown can form a government of individuals who do their job properly, without sitting on papers, or abusing their positions, I don't think I'd be too bothered if they smile at the wrong times. Clarke's comments say everything about the New Labour project, all style and forget the substance.

Even if he achieves his goal (which is by no means certain) I suspect that Gordon Brown will only have a brief time in which to savour his position as Premier.

What Brown and Blair and all the other MPs involved in this internecine strife have overlooked is that the electorate punishes internal party divisions of this nature. They want a party which is able to govern, not one which is gratuitously and publicly tearing itself apart.

Is Gordon Brown an electoral asset or liability for the Labour Party? He has an ambigous track record as far as the general public is concerned and his media persona is a PR nightmare.
The Labour Party need a genuine leadership election with all the credible candiates running. If the jury is indeed out they need to consider all possibilities.

This whole issue is starting to have an inevitable look to it. You're right Nick, there are few spectacles more gripping than this level of political drama. It's like Eastenders on steroids.

The final chapter looks close now. I wonder, though, whether the main players have really thought it through? I have no time for the duplicitous, arrogant and apparently politically deaf, Blair. But the alternate list from the Labour party makes pretty bleak reading!

If Blair is still in power by the end of the month I'll be surprised. If he's still there by Christmas I'll be astonished.

Some commentators (Labour or not) would have us believe that the Blairites in the Labour party are now just a tiny rump.

But let us examine Brown for a moment. Not a single Labour politician of any stature has endorsed Brown (of course there are the usual opportunists trying to line up their next jobs - Peter Hain notably).

Furthermore, look at the Brown coterie : pigmies to a man (Balls, Darling, Alexander, Browne), mainly Scots.
These gents (presumably plus the nonentities who resigned), will form the core of your next government under Brown.

Frightening thought ?

I have come to hate Gordon Brown over these last few months. Forget about renewing the Labour party, I want the entire govt. to be renewed and replaced by Cameron's Conservatives. Atleast they will be motivated to work and prove themselevs. This govt. and cabinet seems to be sitting on past laurels and on each others toes. As for Gordon, there is too much blood on those hands to hold the crown.

As a member of the general public Brown is the wrong man to lead labour. He has a nervous smile and looks distinctly ill at ease. Clark is right when he says Brown lacks confidence. Not PM material, I'm not likely to vote for a party led by Brown and I am a strong labour supporter.

The thing that Blair and his remaining allies cannot comprehnd is that the need for Tony Blair's departure has got nothing to do with Gordon Brown.

Tony Blair's redeeming feature, even to those in the Party who opposed some of his policies, was that he could win elections. Since Iraq, that has ceased to be the case. Labour won last year despite, rather than because, of Tony Blair, as was shown by the need to bring Gordon Brown in to save the campaign. It is clear that with Blair still in charge, the strategy for next years Scottish and Welsh elections would be to keep Blair's profile as low as possible and to emphasise that he will soon be away. What useful purpose does his continuation in Office therefor serve the Party or the Country?

When its asked why Gordon Brown has an affection in the Labour Party that Blair has never enjoyed, the obvious answer is that, in April 1994,at considerable personal cost, Brown was prepared to put the interests of the Party before his personal interests.

What he's now being asked to do is to put the interests of Tony Blair before the interests of that Party!

That might just constitute disoyalty to Blair but to describe it as disloyalty to the Labour Party requires a pretty odd definition of disloyalty.

Charles Clarke's comments mean that the positioning by the leadership contenders has started in earnest....The Labour Party is now certain to break into factions and, given the mood of many backbenchers and the union cash providers, the eventual winner when Tony finally goes is bound to be well to his Left. Question is - will we have an opposition sufficiently far right of 'New New Labour' to take advantage in the only election that matters to us unaligned voters. The General Election of 2009, if Labour lasts that long without Tony, starts now.

Just when exactly *was* GB annointed as heir-apparent and by whom ?
It seems plainly obvious that this man is not of prime-ministerial calibre.

Brown has shown through this whole affair that he is not strong enough to deal with the international politics that will face him in PMs office. He has not shown the strength and confidence that would be required at all. Can we afford another Bush camp follower or possibly worse one whos deviousness taints the UKs international credibility.

Surely the Chancellor is too clever to take Labour back to the 'bad old days' of Clause 4 and ever higher taxes? Don't discount him having some big ideas which will be unveiled if/when he becomes leader, something along the lines of Bank of England independance, which he kept quiet until the election was won.

But you're right in saying that the cause of the anger is the feeling that he has been too quiet on the big issues, it's time he took a lead...

I am very worried about Gordon Brown becoming Prime Minister and I am not a supporter of Labour or any political party.

This story demonstrates that politics is nothing to do with serving the people and everything to do with the securing of power and related vanity projects.

We should be outraged at our democratic process being hijacked for the sake of an individual politician's career - but instead we sit back and watch it like a soap opera.

That's no criticism of you Nick, you're just reflecting what we are interested in and what in the end will decide future policy.

Prescott for PM.

Compare and contrast Gordon's cheesy grin and Maggie's tears when she left Downing St.

