Diane Abbott offers a perspective on the Labour Conference which won’t feature in the press releases. Her description of conferences in the 1970s sound rather like my experience of the Green Conference a fortnight ago, on a larger scale. Her description of New Labour’s conferences sound exactly as I’d expect.

Find a figurehead. Every one of the increasing clutch of Labour rebels who call for a leadership election has denied they’re part of an organised plot; that won’t work. Any potential opponent to Brown within the Parliamentary Labour Party will want to know their side has a chance of winning. Why else would they risk their position within the party? If you stand and lose, you also lose any chance of reaching government again. So it’s not a decision lightly taken.

If rebels want that decision taken - and they need it - then they need to present a coherent alternative. You can’t win if you don’t stand a candidate; and you can’t win if that candidate isn’t up to much. Any leadership challenge requires signatures to request nomination papers, and then votes for a vote, and so on. (The membership are also involved somewhere, apparently; but only after a while. Internal democracy isn’t really a strong point, it’d seem.) To field even those will be seen as a challenge - and so ruin your chances with the leadership. So, rebels need to present a candidate who MPs feel actually stands a chance even before that candidate has stood. Otherwise, many MPs just won’t risk it.

Perhaps these challengers aren’t organised. But, if they want to get anywhere, they need to start - and soon.

Clarke has pressed his offensive home. He demurred from declaring himself up for being leader, which is wise seeing as he should probably be focusing on winning his own seat. I found the Brownite attack-dog fairly effective, seeing as I had never even heard of “Vision 2020″ before and it sounded rather unfortunately like the year Clarke expects Labour to get back into power.

However he seems to be doing his best to exert the very dregs of his influence (why such a loathsome reactionary should be deemed worthy of any at all is beyond me, though) and the impact may well be (as the Guardian suggests) the matter haunting Brown and forcing him into confronting it at the Party Conference in Manchester. That the aforementioned Brownite counter-attacker was even so explicitly released demonstrates the severity of the situation.

As for his actual claims, however, I would be highly surprised if Cabinet truly did turn on Brown prior to the 2010 election; but even more surprised (indeed, downright stunned) if Brown managed a reversal of fortunes at this stage. I expect that the criticism leveled by Clarke was more intended to be disruptive than constructive, but his puzzlement with the reluctance to move against Brown is something which we share. No doubt the cabinet ministers are wary of being seen as the ones to “Wield the knife”, although by the looks of things this is a role which Clarke is now filling.

I found this article highly worthy consideration. The primary gist appears to be that rather than being constrained by their opponents political leaders are instead constrained by their supporters. Although the article talks about a certain rather over-analysed Russian revolutionary it is my view that the left of the Labour Party would do well to bear this in mind while selecting who they wish to support.

I have been informed that there is an “Anyone but Miliband” camp which is establishing itself, but it is rather telling that this faction have not yet found an individual worth backing. As I have said before there is simply no name. This considered I would suggest that any and all Labour left members back the fellow who fellow who said that his new view of where the Labour Party should head was inspired by radical liberals and social democrats. In this fashion Miliband’s rise will not be seen as the return to the Blairites that many have disingenuously claimed it would be.

Charles Clarke has taken to the New Statesman in order to…Well, its not clear exactly. The content is muddled and unclear in intent. Knowing Clarke my imagining was that it might live up to the hype which The Guardian dutifully gave it. In reality it seems not to be about the future of Labour, but rather an attempt at apologism for Blairitism. He segues between arguing that we shouldn’t be blathering on about the past (Blair), blathering on about the past (Blair), pinning down precisely what he thinks the term means and pretending that he thinks the term is meaningless.

There are some snipes at Gordon Brown though, described as, in reference to Blair, “His Chancellor” and blamed for Britain not joining with the Euro. There is also a spot of self-analysis that is amusing when the context is considered:

The rise of terrorist atrocities, including London in 2005, identified Tony Blair with tough efforts to strengthen security, sometimes at a perceived cost to liberty.

