The fog of politics can be every bit as confusing as the fog of war. Newspaper headlines talk about plots, “stalking horses” or real challengers being lined up, men in grey suits or with grey hair confronting the Prime Minister. Then some of the same ministers appear on television and radio denying all manoeuvring and proclaiming their belief that Gordon Brown will lead Labour into the next election.

The public and private are not in contradiction. Members of the Cabinet have to be loyal to the leader, or else they have to resign, as John Redwood did in 1995 from the Major Cabinet over the leadership election. Yet, at the same time, Cabinet ministers and Labour MPs generally are talking to each other — and to journalists — about what should, or could, be done to revive the party’s fortunes after the defeat at Crewe & Nantwich. And the options include all those featuring in the media.

But, at present, there is no certainty about the way forward — no grand conspiracy, but rather many different, sometimes overlapping, conversations. It is a Tolstoyan world of unpredictability and uncertainty. Do not expect early clarity, and certainly not until after Parliament returns from its half-term recess in a week’s time.

One option that looks very unlikely is a formal leadership challenge since Labour’s own rules — both over timing and requiring the support of 70 MPs — make it hard to mount.

The more realistic options are that Mr Brown is persuaded, either by senior Cabinet colleagues with the private backing of Labour backbenchers, or by his wife Sarah and his close family, that it is not in his own, or his party’s, interests to carry on. That point has not been reached, and may never be. This will probably depend on a combination of his own reaction to the latest troubles and events during the next few months.

The most worrying factor for Mr Brown is the widespread view that he is now the problem: that Crewe was a verdict on his leadership, his failure to inspire or to offer a clear lead. Dithering has become the damaging description for his administration, just as sleaze and spin were for his two predecessors. That is allied with the belief that Mr Brown cannot change, or certainly not enough, to prevent an electoral disaster for Labour in 2010. The new factor since the local elections on May 1, confirmed by Crewe, is that many voters, not least traditional working-class supporters, have now given up on Labour, and no longer believe that Mr Brown understands their worries and aspirations. That has fostered the sense of fear (for their own survival) and helplessness among many Labour MPs.

The counter-view, as argued by John Prescott yesterday, is that choosing a second leader so soon after Tony Blair’s departure would in itself be very damaging for the party, an admission of defeat. Nor is it certain that any successor could really improve Labour’s prospects.

A central question now is whether Labour’s problems are primarily because of global economic troubles, notably the credit crunch and rising fuel and food prices, or because of Mr Brown’s weaknesses. On the former view, it would be wrong to drop such an experienced leader. Yet that implicitly means that nothing much is likely to change. Adopting the proposals of the Labour Left and the unions for more public spending or higher taxes on the better-off would be financial and electoral suicide. And reshuffling ministers would fuel an impression of panic. If the problem is not policies, then it comes back to Mr Brown, and whether he can convince Labour MPs, let alone the public, that he is best qualified to weather the economic storm.

The odds are still that Mr Brown will survive if he retains the will and confidence to do so, not least because of all the problems of replacing him. But the odds are moving against him.

Times Recommends

• We have kit and leadership. Let’s go
• Behind the scenes at the biggest deal
• Conferences — what a waste of money