Thursday, August 02, 2007

What Price an October Election?



Speculation is mounting that there will be a General Election in October. The above clip is from tomorrow night's TALKING WITH TATCHELL (18 Doughty Street, 8.30pm), in which Tribune editor Chris McLaughlin pours cold water on the whole idea of an autumn election. He says...
“I’m told…that he [Gordon Brown] hasn’t generally made his mind up. My instinct, which has not been countered by any of the people I’ve been speaking to is that he would like to go next Spring rather than in 2009…. Definitely not in Autumn this year… because for the reason that it may not happen in Spring. Because if Gordon Brown is going to display his notorious caution in one respect, it’s going to be to make sure that the Labour party is in a condition to fight. It’s got no money, it’s still in debt…. It’s got half the staff it had a year ago”.

I reckon this is a smokescreen, and that the argument about having no money is a spurious one. We all know that there are enough donors and trade unions out there who would bankroll an election if called upon. I've just done an interview with the Associated Press on this subject and as I was speaking I realised that I really couldn't think of many arguments for Brown not to hold an autumn election.

If the polls hold up for him and he believes he will win, why on earth wouldn't he seek his own mandate? He would pre-empt the Tories' manifesto group, possibly catch the LibDems caught up in leadership machinations and be able to call an election before the Tory target seats campaign had properly got underway. In addition, if the economy looks as if it is heading south in the next 18 months, why wait to have an election until there are more interest rate rises. People have absorbed the rises so far, but if rates go up by another half a per cent, many people will find that they are paying more than £200 a month more in mortgage payments than they were a year ago.

So keep October 4, 11, 18 and 25 free in your diaries. I reckon there's a 30% chance of an election on one of those days.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

There won't be an autumn election.

Sir-C4' said...

The general election campaign begins today. Whatever flaws David Cameron has, he is still better than Gordon Brown. The last thing Britain needs is a fourth Labour term where Gordo will introduce Proportional Representation at Westminister to keep the Tories out of power indefinately.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Couln't agree with you more. The whole economy will melt down within the next 2-3 years. Guess who will certainly know that.

Best go now. Gordon looks impressive and Dave looks weak and Ming, well, dear old Ming...

However, I predicted a hung parliament some time ago and I stick with that. Dave has time to catch up and may well do. Something might go wrong for golden Gordon and Ming might pop his clogs and be replaced by Chris Huuhuhunn.

I just hope that Godon Brown will be exposed for the deceit and dishonour of Iraq, Europe and the Economy.

Tories still have time to get it together and in many ways I hope you do. I shall be voting SNP as is my luxury an priviledge.

Anonymous said...

On balance I think it'll be spring. Brown has to get the election in before everyone coming off fixed rate mortgages really starts to suffer (the recent interest rate rises haven't been felt as strongly as they could have been, because so many people are on fixed rates now), and the economy begins to wobble - that'll be by next summer. But he needs the fundraising and organisational time. The party conference then the PBR (pre-budget report) in the autumn gives him an ideal springboard for a build-up.

The only thing that could counter this thinking is the ongoing knock-on effects of the sub-prime crash in the US; it's looking increasingly as though it will have wider market implications which could start to bite long before the fixed rate mortgages issue does.

Newmania said...

Iain and I do not agree with you that the Unions have the money , why do you think they sold the peerages ? ...Well?
The position of the SNP is too strong ( which gives him a partyicular problem) but in any case there us a wider reason .Brown voted in on novelty alone ,is a lame duck government capable of nothing if the economy falls down about his ears .He wants to show his government works and get his own mandate to change things .

Not impossible though and 30% strikes me as about right. I`m not at all sure that under the pressurre of the election this New Brown imposture is going to stand up. I think it could be close

Man in a Shed said...

It would at least give the Labour fund raising push real momentum.

I agree with C4' - if Brown thinks he may lose he'll go for PR to stop anyone else winning.

I hate to say it - but we need changes to the constitution to stop this sort of gerrymandering going on.

But if there's an election then we will fight - so go on Gordon if you think your hard enough.

Tapestry said...

Gordon might be riding high in polls which believe that previous non-voters are going to come out on the day for him. Amongst actual 2005 GE voters, Brown is consistently losing support as quickly as Cameron is gaining it.

But what might even be more significant than any strategic considerations, is that he's struggling to cope with the role.

Parliament leaves him looking decidedly vulnerable on occasions, and he was clearly looking uncomfortable during his big Downing St 'change change change' intro pep talk to the world.

My guess is that Brown still lacks confidence to go out and pitch.

