The Tories are heading for a landslide victory

The second Brown bounce is well and truly over according to opinion polls. The punters have turned more strongly against Gordon Brown than at any time since Tony Blair left Downing Street.  Twittering yesterday I've gone on the record predicting a Tory majority of 100.

And the news just keeps getting worse and worse for Gordon Brown...

• In an echo of the cash-for-questions row that helped bring John Major down we learn this morning that "Labour peers are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients, a Sunday Times investigation has found."
• Meanwhile The Observer puts a price tag on the recession: "Every taxpayer in the country has lost almost £40,000 since the onset of the credit crunch, as plunging house prices and the savage sell-off in stock markets have obliterated £1.2 trillion of Britain's national wealth."
• The News of the World makes it more personal: "The average value of houses and flats is falling by £764 a week as prices continue to nosedive—yet the average pay packet is £479."

This is all deadly stuff for Brown.  He has thrown the taxpayers' kitchen sink at the recession but missed.  He's twice bottled the chance of an early election and he'll now head to the country with Britain mired in the worst recession of the developed world and voters facing big tax rises to pay off his eye-watering levels of borrowing.  His key lieutenants still lack any idea of how to sensibly attack David Cameron.  The reputation of David Miliband - the man once tipped as his party's saviour - is sinking faster than sterling.  Labour's misrule will end with a landslide defeat.

Of course there is no room for complacency and I see no signs of complacency in the Tory team.  The reshuffle produced a sharper team.  Eric Pickles is redoubling efforts against the Liberal Democrats.  I understand that candidates in target seats are about to face a new, tougher management regime.

I write all of this - not, I hope, for indulgent reasons - but because it should have implications for how the Conservatives conduct themselves from now on.  The Tory leadership cannot and should not, of course, take one single vote for granted but it must not repeat the mistakes of Tony Blair and arrive in Whitehall so ill-prepared.  Here are four immediate thoughts on behaviours that should characterise a 'government-ready' frontbench:

• No rushed policies. There is no need to make announcements that aren't thoroughly thought-through.  I'm thinking of badly-received schemes like the employment subsidy.
• The work of Francis Maude's preparation-for-government unit needs beefing up.  Does it have enough resources?  Just before Christmas one of the most senior members of the shadow cabinet told me that he had had no significant engagement with Mr Maude's team.  The success of this unit will have a big influence on our first term performance as a government.
• We need to think of using the likes of Peter Lilley, Stephen Dorrell, Michael Howard, John Redwood and others in government. We have been out of office for many years; as Labour had been in 1997.  People who have run Whitehall departments should be used to help new ministers with zero Whitehall experience.
• A relentless focus on a long-term vision for Britain's economic future. See here.

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[DCMX]

Andy Marr has just begun his programme saying WITHOUT QUALIFICATION that the country is going down the tubes.

It must be over for NuLab.

[Sally Roberts]

Very good news - momentum is gathering but we've got to keep up the pressure.

[Oberon Houston]

Mmm, Marr is interviewing Ken just now and worrying the Euro thing to death. Glad to see Ken has reasonable response. Past dissagreements, bigger picture puts UK policy far in front.

Onto Tims post, I think the second Brown bounce was actually a good thing. The record polling before it was heady stuff and I was worried it would lead to mistakes and possibly even worse. I feel we are much more sober now, and thats how we need to be all the way through.

[liz kemp]

A serious question
Is there any possible way for Brown to legitimately postpone a GE after 5 years?
Liz Kemp

[Oberon Houston]

No, there would need to be a revolution with the support of the Army. Don't see that on the cards.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

DOWN with Tweedledum!

VOTE Tweedledee, for:

INHERITED-WEALTH, inexperienced, decision-makers who have been completely exposed!

SUBORDINATION of Parliament!

NO tax cuts!

NO spending cuts!

CHUMMY relationship with 'bonus-driven' bankers!

ISRAELI foreign policy!

NO Grammar schools for parents who can't pay!

BANKRUPTCY for the Middle class!

NO income for pensioners or savers!

COLLAPSE of public finances!

DESTRUCTION of incentives for private work!

DISGRACE and national failure!

Tweedledee, Notting Hill and the Buller for ever!

Well done on your excellent poll results David.

[StevenAdams]

Liz: no.

[StevenAdams]

You can tell Mayhew us in the house when the ugly stench of anger, envy and impotence fills the air.

[StevenAdams]

*is in the house

[Tim Montgomerie]

Back on the subject of the thread now please.

[Steve Foley]

The one thing to avoid is complacency. Whilst it is heartening to the troops to have a large opinion poll lead this can result in people slacking off and the mentality of "We're gonna win" as was shown by Kinnock in 1992 - to his cost!

Opinion Poll leads can change rapidly. The first General Election I was involved with was in 1970 and I can well recall the smug faces of Jenkins, Healey, Wilson, Callaghan etc on the TV a few days before Polling Day when they had an average 12% lead over Ted Heath's Tories. In the event of course as the results came in with Gloucester being taken from Jack Diamond by Sally Oppenheim being the first Tory gain from Labour, their faces sunk into a deep gloom, the unthinkable had happened, Ted Heath and the Conservatives had won.

It would be helpful to have a few parliamentary by-elections to test the waters especially in Labour Marginals to verify the accuracy of the Polls but I assume we will need to wait till the County Council Elections and the Euros later this year to have something tangible to work with.

[eugene]

Far too optimistic. Gee- a few weeks back, zanulabour nearly got in front based on the worst failure since the Winter of Discontent.

The Conservatives need to keep up the pressure but don't once believe we have a landslide until it happens.

[m dowding]

The one thing to avoid is complacency. Whilst it is heartening to the troops to have a large opinion poll lead this can result in people slacking off and the mentality of "We're gonna win" as was shown by Kinnock in 1992 - to his cost!

Right on, Steve, never forget "The fat lady" still has to sing!

