This morning's YouGov poll, published in the Daily Telegraph, is surely the final nail in the coffin of any speculation about Gordon Brown calling a snap general election early in the New Year.
After the Prime Minister bottled calling an election in the autumn of 2007, I have always taken the view that it would be a long Parliament with a general election not taking place until 2010.
I was further convinced of this when Alistair Darling predicted in the pre-Budget report that the economy would begin growing again in the third quarter of next year: most experts view this as a very optimistic forecast, but he made it nonetheless. As such, calling an election before next autumn would surely enable the Conservatives and the media to make the charge that Brown was cutting and running in advance of a longer than predicted recession. "What do you know that you're not telling us?" we would be entitled to ask.
All the same, with a seeming "Brown bounce" in the polls, there has been almost fevered speculation around Westminster over the last fortnight about the idea of Brown going to the country in the late winter or spring of 2009. But I would venture that this bounce has now come to an end.
Whilst it is always unwise to look at any one poll in isolation, a trend is beginning to emerge as far as the recent YouGov polls are concerned, with increasing Tory leads of 4%, 6% and now 7% being recorded over the last month.
And assuming that this trend continues as the economic news gets worse, I am more convinced than ever that the election is a long way off - a view shared by two political editors writing in this morning's papers.
Andrew Porter writes in the Telegraph:
"The Tories have talked themselves onto an election war footing, but if Mr Brown would not countenance one when a Telegraph poll put him 11 points head in September last year a seven point deficit is hardly the stuff that will embolden him."
Meanwhile, Andrew Grice - presumably writing before the figures of the latest poll emerged - states in the Independent:
"While it might boost Mr Brown's prospects to hold an election in mid-recession, he knows that calling one might boomerang. It could look like an attempt to exploit the downturn to extend his mandate, a dangerous act when people feel little real affection for any party... So talk of a snap February 2009 poll is wide of the mark... he knows the bounce will probably end soon. That is why he is unlikely to call an election in 2009."
Of course, it is right that CCHQ should be prepared to fight an election whenever it is called, but I think that those charged with running the campaign should now be able to enjoy a rather more relaxed Christmas.
Jonathan Isaby
It is highly unlikely that the economy will be recovering in the second half of 2009 and that will be clear by the autumn, when debt forecasts have to be revised upwards again. Also taxes start going up from January 2010. By Spring 2010 unemployment could be as high as 3 million and there's a significant risk that we will still be in recession technically. Brown would also be boxed in politically from autumn 2009.
With Peter Mandelson now in charge of political strategy, I would put money on there being a 2009 election (before May). The Tories' overall lead has fallen from over 20pc to their present levels so Labour has demonstrated its ability to make a strong electoral recovery.
The new economic strategy guarantees that the "do nothing" charge will be given even greater prominence and it is our weakest card.
Posted by: John Scott | December 20, 2008 at 09:25
John Scott, I disagree.
The 'doing something' party aren't doing the right things.
Only 5% of people said the VAT cut would make them want to go shopping and 76% said they'd rather government cut spending rather than borrow.
And they are doing precisely nothing to enable people to meet their mountainous debt obligations.
Once the public sees that Labour have wasted all the ammo firing at either nothing or the wroing targets the 'do something' party will look very foolish indeed.
Posted by: Mike | December 20, 2008 at 09:40
having read anthony wells brilliant sot on ukpolling report it would seem the do nothing attack is not working.
finally it appears that peoples feelings about government borrowing is beginning to filter through into the polls.
If i was brown (and thank god i am not) i would go for 2009 on a super june thursday as this presents the best oppurtunity to stop
a) a meltdown of county councils seats
b) a meltdown of european MEPS
c) My best chance of winning the election
any later and Labour are stuffed our message has to be 12 years of Labour and look at the country.
Posted by: Onthejob | December 20, 2008 at 10:36
I have to disagree Jonathan. Retail sales were up in November and if they continue that trend in December and January I would expect Brown to seize on that and use it to allege 'the first green shoots of recovery' and push for a mandate. Say something like 'look things are getting better; let me carry on the good work'.
As one of the commentors has already pointed out this is as likely to be as good as it gets for Labour. In 2010 the opposition will be able to focus minds much more clearly on the 2011 hikes in NIC's etc, in early 2009 I think they will still be a bit remote in peoples minds, so I really don't see any advantage to waiting.
