What’s the alternative, Sunny? A long drawn-out leadership election in the midst of a recession and shortly before a general election? Not sure the public would forgive Labour for that. Or another election where only MPs get to choose who the leader is and where Brown is replaced by someone with identical politics?

Gordon Brown is an electoral liability – yes.

MPs should resign over the expenses scandal; and maybe for the mess he has made of handling the issue Gordon Brown should be one of them? Yes.

Gordon Brown should be chucked out of the Labour leadership? Why bother? Just vote LibDem. Its what the Tories are scared of.

Basically, Blair perverted the party,populating his inner circle with entryists with contemptuous disregard for the grass-roots and principles: Brown was complicit in this, but the money-making Blair was wilier in getting out leaving Brown with a toxic legacy. A decent, in-touch and non-control-freak leader may have been able to rescue things (though Blair ensured there were few, indeed perhaps no such figures in any position to step in). Brown is not, and never was such a man.
I’m afraid that the inevitable implosion of the disastrous (for all bar for the profiteering few) New Labour project means the death of the party for all functional purposes for a decade or more. Maybe something noble can be reconstructed, but I’m not holding my breath.

Gordon Brown is now incapable of leadership, you say. NOW? NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW??? Just what planet are people you on?
Gordon Brown has always been patently unsuited to a leadership role. Moreover, as soon as the
financial crisis broke (i.e. when the Northern Rock crisis broke) ,it should have been clear to even his most ardent supporters that Brown had been the UK’s most disastrous ever Chancellor. It defies belief that people in the Party could not have seen this. It was purely self-preservation for the parliamentary Party to back him in the first place. It is beyond credulity that left-minded people in the media could ever have supported him.

I speak as a broadly centre-orientated person who could have vote for a slightly left-of-centre or right-or-centre party given the prevailing circumstances. What gets me most worked up is that people are worried about the future of the Labour movement. Say what you like about the opposition but the first thing in the Conservative Party is duty to the country first. Supporting this idiotic Prime Minister has not just damaged the political process itself but will end up having done the most egrigious damage to the economic prospects of the country. I now look upon the backboneless idiots who left him unchallenged and their supporters in the media with disgust.

This is of course a rant; but what strikes me is that I have just talked to a perennially Labour voting colleague and a perennial Conservative voter and both say they would prefer even Cleggie to be the next PM just to get rid of Brown. That just about sums up anyone I talk to nowadays.Get rid of this government now; it is simply a stain on the meaning of democracy for such an unelected, brazen incompetent to be allowed to inflict further damage on the United Kingdom.

Ooh, I like the open letter to the LibDems.

The problem is that the party should have had a proper leadership contest in 2007: but it was too scared to do so or was warned off by Brown and his flying monkeys. It then didn’t take the chance to ditch him as soon as they realised he wasn’t the change they could believe in (much like they waited too long to get rid of Blair). Whilst the economic crisis won’t wait for the government to sort out its leadership problems, the parliamentary recess offers some space to have a genuine (if not bloody) contest, which would have to cover policy and not just who gets to be the lipstick on the pig. The one problem is that I suspect the party is terrified of looking itself in the mirror, realising what it has become as ‘New Labour’ and beginning the painful process of transforming itself into something both different and better. They could change the leader as soon as Brown falls (or is pushed) under a bus; changing the entire deep-rooted malignity of New Labour in order to offer something better to the electorate than ‘more of the same’ is another matter – and time is running short.

Carpe Diem, indeed.

Only, if only Clegg would run at this with bull horns blaring and showing that he has the balls to do the job.

Brown isn’t Labour, nor was Blair – this government isn’t a Labour government. When the Labour party comes back they will have a chance of governing again.

New Labour as a party should be shuffled off this moral coil.

Brown made a major mistake when he took banking supervsion away from the B of E and removed the need to assess debt.Cable warned of private , corporate and and national debt in 2003 and was ridiculed by Brown. Northern Rock was based in Newcastle a Labour heartland and RBS and HBOS in Edinburgh where Brown/Labour was competing with SNP/Salmond. The financial mess is due to Brown and because Blair never became involved in economic issues.

Booth, Blair;s father in law described Brown as a bottler. Brown is not a man who can make decisions and therefore lead. Brown did not have the courage to challenge Blair to the leadership of the Labour Party or to stand for election himself at a later date.

Must say, we know when Sunny means it as never before have I seen him feel the need to repeat himself (being a normally highly concise and efficient writer), as he does in his final paragraph.

That’s anger and frustration coming through loud and clear.

When Brown has lost the public support of a long-standing (I presume) Labour Party member who is editor of the UK’s biggest left-wing blog, then that in itself is an indication that his time is up.

That’s not meant to sound creepy or sucky-up to Sunny. It’s just obviously a true point.

To avoid a landslide in other words, Gordon Brown has to go.

What’s your definition of a landslide? How many seats majority are we talking?