He has seen how quickly his support can be eroded at Sedgefield. All the strategists will be advising him to go, but Gord will be feeling very cautious undeed, epsecially while the Constitution is still a live issue.

Maybe by next spring some other country will have put a spanner in the European works and let hiom off the hook. Brussels would not want an election called right now, and I am sure Brown will play along with Brussels at every turn.

Don't waste your money betting on October, is my advice. It's all bluff and bravado.

Regu said...

Labour's lack of funds compared to the Tories is an argument for an early election.

For Labour, low on money, a short snap election is a better use of what cash they do have. It is quite hard to spend cash quickly beyond blowing it on ineffective advertising. Heavy spending takes time: staff have to be employed, resources planned, offices hired, millions wasted on polling, focus groups and consultants egos etc.

By going early the Conservatives may find it difficult to get their cash mountain spent and therefore the playing field will be a little more level for Labour. Wait until next year the Tories will have already started spending big.

Newmania said...

New figures from the Electoral Commission show that in 2006 Cameron's Tories raised four times more money than Labour. They have been able to build up HQ staff while cash-strapped Labour has had to halve its campaign team.
Worse still for Labour MPs fighting marginal constituencies is that the Government has still not closed the so-called 'Ashcroft loophole' that allows parties to spend limitless funds outside the official six-week period before polling day.
It is a loophole Conservatives, with more cash to spend, have exploited mercilessly since Michael Ashcroft was treasurer from 1998 to 2001.( First Post Online Daily)

What is Iain talking about , the cash doesn`t matter. He`s been out in the sun

chatterbox said...

Iain, as usual with this tired old Labour government the underlying hope is to use deliberately leaked smoke and mirrors in the hope of starting a fire.
I think that Brown always planned a Spring GE if his strategy worked, a better than expected honeymoon bounce has just spiced up the usual media hype.
This is all part of a strategy to build a momentum behind Brown's honeymoon bounce and undermine the Tories with a date in the Spring allowing for a consistent poll lead.
I think the funding is already in place should this work.
Only thing that will stop Gordon going in the Autumn or Spring is the Conservatives turning their guns on him and not each other, that and the fact that they really look and sound prepared and ready for one hell of a fight.
Gordon only likes competing when he is the odds on favourite, we have got to shorten those odds enough over the next few months to stop an early election in the Autumn or spring and upset his always very carefully crafted plans. He does not cope well when events derail the script.
Remember, Brown has more to lose and he is also much more risk averse than Cameron. Labour on the other hand will not fall back to the level the tories did in 97', but the Conservative party rather than Cameron will be the big losers if they don't start showing a real hunger for discipline and power because we need to start winning a lot more seats.

David Lindsay said...

Newmania, the unions have plenty of money. They are just not giving it to Labour anymore. I am always surprised when people on the Right are surprised to learn that the older and/or larger trade unions are loaded. But they are. Absolutely loaded.

Anyway, Labour would never be turned down for a loan from the Co-op Bank, also family of course.

And c4, you can forget PR. It would lead to the re-emergence of proper parties (although there are better ways of bringing that about). As would the Tory wipeout that would certainly happen if there were an Election this autumn. So that's not going to happen, either.

Ralph said...

All this early election business is to get free publicity from lazy journos and rattle the Tories.

Would Gordon really go to the country with a still popular SNP in charge in Scotland?

Sir-C4' said...

Would Gordon really go to the country with a still popular SNP in charge in Scotland?

Who knows what Gordo will do next; he's mentally unstable like his hero Uncle Joe Stalin.

John Hayward said...

With the Constitution Amending Treaty due to be signed at the Lisbon summit October 18-19th, 25th is the only likely October date.

pxcentric said...

I hope Big Gordon goes for an election in October as the Useless Tories, having few policies and no hope, would be decimated.

The party that applauded Blair on his last day does not deserve to survive.

Kevin Davis said...

He will not go then.

The vast majority of the public have not even noticed Brown has take over.

October is too early and if I were the Queen I would go tell him to sling his hook. There is no earthly reason to go 2 and half years before you have to.

I reckon we will go to 2009 because he will wit till the Spring and things will not dreadful by then and he has to wait. Brown is a Callaghan we are talking about - incapable of acting. Look how long it took for him to decapitate Brown!

Geezer said...

