Tony and Gordon are working closely together again. The disappearance, at least temporarily, of tensions between the Blair and the Brown camps shows how Iraq has begun to affect politics in unpredictable ways as the prewar phase ends.

Westminster was already unusually quiet yesterday. Protesters were shouting outside in Parliament Square, but, inside, there was a sense of anti-climax after recent dramas. MPs have had their say and Tony Blair has won the backing of more than three fifths of the Commons for military action, more than most predicted a week ago. So the focus has shifted to Iraq. The Labour rebels and resigners will disappear from the headlines.

Many, though not all, ministers believe, or rather hope, that the Iraq revolts have been exceptional events which should not have wider or lasting implications. The optimists point to the absence of rancour among most dissenting MPs and the general hostility to anti-Blair moves by some on the hard Left. Moreover, opposition will decline as fighting starts and the public rallies round British troops, and there are already signs of this in some opinion polls. And if the war is brief, civilian casualties less than feared and the impact on the Middle East is favourable, then Mr Blair will be vindicated, and strengthened, and his critics will be silenced. A lot of ifs.

In contrast, many left-wing Labour MPs argue that any truce at Westminster during the war will be deceptive since there has been a lasting breakdown of trust. Iraq has brought to a head growing discontent with Mr Blair and new Labour among many MPs, unions and party activists. Many have never really liked Mr Blair, seeing him as an outsider with no real Labour roots. For them, Iraq epitomises their doubts about him and his strategy. Mr Blair has used up much of his political capital with his party, even if the outcome in Iraq is seen as favourable.

Worryingly for the Labour leadership, revolt can become habit-forming. Philip Cowley, of Nottingham University, a specialist in rebellions, estimates that 177 Labour MPs have now rebelled since the last general election, including 17 who opposed the Government for the first time on Tuesday. And, once having crossed this line, MPs find it much easier to be repeat offenders.

Moreover, as Mr Cowley argues, the bar has been raised on future revolts: a rebellion by 40 or 50 would look pretty feeble. This will be tested within two or three weeks when the Commons starts debating the Bill to set up foundation hospitals, strongly opposed by many Labour MPs who have rebelled over Iraq.

These contrasting analyses of the significance of the revolts are matched by two distinct views of what Mr Blair should do after the war: between the “bold” and “reconnect” camps. This is reminiscent of the debate between radicals and consolidators within the Thatcher Government after the Westland affair and other wobbles in the first half of 1986. Margaret Thatcher naturally backed the radical view, as she did in advancing her domestic agenda after the Falklands conflict. The “bold” view of eager Blairites now is that, postwar, Mr Blair should use his enhanced authority to reshape his Cabinet and press on energetically with public services reform and with a euro referendum next year.

By contrast, there was much talk yesterday among MPs of the need for “reconnection”. The word has been used particularly by Peter Hain, the rising star of the loyalist Left in the Cabinet, as a code both for listening more to MPs and activists and for a commitment to more redistributive policies to reduce the gap between rich and poor.

Mr Blair’s advisers accept the tactical need for “reconnection” to reassure the Labour Party, but do not believe this conflicts with a “boldness” strategy. On this view, the Blair Government is already pursuing a “progressive” social democrat agenda. This is shown by yesterday’s above-inflation rise in the national minimum wage, as well as by measures to relieve poverty and big increases in public spending and, from next month, taxation. What many MPs and the unions dislike is the accompanying reforms that challenge state monopoly provision. But, as the Blairites rightly argue, a consumerist/pro-choice drive is essential both to reform and to making services more responsive to the public.

In the past few months, there has been a good deal of public tension within the Cabinet over precisely these reforms. That is why the rapprochement between the Blair and Brown camps is seen as the one undoubted good thing to emerge recently, ending silly leadership speculation.

Mr Brown kept well out of the public eye during both the Kosovo and Afghanistan conflicts, much to the irritation of the Blairites. But the Chancellor has now taken a very prominent role on television and radio over Iraq: so much so that his advisers were apparently miffed when his request to be interviewed was turned down by a TV company. Mr Brown’s involvement, like John Prescott’s, was partly in response to No 10’s desire that he take a high profile. Both camps are now making positive noises. We shall see whether this outlasts Iraq.

This debate is entirely dependent on what happens in Iraq. Much is obviously outside Mr Blair’s control. But he and his advisers are acutely aware of the need quickly to repair fractured international relations: hence the emphasis on the United Nations role in both humanitarian aid and a postwar Iraq, on pushing forward the Middle East peace process and on “forging better relations” between Britain and the rest of the EU (starting this evening at the Brussels summit).

The mood of uncertainty, doubt and even fear in government was best caught by Mr Blair himself in his Labour conference speech just after September 11: “The kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux.”

Times Recommends

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