A General Election: My boldest prediction is that Gordon Brown will call a honeymoon election soon after he becomes Prime Minister. In 2007 he will have the benefit of lots of media attention and will announce a raft of measures to clean up British politics and fight crime. He'll go to the country on the basis of wanting his own mandate and polling suggests that the public won't object to him holding a General Election only two years after the last. He'll make a virtue out of the fact that his indebted party will be outspent by the Tories. Many pundits think Brown is too cautious to go for an early election - and they may well be right - but the economic and political environment is unlikely to get better for Labour in 2008 or 2009. Unless Mr Brown visits Her Majesty to request a dissolution of parliament in the first half of the year - a very unlikely scenario - he'll probably miss the opportunity, however, to fight the election on the current boundaries which are friendlier to Labour and, of course, Mr Brown's great ally, Ed Balls (whose seat will be abolished).
Conservative Party: David Cameron will lead a more balanced conservative ticket. He'll focus a lot more on crime, security and waste of taxpayers' money but without ditching his gentler, greener conservatism. David Davis will enjoy a more prominent role throughout the year and he'll be charged with keeping the right of the party onside.
The LibDems: Ming will continue to limp on as his party's leader. A group of Tories will start to organise against the possibility of Labour-LibDem cooperation in the event of a hung parliament.
Scotland: The Scottish Nationalists will do very well in the Holyrood elections but Scotland's Tories will not join a Tartan-Green-Blue coalition.
Islamism: British politicians are catching up with the electorate in terms of concern about the hostility of a sizeable minority of British Muslims to their host country. How to deal with this hostility will become a major topic of national debate and there'll be great effort invested in promoting moderate Muslim leaders.
Direct democracy: The internet's influence on UK politics will explode in ways that are difficult to predict but e-surgent campaigns for and against candidates, ministers and legislation will become powerful players.
USA: Bush won't go green in a big way as The Economist is predicting. He'll focus on compassionate conservatism again with lots of initiatives focused on disease and poverty in Africa. The race for the Republican nomination for US President will be between John McCain and an ascendant Rudy Giuliani - who may shrewdly announce a socially conservative running mate at the start of the primary process. Hillary Clinton will enjoy a relatively easy ride towards the Democrat nomination but there'll be excited talk of a Clinton-led dream ticket with Barack Obama.
Europe: Our continent will not enjoy any real leadership. Chirac and Blair will be exiting the stage and Merkel and Prodi lead governments that are too divided.
Australia: John Howard will face a very tough re-election battle against the new Australian Labor leader, Kevin Rudd. Should Howard lose it will be devastating for his party - already out of office throughout the nation's states.
Global challenges: Politicians will continue to spotlight their concern for global warming and other problems - that they can do little about - and ignore problems that, although very difficult, demand more urgent action. I think of Iraq's need for more troops, Darfur's need for security and the deployment of missile defence systems to protect the world from nuclear proliferation.
Maybe Congress will go "green" and slap 30-50% duty on Chinese goods so the world's resources don't get turned into cheap low-quality manufactured junk
Posted by: ToMTom | January 01, 2007 at 11:33
Are you sure the Labour Party could afford a General Election in 2007?
Posted by: Voice from the South West | January 01, 2007 at 12:32
Who do you think would win a general election if one was held this year?
Would david cameron be forced to resign as leader of the party, if he lost a GE this year?
Posted by: AnnaK | January 01, 2007 at 13:17
I notice with regret that Scotland gets a mention but Wales does not, we are here you know.
Posted by: Dick Wishart | January 01, 2007 at 13:28
My counter-prediciton is that Gordon Brown will not call a General Election in 2007. I predict that Labour will do badly in the local elections in May and that Brown will face a challenge from John Reid who will run him close.
I predict that Ming Campbell will fall during the year and be replaced with a much younger leader.
I fear that terrorism at home will be the main problem, with further outrages on the cards. This will dominate other issues.
