Could we be within 15 months of a General Election?
July 24th, 2006
-
Would Brown’s first move to be to seek a fresh mandate?
With John Prescott suggesting yesterday that there’ll be an announcement “very shortly” on the Labour transition there continues to be speculation that the first act of an incoming Gordon Brown government would be to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament so there could be an immediate General Election.
Brown would then be able to go to the country to get his own mandate and secure a full term of up to five years in charge at Number 10.
-
If the change-over time-table follows the widely canvassed date of September 2007 then a General Election could take place at the end of October 2007 - barely fifteen months away.
Brown’s election platform could be on the issues that would differentiate him from what has gone on before - a new approach on Blair’s reform agenda that goes more with the grain of the party, firm action on sleaze and political funding and most of all, a distancing of the UK from the Bush White House.
One of the proponents of an immediate General Election, Ken Livingstone has said:“The media is so negative and so destructive that there would be about a 48-hour honeymoon, then it would be an unrelenting ‘Tony wouldn’t have done this, Tony would have done this differently, you haven’t got a mandate for that’.”
Would Brown do it? As we saw during his first few days as Chancellor in 1997 Gordon is almost certainly planning some dramatic initial initiatives to make his mark on the job. I remain to be convinced, however, that one of these could be calling a General Election. The Labour government would not even be half way through a full term and you can hear the Tories accusing him of “cutting and running”.
There’s another factor - the personality of Gordon himself. For the great watchword of his whole political career has been one of caution and he’s always seemed to be reluctant to take moves which would appear to be in his best interests.
-
In 1992 he ignored the strong pressure from Tony Blair to run against John Smith and there were many times during 2004 when the leadership would probably have been his if he had been prepared to take a risk.
A lot would clearly depend on how Labour was doing in the main polls when he took over. Gordon would like the comfort of a clear margin because an election result that made Labour’s position worse, even though retaining an overall majority, would be seen as a major blow right from the start
Another factor, surely, would be money. Labour has huge debts and might like a longer period under the new leader to get the finances into a better state. The Tories, by all reports, seem to have gone through a period of successful fundraising and would probably be much more able to fight a 2007 campaign.
In the Labour leadership betting Brown is at 0.42/1 while Blair holding on until the end of next year has become the favourite again in the change-over timing markets.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I’m sorry Mike to disagree with the first post of this thread, but I think you hit the nail on the head about the money. Labour just don’t look like they can afford an expensive General Election campaign right now, especially now they can’t raise soft loans and the like. This, combined with Gordon’s natural caution, will mean a full term for this current Parliament. I now don’t expect the GE until May 2010, or October 2009 at the earliest.
Why is it any more likely that Labour could raise sufficient funds in two years time? At least if he went early he could get union funding by making all sorts of private promises/assurances. If he waited two years the prospect of such money may disappear, and industrial action as a result of significant tightening of public spending could stretch the relatioonship to breaking point.
The money question will certainly be an important factor, but so will logistics. To run a full campaign these days requires extensive back-up - transport, poster boards, media facilities, to say nothing of candidates in place - and these can’t be put in place without alerting the other parties and the media to what’s going on. So a ’snap’ election will either be run on a wing and a prayer (if genuinely so), or the other parties will be prepared.
Neither of these strikes me as the sort of thing GB would do. He is very much Mr Caution, and even the possibility that it might go wrong would be enough to see him go four or five years. You can hear the critics now: “Tony won three elections and was PM for more than ten years; you squandered it in six weeks”. It takes a gambler’s instinct to call an early election and he doesn’t have it.
When he calls an election he will lose it.
Doesn’t matter when he calls it.
Therefore, if you’ve waited your whole life to be PM, do you want to be the statistical joke, the footnote - PM for six months?
He’ll wait as long as possible to get at least a year in the position.
think 15 months will be too soon….but as long as the polls aren’t a disaster, and the conservatives still haven’t worked out any proper policies, I wonder about 2008?
“If the change-over time-table follows the widely canvassed date of September 2007 then a General Election could take place at the end of October 2007 - barely fifteen months away.”
isn’t a snap election after just a month a bit too snap?
I suppose he should reshuffle the government, implement a couple of new policies (launched in the leadership race) and look at some polls (more than a one week’s polls…if the GE is in October, it should be called in September).
6. Presumably, Brown would announce it at the Labour party conference at the end of September, which would also be the occasion of his being elected - so he’d have to request a dissolution at pretty much the same meeting as when he kissed hands. That would of course stuff the Tory conference the following week and imply an election for either 18th or 25th October. It would also mean he might be the only PM never to face parliament - could he risk that as well as Labour’s remaining time in office for an extra couple of years? I doubt it, particularly as he (or whoever wins Labour’s leadership) already has a mandate as Blair announced that he wouldn’t serve into a fourth term so the electorate knew at the last election there would be a change of PM.
More like 2010 as Commentator is right: whenever Brown called it, he would lose it. Still not convinced it will be Brown as Labour leader. The longer Blair stays, the less likely for it to be Brown.
Would not John Prescott make a good next leader for Labour if he’s doing such a great job as deputy? …
Of course there won’t be a snap election when Gordon takes over. Remember this:
“Rupert Murdoch, head of News International, has warned Gordon Brown not to call a snap election when Mr Brown takes over from Tony Blair, adding it is quite possible his newspapers will back David Cameron at the next election.”
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,,1808515,00.html
Prudence! Where are you?
No chance of early election due to Labour’s parlous finances. And if the opinion polls do not budge, too risky for Gordon.
Tories will not be able to put pressure on him to call an election; after all, there was no snap election after Major took over, so any calls for him to go to the country from the Tories would look hypocritical.
The only reason to call an election early-not withstanding the Tory clairvoyants upthread-is that he has a constant lead in the polls and that he’s worried that events may turn against him. Only a fool would claim to know what the answer to these questions will be.
Much more predictable though is the impending resignation of Blair. Is it my imagination or is the humiliation of the recorded conversation with Bush of a different order to anything that’s happened before? That’s how it seems to me (and Andrew Rawnsley I think) but it’s always difficult to know. Could he be in trouble at this years conference? Some booing perhaps that gert’s louder?
This might have more legs than some of the more fanciful predictions of Dave’s next big announcement.
