More early election thoughts from the blogosphere

Mike Smithson over in PoliticalBetting.com is pondering Michael Portillo's theory that Gordon has become a risk-taker and a gambler.

Fraser Nelson in the Spectator magazine reckons Brown will go for a JANUARY ELECTION.

At this rate, he'll be calling the election the day after the pre Budget report...

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.

The BNP list

There's been a lot of media interest today on the leaking of all BNP members' details on the web. Nick Griffin, the BNP's leader, has taken to the airwaves during the day, initially blaming disgruntled insiders, and then later blaming the Labour party for the leak.

Clearly the leak of such data is a breach of data protection laws and the police should investigate this case, as members of the BNP have the same right to privacy as members of the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dem parties.

The social breakdown of the membership is what has caused much of the interest. A vicar. A pig farmer. Some 40 teachers. Members of the armed forces. Some serving police officers. A broader range than one might, I suppose, expect. But the total list of members of less than 15,000 is lower than might have been feared.

Some of the members whose details have been leaked are now experiencing problems. Police officers, for example, are not permitted to be a member of the BNP, as it runs contrary to the police's stated aims to serve the entire community. Merseyside police are reportedly investigating the membership of one serving officer.

Others have apparently received 'hate calls' from strangers.

Secondary to the social breakdown, the geographical breakdown has been the media's focus. The Times has a Google Map style search to locate members, and I understand on Google Earth, you can view an overlay identifying the streets (but not exact addresses) of members. And the Guardian has a click-map online.


A BNP representative was elected to the Greater London Authority in the recent London-wide elections thanks to proportional representation and there is a risk that the BNP could make a breakthrough in the Euro elections in June next year, as these elections are being fought under PR for the first time.

If ever there was a reminder to us all that our first-past-the-post voting system, while imperfect, is the best way to prevent extremist minority parties from achieving electoral success. 'No' to any more trials of PR.

Retailers are beginning to panic

Worrying signs are starting to emerge from all areas of the high street. A whole host of retailers have been subject to speculation as to their futures over the last few days and some of the biggest names are now holding one to three-day 'spectaculars'.

The list of retailers reportedly suffering woes includes:

Dixons Stores Group's share price has collapsed in recent days and was trading as low as 11p per share today - basically valuing the company at about 10 days worth of sales. The owner of Currys and PC World is reportedly struggling and many see it as poorly placed to survive a prolonged downturn. When buying some items, there are some advantages to buying on the high street rather than the internet. Unfortunately, I don't think electrical goods fall into this category, and certainly the level of service on offer is surpassed by other high street retailers.

Woolworths is in desperate talks to try to sell the business. The timing is the most interesting part of this. It has been well-documented that Woolworths has been struggling for many years, but trading must be very bad if they are considering a sale before the key Christmas period. It has been suggested that the retail giant could be sold for £1...

M&S are holding a 20% off sale tomorrow (Thursday), with some of their stores staying open until midnight.

Debenhams - are holding an unprecedented sale. "10% off cosmetics and fragrances, 25% off absolutely everything else" they were trumpetting in their e-mail this morning.

Not to be outdone, middle class favourite, John Lewis are responding. After several weeks of reporting disappointing sales, I received an e-mail from them this afternoon stating "Prices lowered today. Today we are responding to a competitor's event"

I think I'm going to make a personal assessment of the gloom and will check out Oxford Street tomorrow.

Election fever is back

The latest IPSOS MORI poll in the Independent has the following shares of the votes (and changes on the previous month)

Conservative - 40% (down 5%)
Labour - 37% (up 7%)
Lib Dems - 12% (down 2%)

So in one month, the Conservative's poll lead has dropped from 15% to 3% (and they were 23% ahead in September's poll).

I think there is now a very real chance of Gordon Brown holding a snap election - probably a deeply cynical move to hold one after his tax bribe feeds through.

Rumours are already beginning to fly around the blogosphere:

• Apparently lines of Labour candidates have been seen being photographed with Gordon Brown (in readiness for their election leaflets)

(more to come)

Cameron's press conference

Many columnists are suggesting that this will see a U-turn on sticking to Labour's spending plans...

And it has. In a particularly effective speech, David Cameron has given a comprehensive account of where he thinks the economy is. He has abandoned the pledge to match Labour's spending plans in 2010-2011 and onwards saying that, "I can announce today that we set a new path for restraining the growth of spending from 2010-2011... public spending growth of 2% looked sustainable in the boom, after 2010-2011 looks unsustainably high."

This will please the punk tax cutters who will see it as a clear sign that there will be scope for future spending cuts. Cameron reminded everyone, that he has already asked the Shadow Cabinet to look at all spending pledges and programmes to ensure that they are all desirable and necessary.

But this was a wide ranging speech in which Cameron attacked the £30bn "borrowing bomb shell" that Gordon Brown is planning, saying that it will lead to a "£30bn tax bomb shell - or an 8% rise in income tax or a 6% rise in VAT."

He pointed out that there is little evidence that the fiscal stimulus plan will work, pointing to Japan which had tried to push through an unfunded fiscal stimulus in the 90s. Japan's net debt rose by 50% of GDP, but the economy grew only by 1% per year.

Cameron maintained his plans for the 'sharing the proceeds of growth' saying that over an economic cycle, there would be growth to share, by ensuring public spending grew at a level less than that of the economy as a whole.

In the questions afterwards, he was particularly keen to emphasise Gordon Brown's 'lies' over the economy and stated that he believed 'no one believes the Labour lies over Conservative spending cuts anymore'.


I think that this a clear and much needed change in direction for the Conservative party. Although they have not gone as far as I would have liked, in terms of identifying public spending to cut now, in order to support tax cuts, I do think that Cameron has set out the case eloquently, and is by far, his most effective performance on the economy for some time.

There may be some risks in abandoning Labour's spending plans for 2010-2011 - it leaves the Tories open to Brown's charges of 'Tory cuts' - but I really think that the public are feeling taxed to the hilt, and are willing to listen now more than they were in previous elections.

Organ Donation

One of things Gordon has not been slow to sanction is the use of taskforces, commissions and special reports to defer decisions...

The UK Organ Donation Taskforce has reported back today on the idea of 'presumed consent' i.e. that people's organs can be used for transplant unless they opt out. Their report said that "assuming organs could be used unless people opted out was unlikely to boost donation rates" They also voiced concerns over the patient trust issue with doctors.

The current situation is that people have to sign-up to the organ donation register in order to consent to their organs being used in the event of their death for transplant. There are currently almost 16 million people on the donor register.

Over the next couple of years, NHS Blood and Transplant will be raising public awareness of the issue in the hope of attracting more donations. As of today, since the 1st April 2008, 565 people have donated organs, 1,623 people have received transplants, but there are still 7,929 people waiting for transplants.

But instead of going with the recommendations of the task force, Brown has refused to rule-out a future change in the law i.e. presumed consent. I have no doubt that Gordon has the best of intentions in trying to increase organ donation, but it demonstrates once more, that he is unprepared to listen to the experts and always knows best.

You can sign the UK Transplant register here.