But Mr Brown failed to follow his decree issued when Chancellor and premier-apparent: “Best when we are boldest, best when we are united, best when we are Labour.”

He failed to rise to the challenge to be bold and to address the disparity between City fat cats and poorly-paid public sector workers whose real income is being driven down by inflation.

Inflation driven by property price rises fuelled by the obscene bonuses dished out to those who push money around the globe while the public sector workers, who cannot afford their own homes and have little access to council housing, strive to keep the arteries of civilisation alive in this country.

Delegates to the TUC conference did not expect Mr Brown to present some kind of Damascene conversion and suddenly announce that the state would stop stealing the wages of public sector workers by insisting on below-inflation wage increases. However, they did expect, amid the patronising praise for all their efforts, at least some signal of acknowledgement that an injustice exists in the distribution of income and wealth in Britain.

Instead we heard much of the rhetoric passed down from Margaret Thatcher through Tony Blair. “No easy options” is a take on Mr  Blair’s “tough decisions” and it means the same: taking on the unions.

When Mr Brown talked about “pay discipline” being “essential to prevent inflation, maintain growth and create jobs” he was telling nurses, teachers, civil servants, local government workers, transport workers, prison officers, postal workers and their families and children that they must take a pay cut in the nation’s interest while the City has no restraints on excessive bonuses, off-shore tax deals and equity takeovers which force people out of work.

When he emphasised his theme – many heard it as a lecture –  that “it is necessary to keep inflation under control” he paid not even a nod to the fact that behind this mantra the rich are getting richer and the lower paid are getting an ever smaller slice of the cake.
The Prime Minister had a chance to be bold and he did not take it. He did little to unite the labour movement either. In spite of an unprecedented turnout of ministers to woo the brothers and sisters to the Brown cause, there were precious few signs that Mr Brown is willing to bend on the bottom line of his proposals to reform the Labour Party decision-making process.

That he is genuine in wishing to break the stalemate between the party and the party in Government, and to bring the party into the decision-making process in Government, is not seriously denied by anybody closely involved in the discussions that now look like running up to the wire of Labour’s conference in Bournemouth.

That he cannot see the imperative of  conference having a final say over policy is disuniting and a  fundamental mistake. Mr Brown’s aides talk gloomily about the party and the Government heading for a “car crash” on the issue, which is hardly uniting.

The unions, who will decide the issue at the end of the day, have shown themselves to be more than willing to compromise, but Mr Brown must find some way of allowing conference to retain sovereignty, even if that is a vote on an issue after it has been through the proposed consultation process. And that should not simply be a single vote on an all-policy encompassing document but on single issues.

As for labour, Mr Brown’s lost opportunity meant the failure to deliver on any of the main demands from union leaders. The vote in favour of a referendum on the European Union reform treaty was a broader symbolic gesture.

The jury is now out on Mr Brown’s premiership. And that, sadly, is the way it is likely to stay.

From Tribune, 14 September 2007

To subscribe to Tribune at the special rate of £64 per year or £33 for six months, visit our website, or call 01635 879 385

www.tribunemagazine.co.uk