13. A similar system to Holland i think. A wealth tax by another name. An excellent idea in my opinion and one which might appeal to peoples egalitarian natures. But for the Tories it would be suicide.
The HoL will today debate the final stages of the Government of Wales Bill, that will allow greater devolved powers to the Welsh Assembly :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5208348.stm
11 But all DC’s actions and speeches are hypocritical in the sense of ignoring past Tory policies and actions, so criticising GB for going early would be very much the norm.
However I agree that GB is too cautious by nature to risk losing within 18 months of taking over as PM. So with TB stepping down next summer, Spring 2009 is my earliest bet and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this parliament go the whole way to 2010.
I also think that the mood of the nation past a change of PM is very hard to second guess. Having said that I will hazard a thought that there will be a feeling that GB should get his chance, just as Major did in 1992(even after all the adverse publicity that Maggie & her government had at the time), although this time I think it will be as head of a minority administration.
12 - Does anybody know if there’s a full transcript of the Blair/Bush open-mic conversation available anywhere?
Interesting thread. My own take as always been that Brown ( or whoever for that matter ) will want to have his own mandate but I’m not so sure will mean a snap election. The logistics referred to above will all need to be sorted and I would have thought a following Spring ie May 2008 would then become the likely date if there is a 2007 Conference changeover.
Clive said 11 But all DC’s actions and speeches are hypocritical in the sense of ignoring past Tory policies and actions…..
Would you also agree then that by that same standard all TB’s actions and speeches are hypocritical in the sense of ignoring past Labour policies and actions,.
CND, 90% top rates of tax, nationalisation of British Leyland and vast tracts of British industry, being just a few examples?
And how far back can we go? Labour’s refusal to rearm to fight the dictatorships, the pandering to Stalin, retaining food rationing as a socialist measure?
17 JohnK. There was a transcript on Mrs Dales Diary. (link right >>>) Take a look at the archive section for last week.
14 - Agreed. It’s an interesting idea, but it seems pretty unlikely to get very far in the Conservative Party. It could practically have been designed to hit core Conservative supporters hardest. There’s also the basic problem that owning expensive property isn’t always the same as having a high income.
I don’t think much of Ken Livingstone as a reader of the runes. For one thing, he hates Brown; for another, he’s plainly forgotten all that nudge-nudge wink-wink “vote for me, get him” bit we had last year - didn’t TB buy GB an ice cream (well, it wouldn’t be the other way around, for heaven’s sake)? And Gordon is, if anything, even keener on sucking up to the States than Blair.
http://adamboulton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/bush_blair_unpl.html
B2W I think most observers would agree that Cameron’s somersaults are of a different order to anything that has gone before!!!
13, 14 - hmm! A property wealth tax that would hit the very rich. As devised by Messrs Cable, Davey, Clegg, Huhne etc.
23 Are these policy somersaults in the policy free Tory leader you talk about?
I think there are strong economic arguments against taxing illiquid assets like property. How would property-rich cash-poor people cope with it? Sell their houses I suppose; which would have quite an effect on the housing market would it not?
Blue2Win at 19. I would completely agree that DC and TB have both been hypocritical in the sense of trashing previous policies; my point was that when the Tories changed PM from Maggie to Major the next election in 1992 saw the Tory government re-elected. Tory supporters on this site who think that victory next time is a formality need to cogitate on recent British political history.
25. I’m all for them! I couldn’t stand Michael Howard or his ugly illiberal policies. I’m just embarrassed for his followers who waxed lyrical about him and are now genuflecting to Cameron! They look ridiculous!
26 - I agree; isn’t this one of the problems with the council tax? I have doubts about LD moves towards wealth tax and would be very surprised if the Tories were foolish enough to go down this route.
Again, I feel it is only a matter of time before the LDs, or the Tories, propose to merge income tax and employee NI.
I agree with Mike that Gordon won’t call a snap election. There are too many things to be concerned about not the least of which is the Murdoch threat. (Tht said, screw Murdoch).
On the atlantasist front, it is interesting to see Hauge distance the Conservatives from current policy, and also developing a far more independent line. He has been talking to Republicans as well. It certainly will play well here electoraly.
3.”transport, poster boards, media facilities, to say nothing of candidates in place ”
So far Labour NEC has allowed to start the selection process in 35 seats. Some (Petersborough, St Alban, Hemel Hempstead, Cambridge and a couple of others) have already started it and they’ll have a candidate by november.
I think the reselection process for sitting MPs should start next year. And some CLPs always seem a bit slow in doing it (last time reselection process started in 2003 and Birmingham Ladywood had still to reselect Short in fall 2004)
[12] The excellent Roger (and Andrew Rawnsley) are seriously out of touch if the believe ‘yo Blair’ was ‘humiliating’. That’s standard dressing-room/street chat, implying mateship. Whenever I am thus welcomed, I am pleased to be included and accepted.
That the superior MSM is ‘out of the loop’ is not news. Surely we can expect closer-to-the-ground and shrewder contributions on PBcom?
I have just looked at ‘Conservative Home’. Obviously a site for unreconstructed Tories because It sent a shiver down my spine. Incase anyone is thinking of voting for Cameron’s Tories it’s worth reminding themselves of what the Conservative underbelly looks like.
29. Ending the fiction of a ‘contributory’ NI scheme has a great deal to recommend it, I agree. The saving in bureaucracy would be considerable too. The only problem is psychological - incorporating it with income tax would be a shock for many taxpayerss who currently perhaps are in denial about the ‘real’ marginal tax rates they are paying.
The reason property taxes are so widely used to finance local government is that the tax base is easily identified and stable (unlike people, income, or spending which are mobile or potentially so). This massive practical advantage tends to outweigh the theoretical economic arguments which might point you away from property taxation.
21 - Of course there are some people who have a large amount of wealth and a low income - most noticably pensioners. Politically the idea of a wealth tax is difficult but in principle there is nothing wrong with it. There are greater inequalities in wealth in this country than there are in income, only through the taxation system can this be changed. People who live in houses they can no longer afford can always sell them and live in a house within there means. It makes sense to have a diversified taxation system with taxes on both wealth and income, and to my mind fairer.
I think Julian H put it nicely. There a couple of low income high asset groups who would be toasted by this - pensioners and farmers. I don’t suppose the Tories would fancy upsetting either. If this did happen I might have to change my view on the chances of the LDs making gains in S England.
