Brown and Eden

As it’s crowing season here at the Reptile, let me cast my mind back to the summer of 2006.  I wrote a piece about Suez and, with the failure of Anthony Eden in mind wrote the following:

As for lessons we can take today from Suez, the most interesting can be drawn by analogy, by examining the character of Eden, the instigator and principal fall guy of the debacle. Eden was the gilded heir of a long-term leader: unparalleled leader in his field, a renowned expert on foreign affairs. Yet he had been made to wait too long for the top job, long enough that his strengths had calcified into potential weaknesses: an over-strong certainty of his own infallibility. By the time he finally succeeded to the leadership it was to be cataclysmic failure in his specific area of expertise that was to bring him down. Something for Gordon to ponder as he squats over the Treasury, biting his nails and brooding over the ultimate prize so far denied to him.

As the economic news gets worse and worse, along with Labour’s electoral prospects, Brown’s thoughts must be turning towards the question of his historical legacy.  I suspect it will be seen as a parallel with Eden – that Brown was never temperamentally suited to the leadership, that his apparent greatest strength was actually his downfall and that crown princes don’t make good kings.  Brown and Eden will be forever linked in the history books as representing respectively Britain’s largest foreign policy blunder and her largest economic blunder of modern times.  Happy days…

Broke Britain

Mervyn King looks to have rather shot Gordon Brown’s fox on the fiscal stimulus.  It is, of course, the central plank in the Government’s economic policy that the world, following the heroic example of Chairman Gordon, needs another fiscal stimulus to preserve us all from the horrors of another depression.  Here’s the Chairman of the Bank of England:

"I'm sure the government will want to be cautious in this respect. There is no doubt we are facing very large fiscal deficits over the next 2-3 years.

"Given how big those deficits are, I think it would be sensible to be cautious about going further in using discretionary measures to expand the size of those deficits.

"The level of the fiscal position in the UK is not one that would say: 'Well, why don't we just engage in another significant round of fiscal expansion?'"

In other words, Britain’s too broke to afford it.  Any thoughts Gordon?

Tactics vs. Strategy

Steve Richards is one of a few journalists who are well worth reading, despite their tendency towards a somewhat Panglossian analysis of Gordon Brown and the Labour Party.  In today’s Independent Richards looks at what Peter Hain has had to say recently about the future prospects of the Labour Party.  Hain’s case, essentially, is that this Government has failed to articulate any sort of convincing narrative.  Obviously, I would tend to go along with this analysis – I lurve political narrative.  Richards also seems to agree:

His broader analysis reflects what a lot of ministers and Labour MPs are saying in private: that there needs to be much greater sense of direction if they are not going to be slaughtered at the election.

Part of this goes to what has been Gordon Brown’s biggest single failing as Prime Minister – his lack of strategy.  So much of what he has done has been driven by short-term political positioning.  Look back to the early days, the ostentatious ‘tax cuts’ the recruitment of Tory defectors, the invitation of Margaret Thatcher to tea: all these were done with the aim of positioning the Tories to disadvantage.  I wrote about this at the time, and said then that the relentless party-politicking indulged in by Brown was bad Government.  It’s turned out to be bad politics as well.

Please, make it stop

Christ.  I’m getting tired with asking what the fuck is wrong with The Telegraph.  A pat answer is that they’ve fired all the journalists that were any good and retained those that aren’t.  Today is a case in point – a glorious encomium to the wonder and marvel that is Gordon Brown’s leadership.  Some of this drivel from Mary Riddell is almost amusing:

The speech lacked the Prime Minister's usual statistical and literary flourishes.

Jesus, as bad as that?

His interest in the bond between Lincoln and Burns was, none the less, reflected in the speech. As two of the most respected world figures, the president and the poet shared a humble upbringing, a sense of destiny and a quest for social equality. The PM's assertion that "our first responsibility is to help the powerless" suggested that he saw this synergy replicated in an Obama/Brown partnership of like-minded pioneers.

Is this suggesting that Gordon Brown is one of the most respected world figures?  If so, I’m not sure who is more deluded, Riddell or Brown.