Posted by: Derek | January 01, 2007 at 13:50
No defections? I predict a good year for the Welsh Conservatives.
Posted by: Justin Hinchcliffe | January 01, 2007 at 13:58
"I notice with regret that Scotland gets a mention but Wales does not, we are here you know."
I noticed that too, although I suppose we could be grateful they weren't lumped in together for some sweeping generalisations based purely on Scotland like that thread a couple of weeks ago!
In fairness to the Editor though, it's hardly his fault that the unbalanced devolution muddle introduced by the Labour government has rendered Wales forgotten and neglected in a constitutional no-man's-land.
FWIW, I predict interesting times ahead in Welsh politics this year - Labour will lose seats at the national assembly elections but will cling to power thanks to a dodgy backroom deal with the Liberal Democrats; this, however, will not be enough for Lembit 'Casanova' Opik to keep his job as poor results elsewhere will force change at the Liberal Democrats' top table, providing them with the excuse they need to finally ditch him; the Conservatives will perform well, but Nick Bourne may decide to bow out on a high note; Plaid will remain largely off the radar but can expect to benefit from Labour's woes.
Posted by: Daniel VA | January 01, 2007 at 14:11
Voice from the South West: Are you sure the Labour Party could afford a General Election in 2007?
As I wrote, I think Brown would make a virtue of running a vanilla campaign. He'd say that the days of the Labour Party seeking big money for an election were over. As suggested in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph it would all be part of his return to a humbler, more austere politics. By giving them a few carrots the unions would fund the basic expenses that the Labour campaign would need.
AnnaK: Who do you think would win a general election if one was held this year?
I don't know the answer to that question! The belief behind my prediction is simply that Brown's best chance of maximising the Labour vote is to go during his honeymoon period. If he doesn't it will be because he wants to be PM for two/three years more than he wants to win an Election.
Dick Wishart: "I notice with regret that Scotland gets a mention but Wales does not, we are here you know."
Sorry, Dick. I wasn't trying to ignore Wales but I think the main story will be in Scotland because of expected SNP advances. Over the next few months I will try and increase ConservativeHome's coverage of Wales...
Posted by: Editor | January 01, 2007 at 14:18
I don't think that Brown will call a snap GE in 2007. He will not get the poll bounce which everyone assumes. I think that oddly enough that Labour's poll rating just now are fluctuating in the low to mid 30's because of a residue of support from centre ground voter's sticking with Blair.
The Welsh/Scottish/local elections will be bad for Labour and Brown will not be prepared to gamble away the keys to No10 after waiting so long to achieve his ambition.
As to the idea that he might make a virtue out of a Labour campaign run on a shoe string, that would be ironic considering he has been the man who happily spent the millions raised by Blair in previous campaigns.
Posted by: Scotty | January 01, 2007 at 15:22
"Maybe Congress will go "green" and slap 30-50% duty on Chinese goods so the world's resources don't get turned into cheap low-quality manufactured junk"
If that's what people want to buy then why stop them? The point about capitalism and free trade is that it gives consumers what they want. We all know how things go wrong when governments think they know best.
Posted by: Richard | January 01, 2007 at 15:50
My prediction as posted on my blog "Ironies Too" is that Blair will remain in Downing Street ...... will George W. take some action against the Iranian President possibly similar to that of RR against Gaddaffi?
Afghanistan looks like becoming increasingly messy as well, all grist to the mill of a claim for Prime Ministerial continuity!!
Posted by: Martin Cole | January 01, 2007 at 15:53
My prediction is that the Tory party will find it impossible to continue not talking about the EU, because the Germans have an ambitious programme including resurrection of the Constitution. The website of the German Presidency is here:
http://www.eu2007.de/en/index.html
with a message from Frau Merkel and a 35 page work plan. Replace "Germany" and "the Presidency" with "my government" throughout that document and it's not unlike the Queen's Speech. Of course, these are only the plans they're prepared to reveal to "the citizens"; I expect other information about real German intentions will appear from time to time on this website run by German journalists:
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/art/
Posted by: Denis Cooper | January 01, 2007 at 16:01
I agree with you about Brown and an election in 2007 but it is the possibility of a Lib-Lab pact that I really fear. In the event of a hung parliament (perhaps the most likely scenario) would Brown have the balls to refuse a Lib Dem demand for P.R.? Perhaps not.