[Malcolm Dunn]

Clarke handled Marr well. It's easy to see how every interview is going to go with him. More than half will be devoted to Europe.
Clegg better than Clarke though on attitude to the sleaze allegations in the Lords.
Clegg seemed to reflect the anger felt toward sleazy politicians, Clarke didn't.
Personally I feel that if these guys are guilty they shouldn't have to make a meaningless apology as Peter Hain will have to, thewy should do some time in prison where they can reflect on their corruption.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Sorry wrong thread. Meant to post on the Clarke thread.

[Steve Foley]

AFAIK the only time a scheduled General Election can be cancelled would be in time of a very serious national emergency such as a war. Indeed there should have been a General Election in 1940 but as we had something a bit more serious to be worried about, WW2 and the imminent threat of Nazi Invasion it was cancelled until the war was over and we all know the result in 1945.

The 2001 General Election was postponed for one month owing to the national Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak but it was still held with hardly any change to the Labour Majority - a poor result for the Conservatives then led by William Hague .

I don't think even Gordon Brown is stupid enough to pull the stunt of the country being in such a serious economic situation as to require the 2010 General Election to be suspended.

[Conspiracy]

Should we now begin to behave like Conservatives rather than BluLabour?

[Yet Another Anon]

It would be helpful to have a few parliamentary by-elections to test the waters especially in Labour Marginals to verify the accuracy of the Polls but I assume we will need to wait till the County Council Elections and the Euros later this year to have something tangible to work with.
Opinion polls on voting intention are unreliable, they have given false impressions many times in the past of what public opinion was, frequently reflecting what people think those asking the question want to hear. Neil Kinnock was never going to be Prime Minister, in 1986 he had a chance to derail Margaret Thatcher over Westland and failed, but if he had succeeded then Geoffrey Howe or John Biffen would have become Prime Minister and still have won in 1987, maybe by not as much, but almost certainly have won in 1992 as well.

Most Opposition leaders are hailed at some point or other as the next PM and a lot never make it.

In parliamentary by-elections, frequently they don't refect a change likely to carry through into a General Election, when the government has a secure majority then most people realise that the loss of a single seat won't bring the government down, in the 1980s and 1990s the Conservatives had huge by-election losses and on most occassions recaptured the seats at the following General Election.

In European Elections - in 1989 Labour were well ahead of the Conservatives, in the 1992 General Election the percentage votes were pretty much reversed. In the previous 2 General Elections Labour's vote has been dismal, but they still won majorities at the following General Elections, the same with Local Elections. With the regional list systems now the European Elections are wide open to smaller parties such as UKIP, English Democrats, Popular Alliance, Greens etc... with increasingly less relation to House of Commons elections.

In

[Hawkeye]

Over time I have heard socialists and uber-lefties say that their first objective is the complete destruction of the conservative party.

Personally, I think it is time we returned the favour, so we have to work hard over the next year to ensure a Labour wipe out. A general election victory is not good enough.

More controversially, in areas where it is more of a Labour/Liberal contest tories should stand down and back the Liberals and ask conservative voters to vote Lib Dem. Labour need to be pushed into being a rump party of unelectable hard-left fanatics and the Lib Dems allowed to take Labour's place.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

Steven, or Adams as you seem to prefer to be called, I like your choice of the words: "anger, envy and impotence". They are EXACTLY what I and many millions of people are currently feeling.

I am in the massive majority here, not you. The tiny number of Tory Party members c.150k are the only ones who don't know what the rest of the country is talking about. Thanks for your comment, anyway.

[Westminster Wolf]

The point about rushed policy announcements needs to be absorbed.

Policies need to be evaluated for their long term usefulness and not their short term opinion poll impact.

[Yet Another Anon]

We need to think of using the likes of Peter Lilley, Stephen Dorrell, Michael Howard, John Redwood and others in government.
Michael Howard appears to have decided to leave parliamentary politics totally, he isn't standing at the next General Election and has said he has no interest in going into the Lords, he could be an advisor or in a non-ministerial role, but under current law he would need to be in parliament to become a minister - if the requirement for ministers to be in parliament were to be abolished (as it is in the US for example) then experts who have no general interest in other matters and don't want to become a Lord, but interests in a particular brief could be brought in.

Peter Lilley, John Redwood, Stephen Dorrell are all still around and certainly in the latter two cases would be quite eager to get stuck in in government. How about people such as David Heathcoat-Amory as well and others who were at Minister of State level but dropped out after 1997?

[StevenAdams]

Fair comment Tim, so back to the thread:

a landslide is not overly optimistic. Conservative support of 40% or above is 'hard' and tested. Labour 'hard' support has a bottom of about 25-30ish going by the results of the past 18 months. The fact that the autumn's 'flight to safety' during the onset of the crunch only gave Lab a brief burst of support from re-energised nulab voters is actually very assuring... Con support only once in one poll dipped beneath 40 (to 39). The contrast between the two party's fortunes is stark.

The point is that Brown blew his only electoral chance: appearing as the only one to get us out of the recession. He blew the pennies early and now has to endure 12+ months of drip drip bad announcements as the economy goes to hell in a handcart...

[Tim Montgomerie]

That's interesting about Michael Howard, YNA. Where did you hear about him not being interested in a peerage?

[david1]

Steve Foley 0959

Labour did not have an average 12% poll lead during the 1970 election. One poll in the Sunday Times,(an STP poll carried out by ST employees not by a recognized polling organisation) gave Labour a 12% lead. Most polls gave Labour a lead 4/6% etc. The last poll published, ORC in the London Evening Standard actually showed a Tory lead of 1%.

Some poor economic news, plus a superior performance by the Tories during that campaign, coupled with Labour complacency probably turned it for the Tories.

