Leading article: The faulty reasoning of the Westminster plotters

Ditching Gordon Brown could well be electoral poison for Labour

Yesterday the politics was as exciting as the weather. The incendiary letter from Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon spoke earnestly of the pressing need for the question of the Labour Party leadership to be "sorted out". But there was no disguising the true goal of the two former cabinet ministers: the defenestration of Gordon Brown.

Leaving aside the disingenuousness of the letter's language, however, this coup attempt evidently had some serious pre-planning, unlike last summer's almost farcical affair. Yet, as a stream of cabinet ministers pledged their support for Mr Brown throughout the afternoon (some considerably more forecefully than others) it seemed increasingly likely that this attempt too was destined to melt into nothing.

The discontent felt with Mr Brown by many in the Labour ranks is understandable given the Prime Minister's awful personal poll ratings. And, as our analysis of recent polls today shows, the idea that the gap between Labour and the Tories is gradually closing is something of an exaggeration. It is not only Mr Brown's implacable enemies who fear the Prime Minister is leading the Labour Party to certain defeat at the coming election.

The rebels' letter is right about one thing: the leadership is a live topic of debate in Labour circles. It is also difficult, incidentally, to feel much sympathy for Mr Brown personally considering his own extended record of disloyalty under his predecessor, Tony Blair.

Yet it does not follow that changing leader would be a sensible course of action for Labour. The rebels calculate that ditching Mr Brown and replacing him with someone better able to communicate Labour's policies could, if not deliver victory, then at least save the party scores of seats in the general election. They sense that switching leader could make the difference between a long spell in opposition and a relatively speedy return to office.

But there are some glaring problems in the reasoning of the plotters. The rebels' case rests on the assumption that a new leader would automatically increase Labour's popular support. However, no recent polls have suggested that a different leader would deliver a significant boost to Labour's ratings. The wish, here, seems to have been the father to the thought.

Taking the public for granted

Moreover, it is impossible to predict with any certainty the public's reaction to a coup. Relatively few are enamoured with Mr Brown in the country, but they might resent a leadership switch just months before a general election even more. Is the replacement of one unelected prime minister with another likely to be cheered in the country? Or would it be taken as yet more evidence of arrogant Westminster elites taking the public for granted?

Another problem for the plotters is that there is no obvious successor to Mr Brown. The notion that the election of a new leader would be a clean and quick process is plainly fanciful. Mr Brown's supporters would be unlikely to slink off without a fight if their patron was assassinated. The stalwart loyalist, Ed Balls, would probably stand in any subsequent leadership contest, ensuring a protracted and bruising struggle. Is this really what Labour needs in the run up to a general election?

The great danger is that Labour would be seen as a divided shambles. Electorates have punished such parties savagely in the past. Indeed, the Conservatives will probably have been rather pleased with yesterday's strife in the government ranks, especially after their own shaky start to the New Year.

The Labour rebels also forget that politics is not only about personality. A new leader might suffer serious credibility problems. Notwithstanding the squabbles over the "class-war" attacks on the opposition, there is no substantial disagreement over policy within Labour ranks. There exists no faction with a coherent alternative programme. The fact is that a new leader would have been elected purely for personality reasons. It would reek of cynicism.

For all the passion with which the dissidents pursue their goal, there is a strong sense that they have not thought through what would follow a change of leader. They believe that getting rid of Mr Brown would be a panacea. But it could very well be electoral poison for Labour.

Only one thing is certain: attempting to drop their pilot with a general election only a matter of months away would represent an unprecedented and colossal gamble. And, in the end, if Labour did jettison Mr Brown at this late stage, it would be a move based on narrow party calculation, rather than the national interest. For that reason, above all, the rebels should back off.