You know far more about American politics than I,but would the Democrats really be that stupid and choose Hillary? Every poll I've seen has her scoring badly outside Democrat heartlands. What about John Kerrys running mate isn't he a contender?
Posted by: malcolm | January 01, 2007 at 16:15
Yes, Malcolm, John Edwards is a contender. From tomorrow there'll be a daily post on BritainAndAmerica.com and there'll be oodles of US elections coverage on it!
As for LibDem pacts and PR I wouldn't rule out the Tories doing some sort of deal. The LibDems might press for PR in local government but the Tories could, I forsee, agree to PR for an elected House of Lords. PR for the House of Commons would be too much. I hope so anyway!
Posted by: Editor | January 01, 2007 at 16:44
According to Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report, the new boundaries will be in force from April or May.
That surely means that it will be impossible for The Dour One to call an election using the old boundaries, since he won't become leader until June or July.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | January 01, 2007 at 17:29
I thought Nulab were "virtually" bankrupt. How do they fund an election? The country won't stand for the Unions bankrolling them, as every union member is not neccessarily a labour voter. Then, do the unions loan, or give? What will be the fall out from that? Arnt they in enough trouble with queasy loans/donations?
What makes you think Bliar will go before Parliament breaks up for the summer?? He has it in him to ignore the absolutely bleeding obvious you know!
Brown wont/cant fight for his power. He has to wait for Bliar to step down.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | January 01, 2007 at 17:34
Having looked into my crystal ball here are my exclusive predictions for 2006:
Gordon Brown to become Prime Minister in June.
David Cameron to continue his superb work as Conservative Leader.
Ming Campbell to stay Leader of the Lib Dems.
Hilary Benn becomes Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.
Alistair Darling to become the new Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Alex Salmond becomes Scotland’s First Minister. Alex Salmond.
Lembit Opik to be dropped as LD party spokesman on Wales and Northern Ireland.
Nobody charged over the “Cash for Honours” investigation prompting charges of one law for MP's and another for citizens.
The Conservative Party to continue with the “A-List” in its current form.
Conservatives to gain at least 350 seats more in the May Local Elections.
Lincoln MP Gillian Merron admits she is a lesbian.
Posted by: Geoffrey G Brooking | January 01, 2007 at 17:37
That's 90% right Andy. I've spoken to the great Mr Wells and he tells me that the Government by every convention should ensure that the new boundaries are in place during the first half of this year but it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that there will be attempts at delay from this disreputable Government. Our first class Chief Whip, Patrick McLoughlin, is already on the case and pressing Labour to implement the boundary reviews on a conventional time scale. Any delay by Labour should really set the alarm bells ringing.
Posted by: Editor | January 01, 2007 at 17:39
That Rose Wine is getting to me.
I meant 2007 in my post!
Posted by: Geoffrey G Brooking | January 01, 2007 at 18:06
"British politicians are catching up with the electorate in terms of concern about the hostility of a sizeable minority of British Muslims to their host country".
Except britain is not the host country its their home.
Posted by: ealingnorth | January 01, 2007 at 18:07
I certainly hope you're over 'Cash For Honours' Geoffrey. Perhaps Blair should ask Lord Hutton to launch an enquiry into this.If he does I predict a Dukedom for Hutton.
Posted by: malcolm | January 01, 2007 at 18:10
That should of course have read 'I hope you're WRONG about Cash for Honours Geoffrey'.I can't even blame alchohol,haven't had a drink today.
Posted by: malcolm | January 01, 2007 at 18:13
(1) Cameron will go further down the cul-de-sac of Blue Labour policy and manage to alienate even more of we mere members.
