BEFORE Christmas, I had fun sketching out a scenario that saw the General Election end in a hung parliament – and Peter Mandelson in Downing Street.

Of course, the notion of the twice-resigned present peer in No 10 had a large whiff of a Hans Christian Andersen festive fairytale.

I’m sure you guessed.

But – even assuming Mr Brown has survived yesterday’s third coup attempt – two things do seem certain, the first of which is that there will be a new Prime Minister this year.

As Mr Brown struggles to ignite Labour’s pre-campaign, it is surely true that he has effectively lost the election and will be forced to resign.

Even the most rosy-eyed Labour minister can see no future brighter than a hung parliament – a result that would drain Mr Brown of all authority and require him to quit.

Perhaps he will be gone from Westminster as quickly as Tony Blair, although a lecturing job at Harvard is a more likely bet than a multi-millionaire lifestyle in a Buckinghamshire country pile.

A big majority of voters think Labour deserves to lose, having overseen the worst economic crash for 70 years, one traceable to its love of wealthy financiers, and the return of mass unemployment.

But the consensus that Mr Brown deserves to lose does not mean that David Cameron automatically deserves to win – a view that, I believe, the nation also shares.

Therefore, the crunch over the next four months will be whether the Tory leader can convince enough of the remaining sceptics that the country is truly safe in his hands.

Hence Mr Cameron’s hasty rowing back from his “age of austerity” doom-mongering, conscious that victory is normally claimed by the political optimist, whether Reagan, Clinton or Blair.

Hence his attempts to dump the damaging aura of privilege and love of big business by pledging (small) extra NHS spending in poorer areas and an ombudsman to watch over mighty Tesco.

But Mr Cameron is yet to answer the question “What is a Conservative government for?” in the way that the Blair (failed?) mission was clearly to rebuild schools and hospitals, tackle poverty and end sleaze.

Now the big issue is how to build a different economy, one not captive to the City of London – yet the Tories are still the party of low-tax, free-market Thatcherism.

Most economists argue that only colossal government spending can guard against a double-dip recession – yet Mr Cameron would slash immediately and without mercy.

The Tory leader has made poverty and inequality a central issue – yet his only tax policies, on inheritance and marriage, would reward the well-off.

And he has boasted that radical Tory-run councils “demonstrate Conservative government”

– yet a couple of those are up in court for slashing services. I could go on.

He must answer the “What are you for?”

question before a hung parliament – and a different new face – can be ruled out. Before Gordon going means Cameron is coming.

COULD the Chancellor have a surprise £1bn-plus for a pre-election giveaway – thanks to the “supertax” on the bankers’ outrageous bonuses?

The Treasury forecast it would bring in £500m. Now, as banks insist they will pay bonuses regardless, it is expected to scoop up to £2bn. The City says a staggering £4bn.