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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.