´óÏó´«Ã½

Fasinating Nick,

All in all I think the risk of failure and the notoriety of being (one of?)the shortist PMs after such a long wait, and from a decision made by him he does not need to take, will mean he won't be asking for an election.

We will get some nonsense about never intending to call an election that the spinners will hope we swallow. The close watchers wont but the country is probably more interested in Coronation Street and wont really care.

The embassessment from the risk of creating his own downfall is less appealing than taking the chance of carrying on. He'll take his chance in a year or two "out of the blue".

But really he may do the opposite if he thinks the economy is really heading for chaos.......

"Tosh" or otherwise, the truth is that this would be an unnecessary election - we have a parliamentary system and as Malcolm Rifkind said the other day constitutionally, it seems very odd to permit a working government to opt for a general election when one is so obviously not required. Equally, politically, if Gordon Brown is returned with a smaller majority (losing some in marginal seats) might that not also be the start of discontent (very hushed at first) about his leadership! Unless he knows something we don't, Gordon Brown would be foolish to go at the present time.

The doubt is constantly damaging brown. The longer it persist the worse it will be for him (whatever the outcome).

That is why I am sure that he has not made a decision - if he had he could halt the damage by declareing it.

However by not being able to make a decision he is damaged even further -noone wants an indecisive, confused leader.

It is a lose, lose, lose situation for brown and labour. The announcement of the decision will just crystalise the amount of damage done.

I'm always very sceptical about opinion polls, especially those done immediately after a significant event, in this case the Conservative Conference. Cameron's speech was rousing, impressive and dominant, one that has clearly gone down well with the voters, who, let's face it, are incredibly fickle.

And they've got a right to be. We've had years and years of "promises, promises, promises" and subsequently, years of "failure, failure, failure" and not just by the Labour government since 1997. All these broken promises have instilled in the British public a huge sense of apathy and a huge sense of distrust. So when Cameron speaks of what his party will do in government, while it may carry clout and be persuasive, it can be taken one of two ways:

1) This is the way forward for Britain; these policies will be put into practice by the Tories and they will work.

2) Nothing more than rousing rhetoric from a man skilled in PR, introducing policies that look good on paper but cannot, and will not, be put into practice.

Unfortunately for Cameron, and indeed for all the political parties, us voters more-often-than-not will choose the latter, since we have been conditioned to think this way by years of underachievement and broken promises.

It may or may not be the right time for an election - that's something Brown has got to decide - but I wouldn't say there is much of an argument for choosing either:

If an election is called now, the Tories may sneak in on the wave of euphoria after a very successful conference, yet I believe Labour are still in the box seat at this time, since there is still much uncertainty as to whether the Conservatives are a better (or, more importantly, viable) alternative. By calling an autumn election, Brown can cement his position as PM and simultaneously douse the flames of the Tories' revival.

If Brown waits until next year or beyond, he has got time to deliver and strengthen both his position as PM and Labour's as the ruling government, yet if he fails to deliver, he will prove that his incapabilities and hasten Cameron's ascent to Number 10.

There are pros and cons to both sides of the debate, but no overarching advantage either way.

Nick,
Mr Brown isn't going to call an election with these latest polls.
Like you say he's a calculator.

In addition If I were really being cynical I might say that all the election talk was just a ploy to flush out the new Tory policies into the public domain. Mr Brown might take a few onboard himself and it gives him time to study the others for weaknesses.

Labour traditionally does better in polls than in reality.Boundary changes don't help Labour either.

An election - can't see it myself!

I get the feeling that the media have been suckered into doing exactly what Labour wanted - get an indication on their public rating.

But this seems to have backfired slightly, since Gordon Brown has painted himself into a corner. If he goes for the election now, there is a genuine danger of a hung parliament, since Labour in Wales and Scotland are pretty unpopular and would hold the balance of power. If he decides to wait, he risks being labelled as a coward, with the added danger of economic problems in the near future.

I think the best bet is that he will go for it earlier and risk losing a fair number of seats.

"Brown would be mad - and he isn't..."

There's a debate right there.

NICK

2 of those polls are less than 1,000 people-hardly worth a light!

The Yougov is twice the size & I think about the real state of play. The key bit in there-37% say now,32% wait until Spring. Hardly a ringing endorsement for going to the country now & THAT is what I think the PM wants-an indication people want to vote for him positively.

I think Mr Brown will want a bigger indication of that in his party's position, not just his own standing v Mr Cameron. In other words, a couple of Parliamentary terms & people would get to see he IS different and a change in practice, not just on the Conference platform.

That's my wife's considered view as well & she's usually right about these things,being a classic middle-of-the-road uncommitted voter. Yes, caution's also her middle name, but when did we do exciting in British politics anyway?

The analysis makes interesting reading, but as you and Mr Duncan French rightly observe, it would be a wholly unneccessary election. If he jumps, I hope he is punished for wasting all our time when there is no need for an election for another two years. Steady government not endless polls, please.

Nick, after days of thinking he's definitely going to the polls, I don't think he can now. Because;

a) The Tories have had a bounce this week.

b) A Royal Mail strike will affect everyone and possibly disrupt the election. Unlike the containable Prison Officers' strike.

C) More unions related to public services might be going on strike soon.

d) It is pretty much certain that an Autumn/Winter election would mean a lower (perhaps much lower) voter turn-out.

e) He would probably win an election but at what cost? A Lib-Lab coalition government?

As a Labourite I hope that comrade Brown doesn't go to the country. For one thing, when many people voted Labour in the last election they knew that Blair wouldn't be PM for the full term and that Brown was very likely to take over the country. We still won the majority of seats.