If Mandleson wasn't around then you would possibly have more of a case because he is far more likely to be tactically aware of this than Brown would be on his own. Brown probably would like to wait until 2010 but I doubt Mandleson will want to; my best guess is that Brown is currently in two-minds with his natural instinct to wait but Mandleson pressing on the 'other mind' arguing for an early poll.
This is why I think we can see quite contradictory signs coming from the government...I think the possibility of a Spring (probably not Feb) 2009 election is still very much on the table.
Posted by: Darrell | December 20, 2008 at 10:42
I used to think that there would be an early election in 2009, because all the indicators are forecast to worsen for the UK during 2009 and into 2010. So best to cut and run with an early election.
But this presumes that Brown is in touch with reality. If he really is in his 'barking mad' zone, then he probably still believes that we are well placed and by 2010 we will be a strong economy again.
Posted by: CROWN | December 20, 2008 at 10:47
How often in the past have governments called elections in months other than May or June? I don't remember a February election in my lifetime.
Surely the cold weather will play a part in reducing turnout, something Labour don't really want at all.
I think June is a far more likely month to be calling an election.
Posted by: Andrew S | December 20, 2008 at 11:26
I suggest to Jonathan - and to all- that they have a look at the UK Polling Report's analysis of the polls in general. It attempts -and succeeds as far as I can can tell - to explain apparent contradictions.
Onthejob has already recommended it but it's on http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/
under the title "The abyss ahead of Gordon Brown…"
In sending it to my lists I comment "People are puzzled by the ever-worsening economic news combined with an improvement in Labour’s standing in the polls. This analysis from a highly respected source attempts to answer that conundrum and paint a possible scenario for at least the first half of 2009."
The analysis ends with "However, even if the economy does drag Labour’s support down again, it doesn’t follow its going to happen straight away, or indeed that Labour won’t rise further before economic reality hits home. If Labour do get closer to the Conservatives in the polls (or indeed overtake them) in the new year, then Gordon Brown really should call an election there and then.
Under the circumstances, he could win it."
Posted by: christina Speight | December 20, 2008 at 11:41
I suggest to Jonathan, and indeed to all, that they have a look at the UK Polling Report's analysis of the polls in general. It attempts -and succeeds as far as I can can tell - to explain apparent contradictions.
Onthejob has already pointed to the best analysis.
it's on http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ under the title "The abyss ahead of Gordon Brown…"
In sending it to my lists I comment "People are puzzled by the ever-worsening economic news combined with an improvement in Labour’s standing in the polls. This analysis from a highly respected source attempts to answer that conundrum and paint a possible scenario for at least the first half of 2009."
The analysis ends with "However, even if the economy does drag Labour’s support down again, it doesn’t follow its going to happen straight away, or indeed that Labour won’t rise further before economic reality hits home. If Labour do get closer to the Conservatives in the polls (or indeed overtake them) in the new year, then Gordon Brown really should call an election there and then.
Under the circumstances, he could win it."
Posted by: christina Speight | December 20, 2008 at 11:46
Andrew S - General Elections not in May or June since 1945 - Feb 1950, Oct 1951, Oct 1959, Oct 1964, March 1966, Feb 1974, Oct 1974. The Government suffered reverses in all these elections save Oct 1959, March 1966 and Oct 1974.
Brown is a very cautious man (despite throwing Prudence to wind) and a large number of his MPs in marginal seats will adopt the Macawber principle and will hope (as Major did in 1997) that by hanging on something will turn up to save them. If you believe your own rhetoric as Brown does, then by May 6th 2010 a grateful electorate will be able to see that Moses Brown has led us through the storm of the depression and is leading us to the bright sunlit uplands of the Promised Land.
Posted by: Nicholas Bennett | December 20, 2008 at 11:48
In a way, it doesn't really matter which faction turns out to be right in the end - early 2009 or as late as possible.
The vitally important thing is to be well prepared - shadow cabinet reshuffle, manifesto, candidates, funding all ready - for the possibility of an election from the end of February 2009 onwards.
We cannot afford to relax at all from now on.
Posted by: David Belchamber | December 20, 2008 at 12:01
I really wouldn't be too sure about this Jonathan! Wiser heads than mine are prepared to put money on it being February 2009!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | December 20, 2008 at 12:03
Thanks for the information! I'm assuming that aside from national emergencies the only reason an election is held in the colder months is for political advantage?
