Brown gives his two weeks notice

PM Gordon Brown announced today he will stand down as Labour leader before the party conference in September. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8672859.stm

Why this? Why now?

The simplest answer is his party doesn't like him, he lost the election for Labour, he was never properly elected as leader to replace Blair in the first place back in 2007, and he is THE primary stumbling block to negotiations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition.

All these very good reasons play a part. Of primary importance in this very moment, however, is obviously the question of what role Labour will have or not have in the formation of the next government of Britain.

The Lib Dems met with Labour today and in secret yesterday for discussions. It is quite likely Brown resigning as leader was a precondition for a possible pact between those two parties, and also gave Labour itself a pretext by which to force terms on Brown. It is no secret that many believe him to be personally responsible for Labour's poor showing and have wanted to replace him for years.

This is tricky ground. Labour quite clearly lost to the Conservatives in the election last Thursday at 48 seats and 7% vote behind the Tories. All math trying to construct a Lib-Lab pact to continue government seems to be against a center-left agreement. The numbers simply do not add up to a majority without including nationalistic party MPs from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, which would give a progressive alliance just enough numbers for the smallest of majorities, which could then be undermined by concessions to the smaller parties, backbenchers voting how they like, by-elections eating away at the tiny majority, as well as being viewed by the public as a cobbled losers' coalition. And basically, that's exactly what it would be. This alliance would barely survive a year at best due to high instability. And when the voters finally had their say in the next election to be held quite soon, everyone besides the Conservatives could count on severe backlash resulting in vote share and seat reduction. That's a high price to pay only for the notion of a referendum on proportional voting.

If I had advice that the Lib Dems would heed right now, I'd impress upon them the sheer necessity to reach an agreement with the Conservatives. The Tories have the largest vote and seat share, a pact with them would be only between these two parties, they would have a majority of some thirty seats, and would be seen, jointly, as putting manifesto interests aside in the interest of the country at large. Even if the alliance were short-lived, I think both parties would get a great amount of positive publicity, and would possibly be rewarded in the next election coming within 18 months with higher vote percentages and more seats. It is in the Lib Dems' interest moreso to gain public confidence than to gain a referendum on proportional voting.

Party leaders are calling tomorrow "crunch time." Hopefully that means Nick Clegg and his Liberals have accepted an offer to form the next government with the Conservatives under the new Prime Minister, David Cameron.