Mr Clarke offers no alternative policies to address the political nightmare of governing in an economic downturn, the main source of Labour's unpopularity. There is no point replacing a leader if the successor is pilloried for presiding over precisely the same economic gloom.
Those who want the removal of Mr Brown have three obligations. First, they must spell out in detail how they would deal with the external factors that have derailed Mr Brown's leadership, in particular the credit crunch and the soaring price of oil and food. Second, they must outline their policies for the future and how they connect with a party that is meant to be on the centre-left of British politics. In fairness to Mr Clarke he has done that in articles and lectures. Third, they must demonstrate they can build a coalition of support that gives Labour a chance of winning the next election.
This is Steve Richards, writing in today's Independent. I agree with most of what he says - but not on the credit crunch and oil and food prices. These are in effect political invariables: neither Brown nor any successor can wish or wave them away, and there's no reason why the person with the best plan to tackle them is necessarily the best person to lead Labour into the next election. Rather, it's a leader's broader positive political vision that qualifies him or her to be given the chance to grapple defensively with the economic storm.
I think he's generous to Clarke on his lecturing, too. I can't claim to have followed what he's been saying assiduously - but what I have seen and read from him on future policy has tended be be pretty uninspiring technocratic stuff or apple pie, like talking about the importance of prioritising housing or of tackling climate change. What's needed is on a higher level.
Have your say - join the discussion