[Sally Roberts]

Henry...what are you on this morning? Whatever it is, I want some in my coffee!
;-)

[David Eyles]

Liz Kemp: YES! - sorry Tim. People have such short memories. We had a dry run in 2001 during the Foot and Mouth holocaust. The basis for the postponement was that it was a national emergency and that some people could not get to the polling booth. I suggest that we are being groomed for just such a national emergency again - the economy, war against terror etc etc. Gordon is already appealing to our "Dunkirk spirit". I am not saying that this will happen, only that postponement COULD happen and that it is possible. We need to be suspicious of all levels of spin coming out from this government and be very, very alert.

Now, back on piste: Our "behaviour" at least on this website is, I suggest, to continue working through issues of the day, discussing and putting forward ideas for adoption by the Party, if it sees fit. In an odd sort of way, ConHome seems to act as a kind of ad hoc think tank, outside the party but firmly centre-right. Along with other proper think tanks, there seems to be a process of gradual osmosis of ideas and philosophies which are being gradually absorbed, or re-absorbed, by the Conservative Party. In addition, the comments serve as a sounding board.

I do not know how influential this site really is at very high level within the party, but I do get the impression that quite a number of MPs actually read this site as a background resource.

So, our behaviour has to be to continue to explore ideas and solutions to problems, not just between now and the election (whenever, or if, that might happen) but afterwards as well. However well briefed a new Conservative government may be, it will be raw and still feeling its way for quite some time.

[David_at_Home]

Mr Mayhew is, of course, correct. There is real anger in the country about what is seen as the selfish behaviour and ineptitude of ALL politicians and there is little enthusiasm for David Cameron and the Cameroons. The apparent success of the Tory party in the polls owes more to the implosion of support for Labour and the ineffectiveness of Clegg (another overgrown rich boy with zero achievement outside politics; they should have stuck with Vince Cable).

The Tories lead is fragile because they have little support on Scotland and the North of England and because, if the General Election is held with or after the June EU elections, their vote will be damaged by a resurgent UKIP.

[Steve Foley]

I remember the 1983 General Election very well. As the results came in, Wedgwood-Benn losing in Bristol S.E. being the high point, we had a celebratory drink and one of the local helpers said "Oh that's the Labour Party dead and buried then. Our new enemy will be the Liberal-SDP Alliance" (Remember them?)

In the event Labour came back and evntually thrashed the Conservatives in 1997 but the SDP are but a memory and the Lib Dems even with 60 seats are stuck as the Third Party with no realistic prospect of being the Government. Likewise in 1997 many Labourites said that was the end of the Tory Party, not so! You can't destroy an idea.

Whilst people will vote tactically (and I would do so myself if I lived in a Lib-Lab marginal and disliked the Labour MP sufficiently) it would be folly for the Conservative Party to tell its supporters to do so as a matter of policy. Remember that in Feb 1974 the Liberals under Thorpe refused Heath's invitation to form a coalition, but later were to keep Callaghan in office with the Lib-Lab Pact. They simply cannot be trusted and would demand PR of some form as the price for support which would be the end of single party majority government.

[David Belchamber]

"No rushed policies". I agree but would point out that we have been in opposition for so long that we should have some pretty clear cut policies by now. As I have posted before, we should let commonsense and natural justice guide us. I would perhaps add the injunction to act in the best interests of the natiopn at all times. I got fed up with Blair's concern for "his" legacy and am equally fed up with Brown trying to keep his motley crew in power.

Barack Obama set the tone of his new administration in the first three days; it was tough, it was decisive and it needed doing. Cameron has the same chance which he should not miss. Confidence would then soon follow.

"We need to think of using the likes of Peter Lilley, Stephen Dorrell, Michael Howard, John Redwood and others in government". People will get fed up with me urging Cameron to appoint Redwood the First Secretary to the Treasury but he (together with Micheal Fallon, Peter Lilley and Vince Cable) seems to be about the only politician really to come to grips with the fast changing economic scenario.

I don't know about Stephen Dorrell but Michael Howard would be invaluable in mentoring totally inexperienced cabinet ministers in how to run a department.

[Michael Heaver]

I look forward to the incoming Tory government resulting in the party's eventual split.

Cameron has sustained party unity through a "shut up and we will win" internal party message. The difference between the Cameron project and New Labour is that New Labour had overwhelming support among the grassroots. Once the euphoria of being back in government dies down, Cameron is going to be in for a big surprise when he finds out just how much of a grassroots following (and influence) groups like Cornerstone have in the English rural Tory heartlands.

[David Eyles]

David_at_Home: I suggest that a June election will have a different outcome to the one you have proposed. People (including many, many Tories) are fed up with the EU and so will vote UKIP for the EU candidate. But the same people are also seriously fed up with Gordon and so will vote Conservative or, as Steve Foley has suggested, tactically.

[Praguetory]

We will inherit such a mess. Difficult times ahead. On this basis, just beating Labour is not enough. We need to annihilate them at the ballot box and I am encouraged that others here seem to recognise that it is both beneficial and possible to achieve this goal.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

Sally, reading my post it does seem a smidgeon crazed :)

I am going to give myself lines:

Cam's the man
Cam's the man
Cam's the man

Right. Off for a lie down.

[Sally Roberts]

I don't believe with the polls going as they now are that there will be a June Election. As it happens I wish there would as I agree with David Eyles on this and believe that David_at_Home has got his rose-coloured spectacles on this morning! A June Election would not only result in Conservative Victory but it would also mean Conservatives gaining votes in the Euros - perhaps not from the UKIPPING Tendency but certainly from the soft Labour and Lib Dem tendencies....

[Sally Roberts]

Very wise Henry! You really must stop eating those Hash Coco-Pops!!

[michael m]

If a week is a long time in politics, then 16 months to the next election is a life line for Brown and his cronies.

[South Down Tory]

Actually the 2001 GE wasn't postponed, the locals were and legislation was needed to do that, but Blair didn't have to call a GE until June 2002, so no legislation was needed in that regard.

