Extremely sound analysis in the Asia Times, Jim. But the Scotsman article (your earlier link) was over-egging its argument. Take for instance the claim that Labour leaders in opposition must stand for election every year. Not so. But of course they may be challenged. (Blair was never challenged while leader of the opposition.)

The point that a special conference has never been called was misleading too, because the present arrangements have not been in place that long. They were applied for the first time when Blair was elected, and before Iraq there was never any question of a challenge to Blair, with or without a special conference.

The fact that the NEC contains many Blairites is neither here nor there. Once Blair is seen as an electoral liability, loyalties will be re-assigned in an instant. (Healey and Puttnam were both loyal Blairites until their recent comments quoted in the Asia Times.) But the whole issue of a special conference is a red herring in the present case. If the June elections are a disaster for Labour, or current negotiations with the main unions end in tears, the annual conference in September is perfectly placed to decide the matter.