The doubt is constantly damaging brown. The longer it persist the worse it will be for him (whatever the outcome).

That is why I am sure that he has not made a decision - if he had he could halt the damage by declareing it.

However by not being able to make a decision he is damaged even further -noone wants an indecisive, confused leader.

It is a lose, lose, lose situation for brown and labour. The announcement of the decision will just crystalise the amount of damage done.

I agree it's not worth taking the polls following Cameron's speech too seriously. As Ian Hislop said last night on Question Time, the newspapers should be partly to blamed for this to-ing and fro-ing. It is obvious that a party's popularity will increase during their conference! It needs a few days to settle.

However, I would suggest that there is no point going for an election if he is not certain of keeping, or improving his majority. Don't do it just because otherwise it will be seen as 'bottling' it - in a month, it will be forgotten, and people will be focussing on the government once again.

Tread carefully, Mr Brown

Let's get in straight, Brown is not a risk taker. He will attempt to get out of his current predicament by proclaiming that `I shall not be pressurised into calling a General Election, New Labour have a mandate for at least two more years and the British people (emphasis upon `BRITISH`) want the kind of stability that only New Labour can offer at this time`.

Mind you, I might be wrong. Perhaps the risk of being called a wimp will force his hand and result in a narrow but workable victory for David Cameron.

There are two main considerations really -the economy and reputation.

If the guiding light as to when you call an election is how the economy is doing and therefore how good people feel, in their pockets mostly, then now is the time for an election. The next two/three years will be dominated by economic slow down and (gradually atleast, crashing possibly) falling house market. The old feel good factor is as good as it's gonna get, so get to the polls Mr Brown!

As for reputation, Mr Brown has now put himself in the same place Blair did a few years ago. Blair announced he wouldn't stand for re election and spent the next three years fending off the question as to when he would stand down. From then on his position was shot. If Mr Brown doesn't call an election now he too could spent the next three years regular fending off the question 'will it be this month Mr Brown?'. His postion will also be equally shot. Every question time, for next three years, if i where David C. that's what I would ask. It would irrate the hell out of Mr Brown.

I vote Liberal Democrat.

I suspect Gordon Brown will quite truthfully be able to tell us tuesday or so that he considered the matter in detail on sunday in a collegaite meeting with his principal ministers and that he has decieded whatever.

He has been getting on with governing, prior to the resumption of Parliament.

We don’t all favour the drama queen options so well favoured by the self serving media operatives, and the opposition parties who are so desperate for publicity.

I am afraid that the hysteria has become ridiculous, a little like the sad time after Princess Diana died.

Am I alone in thinking that whatever well meaning policies Labour might wish to introduce, they are just incompetent at making them work. They couldn't organise a party in a brewery.

I am not too interested in politians but i have to say i really liked what i heard from Cameron.

The Prime Minister should disregard the call for an election by a shallow, febrile media and desperate opposition parties promising things they can't deliver. The charge of cowardice shows a lack of regard for the long-term public interest. The real courage is in standing up, rather than succumbing to, such accusations. Getting on with governing and preparing the country for more difficult economic times ahead will be much more beneficial to the PM and the labour government in the long-run.

The Prime Minister should disregard the call for an election by a shallow, febrile media and desperate opposition parties promising things they can't deliver. The charge of cowardice shows a lack of regard for the long-term public interest. The real courage is in standing up, rather than succumbing to, such accusations. Getting on with governing and preparing the country for more difficult economic times ahead will be much more beneficial to the PM and the labour government in the long-run.

An election now does look increasingly unlikely, although it is unclear as to whether the Conservative 'bounce' will hold.

Isn't it time that we had a leader who recognised that, as PM, they have a duty to serve the electorate? On initially ascending to the post of PM, Gordon Brown made great play of the prospect of ending the position wherein a government can dictate the date of an election, moving to fixed terms as seen in the US.

Yet now, the Prime Minister's inability to act decisively, one way or the other, shows his leadership up for what it really is, despite the rhetoric. Spin, spin, and more spin. No true substance.

If Mr. Brown is an honourable politician of his word, then he should not call an election until the official end of this term of government - painful though that may be for the people - and bring in a clear statute for fixed terms in the future.

One final thought - to ensure that the people of this country are not betrayed by their politicians, we should bear this in mind:

A general election should only be called when it is in the interests of the people to call one. To base the timing of an election around the interests of the government is the worst possible example of political betrayal.

Brown has already lost. Essentially he has tried to duck and dive around the media with suggestions and PR of an election in order to get a feel of true public perception in order to seek a guaranteed win, and it’s backfired.

Why do this? Its because he knows deep down that on evidence of the promises made and broken and the twists and turns of this government people are getting fed up.
If he had true belief of the success of this country and the improvements made as well as the future outlook on the economy he would never have felt the need to hang in limbo and put so much consideration on when to have an election.

For a confident man there would have been two choices 1, call a snap election straight away as soon as he was in power or 2, categorically dismiss one publicly and successfully serve his remaining term. Obviously neither of these appealed to him!!

This in its self shows us the real Gordon Brown. The doors are closing for him, will they open slightly now or close even more over the next months

The big decision for Brown is can government do anything different to actually deliver after ten years over the rest of his term to increase his chances of being re elected, or is what he has now his best bet.

Problem is he has just had a wake up call from the public and the Tories about the true future aspirations of, as Cameron put it "Britan" and now he could well loose anytime.

