There is a somewhat incongruous atmosphere surrounding the Labour Party's Policy Forum being held this weekend at Warwick University (25th to 27th July 2008). Whilst inside the hall the delegates earnestly debate how the party of fairness and equality can further democratise its own policy-making, the press pack circles outside awaiting the first signs of a palace coup that will give them what they are baying for, the head of the prime minister. What escapes both groups is the futility of their desires, as neither will be fulfilled.
After Glasgow East, those delegates may delude themselves that the electorate remotely cares enough about how their future policies are derived, to provide them with even the remotest possibility of re-election at the next general election, whenever that may occur between now and May 2010. However, the reality of a result that produced a 22% swing against their party is that, if it were repeated nationally, it would result in the removal from Parliament of every Cabinet Minister bar one, including the Prime Minister himself, and the party having just 20 MP's remaining in the House. Such nationwide unpopularity, borne-out by all of the opinion polls regardless of their individual bias, means that now would not be a good time to hold such an election. And you don't need to be Robert Mugabe to recognise the two glaringly-obvious reasons why a leadership contest will not change this.
The first is that no leadership candidate with the potential to turn-around the country's perception of this government would put themselves forward, simply because if they possess that ability, they also possess sufficient common-sense to recognise that, when their party loses the next election, and badly, they will also lose their leadership position shortly after. That leaves just the heavyweight delusionists at the top of the party, all of whom are more likely to worsen an already dire situation due to their being even less electable than Gordon Brown himself. What's more, even if the next potential leader were to survive as leader, post the inevitable general election defeat, their party is likely to be in the political wilderness for so long thereafter that they will become a Moses-figure, destined to lead their followers towards, but never personally achieve, their perceived destiny.
The second, and more profound, reason is that, just over a year ago, they allowed themselves to accept probably the first political leader of this country since Oliver Cromwell to attain that status by other than a democratic vote. That it was allowed to happen within the political party that always claimed to be the most democratic of all political parties was nothing short of a betrayal of their founding principles. Publicly, they may wish to avoid the reality of that fact, but privately they know that allowing Gordon Brown to assume the mantle unchallenged was probably the biggest political mistake it was possible for them to make. By-and-large, the British Public may become unhappy with someone that lets them down, but they rarely turn against anyone unless they perceive treachery. Even then, they are unlikely to fill the streets with revolutionary zeal, but patiently wait until they can take their revenge by peaceful means, which in this case is through the ballot box at the first available opportunity.
That the UK media, as ever these days, is using Labour's post-Glasgow East embarrassment to waste column-inches and airtime-minutes speculating on something that cannot happen, has more to do with their own lack of recognition of the current banality of their industry sector, than any perceived precariousness of the Brown premiership.
Gordon Brown doggedly waited ten long years for the opportunity to seize the position he now holds; why would anyone believe that he would be prepared to voluntarily relinquish it before the very last moment that he had to?