Comment Central: Could Brown go in the Autumn?

The departure of a prime minister is a very, very big thing, and ought not be demanded or suggested without a lot of thought. Nor is it just a question of whether “Gordon Brown is a winner” as advanced by Stephen Byers, or even the natural consequence of a pleasurable marination in the fact that Labour has turned in its worst election performance since the party's infancy.

The questions are whether Labour - one of our great parties - has a future beyond the next general election, and who might possibly lead it into that future. On these issues the resignation-demanders (with exceptions) are as silent as the loyalists. But now it's time to be noisy.

The judgment of history is often different from the judgment of the electorate. The excoriated sometimes become odd, posthumous semi-heroes, as did Truman (who followed FDR) and LBJ (who followed Kennedy). Perhaps, in 30 years' time, the decisions of Mr Brown and Alistair Darling between late 2007 and early 2009 will be seen more kindly than they are now. Actually, I would be prepared to bet on it, and - if I live to Lord Rees-Mogg's age - receive my winnings.

But we are where we are. And, as things stand, Labour will struggle painfully on till next spring with its current leader the constant butt of every launderette comedian and every street-corner gibe. Noises off will drown the attempt to be heard. It will be assumed that Labour stands for continuing whatever it has been doing for the previous 13 years. In the resulting massacre, the party will lose half its MPs and all its morale. The moneyless rump may then elect its own left-wing version of Iain Duncan Smith circa 2001 (not a patch on the 2009 chastened variety), and set to arguing about old verities such as increasing tax levels and resisting “privatisation”.

Here is an alternative future story. It isn't, on the whole, a tale of new ideology, since I don't think there is much wrong with the party's view of say, climate change, the security-liberty balance, public investment or international engagement. So in this one Labour may insist on the many things it has done that have been right and continue to argue for an open society in a globalised world. It may also allow its many mistakes. But it will recognise that the expenses fiasco was a symptom of a change it hadn't understood - the short-term detachment of the political class and the economic elite from wider society, and the long-term separation of the people from formal political processes.

So it will begin to talk about what it has learnt from office, and the way in which the contract between the governed and those who govern needs to be fundamentally revised.

In the first instance, it will take account of the massive and alienating dissociation between what is said by politicians and what is meant. This must stop at some time, so why not now? There has to be a party that takes the risk of levelling with voters about what it can and can't do and what it does and doesn't believe. We are talking about a transformation of political language. Yabbling on about the “issues that matter” won't cut it.

Second, there has - over time - to be a massive devolution of power to citizens, which in turn demands a massive assumption of responsibility by those same citizens. “Wicked” politicians have become an alibi for inaction, inattention and the throwing of tantrums. Labour should promise the encouragement of widespread experimentation with local power, including referendums, proportional representation, schools run by parents, elected police commissioners - almost anything, in fact, that a locality says it wants.

Where such powers need to be pooled (as over housing or the environment), it should promise experimentation with the mechanisms for resolving of disputes, so that voters are drawn into the dilemmas of decision-making.

Third, it should recognise the inexorable demand for transparency and how this is linked to suspicion of elite power. Accordingly everybody in politics, public service, large corporations and media above a certain level should be required to declare all earnings and expenses and charitable donations and publish them on public websites. All Cabinet minutes would be published within five years, as would all advice from civil servants.

Fourth, it should candidly admit - because it is true - that it is unlikely to win the next election, and that it understands why voters might want a change, but nevertheless argue that there are good reasons why millions of people should support its reform agenda.

Fifth, there is no chance of the electorate or the commentariat giving Mr Brown an opportunity to present a case for change. He ought to recognise this or have it recognised for him by 70 MPs agreeing to sign the nomination forms of a notional challenger.

Then the party should hold a leadership contest before the election, in which the Left - as represented by the Compass organisation and Jon “I'm Joe Backbencher” Cruddas - should finally have the courage to stand, as well as continuity candidates such as Alan Johnson and reform candidates such as the Milibands. There would be a series of televised debates and the election would use a new system of regional primaries, in which Labour asks voters to register as party supporters or sympathisers to vote for the candidate of their choice as leader.

After this selection, as long as a majority of MPs agreed to sustain him in power, Mr Brown could remain as Prime Minister for two months or so while the new party leader creates an election platform, and then while the general election campaign takes place.

After the expected defeat the new Labour leader, now in Opposition, should seek to alter the nature of parliamentary confrontations from pointless shouting matches and witless jokefests to occasions for real and substantial arguments and proper scrutiny. He or she should admit to limitations, exasperations and the thousand other natural shocks that political flesh is heir to. In short, new new Labour should begin the hard business of reducing the terrible gap that exists between politics and life.

And it really should try to avoid the temptation of calling, at every opportunity, for Mr Cameron or Mr Osborne or Ms Godknowswho to resign just because the week has a Monday in it and the front pages call.

Times Recommends

• Resist urge to throw voters red meat
• Slay sacred cows and be candid
• We cannot let these 100 deaths deflect us