Whatever his culpability over City freeloading and lax regulation, he has produced as coherent and impassioned an exit strategy from recession as any world leader.

What is it?  Where is it?  He hasn’t got a clue what to do, which is understandable, and if Riddell is describing the ‘headless chicken’ approach that has been derided by virtually one and all as ‘coherent’ she’s operating to a very different definition to the one I have.

No leader has spent more time on the phone to Premier Wen Jiabao and other international statesmen.

That’s it?  He’s been on the phone?  Oh well then, panic over…

Critics wonder whether they can bear another 15 months of Brown. They should ask just how well they would fare without him. Voters will, soon enough, have their say on his fate. But if he had been ousted last year, or Mr Cameron had already been parachuted into No 10, it seems unlikely that a "novice" would have navigated disaster so surely.

Look, you can’t just keep repeating that Brown has handled this crisis surely when it’s so apparent that he hasn’t.  His Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, usually following whatever policy looks most likely to damage the short-term interests of the Conservative Party.  That’s not leadership.

It’s actually rather hard to dissect this piece, as the author seems to have spent the last six months with her fingers jammed into her ears going ‘la la la’.  Can we just say that Labour’s policies, on the economy as on so much else, are a combination of ineffectual and malign.  That virtually anyone could do a better job than the Labour Party.  And that the Telegraph seems to have entered a spiral from which only change of leadership can rescue it.

It's not like we weren't warned...

To all those Labour MPs and supporters who are struggling to understand why their party is now trailing the Conservatives by 15-20 points in the opinion polls, can I direct them to the diaries of Chris Mullin?  Lets look at the man you bundled into office without a competition, and expected the British public to fall in love with…

Sitting on the terrace, I was joined by a member of the Blair inner circle. Conversation turned to Gordon. I mentioned that, following my departure from government, I had received a handwritten letter from Gordon saying how much he had enjoyed working with me. It seems every former Minister has received an identical letter. He must have been up half the night writing them. Gordon's machine churns night and day. My friend was scathing. 'He's mad, quite mad.'

 
'What do you mean?' 'Gordon is obsessive, paranoid, secretive and lacking in personal skills. He's been responsible for two absolutely mad privatisations - air traffic control and the London Underground - and all this talk about privatising the NHS is coming out of the Treasury - I'd probably pack it in if Gordon became leader.'

There we have it: obsessive, paranoid, secretive and lacking in personal skills.  Does that sound like an election-winning combination?

What do we make of this?

The Com Res survey in the Independent is fascinating for two reasons.  The first is that it confirms that the bounce in Labour support is now over.  I would direct you to Anthony Wells’s masterly summary here as to the reasons for this.  Put briefly, Labour’s support has tracked very closely the levels of economic optimism in the country.  The recapitalisation of the banks was spun by Labour, and reported more or less uncritically by the media, as the answer to the economic crisis.  It wasn’t, and this is now becoming ever more apparent.  Labour’s fortunes will slide with the economy.

And if you think that’s bad news for Brown, take a look at this from the Com Res:

But asked how they would vote if the Tories committed themselves to a lower level of public spending than Labour and to try not to raise taxes – Mr Cameron's current policy – 49 per cent said Tory, 32 per cent Labour and 11 per cent the Liberal Democrats.

There was a similar result when people were asked how they would vote if Labour committed itself to higher public spending than the Tories and admitted it was likely to mean an increase in some personal taxes – Mr Brown's current position. The figures were: Tory 48 per cent, Labour 30 per cent, Liberal Democrats 13 per cent.

This is, explicitly, the policy difference between the parties at present – and it is a divide that is currently planned to form the basis of Labour’s message.  You can bet your life too that this is a message that Cameron and the Tories will force home at every opportunity.  Gordon Brown has planned every electoral campaign as a dichotomy between increased spending with Labour, or Tory cuts.  What’s he going to do now?

Return of the Heffer Error

A welcome re-appearance today to a phenomenon that has seemed to be in abeyance for a while – the Fundamental Heffer Error.  Danny Finkelstein defined it first as a confusion between believing a policy to be right and believing it popular but summed it up even better as confusing what he wishes were the case with what is actually the case.

