BRITAIN: The two most important members of the British government are locked in battle to possess the Labour Party, writes Frank Millar
You might think Gordon Brown would have got the point by now: "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." A senior Irish diplomat was fond of quoting those lines during difficult negotiations with the British government in the early stages of the Northern Ireland peace process. And they come to mind now following the latest compelling evidence of the "dysfunctional" relationship between the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and Prime Minister, Tony Blair. For this is a relationship clearly every bit as open to misunderstanding, obfuscation and evasion - if not downright treachery and betrayal.
Nor should casual observers find any reason in yesterday's headlined peace overtures to doubt that the two most important members of the British government are locked in battle to possess the ruling Labour Party.
Mr Brown was certainly to be found rowing back. And how could it be otherwise? It is a truism in politics that he who wields the dagger can never hope to inherit the crown. Less than three months before the expected general election campaign Mr Blair, too, could only think to pull back from a path of mutual destruction following the latest account of Mr Brown's sense of betrayal at Mr Blair's decision to "renege" on an apparent promise to stand down in his favour last autumn.
Following the Sunday Telegraph's serialisation of respected City editor Robert Peston's new book Brown's Britain, the chancellor summoned the cameras to declare he would "not comment on gossip, rumours or innuendoes in books". Sounding statesman-like, Mr Brown maintained: "We should not be distracted or diverted from the central set of issues facing the nation. It is very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government. That is the only motivation I have. That is my purpose in politics." In the early days of New Labour "spin" - back when Mr Blair could venture on television that people thought him "a pretty straight sort of guy" - this might have been enough to kill the story. But no more. People have become skilled in detecting what insiders call the "non-denial denial". And there was no denial here that Mr Peston's detailed account was provided by the chancellor's allies, or of the book's assertion that Mr Blair's "duplicity" had caused the relationship between the two men to degenerate into one based on "mutual animosity and contempt". Nor have "friends" since denied that the chancellor concluded their discussions about his possible succession by telling Mr Blair: "There is nothing that you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."
A week ago it might have seemed simply grotesque that Blair and Brown were locked in a battle of the vanities - each vying with the other to show the greatest compassion for the victims of the Asian tsunami and greater vision still for countering the tragedy in Africa that is a daily occurrence.
However, the battle of the simultaneous press conferences was never to be satisfactorily explained by Mr Blair's failure to cut-short his Christmas holiday and consequent need to catch-up in attending to a disaster which has so far left some 453 Britons feared dead and 871 British holidaymakers still unaccounted for. Aides certainly did nothing to dispel the sense of an exercise in prime ministerial power as Mr Blair brought forward his monthly face-to-face with the press to coincide with the unveiling of Mr Brown's "Marshall Plan" for Africa at a prearranged event in Scotland. The prime minister then conspicuously declined to confirm that Mr Brown would remain at the Treasury after the election - so fuelling rumours that he intends to force Mr Brown to the Foreign Office or the backbenches. And even yesterday - ahead of today's planned launch of a poster campaign featuring Blair, Brown, John Prescott and Alan Milburn - one Blair ally explained Brownite collaboration in Mr Peston's highly damaging book by saying simply: "It's a constant process." The charge of treachery is two-way in Downing Street.
Claims that Mr Brown stood aside in the battle to succeed John Smith in return for a Blair promise to hand over the keys to Number 10 during a second Labour term always seemed to reflect badly on Mr Brown's judgment. However, friends of the chancellor insist this time he had pinned-down the detail, and that the sense of betrayal is greater because it was Mr Brown who persuaded Mr Blair not to "pre-announce" his intention to resign last spring.
Wherever the truth lies, there is no deal now. But there is danger for Labour. Mr Blair was allegedly minded to go because he had lost the trust of the British people over the war in Iraq. However, this account of the breakdown in his relationship with his Chancellor risks bringing the question of trust right into the cabinet room.