(2) A major funding crisis will develop at Central Office in March when they realise that droves of members have failed to renew their subscriptions, having seen the way the Party has been emasculated and labourised by Cameron over the last year. Many others will be unable / unwilling to pay the increased £25 sub.
(3) The Cameron Party will ditch its £50,000 donation limit requirement and sell out the public by supporting full public funding of political parties - to bale itself out of the pit it has dug for itself by over-spending and mismanaging our hard-raised money.
Posted by: Tam Large | January 01, 2007 at 18:40
You could be right about Brown going for an election, Editor.
As far as the public are concerned Brown has been a successful Chancellor. Those of us who now the truth are in a small minority and we are reduced to predicting a dire future that has yet to come.
Personally I have done rather well under (not necessarily because of) Brown and like most middle-class professionals - including Cameron's yuppie targets - I employ an accountant to ensure that any increase in my tax liabilities is well outstripped by increases in my income and capital gains.
The drivel about who would win a beauty contest (answer - neither) between Cameron and Brown is beneath contempt.
As I've said repeatedly, enthusiasm for Cameron is shallow. If asked most people would say they know next to nothing about him except, possibly, one or two ill-advised catchphrases like "hug a hoodie"
They believe they know Brown, though, and they think he's a heavyweight.
So a 2007 election would spell curtains for Cameron and like many others I would then expect him to follow the example of his distinguished predecessors and resign.
Posted by: Tory Loyalist | January 01, 2007 at 19:54
Tory Loyalist is a bit of a misnomer, I think.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | January 01, 2007 at 20:29
Tory Loyalist is a bit of a misnomer, I think.
___________________________________________________________________
Really Andy? Please do explain.
My loyalty is to Tory ideals and Tory people, notably Margaret Thatcher.
It does not encompass the Champagne Socialist Cameron.
Posted by: Tory Loyalist | January 01, 2007 at 20:35
I agree that Brown will call an election.
Brown's best chance of a win is if he is able to call the GE at the same time as the May local/assembly elections.
If he calls a GE after May he will fight it with up to 20% fewer councillors, maybe minority govt in Wales and possibly out of power in Scotland. He could also boost the chances of his councillors and assembly members, if the GE is at the same time. On top of this are the advantages of fighting on the old boundaries.
But Brown has to first remove Blair and unless Blair announces by early Feb that he is standing down then the chances of a May GE are gone. The next 4 to 5 weeks could decide Brown's fate.
Regarding finances, Labour's just get worse as each year goes by, I am sure Gordon has lined up some friends and believes he can twist more out of the unions.
Posted by: HF | January 01, 2007 at 21:14
I fear the UKIP trolls who hope there's an early election so Cameron has to resign if he loses will be very disappointed.
Even if there's an early election (which I doubt because the whole point of having an early election is that no-one's prepared for it, but everyone will be this time) and Cameron loses, I would be extremely surprised if he was to resign, especially if we made gains (very likely).
This would be the right strategy. We can't keep changing leaders every couple of years
Posted by: John | January 01, 2007 at 22:20
There are Labour backbenchers who are worried about holding on to their seats; if there is an early election, they could lose not only their seats but a lot of their pension.
So they do not want an early election, because they want to beef up their already not-inconsiderable pension pot. And the word is that there are enough of them to make life very difficult for Brown unless he promises, before becoming the next Beloved Leader, to go full term.
Posted by: sjm | January 01, 2007 at 23:03
Things will continue being a bit up and down for the government - I expect Tony Blair will soon announce when he is resigning the Labour leadership and that that will probably leave a short time lag between a new leader being elected and him going as Prime Minister but he will re-affirm that he is going as Prime Minister probably in June or July. I think probably February as leader, Gordon Brown will present his last budget which will be aimed at Labour members and Trade Unions and when elected, while initially Tony Blair will remain PM, Gordon Brown will be allowed to decide the Local Election campaign - the Liberal Democrats will make net losses and Labour will stay the same or met net gains, the Conservatives will make net gains. In Wales Labour could regain it's majority, in Scotland Labour will recover much of it's support and narrowly come ahead of the SNP and continue the Coalition Administration. I hate to say it but I think the DUP will come to an arrangement with Sinn Fein and Ian Paisley Snr will be First Minister.