Posted by: Andrew S | December 20, 2008 at 12:05
Thanks for the information! I'm assuming that aside from national emergencies the only reason an election is held in the colder months is for political advantage?
Posted by: Andrew S | December 20, 2008 at 12:11
I don't think he'll call an election until June at least.
There were reports of senior labour officials not wanting to seem desperate and clinging on to power, so 2009 may be their desired year.
Anyway I must stop thinking about it.
Posted by: Andrew S | December 20, 2008 at 12:14
To be clear: Brown no longer calls the shots. Mandelson does. He is an election fighter, not a statesman, but thus far, he knows his job. He therefore knows that Labour can only win or minimise a Tory victory if it goes sooner rather than later, so the pressure will be on to cut and run. The question is, will it be February, May or June. Remember, Winter favours Tory voters, for some reason. If, on the other hand, left propaganda is failing - and the recent poll suggests that it is - than they will simply hang on and do as much left wing damage as possible. Look at the way they are using recession to destroy - where they can - private education.
Posted by: Simon Denis | December 20, 2008 at 12:22
If I was Brown i'd except the inevitable fact that this government is going to suffer reverses and just try and minimise the extent of that reverse...
Posted by: Darrell | December 20, 2008 at 12:23
I read Anthony Wells excellent piece last night and it highlights many of the uncertainties that the electorate feel about the economy and consequently about the Labour Government.
There are many reasonable arguments that can be made for an early election and indeed it maybe Labour's best shot. However, this is not really about Labours fortunes, it is about Gordon Browns. The idea that he will risk his political reputation for the sake of his party, which calling an early election would be, is questionable at best.
There is little evidence in recent years that the Labour Party is a greater priority to Brown than his own personal ambition and reputation.
Consequently, ever since the speculation about an early election started I have been more than sceptical. Why? Simply because Brown has committed to recovering the economy by the end of 2009. He has acted as if he were the economic saviour of the world (ridiculous as that maybe). He has put his reputation on the line.
Everything he stands for politically is based on his economic prowess and I now believe he has staked his and his parties political credibility and future on it. If he turns the economy round (I am dubious of that) he will be vindicated. If he doesn't he will be doomed to defeat.
Furthermore, he will use every trick in the Labour Spin Book to make the electorate believe that he has recovered the economy. The opposition parties need to be ready because the dodgy dossier will be nothing in comparison to the manipulation Brown will use to save his own bacon (hence the entry of Campbell, Mandelson & Draper).
Brown will go long and hope that things turn round and if they don't he will spin like a Whirling Dervish before calling a General Election!
Posted by: John Leonard | December 20, 2008 at 12:35
I think there are still good reasons for Labour to call a 2009 election.
One that might appeal to Mr Brown is not holding the baby if HMG has to admit to being broke/incompetent.
Posted by: Dave B | December 20, 2008 at 17:25
Well, Brown SHOULD call an election as soon as possible. It's in his interests. I just don't see how he will benefit by limping through the worst recession in memory for the next 12-18 months.
Posted by: Goldie | December 20, 2008 at 18:06
Yes me too. Britain and its government are going to suffer economic humiliation in the coming months. Brown's best chance is to have an election before everyone realises.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | December 20, 2008 at 18:55
I want Brown to call an election before the Irish vote on Lisbon 2.
Then Cameron will be tested about our referendum.
All other policy issues are as nothing alongside the need to leave the EU.
Posted by: Robert Eve | December 20, 2008 at 21:42
Of course Brown should go for February. He can still use the "do nothing" charge, Labour are as close in the polls as they've been for ages and the economy will get even worse in 09/10.
The question is, what do we do?
I say, let's hype up the talk of a 2009 election. We get on the news and say
"Gordon Brown is sensing his bungled budget and his spending spree aren't working, so he wants to go for an early election because he thinks he has more chance of winning than if he leaves it until the economy REALLY goes pear-shaped. He's hoping people won't yet realise wha a mess he's made and will vote him ack in"
We win-win either way here:
1) He calls the election and we say he's putting Labour ahead of the country and tell the public Gordon must know something bad is going to happen that's making him cut and run.
or...
2) There's no February election and we play the bottler card again, classic Autumn '78/ '07 (insert Labour bottle year here) playbook from us.