The life of a parliament can be extended as happened in 1940 but I think the House of Lords has an absolute veto over such a move and a government could only get it through be agreeing to a National Government.

[Steve Foley]

I think Brown will do a Major (in 1997) and go for the last legally possible date which I assume is sometime in June 2010.

Unfortunately Brown has a good majority unlike Callaghan in the late 1970s or Major in the late 1990s. Excepting the "Hand of God" we are stuck with Brown and his Labour Government until then or he decides to cut and run which I do not think he will do.

[jsfl]

We need to think of using the likes of Peter Lilley, Stephen Dorrell, Michael Howard, John Redwood and others in government. We have been out of office for many years; as Labour had been in 1997. People who have run Whitehall departments should be used to help new ministers with zero Whitehall experience.

Stephen Dorrell - after the tedious and partly incomprehensible Pro-Bureaucracy report (oops sorry Public Services report) I would have thought he is the last person Cameron needs to give a higher profile too.

As for Peter Lilley, he seems to have been anonymous for years, what is there to suggest that he would be up to the job anymore?

Also no David Davis? Do Conservative Home know something or have they not yet to recover their generosity over Davis's 42 days demonstration. By the way Davis was his ever excellent self on Straight Talk yesterday.

In regard to the general theme, now is not the time to become complacent and talk of landslides. The electorate is so understandably volatile about the seeming economic chaos around them that in weeks the situation could be reversed.

However, I feel there has been a bleak realisation across the country this week of the extent of Labour's economic fallibility.

Now is the time for Conservatives to ram home how bad Labour are for Britain and how the Conservatives can lead this country back to prosperity in a more moderate and fair manner.

[Old Hack]

It's not the if but the when we get a Conservative Government that concerns me. Can we take ANOTHER 17 months of this godforsaken Labour Government?

How much more damage will Brown and his incoherent, incompetent, idiotic, inebriated with power, loads of imbeciles be allowed to get away with?

It's simply not good enough to wait for Brown to make up his mind or run out of time. He needs to go NOW.

So our mission as Conservatives must be to remove this Government in as short a time as possible through any and all legitimate means.

Why not start with a vote of no confidence? Let's call on every MP who fears for this country under Gordon Brown to vote no confidence. Let's see how the DUP, SNP, Lib Dems and PC have the stones to stand for Great Britain.

[Alex Swanson]

"Is there any possible way for Brown to legitimately postpone a GE after 5 years?"

Yes, easily. All he has to do is persuade Parliament to pass a law saying so and he can do absolutely anything he likes. In fact, I believe that such a law already exists, the Emergency Powers Act. What constitutes an emergency is of course entirely up to the govt to decide.

This is the thing that amazing numbers of well-educated people fail to grasp, that the ordinary citizen has absolutely no recourse whatsoever to the abuse of official power. Few people notice until they end up at the receiving end.

[StevenAdams]

David_at_home:

the Con support is not to do with Labour implosion, although that is a massive contributory factor to LABOUR's drop in support. Con support at 40 or above, and the resilience of this support despite Peter Hitchens and the BBC's best efforts, shows a strong core to the Tory vote.

The narrowing of the polls last autumn was more to do with Labour's vote picking up than any dramatic drop in Con vote... hence GB's dog whistle PMQ performance. He is trying to bring out the core vote in an attempt to shore up his position.

Cameron's repositioning of the party as a compassionate Conservative party, with small government and low tax roots but progressive social attitudes, has resonated with voters. They have seen stealth tax under Labour, and if this government has its way voters will see outright tax explosions in the future.

[David Eyles]

Alex Swanson: Thank you. I think it was just this Act that was used in 2001.

[David_at_Home]

"What constitutes an emergency is of course entirely up to the govt to decide."

Also the Monarchy since there is the matter of Royal Assent and the Queen has the right to dissolve Parliament and thus trigger a General Election. The Monarchy remains the last line of defence against tyranny.

[Steve Foley]

"Why not start with a vote of no confidence?"

Because Brown would win it!. Labour has an absolute majority in the Commons, even if every single non-Labour MP voted against it is unlikely that even the most rebellious Labour Backbencher would bite against their party especially those in marginal seats as Turkeys do not vote for Xmas.

It would be be foolish indeed for the Conservative Party to call a Vote of No Confidence in Brown at this time, it would rebound in their faces when he won it and Labour would make a big thing of that in the Media.

[Alex Swanson]

"The Monarchy remains the last line of defence against tyranny."

The Queen has, during her entire reign, never done anything at all to protect the ordinary citizen against any abuse of official power, or for example lying or corrupt ministers. Relying on her, or even hoping for her, to do so in future would be wishful thinking of a seriously unrealistic kind.

[Henry's dealer]

"Henry...what are you on this morning? Whatever it is, I want some in my coffee!
;-)"

£10 for an ounce, no questions asked

[RichardJ]

"The Queen has, during her entire reign, never done anything at all to protect the ordinary citizen against any abuse of official power, or for example lying or corrupt ministers."

Probably because nothing has been sufficiently serious enough. If Brown started to do a Hitler I'm sure she'd act.

Back on topic, I'm concerned about the hubris here. A week is a long time in politics etc.

[David Belchamber]

Hawkeye at 10:20:

"Labour need to be pushed into being a rump party of unelectable hard-left fanatics and the Lib Dems allowed to take Labour's place".

That situation is devoutly to be wished but should be a consequence, not the primary objective, of an overwhelming tory victory brought about by offering the electorate:

* excellent leadership
* a top quality team all working in the best interests of the nation, not themselves
* strong, clear policies aimed to find solutions to our many problems.

That way we will deserve to win the election and, the longer Brown is in office, the greater the tory majority will be.

Perhaps that last point is one to use publicly?

[David Eyles]

I too am against votes of no confidence unless the circumstances are absolutely dire. The longer Labour stays in power, the more people will get fed up with them and so the greater will be their defeat when an election, brought about in the ordinary way, eventually comes.

