Brown facing tougher questions from inside and outside the Labour Party

But he is fighting back - there is another petition asking him not to resign at
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Stay-GordonBrown/

179 so far - and increasing daily. Some odd people on there though!

4th May: the e-petition is now at 48,072. It's going to be there until October sitting at the top of the e-petition list. It's a reputation management disaster for the PM: he can't get it removed without looking anti-democratic but to leave it in place is so embarassing. Great for freedom of expression though!!

We are surrounded by idiots.

Yep that's you in an isolation ward.

Nearly as many people have signed the e-petition for GB to resign as signed the petition for Jeremy Clarkson to be PM.

Hmm.

The answer seems clear to me...

Well said Alan, I'm actually in the total strange position of campaigning on the door every weekend for my member because I consider him a personal friend. But I think I'm going to vote Tory (I live in the next constituency) because I can't stand what has become of the party.
Getting rid of Brown would make it easier for me to return to the fold.

Charles, Do you want Labour to have a chance of winning the next election or not?. If you do, then you have to consider if they stand a better or worse chance if Brown stays in post. Several people here have given their opinion - and it doesn't look good for Mr Brown. Given that, some of us have been suggesting alternatives and outcomes. If you are referring to me when you mentiion "bullying" I am not. I can't force Brown out - neither can antone else here.

The remarks I make (and other Labour or former Labour voters) make are meant to be constructive. To their credit, the Tories amongst the writers make their position quite plain.

You cannnot pretend that there isn't a great deal of concern - lets put it no stronger than that - at the way Brown is conducting things, both within Labour and without, and it would be ridiculous if the posts in a thread like this did not reflect these concerns.

Brown is incapable of reforming himself. So you are stumped.

Labour's best option is to plan for opposition and hope that the Tories do a worse job that Brown.

Brown's scorched earth policies may make this happen.

Now at 31,233.

I agree. Blair is the analogy with Thatcher in terms of devotion. But Blair stepped down voluntarily. The analogy with Brown and Thatcher would obtain if there was some kind of internal coup against him (though I don't think the rules allow for it).

"Brown has vision"...

Errrr what vision would that be exactly?

Something to do with the endless initiatives that never get off the ground and die quietly somewhere out of sight?

The vision of no return to boom and bust maybe?

Or perhaps the VAT cut.. "special one year sale everything must go .... 2% off spectacular!"

Seriously he hasn't a clue and will be kicked into touch by the British electorate very soon

Hi, Gary. I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. Our loyalty is not to any individual - Labour is not a one-person party. Brown is clearly now a liability, and we have to dump him and appoint a new leader, a leader who can get rid of Brown and his cronies from the government, someone who wants the job because they want to make life better for the people of this country and not for the chance to get their name in the history books.

If you doubt this, ask yourself what the Tories want Labour to do. The answer is, they are desparate for Brown to stay as PM, because they know they have an easy ticket to Government if he's there. Imagine the election campaign - one week before polling date, and all the paper, TVs and radios suddenly carry pictures/soundbites of Brown announcing the abolition of the 10p tax band. "A vote for labour was a vote to abolish the 10p tax band - what's your next vote for?" How many people do you think will vote for Labour? He is just too weak and vulnerable, and will lead Labour to ruin. From the way he dithered over Northern Rock to his approach to the Gurkas to his support for the Iraq war to his assassination of Tony Blair, there are just too many faults that the Tories and Lib Dems can point to.

As for the Tories, oppose them by all means, but don't underestimate or dismiss them. Unless you understand them, you can't properly persuade people against them. Is Cameron weak, does he care little for real people? Look at the strength and dignity he displayed when Ivan died, and his wish to thank the health service staff who cared for Ivan during his short life - does that look weak and uncaring to you? The danger of being nasty is that if you say something which is patently idealogical rather than true, then ALL your message becomes suspect. We need to learn from Obama - he took the moral highground in the American election, and he emerged from it with dignity and statesmanship, as well as victory.

You obviously have little or no respect for the intelligence of the electorate if you think they will swallow the Tory's "wild assed claims".

Worse, you think the solution is PR. Some call that spin.

So, your solution is to spin some nonsense to an electorate you think is stupid.

That's precisely how you got where you are. Because the electorate isn't stupid.

The Labour merry-go-round. Wonderful.

Brown has vision. Most of the problem is in the execution. Labour are lacking fit and finish to their delivery, and allowing Tories just to get away with wild assed claims. More confidence and better PR at all levels would help. It's fixable.

Brown just doesn't seem to have the political judgment necessary. He doesn't seem capable of keeping his finger of the pulse of public opinion. Whatever we may say about phony Tony and the wars and the dodgy-dossier etc., the one thing he had in spades was a very strong political awareness.

Blair would never have allowed the recent list of political disasters to have built up.

Gordon Brown is simply not up to the job. The quicker he goes the better for the party.

He never was a toff and neither was Dianne Abbott. They got posh'ism with New Labour.

I like Diane Abbott though, can't stand Vaz.

You're just standing at your "resign" bully pulpit. If Brown did resign you're stand at your "call an election" bully pulpit. What's next? It would be a crushing surprise if you didn't stand at your "vote them out" bully pulpit.

Why don't you just post "I don't like Labour" then go and get a life?

To answer your last point first Peter - I doubt it: they are pretty spineless based on previous experience, but I think this would be a decision taken by the cabinet, and the PLP would have to accept it.

That said, I think if a "new" leader took over rather than a caretaker one, there would be a great obligation for him to resign, especially if you got Messrs Mudie N. Brown and Balls dissenting. They could easily say "well, the country should decide" but my guess is they wouldn't speak out until after a general election was lost - in the same way that Byers, Milburn, and co have only spoken out against Brown SINCE the misfortunes which started last autumn.

Alan, I'm not so sure that a losing new leader would have to resign, especially if Labour's share of the vote significantly increased and he or she is proven to put good heart in to the party membership.