Tony Blair and John Prescott will leave the government, I would expect Margaret Beckett to announce her retirement and probably Jack Straw - Dawn Primarolo new President of the Board of Trade, Harriet Harman probably Deputy Leader and probably back in the cabinet, Alastair Darling Chancellor of the Exhequer.
Prime Minister & Labour leader: Gordon Brown
First Secretary of State, Deputy Leader & Lord Chancellor: Harriet Harman
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alastair Darling
Foreign Secretary: Peter Hain
Home Secretary: John Reid
Leader of the House of Commons: Alan Johnson
Leader of the House of Lords: Baroness Amos
Communities and Local Government Secretary: Hilary Benn
Culture Secretary: Tessa Jowell
Defence Secretary: Des Browne
Education Secretary: Patricia Hewitt
Environment Secretary: Ed Milliband
International Development Secretary: John Cruddas
Trade & Industry Secretary: Dawn Primarolo
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Balls
Transport Secretary: Douglas Alexander
Labour Chairman: Hazel Blears
Health Secretary: Stephen Timms
Work & Pensions Secretary: John Hutton
Northern Ireland & Wales: Geoff Hoon
Cabinet Office Minister: Caroline Flint
Chief Whip: Nick Brown
Menzies Campbell will stagger on with no one really wanting the job of Liberal Democrat leader.
Speculation about an early election will continue with late speculation switching to a possible 2008 General Election although this too will be wrong.
Gordon Brown will announce that there is no need for an early General Election because he is part of New Labour and it was New Labour who were voted in in the past 3 General Election.
Labour
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 02, 2007 at 00:39
Perversely, the dire financial position of the Labour Party is actually an argument for an early general election. Or it should be. To balance their books they'll have to lay off staff. Better to do that after a GE than before it, and Brown strikes me as the sort of person who would rather work his staff into the ground and then fire them. Cameron is paying far less to borrow than Labour are, and so a long war suits him better.
Posted by: William Norton | January 02, 2007 at 09:19
Hi
Dire was the financial position of the Tory Party until recently. Even 32 Smith Square had to go.
How can we be sure that we're ready to smash Labour this year?
Posted by: Downsize the NHS | January 02, 2007 at 12:11
The one thing in Labour's favour at the moment is the slightly strange fact - which a lot of people seem to have missed - that the opinion polls are actually showing the Labour vote holding up quite well.
Because the Labour vote fell more than expected at the last election, from 42% to 36%, it means that they don't have as far to fall at the next election as some people assume.
Most opinion polls are showing them on at least 33%, which is only a 3% drop in support. That's not a huge drop - certainly not one which would guarantee a change in government.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | January 02, 2007 at 12:13
Gordon Brown is looking to get Labour re-elected with at least the same majority as now if not more and that is not going to happen before 2009 so an election will not occur before then, an early election would benefit David Cameron as the Conservatives would be likely to make a sizeable advance in an election in 2007 or 2008, if the Conservatives were to get slightly more votes than Labour then he could claim to have won in popular support even if Labour scraped a majority and a minority or low majority Labour government might struggle to get it's agenda through - it would leave a higher baseline for him to gain more support, not sure how Menzies Campbell would view an early General Election - his hope might be that facing a policy lite Conservative Party and a Labour Government that appeared to be cutting and running that perhaps the Liberal Democrats could get a major boost and perhaps even improve on 2005, a Liberal Democrat leader whose party had just got a quarter or more of the vote and perhaps 100 seats might be able to demand a full equal coalition and Menzies Campbell could then retire shortly before the following General Election remembered as the man who took the Liberal Democrats to their strongest position since the early 1920's - for these reasons a General Election will not happen in 2007.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 02, 2007 at 12:14
Hi
Failure will be the reward of the Conservatives unless we put clear blue water between ourselves and the reds.
