Gordon, it's time to summon the better angels of your nature and resign

Yes.... the next load of faces into Number Ten will be the 'Elf and Safety Goblins' and the Men in White Coats to Gurney McRuin off to a nice Funny Farm in the country....

The labour party has never been a socialist party. Its ideals have never in reality been technically socialist, despite clause 4, which is whay no labour government, even Attlee's, never attempted to deliver full state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Marx referred to socialism. The labour party has historically been a social democratic party. That's why I said I wasn't technically a socialist. I have read the German ideologies and feuerbach, and I don't subscribe to all that. I am a social democrat.

If you think that the last 10 years have been a socialist experiment, and I mean really think that, then I'd like some of whatever you're on, frankly.

Totally agree, but easier said than done

"With a new leader in charge, that election might still be winnable."

The men in white coats will be come for you next, Alex.

Gordon Brown has destroyed his own reputation beyond repair.

He is now destroying Labour's reputation beyond repair.

The article above talks of committing Labour to opposition for three terms as the worst case scenario. I think it's a lot worse than that. The public will never forgive a party that cannot remove a failed leader and is held hostage by one man's sense of entitlement.

The choice for Labour is simple. Annihilation now or defeat in a year, its pretty much as simple as that. The party need to decide whether Gordon is an asset or a liability compared to the alternative. Once the decision is made they need to be clear and quick. If the cabinet have any spine at all they need to do something NOW. Otherwise they need to rally round and make the best of an awful situation. They won't get a better chance.

Alex: Would you resign just because that oily little heap of s*** (sorry, but there is no better description) Purnell told you to?

Damned if I would: A descredited LITTLE man, wallowing in personal greed, avoiding CGT and as bigger sleaze mearchant as Blears McNulty etc, who has destroyed the welfare state and instituted Tory policy? I am glad he is gone - I hope he flounces off to the Tory party, with him gone, the cleaner the air will be round the cabinet table - it's like somebody flushing a foetid lavatory now that Purnell is out.

If Brown resigns, Alex, whomever becomes leader will ahve to call an election within a couple of months qwhich - lets face it - they will lose. That will give the Blairites their chance to get rid of the new leader, who will be seen as a "caretaker" to get one of their brainless, otiose little boys to take over, like D. Miliband or even Purnell, who, no doubt, many ueber-Blairites regard this morning as a real "hero", compared to the snivelling little wretch most of us know him to be.

"I am not a socialist in the technical sense of the term."

And there in twelve words is a fairly good summary of all Labour's problems.

What you need to get your head around is that New Labour was the alternative you all got so excited about in 1997 (remember that sunny day, no more sleaze, end of the nasty party, Thiiings can only get betterrr etc.). And the problem with New Labour is that it was a husk of a philosophy.

Tony Blair was clearly an incredibly talented politician but Labour's problems today don't just stem from his departure. The problem is that New Labour had decided to break with the past because socialism was clearly discredited. But beyond saying "We're all Thatcherites now" and then spending loads of taxpayers' money (i.e. emphatically not Thatcherite), New Labour didn't really stand for anything. Predictably, the spending binge led to the same economic meltdown that besets all socialist experiments.

So today you're all in a very nasty place. Do you revert to the values and ideals that actually define the party (hint: they really are "technically" socialist), or do carry on simply relying on short-term political nous to get you through the next newspaper headline? With Blair gone and the money squandered, option 2 is no longer available. So the bigger question that everyone in the Labour Party has to be asking themselves is: What is the Labour Party for? For the last 12 years it's got by on a healthy economy inherited from the Conservatives (but now wrecked), the lie that what they were doing was not socialism (it was socialism, see public expenditure levels for details) and an endless stream of spin, lies and bullying to deter and extinguish opposition.

The party's over, in more ways than one.

I am not a socialist in the technical sense of the term. My experience of the tories in government was that they were callous. I accept that callousness is not necessarily implied by right of centre political theory - I never said that it was; however the pragmatics of government dissociates from the theories that drive political movements.

"a callous, rightwing tory party"

Haha yeah, the Tories were so callous weren't they, not spending money on this, not "investing" in that, not paying for this vital outreach program and on and on it went. It was almost as if they believed you couldn't endlessly tax and squander without the entire economy grinding to a halt (sound at all familiar, Gordon?).

All the world's ills originated in the wicked refusal of the nasty party to do the right thing. And they didn't do any of this out of philosophical principle. I mean it's not like people like me revere the works of thinkers like Adam Smith, Karl Popper, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman et al, and arrive at different conclusions to those who can trace their intellectual heritage to the likes of Galbraith, Marx, Hegel or all the way back to Plato. Nahhhh. The reason the Tories don't tax and spend like any nice government would do, is because they are EVIL! Yes, people like me get out of bed in the morning and think "I'm feeling really nasty today, let's vote for a party that's really callous".

I know it must be difficult to accept that socialism is intellectually bankrupt and never works in practice. But instead of chucking out the bad ideas of the past and getting on with creating a wealthy and happy society, the left seems more concerned with questioning the motives of someone like me, simply because I hold different views philosophically and politically. It's pathetic.

Marie

I think you might be suffering from confirmation bias. Gordon Brown is the architect of our economic woes and as the man in charge must be held more responsible for the expenses scandal than anyone else (with the possible exception the speaker).