Regarding your comment on the Labour MPs.....they are the only ones who could trigger a leadership election, but are 45 pairs of 'cojones' to be found in the PLP?

Don't knock a second coming.

In the one week where Labour should've had the Tories on the ropes and started building momentum they snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Again.

There's nothing stopping Labour winning the next election but throwing it like this is generating the whiff they deserve to lose. Pathetic.

Labour get a clue by the end of the week, or sack Brown, or I just give up on them, whichever comes first.

William Hague was very careful in his choclate box description of Cameron to avoid any specifics about how Cameron operates behind closed doors and his history. Hague is lying and he knows it. That's a ripe target for attack.

Will Labour attack the enemy? *sigh* No, they'll vote their own leader down.

Will Labour ministers comment in here? *sigh* No, they'll let Tory trolls own their own blog.

We are surrounded by idiots.

MY personal preference was for John Reid and Maragaret Beckett to win Labour's leadership election. Most online pundits are full of talk. I placed real money on a bet. I still believe that was the better choice but one deals with how things are rather than how one wishes them to be.

The handover from Blair to Brown was fumbled, and Brown had been stuck for too long in the back office to have hammered out all the kinks. He's made a few mistakes and been badly advised in a number of ways. That hasn't helped. Things could still improve but that needs Labour to drop the squabbling and take a more outward facing attitude.

"extraordinary to see Keith Vaz,"

Were there subtitles? He's such a toff I can barely understand a word he says.

bb J, My reading of the post at the top of the page was, basically, 'Mr Brown must go' and that this is 'the issue.' My comment was my opinion regarding the consequences.

You are correct about the pressure on John Major and his decision to put it to the vote. I think you are also correct regarding Mr Brown calling an election, given sufficient pressure.

By the way, third time of asking - did you ever find the 'public finances databank' from the link that I gave you?

They probably have a zen deficiency at a guess.

Labour is approaching being 20% behind in the polls (statistically the margin of error means that lead is real), Labour was wiped out at the local elections and the same will happen at the Euros in June

Labour is economically illiterate and seems to stumble from one disaster to another on the economy. Whatever you think about othr policy areas this will be enough to destroy the government in the polls and rightly so. The last 2 Labour administrations will have wrecked the country financially and people will remember.

The Labour Party itself has numerous Blairites now girding themselves up to say "told you so" and the bloodletting after the almost inecitable election defeat won't be pleasant to behold.

If you throw in the stupidity of the Ghurka debate, the vote that never was on £150 a day for MPs and the disgraceful Equality Bill - all in one week mind - how in the hell do you think "there is everything to play for"?

Labour is as was rather aptly said the government of the "living dead", the only issue is now whether it can limp along until next May.

In 1997 the Conservatives deserved to lose the election and spend time in opposition as they had lost the plot, if you seriously believe that this Labour government doesn't deserve and is heading towards the same fate then all I can do is leave you in whichever dream reality you inhabit.

Having lost Steve Hilton (Dave's other half in the New Tory project), Mr Cameron is lacking a hard inner core. He seems to change with the wind.


very worrying that.

Well observed

That's part of the problem with this site and some (most?) commentators - words are put into comments that aren't there in the first place.

'tt', I emphatically did not say that changing Brown would 'require' a general election. What I did say, was that although our 'unwritten' constitution would not require it, but in my opinion, it would inevitably lead to a general election. There's a difference.

That's part of the problem with this site and some (most?) commentators - words are put into comments that aren't there in the first place.

As for Mr Blair's resignation, nowhere did I say that I 'accepted' the failure to follow with a general election (refer to my previous sentence).

extraordinary to see Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee - on BBC - criticizing the government and praising the LibDems.



re the vote in House of Commons on "Gurkha settlement rights".

Take a look at the Usual Suspects around here claiming Cameron is the Second Coming and look at their behaviour. They don't want better. They just want a cheap thrill. How can someone aspire to lead when they can't even control their own mind?

Its how they all end - her holy thatcherness poll(t)axed; scheming blair war-lies; retarded brown just plain detached....

However it usually takes many years - whereas brown was off his rocker before he even started.

Leaders get paranoid and new advisers show too much deference. I think brown locked himself in a room all alone and did the whole youtube thing himself - thinking his advisers all had it in for him, and that he would get massive public support.

Little did they know his advisers lie to him to protect him, not to undermine him.

I think he was being sarcastic about you being sarcastic....or something.

Anyway I agree with you. And I'm not being sarcastic.

A very accurate picture Mr Barnard. The issue though is not the welfare of the country, the Labour party or anything else. Mr Brown only cares for himself and the top job.

John Major was a man of great honour, he recognised the impact of the spend thrift Thatcher years and invested in the country. The pressure got to a level where he decided to put it to the vote. Brown is not John Major, if Brown goes for the mandate he will lose and he covets the role above anything else. The only reason he will call an election is if the pressure gets to him.

I am relatively new to politics, (I'm only 25), and I never understood what it meant to be "out of touch". I thought, 'how can you be out of touch? It is your job as a politician to be in touch! You spend every day trying to figure out what the public are thinking, how can you be out of touch'. Over the last 1-2 years I've had an lesson in being out of touch by our great leader GB.

Today is a perfect example. If you're a PM in trouble, the Gurkha issue is perfect, let them in, give a speech about how courage should be rewarded, take in the Kudos and accept the extra 3% in the polls - Thanks. Instead what we have is a PM so missing of political know how that not only did he balls the issue up, he then lost a vote on it too!!! If that's not out of touch I don't know what is.

Its not just that, 10p tax, the defence of his handling of the economy, the VAT rise, the 50p tax increase, the fiasco over allowances, welfare reform.. on all these issues and much more GB is sailing against the wind. With 10p he taxed the poor to a greater extent (thanks - from personal experience), the VAT rise did nothing, 50p is a political gesture with little economic benefit, welfare reform that punishes job seekers in the middle of a recession. The guy is literally all over the place.