Apart from the money issue, which will still be a concern, the poll bounce is probably part fabricated by some dubious methodology and a very large number of "don't knows". The Labour strategists are probably aware that the current media fashion for pro-Labour and anti-Tory sentiment in the media may not actually show-up in a GE when the electorate might actually start to think about the last ten years. A well-funded and good Tory campaign could help remind people if the numerous failings of NuLab and that Brown's fingerprints are over a lot them. Not to mention the Scottish issue. The Tories got more votes than Labour in 2005, in England, and that was with Howard. Cameron is bound to do better and with the boundry changes, win a lot more seats. The Tories can also expect to take votes from ol' Ming as well. Also, they are still up to their nuts in Iraq!
Brown currently has a very decent working majority, why would he risk it. If he didn't have a good majority, I could see the appeal.
I don't believe that the need for his "own mandate" will mean anything against sensible political strategy. If he is expecting things to go bad in th next couple of years, it would be much easier to face it down with a guanteed big majority.

Chris Paul said...

Nah, early June 2009. Honest. Gordon will have an achievement for every one of his 100 weeks in office and Dave-id will have an air ticket and a photo opp that rebounded for his.

Geezer said...

Well! RuPaul says June 09, so you can all cross that date off your list.

Sleepy Cat said...

"He's not a risk taker and that matters, you've got to be a risk taker in politics. The courage question is a big thing for Gordon."

Clarke attack on Brown 'the deluded control freak'

Madasafish said...

Well the Conservative smay have more money than Labour and be increasing their HO staff, but so far they have shown a striking inability to organise a drinking party in a brewery.

Talk of an economic meltdown is imo economic illiteracy: that's 2010 and beyond if the normal economic cycle palys out. So far the Conservatives don't appear to understand that either.

As for the old chestnut about more English votes, it's complete and utter bollocks as seats count and Labour even under boundary changes would have a majority in ENGLAND.

How many seats are the Conservative Party going to win in:
Northern England
Scotland
and Wales?

Precious few so far.. based on past history and swings.. or not as the case may be.


Why should GB take a risk now when he has a comfortable majority and the Opposition is going backwards? With any luck, he will be thinking, lacking the focus of a GE , they'll continue to be a disorganised rabble - which is what they are at present.

The SHadow Cabinet are invisible and we don't know what your policies are and when stated they are so lengthy - see IDS and his 79 key points - everyone switches off.

Funnily enough everyone complains DC is all spin and PR. He is not. He's so far shown he is absolutely useless at it. To be a success, you need a Mandelson type figure or a Alastair C... and the CP has neither. (lots of HO staff maybe,,.. A for effort FA for performance.)

SO imo odds of 10:1 unless the CP self destruct even more: which is unlikley in August but based on past history about 2:1 ON in September...

I've never seen such a bunch of incompetent wazzocks since the Labour Party under that hopless case: Michael Foot.

James Higham said...

He would be well advised to go to the people a.s.a.p because DC is no opposition at all. DD is the man but the machine has excluded him.

Leaving that aside, all the troubles are going to come in 2012 and when I suggested that, experienced pundits pointed me to the fact that Tony had more years left and that a 2012 election was therefore out of the question.

Now it doesn't seem so and the agenda i am sure is going to occur around 2012/13 looks more than ever likely to occur.

Like World Wars 1 and 2 - it's been booked.

The Huntsman said...

Look at the position in Scotland which is so important to Labour in terms of bulking up the seat numbers.

They remain demoralised and confused by their defeat in May by the SNP and still have not accepted they lost. They have very little local money as they had to fight tooth and nail to hang on to what they ended up with. They are far behind by all accounts with settling their candidates for Westminster as the constituencies are all different from the Holyrood ones. They may be on the point of losing their leader Jack McConnell and a leadership struggle now may bring out all sorts of lovely internecine bloodletting.

Recent polls have been good for the SNP but disastrous for the LibDems (as low as 4% apparently) which may mean real advances for the SNP at Westminster which is the last thing Labour needs just now.

Macavity would have to be very very confident to go to the country with one of his heartlands in turmoil, especially one where he is King of the Jungle.

I reckon these things strongly militate against an autumn election.

The Remittance Man said...

Despite all his analysis, there's one problem Iain seems to have missed: Gordon is .... ahem .... risk averse.

It doesn't matter how advisable an early election may be, from the evidence of his (in)action over the past ten years, Gordo won't risk his "precious" unless forced. At gunpoint.

Flashing Blade said...

What most of the posts seem to ignore is Gordons total lack of balls.(As opposed to Balls) Why did he not take on Blair in 1994, why did he not push harder to be leader sooner? He doesn't have the courage to take the decision and fight the fight. If you want to understand a good start is the Paul Routledge biography of Gordo reading the chapters covering the time after the death of John Smith.

Jon said...

The EU referendum is one issue that might put GB off an October election - see http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/08/03/snap-election-no-easy-snip/