RichardJ is right to be concerned about the hubris, but personally, I am aching to see Labour come third in a GE. I also think there is a good deal of substance in Tim's article......but you never know what is going to happen between now and then.

[tim freeborn]

A landslide will be important because the next government - whoever it is - will soon become immensely unpopular.
The 1979 winners had the fiscal benefit of North Sea oil and the splitting of the Labour Party. They were lucky. Oh, and winning a small war against a military junta helped.
Hard to see similar factors playing after the next election. The new government will need to hack at public spending, take on public sector unions and their unfunded pensions - and raise taxes as well.
It won't be pretty and only a government with a large majority has much chance of surviving to reap the benefits in a second term.

[Sally Roberts]

Henry - your dealer is overcharging you!

By the way, I hope you woke from your little lie down in time to watch the Politics Show and your Great Leader wearing what I have to say was a very splendid hat!!

[Richad]

Well look a facts:

Brown is so ashamed at his performance,he won't even meet DC for US style Presidential Debate,if you think about it,that is quite astonishing,12 years in Labour should be jumping a the chance,instead Brown is ashamed,says it all.

MINWAGE=give with one hand take back with tax with the other.

POWER COMPANIES,MOSTLY GER,FRE-let them screw over the poor,the ones Labour claim to care for by adding 25% premium to pre-payment meters.

LET 500.000 ILLEGALS CROSS THE CHANNEL,and sneak in!,this is why the traditional Labour voters are turning to he BNP.

Screw the poor over with car Tax hike,the rich will get less polluting cars,the poor can't afford them,they get stuck with Browns TAX rises.

So they are forced onto Pulic Transport,only to see Brown let the Transport companies hurt these people with crippling fare increases.

YES,I THINK I CAN SEE WHY LABOUR ARE UNPOPULAR,PARTY OF THE POOR!DOES ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVE THAT ANYMORE?

[Richad]

If the Conservatives and DC address the above issues i think they can gain a lot of Labour voters.

[Michael Parsons]

We still have a wealth of former Cabinet and lower-ranking Ministers, both in and out of Parliament - why not link each Cabinet Minister with a former Minister (who served in the Department, if possible) as an initial adviser on how to get to grips with the role? It might even limit the influence of the Civil Service. To make it clear, policy would NOT be affected, merely how to implement decisions, handle the Civil Service, etc.

[Sam Robinson]

Things are really looking decidedly gloomy for NuLab when the only interviewer of sufficient stature to be allowed to interview the saviour of the world (one A. Marr)has begun to abandon the sinking ship.
You cannot get putty to bounce.
I would suggest that the Tory party now begin a series of twin advertisements - (1) - Lies NuLab have told us; (2) - No.? of X stealth taxes. And, along the lines of the cinema serial of our youth, watch this space next week for another depressing instalment.

[sjm]

1. I have heard Peter Lilley twice recently on MSM, speaking eminent good sense, so he has not disappeared.

2. I do not believe it would be beyond Mr Brown to invoke the emergency contingencies legislation (citing economic catastrophe) to delay a general election beyond 2010 - the HoL no longer has a built-in Conservative majority which could be relied upon to overturn this proposal.

Regretfully, I do not believe that the Queen would take action - she took a lot of flak after MacMillan resigned, and having had her fingers burned over that constitutional issue, probably would remain neutral. But I do wonder what Prince Charles would advise her to do?

[T. England]

All we need now is for Labour MP’s, like the public, to get back to where they were before the bust!
Deciding weather to keep the most unpopular prime minister in history as their leader :o)
Now! Where’s that arrogant little twerp Miliband, didn’t he think he was up with a chance?
Chukkle!

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper]

Sally, I'm ignoring you. I'm still asleep (on champagne from 4.30 yesterday afternoon)

[David Sergeant]

Talk of landslides is not enough and is bound to encourage complacency. Cameron has to wind the country amd the party up to meeting the awful challenges already here and coming. Jolly talk of bashing Labour won't do. However, the circumsatnces provide the scene and the answer; it is not just that Brown has wrecked the country it is the fact that Labour have wrecked the country for the third time. Labour now need to be demolished as a politically important party, not just beaten and, whats more, since the Tories fixed the first two Labour disasters there is every reason to believe they can fix this one. This isn't an election it's a fight to save the nation not just for the next five years but for the next fifty because with Labour as a serious political force it is possible for it to become the government again and wreck everything again.

[Raj]

"Is there any possible way for Brown to legitimately postpone a GE after 5 years?"

Yes, easily. All he has to do is persuade Parliament to pass a law saying so and he can do absolutely anything he likes.

I'm not sure that's correct. The Parliament Act states that Parliament cannot extend its duration without the consent of the Lords. This was asserted in obiter in the Jackson case by the House of Lords.

There would have to be a real emergency to postpone an election, assuming there are powers to do so at the moment. Anything else would result in mass riots that would force the monarch to dismiss Brown and have the elections called anyway.

[David Belchamber]

"Labour now need to be demolished as a politically important party, not just beaten..."

There must be a splendid slogan there, David, waiting to get out; something snappier than:

"The longer you keep Brown, the longer you will get the tories next time".

[David Parker]

Apart from a bankrupt nation one of the worst legacies which NuLab will leave us is an emasculated House of Commons, which no longer even tries to hold the executive to account. Both Blair and Brown have indulged in governnment by politbureau and the few MPs with the honesty to resist this have rapidly found themselves exiled to their constituencies.

If the Tories are returned with a landslide majority, the new Tory MPs will represent a wide range of "conservative opinion" and it is important that Cameron's Government should recognise and reflect this.

It is therefore important that the Tory manifesto should set out clearly and comprehensively all those core Conservative principles upon which the party can unite, even whilst holding divergent views upon other matters.

Leaving aside, for the moment, reduction in the powers and jurisdiction of MPs as a result of our EU membershiop (which, just possibly, might be reversed in due course)The proposal to reduce the number of MPs by increasing the size of constituencies would be a step in the wrong direction in terms of holding the executive to account.