“Perceived”, yes. Because house arrest does not constitute a true breach of liberty, its just that people might see it that way. I would suggest that Taking Liberties be viewed by anyone fooled even for a moment that Clarke is some form of cuddly teddly bear. The scenes with the fellow locked inside his house and restricted to an entirely arbitary section of his surroundings especially.

But if there is some actual point to the article its that we all have to stop being mean to the Blairites which ruined the party. Otherwise Labour will face oblivion. One can not help but think that perhaps Clarke’s position on his party’s future is inspired by his own position. Come the next election is seems increasingly unlikely that Clarke will be unseated by no other than a Green Party candidate. Yes, the unreconstructed leftist Greens with their plans to nationalise and set up people’s banks.

So the notion of this unrepentant rightist tossing in his hat to any forthcoming leadership race, or even triggering one, is surely one which can only be met with wry amusement. Brown’s position does seem dire but he, at least, looks set to retain his seat. I suppose in this respect, though, he is not representative of the average Labour MP, and thus Clarke may have the edge within the PLP purely on grounds of empathy.

Clarke describes the suggestion that “Labour under Blair became a party of the centre right” is “deceitful nonsense”. It seems only fitting that he, as the man who served as Blunkett’s follow-through and actually appeared to have done his (futile) best to outdo the raging reactionary adulterer that he should lose his seat to some genuine socialists. This article demonstrates exactly why he deserves what is (hopefully) coming to him.

For those of you that missed the ambiguously meaningful news Labour has evaded fiscal oblivion with the help of their backers, who have allowed them until 2015 to repay the cash.

This means that the prospect of “Labour Ltd.” is rightly banished, but by no means assures the continued existence of the party. Simply because they are wealthy enough to continue to operate by no means means that they will continue to enjoy the base which they have become dependent upon. The rumblings amongst the unions are also highly ominous, although perhaps not indicative of any actual motion in lieu of any viable alternative.

As far as I can determine the next seven years will be crucial for Labour’s continued existence in a way that perhaps even the past seven have not been. If Labour can refresh and reinvigorate themselves, then set about seizing the agenda then the shallow state the Tories remain in (despite desperate diggings towards depth) and the low profile of the Liberal Democrats will assure their continued existence. I remain of the view that with David Miliband at their head this could be achieved.

Alternatively their current dire state could be followed by all out internecine warfare and division, something which would at least give us a chance to see some Blairites getting thrashed; but would also lead to the Tories establishing themselves thoroughly in the absence of any unified opposition to their agenda. It is hard to imagine an outcome, either with Labour as challengers or the LibDems, that would come from this context yet not include the Conservative Party becoming, once again, the “Natural party of government”.

Certainly a descent from the seeming impossibility of Tory return to power that was in force a mere matter of years ago. At least Labour can focus upon popularity rather than cash, however. Whether this renewed devotion of attention allows them to regain the droves that have abandoned them remains to be seen.

I meant to post on the debate between Neal Lawson and Robert Philpot in the Guardian today; but Two Doctors says all I would do. Progress represent everything wrong with modern Labour. Doesn’t Philpot notice the corellation between Labour adopting their philosophy and votes falling away?

Compass, on the other hand, have many admirable policies:

“… we could start building council houses, mandate a living wage, create a national well being index, provide fee school meals for all primary kids, stop taxing people earning under £10,000, place a ban on advertising to children, introduce a fair voting system, drop ID cards, elect local health boards, introduce a graduate solidarity tax instead of fees and phase out our reliance on oil.”

- but can’t put them in place. The Parliamentary Labour Party is dead as a vehicle for socialism. The left-wing backbenches are virtually bereft of influence; when the government bargains with the DUP before its own MPs, they must realise that. Other, moderate MPs, meanwhile, buy fully into Progress’ baseless argument that voters will abandon Labour in droves should it dare to be nice to them (because, of course, voters aren’t abandoning Labour now.). So, they vote for the party right, and prevent any leftish challenge from reaching a contest across the party; as last year. Unless those MPs find their guts and start to make noise, Compass will need a revolution from the demoralised grassroots up to make the frontbenches.

Or, of course, they could find a new party. They wouldn’t be in government immediately - but at least those MPs they did elect could vote against measures like 42 Days, rather than cower beneath the Whips.

