Brown lost the election as his party has lost nearly 100 seats. Convention has it that if a leader loses an election after being Prime Minister than he should resign. As the Labour Party moves into opposition he will undergo a renewal with a new leadership race and realignment of the party policies with its grassroots. A new leader will show the electorate that this is a break with the past (Blarites, Brownites, New Labour, Iraq War) and allow them to re-examine the party based on current actions and policies.

This is a very modern idea. Until quite recently the leader of a party could carry on as leader of that party when moving from government in to opposition. To take a few examples since the second world war Churchill remained leader of the opposition when he lost to Atlee in 1945 and came back as PM from 1951-55. Both Alec Douglas Home and Edward Heath remained leader of the conservative party for almost a year after losing an election. Atlee was leader of the Labour Party in opposition for four years after losing to Churchill. Wilson is perhaps the best example of a Leader of the Labour party who has carried on after losing to the conservatives as he was in office as PM twice as well as being leader of the Opposition twice. So this change has only really occured from the 1980s.

We have seen with Nick Clegg and David Cameron that both leaders are able to maintain unity in their parties and bring them with him. The same can not be said for Gordon Brown. When word came of a possible coalition he was unable to maintain unity even in his own cabinet. The party immediately fissured. A coalition could have been a good deal, but, it was scuttled without much serious discussion.

It is unlikely that as interim leader of the labour party Harriet Harmen will have much more control over the party than Gordon Brown would have had. Equally that Brown could not carry his MPs on the possibility of a coalition does not mean he would not have had their full support in opposition as it seems that most of the Labour MPs wanted to go in to opposition to fight the Conservatives.

Gordon Brown stood down just at the right time. He stood down at a time when the media is starting to focus on the new coalition government and at a time when any disruption within the Labour party on the issue of leadership can be swept under the carpet quickly.

It would be smart for the Labour party to work speedily and elect its new leader as quietly as possible so that the party has time to rebuild public trust in the party's politics and leadership before the next general election. It's time for the Labour party to rebuild its alliances with the old left, which will go someway towards restoring the party's credibility amongst the public (who are likely to face numerous cut backs in public services and increasing financial hardship as a result of deeply unpopular Conservative-Liberal Democrat policies).

Gordon Brown has bowed to the will of his party and the public. He was not favoured as prime minister and he was not favoured as Labour leader BUT his knowledge and expertise on the economy cannot be doubted. Thus, he is likely to (and should) remain as a key figure in the Labour party.

We knew he was going to step down in September, and that there was going to be a leadership race. Then we pretty much knew that the Liberals were not going to make a pact with Labour. So we were headed for a Lib-Tory coalition. Fine. Not just fine, bloody historic. A brand new politics. The last thing we need is further head-reeling happenings in the Labour party as speculators speculate about whether Ed Miliband's entering in the race is designed to split the loyalist vote between him and Ed Balls and so ease his brother into the leadership. This gossipy easy-reward banter, not to mention the genuine political following that is going to be required, simply comes at the most ridiculous time, given how much focus there is on the Con-Dems.

Furthermore, it would have been great if, within the next six months the Con-Dems have to make very unpopular spending changes, and then, come September, a completely sparkling, untarnished new leader emerges, at exactly the right time to save the country. (I'm not Labour, I'm just talking tactics here.)

The next six months will be largely defined by spending cuts. As a respected ex-chancellor, Brown could've offered a unique critique of the spending cuts his enemies the Lib-Tories are making, and in doing so, (a) earned credibility in his last six months (b) helped Labour in being the not-cutters and (c) sheltered those in contention for the leadership of the party from having to cope with all that on top of their campaigns.