One consequence of Gordon Brown’s troubles is the growing speculation about whether Labour can change its leader again without seeking a fresh mandate from the electorate. Brown must have come to regret not calling an election soon after he entered office a year ago but he could cite the recent precedent of John Major, who took office in 1990 but waited almost as long as he could before calling an election in 1992. You have to go back a long way to find an example of the Premiership changing twice between elections. The example of Churchill replacing Neville Chamberlain, who had been Chancellor at the time of the previous election in 1935, is drawn from the circumstances of war and is not really applicable today.

But the practice of British politics has changed and even recent historical examples can only tell us so much. The last twenty years have seen the rapid ‘presidentialisation’ of British politics. This phenomenon, first explored by Michael Foley in his book ‘The rise of the British Presidency’ in 1993, helps to explain why political leaders behave as they do. Foley noted that although Prime Ministers are not directly elected, unlike US Presidents, they increasingly act as if they enjoy a personal mandate. Moreover, personality factors are more of a factor in determining electoral outcomes as voters choose between ‘Brown’ and ‘Cameron’ rather than between Labour and Conservative.

Although I do not have the space to do justice to Foley’s analysis, the extent to which he predicted how a future Premier would behave is remarkable and pre-dated the rise of Tony Blair to power. In particular, the way Blair cultivated a sense of distance between himself and the party he lead was foreseen by Foley. One fundamental reason for Labour’s collapse in the polls is Brown’s lack of personal appeal; he is a corporate politician in an age of personality politics. By contrast, David Cameron understands the legacy of Tony Blair and is able to communicate directly to the public.

It is because our politics has become so presidential that it is inconceivable for Labour to change its leader twice without seeking a fresh mandate. It is perhaps because Labour MP’s know this that they are still reluctant to move against the man who is leading them into the political wilderness.