What is the gamble for Brown?

Adam

Spot on Fraser. If Brown calls an early election and wins, he stays in power until 2011/2012. If he sits tight until 2009/2010 he can be PM until 2014/2015 on winning just one election. The risk in going early is that it may throw up a surprise and reduce Brown's majority. This would be disastorous for him and the Tories would definately scent blood during the next parliament. The Labour party would then start to look for another potential leader and there'd be plenty of infighting. I bet Brown is having sleepless nights agonising whether he should call a snap election - I'd sit tight and play the long game if I were him and look at being PM for the next 10 years not just 5 after one election win.

wonderfulforhisage

Taking your argument a step further, maybe he calculates that if he wins an election in a month or so the Tories will dump 'The Heir to Blair' and choose a potentially electable leader. Brown will have realised that the NuLab chickens will come home to roost over the next few years and the door will be open in 2012 to a Tory win with Anybody but Dave in the driving seat. Exit Gordon in 2012. The alternative is to wait until 2010 when despite the roosting NuLab chickens he calculates that the unelectable Heir to Blair will still be in nominal charge of a shambolically disunited Tory party. He wins and stays in no. 10 till 2015. Even if the Tories bite the bullet and get rid of THTB between now and a 2010 election the resulting damage to the party could destroy their hopes for the foreseeable future regardless of whom they replace Dave with. So if I were Gordon I'd wait until 2010 and bet on beating a demoralised Tory party led by THTB or by a self destructed Tory party led by Anybody but Dave. That way the path is clear up to 2015 which, as Harold Wilson might have said, is an awfully long time in politics.

TGF UKIP

This seems a very logical and persuasive reading of "gamble" plus it would give Brown the opportunity to deliver his knockout blow with a tax cutting budget which, if necessary, he'll use the Lady T/David Davis argument to justify. What Brown wants and what his warped ego demands is not just a majority but a landslide of as near as possible to 1997 proportions. And here, perhaps, Fraser lies another interpretation to the "gamble" and one that will definitely not be popular with your dear Editor and his tribe. That is Gord and Ed would be gambling that by delaying they would give the Tories the chance to dump Dave and his windmill, his "A" List and the crackpot policies some of his stupidly public policy review reports have lumbered the Tories with. Every indication being that Gordon views Dave as one enormous plus for Labour. Unless events conspired to force Brown to go beyond 08 to to 09 or 10, the Tories would probably still not be able to win even with a new Leader but they would at least have a chance of keeping the majority down to double figures. Moreover, with a new grown up Leader who espoused policies that were designed to attract rather than alienate the critically important C2 voter, they might well have a very good chance of winning in two or three years time. It could turn very quickly. Ten years of incompetence and profligacy could come home to roost - if there was a serious looking alternative.

Andrew

The gamble is simple - how long can he manage to stay in Number 10. Gordon certianly cannot be worried about launching an election campaign against a Conservative Party which has no policies

Tiberius

TGF: I posed this question on an earlier thread to which I think you contributed, but I don't believe an answer came. Namely, if you assume the approach and policies of the last three Tory leaders would not have worked a fourth time, what could (say) David Davis have done since 1995, that Cameron hasn't, which would have put the Party is a better position electorally than it it appears to be in now? I think this is a reasonable question bearing in mind the hammering Cameron is taking from some people.

Tiberius

On these labyrinthine options over the election, they are all possibles, but there are more basic reasons for not going in October/November. Since Cameron's ascent as leader, many (most?) betting people would have gone for a hung Parliament, a result Cameron's polling up to Brown's coronation bore out. So despite the current poll lead, Brown is simply still afraid of that (or a worse) outcome. Balls' comment could have meant what Fraser says, but also simply that the 11 point lead could be eroded after October, as Brown's lip gloss wears off, and the favourable run of events comes to an end. Also, quite straightforwardly, Brown has to deal with the Treaty this autumn which even The Sun doesn't buy into, and we all know it can be the opinion "wot won it". Funding is also an issue for Labour, as well as all the stuff about voters going out in the dark and the cold. Finally, Fraser, why do you think Brown thinks he has only one election in him? Unlike Blair, he doesn't have a Brown undermining him. Indeed he has no internal opposition. A one election Brown theory has surely to be based on the fact that he either thinks he won't have the energy for more (unlikely), or he will finally have been rumbled by the electorate.