You keep making these assertions about how things should be interpreted, Nick, but I fail to see how you鈥檙e so certain they hold water. For instance, I thought Charles Clarke was a possible candidate for the leadership when Prime Minister Blair stepped down, and could even forgive his handling of the immigration issue, but his character is marred by these ego driven displays of discontent. I鈥檓 afraid, with great respect to Charles Clarke, he should develop the discipline to keep character flaws like this in check as they cloud his thinking, undermine confidence in politics, and give fuel to the more speculative and mischievous elements of the media.

In the meantime, the Prime Minister continues to work on current issues, has a timetable for positive and constructive policies, and looks set to step down when his job is done. Focusing on issues of pure ego because it gives the media a quick thrill and easy headline is so much fluff that gets in the way. It may be delightful for the protagonists and antagonists to keep this artificial issue alive, but some of us would like to get a grip on the real issues facing the country, see people in politics and the media perform as it says on the tin, and help people where it really matters. At the very least, this is the most useful and compassionate path.

What has happened yesterday was a miracle to force "English Mughabi" to state his departure. Toni Blair is trying to cling to te office till the next step of Bush's wars take place. It is very important to isolate Blair who caused damage to the UK and labour party by taking the country to wrong wars.
Those, including Clarcke, criticizing Brown for pushing Blair to that extent, are responsible for what Blair has committed because for them the "Unity of Labour Party" was more important than 100.000 thousands Iraqis' lives.
Blair must not only be ousted he must be taken to teh International Criminal Court.

Did anyone else notice that during Ruth Kelly's interview on the radio this morning she basically said that Clarke had always thought that about Gordon, realised her mistake, then quickly corrected herself. I at least found that interesting....

I understand their (Blair's allies) concern over Brown's leadership, and his direction if he becomes PM. However isn't he on a simular political wavelength to Mr Blair? Afterall he has supported the PM on nearly all the contentious legislation.
Whatever the outcome of this, The Labour government and party at large look weak, divided and disloyal (criticisms that could have been made of the last years of the Conservative administration).
And just as it did for Labour in opposition then it does for the Tories in opposition now (namely increasing their support). Clearly a revitalised Conservative Party can only gain from this as the revitalised 'New' Labour Party did in the 1990s. The old adage 'oppostions don't win but governments fail', may be partly true in this case. Christopher Stringer Age 19 (UCL, Politics)

The absolutely staggering dissonance is with the very real and important events that the UK armed forces are facing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if Gordon Brown realises just how damaging this whole crisis has been to his public perception as a man who can be trusted with the fate of the country?

Would you support someone who seemed to spend Weds undermining the Leader of the country on the same day that British Troops were fighting and dieing in foreign places? It looked calculated, coordinated, opportunistic and cynical.

An extraordinarily stupid attack upon Brown if the labour party genuinely wants to hold itself together and remain electable. This is the first salvo in another war like row between the two factions within that party.

Personally I would welcome the elimination of this bunch from office but it must not come at the price of two or more years of direction less government as the fight like cats in a sack. We deserve better than that.

D'Oh!! Are Charles Clarke's 'extraordinary' comments part of Blair's 'scorched earth' policy to leave a trail of wreckage in his wake just to keep Brown out? Thanks a bundle. Harriet Harman was right on R4 today - put a sock in it, please. It makes me wonder why I bothered to deliver all those Labour leaflets when senior MPs can't keep their mouths shut and seem to make the whole situation worse.

An astonishing outburst. I'd understand it if Brown had done a slow wink to his alleged co-conspirators in the manner of Ronaldo in the World Cup, but a split-second snapshot of him grinning could more easily be explained as a spontaneous response to a joke than a self-satisfied smirk. The lunatics are truly running the asylum.

If this is an "orderly transition", I'd hate to see a disorderly one!

Nick,

This seems to be a great summary of what's going on there. I have seen this happen in several organisations where raeching power by these means instantly creates an environment of distrust and supicion about the leader.

As a labour supporter I have just assumed that Gordon would get the job, which would probabloy be OK. Now I'm not so sure; in fact I think he has missed probably his best opportunity to show leadership qualities pre-premiership and he has let himself and many down.

An oveerwhelming feature of the tory shadow cabinet is that it was full of lightweights. Without the heavy hitters you describe, what would the cabinet look like?

Bit by bit, the whole New Labour machine is falling apart. It's humiliating to watch, as a British citizen. How can our government be so pathetic? Bring on fresh blood, bring on the Conservatives.

Why would Charles Clarke attack Brown when it was Blair that got rid of him? Would he be goading the Brownites in order to raise a challenge Blair at the Party Conference and so get rid of his former master? If he has no ministerial career now I don't suppose it would matter to him one way or another if he makes such a jibe. Possibly he hopes that someone Blairite will win the leadership contest rather than the predicted heir apparent.

In some respects, this whole farce reminds me of a Soap Opera like Eastenders, except with less violence, and few gunshots.

It has always been implied that Gordon Brown will inherit the Labour Party, but as with promising a child something later in life, the child himself will grow up wanting it sooner. Gordon's reaction smacks of a spoiled brat who wants his cake *now*.

And then, there is Gordon's ultimate fear; that the project he and Tony Blair worked so hard to forge, will be handed so someone who is not him.

