Sceptics insisted Labour would never manage such a bloodless handover, but the party gleefully proved them wrong. The transition was
indeed smooth and orderly – and don't Labour supporters regret it now as they survey a decade's work in ruins?

There has been nothing smooth and orderly about the past few weeks. The climbdown over the 10p tax rate in the face of a backbench revolt, the local elections catastrophe and the sniping from Cherie Blair, John Prescott and Lord Levy have
left Gordon Brown looking harried and not in control of his own destiny.

How very different it was when Labour allowed him to take the keys to Number 10 without breaking into a sweat. The potential alternative candidates, such as David Miliband, were left in no doubt by union
leaders and others that they would never be forgiven if they dared to challenge Brown's right to the top job.

It must be remembered that Brown's tenure of the Treasury coincided with a prolonged period of economic stability, allowing him to claim credit for Britain's prosperity. It also gave him the freedom to
retreat from public view whenever the Government hit trouble.

So Labour did not crown Brown on the basis of his past performance or public appeal; its members simply trusted that
his bank manager style, and perceived attention to detail, was just what Britain wanted after the showmanship that had come to characterise Blair's style of leadership.

Yet the Prime Minister's 10 months in the spotlight have therefore been revealing for Labour as much as the public at large, and both have been unpleasantly surprised.

Contrast Labour's experience over the past year with that of the Democrats in the US.

Hillary Clinton was on course to become the Presidential nominee. She had a mass of Washington experience, access to wealthy donors, offered her party the chance to put the first woman in the White House and there was no credible alternative.

Then a relatively inexperienced senator from Illinois, with a talent for eloquent public speaking, audaciously threw his hat into the ring. He inspired swathes of young people and attracted phenomenal sums in campaign funds, much of it in the way of small donations from
ordinary people who had become alienated from the political process.

Barack Obama's policies do not differ hugely from those
off his rival, but his mere presence in the race forced Clinton to justify her status as the presumed nominee. Democrats had to ask themselves what kind of person do they want to lead the country. They have decided, albeit narrowly, they want someone who represents a break from the past.

If Labour's leadership vacancy had produced a genuine contest, it is very likely that the party would still have chosen Gordon Brown.

This is, after all, the party that managed to elect Harriet Harman as its deputy leader when it was presented with a slate of far more convincing candidates, most notably Alan Johnson, the Hull MP. However, Brown would at least have had the chance to sharpen up
his act – and his ideas – in party hustings rather than in office.

Internal elections involve risks. Indeed, some Democrats fear the longevity of their primary race between Clinton and Obama may have created rifts that cannot be healed in time for the election proper. Yet, managed carefully, they give
the party the chance to test their potential leader and also agree a new direction before the wider electorate is asked to make its judgment.

These conversations are certainly easier to have in power than when a party is suffering the misery of opposition, where the desperation to return to Government impinges on the capacity for rational thought.

The Conservatives took four attempts after losing in 1997 to find a leader with public appeal.

Even then, this only happened after the Tories were forced to reconsider their assumed support for David Davis before turning to one David Cameron.

Labour's strength under Tony Blair was that it was devastatingly effective at winning elections – irrespective of the mistakes that he made.

This is the party that won the 2005 election with a respectable majority despite Blair having led the country into a disastrous war, against public opinion.

Gordon Brown was supposed to be the man who would bring a new direction to Labour in government and guarantee its continued electoral success. Instead, he is presiding over a shambles and the party has suffered its worst local election results in four decades.

Unless Gordon Brown masterminds an astonishing turnaround, or an upturn in the global economy comes to the Government's rescue, Labour may well find itself finally debating properly who should lead the party and its future direction.

The trouble is that this exercise will be two years too late.