Simon Brock

Am I the only person who thinks it is very sad that after how many defeats, no one thinks the Tories can actually mount a serious challenge to Labour.

Tiberius, a perfectly fair point you make back to me and one which I think I may have answered partially and obliquely in other comments. More fully, however, my analysis is that pre 97 Blair/Campbell/Mandelson inflicted near terminal damage on the Tory brand but their atttacks were directed not so much at the policies as at the people the Tories were. Do you remember they never used the term Conservatives it was (and by and large still is)always "Tories" till via their constant and ferocious smears, distortions and lies the term Tory became one of abuse. Unfortunately, the general air of weakness and incompetence of the Major Government and the behaviour, arrogance and self satisfied smugness of some of its members also gave Blair and Co and their media pals an abundant supply of ammo. By May 97 you would have had to have been a truly diehard "Blue" to vote with any enthusiasm for the likes of Portillo, Gummer, Hamilton or Mellor. In part too the political genius of the Blair gang was to persuade the electorate that the policies were unfair or uncaring because they emanated from such loathsome, nasty people as those Tories. That there was little wrong with the policies in the Conservative can has been demonstrated by how many of them and how much of the rhetoric behind them has been assimilated by Labour. It was the Tory brand label that was contaminated so devastatingly for a generation of voters that neither Hague in particular (another callow young smart arse?) nor Howard had a chance. Both were of the 92-97 government and both had easily exploitable baggage by a ruthless opponent. Additionally and fatally when they did articulate popular (and populist) policies that tested well in polling they were yelled down by cries of "same old Tories" from their own left wing to the delight of Labour and its friends at the BBC. In 2005 an admittedly desparate Tory Party took a much bigger step in the dark with Cameron than they had done with Hague and went for the message that the torch was being passed to a new generation of conservatives. And because of his association with such solid conservative fellows as Lamont and Howard they thought Dave must be a conservative too (and who knows he may well be) Unfortunately for, I suspect, the vast majority of the 64% who voted for him he subsequently behaved and sounded like a liberal progressive on a manic personal mission to ingratiate himself with every Guardian and Independent reader in the land. Even more unforgiveably, he declined to do to a far more personally and institutionally corrupt Labour government what they had done to the Tories ten years earlier and worse still he embraced, aped and declared himself heir to the hated Blair. In 2005 Cameron had the chance because he was of a different generation to "the tarnished Tories" and had the looks, style and rhetorical gifts to get across the message of a