Gordon Brown is afraid, pure and simple. And, if you get a pair of binoculars out, and examine the roof of the Houses of Parliament, you can see a flock of pidgeons lying in wait.

Are they the sign of the vultures yet to come?

Why would Charles Clarke attack Brown when it was Blair that got rid of him? Would he be goading the Brownites in order to raise a challenge Blair at the Party Conference and so get rid of his former master? If he has no ministerial career now I don't suppose it would matter to him one way or another if he makes such a jibe. Possibly he hopes that someone Blairite will win the leadership contest rather than the predicted heir apparent.

Mr Blair should have been given time to plan his departure with dignity. The way it is done has damaged the whole of the Labour party as well as Mr Brown Leadership ambitions. Why proved a public outburst while Tony has said again and again that he is going. The MPs who are causing havoc now should remember that it was Tony who made Labour elemental again after many years of wilderness.

Paul Muortat
London

Nick,

Those who say that Blair was wrong to announce before the last election that he was going, seem to forget that because of his own unpopularity he was virtually forced to say it to try and maintain votes by fostering the impression 鈥渧ote Blair and get Brown鈥�. Gordon Brown was at Blair鈥檚 elbow all the way through the campaign as the heir apparent.

However, it's obvious now that Blair has used Brown for his own ends, as indeed he has used others and now wants to hang on to power to give Gordon Brown as little chance as possible of becoming PM.

I believe that neither Blair, Brown nor any of the other wannabes have the integrity to become PM and would like to see someone such as Bob Marshall-Andrews from the decent side of the party stand and hopefully take over.

Is this Charles Clarke's preparations to enter the leadership race?

"The man in the street knows that the most stable and controlled economy in British history was no fashioned by Tony Blair but by Gordon Brown."

Actually, it was kicked off by the Torys and continued by Brown boring billions. The economy is a stack of cards, and I suspect Brown wants to get out before it collapses and destroys his chance of leadership for good.

Of course even if it does collapse there will always be the idiots who will vote Labour no matter what, just because they always have - that should ensure a certain amount of safe seats.

I think Huw Sawyers observation of Blair offering to quit as leader of the Labour party (instead of PM) has an ironic grain of truth to it. With the present state of the labour party financies there might not be enough cash to hold a conference next year, if the party hasn't already been decalared insolvent by then.

What the whole sorry episode does show though is that polititions place the highest emphasis on holding power for the sake of it instead of using power to actually achieve anything.

Stop asking Nick to disclose his source on the "effing" quote - quite obviously he can't - the concession made by the minister concerned was that Nick could use the comment (clearly Nick is party to many "colourful" comments in his position, but the understanding is that they are never used by him in his reports), not that he could attribute the comment. For something so fundamentally obvious to me it seems strange that the likes of Guido are badgering Nick to disclose his source!! Lay off him all you anonymous bloggers - the fact that Nick blogs at all given the high profile and nature of his job is a credit to him - it's so easy for Guido and the others to speculate in their blogs - Nick has to retain his professional integrity simply to allow him to do his job for us and get the politicians to talk to him.

Keep up the good work Nick - at least we know you are being spoken to by the people that matter - which is more than can be said for some of your fellow political bloggers who retain their anonymity!

Brown should never be Prime Minister of Scotland - he should go back home. As for Blair he should get the cabinet sorted out and then resign gracefully - that is if his wife will let him. Let's hope this mess gets rid of the whole bloody labour party. They are just follows of Bush who has brought shame to the West and caused so much trouble with the Terrorists - we didn't have them before Iraq. Goodbye labour for good I hope. KH

Here we go again. Nick 'one-club' Robinson regurgitating the only story he has. One wonders at his inability to write about something other than Blair v. Brown - an unwillingness to deal with politics at anything other than the superficial or a wish - wasn't he a member of the Tory party? - to ingratiate himself with the next lot.

Hell hath no fury like a ex-minister scrambling to get back into power!
Does Charles Clarke believe he can get back into favour with anyone by knifing Gordon Brown - or is he trying to light the blue touch-paper and retire and be seen as the great statesman picking up the pieces after the Tony/Gordon squabble blows itself out?

Is there not more than a hint of arrogance from Mr. Brown that he somehow has a right to take over? Although we vote for a party, if the party changes leader shouldn't the decision go back to the nation? What is the likelihood that as Blair reaches the end of his tenure he gives some candid interviews about how this all came about, and if there ever was an agreement. That may pull the plug on Brown's pomposity.

I think Gordon Brown did the 'ears' gag once too often.

Blair won the election, not Brown, if Brown wants to be leader, he should do all the running at the next election, instead of getting the job which we, the public voted Tony to do, Brown may be a good at his job, but he is no leader, he can in no way make the people follow him, sooner we can get a English Parliament , the better,

Nick, can you say something about Huw Sayer's comment (at number 4 above) about Tony Blair being careful to say this conference would be his "last as party leader" - but nothing about stepping down as PM. I thought this too when I heard him say it. Or are we thinking too much?!

Whoever this Martin Hoscik (mayorwatch.org.uk) is, can we ask him to stop using the phrase "Blair outriders"? I must have read it thirty times today in various places and every time I read it it makes me want to punch him really hard. Stop it, damn you.