In addition to all this we know that six months ago, when Gordon claimed he was straining every sinew to deal with the economic crisis, he was doing no such thing. Instead, his closest advisers were sending emails to each other inventing smears about the wives of opposition politicians. If you want to tell me know that Gordon had no part in any of this, I'm sorry I don't believe you. And even if I'm wrong, a PM facing such a national crisis as that should be in control of his team. As events are proving this week, Gordon is a control freak, but he ain't in control.

Regardless of your opinions on Gordon's culpability in creating the bubble and thus precipitating the bust, you must admit claimed to have abolished boom and bust. Don't you? How can this unelected PM have any credibility given the events of the last year?

Even if you're too loyal to be able to see what's plain before your eyes, the British electorate is often surprisingly astute. Gordon Brown is finished and the better he goes the better for the country.

It's slavery to have the value of your labour decided upon by the board of a multinational company who gives backhanders to politicians in order to ensure that they don't implement minimum wage legislation.

What a simplistic view of leftwing politics you have tory troll - i'd get reading if I were you.

Marie I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong on this. As a party member of 50 years, you are perhaps more used to us being in opposition - indeed that was the problem before the party modernised. Those of us who now have lengthy adult experience of having Labour in government, yet who grew up with our whole childhoods and nascent political lives dominated by a callous, rightwing tory party, know that we must do whatever it takes to ensure that we never again get to the point where we are out of power for a generation.

Gordon Brown has been an abject failure at presenting the party as an organisation with a coherent vision. To use newspeak a little, there is no narrative to this government. Labour of all parties is 'for' something - values and ideals, not just a laissez faire managerialism, yet this is how we are coming across.

At the next election we will be totally annihilated with Brown as leader, so I say again, you are wrong Marie - he is not and was never the 'right person' and he should go immediately.

WELL WHERE IS JACK JTRAW WHEN HE IS NEEDED, A DEATHLY SILENCE ANOTHER EX COMMIE SNAKE IN THE GRASS.

Fair play Alex, this view wouldn't have seen the light of day a month or two ago.

This Government has been in terminal decline since Brown took over. Now the P.L.P. have finally woken up to it too. Brown does not have a reputation for listening or being sympathetic to others' viewpoints, and while the ridiculous Harriet Harmen and Liam Byrne can still be trotted out to do the 'Comical Ali' news briefings, Brown will hang on.

The P.L.P. are about a year behind in the public opinion, and boy will they pay for it at the next election.

Alex - you are so wrong...Maybe its that student politics things again... However having been a party member for nearly half a century and leader of a large Council, I am extremely disappointed with the decision that James Purnell has taken, it is a misjudgement on his behalf. I am absolutely sure, having been out campaigning to today, listening to the electorate that the right person to lead this country through the recession and in the interests of not just the party but the Country I am in no doubt that Gordon Brown is the right person who will take us through the recession, the right person to sort the expenses mess out and the right person to be the Prime Minister of our Country

Marie Rimmer CBE – Leader of St Helens Labour Group

You were doing so well, until you got to the point where he gave up a huge pension, reminding us of his act as Chancellor that obliged us all to share that fate.

So let's examine the alternative to Gordon Brown.
1. We have yet another unelected leader (in the eyes of the elctorate).
2. We call a General Election which we may well lose.
3. At a time of economic crises Labour MP's after taking taxpayers money in expenses are now sliming and aquabbling to save thier own
jobs and have a leadership contest. I am unsure the public will see this as acting in thier interests.
4. Is it better to betray a PM or stick by one when the going gets tough. The poll fell from an understandable 30% to
20% as a result of the expense issue. I would rather see Tory, Liberal and Labour MP's guilty of abuses punished rather
than a PM who actually gave up a huge pension (the first PM to do so) sacrificed.

You really don't have a clue.

I know some really good people who (despite being good) lean towards labour/socialism.

We get on because we want very similar outcomes - the best possible life for the most people - however we fundamentally disagree on how to reach this goal.

Rule 1 for me is that people must be allowed to benefit from the product of their own labour - a free market allows you to do so, socialism steals the output of your labour and lets the 'great and good' decide who benefits from your labour... That is slavery.

Labour are dead until we have a new generation who believe that browns abject failure cannot possibly be true, and is just hype put out by anti-labour forces.

Concentrating on the economy or any other issue relies on the government having the confidence of the people, and it just isn't there. The reason it isn't there is partly due to the ministers involved in the expenses scandals, but the buck stops with GB. If there is little confidence in the leader of party, he or she needs to go and make way for someone who will give the Party and the country some hope that they will do the job correctly.

Personally I want to see this government show some grit, prove that it has new ideas that will solve the problems faced by government and that can only happen with a complete clearout, and unfortunately that includes GB. He waited a decade for the job, but learnt quickly he couldn't do that job. Its a shame, but he needs to move on and let the Labour Party survive.

Totally agree Akim, the media including this site seem to be stoking a fire fed by the resignations of a bunch of self interested ministers - most of whom knew they were soon to be ex-ministers, largely due to their own greed.

Smith, Blears and Purnell should all have been sacked, if Brown goes it will be because he did not act to cut the cancer from our party.

the government's focus should be making sure the expenses system is sorted and tackling the economy. not a bitter civil war.

Gordon believes he is the Labour Party, and if he can't lead it, no-one should lead it. So the Twilight of the Gods is fine by him.

No hope, Alex.

Brown will take you all down with him in a Presbyterian version of Götterdämmerung. (Imagine Siegried's Funeral March - played on the bagpipes, with a small brazier in place of a flaming pyre).

Well said, Alex. I think he should go for the good of the country, not the future health of the Labour Party. For those who think he should go for the good of the Party, well on this we have common cause.

Couldn't agree more.