Let's start by breaking up the creaking state monopoly and returning health freedom to the people.
Conservatives believe in freedom of choice and that means small government and a NHS reduced to manageable size
Let's bring in a flat rate tax also
Posted by: Downsize the NHS | January 02, 2007 at 12:21
Because the Labour vote fell more than expected at the last election, from 42% to 36%, it means that they don't have as far to fall at the next election as some people assume.
Percentagewise Labour's vote fell much more than in 2001, but actually the total vote didn't fall nearly as much as in 2001 - turnout was slightly up. It doesn't follow though that because there was a sharper drop in the percentage vote than expected that how far they could fall is less, in fact the faster a partys support falls the faster it is likely to go on falling, what can be said was that there had been a sharp fall in Labour support in 2003 & 2004 but there had been a slight recovery in the runup to the General Election, since there has been a bit of a fall although Labour has perhaps been getting back many people who had been annoyed with them over the War in Afghanistan and or War in Iraq including many Muslims and this has largely offset loss of support for other reasons and improved their prospects for 2009 but it is mid-term in a third successive parliament in which they have been in government so there will be more difficulties for them to come.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 02, 2007 at 12:23
But Brown has to first remove Blair and unless Blair announces by early Feb that he is standing down then the chances of a May GE are gone. The next 4 to 5 weeks could decide Brown's fate.
Nobody in the Labour PLP is going to move against Tony Blair unless he starts going outside the timetable he set, if Gordon Brown did so in coming weeks then his supporters would abandon him and either back Alastair Darling, Patricia Hewitt, David Milliband or even Ed Balls for leader at this stage. Many Labour candidates have been chosen anyway for the new boundaries so a May General Election would throw Labour into chaos as much as every other party.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 02, 2007 at 12:39
When I said Labour don't have as far to fall at the next election, that was based on the fact that the core Labour vote at present is about 32% or 33%. I don't think they would go below that unless they had a truly disastrous election campaign.
The only time Labour has polled less than 32% since 1945 was of course in 1983 under Michael Foot's lousy leadership.
Posted by: Andy Stidwill | January 02, 2007 at 13:39
Prime Minister & Labour Leader: Gordon Brown
Deputy Leader & Lord Chancellor: Hilary Benn
Chancellor of the Exchequer: Alastair Darling
Foreign Secretary: John Reid (To keep him happy)
Home Secretary: Alan Johnson
Leader of the House of Commons: Harriet Harman
Leader of the House of Lords: Baroness Amos
Communities and Local Government Secretary: Harriet Harman
Culture Secretary: Stephen Ladyman
Defence Secretary: Des Brown
Education Secretary: David Milliband
Environment Secretary: Tessa Joweel
International Development Secretary: Caroline Flint
Trade & Industry Secretary: Nick Brown
Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Ed Balls
Transport Secretary: Douglas Alexander
Labour Chairman: John Cruddas
Health Secretary: Ruth Kelly
Work & Pensions Secretary: John Hutton
Northern Ireland & Wales: Geoff Hoon
Cabinet Office Minister: David Lammy
Posted by: Geoffrey G Brooking | January 02, 2007 at 17:13
There isn't an absolutely definite date yet that Blair has agreed to go by, is there? From what the newspapers seem to be saying he has only agreed to a non-specific date? One has to remember the absolutely dizzy height from which he is falling, after all until so recently he was presidentially whizzing around the world, making 'wise' pronouncements (in his eyes anyway), and at one stage at least he really seemed to see himself as 'President-in-all-but-name'. Well the press moved on a long time ago, and people like ourselves and others showed the holes in all the useless policies, BUT does Mr. Blair ever get to know about all the ferment? I seriously doubt that until very recently he was informed as to the degree of illwill around the country. Its only when people march that his sycophants can't hide it from him. And there will be more marches if things deteriorate now that thousands more hungry for the 'good life' start poring into this country.
