Many people have identified a new leader as the catalyst for change and renewal.  Regicide is considered the way to salvation, and for many of those advocates, Gordon Brown is very much the saviour.  Only by installing Brown into Number 10 can Cameron be defeated, they argue.  But Labour followers should not allow Browites to force the debate into the direction of an inevitable Brown Premiership.  Leaders should never be anointed by momentum or a coup d'état, they can only be chosen by democratic methods - a vote; one that offers real choice.  And so it is that Labour should have an internal debate as to where it is, where it's heading, and of course, how it plans to get there?

Such has been the impact of Blairism on the Labour Party, manifested in a drastic collapse of party membership; it's inconceivable that those who seek to install their man, should be allowed to lead the party blindly into a new era.  Brown is unproven at engaging with the wider electorate and has only managed one portfolio - the treasury.  Compare Brown with John Reid, who has enjoyed a far broader basket of responsibilities.  Wouldn't Reid be better equipped to handle the Prime Ministers more general brief than number-cruncher Brown?  

More concerning are the reports that Brown is both an authoritarian and a micromanager.  The last thing the marginalised Labour backbench needs is further `disconnect' with the cabinet.  You may be able to micromanage the treasury, but one man cannot shoulder the whole nation alone.  Brown will need to trust, and gain the respect of, politicians with whom in the past his department has clashed.  Can he write off the Blairites within the cabinet?  Has he talent available within his ranks to dismiss those he associates with the Court of Tony?  Will the Blairites continue to snipe at the lumbering Scot once he's in Number Ten?  And would the party not be better served by a complete change of direction? These are the questions Labour members must ask.

I believe that Brown's time has past. The economy, so long the fulcrum of his challenge, is beginning to cool.  Cheap Chinese capital is drying up and consumer debt levels have begun to impinge on spending.  Property is also cooling down, meaning people will have limited access to secured loans.  We are slowly approaching a recession.

Where will Brown's credentials lie if the economy is flagging?  

Brown has also left himself open to criticism by `disappearing' when the going gets tough.  As Blair struggled to hold his cabinet together after one scandal after another, the chancellor was nowhere to be seen.  Real leaders-in-waiting come forward and get their hands dirty.  `Cometh the hour, cometh the man.'  This absence has been red meat to Tory commentators, such as Simon Heffer, who are licking their lips at the thought of a digging their claws into the Presbyterian Scot.

If Brown is to be the next leader of The Labour Party he must step up to the mantle and take the crown.  Blair, it is increasingly obvious, will not hand it to Gordon on a plate.  The hatred between the TB-GBies is too great and runs too deep, Blair is determined to have the last laugh and make the handover as bloody as possible.  Blair may not be able to prevent a Brown-led Labour Party, but he'll make sure it's not easy.

And so the debate must begin.  No one would argue that Labour mustn't continue to reform, after all it is a party of progressiveness.  But should the reform be solely Blairite?  Should it embrace the market solution for every single conundrum?  No, a truly progressive government would look at each issue individually.  It would be brave, look to best practices elsewhere in Europe and beyond, and would shun ideology wherever it crippled progress.  

A new Labour government must also undo the grave mistakes of Blair.  It must distance itself from Bush's White House.  It must rediscover Robin Cook's vision of an ethical foreign policy.  And it must recommit to civil liberties and reengage with dislocated Muslim communities.  Rafts of reform, from PFI to Tax Credits, must be reviewed and evaluated; an honest review where reforms that don't make the grade are scrapped.

In a ground breaking move equal to that of making the Bank of England independent, the next Labour administration should create a larger and fully independent National Audit Office with sweeping new powers and a focus on every facet of government.  After years of spin and ministerial shortcomings, the Party would be sending out a message of honesty and transparency.  Statistics will be independently collated and put into context, and not queered through the prism of party politics.  The people of Britain deserve no less.  A group of likeminded MP's could demand that the new more powerful National Audit Office looks into areas of public concern, likewise a reformed and fully elected House of Lords could also activate an enquiry.  Parliament and the Cabinet would also be compelled to act on its recommendations.  The New National Audit Office: powerful, independent, and non-partisan.

It is said that Brown is indeed nesting on a raft of new policy ideas; if this is true then maybe he does deserve a crack at the top job.  But he must show now that he can fight a tough fight and shoulder some of the scandals that have rocked the cabinet.  The Machiavellian snipping must also stop.  If Brown is not in a position to call for Blair to go then either he doesn't have the stomach for the premiership, or the time is not right. Either way the current war of attrition is tearing the fragile Parliamentary Labour Party apart.  

So the question is:  Where is the Labour Party, where does it want to be, and how does it get there?  With or without Gordon at the helm.