Steve Richards: Brown's options are limited, so he must be patient

The conflicting ministerial reactions to the local election results are incomparably more significant than the cabinet reshuffle. Blairite ministers declared that the results could have been worse and that the bad headlines of recent days were to blame.

In distinct contrast, Gordon Brown stressed the need for a renewal of the Labour Party and the Government. He will not say it publicly, but his vision of renewal includes the need for a change of leadership. Little has changed. Before the reshuffle and after, there are two incompatible views within the Labour Party about what should happen in the near to medium future.

One group sees Blair's continuing leadership as the solution. It speaks with an evangelical zeal similar in tone to the Bennites in the early 1980s. Another group, growing in size but still lacking political muscle, regards Blair's leadership as the obstacle to an urgently needed recovery.

The reshuffle is an echo of the Blairite interpretation. It addresses the recent crises by removing Clarke and reducing Prescott's role. More widely, the changes send out the same message conveyed by Downing Street since the last election. Blair intends to stay in office until his reforms of the public services are in place. He and his entourage are convinced that only they can save Labour by ensuring that the party is associated with "reform" or, to be more precise, their version of what constitutes reform.

Separately, Brown has his own agenda - what he describes as policies that address the long-term challenges facing the country. Increasingly frustrated, he can only hint at these policies while Blair stays put.

Therefore the ministerial changes appear more dramatic than they really are. While confirming Blair's desire to carry on, they imply that, in his view, errant ministers were the problem rather than some of the policies emerging from Downing Street. As far as I can tell, Brown was not consulted about the ministerial changes. Early yesterday morning, he had a meeting with Des Browne in the Treasury when the latter was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. To the surprise of both of them, Browne discovered minutes after the meeting that he was being moved to become Defence Secretary. The Chancellor heard the news later still.

A few days ago, Blair's ally, Charlie Falconer, told the BBC that, even if some of the released foreign prisoners had re-offended, Clarke would keep his post. But in the Blairite narrative, Clarke and Prescott became the causes of the electoral losses.

Like a growing number of Labour MPs, Brown fears that Blair and his agenda, some of it supported by a more tactically astute Conservative leadership, is alienating swaths of potential Labour voters. His only public acknowledgement of the febrile mood is his persistent call for a smooth transition.

Brown has no choice but to be patient. The Chancellor cannot launch an assault without splitting the party and risk being perceived in parts of the media as being "Old Labour" and "anti-reform". Blair gets a bad press these days but right-wing newspapers still support his "reforms". Brown does not want to inherit a traumatised, divided party in which he and it are torn apart by most of the newspapers, condemned as being "anti-reform". I am told he will tour the country in the next few months making wide-ranging speeches, a Prime Minister-in-waiting and possibly waiting for a long time.

Blair seems now to regard unpopularity as a form of vindication in the same way as he once saw his popularity as a sign that he was right. According to some observers, he has been more messianic in recent days as the problems for the Government intensified, gripped by a sense that only he could put them right.

In spite of the ministerial changes, the key question remains the same. Can Blair continue at the helm or will the Labour Party declare that he must leave? So far Blair's will is proving stronger than that of his internal opponents.