ON THE EVE of the local elections last month, the New Statesman finished off Charles Clarke. Our political editor, Martin Bright, was tipped off that one of the many hundreds of foreigners who had slipped through the net instead of being deported was, in fact, a terrorist suspect. Tony Blair might in any case have got rid of his Home Secretary, but this latest revelation, we were told by Downing Street, finally tipped the balance. We patted ourselves on the back at the scoop. But then the phones started to ring. A number of people Martin and I knew and respected in the criminal justice world berated us for helping to dislodge a man they believed to be one of the most enlightened home secretaries for many years.

After nearly two months of virtual silence, Mr Clarke is biting back, with a devastating critique of his successor, John Reid. It can be summarised thus: an attack dog (to use Jeremy Paxman’s delicious phrase) who salivates at the thought of appeasing the tabloids, who will stop at nothing for a “hang ’em, flog ’em” headline. Megan’s Law? No problem, whatever the vigilantes might get up to. More prisons? Pile ’em high. Human Rights Act? Pernicious foreign import. Capital punishment? Now that’s worth a thought.

I insert the last item in jest (or at least I think it is, given that Mr Reid is said to be considering chemical castrations) to emphasise a caricature that does a disservice to Mr Reid, a man who, for his faults, at least is intelligent.

And yet Mr Reid’s desperation to do anything that looks tough on law and order stems only in part from new Labour’s perennial fear of the press. It arises from a deep-seated disdain for what some, although by no means all, ministers see as a recalcitrant liberal establishment, personified by the judiciary. This is compounded by a frustration at seeing successive criminal justice Acts and other measures achieving, at best, modest gains in tackling crime. Some of that annoyance is justified. Watching the Prime Minister grilled by a Newsnight audience a few months ago over the ineffectiveness of ASBOs made me almost feel for him. What, he asked, was the local community doing about the problem, beyond complaining?

Mr Clarke was trying to do something different at the Home Office, notoriously the most difficult of Whitehall departments. He briefed from the outset that he would not be following the headline-grabbing agenda of his predecessor, David Blunkett. He would take each policy on its merits. He made a point of not undermining the legal process. One of his first public statements in the job was to declare his discomfort with the high number of people in British jails, particularly women. (That we have one of the highest per capita incarceration rates in the developed world seems lost on the bellicose “prison works” lobby). It was, therefore, little surprise that very soon Mr Clarke was in trouble with No 10. He particularly riled Mr Blair by questioning his pet project of “respect”, suggesting that the package of measures did not add up to anything coherent.

On anti-terrorism Mr Clarke understood the flaws both in the principle and the practice of detention without trial. In spite of that, he decided he had no political choice but to fall into line with the authoritarian option. Still, when it came to drumming up emergency measures on the back of an envelope soon after the events of 7/7, Mr Blair made only a perfunctory call to Mr Clarke, who was on holiday sailing off Cape Cod. Other senior figures, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were also said to be unaware of the plans.

High-ranking individuals in intelligence and the police lament Mr Clarke’s political passing, and fear for the future under Mr Reid. These are not woolly liberals, far from it. But just as in the run-up to the Iraq war military chiefs were shocked by the shallowness of the preparations, so now at the highest level in the criminal justice system there is dismay at a lack of strategic thinking in the Cabinet.

Mr Clarke is no angel. He can be abrasive. He has made a number of mistakes, not least the elementary political one of declaring a policy is out of control but then going on to say that the person in charge of that policy is best placed to deal with it.

It is his suggestion of a failure of leadership that is so damaging. It brings to the fore what an increasing majority in the Labour party and country are saying — that for as long as Mr Blair hangs on, determined but directionless, the decline will continue. With each week that Gordon Brown is kept waiting, the only beneficiaries are David Cameron and the Tories.

Those who believe Mr Clarke might be a credible leadership contender are deluding themselves. But his return to active politics is important. His dramatic intervention pinpoints a deeper malaise in this Government, one that goes beyond personality. It is about courage in politics. It is about taking decisions that, while unpopular, are at least thought through. That is why Mr Brown’s pre-emptive decision on Trident last week was so depressing. It is not whether it is right or wrong — and I have seen virtually no evidence to show that the defence of the realm requires us to update our American- directed deterrent — but because it was based in the tired old notions of laying to rest past demons and/or making impending lunches with certain newspaper editors less difficult.

Mr Clarke’s characteristically pugnacious interventions are a cry for help for the Labour Government. Are any of his former colleagues listening? And if they are, are they still able to act on his advice?

John Kampfner is Editor of the New Statesman

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden