Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Blair and Cameron were all elected later in the cycle, while Kinnock, Hague and Duncan Smith were elected straight away.

Is it fair to include Blair in the list? He only became leader due to John Smith dying.

The one issue that you have missed is what if there is an autumn election. Selecting a leader early will give him/her the opportunity to display their leadership to the public. If we wait until Conference then the leader could well have only a month before he/she is thrust into an election. Look to 1974. The Tories did not change leader between Feb and Oct because they knew that another election was soon. We will be in the same position but, as you say, there is a need for a new leader. So on balance sooner rather than later seems more prudent.

Brown needs to go NOW. Today if poss. He is not doing any good hanging about like a bad smell.

Nick Robinson on the BBC said if Lib/Con talks don’t work out Lib/ lab could negotiate with Brown staying on for 3 months. NO, NO, NO. It just makes Brown and Labour look desperate.

Labour needs to get it’s act together fast because things could move very quickly in the current climate and they need to be able to show that they have learned some lessons and moved on. Brown just hanging about looks like they have learned nothing.

It’s rather a shame Brown hasn’t had the grace to fall on his sword quickly, and with some dignity, when it could have done some good immediately post election. It’s something of an indictment of the Labour party that they are so short of talent that the alternatives aren’t much more appetising than Pa Broon.

Although it’s tempting to say that things could have been different if John Smith hadn’t died (and a “what if” that many who hate New Labour often try to comfort themselves with, I’m not so sure. Hard to see how he could have proven worse than Blair and Brown I suppose…?

Gordon Brown has done much for Labour

Shurely “Gordon Brown has done much to Labour”?

5 – I’d have gone for “Gordon Brown has done for Labour” personally…

No, Brown needs to go now. the Caretaker should be someone senior without ambitions, but respected and popular enough in the event of an autumn election. Jack Straw fits the bill.

“It’s rather a shame Brown hasn’t had the grace to fall on his sword quickly, and with some dignity, when it could have done some good immediately post election”

Could not agree more. He should have gone on F

excellent piece Sunder.

“It’s rather a shame Brown hasn’t had the grace to fall on his sword quickly, and with some dignity, when it could have done some good immediately post election”

Could not agree more. He should have resigned on Friday. It would stop the impression that he is clinging on for dear life. I know we all know on here he is going, but to some people who do not follow politics it looks like he really does think he can stay on.

Labour’s refusal to get rid of him has hurt them for the last 12 months, and now that they have lost power he is still hurting them.

Reason 6, (perhaps a forlorn hope): someone genuinely principled, untainted by neo-liberalism,cronyism or plain careerism emerges as a viable contender, rather than the dismal few (your Balls, Milibands) who are already limbering up and jockeying to take over.

I suspect Sunder – and others – underestimate just how much Brown is loathed by the public at large. He needs to leave as swiftly as possible so Labour can regroup and rebuild, ready for a fight this autumn/winter or next spring when the LibCon alliance inevitably crumbles.

@4: constitutionally Brown can’t just leave: there needs to be another government waiting to take over first. Although it would force Cameron’s hand…

11

Do the words “New Labour”, “needle” and “haystack” spring to mind?

I disagree with the “fall on sword” comments. Brown needs to say that he is fulfilling his constitutional duties, which is to remain as PM until there is a new government. What is important is that he needs to say that there are just two viable options, a Con-Dem coalition or a Tory minority government. That would neutralise the ignorant rants that he is “clinging on to power” (he isn’t, he’s doing exactly what the Cabinet Secretary said he should do according to our constitutional conventions) and it will push the media scrutiny over to the Tories and LibDems.

For all the people stating “Brown needs to go NOW” and similar, he can’t. If he resigns then there will be no PM and therefore no government. In that situation it comes to the Queen to decide who will form the next government, and she is duty bound to only offer it to the person who could get their Queen’s speech through parliament. At the moment no-one can possibly do that so who does she approach? Cameron? He’s still deep in trying to cut a deal with the LDs. Another Labour politician? No possibility (at the moment) of a majority. The best he could say is that he will tender his resignation as soon as the CON/LD pact is sorted, but it’s looking increasingly like that won’t happen, and his resignation could be a valuable bargaining chip in the event of a deal with the Lib Dems.
He’s actually doing the best thing for both the country, (keeping a legitimate government in place until a new one can take over), and the Labour party, (keeping the options open for a negotiated settlement with the LDs).

14

His perceived duty to soldier on is outweighed by the urgent need to remove him as one of the chief roadblocks to progress. Labour are quite capable of finding a caretaker to fill the suit.

Your two stated options aren’t the only ones, and given what a lot of LD activists are saying, the Con/LD option is a bit of a dead letter unless Cameron delivers something on PR which his party would lynch him for trying to deliver.

So… if a Con/LD coalition doesn’t happen, you’re left with a minority Tory administration, or a Lab/LD minority, or a rainbow coalition. The first might be fun to watch, the second is no more intrinsically ridiculous than the first, and the third would be hard to manage.. tho not impossible.

Of course, a few days of uncertainty could have been avoided if Clegg and the LD’s had simply said that PR was a deal breaker before even starting talks. That way the Tories would have had to put up or shut up, and the LD’s wouldn’t have looked shifty.

Why do Labour need to woo Lib Dems fleeing their party in the event of a split? The move to the centre-right is what has caused Labour’s electoral demise. They need to construct an up-to-date leftwing agenda. I doubt reject Lib-Dems would be much help.

I still have trouble finding anyone untainted by New Labourism with the talent to lead the party anywhere other than towards more of the same waffly centrist crap with only a nice smile and a TV personality instead of sound progressive leftwing policies. (Takes deep breath). Grump.

An alternative name for this post: “I don’t want to be seen as part of the fratricidal bloodletting and clearing out of the garbage at the top of the party that is so sorely needed if we are to ever remember why we went into this politics stuff in the first place”

I suppose it makes sense for the GenSec of the Fabian Society to not rub up Brown and his establishment the wrong way until they’re kicked out, but please. I think anyone can see it is in the interests of the country, let alone the Labour Party, to depose Brown as soon as humanly possible.

Sunder,

Nobody in the party really knows what any of the potential contenders really think about Labour’s record and future agenda – since they have almost all been entirely constrained by collective responsibility in office.

What we can reasonably say is that none of those in office felt that the decisions made under collective responsibility were so objectionable that they ought to resign (except for Robin Cook, of course).

Well, he’s just announced he’s going to quit soonish so it looks like he didn’t read this one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

Yeah, you got that one pretty wrong, Sunder

am i missing something here? brown was leader of a party in power for 13 years with most of the media against him and what was the result? a hung parliament. not great but what does that say about cameron? after 10 years in power is any party going to be very popular whoever the leader is?
i’m loving this election ,certain journalists (eg adam boulton of sky,as well i’m sure his boss murdoch)who are desparate for clegg to prop up cameron are getting increasingly frustrated. haven’t enjoyed watching an election like this for years.

@22

True that! My stocks of popcorn have been running low since watching the Tories implode at the idea of sharing power with the knit-yr-own-muesli Libdems…

Yea , The Tory media are really showing their hand now. Sky has lost any claim to non bias media. It becomes more like Fox every day.

I guess if you take the Murdoch shilling, you have to play the Murdoch song.

Adam Boulton losing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUbOhq1q07Y

Are we seeing the end of the Murdoch empire?

S.Pill, Mark @20, 21

yes – that didn’t really get the message over in time.

I don’t back away from the argument, even if we are going to ignore it.

Some strong points here Sunder.

I certainly don’t want the next Labour Party leader emerging from an attempt by the Gen Sec of a major union to bounce party members or, indeed, from the obscure terms of some chat over the table in an Islington eating-house. There’s no rush, and certainly nothing to require the short circuiting of democracy. Ought not the new politics to start, as it were, at home.