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, a perfectly fair point you make back to me and one which I think I may have answered partially and obliquely in other comments. More fully, however, my analysis is that pre 97 Blair/Campbell/Mandelson inflicted near terminal damage on the Tory brand but their atttacks were directed not so much at the policies as at the people the Tories were. Do you remember they never used the term Conservatives it was (and by and large still is)always "Tories" (and the Tories don't help themselves by using it) till via their constant and ferocious smears, distortions and lies the term Tory became one of abuse. Unfortunately, the general air of weakness and incompetence of the Major Government and the behaviour, arrogance and self satisfied smugness of some of its members also gave Blair and Co and their media pals an abundant supply of ammo. By May 97 you would have had to have been a truly diehard "Blue" to vote with any enthusiasm for the likes of Portillo, Gummer, Hamilton or Mellor. In part too the political genius of the Blair gang was to persuade the electorate that the policies were unfair or uncaring because they emanated from such loathsome, nasty people as those Tories. That there was little wrong with most of the policies in the Conservative can has been demonstrated by how many of them and how much of the rhetoric behind them has been assimilated by Labour. It was the Tory brand label that was contaminated so devastatingly for a generation of voters that neither Hague in particular in 2001 nor Howard had a chance. Both were of the 92-97 government and both had easily exploitable baggage by a ruthless opponent. Additionally and fatally when they did articulate popular (and populist) policies that tested well in polling they were yelled down by cries of "same old Tories" but from their own left wing to the delight of Labour and its friends at the BBC. In 2005 an admittedly desparate Tory Party took a much bigger step in the dark with Cameron than they had done with Hague and went for the message that the torch was being passed to a new generation of conservatives. And because of his association with such solid conservative fellows as Lamont and Howard they thought Dave must be a conservative too (and, who knows, he may well be.) Unfortunately for, I suspect, the vast majority of the 64% who voted for him he subsequently behaved and sounded like a liberal progressive on a manic personal mission to ingratiate himself with every Guardian and Independent reader in the land. Even more unforgiveably, he declined to do to a far more personally and institutionally corrupt Labour government what they had done to the Tories ten years earlier and hold them seriously accountable. Worse still he embraced, aped and declared himself heir to the hated Blair. In 2005 Cameron, even more than David Davis, had the chance because he was of a different generation to "the tarnished Tories" and had the looks, style and rhetorical gifts to get across the message of a 21st Century Conservatism. He had both the style and magnetism to carry the argument for the real conservative case but opted instead to throw the baby out with the bathwater and embarked on a seeming crusade to alienate as many C2s as possible and make, for the first time ever, the Tories seem the silly party. That could, I suppose, be Dave's triumph - he's re-branded them as the silly party not the sleazy party. Unfortunately, it's the green labelled brand the C2s will pass by. Over to you Tiberius and apologies to Fraser for utilizing his post for this side debate.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, a perfectly fair point you make back to me and one which I think I may have answered partially and obliquely in other comments. More fully, however, my analysis is that pre 97 Blair/Campbell/Mandelson inflicted near terminal damage on the Tory brand but their atttacks were directed not so much at the policies as at the people the Tories were. Do you remember they never used the term Conservatives it was (and by and large still is)always "Tories" (and the Tories don't help themselves by using it) till via their constant and ferocious smears, distortions and lies the term Tory became one of abuse. Unfortunately, the general air of weakness and incompetence of the Major Government and the behaviour, arrogance and self satisfied smugness of some of its members also gave Blair and Co and their media pals an abundant supply of ammo. By May 97 you would have had to have been a truly diehard "Blue" to vote with any enthusiasm for the likes of Portillo, Gummer, Hamilton or Mellor. In part too the political genius of the Blair gang was to persuade the electorate that the policies were unfair or uncaring because they emanated from such loathsome, nasty people as those Tories. That there was little wrong with most of the policies in the Conservative can has been demonstrated by how many of them and how much of the rhetoric behind them has been assimilated by Labour. It was the Tory brand label that was contaminated so devastatingly for a generation of voters that neither Hague in particular in 2001 nor Howard had a chance. Both were of the 92-97 government and both had easily exploitable baggage by a ruthless opponent. Additionally and fatally when they did articulate popular (and populist) policies that tested well in polling they were yelled down by cries of "same old Tories" but from their own left wing to the delight of Labour and its friends at the BBC. In 2005 an admittedly desparate Tory Party took a much bigger step in the dark with Cameron than they had done with Hague and went for the message that the torch was being passed to a new generation of conservatives. And because of his association with such solid conservative fellows as Lamont and Howard they thought Dave must be a conservative too (and, who knows, he may well be.) Unfortunately for, I suspect, the vast majority of the 64% who voted for him he subsequently behaved and sounded like a liberal progressive on a manic personal mission to ingratiate himself with every Guardian and Independent reader in the land. Even more unforgiveably, he declined to do to a far more personally and institutionally corrupt Labour government what they had done to the Tories ten years earlier and hold them seriously accountable. Worse still he embraced, aped and declared himself heir to the hated Blair. In 2005 Cameron, even more than David Davis, had the chance because he was of a different generation to "the tarnished Tories" and had the looks, style and rhetorical gifts to get across the message of a 21st Century Conservatism. He had both the style and magnetism to carry the argument for the real conservative case but opted instead to throw the baby out with the bathwater and embarked on a seeming crusade to alienate as many C2s as possible and make, for the first time ever, the Tories seem the silly party. That could, I suppose, be Dave's triumph - he's re-branded them as the silly party not the sleazy party. Unfortunately, it's the green labelled brand the C2s will pass by. Over to you Tiberius and apologies to Fraser for utilizing his post for this side debate.

wonderfulforhisage

TGF UKIP Masterly. Note to the D'Acona chappie, any chance of signing up TGF as a regular contributor to the Specie?