Again, we should be all over this like a rash. My uncle received a Labour election leaflet today, advertising space has been booked for January and Cameron has been pencilled in to see civil servants. Let's use this to set Brown another bottler-trap.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | December 20, 2008 at 22:00
John Leonard @ 12.35 - 'Furthermore, he will use every trick in the Labour Spin Book to make the electorate believe he has recovered the economy. The opposition parties need to be ready because the dodgy dossier will be nothing in comparison to the manipulation Brown will use to save his own bacon (hence the entry of Campbell, Mandelson and Draper).
I think that bleak paragraph, and indeed the rest of John Leonard's comment, reflect fairly accurately Brown's political egocentricity and ruthlessness. But what often goes hand-in-hand with that sort of character is a kind of blindness as to how that sort of person comes across to other people, like the general public. Obviously, somebody or other in the Cabinet must have realised this weakness, which was another reason for getting Lord Rumba back - and others. But gradually the public is beginning to 'wise-up', and like a snowball, the speed of the 'penny dropping' will increase in the next few months! Nothing will save any of them then! Even the unions will start (maybe HAVE already) start getting restive.....
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | December 21, 2008 at 00:37
I retain my prediction that we are looking at June 2009. But its all guesses of course.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | December 21, 2008 at 02:14
As I see it there are only two options for Golden Brown: May-June 2010 or Feb 2009. Nothing in the middle makes any sense at all. Labour face, I think
a) a rapidly deteriorating economy, with the £ in free-fall to (e.g.) E0.75 or lower,
b) rapidly rising real unemployment,
c) eventually IMF called in (see Dennis Healey 1976-7).
d) Increased social discontent with attacks on immigrants (of all types) for taking jobs - and featherbedded public sector employees could also find problems.
e) A rise in extremism and a subsequent loss of Labour support in its heartlands. (On Thursday the BNP came from nowhere to within 16 votes of Labour in a Cumbria CC by-election)
All these factors will kick in in the very near future ([e] is kicking in already] but will intensify when the redundancy notices are delivered in late Jan/early Feb, the hidden tax increases emerge, and holidays have to be cancelled even for those in work as the Costa Lotta becomes the Costa Impossible.
But at the moment GB is benefiting from a residual feelgood factor due to (a) Christmas and (b) The "Gordon's-done-something-for-us" syndrome among the Labour core vote
So in favour of going in early 2009 are:-
1. Labour support (again borne out by by-election results: these are real votes, not polls) is as high as it is going to get and will gradually, and increasingly sharply, decline
2. The boost of Christmas will hide the economic gloom for a short time
3. The November Budget fed Labour's gut instincts of class hatred and greed, so it may be that at the moment (and unlike the late summer and early Autumn) Labour is up for the fight
4. The recession must hit the public sector eventually as local authorities are forced to cut staff as a result of forced spending on wasteful Government projects and a popularity-buying cap of c4% on Council Tax increases
5. He can (and is) playing the do-nothing-party to the maximum effect (I have a Labour leaflet, already circulating, which contrasts Labour activity in this recession with claimed Tory inactivity in the 1992-4 recession)
6. Although the best chance for an early election might already have passed [the boost has peaked and may be declining, the economy is nosediving faster than anticipated, and winter elections are not thought to be good for the Left] there seems, almost invariably, to be a small swing back to the Govt during an election. We benefited from this in 1992 and even in the great MT victories of 1983 and 87 our position improved in the campaign. Even Callaghan came back from predictions of losing by 150 seats to holding us to a 44 majority.
7. Tactically, it is pragmatically certain that we would not gain a big majority in Jan/Feb and Brown might even hold us to a hung parliament. Then we would be faced as a minority/tiny majority Government with the task of sorting out the Augean stables. He can always hope that by-election reversals would destablise us and he could try to do to us what the Left in Canada is seeking to do to Stephen Harper.
8. Leaving it to 2010 could completely destroy the Labour Party.
In favour of waiting
1. He ++MAY++ be able to claim that there are green shoots of recovery
2. We ++MAY++ implode on Europe particularly if Lord Rumba tries to take us into the Euro
3. There is quite likely to be a terrorist atrocity heading up to the 9/11 scale as terrorists take advantage of St Obama. GB could try to use this as the Glasgow atrocity to present himself as the "I'm good in a crisis" leader
4. Cynically, he and Labour enjoy being in power and want to milk it as much as they can. While we might enjoy seeing Harriet Harperson, Bleary Hazel and the rest queueing up at the JobCentre (if they've left any around) they won't.