I can’t help thinking it’s all over mate and that’s your fault for playing the game the way you have. Still someone had to stop the game it’s just ironic you did it yourself!

I think that Brown won't go for the election, as Nick says he's more of a calculating weigher up of statistics than a political barnstormer. the only problem he faces is that if he doesn't go for the election now, despite the inevitable problems of the longer-term economic prospects for the nation, his image as a leader will be tainted in some voters' minds.
One of the prevailing positive views of Brown held by many is his 'strong' leadership and his being a PM who can make tough decisions and 'just get on with the job'. I think the amount of coverage saying Brown is bottling his decision on an election, combined with his past track record on not stepping forward against Blair and his recent use of political stunts during the Tory conference, will all count against his image in many people's minds. I am also sure this will be exploited in the future as well, it's almost as if Brown's been lead a little by his advisors into these stunts, and the overall one of inviting speculation of an election, when he has no strategy.
I think whatever he does he'll come out of this weakened a little, event though many people won't be interested if he does go now or later. In terms of future risk, he's probably looking down the barrel if as expected we feel the bight in the economy next year, as his economic record is all he's got to fall back on.
If he does call an election, then he may win, but face the prospect of a 40 seat majority, and given most of his troublemaking back-bench rebels are from Labour heartlands, his government could be seriously compromised in terms of getting legislation through.

If an election is called for November, it will probably be because the economic situation will be such that the Prime Minister couldn't risk calling on in May 2009 (the erstwhile most likely date) or later.

If the Conservatives win an early election, it might have echoes of their unexpected win in 1992 which was followed by an economic meltdown then an electoral meltdown.

Brown & Co are not thinking of the country - just themselves.

How do we maximise our chances of getting back in?

It isn't about that for the common man - we just want the best and fairest deal!

Would some politician just for once please prioritise us - the people - who pay your wages - remember?

I like the way Gordon Brown is constantly being accused of having created all this election speculation when it's quite blatantly all been hyped up by the media (particularly Sky News).

As it is, I think Gordon Brown should topple David Cameron now. And I look forward to watching his impropmtu, auto-cue free, unscripted speech on why he's decided to resign as leader of the Tory party after leading them to yet another election catastrophe.

And another thing. Why does eveyone keep banging on about the problems of getting voters out to cast their ballots in the cold depths of November? I thoughht we all voted by post nowadays.

Go on Gord! Call that election!

Every hour of delay in calling the election on or off is costing him support.
If Tories go into the lead in next wave of opinion polls it will look like Gordon chickened out

If the Government's spending in April was based on growth of 3% and expected growth is now 1.9% - surely this means that the Governement is going to be short of £5,000,000,000 to spend (which presumably has been already spent knowing GB). I note the government is about to spend even more money they don't have on this Cross-city rail link.

To quote Labour - "The Figures Don't Add Up"

We already have forecasts of lower economic growth, reduction in property prices, increasing bad debt. Take away the economy and what has Labour got?

It would seem certain that a collapse in consumer confidence after such a sustained period of 'growth' would be much greater than previous times - so we might be at the turning point of the biggest, longest 'boom and bust' ever. If Mr Brown is concerned that this will happen, he will go to the Country. If not he will stay (as he is perfectly entitled to do so.)

Yes Brown should have the courage to go ahead and see what the British people feel about the failures of all the policies and spin of the last ten years when he was the Chancellor and in the cabinet and gave his support to the Iraq war, the disastrous health/educational policies and introduced his own pension and stealth tax policies that have made us all poorer.
He should seek a new mandate.
Bring it on and lets have a new broom.

I have been listening to Nick Robinson on the news over a number of months and although I think to work for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in a political role you need to be objective, I think on a regular basis there is a clear bias by him in supporting the Labour Party. Maybe there are other people who have noticed the same in his view of the situation.
I am proud to think I am objective and listen to all parties, and I voted labour in 1997 because we needed a change. I now think we are ready for another change of government because Labour ministers have become too comfortable with their life. Gordon Brown is using his energy and brain power in the wrong directions at the moment, he needs to think more out of the box, than he has done in the last 100 days.
Nick I think you need to be a little more objective in your reporting.

Well-analysed Nick, but I have a couple of questions that no one seems to ask. If this is the best that the Tories can do, then why is it that after all the hammering, David Cameron has not even managed to hit the bell? - Why? - The Tories are still trailing Labour in the so-called 48 hours opinion polls.
Nick, do I remember you saying that the Tories require at least a minimum of a 5-point lead to scrape through? Why is it then that all of a sudden David Cameron is calling for an election, when he is not doing so well in the opinion polls? Could this be because of his position as a leader, and maybe he would have to leave because he looses an election - rather then a leadership challenge?
Nick, the media is talking about Brown, but are failing to provide us with some analyses regarding David Cameron’s decision!
You are well versed with what is going on so you might shed some light on this. Have a nice day Nick.

Come on Nick, YOU make a decision!!

Labour are two years in. Brown has a choice of probably three years with his steady majority or three years either in a coalition, in opposition (still find this unlikely) or with a smaller majority.

Even if the economy does take a turn for the worse, how can he possibly benefit from such an election? He won't gain two years, he will jepordise three.

And a secondary point. The Tories have played a beautiful card with the "Non-Doms" Poll Tax. But, Brown has the opportuntiy here to simply match them or raise them on this.

Fair enough, it won't show leadership but it will show that he listens and I a certain that the majority will still want someone like Brown who can adopt and change, rather than Cameron who is still, depsite this weeks rousing speech, Mr A. Blair the 2nd. When it comes to the crunch and the dust has settled, I think people will see through that.

