I couldn’t understand his motive for so publicly airing his grievances on the inner workings of the Labour Party other than to undermine Tony Blair and hasten his departure.

A few years on, there was found to be no scandal and regrettably Tony Blair has moved on and Jack Dromey is still the Labour Party Treasurer.

I am looking forward to seeing an appearance on the news by the Labour Party Treasurer telling us what he knew of the latest donations. Was he aware of them or not? Also was he aware of the donation received by the winner of the Deputy Leadership contest? The problem for Mr Harriet Harman is that this time he can’t credibly play the “I was kept in the dark” card.

You need to get a grip on that stutter under pressure. It makes you sound evasive and nervous. You don’t want the tabloids to start referring to you as Arkwright of Open All Hours fame.

Stop trying to tell us what we think. You have developed what you believe is a clever phrase to use as your shield (now you can no longer hide behind Tony) – “I think people will (+ verb)”. The trouble is that you have over used it and it lacks effect. Worse still people could infer the phrase as your own distress signal, like the “I’m going not to take any lessons……” line you use at PMQs when you get rattled.

The Pontrieux Report is drawn to a “Magazine” article on the BBC news website “How does a prime minister leave the job?”

For the benefit of any students foolish enough to cite this article in any coursework, I offer some corrections;

“Some PMs have dined with the Queen on their last night in office, but it is thought Mr Blair will not be doing this.”

Presumably only those who have known that it was their last night in office. Most PMs have departed as the result of a General Election, so their last night in office was probably spent in their constituency.

“From there he will be carried in the limousine for the last time to Buckingham Palace to see the Queen to resign his post and hand back the seals of office.”

No seals of office changed hands.

“He then leaves the palace in a different car, not the prime ministerial limousine.”

Well it may not the “prime ministerial limousine”, but it looked like the very same car to me.

“As soon as he has left, Mr Brown and his wife, Sarah, will be summoned to the palace to be invited by her majesty to form the next government.”

Actually only Mr Brown was invited to form a government.

“He will be presented with the seals of office.”

No he wasn’t.

“Afterwards the couple return to Downing Street in the limousine left behind by Mr Blair.

Mr Blair didn’t live a limousine behind.

Good old BBC, it’s the way they’re funded you know.

But hang on a moment didn’t Gordon mention New Labour twice in his speech? And what was that appearing on the screen after his speech, yes New Labour was back.

On reflection it became clear that giving Harriet the role of party chairman was a master stroke. He has effectively made her minister for the Today programme and  Question Time, having to defend all those things she rubbished during her campaign. I look forward to hearing her defending the Trident decision. Talk about being hoisted by your own petard! Also what one give one can take away, so if she isn’t up to the job Gordon can still move her.

1 (3) Hazel Blears. At the start of the campaign I found Hazel’s endless enthusiasm and cheery disposition a little grating. However the fact that she is able to maintain this inspite of several brickbats, especially from the Labour left who usually condemn those who patronise women, yet find it acceptable to belittle Hazel as she is a Blairite. I am impressed by the roll call of Labour MPs and cabinet Minister’s backing Hazel, including John Reid, who would have been my preferred choice for Labour Leader.

2 (2) Alan Johnson. Alan has fought a very energetic campaign, also attracting an impressive list of parliamentary supporters. A master stroke was an email sent out from MPs in surrounding consituencies, to where I vote – Dawn Primarolo, Parmjit Dhanda and Ben Bradshaw. All serious politicians who bring credit and gravitas to the party. Alan could easliy have got my number one vote, but I feel that Hazel needed it more.

3 (4) Peter Hain. Nothing against Peter but I couldn’t actually envisage him in the role. He is a very capable and eloquent minister and I feel would be better suited with a ministerial portfolio. He doesn’t inspire any great enthusiasm or dislike. A bit bland really. He gained a place for refusing to play the Iraq war hindsight card.

4 (1) Hilary Benn. So where did it all go wrong? I started out with the clear intention of voting for Hilary. Unfortunately he appears to have run a ‘can’t be arsed’ campaign. No even a single email. It doesn’t say a great deal for your promised campaigning skills  as deputy leader if you can’t seem to get your own campaign sorted. I have yet to hear from anyone who was contacted by the Benn campaign. Also from the TV debates he seems to be turning in to his father. Banging on about “Socialist values” may play well to the gallery, but we’re not playing a game of Buzzword Bingo.

