My goodness, I passionately agree with this article. If we get radical, but radically Blairite, we make Cameron's job so much easier.  Cameron just has to sit still, or shift a touch to the right and that's it.

We are not the same.  Cripes you would almost forget what ministers were saying in last years DL election.  We are not Tories afterall.

sunder, everyone does not agree that there will be no change of leadership. indeed many people think that is the only change that will make any difference to our prospects at the next election.

how can i put this as clearly as possible? gordon has to go. end of. we can have this discussion the morning after we lose power or we can have it now, two years out. 

gordon, for all his magnificence as chancellor, has proven himself to be seriously and serially incapable of making the transition to prime minister. he is a one man electoral disaster. he has not the character nor the charisma nor the flair nor the empathy to do the job. people, voters, do not like him. his own party can barely tolerate him. he is the problem.

now we might agree, as a party, that what we actually want to do next is hold tight, play it safe, stick with gordon and hope that magically things will improve. that is a suicide mission.

or we might go for the other option, which is not without risks either, but what we need now more than anything is a different leader. a leader who can connect. who gets it. who can speak like a human being. no calculating, no plotting, no triangulating, no fakery, no trickery. someone who looks and sounds like the people we're trying to persuade to vote for us.

if we stick with gordon, labour loses office. if we change leader, we put ourselves back in the running. it really is that simple.

Bear in mind that when some of us talk about our 'core' we are no longer just talking about a small section of society, we ARE talking about that winning coalition:  We are talking about the working class, we are talking about the low paid, we are talking about the disabled, we are talking about pensioners, about students, about public sector workers, about environmentalists, about peace activists, about people who aren't Tories, about people who just want to see a government that delivers fairness.  It's a massive winning coalition.  And it's that massive winning coalition who decided not to vote for us on Thursday.

So I agree with you - let's take some risks to make a fairer Britain.  But let's not restrict those risks to mere constitutional change (good and welcome though some proposals are) or environmental policy (hugely important though that is).  If we want to re-engage that coalition then our risks MUST include some concrete legislation that impacts on people's daily lives and genuinely shows that we are on their side.

That is why this programme must include radical new legislation in the area of workers' rights and social housing, it is why we need to make a strong case for the welfare state.  We've got to look at low pay and at the issue of tax for people on low incomes.  If the risks we need to take - however worthy - are all about the House of Lords or the voting system, we will not turn this thing around.

Labour lost the elections because of gordon brown and his band of advisors. He is basically a good man with a huge amount of knowledge and other skills but he has surrounded himself with young turks who for reasons best known to them selves have given terrible advice.

witness the debacle of the election that never was and the 10p tax fiasco.

On top of that GB now looks ill and tired. He is even being offered sympathy by vince cable for gods sake!

Gordon, you have been brilliant for the party but there is a time to stay and a time to go. we dont need a reshuffle we need a genarational change - only one man for the job. Bring on Milliband asap !! 

you have got to accept that we would never have got in this mess 5 years ago when the party was stewarded by people who knew what they were doing politically and presentationally.

Cameron is right when he says that GB now only acts for political reasons. Budget decisions have been farcical and designed to wrongfoot the tories and have unravelled spectacturaly.

gb peaked some time ago and is now on a downhill slope - we need a credible challenger now to give a new man or woman time to do the job before the next election. 

I think the direction needed can be summed up - go for broke. Be as radically progressive (not Blairite) as possible over the next two years. Written constitution, voting reform (PR, not AV), redistribution of wealth, etc, etc. Forget appeasing the axis of Murdoch-Dacre, they've deserted New Labour already.

There seems to be an emerging consensus which I think is reasonable, as follows:

1. With Gordon as leader Labour is heading for almost certain defeat.  But 2 years is a long time in politics, all kinds of things might change.
2. It is just possible that Gordon will get his act together over the next few months (at an operational level No 10 seems to be working better) and he should be given the chance to do so.
3. If things stay as they are or even get worse then Gordon should stand down in the interests of the party, and there should be a proper leadership contest (it helped the Tories no end). 
   

As I have said before the thing to worry about is not "losing the next election" but a serious danger of Labour melt-down.  No-one was predicting a loss of over 300 councillors on May 1 - it was considered "unthinkable".  Meanwhile the (weighted moving average) Tory lead in the polls has gone from 7% at the beginning of the year to 12% now, by Sept it could well be 18-20%

There is also the "small" problem that the Party is essentially bankrupt and the General Secretary has just resigned before he started.  Does anyone expect a major upsurge in donations to Labour under Gordon's leadership?

Of course I'd like to see a radical agenda - but it's energy and vision that we are missing and in whichever direction the leadership takes us, we'll need them to provide that energy and vision.

The more defensive we get, the more we talk down our support, the more we are likely to lose the general election.

I don't want to hear about what will happen to Goedon if we lose Crewe, I want to hear when the telephone banks will be open so I can help win Crewe.

I have the shortlist, but I feel we must support the part the party at this point.  I appeal to the left to support who is ever the selected one, how ever hard it is.

