Arguments for and against an early election

Anthony Wells has an excellent summary on the pros and cons for Brown in going for an early election, and this is starting to attract growing comment in the media.

Anne McElvoy writing in today's Evening Standard claims that Brown's allies are calling for Brown to go to the country on the 4th June next year. And Daniel Finkelstein over on Comment Central in the Times agrees that Brown should go early. Michael Portillo on the BBC's politics show, This Week, also thought Brown would and should go early.

But Michael White over in the Guardian reckons there's no way that Brown could go before 2010 and the Fink's Times colleague, Peter Riddell thinks Brown should wait.

After the debacle of the election that never was last year, Brown will be determined that speculation does not get out of hand. However, with growing speculation and discussion in the press, it could require action from him to rule out an early election.


The latest that the next general election can be held is May 2010 - about 16 months from now. Prime Ministers rarely wait until the last possible moment unless their position is desperate, for example John Major in 1997. Usually parliamentary terms last for around 4 years. By waiting until the last possible moment, Brown would be risking being knocked off course by unexpected events: strikes or even an outlier like fuel-price protests.

The pre-Budget report due on Monday of next week is expected to be a short-term giveaway. Expect something for everyone. How quickly this fiscal stimulus feeds through to the public depends on what is announced, but expect it to be quick. By January, all those with mortgages will be seeing large reductions in their monthly repayments. For those not yet in economic woe, a combination of tax cuts and mortgage reductions will make them feel substantially better off - probably to the tune of £300-500 a month for the average family.

The political effect of such a move could be startling. It is conceivable that this could further erode the Conservative's lead in the polls or even leave Labour out in front. Owing to the vagaries of the electoral system, Labour only need to be slightly ahead of the Conservatives to win a majority, wheras the Conservatives need to be significantly ahead. It could be Brown's best chance before the downturn starts biting in 2009 and 2010. If Brown went to the country at the nadir of the recession, which will probably be reached by late 2009, then I cannot see any way that Brown could win in 2010.

Even if Brown loses in 2009, looking at long-term strategy for the Labour party, it might be better to lose small, leaving the Conservatives with a small overall majority, which the Labour party could hope to demolish in four years time. The Conservatives would be taking over, if they won, in a position of having to deal with the worst parts of the recession, and, would be in the position of making unpopular tax increases or public spending tax cuts over their term to get to grips with the huge budget deficit.

Waiting until 2010 would probably increase the chances of a more heavy loss - not only as a result of the backdrop of a recession with 3m unemployed, but the 'Time for a change' story would be all the more pertinent. Labour would then have been in power for 13 years.


There are several reasons why Brown would not want to go early, and I think that these can each be dismissed:

1. Money and organisation. The Labour party is heavily in debt, has lost 1000s of councillors - the footsoldiers of any general election push. In contrast the Conservatives finances and organisation generally looks far better. But I don't see how waiting will improve Labour's situation. It is unlikely that their finances will improve significantly over the next 18 months, and I don't forsee a rapid turn-around in their activist base.

2. Gordon doesn't take risks and doesn't relish elections. This is undeniably true. Gordon famously pulled-out of the election that never was. His whole political career has shown a very risk-averse approach. But I think we are seeing a changed Brown. His whole policy of prudence and caution has been blown away by the economic circumstances. Could it be that this new-found arrogance could see him taking a chance. I think Mandelson and Campbell would be encouraging to go early - and they were not around this time last year.

3. He doesn't need to go early. He can wait for 16 months. But I think that he would only do this if he is resigned to eventual defeat, which I don't believe that he or those around him are.