Brown is clearly at severe risk and when even some of the unions are baying for blood (or at least a Major style “Put up or shut up” confrontation). This is hardly surprising, but what has taken me aback is the pathos extracted from his weary, bloated face.

It is essential that we remind ourselves that this is the man who demanded the state be able to imprison the innocent for six weeks, who allied himself and bribed far-right foul bigots to ensure that the act was past, who demanded cannabis be declassified despite this directly disregarding the conclusions of a panel of experts reporting on the issue, who taxed the poor to give minuscule breaks to the moderately affluent, who now plans benefits reforms reminiscent of prison workforces and who has performed a plethora of other idiotic moves in his short reign.

Brown’s beleaguered state is richly deserved. His “Phantom Election” is much touted as his grandest folly but had the economy which he had been charged with for over a decade as Chancellor been kept in a better state the likelihood of the crash being as severe as the one we have actually experienced is small. Without the economic downturn Brown would be in a far better, perhaps even unassailable, position. Without his constant stream of policy that irks his natural base he would have held far stronger against the Tories than he has.

Brown has served as his own gravedigger.

But as for the alternatives? Cameron speaks sense in places but is about as worthy of trust with power as a ferret with a rabbit den. So far as can be determined none save the Blairites (Clarke & Co) are willing to step into the actual position of Prime Minister (and given the conditions surrounding that chalice can they be blamed?) At least one other writer for this blog agrees with me over backing Miliband to the hilt, but he has proven (understandably) wary of the prospect. It would take a politician of nothing short of Messianic proportions to redeem the Labour Party now.

But there can be only so much waiting: at the present rate of erosion it seems likely that there will be precious little Labour Party left to inherit for whoever takes over after Brown. If it were to be done then it would be better that it were done quickly. Each day which the present order remains in place appears to be another step by the Labour Party towards oblivion.

Victory for the SNP and the likelihood of a Labour victory (or even hung parliament) at the next election diminish into almost nothing. Glasgow East is in no way typical of any other area of Britain but after this calamity Labour morale has surely declined to the level where no Summer boost can save them. As this article points out a failure of this scale on a national level would leave both the Chancellor and Prime Minister unseated.

The SNP have seen their power solidified and their claim to Scotland strengthened. This suits the Conservatives immensely in terms of electoral success, but they are far from the party best equipped to deal with the long-term fallout, that is to say the constitutional crisis that Scottish attempted departure would trigger.

I would love to draw the conclusion from this that there is room in Britain for a left-wing party to replace Labour, but drawing any such evidence from Scotland is highly unwise.

So then, a result which leaves the political landscape somewhat more certain but yet more distinct from the norm.

After a run-up that fell rather short of the hype a result which is less than stunning. David gets over 17,000, the Greens almost 2,000 and…What, exactly?

I wanted to write something on this matter but find myself with absolutely nothing to say. A remarkably uninspiring result.

The Tories have (predictably) won in Henley, increasing their share of the vote.  Labour lost their deposit.

I am going to be controversial here, but here goes: it was a brilliant result.  Labour is in disarray, and they deserved the beating they suffered, albeit in very un-Labour territory.  The LibDems should stand to benefit from a seat in which they poll second, and where the predecessor ran away mid-term to get a better job.  But their campaign was disgusting (genuinely, not just reflecting the usual Tory complaints about LibDem tactics…) and should be seen as the real cause for their failure to make ground.

The party has a few good ideas, and is clearly preferable to the Tories, but I cannot say that I would vote for a campaign that behaved in the way the LibDems did.  It is a shame that they have so utterly failed to grow up and debate, not slander.  I sincerely the party learns from this, and Crewe, to play positive politics in the future.  They might actually gain votes that way!

Yesterday, I wrote that Labour would duck the issue of 42 Days, either by not standing in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, or running on a full slate if they did.

Kelvin MacKenzie might stop that. In preparing to stand if Labour don’t, he’s forced a choice on them. They might not stand - in which case he will. That’ll humiliate them by demonstrating their cowardice, and it’ll force an argument on 42 Days anyway. MacKenzie says he’d stand solely on 42 Days and authoritarian platform - so there will be a debate, and Labour won’t be able to stop it.

