The defining moment of the 1997 general election wasn't Gillian Shepherd looking sad. No, it was Michael Portillo being humiliated by a monster swing in the vote. For those who stayed up watching, what made it so delicious was that he had been on the election program earlier that night, participating in "discussions on who would succeed John Major" and clearly positioning so that the successor would be himself! It vwas pure hubris followed by nemesis.

The public really don't like disloyalty. They may tell you that they don't like so-and-so as leader, but then get annoyed when their party tries to remove them. The priviledge of removing people from office is the particular prerogative of the voter, and they get angry when it is usurped. Most voters on the left felt cheated when Margaret Thatcher was removed - they had been looking forward to defeating her at the ballot box.

We are currently in midst of a media frenzy about the leadership of the Labour party, and there are many reasons why we should resist changing leader: It's not our tradition. If a change of leader brought change of policy, this would pose problems as we are bound by the 2005 manifesto for this parliament. We're not ready as a party to hold the inevitable general election that would follow. Holding the leadership election this side of a general election would exclude many promising candidates. There are logistical problems too - who would be caretaker PM while the leadership election would be held? Are we really expecting Gordon Brown to do this?

But the most important reason not to do this is that the public will despise us for it. Thrashing about in a bloodied frenzy to hold onto power is deeply unattractive. We would lose our USP as the party of loyalty and decency. Let the Tories and Lib-Dems change leaders every two years. We do not do this. We have made many compromises to get to government, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Let it be here, else we lose our soul and become exactly like the Tories.

No one is in power forever, not in democracies anyway. It's not defeatist to acknowledge this. A party's long-term future depends on how gracefully it bows to the public will. I would prefer that the Labour party went into the next election stoically, with dignity and united. Yes, the MPs will be metaphorically going to their deaths, just like the Spartans at Thermopylae - but the lesson of Thermopylae is that they lost that battle, but won the long-term war against the Persians.

The public are furious with us (and the rot started with Iraq). We should simply bow our heads and let them know that we will accept what they dish out at the ballot box and spend the next two years trying to conduct a "good exit". 

It will draw the anger, and perhaps mitigate our defeat, because once Labour has accepted we will lose, the attention will inevitably shift towards the Conservatives.  Who knows, nostalgia for Labour could even settle in before we leave office.   

We've actually been in this position before. In the early 80's, Michael Foot struggled to control egotists like Tony Benn who felt they were more important than the party. The Alliance was over 50% in the polls and Labour looked like being obliterated with David Owen smugly telling everyone that the Labour party was "finished".

The party could have ditched Michael Foot, but grimly soldiered on. Then came the Falklands war. If it rescued Thatcher, it rescued Labour too, as Michael Foot was brilliant in parliament, asking why the Conservatives had allowed it to happen, demanding to know they were going to do about it, and supporting the action to get the islands back. The Alliance were indifferent to the war, regarding it as a waste of time - and their ratings dropped. Labour survived as the main opposition to fight another day. Anyone can be ahead in the polls as a blank slate. But voters make the hard choice on policies and on the behaviour of the party. Labour's loyalty and decency was preferable to the Alliance's smug self-importance. 

Events and how you conduct yourself are everything in politics. There are two years to go before our time is up. Anything could happen. The only thing we can control is how we behave, and we have to behave well if we're to have a future. That means staying united, not turning on each other, and accepting the will of the public with grace. Who knows, if we behave well, voters might even change their minds and reward us with an unexpected win.