5. And if he waits he doesn't have to take a decision.
So, on balance, I think he will go in late Jan. A brutal, awful and depressing campaign fought with every dirty trick out of the Handbook. My gut feeling for the result is that we will be the largest party or even have a majority - but we are in for a very, very rough ride and we can expect to be back on the streets in October.
What fun.
Posted by: dcj | December 21, 2008 at 06:59
I read former MP Nicholas Bennett's list of Gen Elections and did a bit of research and came up with the following:-
1945 July Labour Landslide
1950 Feb Labour win but large losses
1951 Oct Conservative win
1955 May Conservative increase seats
1959 Oct Conservative Landslide
1964 Oct Labour win very narrowly
1966 Mar Labour Landslide
1970 June Conservative win
1974 Feb Labour win very narrowly
1974 Oct Labour increase seats
1979 May Conservatve win
1983 June Conservative Landslide
1987 June ditto small decrease seats
1992 April Conservative small maj
1997 May Labour Landslide
2001 June Labour Landslide
2005 May Labour win with decrease
So it isn't really that easy to determine a pattern from this. In former times an Autumn election may have favoured the Conservatives as it would be on old Register and Labour were not as good at Postal Votes etc. Now this is no longer the case and a Postal Vote is available to anyone as of right, I have one. The only advantage of a May election is that it can be held on the same day as the Locals in most years and if the Budget has been a give away then it usually has its effects in the pay received just before Polling Day.
So really I no longer think it matters what month a General Election is held as to what result is achieved.
Posted by: Steve Foley | December 21, 2008 at 20:03
Steve - for various reasons our vote comes out in the day and the Left (Labour/Libs) come out in the evening. I have seen this borne out at several counts- early votes are at the bottom of the ballot box (obviously) and when the boxes are inverted these come out first. They are usually ours (depending on ward, of course) In the top end of the ballot box are the Lab and Lib votes.
We know that people (ours and theirs) are reluctant to come out after dark, so you can see a big surge of Lab/Lib voters coming out between 5.30 - 8.00. In January it will be dark at 5.30 in the South, earlier in the north - and this will I think tend to discourage Labour voters. So I think GB might use this as an argument against January - but, as you say, they are pulling up on the collection of postal votes. Sometimes ethically.
Posted by: dcj | December 22, 2008 at 00:06
It has always been the accepted convention that Labour voters (by their very nature) are a bit fickle and lazy and so are less likely to turn out in bad weather or the dark, whereas our supporters have a greater sense of civic duty and will turn out come what may.
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | December 22, 2008 at 10:02
Some fascinating analysis and theories!
However, for me Brown just loves the job too much to risk it. Remember he waited from John Smith's death in '94 till last year to take the reins. He's not going to gamble that, especially with the Conservatives leading in every poll.
I have always found the recession led Brown bounce galling but know that it is a temporary phenomenon. Look at the outlook:
1. Things are going to get worse - much worse
2. Nothing he has done/will do will make things any better - giving rise to "you got us into this & have failed to put it right"
3. He's actually a backroom strategist NOT a front man - uncomfortable on the hustings
4. Cameron is at his best campaigning - is more attractive (very important), more articulate and is candidate for change and hope.
So expect an election as late as he can make it - May 2010.
Posted by: John (Northumberland) | December 22, 2008 at 11:40
Earlier comment - "If i was brown (and thank god i am not) i would go for 2009 on a super june thursday as this presents the best oppurtunity to stop".
Aside from the potential to confuse voters with so many elections, our agent seems to think Euro legislation stops countries having their national elections on same day as Euros, therefore a June 4 GE is not on.
Is this not true?
Posted by: Bill Melotti | December 22, 2008 at 12:38
Bill Melotti, 12:38: No, that is not correct. Countries frequently combine national elections with Euro elections, Luxembourg will certainly be doing so in 2009 (although I don't know if they're alone).
Posted by: John Smith | December 23, 2008 at 00:18
Indeed, the current complete list of elections on the same day as the Euro-election:
Parliamentary: Bulgaria and Luxembourg
Local: Britain and Ireland
Referendum: Denmark (equal primogeniture)
Posted by: John Smith | December 23, 2008 at 00:28