The alternative is that Labour stand - and get forced into an argument on 42 Days, and get hammered. So, that’s the choice of humiliation or even more humiliation for Labour. Or, as it’s otherwise known: not a real choice at all.

Indeed, so potentially damaging is this to Labour’s preferred strategy of hiding in the Commons toilet and lobbing shit (”irresponsible,” etc) at Davis that it’s hard to see why MacKenzie’s doing this. Murdoch and his minion MacKenzie are well known for their shared penchant for an authoritarian approach to everything. And yet their plan could well lead to humiliation for the government.

Perhaps MacKenzie wants to force Labour to stand a candidate and have an argument he thinks should happen. Perhaps he thinks he can make that argument better than Labour himself, and can win. He’d be wrong if that were the case. All his threat to stand has done is strengthen the opposition. He and Murdoch, like much of the media, are apparently at odds with much of the public over Davis resignation: just read some of the comments even appearing on the Sun’s website.

And MacKenzie’s candidature might forge together a coalition for Davis that Labour wouldn’t. Most lefties and liberals loathe both Davis and MacKenzie in general. But when one agrees with you for once, and the other doesn’t, then the choice is clear - support the candidate running on 42 Days, and make it clear the race is about 42 Days and nothing else. He’s hated more, and has positioned himself on the opposite side of the barricades. So you shout at him, regardless of who else joins you. Observe this, for example:

Yes, yes, Davis is a distinctly unreliable “libertarian” with some nasty socially conservative stances, but who can resist the idea of kicking Rupert Murdoch in the nuts? For myself, I’m glad I don’t live close enough to face this particular dilemma. MacKenzie’s decision is partly conditional on Labour not standing, it seems, but my feeling is that momentum - and strong-arming from his boss - will carry him into standing whether Labour field a candidate or not (and, increasingly as the hours tick by, it looks like not). Here’s his positive manifesto for a bright future:

MacKenzie may just have added a few LibDems, Greens (?), independents and maybe even discontented Labour activists to the campaign buses.

So - the public appear touched by Davis’ apparent statement of princple, and there may even be a unified campaign for him. Regardless of the propaganda Murdoch churns out for MacKenzie, he’ll find it hard to win.

But on the off chance he does, will the last person to leave Haltemprice and Howden please turn out the lights?

There is also the matter of Nick Clegg’s reaction. Ali suggested that this was simply another example of his inadequacy, another botched response to bad circumstance. However I consider Davis not to be the only one who comes out favourably from a comparison with Jacqui Smith, consider this:

David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

where she seemingly fails to even acknowledge the possibility of acting out of principle to this:

I think it is right from time to time to signal as a party leader that we are capable of setting aside the pursuit of narrow party-political advantage in the name of that wider principle.

where Clegg realises that this is what has occurred and follows suit. I was expecting the standard opportunism from the Liberal Democrats over this matter, as they delight in by-elections, but instead I witness a non-partisan response that will let the debate Davis requested be carried out with total clarity. The Liberal Democrats were unlikely to win anyway and the minor chance of acquiring another MP {much as they deserve one, having been entirely unfairly disadvantaged by First Past The Post} would not have outweighed the damage done to the public interest by the distraction of the Liberal Democrat candidate.

…It’ll definitely fail in Henley!

The reaction within the PLP to the loss in Crewe and Nantwich puzzles me. On the one hand, there have been few overt calls for Brown to go from those who really matter. Discontented backbenchers, yes, but there’s been no concerted move to remove (hah…) Brown in the 30 hours since the by-election. The most high-profile statements - from Margaret Beckett and Ai Desai - call for Brown to improve, rather than attack him outright. There has, in short, been no Geoffery Howe type ready to stand up and savage Brown with a parliamentary sheep.