[Sally Roberts]

Raj @ 14:08 - you are absolutely right! I believe the anger of the public against Labour would most certainly result in riots on the streets if Brown did anything to try and delay the Election. If that were to be the case and the Monarch did not end up dismissing him then I could even see the possibilities of a military coup occuring - something there were rumours of during the 1970s.

[truthteller]

Hopefully no landslide. The last thing that clueless Cameron and Osborne need to be rewarded with is that. Let's just get this sorry period over and done with shall we?

[snegchui]

Let us hope the Clarke bounce lasts longer than the Mandelson bounce. And I hope IDS and the CSJ and other policy bodies are working overtime to stress test their policies for inconsistencies. Get them reality-checked
I say this because I am amazed again and again how much Labour seem to be able to get away with using so little real substance, and how little the the Tories seem to do with so much material to hand. Is this because spoilt for choice, can't make a decision?. Take lessons in the art of focus.

[Richad]

One thing the current crisis will cause,is a rethink of the Socialist and letfist parties in the UK,no longer will the Socialists,not in 1 year or 20 years will they be able to say not balancing the budget is a not a requirement.

This,when we look back in the future will be a turning point,and victory for Conservatism.

Clarke,Osborne,Cameron,should now focus more of their time,taliking about the recovery and never again,will the Budget Deficit be allowed to get out of control.

If they do it right,they can educate the British people,because i still think we have failed,that Big Government,is not a good thing finacially,actually dosn't even work from a Socialist point of view,you spend more money putting it right after the ivenvitable collapse.

I think Clarke should be the man put forward to explain this to the Public,in as many interviews as they can manage,he has the clout of the man who has brought this country out of recesssion before,and people will listen.

[Dave J]

"Is there any possible way for Brown to legitimately postpone a GE after 5 years?"

It's my understanding that both the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts left the extension of a Parliament beyond 5 years as the only thing over which the House of Lords has an absolute veto.

"Yes, easily. All he has to do is persuade Parliament to pass a law saying so and he can do absolutely anything he likes. In fact, I believe that such a law already exists, the Emergency Powers Act. What constitutes an emergency is of course entirely up to the govt to decide."

It's the Civil Contingencies Act and it's a constitutional abomination that should be repealed immediately. It allows the Government to amend statutes without Parliament, and presumably upon declaring an emergency Brown would amend the Parliament Acts to remove the Lords' veto over extending the life of Parliament. It's EXACTLY the equivalent of the 1933 Enabling Act that legally turned Hitler from the constitutional chancellor of the Weimar Republic into an absolute dictator.

""The Queen has, during her entire reign, never done anything at all to protect the ordinary citizen against any abuse of official power, or for example lying or corrupt ministers."

"Probably because nothing has been sufficiently serious enough. If Brown started to do a Hitler I'm sure she'd act."

I certainly hope so, though I've no reason to believe one way or the other. If she dismissed Brown, dissolved Parliament and ordered a new election, the military would support her. The police, as evidenced by recent events, would probably initially back Brown and then stand aside in the face of superior firepower.

[Dave McEwan Hill]

Richard

The Queen only has power as long as she does not use it.
Should it ever be used to interfere with elected government it will be taken away immediately.
The Queen knows this.

[Henry's skint dealer]

"Henry - your dealer is overcharging you!"

There's a credit crunch, I need the cash!

[Julian Melford]

Tim is right about making the use of ex-ministers' experience. The same should be said for successful council leaders, and well-researched campaign groups.

For instance, with the need to get the most out of pressurised budgets, we should be involving the Taxpayers' Alliance, and for more cost-effective road safety, the Association of British Drivers. Both are innovative, but with a strong feel for the pulse of public opinion and a solid vein of common sense.

[James]

All the talk of Brown seeking to extend his term in office without an electon would falter on four points, IMHO.

1. The Lords wouldn't buy it - even the Labour Lords.

2. Her Majesty. I personally believe that this would be a step too far, and that it would strengthen and reafirm the role of the Sovereign if she refused to allow such an undemocratic abomination.

3. The people. We Brits are slow to anger and riot, but I cannot see most peoplestanding by and allowing such an act.

4. International pressure. Brown would be a pariah. There is no spin that could justify the BRITISH Prime Minister, for goodness sake, interfering in the democratic process so blatantly.

[Mike Spilligan]

The Tories should be harrassing the Government at every opportunity in Parliament, instead of the all-too-gentlemanly approach - lots of acid with the "Hons" and "Rt Hons".
Don't bet on more deserters from Labour. I live in a safe Tory constituency and have recently asked a couple of Labour voters how they will vote next time. "Labour" - as my father always did - or, it's a family tradition. On the economy they believe the Party/BBC line "the problem's global". The Labour core vote is about 30% and is almost solid up to that level.
I think that Queen Anne was the last monarch who tried to question a parliamentary decision.
Re: complacency:- Always remember WILTIP - a week is a long time in politics - the only thing that Wilson got right.

[James]

snegchui at 1507

"Let us hope the Clarke bounce lasts longer than the Mandelson bounce."

Erm...what 'Clarke bounce'? If there is to be one we haven't seen it yet. Our recent rise in the polls became apparent the week before his return to the shadow cabinet.

[Conservative Home]

I certainly agree with you re council leaders Julian; a much under-used resource.

[Andy]

The UKIP brigade who post here, and on various other sites, are, to put it bluntly, dinosaurs with precious little going on up top. They, almost to a man, are Victor Meldrews of the first order. Slightly unhinged.