My own home seat of Tiverton and Honiton would look pretty tasty if the Tories went to the electorate with this…
34 - I believe that amalgamating employee NI and income tax was LD policy in 1992. It did disappear from the policy radar, however.
I think it arose in response to a Tory increase in NI (thereby avoiding income tax increases). Brown has also done the same, of course. As we inevitably drift towards “citizen pensions” and further erode the state second pension (SERPS as was), I feel the time has come to scrap employee NI. It is tax on earned income in all but name.
21: Property taxes are interesting. The basic fallacy of most schemes to replace council tax is that they equate income with ‘ability to pay’. This is why I don’t like the Lib Dems local income tax thing. I always think of the contrast between me and my parents. Me - 140K mortgage, 3 bed terrace, frankly a bit poky, income over £30K but outgoings huge. My parents: 4-bed large detached house, no mortgage, bought it for £19K years ago, income less than £15K at a guess but outgoings minimal except for a string of nice holidays!
Lib Dems would sting me for yet more tax but let my parents off hugely depsite their £400K asset. The liberals really should read their Dickens, Mr Micawber had it right.
Property is a major part of our national wealth, so some taxation which relates to what you own is inevitable. Maybe the tory idea is good, but adjust it so that if 80% of your mortgage is still owed, such that you effectively only own 20% of the property , you only pay 20% of the proposed tax?!
But seriously, who’s going to organise and pay for annual valuations?
I think the Bow group idea has some merit, because it abolishes capital gains taxes on houses and IHT - as long as that includes second houses and investment properties I would be happy to pay more for my home, in order to have less business taxation.
In other words, I would swap some element of wealth tax if there was a significant reduction in making wealth tax, such as CGT.
Commentator… were this idea to be implemented I imagine there wouldn’t be much need to tax capital gains on housing given the certain effect on house prices.
Jon, believe me, the investment market would take off like a rocket.
A temporary slowdown in house prices would be welcome, and only the upper end of the market would be affected.
40. Tax simplification is something we badly need from the perspective of economic efficiency. But in all these discussions we need to face up to one basic fact - the level of public expenditure is high, and no matter how you shuffle things around, the tax burden on most people will have remain relatively high as a result. Tax simplification which is revenue neutral risks a) ‘revealing’ uncomfortable facts about just how high the burden of taxation is and b) creating large groups of significant losers. So the politics of it is very tricky.
[38] Jon C asks who’s going to organise and pay for annual valuations?
The same people who do just that in Canada (and I daresay elsewhere), perhaps?
43 - yes, very tricky. But both LD and Tories have some bright young things (and Vince Cable, bright, but not young) and plenty of time to work on it before the next election, which I think must be at least 3 years away. Labour will do nothing except stick a penny or so on NI whenever they feel like it, and each year as they raise the threshholds by RPI, rather than national average earnings, will try to continue to kid people into thinking that their tax on income is not going up.
28 - Another ludicrous post from the ascerbic Roger!
Michael Howard was very liberal on matters of sexuality and personal life. To decsribe him as you do is ridiculous!
He also was probably the most successful Home Secretary in the last 20 years!
46.”Michael Howard was very liberal on matters of sexuality and personal life.”
yes and Clare Short is Miss Universe
“He also was probably the most successful Home Secretary in the last 20 years!” - not sure I would agree, but he was certainly a bleeding heart liberal compared to his 4 successors!
45. Agreed. The point I was really trying to make is that the whole thing would be a lot easier if accompanied by proper plans to reduce the rate of growth of public spending and release resources for a general reduction in the tax burden. That way you can compensate some of the losers. The public sector is very fat and increasingly unwieldy, as the weekend comments by Sir John Bourn again illustrated, so there is plenty of room for some Gladstonian style cheese paring.
48 - And more liberal than Blunkett/Clarke/Reid given the ‘I’m harder than you’ attitude emanating from the home office.
Interesting picture the BBC are using on the Dave in Afghanistan story. Not the cuddly chameleon at all.
Commentator… I don’t believe you! Unless you are proposing that the tax would only apply to the property the owner occupied. In which case the City would go wild devising schemes where everyone would sell their house to an “investor” so nobody would pay the tax. I think the Tories would see that one coming a mile off.
Oh dear… and the LD plans are suppose to be written on the back of an envelope.
Otherwise this proposal would have the effect of raising housing market interest rates by something like 1%… which would be spectacular to watch.
Could Brown become the country’s most fortunate Chancellor, but most unfortunate Prime Minister?
Will the electorate think that Brown deserves a chance?
There are parallels with the last Tory administration here - Major was given just such a chance, and the results of 1997 show what the electorate’s verdict of ‘92-’97 was. By 1990 MT had arguably gone on too long - rebellion was breaking out within the party, her political judgement was popularly seen to be increasingly out of touch with reality. Community charge/Poll Tax was a policy that might have had merit, but both its implementation and political handling were handled in such an uncompromising and incompetent manner that it beggared belief (Scotland in particular has still not forgiven the Conservative Party for that particular folly, and people in rented accomodation where rates had been part of the rent were not only hit by a new tax but a de-facto hidden rent increase). ID cards, if implemented, could yet make Poll Tax look like a model of successful implementation! The manner of MT’s removal from office was messy to say the least. JM came in, and was given a fresh mandate. The rest is history…
If the electorate make such parallels, then Brown may not be given the benefit of the doubt.
If Brown takes over, then doubtless he would want to seek his own mandate, and ideally during any honeymoon period. Unfortunately, the ideal time might be right now, before matters can degenerate any further, and whilst he can still strike at Cameron’s soft underbelly - ie during the Tory policy review. Unfortunately, he isn’t PM yet, and it looks like of all the parties Labour is the one currently least able to afford to fight an election.
In a year or even six months time the landscape will have changed, and Tory policy reviews will been reporting and producing policy. If those policies actually resonate and strike a chord with the mood of the electorate, then Brown is in real trouble.
Paradoxically, it is entirely possibly that Brown’s future rests in the ability of the master politician TB to wriggle out of the current mess. And if TB manages that then will he give up the reigns voluntarily?
I can now see how a Tory government would make me a billionaire…. where can I get a membership form from?
