If there is anything that can bring Gordon Brown a shred of comfort, it is that almost no one in the Labour party is now speculating about his future. There is no shortage of plotting in the bars, tearooms, corridors and urinals of the House of Commons. But what happens to the Prime Minister himself is a subject of negligible interest. He is universally expected to lose the next election and then be gone. Labour MPs are focused on a far more sombre matter: the coming battle not just for the party’s soul, but its very survival.
This is the key to understanding a run of political stories that might otherwise be baffling. Why is Lord Mandelson so brazenly insistent on privatising the Post Office but nationalising banks? Why is Harriet Harman talking about changing the law to claw back a banker’s pension that was approved by other ministers? Why, indeed, is Harriet Harman talking — and why do we listen? Why is Ed Balls making pronouncements on the economy at a Labour Yorkshire conference? It only makes sense when seen through the prism of the Labour leadership battle. Almost the entire Cabinet is on manoeuvres.
To play Labour’s game of mental chess, one must first imagine what the party’s post-electoral chess board might look like. Almost half of today’s players will probably have been swept away. The opinion polls suggest that Alistair Darling, Jacqui Smith, John Hutton, Jim Murphy and at least 125 other Labour MPs will be gone, and with them a large part of the moderate, Blairite wing of the party. The surviving Labour party will look and sound much closer to Kinnock’s tribe than to Blair’s movement. Trade unions will probably be keeping Labour alive financially, and will have an incredible opportunity to remould the party.
To Lord Mandelson, this is anathema.

Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in