Lots of discontent with Brown’s leadership on Labourhome. A lot of people working on the assumption that ditching Brown cannot make things worse, and will at least give Labour a chance of reconnecting with the electorate before the next election.
Perhaps it’s just the cognitive dissonance kicking in (see end of previous post), but I’m less and less convinced that changing leader will have a beneficial, or even neutral, effect.
Those who argue that a new leader will have a “honeymoon” or will be able to call an election to exploit Tory “disarray” are living in a dreamland. Most likely, a sudden change of leader now will earn the party the lasting (and probably deserved) contempt of the electorate.
Even before the latest financial calamities, there was always a risk that another change of leader would turn the public even more solidly against Labour than it is already, especially when there is no pre-eminent replacement candidate. Now, as banks totter and assets plummet, a challenge to Brown risks looking out of touch, irresponsible, even frivolous.
I think that’s right. I suspect most onlookers would decide the Labour Party had become terminally self-indulgent at a time of a national crisis, more interested in playing out its own internal dramas than in actually doing something useful, like governing. They’d say, “Well, if you can’t decide which of you should be in charge, then as far as we’re concerned none of you should be”.