Isn’t he the one whose failure to stand up for democratic principles in the Labour leadership debacle has left his leadership credentials severely tarnished.

Or just maybe he wasn’t very popular in the first place.

I guess one reason why many leftists are still keen to protect Brown despite his many shortcomings is the fear of who/what might replace him. The heir-apparent is David Miliband, and for many Labour people that would look like a Blairite restoration. In other words, we’d be back where we were a year ago, stuck with a leader who defines himself in opposition to the party’s traditional values.

I personally think Miliband’s politics are more complex than this, but that is how it would be perceived.

(As an aside it might actually be that’s there’s nothing that can be done to steer the party back onto a better path while they’re in power. It may take a parliament in opposition to refresh their minds as to what they wanted to be in power for in the first place)

I just don’t get this demented ‘let’s all protect Brown’ mindset that seems to be gripping some so called leftists at the moment. Whatever happened to ’speaking truth to power’?

I couldn’t fail to disagree more. Much the same reasoning was going through the Labour Party about a year ago: as soon as we ditch Tony, everything will improve.

I definitely agree with this…

But then, it turns out today that Brown is vowing to press on with the 42 days detention legislation… and I think - why???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/30/terrorism.uksecurity

Simply substituting him with Jack Straw or even David Miliband will have zero impact unless other things change too.

A new leader means a new cabinet, which means a new make up of government. Things will change by replacing Brown. The question is will it be for the better or not.

‘Left’ is clearly not Labour except by default, and since we no longer know who the Labour party is for we’ve got to start asking what the Labour party is for.

I have a bridge you might be interested in buying…