[snegchui]

Well, though I didn't see any reason for moving Alan Duncan just to put Clarke in symmetry with Madelson, it certainly did free Alan to savage the Govt on expenses. Clarke's Marr performance (didn't see) seems to have gone well. Alan is effective and more than competent, but maybe unfairly, doesn't have the room-brightening effect that Ken has.
The bounce, I think when people realised that he really was coming back. it cheered them up as he was the last good chancellor and a perceived rare clear winner in Tory-Labour debates. This is not to say that other people are not winning their battles of ideas, but Labour seem to be able to muddy their waters much more easily.

[David_at_Home]

“The UKIP brigade who post here……..dinosaurs with precious little going on up top.”

Thanks, Andy, for your revealing observation.

[Raj]

Dave

The Queen only has power as long as she does not use it. Should it ever be used to interfere with elected government it will be taken away immediately.

Lawfully Parliament can't do that with her agreement. She doesn't have power because she doesn't use it - she doesn't use it because the role of the monarch is not to interfere in the day-to-day business of government. Whether there is 28 days, 42 days, 90 days detention without trial is a matter for Parliament, the courts and the electorate (at elections).

However, if the ruling government moved to do away with any of those three then it would be time for the monarch to intervene. MPs could do nothing about it because a bill cannot become an Act without the Royal Assent. I have heard comments about refusing to approve the Civil List, but that would be irrelvant if she were forcing an election. If the government tried to use its authority over the Police or Army to stop her it would be treason - is anyone going to suggest the Forces would support a government trying to do away with elections?

Make no mistake that the Queen's power comes from her support amongst the people, not because she doesn't interfere with politics. She can't use her powers regarding Parliament and the appointment of the Prime Minister for her own ends, but she could if it was something so wicked as extending the life of Parliament to avoid an election.

[Sally Roberts]

We must not lose sight of the fact that it is intense speculation as to what The Queen might or might not do in what is still a hypothetical situation. Her Majesty has "the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn" and there is no doubt that she would exercise that right if need be. There is also no doubt at all that she would never willingly permit her subjects to be taken over by dictatorship and would do everything possible to prevent such an outcome.

[David_at_Home]

I agree, Raj. It is certainly not the role of the Monarch to interfere in the business of the lawfully elected Parliament and government.

However, the Queen remains as our final line of defence against a tyrannical undemocratic government and, for her to act, the Government of the day would have to do something unconstitutional AND have the support of the majority of the people. A government which tried to prong the life of the parliament without the support of the opposition would clearly be in contravention of the constitution

[Man in a Shed]

@liz kemp ; i imagine a state of emergency would do it.

Labour have their people in the police and probably other key services which have been politicised since the second Gulf war. They just can't be sure of the Army.

It still has to be unlikely. I think the response of other key nations such as France, Germany and the US would make such a move very difficult.

[David Eyles]

This mini subject seems to have caused a certain amount of over-excitement. I repeat that a general election has been postponed by this government in 2001.

People with a better grasp of constitutional law than me will be able to supply the procedural means the government used to postpone the election (it was to have been early in the year and was put off until the summer when Foot and Mouth had started to calm down a bit).

That said, the means to combat such a possibility should be examined (without hyperbole, haste or panic) in the event that an election is announced for, say, June 2010, and then we start to hear phrases like "national emergency" being uttered by government spokesmen. Until this last starts to happen, there is no need to get hot under the collar.

[Raj]

David_at_Home, thank you for your comment.

David Eyles

I repeat that a general election has been postponed by this government in 2001.

It was postponed because:

a) Parliament was well under the 5 year limit;
b) There was a legitimate reason to postpone it (foot & mouth).

People with a better grasp of constitutional law than me will be able to supply the procedural means the government used to postpone the election

I'm not sure the general election had ever been called - it was merely spectulated it would occur in May. But even if it had been, you have to understand that, as I said above, Parliament still had a year or so to run so a postponement was possible. As far I remember the Opposition was happy for this to happen too.

If, however, Brown tries to cook up a reason to put the election off to save his own skin make no mistake that he wouldn't get away with it one way or the other.

Until this last starts to happen, there is no need to get hot under the collar.

Agreed. This an interesting point to talk about for future generations, but I have no doubts that we will see an election sometime next year at the latest.

[Dave J]

"I repeat that a general election has been postponed by this government in 2001."

Postponing a previously-scheduled or expected election, within the ordinary five-year life of a Parliament, is not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is extending the life of a Parliament for a term of years beyond that, or indefinitely, so that the Government has a perpetual majority and effectively removes itself from accountability to the electorate. If the monarchy would not serve to stop such a thing from taking place, then it no longer serves any purpose at all.

[David Eyles]

Raj: Thank for that information. As to whether an election had actually been called, my memory is hazy because like every other livestock farmer in the country, I barely set foot off the farm for about three months and wasn't that interested in procedural things, only just how close FMD was creeping to Dorset and our farm.

BUT I am pretty sure that an election had been all but called because I remember the discussion about ways and means on both radio and television, so it must have been pretty well sorted.

[Steve Foley]

The Queen could laugh if they refused to pay the Civil List as she is a very rich woman in her own right and that money voted by parliament is to pay for the Royal Establishment. If withheld there are a lot of housekeepers, footmen, grooms, etc who would be on the Social Security but not the Queen herself.

Queen Anne did refuse to sign an Act about Ecclesiastical Benefices, a totally boring and inconsequential piece of legislation which would be of interest to 0.001% of the population, if that! Nothing controversial to say the least, mega yawn!

The present Queen has stayed aloof from politics although no doubt she has her own opinions on some of the Acts which she has had to sign into Law.

If Brown did extend his rule under the pretext of there being a national emergency please don't count on our Armed Forces to do anything at all. For generations they have been conditioned and indoctrinated to obey the Civil Power, Cromwell was the last to do anything different and in the end execute a King of Treason! We do not have Gadaffi or a Pinochet, our Generals do what they are told and get a knighthood or sometimes a peerage for being good boys and playing at soldiers, gilded geldings the lot of them!

[Joe James B]

I don't believe the Conservatives will win a landslide, but a majority of 20 to 50.

