Apocalypse again
As I reported for duty this morning, I glanced at the pile of papers adjacent to my desk.
On top was a headline: "Brown fights for survival."
Fairly blunt, fairly clear. But snag. Was this pile today's papers? Or yesterday's? Or Wednesday's? Or...
Turned out to be apocalypse yesterday by contrast with today's version.
Returning sporadically to my work-station from sundry toil, I have got into the habit of asking colleagues: "Anybody quit in the past 10 minutes?"
Gordon Brown . Or rather, had it accelerated for him.
Better to get the thing under way while he still has a sufficient pool of ministers upon which to draw.
While preparing to broadcast to an astonished nation last night - or at least that portion of the a.n. which was watching Newsnight Scotland - I indulged in a few idle phone conversations with Labour figures.
They agreed that Gordon Brown is in serious trouble. (It is this perspicacity which has made the Labour Party the fighting force it is. Or, perhaps, was.
Ach, I shouldn't cavil. We all, me definitely included, resort to comforting simplicity in the face of such guddle and chaos. )
But my Labour interlocutors agreed further that Mr Brown's fate rested upon which questions the party's MPs asked - and how many.
MPs are motivated by many things but chiefly, on these occasions, by their own survival.
Get them by their majority and their hearts and minds will follow. Electoral support is all - which is, arguably, healthy in a democracy.
So, if MPs only ask Question One - is G. Brown a popular Prime Minister? - then he has had it.
If they ask Question Two - who might replace him? - then he is probably still in big trouble.
Disenchantment with Mr Brown is such that MPs would be prepared to consider most anyone.
And they don't have to: Alan Johnson is palpably hovering.
However, how about further questions? How about this one? If Alan Johnson replaces the PM, would he have to call an early General election?
Constitutionally, no - we have a parliamentary, not a presidential, democracy.
But, in reality, yes.
The voters just about swallowed GB as PM on the basis that he had campaigned side by side with Tony Blair in 2005.
It was - arguably, just - something of a joint pitch.
They would not, in my view, tolerate a third prime minister on the basis of a single, dated mandate.
So Team Brown - what remains of them - can say to MPs.
Replace GB - and face an early poll in which you lose big style because the economy is still in recession and voters are still utterly furious over expenses.
The Brown offer, then, is time.
Put up with him - and he can hold on until May next year when, maybe, perhaps, the economy might be a little better and action at Westminster might have begun to soften voter fury a fraction.
Not much of a pitch, I grant you. But it's the best that Gordon Brown has got.
PS: Welcome your comments as ever. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer.
This is designed to ensure that, in the interests of all readers, there can be focused, substantive debate.
Over a prolonged period, it means that the broadest possible range of topics can be aired.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.