TONY BLAIR tasted Commons defeat for the first time yesterday. But it is a sensation he may have to get used to.

Labour backbenchers have tasted blood and, if the history of past Labour governments is anything to go by, they may now turn it into a habit.

It was of his own making because the vote took place at his insistence. And last night in a series of interviews he took it on the chin. As they pondered the repercussions last night most MPs agreed that Mr Blair’s ability to carry through his radical reform programme in the final months and years of his premiership was now in doubt. And many were again wondering how long he would carry on. He had “fallen off the high wire”, said one.

In many ways, Mr Blair has been a prisoner since the election. His 66 majority can be wiped out easily on any day of the week because the far-left Socialist group of about 33 MPs tends to vote against him on any issue that matters. The grim truth facing Mr Blair last night was that his own side are far more worried about his forthcoming proposals to weaken local authority controls over schools, introduce more private sector provision in health and to clamp down on abuse of incapacity benefit.

They are core issues for the Labour movement and the whips were accepting last night that it would be difficult to get any of the key reforms through without the support of the Tories. MPs also believe that if Mr Blair cannot get those reforms, and thereby secure his legacy, he may not want to stay on for too long. Last night was about far more than a defeat. It punctured Mr Blair’s aura of invincibility and left a question over his judgement.

When in trouble in the past, Mr Blair has been able to fight his way out of it. The usual method, as he did this week, has been to go to the parliamentary Labour Party, make his case before a packed and loyal meeting, and win the day. Only this time it did not work and Mr Blair inflicted a huge miscalculation on his party.

Charles Clarke had been ready to do a deal on Monday by tabling an amendment lower than the 90 days in the Bill. He almost said as much. If he had put down an amendment suggesting a detention period of 42 days the Conservatives and Labour rebels would have been under pressure to accept it. But after his storming performance at the PLP, Mr Blair told himself that he could do it again. He went for broke and last night it could never be the same again for him.

Mr Blair seemed to know when he appeared before MPs at question time that the worst might soon happen. He said: “Sometimes it is better to lose and be right than win and be wrong.” That language, both defeatist and defiant, turned out to be justified by events. Even then he was being warned that the votes were not there for him.

That change was most marked by the decision of Gordon Brown to return from Israel to pressurise waverers and miss a meeting with Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister. Originally he had been given clearance to go ahead with his trip shortly before taking off from Heathrow late on Tuesday night. Mr Brown had expected to be “paired” with a Conservative. Under that plan his absence would have been balanced by the absence of an Opposition MP. However, the Conservatives abandoned all pairing arrangements. So the Chancellor arranged to be “paired” with his Liberal Democrat shadow Vince Cable.

But within minutes of touching down at 3.15am in Tel Aviv, the flurry of text messages urging him to call London suggested things had changed.

Sue Nye, Mr Brown’s political secretary, and Tom Watson, the treasury whip, were still awake and talked to him. There were several early morning chats with Ed Balls, MP for Normanton and his closest ally. In several conversations that evening Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, told him that it might not just be his vote that she needed but his influence on the rebels.

A study of the list of rebels last night showed that not even Mr Brown had been able to exert an influence on some of his closest allies, the most notable being George Mudie, the former deputy Chief Whip. While the cynics may insist that Mr Brown would not have tried too hard, that is not the view of MPs who went to see him. Mr Brown does not want to inherit a divided Labour Party. Mr Brown knew almost before he landed that he would have to come back. If he were in Israel as Mr Blair suffered his first defeat his enemies would have blamed him.

There were other considerations too. Mr Brown has long been criticised for being conveniently absent when Mr Blair is in trouble. Whispers that the chancellor was up to his old tricks had begun to circulate.

Times Recommends

• Family cuts its waste to one binful a year
• Cameron can learn from Thatcher in 1979
• VAT is back ... and it's confusing