The real obscenity is that this speculation has been allowed. It's damaging to government, it's reckless, and it just annoys people. We have to move to fixed terms - if it's good enough for the councils, Wales, Scotland, and the EU elections that we already have, why not Westminster? Particularly since, of the Anglosphere, only Westminster and Dublin permit this abuse, and only Westminster governments treat it as such a ridculous game. Canada has recently gone onto fixed four year terms. As with so much, we should follow their example.

If the PM goes to the poles he's stupid: he isn't stupid VERY smart, smarter than Blair.

Hope you should !

Watching Question Time last night I was, yet again, horrified and angered by Ruth Kelly's patronising arrogance and I was reminded of what Jeremy Paxman oft quotes when he knows politicians are lying to him. We, the voting public, have been treated as stupid by this government: that statement in Iraq was pure spin and how Ruth Kelly could sit there and say it was 'technically' correct is just beyond belief. What Gordon Brown should be thinking about right now is how he (in the hopefully short time he has left) might implement the many policy changes that are needed to make good on everything that has gone so badly wrong over the past 10 years. How can anybody believe a single thing that these people say? Mea culpa I voted for Blair.

That said David Cameron and his team need a bit longer to show us what they can do but oh don't they look fresh and honest compared to Labour!!! Nice to hear politicians speaking to people again rather than talking down to us.

Brown has now undermined his own position. the voters are going to see him as a man who cannot make decisions under pressure.

People in the country and in particular the media are getting increasingly frustrated that he has not either quashed the idea of a general election or given the go ahead.

If Brown doesnt call an election he looks weak and indisisive now. If he calls one he may lose. the Brown bounce lasted longer and stronger than expected, who knows what will happen with the Cameron bounce.

the element of doubt has now been put in the minds of the voters after the iraq troops fiasco and now the rushed health policy, he looks increasingly unreliable and people have began to wake up to the fact that Brown spins just as much if not more than Blair.

I agree with all the opinions that Brown should not call an election now. Even if he is talked of as weak for backing down - any temporary unpopularity relating to it will soon disappear in the mists of time.Better to be temporarily unpopular for bottling an election than losing, a reduced majority or hung parliament.

I believe people will in the long run respect Brown for not cutting and running now but getting on with the business of government,for which labour was elected and if he is to lose at the end of it he will have done his best and will go with dignity and I suspect with his reputation enhanced.

That being said I believe he will win in 2009 or 2010. I do not rate Cameron. He looked good against a finished Blair but even then Blair skewered him for not having any policies and he is not much better now.

Brown is my man, whatever befalls us.

Peter Ellis

He can't win on this anymore.

As Mr Portillo so clearly laid it out, if he was going to call a snap election, it should have been immediately after he took over as PM, as you could argue that there is a requirement to get a mandate from the people after TB had stated that he would serve a full term. However, if he calls an early election now, he will look as if he is only calling one because he's surprised himself on how well/lucky he had been doing in the polls and expects the economy and other things to unravel around him in the coming year/s.

If he decides to leave it until 08/09, I think he will be termed an indecisive ditherer; a tag which could stay with him long after people have forgotten about the whole election fiasco.

The problem the Tories could face is if they win, is that they may well have to call an early election in the future themselves. If they are paralysed by an even representation in the commons, they could risk loosing it, becoming one of the shortest governments terms in history.

GB has painted himself into a corner. He thought it would be a good wheeze to stoke up the fever at first, but was naive, or badly advised, to think that his opponents would look like they were running scared. They were.at first. now they have had chance to compose themselves and go on the attack. If he goes for it now it looks like a mixture of bravado and giving in to the pressure he originated. if he doesn't, he's accused of bottling it out. Either way, it looks bad for his Iron/resolute reputation, and the effects will come back to haunt him .for the record,he'll rule it out I think this weekend.And he will be lambasted for being weak and hand a victory to the posh bloke and the older one who no-one cares about.

Gary McGhee, you wrote:

'The Prime Minister should disregard the call for an election by a shallow, febrile media and desperate opposition parties promising things they can't deliver.'

Hang on one moment, all the evidence suggests that the calls for an election are coming from within his own cabinet. While we can blame the media and the opposition for a lot, I don't think that you're blaming the right people here. By not ruling it out Brown is pouring fuel on the speculation. Indeed, you might even say he ignited the whole thing!

In all this hee-haw not much mention is made of one major policy headache for Brown that would be skirted calling an election now: the commitment made at the last election to a referendum on the EU constitution.

Now, I know that Brown is adamant that the Reform Treaty is not the same the same thing as the Constitution but this is proving increasingly hard to sell.

If he goes to the electorate in two years time having not given a referendum where one was perceived to have been promised he could find himself in a fix.

The requirement for the UK to ratify the Reform Treaty looms large in Q1 2008. How much more convenient to go to the electorate with the referendum commitment quietly dropped, before the EU-doo really hits the fan next year. He’s then got four full years to get over any damage caused by ratification. Tough, but not impossible; and preferable to dealing with the mess of a near-certain referendum defeat.

Given that he’ll have ceded nearly all his executive and legislative power to the Council of Ministers et al they’ll be a restful few years. Apart from those ‘schools and hospitals’ we’ll never stop hearing about. But only the ones in England, of course. Well away from Dunfermline.

NICK

The other thing I forgot to post-one BIG advantage for Mr Brown in not going now.

When you think about it,what can he do today, tomorrow and on 1,8,15 etc of November that Mr Cameron cannot, if he doesn't go for calling no election forthwith?