Now I understand what being out of touch looks like and its scary, what is GB playing at? On youtube he looks demented, who's bright idea was it to put him up for that?

And to cap it all the most signed petition on his own website is telling him to resign. Having just read this back, I actually feel very sorry for him. He's like the captain on the titanic, except he built it and told everyone onboard how great it was.

On what grounds was he "the best leader" at the G20?

I disagree about changing brown 'requiring' a general election.

There should have been an election when blair stepped down because blair promised to serve a full term (so the term should have automatically ended when he stepped down).

Having 'accepted' that blair going didn't require a general election, why should the removal of an unelected usurper trigger one?

Its so easy to be a world leader - because it means nothing. Even Tony Blair appeared to give a good impression outside the UK! You carry no responsibility, you don't have to make promises (then break them), and no one cares what you are or what you stand for - its too remote.

But you are right - Brown did make a good impression and used the opportunity to act on the world stage very well. Perhaps we could get him into the IMF or World Bank or UN - or anywhere. Then perhaps we could have a leader with sufficient respect for the electorate to trust us to vote in a referendum on the EU constitution. I would vote for anyone who will give me this opportunity.

I do see your point, Peter, but if Brown did call a "back me or sack me" election, I bet he would find it hard to find a challenger, because they, too, would find it messy to throw their hat into the ring. If Labour got a new leader that way (I suspect Brown would lose it) whomever took over would feel obliged to resign if they lose the general election. If, though, it was clearly understood that the new leader would be just a caretaker, and the real contest was for next year, there might be less friction in the PLP and constituency parties. I agree though, whatever happens it will not be a prettyu sight, but I think if I were a Labour MP it would be better to get rid of GB because by doing so, the party might regain something of it's popularity with ordinary voters.

Although our ‘unwritten’ constitution allows it, it would be unprecedented (I think) for a governing party to change its leader twice in the term of government and unless it was made clear that the decks were being cleared for a general election, the electorate would be up in arms, at the very least.

Politically (for Labour), it would be a disaster if Labour changed its leader and then soldiered on (some may say crawled on) for another twelve months or so in government. I think that this must be understood by all those who are advocating that Mr Brown be replaced as Party leader. I don’t have to spell out the consequences as far as the press and TV coverage, and attacks from every other political party are concerned ; Labour would be immensely damaged.

Historically, for the Labour Party, it’s nothing new for rumblings about the leadership to be detected. Clem Attlee heard them, so did Harold Wilson and so did Tony Blair. Attlee and Wilson were able to survive them, but not Mr Blair.

Rumblings of dissatisfaction with the leadership aren’t the exclusive property of the Labour party, either. Mrs Thatcher survived, apparently unscathed, the ‘stalking horse’ leadership election in 1989, but the undercurrent of discontent with her leadership was not calmed and she did not survive the consequences of Sir Geoffrey Howe’s devastating resignation speech in 1990. John Major had his ‘put up or shut up/back me or sack me’ election in 1995.

It’s said that ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time.’ It must be a sod of a job being a party leader – you can’t even please half of your party half of the time.

Perhaps Mr Brown should (must?) take the course followed by Mr Major and call a ‘back me or sack me’ election for the leadership. If he won a contested election, it would restore his authority in the Party and, maybe, gain some respect from the electorate at large. But no Party member, especially Labour MPs and those who have initiated this post, should be under any illusion that a change of leadership would not lead to an inevitable general election – and pretty quickly.

My decision? That’s way above my pay grade.

"That's my focus".


Given that Blairities would be comfortable as a part of the New LibDems. (see my post time stamped 4.55pm),


Given that Nick Clegg has been very pragmatic, for instance in letting Vince Cable outshine him...


and if we are in an age of pragmatism
- Lord Mandelson has spoken of a "revolution" and
- "Dave" has played catchup, and has recently spoken about a massive change in culture


then why not a realignment of politics?
and why not have a new political force?


to reflect the new times we are in.


for sure it will make politics less tribal?

God help us!. If Hazel Blears ever becomes leader of the Labour Party, the unfortunate mishaps with Brown will seem like a very minor storm in a teacup.

I suppose all that can be said for her is that if she ever had to deliver really bad news she could do so whilst executing a tapdance ("One, two button my shoe, Sad to say the end of the world is due").

And why is she making speeches on "welfare reform" - has Purnell resigned and joined the Tories this afternoon? I have not had the news on.....

I dont think Blears is going for the leadership. She doesn't have it in her. The Gubberment has a made a point recently of talking about what we the elctorate are thinking - without acting. This difuses the tension / comments about the govt. being clueless.

If anyone is going to make a play for top spot, It will be Horse Face, Moribund, Coops (Balls-up now has baggage and if the trouble and strife gets it, it's the same thing); Pernicious (dirty) and Dougal (not another Scot) could be the left field candidates that take it.

into the mix:


Paddy Ashdown, on a recent Andrew Marr show said that he had a deal in place with ex PM Blair before New Labour won the '97 election.

However he said that rather unexpectedly this was blocked at the last minute, he thinks - by the Chancellor and also by the deputy PM.


The "deal" was an agreement to merge the labour Party with the LibDems.

Maybe. But there's no point replacing the leader if there hasn't been some fundamental rethinking of what Labour means now that New Labour has has its day. That's my focus. Blair rode to three election victories not just because he had a pretty face, but because the party had root and branch changed itself - in some cases for the better, in some cases for the worst.

Like many others here, I despair of gotcha politics of Westminster personalities. Unlike many others, I don't think the party system is beyond repair, and in the absence of anything that will replace it, I think it behoves those on the centre left to think what they want power for before just grabbing it.