On the other hand, the anonymous briefings against Brown have been hostile at best. This, from the Tool, is typical:

A senior minister said: “I’m not sure that Gordon can change. I think [his exit] is a decision that we’re all going to have to sit and think about very seriously over the next few weeks.”

Hardly a vote of confidence, is it? The contrast between the nameless mutterings scattered throughout the papers and the official cabinet line could hardly be more stark.

Interestingly, the Times article contains a hint of a challenge from a less expected area:

One source revealed that Stephen Carter, the Prime Minister’s right-hand man, appeared weakened by the episode. He “read the Riot Act” a fortnight ago against those using class-war tactics but was overruled by “elected politicians” around Mr Brown.

The discontent is there, and could be a problem for Brown. He wanted Carter to change his image. What would it say about Brown’s image if Carter walked out because he couldn’t do it?

Perhaps Brown opponents seek to undermine his remaining support in the PLP by splattering shady quotes all over the Saturday papers. They don’t have enough support in the party now, but if they pushed a little harder, they might gain it - and oust Brown.

They’d be mistaken to do so. As disastrous as Brown seems for Labour, getting rid of him could well be worse for them. With two PMs chosen outside of an election, the government would be on very shaky ground if it didn’t call a General Election soon afterwards. And, given current form, they’d probably lose quite badly, Brown or otherwise.

Of course, that might not be their intention at all. It’s still early, probably too much so to draw as much from the by-election as the media has tried to. But we’ll see…

Briefly: Labour’s thrashing in Crewe and Natnwich was to be expected. The combination of their atrocious campaign and national blunders (Ahem. 10p tax.) killed them. When you’ve parachuted in a candidate of questionable political competence on the basis of her name, to run a campaign fusing (poor) personal invective with virtually fascistic views on young people and immigration, following a series of policy changes that have hit people nationwide painfully (Ahem. 10p tax.), you really must be hoping for a sick electorate to support you.

The people of Crewe and Nantwich seem healthy in that regard.

The Lib Dems stood a chance of gaining here. Crewe and Nantwich simply isn’t a Tory area, at all, and the LDs are fairly skilled at picking those up. But they almost suffered the same problems as Labour. The national party isn’t in so dire a situation as Labour is - but it’s hardly coming off well. Since the Lisbon Treaty debates at the least, Clegg has looked weak and inconsistent. People don’t know what the LDs really think (do they really think?). The local campaign was scarcely better than Labour’s. It ran class war leaflets too, and substituted vile policies with a silence on policies. Add to that the squeeze of such a high-profile contest, and they got squashed. They needed to shout even louder than usual - so they whispered.

So, voters had no positive option in Labour, and no positive alternative in the Lib Dems. And the constituency went Tory.

Labour is sliding towards electoral apocalypse fast. If they learn from this defeat - not to target the needy they exist to help, and not to run hypocritical, shallow campaigns - it might be stopped.

If not - 4 years of Tory government loom, possibly more. Although I increasingly question how much worse that would be, given Labour’s current state. It’s bloody painful as it is…

Political Bettinghas reminded me of the infamous October interview with Andrew Marr.  Calling off the election that he had never called was an unbelievably stupid move from Gordon Brown - probably his most stupid move to date.  Indeed, during the interview, he talks over Marr as he asks “You don’t think you’ve lost your moment?”

Challenged over the brilliantly successful Tory party conference weekend, Brown tries to discredit the Tory tax announcements:

Let me just say, we will win an election because when you come to dissect these Conservative policies - i-if you throw £5bn at a problem, you know, 2p on income tax, on a problem, and do not show how you are going to fund it, then for a short moment you can persuade people that you’ve got a policy.  But when it comes to the forensic job of dissecting that policy, it will be found that the Conservative policy not only doesn’t add up, but it leads to economic disarray.

A mere eight months later, Brown is willing to get Britain £2.7bn further into debt in order to bribe the electorate of Crewe.  “For a short moment you can persuade people that you’ve got a policy… economic disarray” - indeed so, Prime Minister.  I would laugh, but it’s just not funny. Watch from 2mins 10secs.