Who will be the next leader of the labour party ?

[snowychap]

Purnell resigns.

James Purnell quits cabinet and calls on Gordon Brown to stand aside now

James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, tonight dealt a monumental blow to Gordon Brown's chances of holding onto office when he dramatically announced he was quitting the cabinet and asking Brown "to stand aside to give Labour a fighting chance of winning the next election".

His statement, effectively declaring Brown as unelectable, will further weaken the prime minister's waning authority and takes the challenge to his leadership to a new dangerous level. Purnell made his sensational move after polls closed in the local and European elections, informing Brown by phone tonight.

The prime minister had no inkling that Purnell was going to quit, since the work and pensions secretary shrouded his move in secrecy in order to prevent Number 10 mounting a pre-emptive strike against him, or seeking to challenge his motives.

A spokesperson for Purnell said: "He feels Gordon should now stand aside to give the party a fighting chance of winning the next election. He is not seeking the leadership nor acting with anyone else. This is not about jobs or careers."

The source added: "He [Purnell] has made the decision in the last few weeks – he's always been very loyal and defended the prime minister, but he now feels he can no longer go out and defend the prime minister. That is why he has taken the difficult decision to resign".

Purnell's move is a blow to Brown because Number 10 believed it was ­succeeding in isolating the cabinet-level rebellion after Hazel Blears, the ­communities secretary, quit on Wednesday in a badly timed move that alienated many party activists since it was taken only 48 hours before today's elections.

Purnell, a confirmed moderniser, decided, in contrast to Blears, that he would wait until polls closed before making his announcement so that he could not be accused of ­damaging Labour's chances in the elections. Unlike Blears, Purnell directly criticised Brown's electability in his resignation.

Purnell, seen as a possible future leadership candidate , said he would not be seeking the leadership if it became vacant.

Alan Johnson, the health secretary, remains favourite to succeed Brown if the prime minister is toppled, but Purnell gave no indication of his preference as to who should succeed Brown, or how that could be achieved. He emphasised he was acting wholly alone.

But his decision to resign means there is a serious likelihood that other members of the cabinet will break ranks.

Brown's allies will battle to limit the damage, portraying Purnell as a Blairite with little support in the party. But other ministers will undoubtedly assess their personal positions as the poll results come in over the next four days, and could be emboldened to resist new cabinet posts or quit altogether.

One former cabinet minister said the test would be whether Labour avoids coming third in the polls, adding he would be expressing his views on Sunday night.Brown's opponents in the party always said the reshuffle would be a crucial test of his authority, and that if he could not ­assemble a credible government, power would seep away from him.

Many eyes will now turn to David Miliband, the ­foreign secretary, who has insisted this week he still ­supports Brown's leadership, even if he harbours private doubts.

Purnell's move is also likely to strengthen the secretive backbench revolt which is gathering steam and was reported to have about 75 members. The organisers of the rebellion have said their campaign would not work unless key figures in the cabinet also quit.

Earlier in the week it is understood that Brown, in a sign of the respect he has for Purnell, offered him the post of children's secretary, the position currently held by Ed Balls. The fact that he offered Purnell this post suggests that the prime minister has been planning to move his close ally, Balls, to the Treasury in a move that would see the risky ousting of Alistair Darling.

Darling has been resisting being shifted from the Treasury, saying he had played a difficult hand over the recession as well as could be hoped.

Brown's allies had earlier disclosed that the prime minister would next week be putting forward a policy prospectus as "an alternative to a damaging leadership contest and the risk of plunging the party into a civil war". They had also said his policies would extend New Labour's reforms of the past 10 years.

But clearly Purnell, a former culture secretary, had lost confidence in Brown's ability to develop a sufficiently clear domestic policy. He had also become ­disenchanted with Brown's interest in constructing political dividing lines with the Tories, arguing that such politics alienate the electorate. He had been pushing for a speedier, more dramatic constitutional reform agenda, including the introduction of electoral reform, changes to party ­funding and an elected second chamber.

Purnell had, in private, also become disgusted by some of the briefing methods used by Brown's allies notably by the prime minister's former political ­strategist Damian McBride.

His move will force the prime minister to reconsider the timing of his reshuffle. Downing Street was indicating that Brown was considering waiting until Monday, after all the European election results have been announced. But the prime minister will now have to decide whether to rush the reshuffle through on Friday tonight to prevent another wave of resignations and shore up his authority.

He has in the past 24 48 hours lost three cabinet ministers, and two other ministers, including his ally Tom Watson. There were further reports that Brown had tried to persuade the former home ­secretary John Reid to rejoin the government, but he had refused.

[Dodgyknees]

Alan Johnson.