"It's a complex issue. If Brown is ousted a la Thatcher, then the resentments and divisions could put Labour out of power for a generation, as an internal coup did for the Tories"

I think it's different in that (amazing as it seems) there were still many Tory MPs, Ministers - and voters who genuinely "loved" Mrs T.

I frankly doubt, in sober truth if many people still actually admire Brown (still less "love" him in the way some of the Blairites still "love" Blair). There can be no more than a few ardent Brownites (George Mudie, Nick Brown are the only two that honestly come to mind -apart from Ed Balls, who wants to be leader himself) who would be seriously aggreived. I should imagine most ministers and teh PLP would be reluieved if he suddenly decided to throw in the towel (nothing concentrates the mind of an MP more than the thought of losing his seat)

What absolute class - lib-con take down brown...

I thought PMQs was a wasted opportunity to have a pop at brown, almost every question was on the ghurkas -- but I missed the bigger picture.

The scene was being set for a government defeat -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm

Having hammered away about it got the headline and, and public support (i.e. emails to daily politics) - the back benchers were left in no doubt knew which side their bread was buttered...

Ha ha ha -- well done cameron and clegg.

In defence of Brown, it must be very difficult to lead when you know that there are several members of your cabinet just waiting for you to fall under the proverbial bus, or louse things up so badly you have to go. But in some ways, he has himself to blame. back in 2007 he should have got rid of some of the old Blairites in the cabinet and given jobs to his own men - Nick Brown has always been a great friend and supporter - something better and more high profile for him could have ousted, say, Purnell or Hutton, two of the "ultras" - Purnell, like David Miliband is a young man in a hurry. But to compound this, he was silly enough to get Alan Milburn Peter Mandelson back: that man just cannot help himself, and you can bet your bottom dollar he is, as we speak, arranging whomever he thinks should replace GB (my guess is Purnell) leadership election.

My gut feeling is that if the EU elections are VERY bad then the cabinet should tell Brown his time is up, nominate a leader they can at least get on with as a caretaker until next years general election. My guess is that would be Jack Straw. I don't dislike Alistair Darling, but being Scottish would probably count against him (it really is unfair the way the press has rounded on AD - after all the mess is not of his own making); having AD would merely make the Tories shout even louder for an immediate election 9and they would follow the press lead in blaming him for the budget and everything that has gone wrong). I honestly don't see how they could limp through to next spring if very serious damage happened at the EU elections, so I would say changing leaders (we all know whoever it is would only be a caretaker) would actually be kindest for Brown, who is clearly ill at ease, and mightsalvage things or at least make defeat less huge than it might otherwise be. I should say the least worst option.

I defy you. We did not have the best leader at the G20.

That's funny.

The other thing, though, is this: Are Labour going to finally resolve this issue of whether to get rid of Brown or just keep asking the question? One thing for sure that is undeniable is that talking about it is damaging - if it's going to be done, it needs to be done quickly.

I'm genuinely confused by your 'sarcasm' comment! I wasn't being sarcastic of your opinions, just disagreeing with them for the reasons given.

You're right, I can be sarcastic on occasion, it has been known, but there was none intended in my reply.

What is it you object to? Where was I being sarcastic?

I thought that Clegg did very well today. He got his point over clearly for once and scored a palpable hit on Gordon Brown. Gordon's body language said it all at Clegg's second question.

Just keep telling yourself that...

When brown cancelled the election last time one minister said that it was a very brave thing to do (I have searched for the reference, but couldn't re-find it) -- commentators guessed that it meant that the cabinet knew things would be getting worse, but (at the time) weren't aware of anything significant on the horizon(!). Now we know...

I am looking forward to brown being totally humiliated and crushed - whether it is now or in a years time.

But for the sake of the country, he should go now -- darling clearly wrestles with his conscience every time he acts as browns mouthpiece. Saying what he has been told, knowing it is a betrayal of the country.

I couldn't agree more David - it would be very easy for him to adopt an "I told you so" sort of arrogance, but he always comes over as a courteous and serious. I frankly think (for any party) experience is always to be valued more than youth - I don't want to sound like an old fogey but you can't beat somebody who has lived a good few years and did something other than politics.

Given that Britain now is a premier European power and not a global power, we need a leader that reflects this.


PM Brown, a leader of global stature needs a global stage. and Britain ain't that - anymore.

----

with global prosperity in mind, there clearly is a need for someone to drive the anti-protectionism agenda. at the IMF.

You're probably right Ben. I suspect the vast majority of signatories to the resign petition are from England. It is after all England that's been getting the Brown end of the stick since Labour came in (and before).

The Barnett Formula and it's consequences - prescriptions, university education, care for the elderly etc etc etc. The English regions project. Devolution for Scotland, Wales an Northern Ireland but not for England as a nation.

Who could blame 'em?

Yes! That's the answer: head hunt him. I would vote for Labour under Vince Cable.

Seriously, he is the sort of person you need. Someone with real life and real business experience; someone with vision and who is able to present his thoughts clearly but also with some degree of personal humility.

Celia, you seem to be addicted to sarcasm.
I have a similar tendency.
I blame my school teachers who exposed me to sarcasm at an early age.
Now I do my best to avoid it.
If you think there's any sarcasm in the above, you're wrong.

"Thing about the Libdems, they have more points of view about any policy than they have MP's - I never believed that Charles Kennedy was an alcoholic, I think his party drove him to drink -"


"My wife drove me to drink. It's the only thing I'm grateful to her for" (W.C. Fields)

Frankly, Charlie drunk was 100% better than Nick Clegg sober. Their big asset is Vince Cable, who I think is one of the most impressive figures currently at westminster, regardless of party.

Now you've gone and torn it! That's pretty persuasive too. Damn. Now I'm going to have to really think about this. Surely that's not what a blog is for...

You know who we've all forgotten - Hapless Hattie Harman.

Now that would be interesting!