Ed

Agreed, TGF seems to be absolutely spot on with virtually all his posts. Good job. There was nothing wrong with Conservative policy per se in 2005; poll after poll suggested that Tory policies were popular until they were revealed as being Tory. The politics of Conservativism were, and still are, sound. As a party member, I voted for Cameron in that leadership election. I wanted him to make the Conservatives seem and sound less shrill and reactionary; less like immigrant bashing duffers, more like sensible, modern, "what works" politicians. Social liberalism, or even libertarianism (with a small 'L', perhaps). I wanted him to close down for good what many close friends and colleagues (who aren't Tories) have said to me in the past; that we're all a bunch of bigoted, racist, sexist, sleazy, chauvinist, fat Daily Mail readers. I wanted one of my friends, who is openly gay, to stop thinking the Conservative party thought he was a sinner beyond redemption. In other words: keep the economic conservativism firmly where it should be, get a little bit more up to date on the social side, and kick the racists and bible bashers out very publicly. Somehow what we've ended up with is a horrid mix of the worst bits of everything; an affront to sensible Tory economics (Osborne matching spending commitments, green taxes, nonsense about 'proceeds of growth') whilst rubbishing any commitment to recognising modern society by promising to bring back the Married Couple's Allowance. No Dave! You've got it the bloody wrong way round! Don't know what to do now. Still a Tory, always will be, but bloody miserable now, and I will be until DC sorts his life out - or he goes.

Tiberius

TGF, I go along with what you say up to Cameron's election and the need for re-branding. But I don't think you have given an alternative to what Cameron has done, which would have the Tories higher in the polls than they are today. When Cameron became leader, most analysts still recognized that the "ask" to go from Howard to Government in 5 years was asking a lot of anyone. But a few short months ago, the Tories swept the board at council elections, had 40% of the vote, and had the Labour Party pushing for "anyone but Gordon". And this stuff about the environment, which many Tories find repellent to listen to, is the reality of much of society today. We all have to recycle now, and the school of which I am a governor, for example, now composts its guinea pig waste. Such were the things that took Cameron to those heights. So why are The Tories where they are today? Has society reacted overnight? No. Quite simply, we got PM Brown. He's taken everyone, including the "anyone but Gordon" lot by surprise. He's had help from the media and events, particularly the failed terrorist attacks so early on. But, devil incarnate that he is, you have to give it to the guy for engaging with an unfathomable electorate. The DT has run a number of articles saying this, and many of its correspondents have mistaken these article as support for Brown. So, it's not even a question of "we are where we are" - actually we couldn't have done more given the starting point in 2005. Yes, the grammar schools debate was stupid, but no more damaging in the overall scheme of things than Brown's non-tax-cutting tax-cutting budget was to him. Cameron has next week to try and turn the situation round, and as Matt has said, the future of the party is at stake. For me, so is the welfare of the country. If he fails, I shan't be cursing myself for supporting him in 2005 because I know he was the best option, and came tantalisingly close at some points to making the big "ask". What I should then start to wonder is what kind of future the voters expect for this country. Perhaps many don't have any expectations.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius too late to respond now, I'm going to bed and I'm also starting to be seriously concerned whether or not we are abusing the hospitality of our hosts with the length of this exchange. If they don't switch me off I'll respond tomorrow or Friday. Night night.

Tiberius

I'm sure they'd censor us if they didn't like the content, TGF. This new format is good - easier on the eye.

