GORDON BROWN is bound to disappoint his supporters. He is far too shrewd a political strategist not to realise that the fratricidal feuding at the top of the Labour Party is as dangerous to his hopes, and prospects, as it is to Tony Blair’s.

The risks and ambiguities are summed up in the political buzzword of the moment: renewal. At one level this is a code for the early replacement of Mr Blair by Mr Brown.

An early takeover is seen by some of Mr Blair’s critics as tantamount to solving Labour’s problems; but the “how” matters as much as the “when”. Any suggestion of a coup, or an open civil war — a real danger — could weaken Labour as badly as the Tories were in the 1990s after Baroness Thatcher’s forced resignation.

Hence, while Mr Brown and his close allies would obviously like an earlier handover, the Chancellor’s emphasis on a “stable and orderly transition” is more than just an empty formula. It reflects his real fears and represents his preferred route to No 10.

More broadly, the focus on a change of leader ignores the fundamental question of how to respond to the re-emergence of the Tories under David Cameron as serious electoral challengers.

The Tories are on their way back, though certainly not there yet. A 40 per cent national share of the vote is good, and worth celebrating, but not enough yet. The Tories did best on Thursday in their already strong areas. Two thirds of their gains of seats were in councils they already controlled or where there is already a Tory MP. Their advances elsewhere, particularly in the North, were limited.

As important, and more worrying, for Labour, is why the Tories seem to have done well. Obviously, the foreign prisoners’ row, reports of NHS cutbacks and John Prescott’s affair damaged Labour, but they underlined existing public worries about an out-of-touch Government and personal security.

In addition, in the parts of outer London where the Tories did well, many people have felt the pain of higher taxes but do not feel that public services have improved sufficiently.

The conclusion drawn in No 10 is that what these disaffected voters want is not less reform of public services, but more: shorter waiting times and more choice over treatments, a greater choice of schools, and an increased emphasis on fighting crime and social disorder. In that respect, the key changes in the reshuffle were not just of John Reid to the Home Office and of Alan Johnson to Education, but the appointment of promising Blairite reformers, such as Liam Byrne, Andy Burnham and James Purnell, to minister of state posts.

Of course, many of Mr Blair’s Labour critics would like to halt the choice and diversity agenda in health, and to abandon much of the Schools Bill.

Mr Brown’s response is different. His definition of renewal, offered on Sunday AM yesterday, was to focus more on problems of security at home and abroad — as well as the quality of life and the work-life balance — in the same way as economic stability and reform of public services have been the top priority over the past decade.

Most Blairites would agree with the Chancellor’s view that a whole set of issues around security have emerged from greater mobility, fast changing communities and terrorism. What the Blairites would stress is the need to intensify reform of public services.

Mr Brown’s vision of renewal is more modest than that of his more fervent supporters. Any hopes of a big change in policy will anyway be constrained by the planned slowdown in the rate of growth of public spending. Mr Brown cannot control the anti-Blair forces: those whom Mr Reid yesterday said wanted “to get rid of Mr Blair, stop reform plans and go back to old Labour”. In the longer term, many of these MPs and activists are as much of a danger to Mr Brown as to Mr Blair.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth