We need Miliband - but with a bit more guts

During the latter stages of his tenure, John Major felt so insecure that on weekends at home in Huntingdon, it is said he was prone to looking at Ceefax on the television to see who was plotting against him.

Technology may have moved on, but Gordon Brown is similarly exercised by the headlines. So much so that last Saturday night, he was so enraged by talk of a coup against him that he told his aides to call Jack Straw and order him to pledge his loyalty.

The Justice Secretary was first spotted as a young man by Barbara Castle. The Labour veteran hired him as an adviser in 1974 because she appreciated his "guile and low cunning". It comes, therefore, as little surprise that one of the great survivors of British politics is in the thick of it again. Straw led Tony Blair's leadership contest in 1994 but was later suspected by the former prime minister of stabbing him in the back over Iraq, the European constitution and the timing of Blair's departure.

Now the man who led Brown's anointing last summer is at it again. By Sunday morning Straw had issued a carefully worded statement saying he was " absolutely convinced" Brown was the right man to be leading Labour. It would, he added, be "a big mistake for the Labour party to turn in on itself and indulge in a summer of introspection". Note the word "summer". How long does that last? Note the word "introspection". That can easily be turned on its head, to say that "for the good of the nation" a new leader must be found.

In Straw's defence, he is not the only one thinking dark thoughts. Harriet Harman is at it, while denying it. David Miliband is at it, while denying it. The fact that he chose today to pen an article in Labour's house journal, The Guardian, shows the extent to which he is already positioning himself. His piece is neither overtly disloyal nor especially loyal either, making no mention of the Prime Minister, and Brown will not thank him for it.

Meanwhile, Alan Johnson and James Purnell are at it, too, while saying they would back someone else.

I don't blame any of them. Theirs is a terrible predicament. They are damned to accusations of treachery and possible political chaos if they do move against Brown. They are damned to accusations of cowardice - and probable political suicide - if they do not.

The vacuum of the August holiday season makes the agony more acute; meanwhile, the method of the execution is discussed increasingly openly. Would it be left to the "grey beards", to Straw, Alistair Darling and Geoff Hoon (a man less able to strike fear than perhaps anyone else in public life), to tell Brown that his time is up? Another scenario is the mass resignation ceremony - Moonie style - of junior ministers.

Most likely, however, would be Brown deciding over his summer brooding (and miserable newspaper reading) in Suffolk that he has had enough - although I cannot quite see that yet. More probably, he will give himself the autumn of the party conference and his next "relaunch" to see if he can shift the opinion polls. If he fails to do that, then October or November could see the voluntary call for the removal van.

Yet all this excitable talk of runners and riders is obscuring the bigger issue.

I said during Blair's final months, and I say now, that what matters far more is not who takes over but what. Labour's woes in 2005-07 were in large part down to Blair (smarmy, oleaginous). Now they are down in large part to Brown ( irascible, unable to communicate). But unless any of the major players can explain what this Government is for, they will simply preside over the disintegration of the Labour party.

Blair knew his mind. He was, to all intents and purposes, a European Christian Democrat who believed the job of the state was to soften the impact of free-market economics on the poorest, and to improve the state of our schools and hospitals, putting them under private control where possible. He acted as a proxy Conservative leader where no viable Conservative alternative existed. The only problem was he pretended he was a Labour leader. For as long as he continued winning, most of his MPs did not mind.

Brown's people assured us that their man would be different. The future, they said, lay in defining Labour against the Tories, not in stealing the Tories' position and policies.

It hasn't happened that way, because of the "c" word - courage. Brown may have some of the instincts of a centre-Left politician, but is too frightened to say so. In recent months, his Government has introduced legislation it should be proud of. In employment, for example, f lexible working hours are being extended for parents of all school-age children. Agency workers are to be put on a par with permanent ones. Over the weekend, ministers agreed to an extension of the minimum wage.

Some readers might disagree with these proposals. That is their prerogative. That is what democracy is for. But how many have heard about the policies? Few, I would imagine, as this Government feels almost embarrassed by what it is capable of doing.

This is where Brown has been such a colossal disappointment. This is the challenge for whoever might succeed him. They each bring their own merits and downsides.

Miliband is the cleverest but he brings a lack of experience and an abundance of Blairite trimming. Johnson has charisma, can relate to ordinary people, but I have yet to discern what he actually stands for. As for Harman, she has similarities to Hillary Clinton: she evokes strong reactions either way, but when I interviewed her during the deputyleadership contest, she was paralysed by fear of saying anything controversial.

The job is not perennially to worry about outmanoeuvring the Conservatives, but to develop an alternative proposition, and then to put it proudly, and unashamedly, to the voters. As things stand, a Miliband with cojones deserves to win - but they all have ample time to disappoint us.

The battle to succeed Brown is likely to trigger a vigorous contest. Any idea of another Brown-style anointing, of appointing a "caretaker", of another stitch-up, would be disastrous. A leadership election may be a distraction on one level, but it will give Labour a faint chance of starting its reinvention. The new leader will then face irresistible pressure to seek an immediate endorsement at a general election - within three months. Voters would be given a simple choice of a party of the centre-Left versus a party of the centre-Right.

Given the mood of the nation, Labour is unlikely to win. But it is not impossible. Its only hope of restoring some respect from voters is to show some conviction and courage, whoever is its leader. For a party that is too scared to say what it stands for is destined to selfdestruct.

John Kampfner is a former editor of the New Statesman.