This post isn’t actually about Simon Heffer at all, but showcases what I believe to be a perfect example of this latter characterisation.  It is reported today that Gordon Brown has decided that David Cameron is the weak link in the Conservative Party, and that a relentless attack on him is the best tactic for Labour to win the next election.

Mr Brown will also relentlessly attack Mr Cameron as a "do nothing" leader who has failed to outline a credible response to the downturn.  Labour's research suggests voters like Mr Cameron but remain less than convinced, with many suspecting he is a "phoney."  The Prime Minister and his allies will therefore launch sustained attacks on Mr Cameron, trying to suggest his charm is a front for an uncaring and incompetent Tory party.

Now, it is reasonably well-documented that Cameron and Brown detest each other.  Brown believes that Cameron is light-weight, opportunistic and shallow.  Cameron believes that Brown is obnoxious, misguided and petty.  But what each thinks of the other is not really what is at stake here.  Cameron is the most popular party leader.  More importantly, whenever Cameron receives more press coverage, support for the Tories rises – even if the coverage is negative as happened with the grammar school business.  Brown is confusing what he believes – that Cameron is a negative for the Tories – with what the evidence suggests – that Cameron is more popular than his own party.  Fundamental Heffer Error.

Party politics

Just a quick word on this, as it’s generating a good deal more heat than light (just look at the comments here).  Brown accused Cameron of turning the death of Baby P into a ‘party political’ matter – an accusation that genuinely enraged Cameron.  People have been suggesting that of course it was Cameron being party-political, it was in PMQs after all.  Well, I think there’s a distinction to be drawn here.

Had Cameron stood up and said that the death of Baby P was evidence of the failure of a Labour council and, by extension, of Labour administrations everywhere – that would have been a party political attack.  Had he blamed the Government for it and said that under a Tory Government it would never have happened – that would have been a party political attack.  That he asked a specific question, and then got tetchy that Brown wouldn’t answer them wasn’t party political.  It might have been political, but it wasn’t party political.  There is a difference, and it does matter.

Baby P

I can barely read about Baby P.  It makes me feel physically sick.  Combined with anger at the sort of scum who could do such a thing - an anger that makes me want to put them up against a wall and shoot them – is a sort of numb hopelessness that it’s happened again.  Ten years after Victoria Climbie, in the same damn council, Haringey, social workers saw Baby P 60 fucking times.  He had bruises all over him, his fingernails had been torn out, his ear was fucking torn off – just what in the name of God would have made these people do something?  And of course no-one’s to blame, of course no-one’s going to lose their job over it.  After all, the inquiry conducted by Haringey council found that no-one had done anything wrong and everything in the garden was wonderful.

So David Cameron was quite right to raise this today at PMQs.  It’s a question of national importance – and Gordon Brown’s responses were first a shambles and then a disgrace.  As a stock response to a question you can’t – or won’t – answer, accusing the opposition of playing party politics is effective but limited.  Today it was grossly, offensively inappropriate.  It showed Brown as having the emotional intelligence of a Toilet Duck.  Add to that the barracking of Labour MPs of Cameron as he was asking questions – about, lest we forget, the brutal torturing to death of a baby – and it was about the least edifying experience imaginable.

Charles Kennedy noted that Tony Blair would handled the entire affair much better.  But, frankly, so would virtually any sentient human being.  Brown’s utter inability to see anything through other than the prism of party political advantage has been both a strength and a weakness through his career.  It’s possible that if the next General Election is run entirely on economic issues it might continue to be an advantage.  But if there are circumstances that require a more than two-dimensional view, then he’s doomed – and deserves to be.

Funded or unfunded?

How can he do it with a straight face?  Not only did Gordon Brown say that national debt was 37% - a distortion that would make Horatio Bottomley blush - prior to a Pre-Budget Report that will probably see total British public debt rise to over 50% not including PFI or public sector pension liabilities, but he had the effrontery to describe Conservative plans as “an unfunded tax cut”.