Much has changed for Brown in the last few months and I defy anyone who said we did not have the best leader at the G20. I am disappointed with Labourhome in running negatives polls in this way.

Now a few months back I would have said the same. I was never a big Brown supporter and I did have my own doubts. However that was then but things have changed, Brown has shown decisive leadership and takes action where it’s needed.

I think to do such a poll now misses the point. Labour has never been about just one person. The Party is a collective of people and ideas and in terms of policy we have plenty. It’s why the Party leads on debates and represents the people on more issues then the Tories ever could.

Its also engages when its leader is taking the steps to relate to people or helping people when times are tough. Brown is not the problem it’s the cynical media and people forgetting that a negative headline is not always based on fact.

Labour is not in the bad position as the press imply, yes it’s though but you name me any government that is as popular as when first elected. Any election since 97 could never be taken for granted and it’s always the case if you want to win you has to represent the issues that matter to people.

Brown is the leader of the Labour Party and the PM. I for one will now argue against any such talk of changing leader. The only people it would help at this late stage are the Tories.

Labour can win and there is everything to play for. The media and press do not go canvassing and nor do they have any contact with real people. Sure they ask people about stories but whatever answer they receive they base it on the view their editor wants regardless of fact or relevance.

I care not for press the media or their views, the reality on the doorstep is all that matters for elections and that for Labour is very encouraging in many parts of the UK. Labour campaigners speak to real people everyday and that's the difference compared with negative headlines.

Brown is doing the job and he is up for the fight, my doubts I had before have gone and that is the same for the vast bulk of the Labour Party members.

These polls are pointless and detract from the real help Labour is doing for people. They distract from the help for the economy or the investment in public services. They forget that without Labour everything from the free bus pass for pensioners to the minimum wage is at risk.

And not least David Cameron is no leader; he is weak and cares little for real people. All he has pledged to do so far is bring back extreme animal cruelty in the form of fox hunting and become upset that the wealthy have to pay a 50% tax rate.

I'm proud of Labour and I would never vote anything different. The Conservatives are not a new fresh Government in waiting but a throwback of ideas that failed under Thatcher in the 80's.

Instead of silly online polls that have no credibility no-matter who conducts them. What is important is not the negative headlines but campaigning now for the County and European elections. Being inward looking is now not the time.

Iain Dale thinks the Chirpy Chipmunk is setting out her stall:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/whose-words-are-these.html#links

"Morys I can't see john McDonnell or Jon Cruddas getting on very well with Frank Field" - Well they have one thing in common at least, they all want to see Labour win another term. If we're going to do it then the leadership needs ideas from, and the support of the entire party.

I don't think there is anything that's more harmful to Labour than Gordon Brown as leader, so debate away. Of course not giving the Gurkhas leave to remain in the UK might be worse but whose fault is that? No one will push Brown out until the upcoming elections are over, and I don't think there is a mechanism for removing him until the next party conference, but we can always hope that a pig might fall out of the sky and flatten him.

His last 'bounce' started when some MP's gave up on him and some started arguing in his support, so a real in party debate might help,something Brown's opposed to, but then we had the credit crunch and the bounce was credited to his handling of it, not that anything he's done achieved anything yet.

I'd like to see that Cabinet Member from Southampton, never remember his name, never seems to be around, as our PM. People who suggest that there's no one in the cabinet who could replace Brown may be forgetting about him. Then again he might be like Vince Cable and not want the leadership.

Thing about the Libdems, they have more points of view about any policy than they have MP's - I never believed that Charles Kennedy was an alcoholic, I think his party drove him to drink - how else could you run such a farce? So a hung Parliament might be good if it brought in PR but the libdems want power and that could be disasterous.

We need a new leader, asap, if not before June. I suspect it won't happen, though, as MP's know labour's lost and are thinking about the post mortums that will follow the general election defeat. If they put their head up to take out Brown and he survives but the party loses, it will blame them not Brown, whereas we need to get rid of Brown to win. I suppose the backbenches need to believe they can win under someone to stand up to Brown, or at least lose all hope of keeping their seat. It's because they expect to loose next year but keep their own individual seats that they are behaving so selfishly over their expenses.

Your only going to be sure if you like me if you try.

I did suggest you went to Somalia with Sicko; for that I apologise: Please put that down to the fact that I know Mr misogynist doesn't like those more pragmatic than he and my over exuberance.

Any way back to back to bosoms of the Tory party, far more interesting.

Oooh you are awful, but I'm not sure if I like you.

You suggested I went to Somalia with... with... I think I'm going to be sick...

As Iain Dale points out, 27,000 is more than voted for Gordon Brown in his Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency.

But since people have to enter their postcode to add their names, it would be interesting if someone did a sort to find out how many of the 27,000 are actually in the constituency...I don't think Iain Dale would look so clever then...

LOL!

Strategically, Labour need to be thinking about some re-alignment ready for 2014. I think the reckoning is that new generation would need to get some flying hours now - so they would not just be seen as lightweight when in opposition. So I suspect we'd wouldn't be looking at another senior Labour member: that change has happened once already with Blair being replaced by Brown.

Just my guesses. I have no more idea than you have.

Absolutely. A party focused on decentralising power, focused on helping to build strong confident sustainable
communities. Not obsessed with ever intrusive centralising statist ambitions. It's why the labour party today will never get my vote. I'm not too keen on voting conservative in my constituency but I'm taking the anyone but labour approach. I think there are others like me. But there is no localist/sustainable/cooperative/socially liberal/republican/economic liberal parties for me to support.

Johnson has a certain romanticism to it, given his delivering the mail to Chequers in a former life....

I'd better stop, I'm coming over all misty eyed.

Being partisan, I hope Brown stays. And I think he will, he will want to for his own vanity, he wants a legacy besides economic incompetency and general ridicule. He can't exactly do a Blair and go on the celebrity lecture circuit, I mean... who the heck would pay good money to be bored to death? The best he can hope for is £50 annually for presenting the Raith Rovers Player of the Year Award.

