I do share you belief that changing a party leader who is also PM should not mean a general election. However, in this case I think the media and electorate will demand one regardless - to the point that if there isn’t one, it will become very damaging indeed. Therefore, I think it would be strategically the right thing to do - and given the demands of the people, it might well also be the right thing to do too.

More importantly, however, is if there is a new leader they need to be very clear about their intentions. The last thing the government needs is a repeat of the Brown “will he, won’t he” story. Therefore I think new Labour PM should aim to call an election within six months - or by next spring, and say so from the outset. A May/June election is seasonally good for Labour and will not be spun as Labour running scared. If that is not the case, a new leader should then say that there will be no election in 2010.

As for GB going, I think now that it is likely that he will either jump or be pushed - but if that is the case, the sooner he goes the better. You say that if GB stays the defeat will be “better” than if he goes. I agree that if he stays there is little to fight for and Labour will lose, but not so sure that a new leader will mean an even bigger defeat. It may well mean that, but at least the government will go down fighting. Sticking with Brown is accepting defeat, changing leader makes the situation a whole lot less certain - for better or worse - but at least there is the chance of it being better.

To put in simple terms - either you win an election or you lose one. Sticking Brown is a loss. Changing you might win or you might lose. It seems like a no brainer to me - a loss is a loss is a loss regardless of seat numbers

I very much agree that the problems Labour is having at the moment are not entirely symptomatic of GB’s leadership. 10 years in government, the economy and cumulative effect of negative press (e.g.Iraq) are bound to take their toll. But every hurdle GB has attempted to jump he has fallen. Every poll, election and scandal has taken the course of a worse case scenario.

I believe Brown has been dealt a bad hand which is he has played badly. There are no guarantees when you are dealt a bum hand, but I still think there are one or two others in the party who could play it better.

Dave Coles last blog post..I’m ba-ack!

Perhaps it likes the Queen or something…

Matt

Firstly, I reject the idea that a change of leader should result in an election. I believe that the executive is too strong as against the legislature and that focusing on the PM, the people they choose as members of the Cabinet and so on reinforces that position. Secondly, a new leader will not have had time to develop their own policy positions. Yes, you’d expect there to be a degree of consistency but an election in such circumstances is effectively taking the pulse of the nation when it’s just been made to run up the stairs.

Secondly, I think a lot of people would prefer Labour to go into the next election with a different leader but that is not the same as wanting to force GB out. Somewhere (sorry to the person who I’m not linking to but I’ve forgotten where) I saw the idea that if GB goes of his own accord, Labour would lose by fifty seats; if GB stays, Labour would lose by one hundred and fifty seats; and if GB is forced out, Labour would lose by two hundred and fifty seats. While I’m not sure about the numbers, the idea behind it - that people might not like GB but they like internal coups less - holds water.

Thirdly, better the devil you know. The right of the party are worried that the Cruddasite tendency might do well, while the left are worried about resurgent ultra-Blairites. They all know that a fight between (broadly) the Compass and Progress factions would damage the Party. While I think there will be more disagreements between the two, I think they’ll be held on till after the election.

Fourthly, your statement that “[t]he fact that there will have been three PMs in the lifetime of parliament alone suggests that something is desperately wrong.” That’s a big assumption to make and it’s not (yet) a fact. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that GB was the wrong choice. That’s one wrong decision, not necessarily symptomatic of problems with the party.

xD.

Dave Coles last blog post..I’m ba-ack!

Firstly, I reject the idea that a change of leader should result in an election. I believe that the executive is too strong as against the legislature and that focusing on the PM, the people they choose as members of the Cabinet and so on reinforces that position. Secondly, a new leader will not have had time to develop their own policy positions. Yes, you’d expect there to be a degree of consistency but an election in such circumstances is effectively taking the pulse of the nation when it’s just been made to run up the stairs.

Secondly, I think a lot of people would prefer Labour to go into the next election with a different leader but that is not the same as wanting to force GB out. Somewhere (sorry to the person who I’m not linking to but I’ve forgotten where) I saw the idea that if GB goes of his own accord, Labour would lose by fifty seats; if GB stays, Labour would lose by one hundred and fifty seats; and if GB is forced out, Labour would lose by two hundred and fifty seats. While I’m not sure about the numbers, the idea behind it - that people might not like GB but they like internal coups less - holds water.

Thirdly, better the devil you know. The right of the party are worried that the Cruddasite tendency might do well, while the left are worried about resurgent ultra-Blairites. They all know that a fight between (broadly) the Compass and Progress factions would damage the Party. While I think there will be more disagreements between the two, I think they’ll be held on till after the election.

Fourthly, your statement that “[t]he fact that there will have been three PMs in the lifetime of parliament alone suggests that something is desperately wrong.” That’s a big assumption to make and it’s not (yet) a fact. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that GB was the wrong choice. That’s one wrong decision, not necessarily symptomatic of problems with the party.

xD.

Dave Coles last blog post..I’m ba-ack!