Overthrowing Gordon Brown

THE ARGUMENTS FOR

The public believe Gordon Brown is not up to the job of Prime Minister, and have shown this in recent elections in London, Henley, Crewe & Nantwich and Glasgow East. Without a new leader, Labour will face a crushing defeat in the next general election.

Brown's policies, such as the 10p tax debacle, and his awkward personality, are bad for the UK as well as Labour. The country should have a more dynamic leader during this time of economic uncertainty.

After a decade of Tony Blair, the political ideology of New Labour is exhausted. The party needs to have the debate about its future direction it missed out on when Brown took over as PM without a contest.

Because Brown spent years encouraging his supporters to manoeuvre against Blair, leadership candidates will face less criticism for showing disloyalty. They can depose Brown without compromising their reputation.

It is not too late for a new leader to boost popularity before a 2010 general election.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST

There is no obvious winning candidate. Whoever the party chooses may have no greater success with the electorate than Brown.

While the Tories removed Margaret Thatcher very quickly, the business of electing a Labour leader is a drawn-out process. This would damage the party's popularity.

Any leadership contest would highlight the ideological disagreement between the privatising Blairites and the traditional left wing of the party. These factions are likely to squabble on matters of both principle and policy. This introspection and division would allow the Tories to come across as united and more capable of governing.

The new generation of potential Labour leaders have nothing to gain from overthrowing Brown now. It would be more politically astute to hold back and then take over when the party is in opposition.

Despite Brown's recent troubles, many trade unionists and grass-roots supporters feel he is still the best man for the job.