John Reid has been put out to pasture, but you are right, he would make a real good fight of it, he's a real streetfighter.

I used to like that Alan Milburn as a decent and intelligent man, a voice of moderation, but he's been frozen out.

Mr Millibean has been touted as leadership potential but he's too lightweight.

All in all, I suspect Alan Johnson may be the man. I don't think Georgia Gould is quite ready for it.

And this from a poster who, on another thread, complained

"It is otiose to describe them (the Tories) as "terrorists" - worse it is deeply offensive."

Hypocrisy unbound.

lightweight versus heavyweight politicians.


I would argue that the heavyweight politicians are the one's who are into "he is not one of us" syndrome. and they have "protectors" such as Damien McBride and Andy Coulson.


Think time for these folks is up...as the time of centralised power is up. Interesting question though is if our new leaders are not going to as heavyweight as they were in the past - Thatcher, Blair, Brown....


then....

so what?


ps - by heavyweight do we mean leaders of global stature?

Hamish D Not literally. A poor taste of word yes but the point is Vaz has during his career been involved in certain questionable activities. In 2001 he was involved in some financial problem and he lost his voice for three or four weeks before the election due to laryngitis. This ailment was completely cleared up the day AFTER that election. A very strange coincidence when that condition had stopped him from speaking or even issuing statements to the BBC during all that time.

SWhat I meant and rather clumsily put is that if Labour want to have a different image, it would not be a good idea to include baggage from previous administrations like Mr Vaz

Disagree Hamish.

I think LL is extremely well laid out and don't know what you mean about it being 'laborious'. Comparing it to other blogs, the comments appear well laid out in their threads. Compare that to the rubbish systems Guido and Dale use (chosen because they lead the field in political blogging) and LL is a breath of fresh air.

As you probably know, LL was originally set up as a promotional vehicle for Derek Draper Enterprises. The fact that he's been nowhere to be seen for the last few weeks leaves it appearing somewhat rudderless. It does need a stronger editorial policy, and certainly better writers. Some articles are just plain woeful. But overall it gets a good 7/10 from me.

Be careful in praising the moderators though, they are big-headed enough as it is.

(You know I don't mean it boys!)

As a floating voter I would say that the problem goes wider than just Brown. The Labour party looks old, tired and out of ideas. I don't really know what you stand for except that you aren't socialists anymore. There is no-one on the current front bench who I would find an exciting change to Brown.

There seems no doubt to me that Labour is in for a total hammering at the next election: the Tories will get their voters out to the polls and people like me who would NEVER vote Tory will probably just not bother turning up. I have never not voted but at the moment I feel like I have no-one to vote for.

Having said all that, while I think you have no chance with Brown, you do have a small chance with the right new leader. It's a no brainer really. Brown is tainted by his years in the Treasury, the current financial crisis and his unwillingness to neither apologise or to take any personal responsibility. He is a total liability for your party IMO.

I've signed the petition...

We'll have to see if they stop treating Clegg like the lightweight joke that he is at PMQs - that will be the first clue.

Second clue - Vince Cable has a coup and takes over as leader, and does every important role too, as the rest of the Liberals are complete no-marks.

Completely agree on reconnecting. I think all parties need to do that.

Labour has, to me, always been the party of activism. At its best, this means identifying injustices and trying to change them. At its worst, this means intervening where no intervention is necessary, or even wanted (see 'horticultural therapist' above), or even causing damage in doing so. In a tighter spending environment, I think Labour needs to re-learn the dividing lines between where to intervene and where to leave alone - and being smarter in coming up with ways to support people to help themselves rather than getting the State to do it for them.

You may have a point about the top personnel (though power begets these corruptions in a way opposition doesn't), but I'm talking about the party, and the mass of members who end up determining policy in one way or another.

I have some very nice Tory friends, in a way I would have thought inconceivable in the 80s, but while I know what the Labour Party essentially stands for in terms of its membership and ethos, I have no clue about the Tories these days. Are they back to the old fashioned noblesse oblige One Nation movement? Or are they the socially liberal, ecologically sound image promoted by Cameron? Or are they still driven by Milton Friedman, complete laissez faire, and an ideological belief that the EU is the new USSR?

You see my problem. The fact is that most the views of Tories posting here seem to be of the latter kind, so I'm doubtful if Cameron's ostensibly centrist polices will survive. Th

All credit to LabourList for allowing dissenting voices on this website, and for (usually) applying speedy moderation.

Zero points to your technology, which makes responding to a post so laborious.
And are you trying to prove a point by your woeful typesetting? Ask a former compositor to help.

Blogs are historically one-person bands.
You have broken the mould in inviting many people to originate posts.
In my view LabourList has contributed a lot to the political debate but I don't think it works as a blog.
The thing that attracts many people to the egotistical blogs is the sense of one opinionated individual sounding of and everyone else having a go.

Since LabourList has been so willing to invite others to originate posts, it is surely more important to be transparent about the identity of LabourList.
Guido has been outed as Paul Staines.

In your post you say:
"It is important that criticism of Brown's leadership is voiced and heard, but it is even more critical that the Party coalesce around its leadership now if we are to be united in 2010."

So who is LabourList?

Er, it was me, not Iain who raised the point initially that the petition numbers exceed the number of votes in his constituency just after it went past the point yesterday: http://markreckons.blogspot.com/2009/04/gordon-brown-resign-petition-numbers_28.html

I disagree with your opposition to this debate. For the good of your party and country he should go. I would rather the next election was a close fight rather than a landslide which would give us the Tories for at least a decade.

There's got to be a way to avoid both the bland overpaid consultants, or the Trotskyite tendencies I remember from the 80s when I was very active.