If Brown becomes PM, his premieship would just be a footnote to Blair, in the way that Major's was to Thatcher. The only difference is, because Brown won't fluke an election win, it will be a rather shorter footnote. Inexperienced though he was, at least Major had experience of more than one Govt department.

But if Alan Johnson became PM, the Conservatives really would have a fight on their hands...but, as a Tory, I'm rather hoping that the Labour Party won't notice.

Ahhhhh - the poor deluded Brownites. When are these people going to understand the fundamentals of politics. Brown is a wholly unsuitable PM - he lacks the charisma, appeal and he certainly will not appeal to those "swing voters" that have won labour the last 3 general elections. His record on the economy may well be solid - but this is not enough, in my view, to suggest with 100% confidence that he will suceed in the big job.

Tony's big plus point was his ability to unite the party against a disorganised, fractious government. The same cannot be said for Gordon. It seems that Gordon has failed dismally in his attempt to ensure a smooth transition and it will cost him. All this guff about the motives of Clarke and other blairites in this current mess is totally irrelavant. The "New Labour" paradigm dies with Blair as will the chances of re-election.

Nick, have you any comment on the silence from Guido and Ian Dale over the past few days? It seems that the whole furore of the last few days has passed the bloggers by? A triumph for the 'dead tree press'?

Fascinating - but why do you not seem as trenchant when commenting on Beeb? I wonder why.

I am afraid that a smug Mr Brown is playing straight into the hands of the Conservatives. Whatever anyone says about New Labour and Mr Blair, their key to electoral success has been to appeal to the voters occupying the middle ground. Mr Brown and his cohorts will lose far more voters in the next election than they will gain. 10 years of Tory rule to come !

Nick

I turned on radio 4 at 8:20 this morning and heard the dulcet tones of Head Girl Kelly eulogising on TB and GB and their magnificent achievements.

At 5:20 pm no less than Gwyneth Dunwoody saying that the party must get on with clearing up the mess in the NHS.

Who's fault was this?

The raid on pennsions was enough for this retiree to distrust Brown. I don't think he is or ever was Prime Minister material and would predict that he will lead a minority government for about 18 months before being ousted by an invigorated Conservative Party

The shenanigans of MPs of all parties over the past several years makes Jim Hacker seem like a political hotshot

I have no doubt that if Brown had shown true loyalty to Blair, he (Brown) would be the next PM. The vocal minority have dominated the media on the issue in recent days. But the silent majority are the British electorate who never reward disloyalty. The Tories will surely hope that it's Brown that Labour puts forward for the next election.

Gordon Brown cares only about Gordon Brown.

He doesn't even care about Scotland, only his reputaion there.

For ordinary working people with families he's been a complete disaster. We pay so much tax it's not true and he gives it all to the idle and feckless.

If I gave up work, once I'd claimed all my tax credits, I'd be about 拢50 a month worse off and I'd save that in train fares.

No wonder we have about 5,000,000 people on various forms of out of work benefits.

All Gordons very own work.

I don't see why Tony Blair couldn't sack Brown for being so obviously disloyal. Brown is absolutely hungry for the top job but seems to lack leadership skills. I didn't vote Blair but I think he is entitled to finished his term as he was elected by the British people.

Brown just wants a cosy hand-over and bypass the electorate so he can have a 2 year run as Prime Minister. Whether Blair struck a deal back in the 90s after John Smith shouldn't be that relevant to the voters. Because if Blair did promise to serve only 1 term then Brown was a sucker to believe that anyone would only serve one term and gutless in not running himself at the time. It seems Brown only wants to get to the top by riding on Blair's coat-tails.

However I think Brown will be seen as an assassin and although he will get to be PM - he will unfortunately let the Tories get back in next time.

Gordon Brown has been waitng for the smile for years and it is his definite moment of PM in waiting.I am sure election of labour leader next year will give the man in tune with the world's poor to the door of No.10.

When the Tories were engaged in their regular ritual of leadership conflicts, the usual Labour suspects smirked and chuckled with unalloyed joy. Now that they have a much more colourful and bizarre conflict in their own party, they have suddenly lost their sense of humour and blame everything on the press.

Clarke, despite his failures, has always shown traces of integrity, and has taken on several high-risk cabinet posts. Brown ? Just sits pat for 10 years like a spider in it's web.

Greatest delusion by the Brown supporters : just get rid of Blair, crown Brown and everything will settle down.
Oh no it won't, they won't go away you know. Most of the Labour heavy hitters will be on the sidelines criticising Brown's efforts.
My top tip : Blairs autobiography, complete with max publicity and a damning indictment of Brown, to be published just before the next election,.

There's a curious disconnect in Nick's analysis of Charles Clarke et al's anger with Gordon Brown: it makes it sound as though (a) Brown, plus a few junior lieutenants, are relatively isolated and acting for reasons of personal animosity and power-seeking; and (b) that most if not all the anger is on the Blairite side.

What's missing? Why the vastly larger volcano of anger long brewing among different groups of people who have been furious with Blair and the Blairites: for (some or all of) Iraq, the Lebanon, renewal of Trident, nuclear power, privatisations, managerialism, foundation hospitals, tuition fees, hostility to trade unions, oppressive anti-terror measures, demonisation of asylum seekers, young people, single parents, etc., abject submission to US hegemony, and for the complete hijacking of the Labour Party and conversion of it into something fundamentally opposed to almost everything it had previously stood for.