5 (5) Harriet Harmen. Her big selling point was that she was the only woman in the contest. Well Hazel Blears blew that out of the water. Being a minister in Tony Blair’s government must have been a big strain for Harriet. As soon as she was unleased she took us back the the 80’s, conjuring up images on class war, nuclear free zones, and loony left councils. Her opportunism in backtracking on her support for the Iraq war was truly shocking.

6 (6) Jon Cruddas. If he is elected we are in trouble as we will have a leader and deputy with vastly differing visions of how the party and the country should run. It would be like electing Ted Heath as Thatcher’s deputy. Two aspects of the campaign to ponder. Boasting that you are the only candidate who is not a member of the government, is similar to boasting that you never get picked for the football team. It is not a compliment! Secondly, schoolchildren may be impressed that you are being supported by someone off the telly;I feel it is rather patronising.

One subject on which Gordon has been particularly reticent is his preferred choice of Deputy Leader. As a party  member I would like to know who he feels would be the best choice for the Labour Party. I personally feel that it would be a disaster if Jon Cruddas were elected (in spite of the enthusiastic support of the man off the telly). Would Gordon welcome a deputy with a contrasting vision for the party? Is he hoping that Harriet Harwoman gets the job? Plenty of MPs, Unions, CLPs and individual members (including that man off the telly) have publicly pledged their support for one of the candidates.

Why the silence Gordon? Perhaps he is afraid that we vote in someone other than his preferred candidate and that he looks a bit silly? Or perhaps he has been too busy working out which of our political opponents he wants to join his government?

For the past ten years Gordon has had ample opportunity to have run the Treasury as a model for openess, with respect for Parliament. Yet he hasn’t. His own respect for Parliament has been to appear at debates and committees and blitzkrieg with a barrage of unfathomable statistics, often irrelevant to the question asked.

Where will Gordon draw inspiration for his new found glasnost?

Before I moved to France  last year, I was chair of Thornbury and Severn Vale Labour Party. We often discussed the leadership and I can tell you while there were distinct pro and anti Blair camps, there was no great enthusiasm for Gordon Brown as leader. Some of the most vocal critics were our older members who felt that he had done little for pensioners, others felt that being Prime Minister was quantum leap from being Chancellor and being good at one didn’t necessarily mean being good at the other. My contribution (and a rare personal criticism of the Prime Minister) is that he had been too cautious with his reshuffles and had been too slow promoting newer younger talent. (And yes before his bandwagon began rolling I did cite David Miliband as an example).

It is commonly said that the reason for the sickening fawning and genuflection towards Brown is to ensure continuity of employment in their existing cabinet role. I offer an alternative hypothesis; the Labour machine have realised that the game is finally up, the British people have become bored with Labour and have no interest in what Labour has to say and that we are definitely going down at the next election. With this knowledge they feel duty bound to allow Gordon his place in the sun, if only for a few years. Despite what he may say, Brown will step down and then we can have our proper debate about the leadership and direction of the party. Not now,  but in two year’s time.  So that’s why Neil Kinnock is telling Charles Clarke to shut up.

If he wipes away the mist he may see something else – the unsmiling eyes, the rigid jaw. Yes, unfortunately Charles Clarke has got a bad case of Short’s disease.  This disease is fortunately not widely spread and usually only afflicts those who leave Government under a cloud.  Released from the responsibilities of high office, sufferers of Short’s disease are compelled to maintain their media appearances in the belief that there are thousands of us, mourning their unfathomable loss of status,  waiting to nod sagely at their words of wisdom.

If you agree with the commentators, Charles Clarke has a particulary virulent strain of Short’s disease, he has been mocked for 2020 vision, for setting out his view of how the Labour Party should proceed and for intimating that he will stand to force a leadership contest.

But has he?

The commentators haven’t explained why the only open ‘debate’ about the future of Labour is the preserve of the loony left.  Charles may be exacting revenge, but I also believe that he recognises the damage to the Labour Party of the various disciples of Rev.  Sun Myung Brown popping up telling us that there is no need for a debate, no need for a contest.

Were it to be the case that Mr Brown really is the best candidate for leader, then this is understandable. Unfortunately to those of us outside of the Westminster Village, it looks like a desperate attempt to ingratiate by those who realise that their ministerial careers are already past their sell by date.

If Charles Clarkes contribution is no more than ensuring that we avoid a ‘Coronation’, he should not be derided but applauded.