Posted by Dr Andrew Connell
Gordon Brown’s announcement that he will resign the Labour leadership really comes as no great surprise. Whatever your interpretation of the outcome of the general election, his authority had been badly damaged by the result, and it would be hard to imagine Labour springing back under his leadership in another election at any time in the near future. There may, too, be personal reasons for his wishing to go now; in his sixtieth year (some fifteen years older than Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron), and with two young children, perhaps he sees some attraction in moving on sooner rather than later.
But his resignation undoubtedly removes one of the potential obstacles to a Lab-Lib agreement, and that, presumably, has been a decisive factor in Mr Brown’s timing. He has said that he will stay as leader until September to allow the Party’s leadership election process to run its course: but would that mean that he would stay on as Prime Minister for the first months of any coalition government? Not necessarily. Seventy years ago today (I am writing on 10 May) Neville Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in favour of Winston Churchill in order to allow the formation of the wartime coalition, but kept the Conservative leadership until his death that autumn. A senior figure, acceptable to the Lib Dems but with no longer-term ambitions to lead the party- someone like Alan Johnson comes to mind- might if necessary be lined up as a caretaker prime minister until a new Labour leader could be elected. However, this is pure speculation. Nonetheless, this does make a Labour –Lib Dem coalition more likely than it was 24 hours ago- although it is too early to say whether it makes one more likely than a Conservative-Lib Dem one.