And yes it know it isn’t Tory policy… only a bit of fun. It does however suggest what will happen if the Tories don’t come up with some concrete policies sharpish - Labour will simply make them up.
34 - I think most people know exactly how much tax and NI they pay - it is on their pay slip every week or month. I suspect combining the two and adjusting band levels to compensate (I would use it to increase the basic allowance) would generally be welcomed.
I remember thinking how odd it was when my income went above the NI upper earnings limit that my marginal tax rate was suddenly dropping.
I agree that an early election is likely, but dashing to the polls in October could look a bit desperate, a little overly transparent - assuming Brown succeeds Blair in time for the next Labour conference my expectation for some time has been that we will have an election in Spring 2008. Which should be just within the period of a “Brown Bounce’ in the polls.
The result? I suspect we will be looking at a mirror of the Canadian election of 2004, when Paul Martin, the long serving former Finance Minister, who finally secured hi ambition to succeed his rival as Liberal PM lost his party’s overall majority but staggered on for 18 months leading a minority govt.
It’s gonna be deja vu all over again….
46. “Michael Howard was very liberal on matters of sexuality and personal life. ”
An example of the so liberal on sexuality matters Michael Howard:
(Howard as Home Secretary in the House of Commons debate about age of consent in 1994)
46 Not according to Tony Howard on the radio the other day who slammed Michael Howard together with all of this governments Home Secretaries. He praised Jenkins, Hurd and gave high praise for someone else, who damn it I can’t recall now! I must admit I have little memory of Hurd in the job.
Just realised - you said ‘last 20 years which puts Jenkins out of the list.
I don’t think that there’s any chance of an early election. Brown is too timid and needs some time to stake out why he is to be trusted more than Blair in any case. Add to that the parlous financial state of labour and 2009/2010 looks like a shoe-in.
As to the idea of any bounce, there is a real paradox at work, to try and create this bounce he will need to be seen as very different to Blair, if he shows this then the opposition can attack him for his inaction and ‘flip-flopping’ on policy, so therefore he would be foolish to create too much of a break from the past. If, on the other hand, he merely continues the Blair direction then he will be attacked for having no new direction - result, Brown can’t win, it’s a lose/lose situation for him.
If there was a market on it I would bet heavily on there being no Brown bounce, in actual fact I would bet heavily on there being a Brown slump.
Sam@55
I think that very few people actually take that amount of notice to the various items on their payslip. Bottom line figure is the only one that people are generally aware of. Employer’s NI in particular is no more than a completely abstract concept to most people - probably the only people truly aware of their total tax liablity are the self-employed.
NI is anomalous in many regards - for instance (unless things have changed - I dont think they have), there is an element of double-taxation in it. NI is calculated based on your gross salary. Your income tax is also based on gross taxable income, but no allowance is made for the NI paid. So in effect you are being taxed on income already taken as tax.
I also wonder whether it is actually possible to combine tax & NI (though I would very much like to see this happen) - NI is, I think, seen in European terms as a “social tax”, and is subject to separate rules on where it is paid & assessed. This is very much an esoteric area not affecting anyone but cross-border workers, but it might mean that it is difficult to effect an integration between the two.
This policy is from the Bow Group - not CCHQ.
I agree with those who suggested an early 2008 GE (I think Northern Tory and Bullseye)
I dont think that the finacial mess that the Labour Party are in has been fully apreciated.
Last year they raised £35m (excluding loans) of which £14m was from donations and spent £49m. But this was an election year. In 2004 they raised £29m (£9m from donations) and spent £32m.
The Labour party will have difficulty raising even £9m a year now that a donation effectively STOPS you getting an honour. Surely even the saintly David Sainsbury is begining to get fed up with the flack he is getting. So unless John Prescott could ask one of his American friends for a sub they are in deep do do.
Of course non of this is Gordon’s fault. I suppose that the fact that the British economy has been run on similar lines to the Labour Party’s finances is an argument for going for an early election but I would keep May 2010 free if I were you.
Surely (well, in theory at least ;)) Gordon Brown fully endorsed Labour’s 2005 election manifesto for an entire Parliamentary term. Thus, why would he need - still less be given - a ‘personal’ mandate after a mere 2 years, unless his administration was proposing a fundamental change from that on which they were elected (as certainly was the case with Baldwin in 1923).
This is ‘Prime Ministerial Govt’ (beloved of A Level examiners since the early sixties) gone bonkers
60. I think combining the two systems is perfectly practical, if potentially a little disruptive to start with. But note it requires the abolition of the various entitlement rules whereby you have to have paid a certain amount of NI to get various social security benefits.
This is where the politics could become interesting - because while informed observers are aware that the contributory principle long ago became a fiction, a large chunk of the public still think the NI system actually does run as some sort of ‘insurance’. There is a danger this group will see NI’s absorption into the PAYE system as involving loss of entitlements. With careful preparation, this problem shouldn’t be insurmountable, but it does exist.
And the Labour Party spent over £5m on Finance, IT and telecoms - It would be poetic if the Labour party was brought to its knees by the cost its IT system!
Is it set in stone that the new boundaries will come into force from this autumn or are there other hoops, protests, appeals etc that will hold things up? Obviously it would be a big advantage for Labour to have an election on the current boundaries. When is the latest realistic time that this could happen?
Fred@65
Quite - in the domestic context this could be relatively straightforward, bearing in mind the need for current entitlement changes that you point out.
My concern was whether the devil would be in the detail of various EU treaties and rulings. Social taxes and general taxes are subject to differing rules, so this might muddy the waters somewhat. If NI was to be incorporated into general income taxation it may need to be hypothecated to satisfy cross-border agreements, and this would be a big step in the principle of taxation here.
Not impossible, however. Are there any EU countries that do have a single income tax structure?
Jon,
You’re quite wrong. Something close to this system of taxation on houses is already used in the US where the overall burden is lower, and the housing market there is more than robust. It would be a very good proposal, flattening taxes, leading to middle class wealth gain through scrapping IHT, making the market more liquid, helping those on lower incomes to gain a foot on the property ladder. I am invested in property myself and would welcome such a swap. What I lost on the swings I would more than make up on the roundabouts and so would most in my position. The key would be to eliminate IHT, CT, and CGT on houses as promised. Cutting taxation on the poor and lower middle class is an election winner.
I hope CCHQ takes it up. The proposer has amplified his thoughts on Conservative Home’s platform, I see, with costed examples of this simplification.
67. As previously posted on here - the Boundary Commission for England have said they will issue their final report by the end of October 2006.
The report then has to be laid before Parliament, approved by both the Commons and Lords and then approved by the Privy Council.
The process took just 4 months for the new Scottish boundaries (Commission report November 2004, Privy Council March 2005) but 15 months for the new Welsh boundaries (Commission report January 2005, Privy Council April 2006).
It basically comes down to how quickly the report is laid before Parliament. This was done very quickly for Scotland but there was a long delay for Wales (partly because of the May 2005 General Election).
So for England it is certainly not clear cut. The government could certainly stall it for a while. But without a GE just after the report comes out a year looks like about the maximum delay. So that would take it to October 2007!
There is an interesting article from Paul Whiteley (Co-director of the British Election Study) in today’s edition of the House magazine.
In it he talks about a predictive model of General Election results using opinion poll data. He uses it to look at what would have happened in a summer 2006 General Election. His conclusions have good news and bad news for all three parties.
Labour would lose seats and would fall to 319, 5 short of an overall majority.
The Conservatives would gain 52 seats to a total of 250.
The Lib Dems would lose nearly a quarter of their seats and would be down to 46 seats.
Thus there would be a hung Parliament with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power. But the Conservatives would be further invigorated with 50 new MPs and much nearer to regaining power.
This is not bad going from Cameron after less than a year as leader and it will be interesting to see what the next year or so brings. Clearly more needs to be done to get the Conservatives back into a fully fledged winning position and you won’t get anyone in Cameron’s office or CCHQ arguing with that, I suspect!
Whiteley concludes that whilst a hung Parliament will get Lib Dems excited this does confirm a pattern that Lib Dems tend to be squeezed when the Tories are on the up.
The big question in this scenario is whether Labour would try to govern as a minority government or seek to reach some sort of formal or informal arrangement with the Lib Dems.
What’s happened to Dave the Chameleon’s blog?
http://www.davethechameleon.com/dtcblog
The last entry is 5 July. Have Labour given it up as a bad job?
69. It would be electoral suicide.
Take someone living in a typical £400k house in the South East. They would suddenly face an annual bill of £3,300 instead of Council Tax of approx £1,600 (or £1,200 if a single occupier).
The advantage of IHT is it is paid on death - ie you pay when you no longer need the money. Of course the beneficiaries lose but they were not counting on receiving anything at that time - nobody knows when they will die.
So it is a massive cash flow negative - electoral suicide.
The Bow Group suggestion is interesting. The income poor, assets rich question is a real issue but property is a form of wealth & the idea that you should be completely insulated ffrom tax beacuse you prefer not to use that wealth is a pretty weak one. However, if a property tax were introduced it would have to have a far higher threshold than just £70,000, there are cupboards in London & the SE that cost more than that!
The LibDem’ tax commission has actively considered a variant of the Bow Group idea already, a 1% home levy but starting at £500k. Personally I think it has a lot of merit but needs quite a lot more thought - what I would much prefer is a return to the traditional Liberal idea of a tax on land values rather than property price. Either way, property or land taxes seem an eminently sensible way to pay for local government & with the Lyons review reproting in December I expect quite a bit of convergence among the parties on this one in the next year or so.
71-”Labour would lose seats and would fall to 319, 5 short of an overall majority.”
but how many Sinn Fein MPs he predicted?
I see we were all wrong re the latest Tory “Policy” Initiative. Calls today by a Conservative Whip (presumably a put up job to test the water)to legalise the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan.
I am not sure about this as there would no doubt be a lot of leakage, and there is not the infrastructure to police it in Afghanisan. But I do know that a if Liberal Democrat had suggested it there would have been howls of “They Want to Legalise Herion” stories in the tabloids.
68 - hypothecated taxes may create a problem. However, there is no reason why part of the combined Inc Tax / employer NI can’t be hypothetically ring-fenced as social tax as per the EU. The other problem is would we reform employer NI?
….and call it a pay roll tax?
73. Yes I think that is the big problem with these proposals - they create a largish minority of very substantial losers. One way to get round this would be to cut income tax substantially as well, especially the higher rate. But that wouldn’t solve the problem entirely as a big chunk of these losers are going to be retired people on modest incomes, who just happen to live in expensive parts of the country. A house is also a home, especially for older people, so it is too simplistic to argue they could just sell up.
75 Andrea. Ulster is normally ignored in these studies for lack of appropriate data. You’d have to say that SF look pretty set to hold their present seats quite easily. Thus the effective majority of a prospective Lab/LibDem coalition would be somewhat higher, let alone including the SDLP.
Further I’m in the “just a bit of fun” group on these studies. Differential swings/turnout in varying seats, let alone regional elements and the yellow peril barnacle tendency all lead to a more interesting likely result. Lots of scope for punters !!
Icarus @76
I haven’t seen reports of these calls, but presumably this is because there is a legal market for opiates for use within medicine?
If so, then a laudable aim to open up an international market to Afghans, but as you say easily spun as wanting to “legalise herion”. Also, the legal market price would doubtless be far, far lower than the illegal market price, and drugs cartels aren’t customers you can easily walk away from…
180- Jack, thanks. A 5 short of majority for Labour could allow Labour to rule thanks to SDLP/Sinn Fein.
But it would do a mess because McDonnell and friends would probably still be around.
I think the Libdems should refuse to join a formal coalition in that situation and just say “we’ll decided project by project” and let Labour ruling alone.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1827679,00.html
The link to the story - came as a news flash from The Guardian
Yes apparently there is a shortage of opiates for medicinal purposes.
79. Another problem is that it would destabilise the housing market as people with investments in property would have a significant incentive to switch into equities or bonds.
RE. the Brown caution thing. Sure Gordon lacks killer instinct and is known to be cautious, but GB also has an inter stellar sized ego; like Mrs Thatcher, he really truly believes he is more intellegent than averyone else.
This will inhibit his ability to imagine failure; and this in turn will blind him to the downsides to an early election.
