Public would support snap election

If the next Labour leader enjoys a bounce in the opinion polls and considers a snap General Election he will have the support of the general public.  56% of voters (polled by GFK/NOP) want to approve the Labour Party’s choice of successor to Tony Blair – within six months of him being chosen (39% think an election should be immediate).

A few months ago that seemed a possible, even likely, scenario.  Gordon Brown was riding high and Tory MP David Gauke urged our party to be ready for a snap election.  A bloody Labour leadership election now seems more likely and if the Tories are able to maintain or grow the opinion poll lead (currently at 4.8% according to ConservativeHome’s poll of polls) it seems that this will be a five year parliament with Labour hoping for events to transform the political landscape.

9pm update: David Willetts appears to be urging a snap election - ITV.com

Comments

[Alison Anne Smith]

We'd better get PPCs in place in all constituencies then, not just the "chosen few".

[Annabel Herriott]

I agree Anne, it may not happen, as GB is such a passive agressive character, he prefers power to come to him rather than fight for it, but it would be totally ridiculous as a party, to be caught with our pants down. Colne Valley, a 3 way marginal, still has not had a sniff of a PPC.

[John Moss]

Anybody listen to Andy Marr's interview with Blair this morning?

What struck me was the way that Blair has - again - spotted the shifting of the centre ground.

Just two years ago to talk about Immigration, Security/Terrorism and Law and Order would have been completely off the New Labour agenda as "schools'n'hospitals" dominated.

As public opinion has shifted, so has New Labour's focus, or at least that of its best reader of the mood, Blair.

Conservatives need to be very wary of a party machine which has consistently been able to respond to the public's concerns, to hit the hot-bitton issues time and again.

Just as we shift our focus to softer issues and - rightly - spend more time demonstrating that we too believe in helping the poorest and delivering an agenda which is committed to fairness across all social strata, Blair and friends are re-framing the debate and we might just end up out of step again.

The man is a bloody genius. Why Labour want to get rid of him for the dour-faced Brown I cannot understand. We have to hope that Brown is less receptive to the messages Blair seems to absorb with ease and less able to adapt and change.

But none of that will save us if - as I suspect - the public is once again one step ahead of the politicians and is now in the mood to demand more police, controlled immigration and tougher security, right at the time we try to convince them we didn't really mean all that!

[Wallenstein]

What struck me was the way that Blair has - again - spotted the shifting of the centre ground.

Just two years ago to talk about Immigration, Security/Terrorism and Law and Order would have been completely off the New Labour agenda as "schools'n'hospitals" dominated.

It's bad news for us. Under Cameron we're still talking the touchy-feely language that predated the War on Terror.

New Labour realises that the world has moved on. It's a darker, more dangerous,more suspicious and less tolerant world that we now live in. Tree-hugging platitudes are a thing of the past.

Time for our party's leaders to bring their ideas up to date. Otherwise they're going to be outflanked again.

[Tapestry]

Gordon Brown would most likely trade PR with the Lib Dems to ensure an 'arrangement' in a snap general election. See this week's Bagehot in The Economist - or read it on the-tap.blogspot.com

Brown would be weak opponent to Cameron, but he would stop at nothing as regards moving the goalposts. In his Andrew Marr interview, he spoke of political parties becoming 'obsolete'. Brown's a danger to democracy, and needs stopping by another contender like John Reid.

[Jack Stone]

Brown and New Labour are not expressing the public`s concerns which are still schools and health but are now playing the politics of fear which Pesident Bush did so successfully at the last Presidential election.
We need to convince the voters that we have the answers to the public`s problems not try to out frighten them into voting for us.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I watched the first six minutes of the interview again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5375186.stm

TB makes it clear that Labour's electoral strategy should be to exaggerate the threat of terrorism, immigration and/or crime in order to frighten people into voting for them, he makes absolutely no bones about it.

[TomTom]

Well if we get an election let's address some of these issues

http://tinyurl.com/hx38r

before British Armed Forces get chewed up and defeated

[Andrew]

"TB makes it clear that Labour's electoral strategy should be to exaggerate the threat of terrorism, immigration and/or crime in order to frighten people into voting for them, he makes absolutely no bones about it."

Utterly unsurprising. Never mind that more people die globally to peanut allergies than terrorism. Or more smoking deaths in a day, than terrorism deaths in a decade.

Forget perspective, fear and drama sell papers and raise viewing figures. As long as that's the case, politicians will pander to it, hype up non-existent "ricin" threats etc.

[Patsy Sergeant]

John Moss and Wallenstein, you are undoubtedly right, but one mustn't forget that the blessed Tony has a team behind him. Of course he has charisma in bucket loads, while, of course Brown like his name has none at all, but also surely A. Campbell is still around - well he was on Bremner, Bird and Fortune last night!!!!

[Denis Cooper]

It would be rich if Labour won the next general election by promising to deal with problems which they have largely created. There may be an issue of credibility here - that despite everything somehow they still give the impression that they're capable of dealing with those problems, while the Tory leadership does not yet look like a more competent government-in-waiting.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Denis I think they have already started doing that haven't they. They have absolutely no shame. And if the papers are accurate Mr. Brown is doing it each day as well - promising to deal with the problems that they themselves created.

[ToMtom]

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

another election theme

There is no shortage of nurses in some of the leading private mental hospitals. Sadly, though, they are not there to work. They are patients.

Dr Crippen has just seen reports in today’s papers that nurses (by which I mean, as always, nurse who do nursing) are so stressed that they are being sent to the private mental hospitals that normally cater for celebrities and alcoholic doctors.

The Priory chain of clinics is best known for treating stars such as Robbie Williams, Kate Moss, Pete Doherty and Michael Barrymore.

But dozens of exhausted nurses are now turning to The Priory Group as they battle with their workload, following a wave of NHS job cuts.

[TomTom]

The world is upside down.

The nurses are leaving nursing to do jobs for which they do not have the training. Junior doctors are being deskilled. They are being deprived of their apprenticeship. (Classic case here - the SHOs in this hospital will never learn) So many of the jobs they traditionally did are being taken over by the “nurse-specialists” or even the ubiquitous HCAs. Yes, it is easier in a way to allow a “nurse-specialist” to perform one protocol defined function over and over again than it is to train a new junior doctor to do it ever six months.

But how will that doctor ever learn?

The government is allowing this to happen. Deskilling the NHS reduces expenditure so the government is in favour. There is even has a slogan. (Well, its New Labour, so of course there is a slogan!). This is not deskilling it is:"Raising standards through sharing excellence"

Hmmm, yes. That sounds good, doesn't it. Say it over a few times. Hum it. "Sharing excellence". Yes, I do like that. And there is even a government funded club for "sharing excellence". It is called The BenchMarking Club. Have a look at it. It uses words like "plenary" and "matrix". Have a look at the meeting of the Summer Plenary on 21 June 2006 in York.

The focus of the plenary was on new commissioning arrangements and gave us the opportunity to reflect in particular on practice based commissioning and the strategic commissioning role that the new Primary Care Trusts will be taking on. We had a number of stimulating and interesting presentations. It was an excellent plenary with many experiences and learning points being shared. My thanks to colleagues who presented and all who participated in the plenary. (full speech here)

[comstock]

but it would be totally ridiculous as a party, to be caught with our pants down

Looks like you already have been, Annabel

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17808877&method=full&siteid=62484&headline=having-it-toff--name_page.html

http://www.thisisswindon.co.uk/display.var.922696.0.mp_had_affair_while_wife_battled_cancer.php

(sorry, I'll leave via the drain!)