Plucky Brown clings on

Gordon Brown may lack the political graces but one quality he has in abundance: sheer bloody-minded grit.

After a week in which 10 ministers resigned, backbenchers threatened to sack him and his humiliated Labour Party got its smallest share of a national vote in almost a century, the prime minister is still here.

On sufferance, it is true; beholden to various big beasts in his cabinet; and vulnerable to bad news from by-elections and the like in the 12 months before a general election must be held.

But, against an admittedly gutless bunch of would-be regicides, he has clung on by his bitten fingernails. Is this good news or bad?

For his party, it is probably bad. In the fag end of its 12-year reign, Labour has lost even core supporters.

It is punished for greedy Members of Parliament's pumped-up expenses.

It is blamed, if not for the economic collapse, at least for not protecting ordinary folk from its rigours. There is a bone-weariness with the whole New Labour narrative, which promised so much and delivered much less. Brown himself has failed to breathe new energy into an exhausted government.

Labour had much to gain from dispensing with Brown's services. Polls confirmed that the party would get more votes at a general election under a different leader.

But it would still lose, which is why Brown is with us today. Replacing one unelected prime minister with another might have seemed a democratic deficit too far, forcing an early election. Rather than anticipate a popular judgment that promised to be harsh, Labour MPs decided to keep their leader.

Brown has a chance now to do two big good things during his remaining time in office.

The first is fixing parliament. This means more than ending self-regulation; the scandal over MPs' expenses has put paid to that in any event.

It involves strengthening the institution, cutting the power of parties over members, expanding the role of committees and more; Brown's nod in that direction was welcome. It does not mean wholesale constitutional reform in less than a year.

Nobody would want to stifle debate on changing the electoral system (on which Labour long ago promised a referendum). But the "Democratic Renewal Council" that Brown has heart-sinkingly set up is a blatant attempt to play a get-out-of-jail-free card. A government with little time, no money and bad poll ratings will not capture the moral high ground by threatening to change rules that promise its rivals victory. Better for Brown to speed up the independent review of MPs' expenses that is already in the works, thus mercifully moving politics on from moats and duckhouses, and then call an election later this year.

On the basis of Brown's behaviour so far, such public spiritedness seems unlikely. That reinforces the importance of his second job - showing how the public finances can be fixed.

Britain's problems are not unique, but the huge projected deficits for years to come are worrying investors. Waffling about efficiency gains is not enough. Brown needs to be clearer about what spending must be cut and what taxes raised.

His last attempt to do this - in the budget - was a mockery of spin. If he wants to soldier on to the (probably bitter) end, better to go down honestly.

And it would do his party, too, more good than any of the cheap gimmicks (embarrassing videos, calls to talent-contest judges, giving jobs to TV stars) in which he has recently indulged.

His dour pragmatic side is well-suited to delivering bad news and explaining how to deal with it. If Brown starts telling the unvarnished truth, the Tories will have to work a lot harder to win the election.