So I think a lot will depend on the polls after he takes over. If Labours vote firms up -even by a couple of points- the temptation to try and catch everyone out with an early election will be very strong indeed.
And Labours vote will strengthen, I am sure, when Gordon takes over if he has a big clear-out of the cabinet.
Lets be honest, his chances of losing no 10 are not as high as we on our side would wish. I reckon he will calculate that as long as he gets around 36% of the vote he will retain his job -with help from his old pal Ming Campbell…
There certainly needs to be some more imaginative thinking about how to control the Taleban and to establish a legitimate source of income for Afghan farmers.
Trying to change the rural economy by force and proscription will not work there as the Afghans are too independent minded to simply starve when a perfectly good, and long standing, source of income is available.
Buying up the crop at top prices certainly would be a start if there is to be a serious self sustaining change in these habits.
The current policy simply drives farmers into the arms of the Taleban who talk not of restricted religious dictatorships, but of freedom from the interfering foreigners.
82. I can’t really see Labour in any way being involved in a deal with Sinn Fein - whose MPs anyway don’t take their seats.
Jack W - re. the shinners’ seats, Fermanagh & S Tyrone is the only one they could lose, if the Unionists can put up an agreed candidate this time. The others I agree look pretty safe.
187. Fred, I meant that they won’t take their seats, so being a couple of seats short of a majority can mean having a 1 majority in the end.
82 Andrea. A near “Minority” Labour administration would be very weak. Think John Major with knobs on !! Oh er Missus.
My own view is that Brown would seek a formal coalition with the Lib Dems for a full parliament on an agreed programme. Some trade off on PR would occur. Potentially very dangerous for the Tories. It might lock out the Tories for another couple of elections.
188. OK - this was a language problem I think; the reference in your post to ‘thanks to SDLP/Sinn Fein’ confused me as it seemed to imply some cooperation. Grazie for the clarification.
89. Jack, I agree it would be weak, but if I were the Libdems, I wouldn’t be sure to support it (it could be electorally damaging in LD seats in the south)
90. No problem, Fred!
89 I think the Labour Party trust the Lib Dems about as much as the Tories do - and both are right!!
87 Fred. Agreed. The only caveats being that the Unionists in that neck of the woods can barely agree on the day of the week let alone on a unifying candidate. Additionally over the last decade or so the nationalists have edged the population game by a few thousand.
Interesting post today.
It is increasingly clear that Blair will announce his departure in May/June 2007 following an undoubted Labour hit in the local elections. He will hand over the reigns in September under the back drop of an unbeat (US convention) style coference. Lots of tears, excitement, accolades, celebrities, and of course news coverage. Aim- to imrove Blairs legacy, and create an aura of positivism and renewal.
This suits Brown to the ground, and why we will not see any further puschs or Brown posturings for the leadership before then.
2008 definitely then comes into play for a Gen election. Brown would kick himself if he used a post leadership bounce as a means to win a few more councillors the following May. He needs this bounce to win him the big one (he knows he will lost the opportunity with time). A full term on his terms. Conversely a further council drubbing in 2008 would bring in an aura of defeat. I do not think Brown really has much choice!!
To the long suffering and mispaced Tory hopefuls (Commentator, DC et al) the Tories are still matched against the most succesful political strategists of recent times (who know how to win), backed by a party that still wants government, a favourable economy, and still most of the establishment behind it.
Let us bet on Brown’s departure (2010/11/12??), his successor
and the GE in 2012/13. I think Labour has it well in hand before then.
91 Andrea. But what would the Lib Dems get out of supporting a weak Labour administration. They’d get all the blame for no gain. The Lib Dems and PM Brown both have an eye for the main chance. Politically foolish not to seize it.
91 - PR would make Lib Dem representation in all future governments more likely than at present and so my guess would be that, although they might be short term harm done to them in the south, the offer would be too much to resist.
94. Jack W - I think there has been a theoretical nationalist majority in F & ST for rather a long time in fact. At the GE the Green/Orange shares were 53/47. In 1983 it was 52/48, so very little has changed. Sinn Fein over this period has been gradually pushing down the SDLP share but that still registered 15% last time. Should the unionist vote not be split I think SF would struggle to hold this seat - and with the DUP having practically exterminated the UUP at the last GE, the prospects for that are greater now, I suspect.
97 - PR would probably be the one thing which would make the Lib Dem membership support entering a coalition. I can see no sign, however, that either Labour or the Tories would ever be likely to offer it. The fact is that the first past the post system hugely benefits both of them, and I can see absolutely no way that either of them would give that up.
99. Yep - for precisely the reason mentioned in the previous post at 97. - ‘PR would make Lib Dem representation in all future governments more likely than at present’.
“I can see absolutely no way that either of them would give that up” - except as a way of utterly shafting the other for good. It is the nuclear option.
101. I think we are going over rather old ground, here, aren’t we?
Looking at Cameron’s jaunt to Afghanistan in his persuit for GRAVITAS. Unfortuntately for Cameron gravitas is an essential requirement for political success (it shows integity, virtue, leadership, ability to handle crisis, seriousness of purpose), and even more unfortunate for Cameron it is very difficult to acquire. Most unfortunate for Cameron he ain’t got it.
And, sadly, if you haven’t got it, it is difficult to acquire it. It is not about experiecnce. The more you try the more you expose your lack of it. Cameron’s appearance, mannerism, tone, look, all say one thing “lightweight”. Lack of gravitas has ruined many political careers- Kinnock, Dukakis, IDS, Kenndey, Hague etc.. People cannot take them seriously. If Kennedy had serious gravitas the drinking would not have been a perceived problem. Might of even been good for his image.
Hague is actually gaining gravitas with age and experience.
Sorry Dave but the trip to Afghanistan only exposes this more. The next stage of Labour image making should be the chameleon fluttering aimlessly around in the wind.
98 Fred. Agreed, but the Nationalist maj has been creeping up over the decades. Indeed some Unionists scour the local press for birth announcements !!
If the Unionists pick a single candidate the Nationalists will do likewise as Frank McGuire in the 70’s and 80’s.
01 - I just find it difficult to believe that either Labour or the Tories would seriously consider introducing an electoral system which would mean that it would be virtually impossible for either of them ever to have an overall majority in parliament ever again.
