** For full coverage of UK politics click here **

One of Gordon Brown’s favourite speech writers is leaving Number 10 to return to the Treasury. That gives Brown the perfect opportunity to draft in someone who has the ability to coin the kind of phrases that chime with the electorate and stick in people’s minds.

To date, that is something Brown, whose dismal year in office was underlined on Friday with a humiliating fifth place by-election finish for Labour, has signally failed to do. Sure, Brown wanted to move away from the accusations of endless spin that soured the public mood towards his slick predecessor Tony Blair.

But the mantras Brown has chosen to repeat ad nauseum since he took up the mantle of Prime Minister have failed to stick. Stressing how many people Labour has taken out of poverty in the past decade, or the need to take “long-term decisions” just isn’t working.

People need reassurance over fuel and food prices, over crime and security, but perhaps more than anything they need to be convinced Brown understands — and cares.

Brown — nicknamed the Iron Chancellor during his decade at the Treasury — is right to focus on the long-term. He wants to ensure people can afford to buy homes, that the country slashes its reliance on non-environmentally friendly energy, and that taxpayers have access to good healthcare, education and welfare support.

But with voters feeling the pinch, it’s the short term that’s key, and if Brown wants his messages about the kind of place Britain needs to become longer-term to stick, he might need to think about the kind of sound-bite approach that Blair used so well.

Brown’s tried a more “man of the people” approach but that hasn’t convinced. Voters are not warming to the serious, unsmiling Prime Minister. And if Brown can’t change his manner, then he needs to change the kinds of words he uses.

Of course, he will also need some luck. No amount of “in tune” rhetoric is going to help if people continue to feel he’s not the man to lead them through the economic bad times. But at the moment, his language and demeanour seem to compound voters’ unease. The Iron Chancellor risks becoming the leaden Prime Minister of British history: dull, inert and potentially poisonous.

Gordon Brown on Wednesday made what the British media and opposition parties widely judged to be the most humiliating and embarrassing policy change of his short career as Prime Minister: a climbdown over concessions to those made worse off by his scrapping of the lowest, 10 pence income tax rate.

Conservative leader David Cameron, hoping to oust Brown and Labour in the next election, branded Brown a “pathetic” figure. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg called him “increasingly pointless”.

Brown, they crowed, was an isolated figure, forced into what the Daily Mail said was a “humiliating U-turn” over tax policies he introduced last year in his final Budget as Finance Minister. Cameron said it was a “massive loss of authority”.

So, is he — and was it?

Undoubtedly, Brown has courted a lot of very bad press over the 10 pence issue. Claims the Labour government have done more than any other this century to help people out of poverty sounded hollow when it became clear that by abolishing a tax band he introduced, Brown was making five million households worse off. The subsequent open rebellion from
Labour backbenchers over the issue just made matters worse.

In the end, however, Brown did — although not admitting a mistake — make changes, stressing he had listened to people’s concerns and acted.

And if Brown can play it right, he may be able to convince voters increasingly turned off Brown and the Labour party that this is the mark of a good leader. “On 10p tax, he listened and acted. That is a sign of strength, not weakness,” the influential Sun newspaper said in an editorial.

Others echoed the line of rebel politician Frank Field, who led the 10p tax revolt, in urging Brown to listen on other unpopular policies. “He can start by scrapping plans to extend
detention without trial to 42 days, a proposal wrong both in principle and practice,” the Daily Mirror said.

If Brown, whom voters view as aloof compared to his populist predecessor Tony Blair, does start to show more of an ability to listen, learn and communicate, however, that may not be enough to silence the low-level chatter that has started to surface about his ability to lead the party into the next election.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband warned Labour at the weekend to stop fighting or it could damage its election chances — a move that raised eyebrows given Miliband is viewed as a possible Brown successor.

Brown has room to reassert his authority. He does not need to hold a general election for another two years, employment remains strong, moves are being made to kick-start the housing market, and the economy is still expected to grow this year.

But first he must weather some major political storms: the biggest work stoppages in a decade, unpopular changes to terror detention laws and local elections on May 1 that will be pored over for evidence of his ability to lead Labour into a fourth successive term in office. No number of visits from George Clooney can help with that.

Every time Labour ministers call the Conservative candidate for London mayor by first name alone they’ll have to pay £5 into a ’swear box’.

“What we have to avoid is a situation where people think this election is a joke and that the future of London is not serious,” Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell told Sky News.

If this is all about taking the upcoming election seriously though, why has there been no similar decree regarding “Ken” (Livingstone), the equally maverick Labour candidate? And what will Labour do with all the money it makes from ministers who slip up?

Sitting at the Evening Standard’s London Mayor debate last night, it occurred to me how cosy this election is. Whoever wins the contest on May 1 will lead one of the world’s most high-profile cities with an 11.3 billion pound budget to run public transport, police and fire services and promote the economy of this global financial centre. Yet at times the candidates seem to think they are engaging in some kind of school debating contest.

First there was breathless Boris, who bounded up to the podium like a precocious teenager and raced through his speech to cram in as much as possible during his allotted eight minutes. Then a more nervous, and far less exuberant delivery from the class swot — Brian Paddick — the former policeman turned Lib Dem mayoral candidate, who delivered a serious and earnest “Why I should be head boy” speech.

Throughout Paddick’s speech, Boris and Ken whispered to each other on the podium as if they thought they were at the back at the class and couldn’t be seen. Boris could barely contain his glee when Paddick slipped up in his bid to assert his desirability over a candidate (Johnson) who spends his time at the “Henry” regatta. His conflation of Henley with the Hooray Henries associated with Johnson’s consituency prompted a barely disguised giggle from Boris and his supporters.

Then came Ken, who looked a little beyond the city’s borders to place London in its global context: “The things we do in the city set the agenda for the world,” he told the audience of “influentials” in west London’s Cadogan Hall.

But still, it was difficult to shake the sense that this election contest is more village hall than City Hall. Questions and answers centred around the congestion charge, beat police officers, free travel passes for the under-16s and preserving gardens. It was only at the end that we got a real sense of the scope of this newly created role when columnist Simon Jenkins asked what vision the candidates had for the city. The answer seems to be not too many skyscrapers but well-designed ones are OK. The future of London as a world financial centre seemed less clear.