Skipper

Polly Toynbee yesterday bemoaned Brown's apaprent chasing of every wispy fluctuation in public opinion:

The story that Gordon Brown fumbled the Olympic crisis was so credible because it seemed to fit a pattern. It turns out that it was announced long ago that he was never due to attend the Olympic opening: the Chinese already confirmed his attendance only at the closing ceremony. Brown, anxious to offend neither side, failed to clarify that he was not attending and not protesting either. It was a bum rap.

Today Martin Kettle plays a similar tune:

A spectre is haunting the Labour Party- the spectre of Gordon |Brown's failure.
Questions about Brown abound in Labour ranks. The concern is not, as far as I can tell from many conversations this week, primarily about Brown's policies or about the changes at No 10. The quewstion is maihnly about him. Rigtht now, the problem is Brown himself.

The Guardian's leader points out that changing leaders- as Kettle goes on to essay, is out of the question: who could do it? Jack Straw maybe but no-one else even begins to measure up. Maybe this is just something drummmed up by underemployed hacks at a time when news is not too exciting but I think we're beginning to realise that poor old Gordon is just not up to the job of leading; by contrast, however much we hated him, Blair did manage to sustain that role. I reckon it all hangs on the mayoral election. If Boris gets in Labour support will begin to implode as Major's did in the seventies; if Ken gets back in Brown has a chance of rebuilding.