104. I doubt that Jack W. Since Maguire was last elected in 1979 there hasn’t been an agreed Nationalist candidate except in the extreme circumstances of the hunger strikes. The SDLP is in a battle for survival against Sinn Fein now and it would be surprising if they stood aside for them.
Strange use of ‘as’ in the final line of your post, btw. almost like a bad translation from another language.
95/103 Blimey pro-Labour on pb.com. Never thought I would see it again.
Makes a change from the usual LD or Tory stuff.
105 Jeremy S. Think Scotland and think the power of ministerial cars !!
106 Fred. “as”. Sorry, sloppy shorthand.
Rik W’s post @ 71 is interesting. We just don’t know what effect Blair leaving the scene will have on electoral poitics - for all is faults he has been a masterly player of the game.
As I posted earlier my instinct is that Brown will become PM but then go on to lose his majority. What Rik’s post illustrate though is that the Tories under Cameron are doing no-where near well enough to win an outright majority, they are polling the sort of figures Labour did under Kinnock - a big improvement from rock bottom but still a long way to go.
If as I expect there is a hung Parliament after the next election then I’d be very surprised if a stable coalition emerged. I just can’t see a deal emerging. Most commentators imagine that the LDs will jump at any chance to join a Labour led Govt but that isn’t the case. During the 1990’s, there were plenty of people, including myself, who argued that Lab & the LibDems should work together to defeat the Tories & form a radical reforming Govt. However 9 years of Blair has shocked most LibDems, and people like me who previously supported the idea would be appalled at the prospect of propping up a defeated Labour Govt.
There are very big policy differences from Iraq, to nuclear energy, to civil liberties that most LDs would baulk at working with Labour on. even if the leadership were to agree a compromise the agreement would have to go to a ballot of party members - the result would be very far from a foregone conclusion. The only things that could possibly sell it to the party would be big moves on electoral reform - maybe guaranteed for local govt and a referendum on Westminster and a green switch to enviro taxes, which will be a big part of the LD election campaign.
On the Labour side there is an equally deep antipathy to the LibDems - and having just fought an election against LD challengers many northern & urban Labour MPs will be none to pleased at the prospect of sitting on the same benches as Campbell & co. While I’m sure Brown could muster enough NEC votes to avoid a special conference there would have to be a PLP endorsement, and even if he got that it would expose deep divisions.
All in all I suspect a minority Labour govt, with the LibDems either supporting or abstaining on the Queen’s Speech. How long such a government could stagger on for is another question. With Lab & Tories both polling in the mid 30’s the LDs & others will have a blocking minority in the Commons - that basic equation might not change again for a long time. If so then hung parliaments will become, if not the norm, then at least a regular feature of our politics. However, I don’t believe that until most people recognise that that’s where we are that we will see coalitions at a national level.
The problem for all the Opposition parties is that if Labour are only half a dozen or so seats short of a majority, they are the only serious Government option.
To unseat them would require Tories, LDs, Nationalists and DUP members to all go through the lobby together and even that may not be enough.
What about the SDLP MPs ? The SF members won’t take the oath so they effectively are out of the picture as well. Of course, there will be elements of 1992-97 about it but Major’s Government saw out pretty much a full term and was never in serious threat given UUP support.
106.-”Strange use of ‘as’ in the final line of your post, btw. almost like a bad translation from another language. ”
I’ve nothing to do with it. I swear…I would never use terms like “likewise”
Obviously the Lib Dems would go for whoever bites the bullet and offers serious consitutional reform, including but not limited to PR. We are often told by opponants of PR that people have to vote for it under the current system- pehaps this is what an NOC Parliament would be, a vote to change the system.
I still think that Brown would be nore likely to give PR than the Tories, and I am not convinced by the Tory cheerleaders about their leader. He does have a touch of Dukakis about him, so maybe Brown has less to fear (and as I think his cautious approach shows, he is a politician very much driven by fear) than we think. GB would go to the country anytime he thinks that Cameron’s bubble has burst.
109 Bullseye. You mention the “big policy differences” of Iraq, nuclear power and civil liberties as potential roadblocks to a coalition. However I’d say many in the Labour party and perhaps even a majority would not be unhappy to ditch those policies with some alacrity.
The advent of a Brown premiership has the opportunity IMO to shift the political landscape away from the Blair NuLab agenda. Indeed it’ll be necessary for Brown to do so in order to frame his own administration in a likeness that the voters can be assured that on the one hand retains the positive economic prospects and on the other ensure the sleaze and spin are a thing of the past.
Presumably, on the *current timetable*, the 2009 euros will converge with a 2009 GE? Or am I missing something?
If so, whilst I am loath to be negative, I would guess that this will be in Labour’s best interest. What doesn’t seem to have been discussed much is how the EPP breakaway pledge is going to come across when presented in the European election manifesto immediately beforehand. Vote for our compromise proposal — a leap into the political unknown that has divided our party? ? It’s not necessarily a vote winner.
I feel certain that, in the past, given the evidence, the Conservatives have been damaged by presenting a catch-all ‘Third Way’ policy on this issue, e.g. Hague’s imposed compromise of “In Europe, not run by Europe”. It actually feels rather odd that in a wealthy constituency like where I live and vote (Rugby and Kenilworth) a Labour MP with a majority of only 465 in 1997 was somehow not removed in 2001 (indeed, he substantially increased his majority, rightly or wrongly). It surprised me at that time, in 2001, that there were some streets here with almost unbroken rows of Labour posters. It still seems slightly odd, given the characteristics of the constituency. One conclusion I draw from this is that the voters may prefer strong policies on Europe to complicated compromises.
Given his appearance on the poppy fields today, and his MPs call to back the poppy appeal in Afghanistan, Cameron’s new slogan should be “Opium is the religion of the people.”
But who first said that? - no, it was not Karl Marx.
If , as is assumed, Gordon Brown does take over from Tony Blair as PM, then there is, for me, one key player that will decide the timing of the next election. Rupert Murdoch. If Murdoch decides to nail his colours to the Cameron crusade, then yes, I could see Brown calling for an immediate disoloution of parlaiment. In doing this, Brown can limit the effect of the Murdoch influence and catch the tories of guard. After all, the tories have no real policies, as yet, to speek of. If Murdoch continues to pledge his allegiance to the New Labour project, then Brown would be a full to call an election early. So, for me, it’s down to Murdoch!