Iain Swan

Is the problem for we Conservatives , not similar to the one faced by Labour in 1994 ? For us to regain power , we must jettison much of what we believe just as the left had to in selecting Blair ? Thatcher was too successful, she destroyed the old Labour party completely but her successors could do with some of that party remaining intact to remind the electorate of their worst excesses and to show that the core Conservatives policies and beliefs are correct. Alas I fear if we ever want to see a Conservative government in the immediate future we must give up so much of what we believe in. Conservatism has been unfashionable for the past fifteen years and shows no signs of making a comeback, thanks to the efforts of Mandelson, Blair Campbell , the B.B.C. Channel 4 etc hence Cameron's policy of decontamination. But will it be worth it just to have a government that is Conservative in name only ?

Tiberius

I don't believe it would only be a nominal Conservative government. But to be elected, you do have to avoid frightening the horses beforehand. Labour makes sure the voters believe in the witch that would cut taxes and close schools and hospitals, so the Tories have to hedge and wait and see the books. But should they gain office, identifying waste and then cutting taxes would be quite reasonable, alongside sharing the proceeds of growth. And apart from the economy, the Tories have distinct policies: elected police chiefs, removing target-driven management in the public sector, proper border controls, and ditching ID cards are examples. The sense of relief that such a series of policies would bring would be immense, but at present Cameron is entangled in the expansive web of Brown spin.

TGF UKIP

Tiberius, I think you may have missed the point of my earlier post, a point succinctly well made by Ed above when he says of 2005 "poll after poll suggested that Tory policies were popular until they were revealed as being Tory." Spot on. The Blair/Campbell/Mandelson black arts had worked and by creating the picture of the supposedly loathsome people Tories were, the policies were contaminated too. This was the challenge facing any Tory Leader in 2005 - how to make the Party more acceptable beyond its core so its demonstrably popular policies would also become acceptable too. It's at this point in 2005 at the ascent of Cameron that we flatly disagree. You assert ""actually we couldn't have done more given the starting point in 2005." I really don't think you could be more wrong or Dave more foolish and misguided than he's proved to be. First of all to put into context this need to redeem the image of the Party, it must be noted that time had moved on. The Black Hand gang had wreaked their principal damage between 1995 and 1997 and by 2005 most of the targets of their smears had gone from front line Tory politics. Howard was in many ways the last reminder and he was most memorably damaged by Anne Widdecombe's "something of the night about him." On the other side too, time had moved on with Blair having lost Campbell and Mandelson and while spin and lie was still Labour's first recourse, the unrelenting venom and vitriol of tens years earlier had largely dissipated. Moreover, Dave was new and untarnished had a relaxed style and rhetorical gifts and with the population ready to move on eight years after 1997, he had the opportunity to be the symbol of "Tories Moving On." So what did he do? Instead of saying that was then, here's now, he evoked rather than ignored the past by continuing to mention and apologize for it. It was as if Ford had launched an ad campaign knocking Vauxhall cars only for Vauxhall to follow on with their own campaign knocking Vauxhall cars. In short Dave "dissed" the Tory Party and its "nasty right wing" policies just as well as Labour could. Having dug one huge hole for himself he proceeded simultaneously with another by unctuously announcing "the end of Punch and Judy politics" (Mr Punch Blair must have nearly wet himself with laughing so much.) The net result of all this was as soon as he tried to move to any sort of safe mainstream Tory ground or mount some vigorous opposition to the Governemt (as if!) there was/is a Labour/BBC chorus of "Lurch to the Right", "same old Tories" and "return to Punch and Judy." Not content with these, he then dug an even deeper hole for himself by announcing publicly reporting Policy Reviews without, apparently, even reserving the right for a pre-publication editing by some grown ups. And out they came, and out Labour will make sure they stick - 7p on a pint, taxes on holiday flights, taxes on supermarket parking. Can you ever remember a modern politician being so stupid. Can you imagine Blair or Brown being so undisciplined? Worst of all though neither he nor his largely lightweight and absentee front bench have given Labour anything of a real and sustained fight. It's this that annoys so many so much. This personally and institutionally corrupt and profligate Government can do what it likes because its opposition is so feeble. Meanwhile, having quite unnecessarily abandoned provenly popular Tory policies and rhetoric on crime, immigration (and shortly on taxes) to Labour, Dave Quixote embarks on two unwinnable battles - to unite and bring harmony to the inner cities and council estates of Britain and to save the world from what he calls climate change. Well good luck Dave! He's bust Tiberius, politically deader than the parrot. The 40% in Local Government Elections in May and the earlier poll leads were just mirages. It was just that people were absolutely sick of Blair and as for Dave and Boy George's "bring on Gordon" nonsense, it just proves what a pair of political plonkers they are. How could anyone have seriously thought that after waiting so long in the wings and lying so low a politician as clever, disciplined and well versed in the arts of spin as Brown would not have an arrival spectacular planned in detail. The simple truth about Dave is just that he's not very good. He's not even a good PR man; good PR is subtle but Dave/Creepy Hilton's attempts - Dave on bike with car following photo opp, Dave in parka on husky sled at North Pole via private aircraft photo opp, Dave's windmill on house in middle of London with greens queuing up to say it generates no energy except in fury from his neighbours. So crass, he must have gone to the Del Trotter School of PR. And what of next week, Tiberius, this weekend the polls will be down to 30%, perhaps even less but I'm sure it will be a wonderful speech, Mr d'Ancona's already got next week's Leader written, but at the end of the week if anybody asks you "what do the Tories stand for" what would you tell them? "Social cohesion" - that would get a good laugh down the Red Lion. (btw, got to draw the line there Tiberius, I'm getting knackered from all this typing - enjoyed it though just wish we had a bigger space for comments. Perhaps they're trying to tell us something.)