GOVERN!! Thinking back a little to Westland & ERM, the Tories didn't rush to the polling booths at the opposition's request, plus, when they did go, after the requisite 4 years, look what happened;another go at GOVERNING!

Perhaps we should have taken Gordon Brown at his word a few weeks back. In 6 months or later, Tony Blair & "his" failures will be history, as will any chicken choruses from the opposition benches.

Given the closeness of the polls, then whenever the election comes it will - I am sure - be quite dirty. There'll be lots of cheap shots, untruths and skulduggery. And the thing about untruths is that it's actually not that often that a lie peddled on the tv news and which subsequently unwinds is given much - if any - prominence. One thing that I would ask is that the Beeb does not allow itself to be dragged - willingly or unwillingly - into the rubbish that the unscrupulous wish to take it. On the timing of an election, there should absolutely be no reason why Gordon should be obliged to call one now, or at any time before it's ordinarily due. The fact that Gordon is in this situation is, it seems, because someone wanted to be clever and tried to put the frighteners on the Tories - and the tactic has back-fired.

Gordon Brown comes accross as someone who wouldn't visit the toilet without a plan and guranteed outcome.

I don't think he will call an election because he has more to lose than to win by calling one. What reason would he give the electorate? Unless he came up with a new manifesto significantly different from two years ago? Theoretically it could be the EU issue but he is on record that the "treaty" is different from the "constitution" (Presumably on the basis that they are spelt differently)

Also I think he has lost credibility among many voters during this period. One of my neighboours was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but his recent silly games with the figures for troops returning has made him rethink.

David Cameron does not need to win the election to secure victory. If he can significantly reduce Gordon Brown's majority and increase the Conservative minority in Parliamant it may be enough to create a slow puncture in the Labour tyre since Gordon's leadership would surely be challenged particularly if the left wing in his party are more able to exert their influence and if he has to rely on Scottish MP's to secure votes for English issues.

If Brown decides now not to go to the country it will end up being Cameron's first major victory over the PM. For a man who didnt refer to the Tory leader in his speech, perhaps feeling he was below him, the turn of fortunes in a week could not be starker. Can Brown really settle for the Tory jibes of being too scared of going to the country after all the initial hpe?

This has all been media speculation with the other parties joining in because they dislike the uncertainty, look at the power they have to manipulate us all. A frenzy for frenzies sake !

He can't win on this anymore.

As Mr Portillo so clearly laid it out, if he was going to call a snap election, it should have been immediately after he took over as PM, as you could argue that there is a requirement to get a mandate from the people after TB had stated that he would serve a full term. However, if he calls an early election now, he will look as if he is only calling one because he's surprised himself on how well/lucky he had been doing in the polls and expects the economy and other things to unravel around him in the coming year/s.

If he decides to leave it until 08/09, I think he will be termed an indecisive ditherer; a tag which could stay with him long after people have forgotten about the whole election fiasco.

The problem the Tories could face is if they win, is that they may well have to call an early election in the future themselves. If they are paralysed by an even representation in the commons, they could risk loosing it, becoming one of the shortest governments terms in history.

Brown is a coward, as evidenced by his attemptsd to distance himself from every controversial decision of Blair's over the last 10 years, and specifically with regard to Iraq.

If he goes for an election now he will probably lose. When the country really thinks about the lack of talent in the Cabinet (remember the team of 1997) and compares it with Cameron's team, Brown's personal standing (which is anyway debatable) is not going to be enough to swing it.

If he goes for an election in 2009 he will certainly lose. House prices are beginning to fall, and an economic 'slowdown' is inevitable. Job losses are reported on the television news, problems in the NHS are set to get worse, there's been a mishandling of foot & mouth, and we have a postal strike.

Blair knew what he was doing. I expect he's sniggering now.

So Gordie might have to defend the Blair/Brown record before an English electorate? Record levels of immigration, violent crime on the rise, dissatisfaction with schools, dirty hospitals, expensive and crummy public transport, top-up fees for university students(not in Scotland of course), underfunding of the armed forces and the band plays on. So far Cameron has scored heavily with his plans to dilute the death tax and to make wealthy non doms contribute more. Lest we forget this election will most likely be won or lost in England. In May the Scottish electorate delivered New Labour a most unp[lesant surprise. Well what if the English say enough is enough to the Scottish block vote in Westminster being used to passunpopular English legislation such as university top up fees? Cameron should ride the English horse for all it is worth. Lastly what about the referendum we were promised on the EU constitution? Can Gordie rely on the support of the Sun if he continues to refuses our say. No this will be one hell of a gamble Gordie and you aint the gambling kind.

Well-analysed Nick, but I have a couple of questions that no one seems to ask. If this is the best that the Tories can do, then why is it that after all the hammering, David Cameron has not even managed to hit the bell? - Why? - The Tories are still trailing Labour in the so-called 48 hours opinion polls.
Nick, do I remember you saying that the Tories require at least a minimum of a 5-point lead to scrape through? Why is it then that all of a sudden David Cameron is calling for an election, when he is not doing so well in the opinion polls? Could this be because of his position as a leader, and maybe he would prefer to leave after loosing an election - rather then a leadership challenge?
Nick, the media is talking about Brown, but are failing to provide us with some analyses regarding David Cameron’s decision!
You are well versed with what is going on so you might shed some light on this. Have a nice day Nick.

Better the short term embarassment of being accused of bottling out than the long term humiliation of losing seats in an unnecessary election. Whizz kids at party HQ may believe that the campaign can be run on the phone or by email but in reality party members have to go out delivering leaflets and canvassing and most of the electorate still have to get out of their warm houses and go to the polling station on a miserable November night. Why risk it? Gordern should govern well for another 18 months and then show people what he has done and ask them to vote for him.