116. Murdoch said he doesn’t want a snap election, because he wants to see Gordon in action before deciding who to support among the two.
I thought Marx said that religion was the opium of the masses. The rich types could afford the real thing….
116 - Who cares about Rupert Murdoch - it wasn’t The Sun wot won it in 1992. Or in 1997. He is a paper tiger and neither Brown nor Cameron should give one iota about his ‘endorsement’ or otherwise: more fool them if they do.
Now Guido on the other hand…
07- Jonathan. Actually posts at 95 and 103 are trying to be objective. Simple fact is that we have a 3 x time winning established party with a plan for succession and renewal set against a 3 time losing party led by a 30 something, policyless, inexperienced (and appearing lightweight despite his ability for public speaking), careerist politician (coupled with being a PR man), and who is very, very privileged. The coke, Eton, unproven, lightweight, image politics- all to be gainfully exploited I expect in some form or another.
Sure Labour will lose at some point, but not to Cameron’s Tories and not at the next election. This discussion about wafer majorities, hung parliaments etc.. is completely meaningless. Making these extrapolations from today’s opinion polls is irrelevant. Labour is going to flatline for another 12-13 months. Unless the Tories start getting 15%+ consistent leads Labour will not care. The Tories though are getting excited about 6-7% leads- in this period, with these headlines!
Just look at some historical polling with previous governments to understand just how poor the Tories are doing, and what needs to be done to change a government.
The next set of opinion polls may render the leading question of this thread academic.
I would not be surprised if the Government’s support for Israel in the current crisis has not caused some sort of tipping point in their support. If so, and Labour trail badly in the polls then I believe that the only thing that Gordon will do on taking over is to hold on for as long as possible, and hope to do enough popular things to change voters’minds.
There is no way that Murdoch is going to go all guns blaring behind Cameron- even if the Tories are going to win. Murdoch is a “Citizen Kane” caricature. Underneath his rabid right wing exterior is the hypocritical morality you find in these characters. Personal traits like integrity, hard work, pincipals, impoving yourself, standing up for what you believe in, fighting criticism (and being macho)- he admires all these, mainly because he sees all these in himself with all his surrounding acolytes confirming this).
He despised Howard for trying to weasle himself out of Iraq at the election campaign. I do not think he is overly fond of Cameron.
Gladstone
The next opinion polls are completely irrelevant to anything (other than politicians and political geeks)- unless Blair is going to call a snap election next month.
120 - This discussion about wafer majorities, hung parliaments etc.. is completely meaningless. Making these extrapolations from today’s opinion polls is irrelevant.
Certainly not. Even leaving aside opinion polls, local elections and so forth, the simple fact is that a 1%-1.5% swing will spell the end of Labour’s majority. If Hague could secure a 1.84% swing in 2001, Cameron can surely do better whenever the election comes.
120 - yes, I think this is somewhat closer to the reality, rightly or wrongly. Obviously it’s important to separate facts from opinions and to be objective, otherwise it’s just too much like amateurish speculation — hence the “poor man’s economist magazine” criticism, etc.
Looking at raw votes rather than % of vote shares, the Conservative Party is about 800,000 votes below what it got when beaten decisively in 1997. So being objective, it seems like a hard position to recover from.
I recall Ian Taylor telling us just how bad he thought the 2005 result really was. He felt or feels that many of the rural Conservative seats are much more vulnerable to LD challengers than people are accepting, and maybe there is some truth in this. Indeed, it does appear that seats such as Totnes could easily go either way.
125 - Do you mean Ian Taylor, the MP for Esher and Walton?
BTW, regarding your post @114, there was a well above average swing (4.0%) swing in Rugby and Kenilworth in 2005, and the Conservatives gained the seat.
123. “The next opinion polls are completely irrelevant to anything (other than politicians and political geeks”
Try telling that to the regulars of PB.com
You obviously haven’t been here on an evening when one has just been published then! The details are analysed and spun to death!
(But it’s all harmless fun)
The point that I was trying to make (albeit not very well), is that if Labour have sunk into a consistent trailing position by the time that GB takes over, then there is no way that he will go for an election. The next polls might (emphsis ‘might’) show that Labour have now gotten themselves into the kind of hole that the Tories did in the early 1990’s, i.e. The voters seemed to have given up on them.
OTOH, the polls could show a strong Labour recovery, and the Cameron honeymoon ended.
I don’t know - but I merely mention the possibility that they could show us something pretty significant.
I am glad that you are posting some good stuff from a Labour perspective today - you are a refeshing change on this site, which is normally dominated by the LibDem versus Tory battle.
126. “BTW, regarding your post @114, there was a well above average swing (4.0%) swing in Rugby and Kenilworth in 2005, and the Conservatives gained the seat.”
The boundary changes will split the seat with Kenilworth joining Southam in the new Kenilworth and Southam constituency (safe tory) and Rugby becoming a notional Labour marginal.
I suppose Jeremy Wright will go for the new K&S seat
128 - Indeed. I thank you…
126 - yes. But it may be he says this, in part, to vindicate his own views on the European issue.
Re: Rugby and Kenilworth, yes, I’m aware of this, having delivered leaflets etc. on the ground. Just being objective, you talk about swing in terms of % changes in the vote share. Is it not true that the Conservative candidate would not have won, had some Labour voters switched to the Lib Dems due to Iraq etc.. Is that an emphatic result?
re 120. I note all your comments about Dc but the fact remains that regardless of policies ( and by the time of any election there will be a full manifesto anyway ) what matters in a GE is the opinions of the floating voters in the key marginals. Th number of constituencies where Lab voters will vote LD just to keep out the Tories is relatively small. The floating voters will just base thier final decision on do thay “like” A or B and who do they think will be best for them and their families. Most will not care which schools the party leaders went to.
120 - PJ your postings really do display an immaturity of argument and some quite petty attempts at point scoring, eg:
“Simple fact is that we have a 3 x time winning established party with a plan for succession and renewal set against a 3 time losing party led by a 30 something, policyless, inexperienced (and appearing lightweight despite his ability for public speaking), careerist politician (coupled with being a PR man), and who is very, very privileged. The coke, Eton, unproven, lightweight, image politics- all to be gainfully exploited I expect in some