Should Brown lead Labour into the next election?

[Saracen]

Please note, the question isn't whether you think he will, but whether he should.

And do Labour stand a better chance (either of winning, or at least, not doing as badly) if he does, or doesn't?

In other words, regardless of whether you expect them to win or lose, are Labour better placed to either win, or lose by less, with him leading or without?




Personally, and while recognising that we can never take elections for granted, and that things can change in a hurry in politics (though a Falklands effect is a non-starter after Iraq and Afghanistan), I think Brown now has a level of unpopularity so great that they'd have better electoral chances with Kermit the Frog leading them ... which is why though I think they should change leader, I hope they don't. We need Labour out and somebody, just about anybody, else in. This next election, for me, has about the same level of appeal as being offered a binary choice between being shot in the head and burned alive at the stake .... I'd chose to be shot in the head, but wouldn't be awfully pleased about the range of choices I had.

[Saracen]

Oh, and for the record, I think the chances of him going before the election are vanishingly small .... I'm glad to say. He won't stand down (IMHO) and there's no credible challenger capable of getting the necessary votes. If you're travelling in the Good Ship Labour, now might be a good time to grab a life-vest and jump overboard .... like Gordon Brown's long-time friend and adviser, Baroness Shriti Vadera, who is now overboard and apparently swimming away as though sharks were hunting her.

[Phage]

As you said, Labour don't have any other contenders.
Still, may I just say Bullingdon Club at this point ?

I for one, do not welcome our new Eton/Oxford overlords. Where's Wat Tyler when you need him ?

[GheeTsar]

I'd pick a fourth poll option - Yes, he should be kept as (IMHO) Labour are likely to lose under any leader and you might as well burn Brown while he is so unpopular. Replacing him would only end up burning someone else as well.

I know what you mean about the two horrible options. I'm certainly not voting Labour, but I'm really not keen on the Torys either.

[Saracen]

As you said, Labour don't have any other contenders.
Still, may I just say Bullingdon Club at this point ?

I for one, do not welcome our new Eton/Oxford overlords. Where's Wat Tyler when you need him ?

Precisely why I prefer a bullet in the head to being burned at the stake ... it's not that I want to be shot in the head, it's just a marked improvement over the alternative. Frankly, if they could raise the deposits and fill in the forms, I'd vote for the chimps in London zoo over anything run by Brown.

What kept Labour out of power for a couple of decades was that the electorate didn't trust them to run the economy, or over tax. And now that we've had over a decade of Brown's oh-so-(not)magnificent economic management, it could well be another generation before they're trusted again.

[dangel]

Echoing doesn't matter - labour are a dead duck. It's just that it's still quacking for a few more months yet.

[Lucio]

I think that he should stay because at least that shows he's got the balls to see this debacle of a government through to the end. Having listened to him speaking on the news, I still can't understand how he ended up the leader of this country, he's got sod all charisma and little leadership abilitiy.

At least David Cameron inspires some confidence in people, even if you disagree with his political views.

[shadowmaster]

Ronald McDonald would probably be better for Labour at this current time. David Cameron is all right, nothing special imo but he'll win because almost everyone hates labour at the moment. Even if Labour get a new leader, the damage has already been done. People want change and will vote Conservatives even though they might be just as useless.

I was thinking that is a good time for the Lib Dems to come into the fold, with Labour's dwindling popularity and the Conservatives not offering much, I feel with a charismatic leader they have good chance to get more seats.

[Saracen]

I'd pick a fourth poll option - Yes, he should be kept as (IMHO) Labour are likely to lose under any leader and you might as well burn Brown while he is so unpopular. Replacing him would only end up burning someone else as well.

I know what you mean about the two horrible options. I'm certainly not voting Labour, but I'm really not keen on the Torys either.

I'm not so sure you'd burn someone else, even if (and I expect they will) Labour still lost horribly.

All the signs (which, I admit, might prove to be wrong) is that Labour are heading for a defeat of epic proportions, and that many Labour MPS, activists, donors and grass-roots supporters know that. But many seems to feel that Brown will oly make it worse.

It may be true that a changed leader won't stop a defeat, but I'd question whether (unlike the LibDems, or even the Tories ditching William Hague because he lost an election that couldn't be won) a new leader could credibly be blamed? I don't think a new leader could be expected to do much more than mitigate the size of the loss art this point, and couldn't be blamed for much.

Brown is, personally, hugely unpopular. He's not liked, and not trusted. And after getting the economy into this mess, it's small wonder. He's mismanaged event after event, from snubbing other leaders by failing to show up for treaty signings, to being notable by his absence from many issues (like the Gurkhas), to that highly comical pantomime on YouTube (or whatever the hell new-media it was).

Right or wrong, being presentable and personable, being "camera friendly" is a great advantage. I have no doubt at all that Brown is a highly intelligent bloke, but like many intelligent people, he seems to suffer from the fallacy of thinking that competence in one field means you're great at others. For instance, a degree (or even a PhD) in politics doesn't mean you're qualified to run an economy.

Brown's .... and by extension, Labour's biggest problem is that we have a clear-cut case of the devil we know versus the devil we don't. We, as an electorate, are showing all the signs of being heartily fed up with the devil we know and seem determined to give the devil we don't a try, as our choice is effectively ONLY between those two devils. However much I don't want to get shot in the head, I still prefer it to being burned alive, and I think a lot of people including a good number of died-in-the-wool lifetime Labourites, feel the same way. I personally know a number of people that, after 50 years or more of voting, have never voted anything other than Labour, but say they're going to this time, including some planning on holding their noses and voting Tory, just to get Brown and Labour out. That's the size of labour's electoral problem .... and they know it.