Rather than activism per se, the grass roots model of community organisation pioneered by Saul Alinksy was Obama's model. Maybe we should look to something similar?

Actually, I've spoken out in praise of Cameron on this blog several times. How's that for objectivity?

Senior Tories fear only one scenario. (according to Martha Kearney, Radio 4).


a LibLab pact - presenting itself as a new force in UK politics.

---
For some reason, an Oct election looks very interesting.

It does not serve Peters purpose to recognise this fact - that would objective and Peter does not understand this word.

Trend analysts make me think of the planning consultants who over the last ten years have been coming up to from London, at a day rate of £1500 each, to ask people in South Yorkshire what they wanted their towns and villages to be like. At the meeting I went to, they suggested employing a "horticultural therapist" on the allotments.

Yes, "reconnecting" seems a good word.

I really can't see how you can honestly believe the Conserarvatives
are as authoritarian as Labour now. Looking back in time is pointless
as these are (mostly) different Tories and a different membership.

Recent developments have shown the Tories to be far more Libertarian
in their outlook than New Labour (who have made moves to be authoritarian
in the extreme over recent years.)

David Cameron has worried me a few times when he takes pops at
Libertarian values, but he still surrounds himself with people
to whom civil liberties matter.

Contrast that to Gordon Brown's cabinet...

Thatcher was a champion of Pinochet and PW Botha. Bang goes her claim to be defender of Freedom.

I completely agree agree about reconnecting with the grass roots - not just activists but voters. The party has become too remote and not accountable enough. But lord forfend we just follow poll samplers and trend analysts. As Obama showed, you have to lead public opinion as well as follow it. He also proved that, despite a demoralised and moribund party structure, you can bypass the old guard and reconnect will millions in terms of fundraising and activism.

Great post Peter.

Regarding the roots, I agree re the old unionised left, but the party needs to do some thinking about ordinary low income people who have traditionally supported it. I'm from South Yorkshire, Labour votes weighed not counted etc, and here there has been a massive loss of support from those people because they feel the party isn't interested in them. I have to say I think they're right. Had the party been in touch with its grass roots, and used ideas from there, then solutions to issues like the resentment of long-term benefits cheats and of immigration could have been found, and the issues sorted, without the loss of votes to the BNP and Lib Dems.

It's very timely to remind people that the Conservatives in practice are no keener on civil liberties, tolerance and freedom than anyone else. Mrs Thatcher is always spoken of as a champion of freedom, but in fact she was a very prescriptive politician - to me it just seems that her prescriptions (thrift, family) were ignored.

As for ways forward and core values, I always liked the way early New Labour talked about equality of opportunity. It is hard to argue against, but it is hard for Conservatives to go there because it cuts against their stress on family and passing on advantage.

Labour was elected in 1997 due to 2 things:

1 The Conservative Party had become unelectabl, it has lost its way and change was needed

2 The Labour party had rebranded to "New Labour", moved to the right to occupy the centre-left ground (taxation, ditching clause 4 etc.) so as to gain the support of a sufficently large number of the middle classes.

What you have now is a Conservative Party who are electable and the probable death of New Labour with a lurch back to the left. The fact that the Liberals are now to the right of Labour on many issues should tell you which way the wind is blowing.

I always thought Labour would remain in power as long as they remembered the bitterness of long years of opposition and the reason why they won in 1997. As soon as those lessons were forgotten and power was assumed as a right rather than a priviledge then that would be the end of the Labour government and probably launch a period of infighting.

It seems this is exactly what will now take place.

Even though the partisan in me would want a wounded Brown to stagger on, I think it would be better for him, for Labour and for the country as a whole if he stepped down now, if only to make it a 'fair fight'. I don't think too large majorities are particularly healthy for democracy...

A year is still a long time, I think if someone new hit the ground running and made a really good impression quickly, then the messiness of the changeover would go to the back of people's minds (much like the 10p fiasco is now - not completely forgotten, but not in the public's conciousness any more). Like it as not, things like image weigh equally heavily with policies in most voter's minds and if Labour could find the right person then he or she could stand a chance to nick it.

But.....who? Personally speaking I think John Reid would be Labour's best bet.

"new whiter labour party".
Anent Keith Vaz.
Tasteless.

No, I agree with that, and would add that the undemocratic dealings go right back to Heath.

Morys I can't see john McDonnell or Jon Cruddas getting on very well with Frank Field, who is so right-wing as to be a guest Tory in the Labour party. Keith Vaz has a "past" (2001) that wouldn't auger very well for a new whiter Labour party. By that I mean, in case Mr Jukes is on parade, there were certain questions about financial dealings just prior to the 2001 election which caused him to mysteriously lose his voice with three weeks of laryngitis, which, amazingly cleared up the daty after that election. strange coincidence.

I would imagine if Brown has to go this summer they would indeed install Jack Straw as leader as a caretaker till a real contest in summer 2010 after the next election. I expect one of the "ultra" mob to win - Purnell, D.Miliband - even Byers or Milburn. I am quite relaxed about that, because Blairism's time has gone and any leader who presented a Blairite manifesto to the country now would be defeated. Indeed, I can't see the next permanent leader of Labour ever becoming PM, because if they lose, I suspect they will be out of office for a decade

Pretty persuasive post, James. The question is which damnation should Labour choose? As in all real moral political decisions, it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I'm not so sure. True, Europe was the source of both Thatcher's downfall, and Major's, but the undemocratic way it was dealt with meant that the issue was never really faced down, never really resolved in an open contest. For that reason it still simmers, unresolved and potentially explosive for Cameron, to this day.

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I think you mean't the countries knackered if he stays and has chance if he goes.

I agree with Hugh. The internal coup wasn't what put the Tories out of power. In 1992 they got roughly the same percentage of the vote as in 87, and the most votes of any party at any election in British history, although some credit for this probably goes to the famous Sun "turn off the lights" front page. The divisive issue was not the coup per se, but rather the EU; disagreement over EU policy contributed to the coup.

