Much play was made on the Today Programme, and elsewhere, about the significance of a great 'Labour supporting' newspaper demanding the departure of a Labour Prime Minister. Leave aside the long established truth that the Guardian is a Liberal/Progressive newspaper, not a socialist one. The bigger problem with the Guardian's argument,in my view, is that it is undemocratic.The newspaper does not want Gordon Brown to depart in order that the country may have the general election polls suggest a majority of the electorate desire. It wants Mr Brown to be replaced by a new Labour leader, presumably Alan Johnson, who will use the last twelve months of Labour's mandate to introduce sweeping reforms including proportional representation and fixed term parliaments. Problem? There is not a lot of evidence that the electorate wants such reforms and hardly any that voters regard electoral reform as a way to end parliamentary corruption and sleaze. Even if these views were common, and they are not, it is hard to believe any government imposed without popular consent, and led by the second Prime Minister in succession to have taken office without facing the electorate, would have the moral authority to change the British constitution so fundamentally. From the beginning of the present furrore over MPs' expenses the Guardian has been guilty of exploiting the twin crises in parliament and cabinet to pursue its own narrow sectional interests. This, of course, is what idological newspapers do. But Britain deserves a general election, not the imposition of rule by the collective progressive-establishment prejudices of A. Russbridger, P. Toynbee and J. Freedland. Remember how enthusiastically the Guardian endorsed Mr Brown's premiership and welcomed his elevation as an opportunity to pursue a new progressive agenda? It was wrong then and I said Mr Brown was not perfect then in several columns for the Guardian . It is utterly wrong now. Discuss. Disagree. Argue. Please!