Better the short term embarassment of being accused of bottling out than the long term humiliation of losing seats in an unnecessary election. Whizz kids at party HQ may believe that the campaign can be run on the phone or by email but in reality party members have to go out delivering leaflets and canvassing and most of the electorate still have to get out of their warm houses and go to the polling station on a miserable November night. Why risk it? Gordern should govern well for another 18 months and then show people what he has done and ask them to vote for him.

Do you think the fact the removal of the 10% basic rate of tax in April will be a factor. Especially as a many low paid employees will be affected by the 20% basic rate.
Not all employees are married persons of course.

The polls show how volatile the voters are. There is no way Gordon Brown will submit his fate to them.

Yet right now 3.30 pm on Friday William Hill are quoting 11/10 for an election this year and 4/6 on no election this year.

I’m pretty sure Gordon made his mind up a long time ago; he’s too shrewd not to. There won’t be a snap election. Fanning the speculation has invigorated politics, and he’ll score a big political win next week when he announces a move to fixed terms.

In one manoeuvre he’ll avoid going to the polls in 2008, gain popularity with the electorate and once again make David, Gideon, et al. look lightweight.

Apart from the Conservative recovery,
Broon will also to have to consider Labour's less than stellar performance in recent elections in it's Scottish and Welsh heartlands, and the very real possibility that the SNP will take Westminster seats from Labour.
I don't know if it's mathmatically possible but could Labour end up with an overall majority in Westminster but fewer MP's than the Conservatives in England and fewer MP's than the SNP in Scotland? If so,
where's Broon's mandate then?

The polls show how volatile the voters are. There is no way Gordon Brown will submit his fate to them.

Yet right now 4pm on Friday William Hill are quoting 11/10 for an election this year and 4/6 on no election this year.

If Brown doesn't call an election, the he is - in the immortal word(s) of Maggie - frit.

If he calls an election - he'll be thrashed. (Good riddance)
If he doesn't call an election he'll be seen as a lame-duck coward.

Oh what a pretty mess he's got himself into with his 'politcal cleverness'

I agree with Chris (post 4) that opinion polls are not to be trusted, but in any case it's depressing that no party aspiring to govern in a democracy can muster 40% or more of the popular vote (those that actually bother to vote!) whichever way the polls swing.

I’m pretty sure Gordon made his mind up a long time ago; he’s too shrewd not to. There won’t be a snap election. Fanning the speculation has invigorated politics, and he’ll score a big political win next week when he announces a move to fixed terms.

In one manoeuvre he’ll avoid going to the polls in 2008, gain popularity with the electorate and once again make David, Gideon, et al. look lightweight.

The Prime Minister should leave it; an election in 2008 at the earliest would be best, even spring 2009. There is no need for an election from a Labour party perspective; they have a healthy Commons majority of over 60. Whenever the next election is held, the majority will fall even if Labour win. Brown should not be rolling dice; he should get on with governing Britain.

I have to say I am rather sceptical of the idea that having the election in the winter will harm Labour's share. The idea, presumably, is that Labour voters are less likely to have cars than Tory voters and so won't turn out on a cold winter night. Is there really any truth in that, or is it just an urban myth that might have been true in the dim distant past but isn't any longer?

For one thing, far more people have cars these days than in the past, so the number of people without cars is rather few. And do people need cars anyway? My polling station is only a couple of minutes walk from where I live: am I just very lucky or are there in fact so many polling stations that no-one has to go very far?

Most most importantly, this idea presumably started in the days when Labour was a left-wing party and people who voted for it were more likely to be poor. Is that really still true?

Gordon Brown is too clever by half. He thought he would wrong-foot the Conservatives, but now he is going to look bad whatever he does. If he goes to the polls he looks as if he was panicked into it, if he does not he looks as if he is frightened of losing. With this level of deviousness he deserves to be removed from office.

The speculation about an imminent election was media driven, and some in the Labour Party stoked it during the conference as the polls went up. I don;t think he should go to the countruy now, he should get on with implementing the policies that have been developed.

To those who say 10 years of broken promises I say where are you living? hundreds of new hospitals and schools, waiting lists reduced from years to weeks, minimum wage, tax credits, maternity and paternity rights, child care, crime rate down by 35%, thousands more police and pcso's, Human Rights Act, Freedom Of Information Act, Civil partnerships, - tolerance , social justice, equality, fairness, - yes there is still more to do, that's why Gordon should get on with it, and let the public judge on his delivery of the goods.

Chris

For all your self-confident pontificating, you'd do well to study politics more carefully. According to expert psephologists like Curtice and Kellner, the Tories would need to win an election 10 or 11 percentage points ahead of Labour to win a parliamentary majority. So your speculation about the Tories "sneaking in" is drivel. What they're playing for is a hung parliament which they hope to use as a springboard for government four years later. What they don't realise, however, because they are so dim, is that a hung parliament could easily precipitate PR for the House of Commons, which would destroy the Conservative party as it presently operates for the next generation and beyond. This is because PR would inevitably bring about Lab-Lib coalition government due to the closeness in their political philosophies. There is almost no common ground between the Lib Dems and the Tories.

