Should Gordon Brown cut his losses?

Peter Oborne in the Mail today claims to detect in the "fag end" of a dying Brown administration something like the dull resignation and decay that typified the end of the Callaghan years in 1979 or the Major years in 1997.

One major bookmaker reports that over the past month or two it has taken no bets on Gordon Brown to be prime minister after the next election. The polling bounce has gone flat, and the general suspicion is that the prime minister has given up and is really now only hoping to salvage his reputation in posterity.

His bounce has gone, smiles are fewer and he is even more irritable than usual.

So what should he do?

Should he cut his losses and go for an election now, knowing that he is unlikely to win? In this way the worse economic news would be faced by his successor.

Should he fight on to June 2010, in the hope that "something will turn up" which will as if by miracle turn round the situation, or if the Tories self-destruct in the meantime? The deliverance would need to be very big and even then the best he could for would be a LibDem revival which would leave no party in control. This could even promote a government of national unity, which could be needed to deal with the wastage or resources and the massive accumulated debt.

One thing is sure, all the experts agree that the recession is going to be deeper and longer than Brown has ever admitted, and its severity may contrast with the experience of other countries.
The same experts are even beginning to mention the "D" word - depression.

So far Brown has refused to admit any responsibility, and the more the blames everyone else, and especially the Americans, the global banks and our own banks, the less conviction he will convey.

The Tories seem to be ready for an election soon. Is Brown?