@1 tim f

I think, to borrw from gardening, the alternative is to prune and prune hard, with local parties coming forward to demand deselection of transgressing Labour MPs. Only then will a stronger Parliamentary Labour party, with better roots, gow back

If Brown cannot lead, then the party must lead for him. Peter Kenyon has already said on his blog that he will call for NEC guidance next week to all CLPs so that deselections can take place. I support him totally and hope he’s able to get this guidance through.

‘Now” incapable?

He was never capable of leading a shit out of his arse into the toilet bowl, let alone the government

I think Labour will get around 20% of the vote in the European elections. If they go much below that figure, will Brown resign (or be pushed)? I think he probably will.

Gordon Brown tried to lead on this issue and his party failed to back him because they wanted to carry on with the current system. He made it quite clear that he wanted to cap expenses and all of his MPs responded badly so he folded. What else was he meant to do with no support in the commons? The parliamentary labour party have got themselves into a situation now where the two opposition leaders have been able to put the boot in over and over again and it was due to their reluctance to give up their privileges. I don’t agree with the media reading of this, Cameron has done nothing except prop up the notion that this is a party political issue in the hope that they can force an election and everyone has essentially supported this. Frankly I think it’s better to make the tories wait until 2010 to gain power in this country.

#10 – I agree with you. The point is that for those of us who are involved in the Labour Party, Polly Tonybee-esque machinations agitating for a meaningless leadership contest is missing the point, especially given that there’s no mechanism to achieve it.

If we’re prepared to deselect big hitters, that’ll show a bigger difference between us and the Tories on the expenses issue than any amount of initiative on rules David Cameron may or may not have taken.

Oh dear Sunny – even Polly T spotted this before you!

Gordon Brown is not just a bad prime minister but he was a dreadful chancellor. Given the abundance of tax revenue until 2008, he had easy opportunities to do good. He should have done a lot better.

Tax credits to low income families were well intentioned, but they weren’t so good for single people. And there was too much technicality and form filling. The 10% income tax rate was a major misjudgement, and the response was inadequate.

The Tories accurately proclaim about government borrowing to tackle the current crisis, noting that the UK will be heavily indebted for at least ten years. The Tory claim is dishonest, because they would have borrowed in the same way. But as soon as we have paid off our recent loans, we are going to have to pay for new public infrastructure. Our PFI projects will reach end of term and government will suddenly cease to own hospitals, schools, bridges, even defence infrastructure. PFI technically took borrowing for capital projects off the government books, and government leased the infrastructure. In return, government lost control of projects and paid a higher interest for the loans raised by private contractors. Who would want to pick up Gordon’s legacy, bartering for “public” assets that will revert to private companies?

In education, Gordon funded pre-school, infant and primary education in preference to secondary and FE during his early years. There is some logic to that approach, because good early education is linked to future success. Those are long term returns. Prior to 2001, 14 to 18 year olds effectively got zilch from Gordon. There would have been a short term result from investment in secondary and FE education, lesser in the long term than that from pre-secondary funding, but one that would have delivered better educated young people (aka tax payers). And what was the point of delivering a good primary education to so many children, in order to pack them off to a secondary school that replicates 1980s Beirut on a bad saturday? OK, I exaggerate, but if you live in a big city you’ll know that there are many competent primary schools and few (publicly funded) secondary ones.

And fairness? When government increases education funding, it should be spread equitably. Stroppy teenagers are less appealing than primary school angels, and their education is more expensive. Cough up fairly for the awkward ones.

While agreeing with much of the sentiment expressed in this thread, I cannot help feeling that we have been sleepwalking to the current position for 40 years. And that the great leader solution will not work (it didn’t work with Blair) unless we change something else. Much the same can be said of the USA. I believe that Obama. like Blair before him, sees the reason why and wants to find a way for the country to do better – but in both countries the Common Law constitution makes it very difficult to move from a decentralised model of public administration (which favours control in practice being in the hands of a largely unelected Establishment who understand that their authority is actually very fragile) to a democratic model of constructive partnership. This feeling was strengthened when this week I came up against a quangocrat who eventually made it clear that he doesn’t know the answer yet he is supposed to be one of the people looking for it while hiding behind his cosy upper middle class existence. We do indeed have a divide, which has become exposed since one by one the great institutions of the state (particularly Whitehall) are being seen as being clothed in rags.

OK, but why is Brown incapable of leading? Is it something in his personality or are there wider issues?

A leader setting a new direction should have been able to remove Blair as soon as it became clear that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and that Blair had lied about being certain that there WMD in order to get approval for UK participation in the invasion. A leader setting a new direction should have been able to marginalise people like Blears and Purnell, and should not have had to bring back Mandelson into the Government. A leader setting a new direction should have been able to force it to reform MPs’ expenses.

New Labour is a party dominated by people focused on income from expenses or the chance of politically appointed jobs (such as chairs of PCTs). New Labour is a party dominated by people with a feudal mentality, deferring to existing sources of power rather than acting to counterbalance them. New Labour is a party that has completely lost sight of the concept of accountability. It cannot be led in a new direction because it hasn’t yet recognised the need to move in a new direction.

