Peter Hoskin

It gets worse for Gordon Brown.  A YouGov poll for Channel 4 has just come up with the following findings: "The BNP won its first seats in the European parliament not because its supporters are all racist, but because many voters feel insecure and let down by the main parties. Our exclusive poll reveals wider causes of disenchantment. Forty-six percent (46%) of all voters agree that "there is no real difference these days between Britain's three main parties". Among Green, UKIP and BNP voters, the proportion who fail to see a “real difference” climbs to 60% or more (69% of BNP voters). One of the most startling findings came when we tested anecdotal reports that many BNP voters were old Labour sympathisers who felt that the party no longer speaks up for them.

One voice that's been strikingly absent, so far, from the recent debate over Brown's future has been that of Frank Field.  He's been a fierce, and integrous, critic of Brown for the past decade, so the assumption has been that he's been holding back now so as not to ruin his chance of winning the Speakership.  But no longer.  The Birkenhead MP has just put up a blog post which is as incisive as ever.  Here's the key passage: "Don't let anyone kid themselves that this was an unimportant election where voters felt they could make a clear protest vote. Unless something changes significantly on a national level these results would be reproduced at a general election. Labour cannot win with the present Prime Minister.

So Jane Kennedy has quit her position as a junior environment minister, and Paul Waugh tells us that there'll be more resignations ahead of Brown's meeting with the PLP tonight.  In the meantime, Baroness Blackstone seems to implicitly call for Brown to go, via an article in the Standard arguing against one of the main reasons put forward by Brown's supporters for keeping him.  Here's how it kicks off: "Most political commentators assume that if there is a new leader of the Labour Party there would have to be an immediate general election. They are wrong. There is nothing in the British Constitution that requires one, nor is there any recent precedent, irrespective of party.

Proverbial tumbleweeds are blowing through Westminster at the moment, as everyone waits for the European election results tonight.  We'll have full coverage on Coffee House later, of course.  But, if you're stuck for something to read in the meantime, I'd recommend Andrew Rawnsley's piece in the Observer.  Rawnsley sets out a host of reasons why the Cabinet are wary of moving against Brown, but it's this snippet about the reshuffle which jumped out at me: "Early on Thursday evening, Mr Brown attempted to bully Mr Darling into leaving the Treasury. Then and again on Friday morning, Alistair Darling pushed back and the prime minister was finally forced to abandon the idea of installing Ed Balls at Number 11.

Fascinating stuff.  PoliticsHome have published the full leaked email exchange between Peter Mandelson and Derek Draper which the Mail on Sunday reported this morning.  To be honest, I think Mandelson's comments about Brown are far less cruel than the Mail cover would have you believe.  Sure, he drops words like "angry" and "insecure"; but within a portrait of Brown that even many of his allies would agree with, or even think a little generous.  Aside from that, the references to Draper and Mandelson's history (Mandelson: "Don't worry about the past. You were a shit to me, as you were to Ben, but it is in the past.") are all good stuff for political anoraks.

So, this morning's Most Significant Intervention comes courtesy of Jon Cruddas, writing in the Sunday Mirror.  Although the Dagenham MP makes sure to criticise the Government over Royal Mail, and over its general "drift", the main message is that the party should stick with Brown: "Everyone knows our Government is in trouble. Serious trouble. But to suggest that we’ll tackle those problems simply by chucking Gordon Brown overboard is madness. We’re now less than a year away from the election. We have no more chances left. We either pull ourselves together, stake out what we stand for, or we will be gone. If we don’t, the next Ministers to walk out of the Cabinet will find David Cameron and his friends walking in to replace them." Why so significant?

With things happening so fast over the past few days, it's worth taking stock of where we - or, more accurately, the Labour Party - are in the struggle to get rid of Gordon.  While the resignation of James Purnell didn't spark the high-level Cabinet rebellion it could have done - and while folk like Alan Johnson and David Miliband may still be sitting, supine, in the highest offices of government - the bottom line is that Brown faces an extremely difficult few days.

65 years on from D-Day, we remember the lives lost and the struggles undertaken. (Photograph taken on Omaha Beach, 6 June, 1944, by Robert Capa).

Just in case Gordon Brown needed reminding that his battle for survival is being fought on numerous fronts, the Telegraph has sifted through the PM's expenses again and discovered a rather juicy morsel.  Apparently, around 06-07, Brown claimed the allowance for his constituency home while also charging the taxpayer for council tax and other bills on another property in London.  It's not about the amount of money he claimed on the London property - some £512, certainly a mistake - but the principle of it: after all, this is the misdemeanour which Darling was charged with earlier in the week, and the Chancellor had to both explain himself and pay back the extra money.  On top of that, there are also signs that Brown engaged in a spot of flipping.