Deckchairs, Titanic, etc...

The political punditry are furiously running various scenarios to see which Labour MP would be most advantageous to Labour’s electoral prospects; Caretaker Straw, Miliband, Purnell, John Cruddas, and (God help us all) Harperson have all been touted. However, the best that any can hope of is diminishing the scale of Labour’s loss.

Regardless of who replaces Brown in the still unlikely event that he is convinced to step down, they will be obliged to hold an election within six months of taking office. I am fully aware that, notionally, we elect MPs who in turn form parties at Westminster who then in turn elect the leader best placed to command a majority. However, in reality, can you remember the last time a party went into a general election without being crystal clear as to who their leader was and who would subsequently become Prime Minister? If we as voters genuinely entered the polling booth on General Election day without taking into account who a party’s leader is, and who would subsequently be our PM, why would the removal of Brown make any difference?

It is inconceivable that Labour would be allowed to bestow us with a second unelected Prime Minister within a little over a year, and if they tried, they would undoubtedly be punished at the ballot box. Labour would be seen as undemocratic and afraid of elections, particularly following their reneging on the EU Constitution (let's call it what it is) referendum. This means that whoever was to take over the reigns from Brown would have at best six to nine months to convince the electorate that they represented a fresh start and could provide the necessary impetus required for change. Given the current state of the economy and the public coffers, this looks a stiff task.