Should Labour remove Brown

The big question swirling around the ether this evening is whether Gordon Brown will be removed as Prime Minister after a rebellion in the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is meeting this evening. Most commentators seem to be discussing whether Labour will or will not remove their leader, an act of regicide that (it must be said) has become more of a Conservative phenomenon than a Labour one. However, few seem to be discussing whether this would or would not be a good move for Labour. Of course, it is a matter of opinion (hence the deep divisions between the factions in Labour), so I will attempt to lay out why or why not Labour should make an effort to remove Brown as leader as soon as possible.

Since I am feeling contrary (and also because it represents the status quo), I will start with reasons why they should NOT remove Mr Brown:

1) Disunity destroys Governments (or, the 'put up or shut up' argument) - We have seen both pro- and anti-Gordon Brown groups coming to light from across the Labour party, factions that appear to have little in common and an apparent disdain for one another (at least in public). As the Conservatives deservedly learnt from 1992 to 1997, constant sniping and opposition to the leader leads to people viewing the party as concerned with only internal matters and not with the country. One could argue that the Labour challengers have had long enough to make their push for Brown's removal (heavens knows he has given the would be assassins enough chances), and since they haven't put up, they must now shut up for the good of the party and the country.

2) An immediate General Election (or the 'do you want to lose your seat' argument) - This one is a little more specious (see below), but the argument being put very well (allegedly) by Lord Mandelson is that should Gordon Brown be rolled by the party, his successor would be required to call an immediate election. As recent results in County and European elections have shown, Labour would certainly go down to defeat, and could face the kind of wipeout that the Tories endured in 1997, and the same long, painful period in Opposition. With Brown remaining at the helm, there is almost another year before the next General Election. It is possible that Labour will have recovered enough support by then to make a tilt at a fourth election victory with the expenses scandal out of the way, and perhaps the start of an economic recovery. Having said that, John Major probably thought the same way.

3) A new leader would be more hamstrung than Brown (or the 'smack of firm government' argument) - This line of argument basically says that if Brown were to be replaced, then his replacement would have less authority to make the radical changes that some in the Labour Party (including Mr Brown) think necessary to right the listing ship of state. Mr Brown has been hinting of drastic public service reforms (while at the same time going soft on Royal Main part-privatisation) and radical changes to Parliament (more on this particular chestnut later). Could a new leader, elected after a scrabbily and highly divisive removal of Mr Brown (and possibly an equally divisive leadership race between the potential successors) be able to command the authority to push through these reforms, which would almost certainly be opposed by a section of the Party?

and finally 4) Who would replace him? (or the 'do you really want Harriet Harman/Ed Milliband as leader?' argument) - While the media have been practically crowning Alan Johnson (formerly Heath Secretary, now Home Secretary) as the replacement leader for Gordon Brown, he is not the only potential candidate, and if Brown was removed or forced to quit in circumstances that were public and acrimonious (such as an official leadership challenge), then others may throw themselves into the race. Harriet Harman and Ed Milliband (despite his repeated failings to show the gumption required for claiming the position of leader) may well offer themselves to the Party as alternatives. Milliband is an arch-Blairite and disliked intensely by most of Brown's supporters, and that was even before he openly challenged the Prime Minister last year. Harman is considered to be a leader on the left of the party, and is apparently widely disliked and feared by rightists and Blairites. Some on both of the Labour party's wings might decide that it would be better to leave Brown where he is, rather than risk getting someone (they would consider) far worse.

Next are the arguments for the prosecution, or why Brown should be removed:

1) It can't get any worse - This is the big one for many Labour MP's. European results last night broken down into Councils painted a very frightening picture for Labour MP's, including some ministers. In some safe Labour districts Labour was pushed into second or even third place. Edinburgh, which is home to the constituency of the Chancellor, had Labour in third place behind the Tories and the SNP. Indeed, in the Council that has the Prime Minister's own constituency, Labour only beat out the SNP by about 200 votes. And if the results in Wales and Scotland (not to mention North England) were repeated in a General Election, the result would be far more catastrophic for Labour than '97 was for the Tories. Why do I say this? Because if the results for Scotland were even close in a General Election to what they received last night, then Labour could be annihilated in East Scotland, and have their number of Scottish MP's reduced to 14 (out of 59). In Wales, they could lose 17 of their 31 Welsh MP's. This is a BIG DEAL for Labour, because come what may when they lost to the Tories, they always could recouperate in Wales and Scotland, which the Tories rarely if ever intruded. However, with the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties offering a real alternative, Labour can't take these seats for granted. This means that the results from last night may affect Labour more than other recent defeats. And it means that putting a new man at the steering wheel may save some of the worse elements of a defeat.

2) Who says there has to be a General Election? - Everyone, from Lord Mandelson to Nick Robinson on the BBC to some random bloke I met waiting for a bus this afternoon says that if Labour were to change their leader, there would have to be an immediate election. Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that requires it, and Gordon Brown was perfectly happy to take over as leader of Labour and as Prime Minister without an immediate election (as was John Major as Conservative leader after the fall of Thatcher). So the idea that Labour would have to hold an immediate election because yet another unelected leader has taken office rings a little hollow, as was pointed out by Baroness Blackstone in the Evening Standard. While of course the Tories would demand an immediate election, and the polls would likely demand it as well, frankly the Tories have been demanding an election for months, and the public have supposedly (according to polling) been wanting one since the expenses scandal broke. Why listen to either just because you have a new leader?

3) A new leader could save some seats - This argument posits that the public feeling is anti-Brown, rather than anti-Labour. The belief is that a nice new leader, like Alan Johnson or Jack Straw, could come in, do a couple of things, take the heat out of the expenses scandal by reforming the system (especially Straw, who has a background in constitutional reform and is current Justice Secretary), then call the (supposedly) required early General Election and lose, but probably save a few dozen Labour MP's while doing so. After last nights results, expect some of the more marginal Labour MP's to be considering this.

What do I think? For what it is worth, I think they should fire Brown. I think that, like Major, this Government is almost (always a caveat) certain to go down to defeat in the next General Election whenever it is. I believe that the result for Labour would be better if they replace Brown with Johnson, who has a very good backstory and is someone who Labour's heartland vote could probably identify with (a former postman and union official). And frankly, I think that Government's like this one will slide from disaster to disaster, and another year of torment will only serve to give Labour voters more time to consider their vote, and to reconsider the Liberal Democrats as an alternative (or, God forbid, the BNP). And finally, on a purely political level, I think that an early General Election may help Labour more than waiting until an economic recovery. Labour's constant (and incorrect) argument that the Tories would do nothing to help people during a recession might not have the same resonance once Britain is out of the worst of the recession and looking at new growth.