A 7% lead should achieve that, if the votes are well targeted.
There is unlikely, also, to be such tactical voting against us if the hostility has gone.

41/42% 34/35% 17-18%

We still have to win atall - there will still be a bias in the way our vote is distributed. It is not yet certain. Talk of landslides makes it more likely we will fall short.
something like that.

[Jake]

The Russian parliament has just approved a constitutional amendment to extend the presidential term from four to six years.

I know that that is Russia has only recently emerged from absolute dictatorship but in a world which contains the EU and a Labour government not noted for any regard for democracy, it is not mentaly so very far away.
Brown could easily go for an extension to the parliamentary term and it is likely the Queen would sign such a Bill. There is plenty of British historical precedence for it.

[Dave J]

"For generations they have been conditioned and indoctrinated to obey the Civil Power..."

The Queen IS "the Civil Power." Their oath is to the Crown, not to Her Majesty's Government.

"Brown could easily go for an extension to the parliamentary term and it is likely the Queen would sign such a Bill."

The Lords would almost certainly reject such a bill as fundamentally anti-democratic, and thus it would never get to the Queen. The Parliament Acts do not allow the Commons to bypass the Lords on this one issue.

Therefore, for Brown to extend the life of Parliament beyond five years, he would have to either 1) pack the Lords with new peers dedicated to supporting him on this one issue or 2) invoke the Civil Contingencies Act and declare a state of emergency. Either would immediately make him look like a dictator. The public would not stand for it and if the Queen then dismissed him the public would support her in doing so.

"There is plenty of British historical precedence for it."

No, there isn't.

[Raj]

Steve

If Brown did extend his rule under the pretext of there being a national emergency please don't count on our Armed Forces to do anything at all. For generations they have been conditioned and indoctrinated to obey the Civil Power

If you think that's the case then you know nothing about the military. You're implying the generals would back an end to democracy because they were told to do it. Whilst they might not do something by themselves, they'd certainly do as they're told by the monarch as commander-in-chief. Regimes like the one that would form rarely last long anyway and no one would want to face life in prison when democracy was installed.

But if it's that easy, why hasn't anyone done it already?

===

Jake

I know that that is Russia has only recently emerged from absolute dictatorship but in a world which contains the EU and a Labour government not noted for any regard for democracy, it is not mentaly so very far away.

First of all, the Russian parliament didn't need to bully the head of state to approve the change. Second, you really believe that the Labour government would try to do such a thing then you need to seek the help of a medical professional.

Brown could easily go for an extension to the parliamentary term and it is likely the Queen would sign such a Bill.

As Dave J and I have said more than once, you can't do that without the Lords' consent. Even if they did agree I doubt very much the monarch would sign it because she'd know the consequences would be mass riots at the least.

There is plenty of British historical precedence for it.

Actually there is none - not within modern history anyway.

[Martin Wright]

Tim getting back to your original post........all I would add to your four precepts is that there must also be an absolute focus on "delivery". We've had policies, initiatives and announcements galore from Labour but precious little delivery. It's all talk from them.

Conservatives have to convince the voters that they will actually see their policies through to fulfilment. That's the tough unglamorous part of being a Minister but it's absolutely vital.

[pp]

The only chance of an early election is for the cabinet to turn on brown.

However, they don't have the integrity to do to that.

They need to be made aware that they will not be forgiven, and their family names will be held in contempt until our children and grand-children have paid off the debt that they have allowed to be incurred.

People generally get respect for integrity, even if they aren't agreed with - but people actively promote things that they know are wrong they get no refuge.

[sjm]

pp: the Cabinet may, just, turn on Brown if the local and EU elections this year are awful for Labour, we'll probably then get Straw as PM, hoping for a poll bounce with 'new' leader to get them through a General Election, but still not till May '10.

[snegchui]

Matt Wright: Delivery
This is the core difference, and this is why I bang on boringly. The soundbite age must end, the time for actions to be louder than words, by their actions shall ye know them.
And this is why I hope them boys down the backroom are reality checking their ideas and policies with practical frameworks.

[Martin Wright]

snegchui @22.14

The post at 21.44 was not from Matt Wright, but by me, Martin Wright. I mention this because the estimable Matt Wright might not always appreciate my opinions being attributed to him!

[Norm Brainer]

I wouldn't be that suprised if there was a national emergency come 2010, seeing as the country will have no money and harperson's rules splitting people into groups and making them hate each other.

Even the riots that should be caused if they attempt to extend the parliementary term might be used as an excuse for not having the election (they'll claim they are an anti war or airport riots and are blocking the ballot printing companies)
I say 'should' as the protesters these days only seem to protest things that don't concern them or have been dictated to them by powercrazed greenies.

Maybe someone should ask brown at PMQs to confirm and see how he answers - he doesn't give a straight answer to anything else so might be interesting.

[Jake]

The Septennial Act 1715 was an Act of the Parliament passed in May 1716 to increase the maximum length of a Parliament (and hence between general elections) from 3 years to 7 years.
The previous limit of 3 years had been set by the Triennial Act 1694 in the Kingdom of England. The ostensible aim of the Act was to reduce election expenses, but it also had the effect of keeping the Whig party, who had won the 1715 general election, in power for longer - and they won the eventual 1722 general election.

Parliaments were not actually required to last that long but their maximum length was now 7 years. Most Parliaments in the remainder of the 18th century did last 6 or 7 years, with only two lasting for less time. In the 19th century the average length of a parliament was four years.

The Septennial Act was amended in 1911 to change the limit to five years, and then again during the World Wars to extend the Parliaments elected in the 1910 and 1935 general elections until the European wars had ended in 1918 and 1945.

There is a good deal of historical precedence to altering the term of parliament. 1940 is not that far away.The original fiddling with parliamantary terms was done for party political reasons. No real reason why Brown shoudn't have a go too.

[snegchui]

Apologies to all Martin and the Matt.
Flying around, should ground.