THE GLASGOW East by-election fiasco for the British Labour party last week, involving the loss of a safe seat on a swing of 21 percentage points, may well prove to be a watershed. The disillusionment of the public, of party supporters, of backbenchers, and now even of anonymous cabinet members, has begun to crystalise into serious talk of a heave against Gordon Brown.
The knives are being drawn although they are unlikely to be wielded any earlier than September when MPs return from their summer break to prepare for the conference season. Until then, what one British political journalist has called the "prosecco plotting" in Tuscan and Spanish villas will continue apace.
The British prime minister, barely a year in office, has not been lucky. He is hardly to blame for the credit squeeze or for the soaring price of fuel and food. But he has bungled a couple of key decisions, not least whether or not to call an immediate election, and has completely failed to endear himself to the public. As Bertie Ahern found, voters are often willing to overlook much for a long time, if they like you. Now he is taking the rap for his government's unpopularity - Labour is polling at between 24 and 28 per cent, its worst standing in a quarter of a century, while the Tories, at between 43 and 47 per cent, have not seen it so good in 20 years. The ultimate shame for this architect of New Labour is that Mr Brown finds himself being compared to that epitome of Old Labour, Michael Foot in 1982-83.
Yet it is far from clear that there is a magic bullet for Labour. Contemplating the real prospect of defeat in 2010 at the hands of the Tories, some Labour strategists even wonder if an early change of leader followed by a snap election could minimise the huge losses the party could face if it waits two years. No-one believes such a strategy would keep the party in government, but, and it is a measure of the deep pessimism engulfing Labour, some see it as the best way to prepare for opposition and then the subsequent election.
The problem for the party, as a poll carried by the Timesof London yesterday demonstrated, is that there is no clear evidence that defecting Labour voters would respond positively to a change of leader. Asked if Gordon Brown made way for a younger leader would Labour be more electable, some 44 per cent said No, up three percentage points since May. The poll showed serious gloom among voters about the prospects for the economy, with 77 per cent fearing things will get worse over the next year. The number saying that serious policy changes would not boost Labour has soared from 26 to 41 per cent.
So, ditching the prime minister is no panacea. Not least, it should be added, because the uninspiring alternatives of a caretaker Jack Straw, or a generation-skipping David Milliband or James Purnell, are scarcely likely to inspire affection, let alone drive the revival of party standing in the short or medium term. Labour's relaunch will require more than just a repackaging if it is to rediscover Tony Blair's one-time extraordinary connection with voters.