In the end it was a BBC interview which opened the floodgates; the newspapers were full of gleeful headlines this morning about Gordon Brown and whether or not he has been taking prescription drugs.

No matter that 10 Downing St has been denying it for weeks. Nor that there is no shred of public evidence to suggest that the prime minister has been using anti-depressants (as the rumour suggests).

The story has now got legs. And as James Forsyth points out, it could change public perceptions of the prime minister.

“I wonder if Brown should have been asked such a question without some more evidence for it to be based on. Even though Brown said that he wasn’t on any pills the mere fact of him being asked if he was will have an effect on how voters view him”.

The original rumour originated in an obscure corner of the blogosphere and has since been encouraged by the ever-popular Guido.

The prime minister’s response to Marr’s questions (he curtly replied ‘no’ and then went on to talk about his eyesight) was not exactly slick or confident. In his defence, however, it is possible that he was caught offside by the question. Perhaps no adviser had shown him any cuttings on the subject for fear of enraging him. If so, that would explain his response. Or maybe he was just furious about having to respond.

One cabinet minister today compared the situation with the smears on George Osborne earlier this year (cooked up by Damian McBride). Most media outlets didn’t feel the need to repeat them.

I think on this occasion Brown deserves our sympathy. He’s been caught in the classic “Do you beat your wife?” trap.

I was awoken at midnight on Friday night by an enraged Labour press officer who couldn’t believe my gall in reporting the fact that the party had only sold 330 tickets for its conference dinner.

The angry individual was worked up because I had reported that the venue had capacity for 800, far in excess of the £500-a-head tickets sold. Yes, theoretically you could cram in 800, he argued, but Labour had never even considered selling that many tickets. Instead they were close to their target of 350.

Except that one Labour MP had told me that 800 had been the target.

Perhaps the better comparison is how many tickets were sold in previous years.  There were 400 guests last year. There were 680 in 2002. And Kevin Maguire reported back in 1999 that the conference that year had attracted “up to 1,000″ paying guests. The trend is clearly down.

UPDATE

Alistair Darling warned on Sunday that Labour were like a football team which had its head down at half-time. His advice was clearly ignored by Labour’s own football squad (of MPs) which was soundly thrashed 5-1 in Brighton by the lobby 11.

Clearly this has nothing to do with the fact that they had no ringers this year. A year ago in Manchester they - somewhat bizarrely - reinforced themselves with Bryan Robson and a host of other former Man U players (I counted four).

The perennial Obama snub story is back and it includes all the elements of farce that we have come to love. Did they really think the fifth call would make the difference? Was there anywhere for them to sit down in the kitchen? Or was the pow-wow too short to bother?

It is understandably being seen in the context of the Lockerbie furore and a prime minister who looks like his days are numbered. To be fair to Gordon Brown, most of the economic policymaking is probably settled, or can be finalised at the G20. And Obama isn’t seeing any European leaders. But there is one very good reason for a serious meeting to take place: Afghanistan.

There has arguably been no more important a time for Britain’s views on the future of the Afghan conflict to be heard in Washington. The president is going through a root and branch strategy review, which has arguably left Britain’s mission in limbo. And yet, even at this critical time, the president is unwilling to set aside an hour for the British prime minister — his main partner in war — when they are in the same city together.

Gordon Brown has endured a hat-trick of rejection by Jon Cruddas, stalwart of the Labour Left. I’m told that during the frenzied June reshuffle there was an approach to JC to join Brown’s beleagured government - and he said no again.

This would be the third time he has turned the prime minister down. First there was June 2007 and then October 2008. The obvious conclusion must be that Cruddas wants to keep his hands clean ahead of a likely leadership contest next year.

Not that he will confirm the rumour. A friend of his tells me that “Jon doesn’t remember” being tapped up by Brown in June; and even if he had been, it would have been a more subtle, indirect approach.

Sorry, I forgot to mention the real killer warning from Charles Clarke:

“A resounding defeat of the type many predict if we fail to change our approach would lead to a real collapse of our party, which would have few resources and all the potential for bitter internecine conflict following defeat. It is by no means clear that we could succeed in pulling ourselves around as we did with such difficulty through the 1980s and early 1990s.”

I said I’d pass on the highlights of the Clarke speech (he is talking right now): Here are a few of his thoughts in potted form. I was most struck by his warning about Labour’s finances and by Brown’s refusal to come clean on the fact that the crash was not only caused by mysterious global forces.

He describes….

Labour’s “awful weakness”

“Our leadership is weak, uncertain, tactically unsure and lacks vision”

Ratings have declined since 2008 despite an “apparently unending sequence of new relaunches…”

“All the evidence is that Labour is not trusted”

Many Labour MPs think they should give up on 2010 and look ahead to 2015 election. But “I reject the compacency and pessimism of these views”….”we still have a chance”….

Brown hasn’t been honest about causes of the eco crash: “It is now critically important that the Labour leadership does what is has not yet been prepared to do and explains fully and carefully how it is that the enormous British economic success story of 1997 to 2007 has turned into the economic adversity of today. It is not enough simply to blame the ‘world economic crisis’, or evil bankers; we also need to acknowledge where we have made misjudgments, albeit in common with others.”

Still a need to end “culture of spin”.

Labour’s financial crisis: “There is a real challenge even to pay the wages of our current staff, and we need nearly £20m just to pay off our debts and keep going until next May. Raising the money to fight a general election campaign seems almost impossible in current circumstances.”

You may have thought that the dust had settled on the public spending row after the Tories last week obtained a Treasury document showing plans for departmental cuts of 9.3 per cent over four years. This seemed to prove that Labour promises of further investment were a smokescreen at best.

Could Gordon Brown deny that this was the case? It was hard to rouse anyone from Downing Street to rubbish the 9.3 per cent figure last week. After all, it is there in black and white in a government document.

But the prime minister has today tried to wriggle out of his tight spot.

He told Simon Mayo:

“No, I don’t accept these figures, this was a leaked Treasury document that I have never seen and there will be lots of…(interrupted). Hold on, there would be lots of documents that would be around the Treasury looking at different potential options, but we have said we can maintain frontline services….”

He then goes on to suggest that there could be some “extra growth” which will be registered in the Pre-Budget Report. Interesting if this is the case. If not, this appears to be new evidence of Mr Brown’s stubbornness.

The impact of Charles Clarke’s criticism of Gordon Brown has diminished somewhat with time and repetition. That said, his latest salvo against the prime minister could not be more clear - and it adds to the pressure on Brown.

Here is the Clarke interview in the Standard.

Highlights include….

“The former home secretary said Mr Brown should consider standing down, perhaps citing ill health, adding: “I think his own dignity ought to look to that kind of solution.”

Bringing into the open the debate about Mr Brown’s suitability as the party goes into its final conference before the election, Mr Clarke said that without change Labour would be “out for 10 to 15 years”.

He launched a searing attack on the Prime Minister’s decision-making. “Are we just going to stand by and watch the whole Labour ship crash on to the rocks of May 2010?” he asked.

He said Downing Street under Mr Brown was “the weakest I’ve seen ever”, and less effective than under John Major.”

There is more to come tonight when Clarke addresses a Progress meeting. I’ve seen the speech - embargoed til 6pm - and will give you the highlights then. Needless to say, there is plenty more trenchant criticism of the Brown regime.