“The problem is that the party should have had a proper leadership contest in 2007″

This is true, but the problem went deeper. One of Blair’s biggest failings in office was shrinking from sacking Brown from the Treasury when Brown was more or less openly brioefing againsy him. Had he done that we would have had a good look at Gordon running another dept and his weaknesses a a politican would have been exposed much earlier. And we would have had someone else in the Treasury in a position to blow the whistle on some of the chronic mismanagement there.

19.Good point . Blair was in awe of Brown’s apparent cleverness, Cherie realised he was not nearly as good as he thought he was. The Labour MPs , appart from Field, fell for Brown’s supposed cleverness. If Labor returned to the sensible house keeping practices of it’s Methodist roots it wil be in much more sensible position.

Blair couldn’t sack Brown and Brown couldn’t sack Blair? More importantly, it would appear that the Party as a whole wasn’t in a position to question or criticise either of them. The core of New Labour is a small group, but when their basic political assumptions were found to be deficient no way could be found to remove them.

What’s the alternative, Sunny? A long drawn-out leadership election in the midst of a recession and shortly before a general election? Not sure the public would forgive Labour for that.

tim f – I’m not sure that the electorate would forgive the party for trying to go into the next election with Gordon Brown as leader. I’m willing to bet my right arm that’s not going to happen.

They need a narrative that says a new leader is needed to produce an implement a manifesto for the next election. The Tories did it! twice!

Labour, by contrast, seems to be full of wimps who can’t see an electoral liability when its smacking them in the face, repeatedly.

Sunny, no matter what people say, we’re not the Tories though. You can’t just say it worked for the Tories so it would work for Labour.

re. 19 – Maybe – but then there’s always Blair’s ‘Margaret Beckett Strategy’: appoint someone who isn’t a threat and will be loyal while you effectively take control of the department in question. (Blair would have got his henchling into the Treasury and Brown could have been packed off to the Foreign Office, or – if he really wanted to screw Brown – the Home Office) You could also argue that Blair failed to nurture a proper successor who could run against Brown, as opposed to a gang of pale imitators, wannabes and groupies – but then that would still mean the continuation of the New Labour ‘project’.

sunny:

Labour, by contrast, seems to be full of wimps who can’t see an electoral liability when its smacking them in the face, repeatedly.

Yeah – but that was even more true of them regarding Blair after the WMD didn’t show up, and that cost them 100+ seats in 2005, so there’s form in that respect.

I hear Derek Draper might be free?

Since 1997, New Labour has had a big influx of new MPs. Quite a few departed at general elections, but the party had a great opportunity to put talented people into the HoC. And failed dismally. There are no independent thinkers amongst new intake and policy has been bland. With a few exceptions, new ministers have been grey individuals, instantly forgettable, which may be a blessing. Other appointments have been ineffectual (Jacqui Smith) or utterly inappropriate (John Reid).

It is no wonder that Labour MPs do not seek to rid themselves of Gordon Brown. They can simply look at themselves and conclude that there is nobody in the cabinet with ideas or charisma to replace him. Otherwise, Gordon wouldn’t be Prime Minister in the first place.

Factionalism means that no alternative candidate will rise from the discontented ranks, so Labour is stuck. We’re going to need a lot of tactical voting at the next election to keep the Tories in check.

Since 1997, New Labour has had a big influx of new MPs

YES, New Labour MPs – those selected in London rather than the local party. Anyone who even had a real tinge of almost pink was and is too red for London.

You see now, even now when New Labour are on the brink of total disaster no one steps up to say that this is enough. Why you may ask – and the simple thing is they are ALL New Labour, so they all think basically the same. And they do, believe me, believe that spin will overcome policy.

I would love it if Skinner went for a leadership race – but expulsion from the party is waiting for anyone who rocks the boat at this minute.

New Labour are now saying that they cannot go for a leadership race because it would look like they are weak – THAT is how out of touch with the country AND reality they actually are.

It seems to me that the spin has largely stopped. And the climate has changed: lots of people now speak up and tell it how it is – but, unfortunately, those MPs who do that are, as suggested above, not confident enough or even capable enough to make a significant difference. Also, it often seems that the unelected Ministers are the stronger ones.

Brown has to go no doubts about it.

At first I thought that it would be a mistake right now because there is no one to replace him, and who in their right mind would want to lead Labour into the EU elections now and a general election within the year.

Then the expenses scandal to end all scandals broke out. Brown has gone missing. Mick Martin is a hoon ( and a big cause of a lot of the problem) . It dawned on me then that in fact now is the time to get rid of Brown, someone like Charles Clarke, Jack Straw or Alan Johnson should step up to the plate and take control of the situation. Sure Labour will lose the elections ( that’s a given anyway) but they could bring enormous credit to themselves by showing leadership.

You see it’s one of the reason Brown is so bad…he isn’t a real leader, he’s just a political bully, he has never displayed leadership qualities. Real leadership happens when your back is to the wall.

The British people ALWAYS recognise this type of “no hope” fight them on the beaches type of leadership. If one of the above named wished to positively immortalise themselves. Now is the time.