Tiberius

If I may have one more go: I think TGF is saying I missed his point that the fresh Cameron Tory party would have been successful if it had kept to the Howard/Hague policies. I don't agree with that - I have said my assumptions were based on the fact that a fourth go at all that stuff would have fallen on deaf ears again. As long as any Tory was espousing those policies, the demonization they would receive would always stick. Brown can get away with dissing foreign immigrant workers. But so far Cameron has only brought (has only had the time!) to bring the Tories to a position where they can talk about controlled immigration without without being burned at the stake. Best agree to differ, TGF, but I'd be happy for one of the journos to intervene here (if anyone else has read this far) and inject some inside knowledge or opinion on this polemic.

James F

I agree with Tiberius. If Cameron had said what Brown had said about deporting immigrant who peddle drugs to our children we'd still be talking about it today. Remember Hague's foreign land speech? Sadly, Brown can get away with this cheap demagoguery.

tgf ukip

Hague's foreign land speech was six years ago Mr Forsyth and is your reference to it based on psephological analysis or the received metropolitan wisdom of the day? This one remains where it is, though, but the question of what Tories (or anyone on the right) think they can or cannot say and who and what they believe are their constraints (and whether they should accept those constraints)is a huge issue and one I am sure we'll be getting back to. Meanwhile, all I'll say is that for a party that is supposed to have freedom as a central creed it is hardly likely to inspire confidence or belief if they won't fight for it for themselves.

Keith Cullup

Should Brown go to the polls in the next few weeks, despite being a conservative supporter I would wish him to win BUT with a FOUR seat majority! Simply to ensure that the blame for economic downturn, unemployment, falling house prices etc are laid at the correct door and not at the Conservatives who, ten years ago, left a very different legacy that has been squandered.

MillPoint

Philip Stephens in today's FT is on the money. The danger for Brown now is that he manipulated himself into a corner and an early election could blow up in his face. No, the Tories do not want an election now but an early poll could yield unexpectedly useful dividends for them. For Brown, it would end up as a massive Balls up!

J.Richard Watson

AS long as house prices stay around where they are now and as long as there is no sharp rise in unemployment Gordon Brown is safe. Only when all the Tories associated with the Thatcher Major years have vanished off the screens can the Conservatives make a come back and their best chance is to find a woman to lead them from amongst the newcomers. Hague especially looks tired, old and failed

Arthur Taylor

Is not the decision to dissolve Parliament one for H.M.The Queen to make, and should she not decline to do so where this administration has a strong majority, and the parliament still with a couple of years to run?