Yesterday, FatBoy Clarke wrote an article for the UK soft-left political weekly, The New Statesman.

New Satesman - FatBoy Clarke - Time to end "Just William" Politics.

The article is more a defence of the Blairite politics of opportunism, dressed up in a sort of babbling apparatchik-speak that suggest all are to blame for the current woes, except the author. however, the bit that the UK media have seized upon is the closing apragraph.

Blairism as a concept offers little by way of rescue. It is certainly not a guide to action. Equally, however, it is inaccurate and misleading to dismiss as some kind of Blairite rump those who fear that Labour's current course will lead to utter destruction at the next general election.

Similarly, there is no Blairite plot, despite rumours and persistent newspaper reports. There is, however, a deep and widely shared concern - which does not derive from ideology - that Labour is destined to disaster if we go on as we are, combined with a determination that we will not permit that to happen.

As this is somewhat divorced from the thrust of the article, I presume it's just a clever way to get a little publicity for what is, in all other senses, a lightweight self-justification from a pompous and largely discredited politician. He is, after all, known to have hated Gordon Brown from almost the dawn of time. So it is only natural that he seeks to suggest Brown has laid waste to all the good work Blair (and he) did.

However, there is a response in the Guardian today from Neal Lawson, who heads up  Compass, which is slightly more left wing grouping of MPs who are trying for a more liberal left social democratic politics than we're currently getting.

Guardian - Neal Lawson - To change direction, Labour must first decide where it's going

At least Charles has the benefit of having always been sceptical about the leadership qualities of Gordon Brown and he is right to state that we are heading for disaster. But that is as good as it gets from Charles because he goes on to say we need to change but offers few policy clues about what that change means.

Worse than that he seems to disown ideology as the basis of change. And so we end up with a debate basically about personalities while the underlying politics of the party remain as they were - essentially Blairite. We need to remember that Tony Blair was removed from office because his politics were failing. Brown flourished briefly in the summer of 2007 when he first took over precisely because he looked like a change of direction from Blairism. When he started to adopt some of the worse policies and tactics of New Labour he plummeted in the polls. If we are to change direction we need to know where to, why and how. That requires a clear set of values and an organising framework to enact them - an ideology, if you like.

Sadly the article doesn't really discuss much beyond that observation, valuable though that is in itself. He admits there isn't a credible candidate worth supporting to replace Brown, but believes that only a more radical change in policy direction than Clarke could support will be needed to avert the disaster all now expect.
All of which means that Labour is doomed when it goes to the polls and the wilderness years could be long and bloody while the party re-discovers a purpose beyond the mere messianic politics of personality.

keep to the Fen Causeway