So the Tories now are doomed whatever happens in the future. Unless of course they are sufficiently deluded to believe that in one fell swoop they could wipe out Labour's majority and replace it with one of their own. Or, so deluded that they believe that one day they could wipe out a Lib-Dem/Lab coalition by winning 51% of the popular vote. Given the breathtaking arrogance, pomposity and hypocrisy of Cameron's fundamentally old fashioned speech on Wednesday and everything surrounding it, one suspects that the Tory party is capable of believing anything at all that feeds their enormous capacity to desire power.

And in case you were wondering, the Tories are doomed because their world view has failed to progress beyond the year 1950, never mind 2000. Big Dave's policy promises are, for all his talk of modernism, connected to a world that disappeared a long time ago. A couple of useful looking scraps of populism (cf. cutting inheritance tax, an appallingly regressive and cynical move) can't change that fact of socio-political life.

And Ian F - do us all a favour by going back to the drawing board and studying the country's electoral history. The 1992 election was played out during, not before, an economic recession. There is some wild talk (hope?) of serious economic problems looming for the government that ain't gonna happen. If you heard Alan Greenspan the other day and weren't so anti-Labour you'd have carefully noted his praise for Brown's economic management over the past 10 years as well as his belief that the GB economy is very strong. You'd do well to note too that Major lost in 1997 despite an upturn in the economy from around 1993 onward. The notion that economic problems unseat governments is somewhat mythical. Even if one followed your scenario, a 2009 election played out in a harsher economic climate would probably strengthen Brown v Cameron, if, admittedly, he manages to maintain his reputation for strength in a crisis. Forget the economy. Cameron's job between 2007 and 2009 would be to convince the electorate that he is intelligent enough, tough enough and talented enough to govern as PM. Given the fact that, quite amazingly, he managed to squander the vast fortune of his popularity immediately following his election to the leadership of his party, it's clear at the moment that he is deficient in all 3 areas. He also has the contents of last Wednesday's speech to live down: he's laid out a whole bunch of policy promises which he can't go back on without losing his credibility.

Finally, "if his poll lead can hold". Hilarious. Take note of the polls in the next 4 weeks. This week is just an upward blip in Tory fortunes thanks to the blanket coverage of the speech and wall-to-wall Tories slagging off Labour with their usual old-fashioned abandon throughout conference week.
GB

I do not think Gordon Brown will call an election. Yesterday, David Cameron nailed his colours to the mast. For him there was no written speech, prepared by spin doctors and read in boring monotone. Mr Brown maybe a cerebral politician, but for a long time this country has been crying out for a politician that spoke with his heart and with passion about the things he sincerely believed.
Mr Cameron devised his own speech, made no apologies for his background and did not fudge around difficult issues. He did not just tell us what was wrong with the current government's handling of the country but why it had gone wrong and what he would do about it. He spoke to us as equals and not with the patronising tone that most politicians adopt these days.
Yes there is still work to do for the Conservatives if Mr Brown calls an election, but great strides have been made in a short time. Greater strides can be made in an election campaign. Mr Brown should take great care before he denegrates Mr Cameron's chances of becoming P.M. due to youth and inexperience. He should remember the the taunt aimed at William Pit the younger who was just 23 when he took the office - 'A sight to make surrounding nations stare - a kingdom entrusted to a schoolboy's care.' Pitt became one of the greatest P.M.s this country has ever seen. Watch out Mr Brown.Your triumphs may be short lived!

There should not be an election as there is no need for one.Gordon Brown is doing a fine job with a good working majority.The public will see no reason for an election.He and his Government should just get with the work of running this country. In no way should he be led by the fascist press who would love to him fail.Most people think that.
People do not like voting in the dark and the cold so November is always a high risk month when there is no compelling reason to have an election.
Let the Tories go on making fools of themselves. In the end Brown can always rely on that.May 2009 and no ssooner.

Nick

Reasons for not holding an election:

1. Brown has a history of caution. He hasn't spent his political career striving to become PM only to throw it away after four months and become the shortest serving PM since Canning in 1827 (and he had the excuse that he died).

2. The polls are within the margin of error for a hung parliament.

3. General Elections have a life of their own and cannot be organised, however much of a control freak you are. 1970 is a classic example as is Feb 1974. In 1970 Wilson's 12% lead evaporated in a complacent campiagn which was derailed in the last week by a Balance of Payments deficit of £30m which seemed to support Heath's claim that the economy was in trouble. In Feb 1974 Heath tried to focus the campaign on 'Who Governs Britain'. The Wilberforce inquiry into miners pay undermined his campaign. David Cameron, a more attractive and better campaigner than Brown would get lots of exposure and with no 10 years in power record to defend can concentrate on fresh policies. The IHT and Stamp duty promises have already helped hmi seize the moment. Expect more such promises.

4. The press hates a shoo in and love a change. A hung parliament or a Tory Govt means lots of new stories to write.

5. The weather. Piers Corbyn, the long range weather forecaster texted Labour MP brother Jeremy last weekend saying 'Bad weather including storms and rain at the end of October/beginning of November, tell Gordon'.

6. The public don't want an election and will question Brown's motives and wonder what bad news is to come.

7. 1st or 8th November is after the clocks go back and it will dark before 5pm. Canvassers will be reluctant to go out, people will be reluctant to answer the door. Even with telephone canvassing it will be a problem to get people to vote on the day as it will be dark at 4.30. These days voters don't want to go out once they have settled in for the evening. More elderly voters vote in the day time giving them a greater proportion of the vote than normal. The Conservatives have greater support amongst the elderly.

8. Those who want to get the government out are more likely to vote then those who are happy with it.

9. Marginal seats. The Tories have a large war chest and are already spending in the key marginals to good effect. Any differential increase in the Tory vote in the marginals particularly in the M25 belt would help to deprive Labour of its majority.