Two points to make on this.  The first is that the Tory plan is, to a certain extent, funded.  If it costs, as it does, £8,000 to pay unemployment benefit then granting a company which employs someone who has been employed for three months a £2,500 tax break can be construed as a net saving to the treasury.  The true drawback to the idea is that it is so limited – there will certainly be no direct fiscal stimulus provided.

The second point is that Gordon Brown can surely have no credibility making assertions about unfunded tax cuts – indeed, unfunded anything.  Britain’s PSBR is sky-rocketing and the Chancellor is making extremely unfussed assumptions about massively increased borrowing.  If they are serious about making tax cuts – real tax cuts rather than delayed tax rises – the money has to come from somewhere.  And from where does Brown envisage that it comes?

He emphasised that any action in Britain to increase borrowing in order to cut taxes and stimulate the economy needed to be matched with similar moves by other countries if the world was to pull out of the downturn.

From borrowing – in other words, unfunded.  In fact, Brown tied himself into a bizarre knot on this point.  Having first criticised the Tories’ for their “unfunded” tax cut, he then stated that it was in fact funded, and that this was a bad thing.

In a reference to the Tories, he says a funded tax cut is not a fiscal stimulus (because the fact that it's funded means that it is not putting extra money into the economy). In other words, Brown is making a virtue of the fact that he's favouring unfunded tax cuts.

So what is it?  Are unfunded tax cuts a good thing, a fiscal stimulus to help the economy?  Or a bad thing, proof of the Tories’ lack of seriousness?  Or, in truth does Brown not have the faintest idea?  In any event, it should lay Brown open to attack on his credibility.

Glenrothes...

Hurrah!  It’s time for some more good old expectation management from Labour.  Now, in the past they have proved pretty bad at this, as their worst predictions have tended to be uncannily accurate.  Now, with the media narrative still obsessed with the Brown bounce, despite the lack of any hard evidence to support it, there’s just a chance that they might, might, manage to downplay expectations to an extent that they can survive even a defeat without losing their ‘resurgence’ narrative.

In truth, of course, they shouldn’t.  Glenrothes is about as safe a Labour seat as there is.  10,000 majorities should not be lost, even in a third term.  If they can’t win this one, where the hell can they win?

George W Bush’s staff famously talked about how they no longer worked in a reality-based environment – they constructed their own realities.  Brown and the Labour Party look like they’re doing much the same.  It will be interesting to see if it can survive an icy blast of old-fashioned external reality.

Aargh - on that subject

I know that kicking Polly Toynbee for economic ignorance is like shooting, well a whale in a barrel, but here's another bit of elementary ignorance that ought to be caught at first bloody instance.  Such as:

Mervyn King can't admit his mistake in keeping interest rates so high for the past year as this crisis brewed. Only personal pride stops the MPC meeting immediately, confessing its error and cutting rates by 2%.

She must know that the Monetary Policy Committee has one remit: to maintain inflation at an annual rate of on or about 2%.  Surely she must know that?  And that therefore, retaining relatively high interest rates is necessary.  It is in fact another aspect of Brown's masterstroke of giving 'independence' to the Bank of England was that all the implications of setting interest rates - stimulating demand, strengthening the currency, controlling house prices and so on - were reduced to the single aim of controlling CPI inflation.  So if Polly wants to attack the fact that interest rates have been too high to stimulate demand, she should be addressing her complaints to the man who removed demand control from the agenda.

Toynbee also refers to economists that doubt whether Keynesian economics can truly work (and there are a lot of them who agree with Winston Churchill that a Government trying to borrow and spend itself out of recession is like a man standing in a bucket, trying to lift himself up by pulling on the handles) are 'neo-conomists'.  This is the most grimly anti-intellectual neologism I've seen in ages.  I expect to see it in common Guardian parlance before the week is out.

The limits of narrative...

OK, so I have a definite fixation on the importance of political narratives.  And, when I got back from India, I detected a new narrative in the process of being created: Brown the superhero, whose grasp of economics had re-invigorated his premiership and put Labour back in contention; the economic crisis had been averted only by Brown's prompt action.

Now the thing about narratives is that they only stick when they have an innate plausibility.  No point trying to make Boris look like a far-right thug - it lacks credibility. No point trying to make Gordon Brown into a glamorous figure - he simply isn't. But two questions do arise: can they make Brown look like the saviour of the situation; and will it matter electorally?