For these people (not just old Labour 'dinosaurs', but almost all progressives) the present Blair-Brown joust holds out at best a glimmer of hope of halting the Blairite crusade, since Brown is almost equally complicit in many of the same errors.

So, do us a favour, Nick, and don't underestimate some of the anger with Blair that exists outside the Westminster Green Zone.

Mr Brown has committed political hari-kari. I cannot see him being PM now. His insidious conspiracy with his cohorts was skullduggery at its worst.

He means nothing to me now, to me, he is a green snake under the green grass and a political coward to boot. I cannot trust him anymore and as a Labour man to my soul, I would rather go blind than vote Brown's treachery.

Dear Gordon,

I'm afraid it's all over mate. If you think there's any chance that you can assume the leadership of the country after this little episode, then you're more out of touch than you seem.

And what's all this about 'assuming leadership' anyway? Surely the people should have a say in who becomes the next Prime Minister? Don't talk to me about party rules & procedure, we don't want a smooth and orderly transition to you, we'd prefer a rough & disorderly transition to someone we want.

They say you've got a good record as Chancellor, but surely it's down to two things - independent control of the base rate, and avoiding the Euro. Hardly needed a firm hand on the tiller after that, so what exactly is it that you do?

Come to that, what makes you even a suitable candidate for PM? You may be doing something wonderful, but we need to know what it is.

I'm sure we're supposed to see your promotion as inevitable, but I can't remember why that is.

Got to go to the people on this one I think, you'd be surprised how much we care. You do remember us, don't you? We're the people you work for.

All the best.

In the past I have always enjoyed Nick's reports but I'm annoyed today that he seems thrilled to bits that Charles Clarke has jumped in with his size fourteens.

Clarke has obviously decided to use that spade from his recent enforced "gardening leave" to really get in there and widen that damaging rift.

Nick is practically rubbing his hands with joy at the prospect that this one will run and run.

Does he bother with Harriet Harman's frustrated injunction to MPs to "SHUT UP!" No, it's not news, it's too sensible and boring.

Nick should be looking at Charles Clark's own agenda in continuing to stir up trouble.

I have long thought Clark to be pompous, verbose, self-satisfied, indolent and arrogant.

And now I can apply the adjective "stupid" to MY opinion of HIM.

So, having taken their leader out of play, we now have the Labour party knifing their only credible successor. This party is clearly no longer fit to govern.

Brown is a wiley old fox and he knows it - look at that grin. Clarkes outrageous outburst reminds me of the major years,and in particular when Major was asked to resign during PMQ'S - by a Tory back bencher.

Seeing the harriet harmnans on tv bleating about unity is even funnier - brown is having the last laugh,thats one expensive meal tony blair had in the granita,and gordons making him pay the bill.

I hope to goodness that Brown never gets to be Prime Minister. We have had 9 years of Blair as a control freak and Brown seems even more of a control freak-and a vindictive one at that.
I cannot say who should succeed Blair-but only hope that Blair will go. And have the decency to fire Gordon on the way out. Brown will bottle any confrontation and has got used to the good life and power. Twice he has blinked -at Granita and again when Blair wobbled a couple of years ago(when his daughter was in trouble). Blair knows that Brown is at base a bully and a coward. He must not be Prime Minister. Not ever.

I just can't read "Macavity the Mystery Cat" without thinking of our
Chancellor.

Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,
For he's a fiend in feline shape, a monster of depravity.
You may meet him in a by-street, you may see him in the square -
But when a crime's discovered, then Macavity's not there! .......

[Yep, everything is always deniable where Gordon is concerned. ]

And when the larder's looted, or the jewel-case is rifled,
Or when the milk is missing, or another Peke's been stifled,
Or the greenhouse glass is broken, and the trellis past repair -
Ay, there's the wonder of the thing! Macavity's not there!

[ He certainly looked a highly satisfied, rather murderous feline after GWB's poodle was stifled yesterday.]

You'll be sure to find him resting, or a-licking of his thumbs,
Or engaged in doing complicated long-division sums.

[Well, in between, party political plotting and poodle stifling he does run the Treasury]

What is Clarke on? One day he seems to be attacking his former boss who kicked him out and then he's aiming his invective at his next boss? Whatever happens the Labour Party conference and the fringe events will be very lively - what would Sir Robin Day make of it all?

I must agree with those who are amazed by the self-destruction of these experienced politicians. Whilst I can understand Mr Brown's frustration at being No2 for so long, I don't think I could possibly trust him to be PM. Whilst he isn't wielding the dagger himself he is clearly orchestrating others to do so which makes him far less of a man in my eyes.
Sorry, Mr Brown; I think you have made a big mistake. You have made the split in the party far wider for the sake of your own, selfish ambitions. We will not trust you with power after this!

For those of us with historical perspective, it's as though Labour have woken from the ten-year hypnotic trance into which they put by the powers of Blair. They've now just started behaving again just like they always used to! It took the Tories 16 years to recover from ditching their three-times winning leader - I expect the same will happen to Labour.

