Last week the prime minister received a hefty swipe from the paw of that perpetually disaffected teddy bear, Charles Clarke. The former home secretary stated – with schadenfreude masquerading as concern – that Labour would lose the next general election if it continued to be “unclear” about, well, sort of everything. It’s fair to say that Clarke and Gordon Brown are not the closest of friends.

A day later, a Labour party think tank called Progress stuck the boot in with similar glee, implicitly attacking Brown’s leadership and warning, again, that Labour would lose the next election if it adopted a “safety first” approach and relied upon the electorate’s (entirely justifiable, to my mind) terror of the Conservative party. The article then spent an awful lot of time commending, by contrast, David Cameron for having made the Conservative party “socially liberal” and hence electable. There was a clear note of yearning here: if only we had him, instead of that dour Scottish cyclops.

Progress was set up ostensibly to improve communication between the Labour leadership and the rank and file, but in fact – as you might have guessed from its vaporous name – it is a shrine to the blessed memory of Tony Blair. Its luminaries include many people who are more Blairite than even Blair ever was – Alan Milburn and Stephen Twigg, for example. So its communications with the new leadership these days take the form of a cheerfully held aloft two-fingered salute.

I have searched the Progress website and its lists of publications for some idea as to what it is that Brown should be doing, but I have not had much luck. There’s the usual dreadful guff about diversity, inclusivity, democracy, community and every other fatuous abstract noun you can think of but nothing of policy. The passage which criticised Brown ended with a crescendo of familiar soundbite bollocks: Labour should be “building on the achievements of the last decade, not running away from them, developing a future which is post-Blair, not anti-Blair”. And so on.

The electorate may well have its doubts about Brown, not least because, on television, his slow and measured pronouncements bring to mind Chance the Gardener, the hapless imbecile elevated to high political power by grotesque mischance in Peter Sellers’s wonderful film Being There.

But Clarke and Progress might remind themselves that the 1997 election victory was brought about, first and foremost, through the public presentation of a united and very disciplined Labour team. And that the sniping and disunity within the Tory party were even more crucial factors in its defeat than any sleaze. A visibly split Labour party will certainly lose in May 2010 (which is when the helpful Clarke tells us the election will be).

The Scout Association is to be hauled before the Equality and Human Rights Commission because it requires of its young members a promise that they “do their duty to God”. The increasingly gobby National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association argue that this discriminates against young atheists (unless they make their promise with crossed fingers or standing in a satanic pentacle).

The obvious answer is for the children of committed atheists to join an organisation which does not demand of them a belief in the omnipotence of God, but instead a belief in the omnipotence of members of the National Secular Society, or of Polly Toynbee or of nothing whatsoever. Lord Baden-Powell had some strange views, especially about spanking and cold showers, but he was very clear that the scout movement he founded was rooted in the Christian faith. Perhaps the National Secular Society will next attempt to prosecute the Roman Catholic Church for discriminating against people who believe that transubstantiation is pushing it a bit. Or indeed humanist organisations which take a discriminatory stance against people who believe in God. Such as the National Secular Society.

Why would you join a pressure group whose raison d’être is that it doesn’t believe in anything? Unless it is simply to persecute and harass those people who do?

Best stay on the beach, Becks

Well, come on, what would you rather do? Wander around a Brazilian beach in the blazing sunshine and gaze on the accumulating zeroes in your bank account? Or cross the Atlantic to the land of sleet, wind and drizzle for a meaningless football game against a small Alpine territory better known for its cuckoo clocks than its footballers? (But still better than us at football, mind.) I suppose Becks may have been tempted by the prospect of a reunion with Ashley Cole (who would possibly have thrown up on him, or attempted to have sex with him). But in the end it was a no-brainer.

There is something absolutely apt about David Beckham being stuck on 99 international caps, most likely in perpetuity. A decent enough bloke, he was nonetheless always grotesquely overrated as a footballer: a winger with no pace who never beat his man, a midfielder who disdained to tackle. He led England with an all-too-rare passion and commitment and we should be grateful for that. But does he deserve to be in the exalted company of Billy Wright, or Bobby Charlton or Gordon Banks? Never. That being said, he doesn’t deserve to be in the company of Ashley Cole either. Stay in Brazil, mate.

Bin this advice – and the jobsworths

The government has been issuing guidance to jobsworths from the local council who fine you for putting your dustbin out a day early, or a day late, or filling it with the wrong sort of rubbish. First it offers key visual signs that reveal a disaffected ratepayer: “changes in breathing patterns, throbbing vein in the temple” (also waving a claw hammer about and snarling). The document then says: “Let them know that this behaviour is not acceptable, eg, ‘I am not prepared to carry on this interview whilst you are calling me a w***er (sic) and a jobsworth. I am requesting that you stop this behaviour’.”

It is an approach which I assume will be adopted by those rat-faced men sent to spy on people smoking where they shouldn’t, as well as by the new and much-loved bin police. The document refers to members of the public who dare to take issue with council employees as “barrack room lawyers”. I am not sure that this is any less offensive than the term “jobsworth”. Perhaps in future we should all stick to “w***er”.

Two police community support officers hid in a locked room to avoid having to deal with a 13-year-old boy who had become a bit mouthy. The kid started shouting at staff at his care centre; the faux-coppers considered intervening – then thought better of it, shut themselves away and desperately radioed for help. The community bobbies claimed they hadn’t been trained to deal with fractious youngsters; me neither, but if they give me a call I could suggest a few ideas. Four months back, two other community bobbies did nothing but radio for help while a young lad drowned in a pond, because they hadn’t been trained in specifically pond-related incidents. Are these officers – an invention of David Blunkett – any use whatsoever?

rod.liddle@sunday-times.co.uk

Times Recommends

• The ghost of Robin Cook haunts Chilcot’s feast
• The truth shouldn’t need oaths
• Violence: let’s separate the men from the boys