On the first point, they might well do, in the short term at least. The financial sector has been shored up against collapse, and a mass failure of the banks now looks unlikely. However, this will not avert a recession - could not in fact, since the recession was the cause of the financial crisis, not its result. Once the recession starts to bite, however, the public will forget the rescue of Bradford & Bingley, except insofar as to question why their company isn't being bailed out. So, as to Brown's long-term image I'm not sure how much the recent events will matter.

And, with regard to the second question, it probably won't matter anyway. People have stopped listening to Labour. There are no real cabinet heavyweights except for Peter Mandelson - a name indelibly linked with lies and sleaze. The politician to have lost most from the credit crunch so far has been David Miliband - Labour have almost certainly lost their chance to replace Brown before the next election.  And even now, at a time when wall-to-wall coverage of Labour is drowning out the Tories and Lib Dems, Labour is well behind in the polls - by 12 points in ICM's latest. For all the efforts of Labour and their supporters, this narrative of doom and defeat is too firmly entrenched in the public imagination to be dispelled that quickly.

Just one quick thing

I'm still not back properly yet, but I do have to say one thing.  The Tories are right to focus on Labour's (and Brown's) apparent enjoyment of the current financial crisis.  This isn't a triumph, it's still a knife-edge of disaster or complete fucking disaster.  There is no good outcome here - only a less bad one.  That's why this current fashion for comparisons with the Falklands War is so fatuous. Michael White is responsible for one today.

Yes, the Tory Government was in trouble before deus ex machina a crisis happened.  Yes it's fair to say that, just as with BRown and the financial crisis, the Tory Government bore a measure of culpability for the invasion (though only in the sense that a woman in a short skirt is asking to be raped - an analogy very few of the 'Thatcher was to blame' pundits would acknowledge).  The similarities, however, end there.

With the Falklands there was a cartoon bad guy: General Galtieri and his junta of uniformed thugs; there was a clear course of action: send in the task force; there was a concrete and definite victory: mass Argentine surrender and the recovery of the Falklands; and then there was a victory parade.  With this crisis there is no specific villain; there is no clear course of action and there can be no concrete and definite victory.  There will certainly not be a victory parade. If eberything goes according to plan there will be a recession rather than a depression. Don't buy shares in bunting manufacturers.

Whereas the question of who was to blame for the Argentine invasion (leftist academics and politicians said Thatcher, everyone else said, um, the Argentines themselves) was rather irrelevant, the question of who was to blame for the financial crisis will not be.  Relaxation of monetary policy, a focus on a skewed inflation target, a hose price bubble, uncertain financial regulation - Brown is directly or indirectly responsible for all of them.  Interest rates will have to be cut (unless we want a depression) but that will lead to higher inflation. Brown ought to wipe that smirk off his face  - we're a long way from Port Stanley.

Plotters

So, David Cairns has resigned as a Minister.  Hands up any of you who had heard of him before this morning (when he was identified as possibly being the minister in the departure lounge).  Anyone? Didn't think so.  Does that mean his resignation is irrelevant?  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  Siobhain McDonagh wasn't exactly a household name either, and nor are most of the other Labour rebels. Regardless of that, their actions cumulatively will make a difference, weakening Brown's already tottering authority.

What should really be worrying Labour is that although it is now increasingly seen as a divided party, and everyone knows that divided parties get a shoeing at elections, I doubt whether anyone would be sure what it is they are divided over.  There is no great ideological split rending them; no totemic issue (Europe, Iraq, Trident etc) that has split them. They have been split by the simple question of how much they want Gordon Brown to continue as Prime Minister.

Labour are exhausted by office in a way that even the Tories were not.  In 1997 the Conservatives were palpably unfit for office.  They were split (on policy issues mainly) and they had run out of road. But they hadn't really run out of ideas.  The internal market they introduced in the NHS was a policy that was working (and has, finally, been re-instated by Labour); the economy was recovering.  Can you name me a substantial policy this Government has introduced?  Or might introduce?  What, fundamentally, is Labour for?

