As Gordon Brown bids to beat 1918 record,
Alistair Darling is not for taking over

Personally, I’m at a loss as to why he was asked – unless he briefed the answer out without the initial question. I mean, on meeting Alistair Darling, I’d have a query list as long as a baboon’s arm – ‘What were you thinking of?’ would probably be first – but I can’t envisage any circumstances under which I’d ask whether he wanted to lead the rump formerly known as The Labour Party. This would be partly to do with my absolute certainty that nobody would support him, and equally a matter of my complete disinterest in the answer. But there’s every reason for qualified candidates to want the job.

The most excellent reason to become Labour leader after the election is that there is no way you could do worse than the predecessor. According to media pundits this weekend, this is likely to be the Party’s worst election result for 92 years. Travel back with me now to 1918, and some alarming parallels with 2010.

Labour’s leader in that inauspicious year was William Adamson (above). He was a Scot. From Dunfermline. Need I say more? Like Gordo, he ruled the Party for just over three years. And in the 1918 election, his policies earned the Party just 57 seats. If you’ve never believed in reincarnation, there’s still time to change your mind.

As far as I can tell from my researches to date, Adamson didn’t lose the support of almost every paper in Fleet Street, so Gordon Brown may yet plumb new depths of inadequacy.

Those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do study History (but don’t listen to advice) are equally doomed.