10. LD weakness. Polls show swing to Conservatives in LD seats which could give Conservatives 20 seats.

11. Boundary changes reduce the 66 majority to 48 before campaign starts.

12. Scottish voters reported, by Labour MPs,to be suffering voter fatigue. Doubts about SNP/Lab battles.

13. Labour has no candidates in palce in 200 plus seats and indications are that Labour MPs are not taking suggestion of imminent election seriously. See Christine Russell MP (Chester) interview with Michael Crick, Newsnight Wednesday Oct 4th and Diane Abbot comments on last night's This Week.

Better the short term embarassment of being accused of bottling out than the long term humiliation of losing seats in an unnecessary election. Whizz kids at party HQ may believe that the campaign can be run on the phone or by email but in reality party members have to go out delivering leaflets and canvassing and most of the electorate still have to get out of their warm houses and go to the polling station on a miserable November night. Why risk it? Gordon should govern well for another 18 months and then show people what he has done and ask them to vote for him.

Indeed. Nick is obsessing over polls but this is a partial view. The mainline is delivery and staying in touch. Polls are just a sideshow when compared to that. The problem is, chasing votes and ratings is something politicians and the media don't seem to be able to get over, and the poor output and unhappiness of the public is a direct consequence.

If people want better politics and journalism, simply, they have to do better, and that involves dropping bad habits. They have to stop talking about change and seize change. Less procrastination, more execution. Calming down and relaxing helps and it's cheaper than spending millions on think tanks and polling organisations.

They say they want better politics. They say they want better journalism. What we get is procrastination. What sounds good on the podium evaporates when delivery is required. Their hearts leap into their mouths and they huddle in groups. Perhaps, I’m expecting too much too soon. One can only shrug and wait.

In a politically-ageist age, Gordon Brown may well take into account that if he lets the current parliamentary term run close to its natural end, he'll be much closer to sixty than fifty.

Nick, I get the impression, looking at Gordon Brown on the TV, that he's had a make-over of late. You see him in the flesh. Is that your feeling? If so, then Brown, or those advising him, are certainly conscious of his advancing years.

I think Gordon Brown has very much painted himself into a corner as far as an election date is concerned. Obviously he wants to go to the country as soon as possible to avoid constantly being attacked over the European Treaty, but more importantly the danger of waiting is very high. We know the Government will have to reduce its forecast fr growth in the economy, and this forecast may be still optimistic because of teh banking crisis that has effectively raised interest rates across the world. Domestically, next April sees two very unpopular tax rises come into force, Firstly the abolition of the 10p tax rate will force everybody's tax bill up by about £4 a week, but will most affect the very lowest paid, and these may well be Labour supporters that are wavering because they are seeing their community services being "swamped" by immigrants, or so they believe from the press. Secondly their is another 2p rise in fuel duty scheduled for April which will generate the worst possible headlines in the campaign if there were to be a May election. So the choice before Mr Brown is go now or wait at least a year. I think he will wait, but I hope it doesn't mean an election "campaign" throughout

This debate is all about what's best for Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, it is nothing to do with what is best for the UK. An election predicated solely on short-term political gain, in order to secure another term in office? This is a disgrace.

Nick,

I dont think these latest polls rule out an election.

A narrowing of the polls wont automatically worry Labour strategists.

A big lead for Labour would run the risk of voters not bothering to turnout, thinking Labour were going to win easily resulting in an energised and rallying call to Tory voters to turn out in bigger numbers.

With a narrow lead Labour people can say to the public, you must turn out and vote or risk letting the Tories in by the back door!

If he'd ever intended a snap poll he wouldn't have advertised it in advance of the Tory conference, when it's main effect would be to unite a disunited party. As it is, he's flushed out a few unworkable Tory policies that he can spend the next few months demolishing. As a consumate politician (not entirely a positive thing to be called) he will probably introduce some tax measure on DOMs, but base it on realistic estimates of the tax yield and spend the money on something more relevant to the majority than inheritance tax reductions (taxing the richest to benefit the rich). The economy is strong (in spite of the sort of doom-laden predictions we have got used to every year since 1997), crime is at a long-term low, the NHS and education are now in a fit state to start delivering even better than before, Iraq is more promising, and Brown is faced by the weakest Tory leader since Major. Eventually all governments hit the 'time for a change' buffers, but I suspect that Brown will be there for the London Olympics.

The last comment is right - there is no need to risk anything - time will prove that waiting is the right move in the end as the Tories tear Davie Boy apart once there is no election coming

If he'd ever intended a snap poll he wouldn't have advertised it in advance of the Tory conference, when it's main effect would be to unite a disunited party. As it is, he's flushed out a few unworkable Tory policies that he can spend the next few months demolishing. As a consumate politician (not entirely a positive thing to be called) he will probably introduce some tax measure on DOMs, but base it on realistic estimates of the tax yield and spend the money on something more relevant to the majority than inheritance tax reductions (taxing the richest to benefit the rich). The economy is strong (in spite of the sort of doom-laden predictions we have got used to every year since 1997), crime is at a long-term low, the NHS and education are now in a fit state to start delivering even better than before, Iraq is more promising, and Brown is faced by the weakest Tory leader since Major. Eventually all governments hit the 'time for a change' buffers, but I suspect that Brown will be there for the London Olympics.

Nick

The front page story earlier today was that brown would be spending the week end reviewing the polls to make the decision.

Exactly the opposite of what you say here.

Aren't you the poltical editor?

Is someone sexing up the front page against your informed oppinion?