I think that Labour are certainly doomed at the next election.  Not only has no Government recovered from this sort of level of support, but this Government has no theme - no narrative. People are starting to cavil at this - saying that what it needs are policies, not stories.  But a narrative is simply a way of identifying what a party is, and why it deserves to be in power. Labour visibly doesn't know how to answer these questions. Whether it is led by Brown or not, it is that problem that will direct its downfall. After that, things will really start to get difficult.

US Election effectively over

Well, we can all stop worrying about the US election, it's all over bar the shouting now.

Gordon Brown has triggered a potential row with John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, after apparently backing Barack Obama - breaking convention not to get involved in foreign elections.

I think we can rely on the awesome powers of our Prime Minister to destroy everything he touches to hold true, and can therefore look forward to seeing John McCain in the White House.  After all, look what happened to Andy Murray...

Incidentally, on a slightly more serious note, what the hell does Brown think he's playing at?  When John Major more or less obviously favoured George Bush snr it took a long time for the Clinton White House to trust Britain again - and it was really only the election of Tony Blair that did it.  If the Republicans do win - and it's pretty much a toss-up as to whether they will - Gordon Brown will feel all kinds of a fool, though admittedly he must be getting used to that by now.

UPDATE:  Ha ha!  Team McCain seem to be bearing this sad news with all the fortitude they can muster...

Something in the air...

While we all know that it's a myth that nothing happens in August, there has been a tendency for things to get blown up out of all proportion during a relatively slack time for the newspapers. Given that, and the generally depressive lethargy that seems to have overtaken the Labour Party since the Spring, I was inclined rather to write off the Miliband kerfuffle as as five-minute wonder and no more. And that may still prove to be the case. However, his non-committal interview on Five Live, coupled with his article in the Guardian add up to something like a plan. When you take this into account, it begins to look like something's up.

David Miliband quits foreign trip to spark new rumours of challenge to Brown

The Foreign Secretary suddenly announced this morning that he was calling off the trip to India, scheduled for the start of September. It had been designed to promote Britain's trade and investment interests in the country, and was considered important to encourage investment in one of the world's fastest-growing economies.

The cancellation, for which no reason was given, was unexpected as invitations to meet him had already been sent out to Indian political and business leaders.

In a move sparking further leadership speculation, it emerged that Mr Miliband had earlier this week assembled several close aides in his office and told them how grateful he had been for all of their efforts.

This has the smell of a plan falling into place...

Doomed...

For all the excited comment that has been attracted by David Miliband's article in the Guardian, there's one point that has rather been missed. This is a piece about the (alleged) inherent weakness of Cameron's Conservatives - accusing them of defining themselves for what they are against, because they have no idea of what they are for. That's a pretty good narrative to try to impose on the Tories, not least because conservative ideology (such as it is) is never conducive to the simplistic 'pledge card' populism that has always been the hallmark of New Labour. When Miliband contrasts the Tories' lack of over-riding principle, he contrasts them with Labour's embracing of 'the many; not the few' - a 'principle' of such staggering vacuity that it boggles the mind.

Nevertheless, this is an article about the relative merits of Labour and Conservative as parties of Government; it makes several interesting arguments; and it could be used to form a cogent line of attack. And the entire reaction to it has been to view it solely in the light of Gordon Brown's leadership difficulties. This is the problem for Brown - his position is so weak that everything that happens will be seen as a manoeuvre for the succession. People are no longer listening.

Should he stay...

Standard political wisdom seems to be veering towards the belief that Gordon Brown is not long for this world, and that an attempt to oust him will be made at some point, with opinion divided as to whether Miliband or Straw (or an A.N.Other of varying plausibility) will be the beneficiary of such a move. Steve Richards poses the two essential questions that Labour MPs must ask themselves before they try to push the button on the Brown premiership:

If I were a Labour MP, I would note the polls, all of which suggest the Tory lead is soft and that almost as many voters identify with Labour as they do with the Conservatives. There has been no fundamental sea change and, as the last year has shown, fortunes can shift dramatically. I would then pose a question: In these wildly oscillating times would a new leadership team of David Miliband and Alan Johnson have a honeymoon, with a chance of propelling Labour into a poll lead? Next, I would note that in spite of the onslaught against him Mr Brown is best placed by far with his experience to address the pivotal economic questions. I would then ask a second question: Will voters credit Mr Brown with anything as long as he remains Prime Minister? Mr Brown's fate hangs on the answer to these two questions.

