Few Options for Gordon Brown As Authority Wanes

In politics things are rarely quite as good or as bad as they look at the time and Gordon Brown's latest worst week may come to look no worse than several others. But probably not. Once in a generation an Eden, Callaghan or Major loses authority that he did not have to spare as the election clock ticks away for his demoralised MPs.

What can Brown do? And what can ministers and MPs do about him? Despite the weekend's renewed media hubbub, most backbenchers still believe the first question is more important, not least because no obvious alternative exists who could be installed without bloodshed worthy of the Gurkhas.

labor could hardly have two uncontested leadership contests in a row, they admit. Even those largely-disorganized Blairite forces who would like the prime minister to resign tomorrow - or after fresh, BNP-laced humiliation in the June 4 Euro-elections - concede MPs will not unite behind the easygoing health secretary Alan Johnson, this week's heir apparent. Yesterday Harriet Harman decisively ruled herself out.

So, if Brown staggers on to May 2010, what can he do to avoid a landslide defeat? Frantic efforts are underway to dust him down. A big education speech tomorrow, a compromise sought on overdue post office reform which Brown himself blocked in 2001; critics say he must also sort out MPs expenses and party funding, quickly and on a bipartisan basis, if they are not to embarrass him further.

But the heart of the problem remains: Brown's core operation at No 10, the way he leads and the way he communicates his decisions to MPs and the voters.

It was the kernel of the communities secretary Hazel Blears's "YouTube if you want to" article in the Observer, which some MPs claim was designed primarily to distract weekend media attacks over the Gurkha fiasco away from her friend, the home secretary Jacqui Smith.

Ministers had a decent record on the Gurkhas which went unheard, ditto their concessions on expenses. Even yesterday's reports that Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson are now to lead post-Damian McBride weekly strategy meetings highlights the weakness at No 10.

"Gordon couldn't just ask Mandelson, Blunkett and Alastair Campbell to do it. He always has to balance other people with his own people. When there's fallout he always backs Ed," explains senior one ex-minister.

Plenty argue that Brown must break up - not necessarily fire - the team of three ministerial trusties on whom he most relies: Balls; the chief whip, Nick (no relation) Brown and the Cabinet Office's Tom Watson. To do so they might have to cut his arm off.

What does the government need most? "Empathy with the voters, being on their side," MPs say before conceding "Gordon doesn't do empathy."

Is it all lost? Last week felt like a tipping point. Contemptuous of the "usual suspect" whiners, John Prescott and cabinet loyalists do not think so. They pin residual hopes in signs of economic recovery and Middle Britain's distinct lack of passion for the Cameroons.

"The mood's not like 1997," they tell each other. It is a fair but insufficient point. Gloomier colleagues insist that coherent leadership, not economic shifts, will be the decisive issue for voters.

Amid the sniping this weekend 70-year-old Prescott got out his "GoFourth" election battlebus, traveled 1,000 miles and made 14 "we can win" speeches to party activists from Liverpool over to Hull. Dismissed as backward-looking and incoherent Prezza still generates energy and empathy. Back in Downing Street there is no Prezza on tap at the top.