[GheeTsar]

It may be true that a changed leader won't stop a defeat, but I'd question whether (unlike the LibDems, or even the Tories ditching William Hague because he lost an election that couldn't be won) a new leader could credibly be blamed? I don't think a new leader could be expected to do much more than mitigate the size of the loss art this point, and couldn't be blamed for much.

Agreed, although starting off your term as Labour leader with a potentially landslide defeat to your name is not a good way to start a fightback. I'd be surprised if anyone put themselves forward for Labour leadership before the election.

[Saracen]

...

I was thinking that is a good time for the Lib Dems to come into the fold, with Labour's dwindling popularity and the Conservatives not offering much, I feel with a charismatic leader they have good chance to get more seats.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

Obviously, only election night will tell, but I'd have expected that they'd get a fair boost from people deserting Labour but not being prepared to go to the Tories. frankly, I'm astonished that any dedicated Labour types would dream of actually going Tory, even if they ditched Labour. But, so far at least, the polls don't show LibDems gaining much benefit.

I suspect that a lot of people that switched away from the Tories in '97 are now switching back. Some of them will be traditional floating voters, and some will be less traditional, but still switching back from the switch that gave Labour the huge '97 swing.

The LibDems single biggest problem is that they're viewed as not having a credible chance. In any given seat, unless the LibDems are a close competitor, then a LibDem vote is effectively a vote for the incumbent as not voting for the nearest competitor usually results in the incumbent getting back in. If people are REALLY after getting Labour out, then we can expect a fair bit of tactical voting. I don't particularly like any of the main parties, but getting Labour out, round here, means voting Tory as the only ones that really stand a prayer.

And that, I think, is why the LibDems won't gain much from this situation, and why some confirmed Labour types will vote Tory (or LibDem, or whatever) .... it won't be a vote for what they want, but against what they're heartily fed up with.

And another reason .... many of those that have always voted for what they thought Labour stood for are now questioning whether New Labour, with it's cosying up to the bankers and distancing itself from the TUC and Labour movement, actually stands for what they thought it stood for. If you believe that they're not a huge difference between Tory and Labour (and the gap is nowhere near as big as it used to be), and you want Brown out, then perhaps the Tories look less unattractive than they used to.

The interesting election won't, IMHO, be this one (which shows all the signs of more or less being a done deal, though you can never be sure) .... it'll be the next one. How well will Cameron do in an election after he's been governing for 4 or 5 years?

[Stringent]

Thing is people have short memories or won't bother voting because there is no one really to vote for. It could work either way if he stays then people won't vote for him, if he goes, some might be persuaded to give the new guy a chance but not much. Either way I don't think Labour will get in again.

[Saracen]

Agreed, although starting off your term as Labour leader with a potentially landslide defeat to your name is not a good way to start a fightback. I'd be surprised if anyone put themselves forward for Labour leadership before the election.

Perhaps, but if the results are as dire as polls predict, the only way a new leader can go is up, so he can point to how he's "improved" Labour.

He might, of course, also use it as a mandate to ditch new labour philosophy and court the traditional labour perspective again.

I think whoever takes over has a golden opportunity, because unless Brown somehow manages to pull a whole fieldful of rabbit's out of his electoral hat, after the next election he's a goner. Whoever takes over could be the leader for a couple of elections, and that means whoever doesn't could be out of the running for a decade. In a group of monstrous egos (like politicians), expect to see a vicious knife fight for the leadership, whenever the change comes.

[jim]

Gordon Brown is the best person to lead Labour, and should certainly stay. Nonetheless, I think he's got little to no chance of winning.

The Lib Dems have a fantastic opportunity, but they always strike me as inept at campaigning, so I doubt that they will make any use of it. Not to mention that some people seem to have this bizarre idea that there are only two parties - I've heard a lot of so-called "traditional Labour" voters describe Labour as useless (et al). Fine, but then they say that as a consequence they will vote Tory. Why? No particular reason, most of the time, other than that it can't be Labour. I really don't understand it, especially given how greasy David Cameron appears in the media - people just don't seem to be looking for any alternatives, or they don't trust any of the alternatives.

[Saracen]

Thing is people have short memories or won't bother voting because there is no one really to vote for. It could work either way if he stays then people won't vote for him, if he goes, some might be persuaded to give the new guy a chance but not much. Either way I don't think Labour will get in again.

Even disenchantment works for the Tories though.

Those that despise Labour, Blair/Brown et al, have been waiting for over a decade to get shot of them, and they WILL turn out to vote. They might not have last time, but they will this time. A disenchanted, or even angry, Labour core vote pretty much can do anything other than voting Labour, including not voting at all, and it works for Cameron.

About Labour's only realistic chance is if they can convince enough swing votes (and some of their core) that however disenchanted they are, Labour is better than, to use my earlier metaphor, getting burned at a Tory stake. Frankly, I think that's a pretty big "if" at the moment.

[Saracen]

.... I really don't understand it, especially given how greasy David Cameron appears in the media - people just don't seem to be looking for any alternatives, or they don't trust any of the alternatives.

It's because (IMHO of course) people are now saying they'll vote against what they don't want (Labour) rather than for anything in particular .... and the Tories, rightly or wrongly, are viewed as the only credible alternative. Given the current somewhat loaded system, I'd say that's "rightly".

Disappointment/disenchantment with Labour and/or Brown personally doesn't (or hasn't yet) translated into enthusiasm for the Tories. If Labour can exploit that, they'll at least mitigate the damage and might even win. If the Tories can convert it into a positive vote, Labour's demise as a government is sealed.

And that, IMHO, will be the election battle.