Some proper analysis please Mr Robinson. Firstly, Mr Guido Fawkes had it in minutes, the wording of Blairs exit needs to be looked at here "...last as leader of the party..." implies that he means to go on as PM even longer than this. Why no comment on the wording, as is usual in such cases?
Brown has been dealt a slap in the face here; Tony has strapped himself with explosives and said if I go, I'm taking you with me. To all and sundry. Maybe he has learnt something from the terrorists: suicide bombing.

Where is Prescott?

Surely one of his remaining duties as deputy PM is to crack the whip over misbehaving government members?

When it was leaked that Blair intended to choreograph his departure next year (no doubt with Alastair Campbell scattering rose petals for him to walk on to the exits)it emerged that he would appear on Blue Peter and Songs of Praise. I can only assume he would appear on Songs of Praise to sing. But what might Tony sing on Songs of Praise? Here are my suggestions:
- I'll Walk With George From This Day On
- Wait and Murmur Not
- And Must I Be To Judgement Brought
- By Babylon's Streams We Sat and Wept
- Chief of Sinners, Here I Stand
- Long Have I Sought Eternal Life
- Lord, I Believe Thy Power I Own
- What a Friend We Have in Rupert.

As a Labour voter i am utterly disgusted with Clarke, the man is nuts. He may as well cross the chamber and officially join the (policy free zone) Torries, as he is clearly been working for them. Does he have no sence of loyalty to the party and country??

It must aslo be said that the media is loving it, can we not actually get onto speaking about policy at some point?

How typical that Brown seems to think that a deal on such an important issue as "who leads this country" can be stitched up in private. I'm sick and tired of this controlling and manipulating government with a severe personality disorder - old wealth-redistributing labour pretending to be a modern progressive party. Bring on Cameron!

Brown has blown a golden opportunity to both lead the party and win the next election. His talents were probably sufficient to offset the legacy of stealth taxes that are crippling middle-Britain; he has now sewn the seed of doubt over his leadership skills. Even Cameron could beat him and he's a lightweight.

Gloating Gordon is the one person that could have curbed Blair when it came to Iraq, but Gordon was skulking below the parapet pretending it was nothing to do with him.

Now Blair's up to his ears in the proverbial, Gordon's still skulking.

If I'm correct in believing he only has the one eye, what does that make us if he becomes PM ?

It's one thing to read Labour's suicide note, it's another thing to watch the suicide.

Clarke's comments about Gordon Brown will ring true with the public - he is seen as a control freak with very poor social skills. Brown has been a good No. 2, but very few good No. 2's make good No. 1's. In Gordon's case, the fact that he is also Scottish will work against him.

The current mood of the public is for a change, of personnel and policies. Control of immigration, establishing some proper control over our borders, proper sentencing for criminals, an end to the politically correct culture, free speech irrespective of class or creed, and reduction of taxes, particularly Council Tax are high on people's agenda.

Tony Blair has destroyed the Labour Party's trustworthiness, and engaged in the most ill-conceived war's of modern times which has put the security of the UK at greater risk. The man must go, and quickly.

But is Gordon Brown the man the public want to replace him? I think not - the debate is moving on from dissatisfaction with Blair to discontent with the government as a whole.

I think the government is on a path to self-destruction, and the sooner the better.

Blair will not go whilst there is the slightest chance of Brown succeeding him. For this stand, we should be thankful to Blair becasue he probably doesn't want to be PM anymore, he's serious getting earache from Mrs B who can't stand their next door neighbour either and he has to get up each morning to face yet another barrage of anti-nulab stuff in the news media. And all because he's allowed Brown too much rope. But there is light! Brown now has enough to hang himslef and there are plenty of people happy to watch that and cheer him on.

The NuLab lot need to wake up and smell the coffee. Brown would render them unelectable in a nanosecond. So they better get their acts together and get rid of Brown. Otherwise they will all end up on the sausage roll.

If Gordon Brown does get in, we'll be ruled from Glasgow and the unions will be given more powers and take us back to the 1970's 'who runs the country - the government or the unions' situation.

Does anybody take Charles Clarke seriously?The man is so clearly lacking in ability or charm.

I'm fascinated that out of all these incisive comments and witty remarks, I can only pick out two from women. Have they really so litle to say on the subject or is this symptomatic of the trivial state of the battle within Labour?

Dear Nick,

How can the Blairites complain about Brown not calling off his dogs, when they (Tony in particular) have not called off THEIR DOG, namely Charles Clarke? They are letting him do their dirty work in the same way they accuse Brown of letting the rebel MPs do his dirty work! But then Labour has always been full of hypocrites!