There may be a parallel between those who argue for a return to more left wing "roots" and those who backed Hague's entrenchment; in both cases a centrist approach was seen to have failed, and so the more extreme party members and strategists get a mandate.

Apparently for years Major bitterly complained that Blair had stolen all his ideas. I wonder if he says the same now?

The key question is whether Labour feel they would have to go to the country if they changed leader again. If they did, then they would lose, badly. If they didn't, then they would have to put up with a lot of noise from the Tories saying that they should, but if they stuck it out they would at least have a chance. I agree with the comment below that it's probably the Tories worst nightmare. I just can't understand why Brown doesn't see that he should govern more consensually and consultatively - if only with his own party rather than with anyone else - rather than the dictatorship-by-cabal we've got at the moment. The Youtube episode was the epitome of that - what on earth was he doing, posting it a day after meeting the PLP when he hadn't even mentioned it?

But changing leaders would be very, very messy......

Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Talking about issues of substance, Celia will you welcome me to the bosom of the Tory party?

I don't quite understand the analogy with Hague, but as for where Labour should root itself, it certainly wouldn't be on the old unionised left. For starters, the power base isn't there, and the agendas of nationalisation and protectionism just don't work in the modern world.

I'm still trying to find the right way to frame what I think now: I'm suspicious of all command and control systems, but also deeply wary of the 'creative destruction' proposed by those on the anarchist left and libertarian right.

Socially, I'm for more freedom, protection of civil liberties, and real tolerance - i.e. you have to tolerate the intolerance of others at times (but that is not necessarily applicable to a Labour blog before anyone gets ideas). I don't believe the Tories would guarantee this anymore than Labour, despite the antics of David Davies. In fact, from their historical record, I think they're intrinsically more authoritarian than Labour.

Foreign policy is a whole other subject, but it's on economics where I'm looking for leadership. Both Tories and Labour have followed the Reagan Thatcher paradigm, with some social justice tagged on, a paradigm which has recently proven itself bankrupt.

It's too early to say what the exact solution to this is.

A poll would be interesting...

I can't see Straw or Darling being a better alternative. If we were to change leader, which I'm not really sure we should, it would need to be a dramatic change otherwise there just wouldn't be any point.

A 'big-tent' cabinet (MPs from across the party, Cruddas, Clarke, Field, Vaz maybe even McDonnell) would help get the whole party behind winning a 4th term. Maybe that would be an alternative to a leadership change. Can't see it happening though...

Nope, Cameron didn't mention the petition, he stuck to real issues of substance.

Oh well...

Last month at a party I was talking to a young-ish man who worked at a fairly junior level for the Conservatives in a back-office role. I said the mood at their HQ must be quite buoyant. He said yes, but the leadership and managers were concerned to avoid over confidence, only danger was complacency etc etc.

However, he was much less confident about taking on Labour under a new leader. In fact he said that Labour changing leader was the Conservatives "worst nightmare." The reason was simple, he said. Brown was associated with the economic mess; a fresh face who managed to distance him or herself from the old regime could give Cameron a run for his money.

Under Brown, Labour will get less seats than the Conservatives got at the last election. They had lost much of the support in the heartlands even before the economic crisis. It may well be a question of damage limitation. Even if replacing Brown did "damage" the party, it would do less harm in the long run than him staying and reducing the parliamentary base to negligible size.

The other way of looking at it, though, is that it was only because they got rid of Thatcher that they were able to win the '92 election. If you're taking lessons from the Tories, though, I'd be interested to know why you seem to reckon renewal lies in returning to Labour's traditional comfort zone further left (though I may have read you wrong). It didn't work terribly well for Hague and the rest of them, and all this talk of the need to return to Labour's roots does rather ignore the fact that the votes you are losing are going to a centre-right party.

Great that you posted this, because the issue has certainly been mooted much in private. To my mind there's no doubt that the Third Way Triangulated New Labour project has run its course, and the questions is whether renewal is best started now, or after a likely election defeat.

It's a complex issue. If Brown is ousted a la Thatcher, then the resentments and divisions could put Labour out of power for a generation, as an internal coup did for the Tories. On the other hand, Brown ran basically unopposed, and has never received the mandate of the voters.

In short, I'm torn, and will look to others who genuinely support the centre left (and that excludes a lot of the comments already here) for good arguments either way.

Gordon became leader un opposed because his rottweiler MacBride made it so.

The Labour Party and government clearly have no historians. Something about a quote that those who don't learn from history are doomed to relive it over and over?

This is Labour's equivalent to the Conservative's mid 1990s to the the election of 1997 moment, even down to the fixation over "getting the message across"

It's actually quite pitiful that Labour don't realise.

Why not give Dr David Starkey a call, he's a respected historian and if Question Time was anything to go on he has some advice he'd like to share with Labour

The only thing that can possibly save the Labour Party is to clearly identify and promote a distinctive set of core values. Not those it appears to demonstrate of "big-state" interventions, and increasing state monitoring of private individuals, but to do with social justice, increasing equality, encouragement of self-help and co-operative / mutualist approaches, and the maximum liberty for individuals that is compatible with the freedoms of others. In short, real Labour.

We need to move away from the tainted centre-right ground. We need to be clear what we stand for. And Brown is widely seen as embodying the move away from any sense of real values started by Blair. Getting rid of Brown is not only an essential prerequisite to minimising electoral defeat, but is a moral imperative.

AT last! We are talking about this!!

We need to change leader, the only question is who will take the job now that we are certain to loose. Jack Straw is the man for me. Or maybe even Darling, I hear he is almost sick having to cowl to Brown.

I just hope he will stop this scorched earth policy of destroying the country before we leave office just to make life harder for the Tories. Every day is making me so ashamed to be a member of what we have become. Lets get a poll on on the front page for all the possible candidates?