The answer to the second question is surely no. Brown has lost the benefit of the doubt, and is now getting the blame for pretty much everything, whether he deserves it or not. This has not been helped, incidentally, by his habit of disowning the blame for things he is very much responisible for. It is the first question that is more difficult to answer. Is Straw, or Miliband (or Harman, Purnell, Burnham, Uncle Tom Milburn and all) really likely to prove a better leader than Brown? Not better in the sense of less uncommunicative, gloomy or weird, but better in the sense of reversing the polling situation - which, with regular Tory leads of 20 points and more is less amenable to a positive interpretation than Richards suggests. Because if there is a leadership struggle, and a new leader is chosen, the argument for a quick following election becomes almost undeniable.

If the current polling were to be reflected in a General Election, the Labour Party would be drastically reduced - to 172 seats by today's Electoral Calculus - and that's a lot of MPs losing their jobs. It may in fact be better for the Labour Party to go early, in a managed decline that might avoid a total wipeout, but try to persuade some 200 Labour MPs that it is better for the good of the Party that they lay down their seats and see how far you get. In the knowledge that an election now would be disastrous Labour MPs would probably prefer to sit tight a la Micawber and hope that something turns up.

So, I'm with Boris on this - despite the fact that Labour are utterly and definitely doomed to heavy defeat with Gordon Brown as leader, they will stick with it to the bitter end, rather than risk a premature immolation under a new leader. A mixture of short-termist self-interest and apathy is likely to keep Gordon secure in his post until he is finally put out of his misery by the electorate.

UPDATE: Great minds and all that...

The strange death of Labour England

Ten years after winning an enormous Parliamentary majority over a Tory party that was both tired and ideologically split, Britain's ruling party was demoralised, increasingly impoverished and ruinously split on matters of foreign policy. The party suffered a split between its two factions, and never again formed a Government.

I love the smell of historical analogies in the morning. And to be fair, the circumstances that led to the death of the Liberal Party have not been repeated - thank God, seeing that the principle factor was the First World War. Nevertheless, it is instructive in that parties of the centre-left have died in the past, and there is no reason why they should not do so again. Last night's by-election defeat, in Labour's 25th strongest seat no less, could be seen not as a turning point but as confirmation that the turning point has already been reached. Wherever Labour has been forced to face the decision of the electorate - the local elections, the Mayoral elections, Crewe, Henley and Glasgow East - the results have been disastrous. Not merely bad but terrible. The worst ever results in the local elections, the first loss of the mayoralty, losing Crewe on an 18% swing, coming fifth in Henley and losing their deposit and now losing Glasgow East on a 22% swing. These are shattering numbers - the latest opinion poll deficits predict a seat share of Con: 410 Lab: 167 LD: 29. Mind blowing stuff.

And there's no reason why these numbers are going to improve either. The economic situation is going to get worse before it gets better - and even if it does improve Labour should remember the Tories' 'voteless recovery' in the late 1990s. Brown's real problems are innate and not a result of exterior forces. He cannot communicate, he has no sense of where he wants the country to go and he cannot run an effective cabinet. Brown is not going to be able to pull this one back. But on the other hand, there is no-one waiting in the wings who is likely to be any better. And even if they did go for broke, recognising that this time things really can only get better, any new leader will be faced with precisely the same situation - and with even less democratic legitimacy.

David Cameron recently said that the Tories have spent the last two years 'earning the right to be heard'. The problem for Labour is that they have effectively lost it. They have reached the stage when people turn the radio off when they here a Labour voice. The Labour Party are going to go down to a very heavy defeat in the next election. They will do this regardless of whether they go to the country now or hang on until June 2010. They will do this regardless who leads them. They will do this regardless of the economic situation - though the scale of the defeat will be affected. The really interesting question is what they will do next.