Peter Kellner argues that the Party should "calm down... it's only a by-election." He compares the results with previous results in Scotland.

The difficulty is, however, that our current unpopularity, in byelections and opinion polls, is not confined to Scotland.

On the one hand the result is hardly cheering for the Tories, who came a very poor third. This implies perhaps that voters are turning not so much to the Tories but against Labour. No doubt our personal experiences around the country bear out these sentiments.

Can we take comfort in the idea that voters are not embracing the Tories but turning against Labour? Yes, to a small degree. In 1997 voters were obviously turning against the Tories and voting tactically to keep the Tories out. But, in my recollection, there was a certain enthusiasm for Labour. This enthusiasm melted away during the next two elections as our share of the national vote declined, but due to the electoral system and our distribution of votes we have enjoyed large parliamentary majorities. "New Labour" won elections, yes, but with declining popularity.

Our policy of triangulating to the right has demonstrably alienated our core support - as Crewe and Glasgow East show. But, we are now in a position, with overtly hostile media of not being able to rely on the mythical "Middle England" either. The main reason being, apart from the general fatigue that governments tend to suffer, is that Cameron has, wisely, done his own triangulation, to the left. Our party is now caught in a very uncomfortable pincer movement from both right and left. Should we move even further to the Tory right (a la James Purnell), or move to the left (a la John McDonnell) to regain our support?

How much is this the fault of Gordon Brown? Undoubtedly the lack of a sense of direction is contributing to the Party's problems. The handling of the media is clearly inept - one is tempted to say, though personally I was never a big fan, "come back Alastair - all is forgiven!"

How much is it the fault of the media? There is a suspicion that there are ultra Blairites briefing against the government and fuelling a media frenzy against Brown. The lack of direction and inept press handling also play a role. Perhaps the "establishment" (if we can accept such a concept) has decided that Cameron is a better bet and is simply throwing its weight behind the Tories.

Should Brown be replaced? Only the PLP holds our leaders future in its hands. There are a number of problems here.

Firstly - Blair and now Brown have not brought on the talent in their cabinets. Are there any obvious successors to Brown? Think (if you are old enough, or have studied your history) of the Wilson cabinet of '64-70'. If Wilson had been deposed or fallen under a bus there were any numbers of people of prime ministerial material waiting in the wings - Tony Benn, Dick Crossman, Richard Crossland, Shirley Williams, Roy Jenkins, Jim Callaghan, Dennis Healey. Is it a generational effect that now we seem to be short of obviously capable successors to Gordon Brown? Or is it a failure to develop successors - an excessive controlling and manipulation from the top that characterised both Blair and Brown's administrations.

Secondly MPs are all (selfishly?) making their own political calculations and the most ambitious and capable are perhaps most likely to keep their powder dry rather than risk leading the Party to an election defeat.

The most frustrating aspect as a party member is that the Brown / Blairite struggles - evidently still ongoing - do not appear to reflect political debate - you can find little political or policy difference between these camps. One could say, further, that there is also little to choose between the Tories and New Labour (though Labour is always going to be prefereable in my book) in a kind of postmodern evacuation of politics. We are in desperate need of some real politics.

So, do we move to the right or the left? In my view we need to begin again with our "vision" (to use that terrible overused word) and especially our policies, to reconstruct a progressive socialist (or social democratic if you will) coalition of the left and centre-left. If, we can keep this coalition together we have a chance (even if some on the extreme right fringes of the PLP decide to go their own way or feel more comfortable with Cameron - few on the ground will follow). We also need to redemocratise and revive the party at all levels from the grassroots to Parliament.

Though my own position is solidly of the left I recognise that in reconstructing our coalition we need also to carry those of the centre-left - the ordinary Labour Party member, supporter and voter, and those alienated (understandably)  from all politics who are out there waiting to be reinspired.

Great article Peter.

Free Radical - I think you have slightly missed the point: Yes, this by-election is in the context of a downward trend, but it is not necessarily exclusively a product of that trend or indeed a sign that things are *getting worse*

Fluffy Mike - I think the problem with replacing GB is that the public will view changing PM very differently from changing leader in opposition, an idea the Tories have helped the great British public become very accustomed to over the last few years. 

Changing PM means an interegnum during the election process which will do major harm to the money markets, leading to a media feeding frenzy and irresistable demands for an immediate General Election which we could not win.

The public will not accept any political argument for two unelected PMs (I am afraid a discussion about primus inter pares won't change that) and they will not accept the economic implications of two to three months of utter chaos. We would be slaughtered on both counts, a political wipeout far worse than even pessismists on our side are currently anticipating.

I am sorry if I sound bleak, but the prescription is to keep our nerve, be the best Government that we can for two years and do what we can to expose Cameron et al. Anything else will be viewed as self indulgent folly.

And you never know, there are always events dear boy, events.

The well argued (and undoubtedly true) point about Glasgow East only being a by-election, misses the point about the state we're in
just as the other bloggers here who are asking for a contrite reaction at Warwick or for some slate of policy changes are equally missing the point.

The result in Glasgow East is a real testament to our lack of articulating a future vision. Of course the voters in Glasgow East will end up better (or at least less worse) off under continuing Labour government, but they didn't see anything in what's coming out of number 10 to make them vote for it.
The 10p tax rate is a good example of this. Gordon tried a cheap political stunt for a middle class tax cut - and abandoned the more principled graduation at the lower income end which is important for making the transition from benefit to work. The Tories won't help here, but then nobody really expected them to - you get damaged more by inconsistency then for any outright policy position.

The point is that the political dynamic is also about the Zeitgeist and momentum, and Gordon just doesn't have it. The Specator Blog, which is freer of our policy objectives or irrational optimism, has a useful insight
"Even if there is no immediate move against Brown following a loss in Glasgow East, a defeat there will still lead to a fractious fringe and every speech by a cabinet minister being written up as a leadership bid. In these circumstances, it will be nigh-on-impossible for Brown to have a conference that is good enough to turn things round."

This leaves us having to make some quite subtle and tricky tactical judgements about the likelyhood of a set of possible outcomes
- Carry on with Gordon and hope that something will turn up. It can happen, Cameron has been lucky and isn't unassailable, but what are the chances?
- Having a leadership challenge could cause more trouble than it's worth. The cabinet can't come out swinging as they are constitutionally obiliged to be loyal to the leader. Somebody might actually believe that it's worth trying a lurch to the left. No convincing leader emerges from the process.
- A leadership change is effected with minimum pain and a fresh and convincing face emerges.
- Potential leaders would be better placed trying to come back after a Labour defeat. Risky strategy - some Tories thought that in 1997 and they've had to wait a while.

Sadly, from their behaviour,  it looks like those in Westminster have settled for a combination of the first and last of these - they're stumbling into the
next election and planning for life past the defeat. I think it's worth a roll of the dice on the try to get a fresh new leader and if we're smart and actually want to win we may be able to avoid the bloodshed.

Glasgow East voters have reminded us that there's a lot left to do for future Labour governments - and maybe given us the means for a decent chance at another term of goverment sonner rather than later, if we're brave enough to take it.