I bet Tony Blair wishes he was still on holiday!! What a bloody awful mess!!
The Labour Party is all at sea..and every now and again there is a barely decernible plop! as another of its oarsmen goes over the side; each simply unable to carry on and in a last act of defiance,after slinging their toys overboard, taking the plunge so as to try to change the man at the helm...for that bloke a few rows back with the dreadful grin. The mutinous "Gnasher Brown".
That was a well taken picture of G(NASHER)B. I wonder did the chap who snapped that get a few extra days off and a special bonus because its a cracker! Nick, if ever a single photograph sunk a person that one has. I remember the Neil Kinnock debacle where his guffawing in front of the tv cameras finished him and now, in a flash, the same for Gnasher. Im afraid that, (in my book) he is for the next transport plane along with John Prescott for the Afghan air drop so we need another parachute please....but hang on theres another one needed for his pal; the recently resigned Tom Watson.
I can't believe he has gotten off so lightly..He needs roasting for this. Did anyone hear him fall over the side ? No?
I read his letter of resignation. It was pathetic. I thought he was about to ask for a pay rise or an extra week off or something, but no, right near the end ...plop! I think that needs looking at further.
Tom Watson was voted into that well paid job by a lot of trusting people as their representative so how does he afford himself the luxury of resignation? As a member of the countries defence ministry had a duty to those in the military, an absolute responsibility, in fact, to serve them and the country robustly and with honour. What he has done is to undermine his office by chucking in the towel over an issue where he would have been expected to stand upright and steady..not flop over the bloody side like some spineless wimp!
More disgraceful is the connection with "Gnasher" Brown who apparently may have put him up to this ruse.
So Tom, Gnasher and John; about that air drop for Afghanistan; See that little red light? when it changes to green ....out you go!

If Gordon was the political operator he thought he was then he would have succeeded in 94,when he was way ahead of Tony,with John Smith's mantle upon him.

He did not and has been,and continues to go back ever since.His record as Chancellor is largely down to inheriting a benign and debt driven economy.He has been passive on most of Tony's initiatives,good or bad.

I am no supporter of Tony Blair but his political ability is way ahead of Gordon's.That's why he got the job and Gordon did not.That is why he has kept the job and Gordon has not been able to grasp it.For Gordon to succeed to get his consolation prize by default will be just plain wrong for the labour party,the government and for the people of this country.

True leadership is granted from below,not above... so Tony is doing exactly the right thing in allowing that sentiment to be epxressed for the good of us all..country and party alike.If this is not allowed to happen now,the Gordon leadership will be flawed,shortlived,without substance and delivering a Cameron premiership in three years.

Clarke is right on the money.He could also stand and be supported in the country.The rest don't really matter as they are simply ambitious and will come to their time in due course or retire to pasture.

Johnson has the substance to stand now with Reid as the enforcer No 2

Tony's course of action is reassert his leadership of the country by saying this and if there continues to be a stalemate,he can and should do what any PM can do and call asap a general election,to elect him back to power with the proviso that there will be an imemdiate election of leader thereafter.That would test everyones's capability to the full and the country would probably breathe a huge sigh of relief,Tony would get his fourth election victory,have seen out his full third term,and Cameron would be probably be history.

Just like inflation, Old Labour hasn't gone away, it's just been sleeping. New Labour was always a con trick, there is no "third way" in politics. The whole construct was bound to fall apart one day, (I'm amazed it has taken so long) and we are now witnessing the start of that process. The Labour party will tear itself to pieces once a leadership contest really gets under way, and the country will be much better off for that!

As for Brown's chances of winning a general election as PM, there is more chance of my numbers coming up on the lottery. Seeing him making speeches about the benefits of the Union of England and Scotland, and wrapping himself in the flag when he was one of the main architects of the outrageously unfair (to England) devolution arrangements, is stomach churning. It does though show that he is well aware of the rising resentment in England about the current situation, and the ridiculous number of ministers at Westminster who sit for Scottish seats but only have power over English affairs. I for one will never forgive him (or this government) for the way they have picked apart the stitching that bound Great Britain together.

As for complaints about media coverage of this debacle, it was New Labour under Tony Blair that used the media to spin announcements that should properly have been made in parliament. It was their attack dog Alastair Campbell who turned the media into a supine New Labour propaganda machine with which it could "bury bad news". It is poetic justice that the monster of their own creation has now turned on them. More power to their elbow!

I voted for the Labour Party because Tony Blair was at the helm and he declared he would serve a full term. I did not vote for Gordon Brown who may be a good Chancellor but lacks the qualities I want from a PM. He has not even tested himself in any other ministry - stayed at the treasury were he could wield power over other ministers related to their departmental spending. His cronies (would never have been elected without Tony Blair) who sent letters to the PM have absolutely no right to ignore my vote for Tony Blair. Mr Brown could have stopped all of this - many of those who sent letters are friends/supporters of his. Over many years, Mr Brown has failed to support the PM so obviously has always felt he should have led the Labour Party. He is, as Charles Clarke states "deluded" as in no way would he have been as successful as Tony Blair in winning three elections. I shall never vote for the party if Gordon Brown becomes leader. I shall join the millions of disillusioned non voters whose views of politicians have been confirmed by the schoolboy antics this week!

A question for you, Nick.

How many senior Blairites (if any) do you think would prefer to lose the next election rather than have Brown as Labour PM?

I want to challenge the now too often repeated assertion that everyone seems to be accepting as absolute truth: that the voting public rejects parties who acrimoniously ditch their leader and/or are at war with themselves.

The opposite can actually be asserted. When the Tories acrimoniously ditched Thatcher they remained in power for a further six and a half years. Had they kept Thatcher they would have lost the 1992 election, without doubt. It had to be done.