[KT3AVFC]

As one of the seemingly dwindling band of labour voters I'm pleased that someone is standing against Brown. Something had to be done or the party was going to get absolutely hammered at the next general election. The damage has probably already been done but forcing Brown out is the only chance of avoiding oblivion next year.

[snowychap]

oblivion next year

Do you think that a Labour government with another new leader will be able to hold on until next year?

Or do you think they would want to? Might there not be a 'new leader' bounce to take advantage of?

[KT3AVFC]

It will be very difficult to avoid demands for a general election if Brown is forced out - don't think the public will stomach 2 non elected PMs. Labour won't win the next election but a fresh leader may persuade activists that it's worth campaigning and there may be enough of a bounce to prevent a Tory majority. If Brown stays then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

[Chindie]

I can't see the Labour allowing an election if they replace Brown. Partly because they'd need to use the bloke to campaign for a bit first. And partly because they don't have to, we vote for a party not a leader.

Stick by what I said at the start of this thread, whoever gets the job is gonna need some luck, hell, he'd need a miracle.

[snowychap]

we vote for a party

Except we don't, we vote for a person - the representative for our constituency. That is, in FPTP elections.

Now he/she most likely campaigns under a party banner and, therefore, they are in that case following a particular manifesto but they are free to make whatever alliances they so wish.

They are not required to vote with the party of which they are a member, the party of which they are a member is not obliged to keep them in that party through thick and thin and they can always cross the floor.

I know it's a bit pedantic and I understand that 'voting for a party' is the practical outcome of any electoral system which is done on a party basis but that doesn't alter the intricacies of it.

[Chindie]

Fair enough Snowy. I think you'd probably know that the international side of things is more forte .

The stuff recently just makes my disinterest in the domestic side of things grow.

[snowychap]

Fair enough Snowy. I think you'd probably know that the international side of things is more forte .

No worries, mate.

It is not often of much significance in practice - though there was that old boy Republican who switched the other month (and seemed to be rather popular with Obama et al).

[JulieB]

Sorry to bring this up at a time of national crisis...when it's appears to be all crumbling right before our eyes!!... BUT...

Watching Sky News and the unfolding political crisis....anyone else noticed that the male guests they've been interviewing in the past hour have had mad blow dried hair??... The political correspondent from the Times hairstyle was amazing!!

....methinks there's been a Danny La Rue fan let loose in make up tonight at Sky in honour of his death!

[kidlewis]

anyone that upset the leader of Liberty is alright in my book

My friend summed her up perfectly with the line

'how can someone who is so right.....sound so wrong?'

[LondonLax]

we vote for a party

Except we don't, we vote for a person - the representative for our constituency. That is, in FPTP elections.

Now he/she most likely campaigns under a party banner and, therefore, they are in that case following a particular manifesto but they are free to make whatever alliances they so wish.

They are not required to vote with the party of which they are a member, the party of which they are a member is not obliged to keep them in that party through thick and thin and they can always cross the floor.

I know it's a bit pedantic and I understand that 'voting for a party' is the practical outcome of any electoral system which is done on a party basis but that doesn't alter the intricacies of it.

That is undoubtedly true but I would have to suggest it is not the mindset of the majority of the electorate.

In practical terms the majority of voters are voting on election day for who they would like to lead the country and tick the box accordingly.

I would go so far as to say a significant number of your average voters only find out the name of their local candidates when they read through them on the ballot sheet.

For this reason the change of prime minister outside of an election is a significant event for the voting public and a second change will not be well recieved.

[snowychap]

That is undoubtedly true but I would have to suggest it is not the mindset of the majority of the electorate.

In practical terms the majority of voters are voting on election day for who they would like to lead the country and tick the box accordingly.

I would go so far as to say a significant number of your average voters only find out the name of their local candidates when they read through them on the ballot sheet.

For this reason the change of prime minister outside of an election is a significant event for the voting public and a second change will not be well recieved.

I thoroughly agree.

The mindset of the voter and the overall practical outcome have been shaped by the party aspect of politics rather than the constitutional aspect.

As far as Gordo's leadership is concerned, Beeb have just announced that John Hutton is leaving the cabinet. I think that might be very significant.

[Awol]

John Hutton is jacking it too according to the beeb. He is a credible candidate for the leadership but he's also the best Defence Secretary Labour have had since 97. A serious loss to the Armed Forces in my opinion.

[snowychap]

Actually, they've since said that he is standing down as an MP at the next election, too.

[tonyh29]

Actually, they've since said that he is standing down as an MP at the next election, too.

which seems to be MP speak for "the telegraph are about to out me " ??

[Richard]

Labour Party are dead in the water

General election in September is my current tip

[snowychap]

General election in September is my current tip

14/1 with Ladbrokes, Richard.

October - 7/2.

[Richard]

14/1 is a cracking price if the talk is to be believed