Will Brown call an election in '1943'?
Peter Hoskin 10:14am
Weighing up the prospects of a snap election, Jonathan Freedland makes a pertinent point in today's Guardian:
"But what happens when the immediate mood of crisis passes, and voters ask whether Brown's frenetic activity actually made any difference? If the answer is not much, he'll be finished. Yet success might not help, either. Voters could decide that Brown had served his purpose and was no longer needed. Think 1945: it was because Winston Churchill had won the war that Britons felt free to boot him out.So Brown needs it to be 1943 for as long as possible. He needs voters to believe the crisis is ongoing, that we are still in the emergency phase. Ideally, he would go into the next election as Dr Brown, still wearing his white coat, still administering medicine to the patient on life support. He doesn't want the patient sitting up, asking if all that treatment did any good. Not yet anyway."
This line of thinking is supported by last week's Populus poll, in which 52 percent of respondents thought Brown the best party leader "to deal with Britain's economy in recession," compared to 32 percent for Cameron. Whilst 42 percent of repondents thought Cameron the best to "lead Britain forward after the next general election," compared to 35 percent in favour of Brown. The question is whether Brown will exploit this public sentiment by calling a snap election in his 1943 - aka 2009.
Previous
Slim Jim
November 19th, 2008 10:29am Report this commentSince you're using the medical analogy, the question is - why is the patient ill? As the dole queues lengthen and the economy nosedives, people will start to see the bigger picture. It will be interesting to see what the polls will say in coming weeks, especially after Baby 'P' and the Conservative proposals.
Kev G
November 19th, 2008 10:34am Report this comment1943, shmineteen '43.
History does not decide policy arguments. It can however refute policy arguments based on bad historical precedent.
- Noel Malcolm
maas101
November 19th, 2008 10:39am Report this commentPlease letr it be so.
It is high time that the population was given a say in the management of the country. Whatever the outcome it will put an end to the short term measures and bribes which will continue to wreck an already pitifully weak economy.
If Labour do by some miracle pull of a victory it will at least solidify my resolve to leave this country for good.
Michael McGowan
November 19th, 2008 10:43am Report this commentPeople won't start to see the bigger picture unless the Tories use every means at their disposal to rebut the firestorm of lies and distortions with which they will be faced. So far, their efforts have been feeble: a water pistol against a machine gun.
Slim Jim
November 19th, 2008 11:06am Report this commentMichael, I feel it's not so much that the Tories are using water pistols, it is the might of the Zanulab media machine that is so effective. They're in power, and they have the upper hand. Haven't you noticed how timid the press have been since the disgraceful Mandelson and Campbell have stuck their heads out from the sewer? Only a few weeks ago, the media were kicking lumps out of Brown. The emphasis should now be on the massive debts this country is running up. 'Cuts in services?' The Tories must counter that accusation with FACTS. How much do quangos and consultants cost us? 'Taking money out of the economy with their cuts?' Nonsense - it's our money and it's better off in our pockets! Fight fire with fire and have some faith!
Michael McGowan
November 19th, 2008 11:37am Report this commentThe Tories have not fought fire with fire since the 1992 election, and even then they were half-hearted.
Slim Jim
November 19th, 2008 11:54am Report this commentI can't disagree with that, Michael, but they'll get my vote. I really worry about the future of democracy and freedom in this country. I still believe that the Tories will pull some rabbits out of the hat. I'll keep taking the medication...
disgusted
November 19th, 2008 12:59pm Report this commentMay be a circular argument, but Mandy and Campbell would have no thrall if Tories started to retain the attention that people keep trying to throw at them.
Why does Cameron keep diffusing it? He did it in the Tory Conference. Just when he could have "marched on London" and crushed Brown, he surrendered, and asked it he could be included in the Bank Nationalisation Unit. He did it again today.
Blair and Campbell led the media into having nothing but contempt for Major etc i.e. they were the bullies that led the gang.
Why does Cameron appear so shy of going in for the kill?
Hysteria
November 20th, 2008 1:16am Report this comment"Why does Cameron appear so shy of going in for the kill?"
erm - because he is out of his depth? Has no true political convictions?
Hugh
December 9th, 2008 2:46pm Report this commentAll this talk of Brown as a wartime leader, surely he is our Neville Chanmberlain not our Winston. To quote from wiki...
"He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition National Government in 1931 and spent six years reducing the war debt and the tax burden. When Stanley Baldwin retired after the abdication of Edward VIII and the coronation of George VI, Chamberlain took his place as Prime Minister in 1937 Chamberlain was forced to resign the premiership on 10 May 1940, after Germany invaded ....."
We are in for years of Blood, Toil, Sweat etc and we have not yet seen the end of the phoney war!
Back to top