Some of the shine is beginning to come off New Labour.
There was a hint of this before last month's party conference. And the latest ICM poll confirms a tendency in the electorate to see the Prime Minister as arrogant, from 21 per cent in 1997 to 36 per cent now.
Mr Blair, too, is losing something of the "common touch". Whereas in the general election year 65 per cent agreed with the assertion that "he understands people like me", now apparently only 32 per cent share that happy conviction. As for him being more honest than other politicians, the affirmative 54 per cent back then has fallen to a mere 23 per cent.
This will come as no surprise to close observers of Westminster, to whom that tendency to arrogance has always appeared one of New Labour's besetting dangers. New Labourites are not always as nice as they would have people believe. They are not characterised by an abundance of loyalty to each other. Nor are they as sure-footed as their carefully cultivated reputation would suggest.
The latest furore about Geoffrey Robinson is a case in point. The former paymaster-general was obliged to resign last December on the back of Peter Mandelson's departure from cabinet, following revelations about that famous home loan. Mr Mandelson is now back in office, while Mr Robinson languishes on the back benches. Worse, he languishes there as something of a non-person as far as the Labour high command is concerned.
Leave aside all the claims and counterclaims about Mr Robinson's forthcoming book. The one thing we can be sure of is that he is angry, and feels badly done by.
How could it be otherwise? Once the millionaire MP was on the inside track. An ally of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, he reportedly contributed hugely to the blind trusts which financed the operation of the Brown and Blair offices in opposition. Almost certainly he also contributed handsomely to the party's general operation. And the Blair family holidayed at his place in Italy before and after the general election.
Now facing a DTI investigation into his business affairs, Mr Robinson finds things very different. The investigation may ultimately prove a serious matter, but to date nothing has been proved against him. Yet friends say he believes No 10 has been briefing against him, and that the DTI investigation has been used to warn him against making damaging disclosures about Mr Blair or the government in his book.
To one long-time party member it seems typical of the New Labour approach, and totally unnecessary. "If the Prime Minister believed Geoffrey's continuation in office had become a problem for the government, he should have taken care of it, explained his regrets and eased him out without ill-feeling." Instead, he says, "rather full of power and full of themselves", they took the sledgehammer approach and needlessly made an enemy.
And not for the first time. Glenda Jackson, the former transport minister, is the latest in a long line who have come to detect the government machine moving against them. She was outraged to find reports last week proclaiming news of her imminent withdrawal from the race for the party's nomination for London Mayor in favour of Mr Blair's anointed, Frank Dobson.
Equally outraged by the idea that there should be no woman chasing this important post, Ms Jackson announced herself firmly in the race. And she warned that if her rivals got into the business of all-out rubbishing, they could all play that game.
Mr Blair's attempts to preordain the outcome of the mayoral race, and above all to stop Ken Livingstone, grow ever more farcical. So reminiscent of his determination to stop Rhodri Morgan in Wales, they inevitably revive charges of control-freakery and reopen the question of his actual commitment to devolution.
Scots had a whiff of that when they learned that the First Minister, Donald Dewar, deeply angry to find his administration embroiled in an access-for-cash scandal, is thinking of removing the Scottish Parliament's power to scrutinise the conduct of MSPs.
Mr Dewar, widely respected as whiter than the driven snow, may have a good case for transferring that function to "a truly independent body". Certainly he would want to protect the new parliament's fragile reputation.
But among the reasons cited for his considered action was concern about how devolution was being perceived by Mr Blair. According to "a government insider" reported in the Scotsman, "Downing Street is inclined to let devolution work, but only if the parliament is seen to behave with dignity and competence. Blair is laughing at us."
Post the fact, in post-devolution Britain. Inclined to let it work. What was that about arrogance?