Wiseman

Gordon has to go. He can never win us a general election. He had his chance and he blew it. With him we have no chance. Without him we may be able to claw back some of the ground he has lost.

The way to change-is to recognise that people have changed.

In one of our few good results, we gained Slough. This was because of a well-fought campaign by hard-working councillors on the progressive 'old-left'. People who recognise that the same ideology cannot be kept-that we must adapt-but we cannot abandon the ideology. I don't believe in say, mass nationalisation. But I support a re-nationalisation of the railways, which could then be slit into regional, publicly funded, co-operatives. I don't believe in repealing all of Thatcher's trade union legislation- but I support aspects of the John McDonnell supported Trade Union Bill.

I admit, the electorate shifted to the right. I'm not going to pretend my views, a couple of years ago, were a representation of the majority of voters. But, for those who think that a re-connection with the 1994-era policies of New Labour will boost our opinion poll ratings- ask yourself these questions. Would the 10p tax debacle have provoked so much anger 5 years ago? Would there have been as many calls for regulation of speculation on the stock market? Would there have been middle-class anger over non-doms? The simple answer to all three, is a resounding-No.

People are trying to pinpoint the exact moment Brown's premiership crumbled. I'm going to buck the trend, and suggest that it was during the leadership election (and yes I know that that was before he was PM). You always have to consider, that you might lose the next GE. If there are indicators of who the next generation of leaders will be, then that helps. But by not allowing a leadership challenge, he consolidated all hopes on himself- and therefore, when tough times have manifested, we have no answers as to who can be the next leader of Labour. Purnell? Milliband? Balls? Do we seriously want these people as PM? Even if the challenge had been from someone of the left, or right, with no hope, it could have helped answer the questions, as to who would be the next leader.

When people were interviewed about abandoning Labour- left-wing causes were named. Public sector pay, 10p tax, rising inequality etc.

First of all, he needs a 'Night of the long knives'. Establish a broad-church cabinet: e.g. people like Helene Kennedy as Justice Secretary, or getting people like Jon Trickett, Frank Dobson, Joan Ruddock, Gavin Strang, Glenda Jackson, Ann Cryer, and Jon Cruddas in the cabinet. I would personally like a certain defection, to fill the role of International Development secretary. I'll leave you all to guess who that would be.

Second: Brown needs to realise that maintaining a good image, and being a masterful strategist, is perfectly compatible with being on the left. E.g. How about instead of Murdoch controlling the PM, the PM looks in control of him? His tilt to Cameron, in exchange for oppertunist repealing of media-neutrality laws, was the perfect excuse for Brown to say that he would not be Murdoch's bitch. I think people would respect Brown if he openly said that, while he welcomes buisnesses to the country, Lakshmi Mittal, Bernie Eccolestone, and other figures influencing Labour, cannot, and will not control him.

Third: constitutional reform is radical, and cost-free Gordon. It does not connote any particular ideology.

Fourth: Tackle the no-brainer issues. Same-Sex Marriage, Drugs, Prostitution etc. Don't give into demands over issues like Embryo research, and Abortion.

Fifth: Address the public's concerns, while not looking like an oppertunist. Encourage debate. Address concerns over Immigration, Taxes, Public epnding etc.

Sixth: Remember your beliefs Mr. Brown. You believe in tackling inequality, redistibution of wealth, while encouraging a work ethic. Don't be afraid. Cameron is. Show up this man's oppertunism and timidity. Show us the big clunking fist.

I appologise if this seems a very unproductive comment, but I'm merely trying to spell out the difficulty we face here. Simply stating in your introduction that part of our problems stem from the fact we have "been in power for 11 years" seems to me a little dogmatic. Just because we have been in power for so long, it does not mean we have to have results this catastrophic. -What have we done over these recent years that has turned voters off?!? What is worse now than after the Iraq war when it was exposed there were no WMD? I honestly do not believe people are turned off so spectacularly just because we've been around so long.

Moreover, if this really is a reason, there is nothing we can do about it... But I honestly don't think that it is.

The Observer has a round-up of advice to Brown and Cameron, to which I have contributed, arguing that " Becoming the political underdogs could be enervating, or liberating. Labour should ask of those things not yet done, 'if not now, when?"

The paper's main editorial echoes this point.

"Given the scale of Labour's defeat last week, perhaps the only real consolation for Mr Brown is that he is, at least, relieved of any burden of electoral expectation. Perversely, this could be liberating. He could even be forced to abandon his aversion to risk, his nervous fixation on tactical manoeuvres and populist gimmicks. He could forget plastic bag taxes and futile gestures on drug reclassification or prisoners' pay. Then, with the unwavering drive and moral urgency for which he was once reputed, he might devote himself to one or two core policy areas. The tricky nexus of poverty, anti-social behaviour and welfare reform, terrain where the Tories are least convincing, is an obvious candidate. The environment is another.

