We live, as is often said, in challenging times and Gordon Brown is absolutely right that Labour’s policies and people are far better equipped to lead Britain through this international financial crisis than any of our political opponents. But the difficult decisions which are necessary to address Britain’s economic difficulties also require strong leadership, clarity of purpose and public support. Labour has to regain and then retain the confidence of the British people and that means coming to terms with the political realities.

Three weeks ago, Peter Riddell wrote in The Times: “Most voters have given up on the Brown government and little it can say or do is likely to shift that hostility.” Almost no one – including at the top levels of government – believes that Labour can actually win the next general election as things stand.

Yet to air these problems, it is suggested, represents near-criminal political disloyalty. However, true loyalty, both to Labour and to our constituents, means recognising that the greatest betrayal would be by negligence to condemn the poorest in this country to a decade or more of Tory power.

If Gordon Brown is to remain prime minister and prove wrong those who doubt his capacity to change, he must establish his authority and offer clear leadership. Confident communication, great speeches, a strong and supportive team and a coherent programme of policies flow only from a clear sense of political direction.

There is no merit in just waiting for further dates or setting future tests. Although prevarication and evasion may appear attractive at the moment, they are actually the most dangerous course of all. The people we seek to serve will not be helped by a crippling lethargy or by just hoping that something will turn up.

The alternative is for Brown to depart with honour. A new leader will then be chosen to carry through a political programme which meets our economic challenges and enables Labour to rebuild its fortunes to contest the next general election with genuine confidence.

There are three often-repeated impediments to making such a dramatic change.

First, we are told, there are no strong alternatives.

It is certainly true that there have been limited opportunities for contenders to shine during the Blair-Brown decade and, as Brown’s elevation has shown, it is not easy to predict how someone will perform as leader before they are in office. Against that, the experience of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and even Sarah Palin shows how quickly exposure can raise profiles.

Brown himself has rightly stated that a number of his cabinet have the capacity to be prime minister and a properly conducted leadership election (in which he could participate himself if he wished to clear the air) would enable the alternatives to be properly assessed.

Another Labour “coronation” would be a serious mistake. The election would take four to five weeks and could be funded by party supporters who are not ready to donate to Labour in the current circumstances.

The second inhibition is a concern that another change of prime minister between general elections would inevitably lead to an immediate general election. The opposition parties and some parts of the media would call for this – and stridently.

However, such an appeal would have not the slightest constitutional basis. Provided that the new Labour leader could command a majority in the House of Commons, the Queen would be advised to invite him or her to form a government. After that point the timing of the next general election would be a matter for the political judgment of the new prime minister.

My political advice would be that the new prime minister should preannounce the date of the next general election, probably in 2010, and should then begin the process of legislating, preferably on a free vote, for fixed-term parliaments.

The third reservation is that any process of change would itself be bound to be a political bloodbath which would damage Labour fatally. This comes less from rational analysis than from an understandable fear of the unknown. There are no irreconcilable personality or policy rifts within Labour and there is every reason to believe that everyone would work with mutual respect.

The real danger is that the prime minister’s political weakness is not only damaging himself but would inexorably and disastrously transfer to Labour as a whole. In reality the extent of political damage to Labour will be determined mainly by Brown’s own behaviour and the decisiveness (or otherwise) with which the cabinet promotes change.

The impediments to change are real, but it is far better to face and overcome those challenges than to continue with inaction, drift and despair. The country needs strength and confidence to deal with the economic challenges and the Labour party needs those very same qualities if we are to avoid disaster in the future.

Times Recommends

• It’s not just about Iraq, it’s about Blair’s style
• You can’t rank hospitals like football teams
• Minarets are not an essential part of Islam