The Observer carried a strange piece today:

A powerful coalition of mainstream Labour MPs and leaders of Britain’s biggest unions is backing a right-left ‘dream ticket’ of Alan Johnson and Jon Cruddas to lead the party into the next general election, having given up on Gordon Brown’s premiership.

The plan to install Johnson, the centre-right Health Secretary, and Cruddas, a centre-left moderniser who came third in last year’s deputy leadership contest, is gaining support as the way to thwart the ambitions of David Miliband, the arch-Blairite Foreign Secretary.

The depth of union dismay at Brown and the New Labour agenda is revealed today in outspoken comments from Tony Woodley, the joint leader of Britain’s biggest union, Unite, which will have a crucial role in any leadership contest.

Those MPs who back the partnership miss something rather crucial; it’s the policies, not the people, which make a difference here. Union activists and discontent left-wing voters don’t necessarily care who leads Labour and whether they make a particularly attractive marriage of party factions. They care what those candidates actually want to do, and whether they’ll enact union policies. The left didn’t abandon Blair in disgust because of who he was - they abandoned him because he consistently failed to cater to their demands.

That may seem an obvious point to make; but it needs made. The article doesn’t explicitly mention a change in policy, merely a potential leadership duo. Perhaps it’s implied, as Cruddas is, in their words, “centre left,” and so different to New Labour. But even if that’s the case, this surely won’t bring every - or possibly not even most - anguished shop steward or voter on side. Johnson (there really, really need to be less people in politics with that name, by the way; BoJo, Darren Johnson, Alan Johnson…) remains fully signed up to Brown’s policy agenda for the moment; and so we can presume that, for every ounce of social democracy Cruddas brings, Johnson will bring a policy to please the party right. An unhappy compromise then, and possibly one that could jeopordise the duo’s unity before long. Hardly the dream ticket the Observer claims.

(Hat-tip, as I read some blogs before the paper today: Stroppyblog)

Labour need more campaigns like this. It takes a good policy, uses it to show a clear difference between the parties, and does so in a simple, quick fashion. If they can manage that for the next two years, without any movement from the Tories or an internal earthquake, they might just survive next election.

Assuming they can persuade the electorate that the party that introduced the minimum wage in 1998 didn’t double income tax on those who benefitted in 2008, that is.

(Hat-tip: New Direction)

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Tuesday, I blearily opened the Guardian to find a comment piece by Miliband (D). I mostly ignored it; the first few lines looked to be mildly vacuous, the rest Mandelsonian Kremlinology in full-flow. Enough to spoil my tea, at any rate.

Somewhere on the Cornish coast this Wednesday, I glanced at the Guardian’s cover. And found minister after minister (and Bob Marshall-Andrews) calling for Miliband’s political testicles on a platter. All over that rather dull article? Imagine my confusion.

Milipede’s statement wasn’t news. He wants to attack the Tories - duh. He wants to talk up the government - duh. He wants to find a new direction - as he did several months ago. Where’s the attack in that? As James points out, Miliband makes more of a case for an offensive against Cameron rather than Brown. A classic storm in a teacup, were such a cliche physically possible.

And yet the storm came. We can assume much from that: the Brownites at least are jittery enough to turn an non-challenge into a challenge, and the newspapers haven’t found much else to savage. Balls&co. saw the article, and instantly assumed Miliband wanted to depose Brown, immediately. Given the politically neutered tone of the article - with all the punch of an undergraduate essay - that says something about the power of their collective imagination. They’re terrified a coup is on the way, and will brief furiously at the first sign of a possible challenge, however marginal it seems.

Miliband’s reaction provides a little more interest. He didn’t make a challenge, but the Brownites presented him with all he needed by briefing that one was imminent; and yet he held back. What does that say? He might be worried that he’ll follow in Heseltine’s footsteps, wielding the knife, but never holding power. He might simply suffer from extreme political cowardice - wasn’t a challenge due last year? And, of course, he might have no ambitions for leadership (hah)…

So - the Brownites are scared of a man who seems unable to justify that fear in the height of the media’s silly season. It’s as simple as that. Isn’t it?