Mr Brown's goal should be simultaneously modest and grandiose: a legacy to ensure that, should he lose in 2010, he is remembered for something other than being one of the shortest serving Prime Ministers in modern history. In so doing, he might even find a way to rediscover Labour's purpose and renew its mandate for government".

Matthew Taylor has an astute piece of advice on how to get across a greater sense of focus and define the battlefield:

"After waiting a few days to avoid the impression of panic Gordon Brown should do a major interview. In this interview he should announce that he will dedicate his efforts to delivering a very short list of very important outcomes by the spring of 2010. One of these should be about family prosperity and economic stability, one should be about reducing poverty and one or two (but really no more) about key public service indicators. He should say that he wants to be judged on whether he delivers these objectives, and that he is happy to have progress independently audited. The objectives should be achievable but ambitious and above all mean something to 'ordinary' people; too easy or opaque and he won't get any credit. The Prime Minister should freely admit that if he fails to deliver or if the people don't think these achievements matter he will probably lose. 'That's democracy' he should say with a shrug and a smile. He should tell his party that the issue is not whether Labour wins in 2010 - there's plenty of time to worry about that - but what it can deliver over the next two years. The party at all levels should be given a role in contributing to the objectives he has set.

Every time he is asked about cannabis, prisoners' wages, plastic bag bans, etc, etc, he should say: 'I have appointed a talented cabinet. I trust them to do their job. Whatever their judgment on this issue, I will back them. You see, I am focused on my pledge to the people'.

It might not work. Then again, maybe nothing will. This at least gives Labour the chance to define the battlefield. It is a strategy which requires clarity, risk-taking, consistency and discipline".

Thanks for the comments.

On the 'go for broke' idea. I am not saying that, but rather that we have to put the central fairness/social justice mission on everything we do, and focus on Tory-proofing what we have done and can do further. 

I think we have to do it around commitments we have made - particularly using our pledge to end child poverty as the driver for a fairness mission and agenda. That would have priority for me over the constitution, but can and should be linked to it, since political reform can entrench change (and we would have little or no legitimacy to talk about it if and when next out of power if we have not acted).

Of course, if we decide to be bolder in this way, there is internal debate and disagreement about the content of what we should do. I am in favour of opening up the internal debate about this, but I note too that there is a danger of each of us saying 'clearly, the party should adopt my personal wishlist ... as that's what we all really agree we should do'. ie, Scrap Trident for some, or do everything green for others, or scrap all of the Tory union laws if you are the Trade Union Freedon Bill campaign. But all of these questions are contested on their merits, not just in terms of electability issues. Some of them are, for me, second order to Labour's core equality agenda, though it is possible to argue the merits of any of them.

For me, the core litmus test should be the agenda to extend opportunity and narrow the gaps in life chances, and doing that in a way which can appeal across the electoral coalition we have when we win. Child poverty is a flagship idea, but this could link an education, housing, family and health agenda together coherently, and help us to make the public argument about why such an agenda deserves support.


On the leadership, clearly I disagree with those who want to make that the issue. But my point was not that absolutely everyone agrees. But I did say that 'everybody knows' that there won't be a change, and that 'nobody serious' wants to reopen it. That is based on my judgment about the opinion in Parliament, since that is what will decide what will happen, and where MPs think this would be suicidal and a distraction. (I suspect that even most of the commenters here who think this should be on the agenda aren't predicting it will be. And, in those circumstances, my view is it is a futile debate and a distraction).

Hold on Toffs, yes I would have agreed a few years ago, how many on here know John Prescott's back ground.

I stood right next to Prescott at the miners strike when both of us got hit by the police, I lost four teeth that day, He's gone now because he changed to a Blair man because he knew he be out otherwise. You cannot now say to the Tories your a load of Toffs because one look at Purnell and a few others, who have a voice like sucking a plum, times change we have less and less hard working trade union people in the Labour party now and more and more high class toffs.

You can be a toff and know the difference about rich and poor, I've spoken to Tories who were more Labour then Labour.

The real attitude of the Cabinet is given in The Guardian: One cabinet member said: "We have been given an almighty yellow card with bright red lights flashing at the edges. It is entirely up to Gordon to decide whether it will turn fully red. He has until the end of the year to do it and he must show within the next three months that he is heading in the right direction....The problem with these young cabinet ministers is that they don't have teenage children who can tell them they're sounding or looking prats. They're at the stage with their children of just telling them to go to bed when they're awkward. You can't do that with the electorate".  Thank you Jack.

Have you all gone mad?
'Go for  broke....return to left wing policies...blah..blah...blah.'
Never, ever forget, we were elected and re-elected because we were NEW Labour.
The coalition we need to re-connect with is not pensioners, unemployed, Trade Unions, Greens, or Public Sector workers..they don't constitute a winning coalition and never will.
We HAVE to re-connect with the aspirational middle class.  One small example.  Why does Balls think he's being so clever in thwarting middle class/aspirational parents attempts to get their kids into popular schools?  Does he really think this is a vote winner.

On the psephology of all this, I feel I could do worse than repost a message I had on here in March (following the Lib Dem conference):

Here it is.