If Gordon goes, then Labour must call a general election: Politics Decoded by Garbo

By Garbo • August 5, 2008

New leader means General Election

I never subscribed to the idea that Gordon Brown had an obligation to call an election when he became PM in 2006. In this country we vote for an MP and their party’s manifesto – not a Prime Minister. But if Labour were to get rid of Gordon Brown before a general election I think the government would have little option but to go to the country.

It is all very much hypothetical still, but with David Miliband’s not so subtle posturing and positioning as a pretender to the Labour crown, the possibility of the United Kingdom getting their third PM is less than 18 months is very real. The problem for me would be that the change would be so radical and far reaching from a Labour manifesto set out by not the previous PM, but the one before that, that it would not be morally acceptable for the government to continue without a fresh mandate.

The fact that there will have been three PMs in the lifetime of parliament alone suggests that something is desperately wrong. There is obviously no hard and fast rule about this, in theory the government has every constitutional right to serve its full five years, but not only do I personally think that it should not but I also do not think the electorate will allow it to.

Prediction time

You have to be a fool to make solid predictions in politics, but where’s the fun and what’s the point if you don’t? So here goes anyway:

A leadership challenge this year

Gordon Brown will face a leadership challenge before the new parliament sits on December 3^rd. It may well come at conference, but there is no reason why it cannot wait until parliament returns for the spill over session in October. Then the party goes into the long, drawn out process of electing a leader. Right now you have to fancy Miliband to take the crown but as the runners and riders become more apparent I think the bookies will tighten their odds.

An election in 2009

At the very best the government will not get a new leader until the end of the year I don’t think. But whoever does come in to power cannot make the mistake Gordon Brown made – they must to be very clear about when they intend to go to the polls. In which case they have two choices – no election until 2010 or right then and there. In my mind there is only one choice – then and there.

Of course, Prime Minister Miliband (or whoever it may be) will need a short while to bed in but they will also want to take advantage of the “Mili-bounce” or whatever it is we will be calling the honeymoon period. The electorate and media will give the government a maximum of six months I suspect, as long as they are open about their intentions.

May or June 2009 – and even the outside chance of a Labour win!!

All this means, and I am almost certainly setting myself up for an almighty fall here, that we will be heading in to a general election in May or June next year.

I also feel that while Labour’s chances of an election win are slim whatever route they take, that a new leader and a spring election are their best chance for returning to government. Remember, if they can get the polls down to single figures before an election – something a “Mili-bounce” could do – then they are not only in with a chance but incredibly could be favourites to win… though don’t hold your breath for that one!

Article Series - Politics Decoded 2008-9 by Garbo

Previous in series Next in series

If you liked this post, then please consider subscribing to the Wardman Wire RSS Feed. You can also subscribe by email.

Categories: All WW, Politics Decoded, Westminster Watch
Tags: david miliband, general election, gordon brown

About the Author

Garbo

I am political enthusiast working in the politics industry in Westminster. Having written for various blogs in the past, including my own now defunct blog "The Poliblogs", I have trimmed down my blogging time to my weekly column on the Wardman Wire: Politics Decoded. I do not take a partisan view of politics and reserve the right to be critical of all parties and also offer the odd bit of praise when I am feeling generous. I can be contacted directly on poliblogsAThotmail.co.uk for all queries including media and blogging inquiries.

RSS feed | Trackback URI

5 Comments »

Comment by Dave Cole Subscribed to comments via email

2008-08-08 16:03:41

Interesting article, but I disagree on a few counts.

Firstly, I reject the idea that a change of leader should result in an election. I believe that the executive is too strong as against the legislature and that focusing on the PM, the people they choose as members of the Cabinet and so on reinforces that position. Secondly, a new leader will not have had time to develop their own policy positions. Yes, you’d expect there to be a degree of consistency but an election in such circumstances is effectively taking the pulse of the nation when it’s just been made to run up the stairs.

Secondly, I think a lot of people would prefer Labour to go into the next election with a different leader but that is not the same as wanting to force GB out. Somewhere (sorry to the person who I’m not linking to but I’ve forgotten where) I saw the idea that if GB goes of his own accord, Labour would lose by fifty seats; if GB stays, Labour would lose by one hundred and fifty seats; and if GB is forced out, Labour would lose by two hundred and fifty seats. While I’m not sure about the numbers, the idea behind it - that people might not like GB but they like internal coups less - holds water.

Thirdly, better the devil you know. The right of the party are worried that the Cruddasite tendency might do well, while the left are worried about resurgent ultra-Blairites. They all know that a fight between (broadly) the Compass and Progress factions would damage the Party. While I think there will be more disagreements between the two, I think they’ll be held on till after the election.

Fourthly, your statement that “[t]he fact that there will have been three PMs in the lifetime of parliament alone suggests that something is desperately wrong.” That’s a big assumption to make and it’s not (yet) a fact. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that GB was the wrong choice. That’s one wrong decision, not necessarily symptomatic of problems with the party.

xD.

Dave Coles last blog post..I’m ba-ack!

Reply to this comment

Comment by Garbo

2008-08-11 11:24:06

Dave - thanks for your comments.

I do share you belief that changing a party leader who is also PM should not mean a general election. However, in this case I think the media and electorate will demand one regardless - to the point that if there isn’t one, it will become very damaging indeed. Therefore, I think it would be strategically the right thing to do - and given the demands of the people, it might well also be the right thing to do too.

More importantly, however, is if there is a new leader they need to be very clear about their intentions. The last thing the government needs is a repeat of the Brown “will he, won’t he” story. Therefore I think new Labour PM should aim to call an election within six months - or by next spring, and say so from the outset. A May/June election is seasonally good for Labour and will not be spun as Labour running scared. If that is not the case, a new leader should then say that there will be no election in 2010.

As for GB going, I think now that it is likely that he will either jump or be pushed - but if that is the case, the sooner he goes the better. You say that if GB stays the defeat will be “better” than if he goes. I agree that if he stays there is little to fight for and Labour will lose, but not so sure that a new leader will mean an even bigger defeat. It may well mean that, but at least the government will go down fighting. Sticking with Brown is accepting defeat, changing leader makes the situation a whole lot less certain - for better or worse - but at least there is the chance of it being better.

To put in simple terms - either you win an election or you lose one. Sticking Brown is a loss. Changing you might win or you might lose. It seems like a no brainer to me - a loss is a loss is a loss regardless of seat numbers

I very much agree that the problems Labour is having at the moment are not entirely symptomatic of GB’s leadership. 10 years in government, the economy and cumulative effect of negative press (e.g.Iraq) are bound to take their toll. But every hurdle GB has attempted to jump he has fallen. Every poll, election and scandal has taken the course of a worse case scenario.

I believe Brown has been dealt a bad hand which is he has played badly. There are no guarantees when you are dealt a bum hand, but I still think there are one or two others in the party who could play it better.

Reply to this comment