Instead the voters got a change (John Major - very unlikely and utterly unpredicted winner of an election following the 'dethroning' of unpopular leader) and remained in power for a (genuinely!) full further term. Yes, they then imploded, but the point is the party stayed in office for ages (relatively speaking).

If the same thing applied to the current situation, if Labour were to get another 6 and a half years after this bloodletting, they'd have won office for 17 years - a pretty good record (certainly for Labour)! That would be an achievement. You cannot buck the inevitable electoral cycles.

The real absolute, that even causes electoral cycles in the first place, is that electorates are motivated by 'it's time to change' perceptions; but importantly they see a change of prime minister as being like a change of government.

The electorate perceived the handover from Thatcher to Major as an actual change of government. Thus they were not prompted into a knee-jerk 'time to change' response in 1992.

It could be said that this is why the transition to Brown needs to be perceived as a change of government for Labour to stay in power. 'More of the same' leads to the old knee-jerk 'time for a change' response in the electorate. Gordon has to be genuinely different, I would say.

RE: stories about Gordon.
What is that quote... "Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad"??
Personally, I am more worried about Tony's state of mind than Gordon's!
After all, someone who goes round the world thinking he has the right to tell every other leader what to do and has such delusions of grandeur is a more worrying prospect for our country!

What the above comments illustrate more than anything is the dominance of the media in brainwasing the public.

It is now taken as a given that Gordon Brown has some emotional problem and is desperate for leadership....etc etc.

None of the people above with the exception of Nick have met or know anything about Gordon Brown.
They are all making assumptions based on the stories put about by his enemies (the people who think they have no chance of a place in his government if/ when he becomes PM!)

"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad"(Cyril Connolly)

Or, in this case, they try to get the public to believe they are mad.

Carol-Ann, Liverpool, UK

It is my opinion that though many people might feel that GB is an effective chancellor the idea that he would be as well suited to the role of Prime Minister and ambassador for our country is not so popular, a dour ruffled looking chancellor is nothing new but put him in peace talks in the middle east and that might just raise a few eyebrows!! There is an increasing tendancy to vote for the PM rather than the party, and GB does not carry himself, in my opinion, in such a manner as befits a premier.

Tony Blair wooed many voters back in '97 with a clean-cut (at the time) image and a fantastically well orchestrated scandal based campaign against the tory party. Constructed and layed out by some of the best spin-docters in the business. the idea that GB with his Brownite gang will carry the kind of voter who was swayed to New Labour and has stayed with Blair seems to me to be utterly ridiculous! The Labour spin-doctors are Blairite, and Labour would do well to remember that!!!
Brown appears as a return to the old.

I'm particularly interested in this latest bit of intrigue because it's made me realise that no-one really knows what's going on (I thought it was just me that never understood why Gordon Brown was inevitably going to succeed Tony Blair). I'm a Conservative by inclination - I think their policies are generally fairer - but I like Tony Blair because he has charisma, lots of it. Gordon Brown has none. I really can't see him representing this country on the world stage amongst the polished and urbane. Just that breathing through the mouth thing he does is enough to distract my attention from anything he may have to say.

David Cameron is the most charismatic leader the Tories have had in years, but he'd struggle to beat Tony Blair. He wouldn't need to lift a finger to beat Gordon Brown. I think everything will work out fine. If Brown gets in, we'll have Cameron in 3 years - we can't lose.

So Patricia Hewitt thinks the public should have a say in the next leader. I agree- but we have a process already for this called a General Election. Bring it on I say.

I always find it quite amusing to read the criticism of the New Labour movement for being a contiuation of 'Thaterite policies' or 'too right wing' the same as them etc...

Has no one else noticed that until this route was taken your party was in opposition. If your party choses this route when Blair does step down that is where it will return. If your party re- aligns itself with policies generally considered to be socialist it won't win an election. Its just not popular not enough people believe in that idealogy and that is something that must be accepted.

'Britain is a conservative country that occasionally votes Labour,' some one quite famous said that I recall

One gets tired of hearing about a matter which goes on, for now, above the heads of the voters as though they will have no say in it. They might have to lump the anointed successor for a time but they don't have to like him. If voters see a Party with someone unwanted in charge....Gordon had better be good! Wasn't there an Aesop's fable covering such a situation?
If it is so that there was an initial pact between Brown and Blair, shame on them. It wasn't then, and is not now, for them to decide. Whilst all these political manoeuvres are going on occupying the tea room gossips (i.e. our elected representatives) God knows what is or isn't happening to the governing of the country.

I think that following on from his speech today, now would be the ideal time for him to resign. It would give his successor time to put their own mark upon labour and make it a real election in 2008. This would make for much more interesting politics and more interesting debates in the House of Commons.

I followed the 'week of madness'as reported in the news carefully and nowhere could I detect the hand of Gordon. I think it is a mistake to assume that Gordon Brown is the only member of the labour party longing for Tony Blair to step down. Of course, it suits Gordon's enemies to make out that he was one of the plotters, but I think GB is too intelligent and far sighted not to have foreseen that such a plot would do him and his party more harm than good. Gordon may be flawed, but he is not stupid and his behaviour to date has shown that he would never do anything to harm the labour party that he loves.