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | January 02, 2007 at 21:50
On your US predictions, the fond belief that Rudi Giuliani will be a strong Republican contender receives a more cautious assessment in the Telegraph today. He will have trouble fund-raising, his New York credentials could be a disadvantage against the senator from New York, and his liberalism, whilst appealing to metropolitan America, will put off most Republican primary voters. It looks like Romney or McCain after all!
Posted by: Giles | January 03, 2007 at 13:57
There isn't an absolutely definite date yet that Blair has agreed to go by, is there? From what the newspapers seem to be saying he has only agreed to a non-specific date?
He agreed to go within 12 months and that he would not be Prime Minister by the 2007 TUC and Labour Party conferences - this means that he will go as Prime Minister by early September 2007.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 03, 2007 at 14:57
He also said that he would stand down as Labour leader in time for the new leader to become Prime Minister before those events - it takes 2 months for a leadership election which means that at the latest he would stand down as Labour leader at the end of June 2006, although if complications were to occur it could take longer - I'm sure he has both dates for him to go as leader and as Prime Minister in his mind and that probably there will be more than the minimum time neccessary between these, he will probably want to avoid a Late Summer Labour leadership election as many people will be on holiday.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 03, 2007 at 15:01
I don't think Gordon Brown will call an early election unless he really believes he can win. The Tories would make a big mistake in underestimating him. What really determines elections is the state of the economy, quality of public services etc.
The economy could experience an upturn in the next 2-3 years, interest rates could be cut, health,education, public transport etc may improve and Brown could have a boost in the polls.
People can paint him as a dour, old-style socialist out of touch with Middle England but he is very smart, has a formidable intellect and may impress as a PM far more than people realise.
Cameron's poll ratings are unexceptional when you consider that the government is unpopular. When the Tories were in trouble in the late 80s and early 90s Labour freqeuntly had a poll lead of 20 per cent. The tories in some polls have only been 1-2 points ahead of labour! He is going to have to focus more on things like tax if he is to improve his poll lead.
Cameron versus Brown will be a fascinating contest. Whatever one may think about Brown, he does have principles like Mrs Thatcher had (Dave is vague by comparison), believes strongly in the work ethic (Cameron doesn't, he thinks quality of life is more important) and is a very serious, heavyweight politician. Underestimate him at your peril!
Posted by: Richard Woolley | January 04, 2007 at 10:09
The only time Labour has polled less than 32% since 1945 was of course in 1983 under Michael Foot's lousy leadership.
Actually in 1987 they only got 30.5% of the vote, turnout of supporters on all sides can make a big effect to the percentages that the parties get - indeed in 1983 Labour actually got a far higher percentage vote than they would have got if people had thought they might win because a lot of Conservative supporters didn't vote, turnout was far lower than in 1979 or 1987, equally in the past 2 elections the Conservative vote has been so low in actual numbers that if Labour supporters had turned up in strength it would have been an even bigger margin, if the opposition vote coalesced around the Conservative Party and Labour members believed Labour was going to win so they didn't turn out and they dropped below 9 million votes again then Labour could easily be down in terms of the popular vote to less than 30%, I don't think that will happen but it would be one thing that could lead to a surprise victory for the Conservatives.
A lot of people still vote Labour in many constituencies because they think that the Liberal Democrats can't win there, a rival party coming up as the Liberals did in 1974 and the Alliance did in the 1980's can have a big effect on the vote of parties that appear to be very secure, if anything though the Liberal Democrats are going well down and most of the supporters they have attracted since 1997 were from Labour, if the Liberal Democrats had continued to rise then the Labour Party would lose it's majority and even on a third of the vote the Conservatives could suddenly make huge gains from Labour - the gains by the Liberal Democrats in 2005 were based on their exploitation of the issue of the War in Iraq and was always going to be difficult for them to sustain.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | January 05, 2007 at 00:46