PM stress. posted by Richard Seymour

The Prime Minister should quit - present and former Labour MPs agree, the sensible Labour-acquitting liberals agree, and probably most of the voters agree. Even Nick Cohen, following a slightly bizarre rant against the bizarre WRP and Vanessa Redgrave's Peace and Progress party, argues that it is time for Gordon Brown to take over. The liberal British Bulldog, Davey Boy Aaronovitch, is snapping at Blair's heels. The Mirror's Paul Routledge, undistinguished in other respects (except that he resembles an extra from Midsomer Murders), has returned to his labours for the permanently deferred Brown leadership bid. The Mirror itself, having returned to its impeccable Blairite proclivities after the departure of Piers Morgan, is calling for Blair to go, calling him Labour's "greatest vote-loser".

Yet, as Andrew Rawnsley perceptively points out amid the usual apologetics, it is unlikely to happen. Gordon Brown has had several chances to take Blair down, and he has not launched one attack. In fact, where he might have taken the opportunity to obfuscate his support for the war, and therefore distance himself from the most immediately unpopular episode of the Prime Minister's tenure, he has resolutely stated that he is for it. He has been as bellicose, in his scowling fuck-off manner, as Blair has. Opportunity, forever knocking, never finds Mr Brown at home. What accounts for this Hamlet-like procrastination? Simply put, Brown would have to mobilise his supporters in the trade unions, in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and in the constituency parties, in order to succeed. That is, he would be mobilising people who by and large are well to the left of Brown himself, are opposed to the New Labour project, and naively think that Brown represents an alternative to that. In doing so, he would substantially rejuvenate the soft left critics in the party, and also land himself in Number 10 precisely at the moment when the Labour majority is so reduced that he could be "hostage" to the "hard Left" - that is to say, there might be enough Labour backbenchers with principle to prevent the introduction of ID cards, or the benefit 'reforms' that have been delegated to Blunkett.

If Brown won't take the initiative himself, perhaps the strong Lib Dem showing in Labour core seats, the locally strong Green results and the extraordinary first outing for Respect, will put iron in the souls of the Labour back-benchers. They may cause Blair enough difficulty to force him to stand down. On the other hand, perhaps it is presumptuous to imagine that the bulk of them have souls to strengthen. But Blair may do himself in, through inertia and a simple unwillingness to recognise the reasons why Labour's "historic" third term is so enfeebled.

As Jamie at Blood & Treasure points out , Blair's response to the election results displays his classic tendency to think and act like a Tory. The Prime Minister says he has "listened and learned" - but he appears to have been listening to Norman Tebbit. He says he will now crack down on immigration, enforce discipline and respect in schools and on the streets. And, says Jamie, "Blunkett's back. But not Robin Cook". Despite the fact that the national 'swing' to the Tories was 0.5%, despite the fact that Labour's vote eroded largely to the left (or, in the Lib Dems case, what is seen as the left), Blair seems to be pining for those who defected to the BNP, UKIP and Veritas, what with their 'gut British instincts' and all.

If more 'sincerity' and triangulation is all Blair has to offer, an instinct for self-preservation may at last kick in for some Labour MPs and members. Clive Efford, John Austin and Jon Trickett - all of them soft left Labour MPs - have been calling for the Prime Minister to stand down. They had better start calling, at conference, in the House of Commons, at the TUC and in the media, for a totally different political orientation. I know at least one party ready to unseat a few more Blairite nose-tanners if they don't.