Another Charles in the last chance saloon?

Thanks to both Liberal England and Iain Dale for bringing to attention this story in The Sun that states Charles Clarke did not offer Tony Blair his resignation last week. Blair is said to be furious that he has received the blame for not accepting it, when Clarke didn't offer it in the first place!

Bungling Home Secretary Charles Clarke did NOT offer to quit last week over the freed foreign convicts scandal.
He told the BBC he had offered to go — which infuriated Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The PM stormed out of the Commons on Wednesday after being humiliated about his refusal to accept the "phantom" resignation.

Also Clarke apparently kept the news about the lack of deportations from the Prime Minister for three weeks.

Clarke has given an interview to the EPD24 website stating:

At the end of the day, my own political future depends on my own strength of character dealing with the points that are raised, first, secondly on the support of my own political colleagues, and thirdly and most importantly on the decisions of the prime minister.
If I lost that support, that would be different. I hope I will continue as home secretary.

So does he still have that support? I doubt it. A letter accepting Clarke's resignation is bound to be sitting on Blair's desk. When will the letter offering it arrive?

Why ministers should be on top of their departments

No I don't want to talk about the details of John Prescott's appearance in the news today. It's clearly an attempt to bury bad news - though given the way that neither Prescott nor Charles Clarke have escaped it does suggest that even the Not So Very New Labour spin doctors are no longer as effective as they once were. Is no-one in the Labour Party performing properly?

More concerning is the fate of Charles Clarke. Yesterday he offered to resign if it was necessary. Today yet more revelations have led to those who previously did not want his resignation to call for it. At Prime Minister's Questions today it took only a glance at the government front bench to see how isolated Clarke is and Blair was visibly not comfortable defending his Home Secretary. He didn't even hang around in the Commons when Clarke gave a statement in the Commons immediately afterwards and instead gave a pathetic excuse for being elsewhere. Since Clarke's resignation offer was turned down, one has to wonder why Blair is keeping him in the post.

Two thoughts spring to mind. First off Clarke is an increasing rarity in the Cabinet - a heavyweight Blairite. Blairites have repeatedly proved to be the weakspot of the Cabinet - just look at resignations such as David Blunkett (twice), Peter Mandelson (twice), Stephen Byers and so forth. With Patricia Hewitt also under heavy fire over the poor handling of deficits in the National Health Service Blair must be fearing ever more isolation in his final days if he's forced to lose another of his supporters.

But there's also a tactical possibiliy. Labour is expecting to do badly in the local elections and many expect renewed calls for Tony Blair to resign after them. Keeping Clarke on until after polling day would allow him to take the flack for Labour's pasting and then his resignation could be accepted whilst Blair carries on.

Meanwhile the Home Office remains a mess and more criminals are on the street and the public is not reassured. What's more important - shoring up Tony Blair's position or having ministers who are on top of their departments?