Or will he bottle it? And if he doesn’t call an election, will this change your opinion of him? The Daily Mail makes a pretty good case that he’s ready to call an election. But Brown’s a very cautious man.
Right now, I reckon he should go for it. He should be able to destroy Cameron pretty easily: “Where’s the beef?” Cameron gives a good speech but I’m sure I’m not alone in being less than impressed with his actions.
As usual, politics is not about the issues or the policies, but whether you can win power and make money. :rolleyes:
Ain’t that the truth.
Lot of commentary in today’s guardian that he should give it a miss. It’s eye-opening that Cameron has made up miles of lost ground in the opinon-polls on the basis of a single conference speech - a chilling portrait of the simplicity of the UK electorate. I think he’ll wait for less volatile times, myself.
It must be tempting though, the tories are a shambles behind Cameron’s rhetoric, talent is very thin on the ground - Brown must know that he would see them off. It may be more of a question of the size of the ensuing majority, by waiting he can hope for a more resounding election victory.
No comment on the speculation, but what an awfully written news article…
I can’t believe just how badly Brown has screwed this up. I bet it seemed like a wizard wheeze at the time: drop hints and allegations, keep the other parties unsure and off-balance, look confident and in control. Have your own conference - get the message out, get a poll boost, look even stronger. Except that, by some strange and unforseen miracle, the Tories also benefit from a week of free publicity. And as time goes on, the nod-and-wink stuff doesn’t cut it and you actually have to man up and make an announcement.
Suddenly it’s all changed. Cameron has done the only thing he could do in the full glare of publicity - he’s called your bluff. (That letter asking for meetings with civil servants was a damn clever move.) Now Brown’s backed into a corner. Amazingly, if he comes out now and says he’s not calling an election, he’s the one looking scared. Especially as we know he’s looking at polling data - how many lost seats is he looking at?
This smacks of an idea that carried people away. No-one seems to have asked if they were ready to run an election - just whether it was a good idea to “float” one. So either Brown doesn’t go to the country (in which case he looks weak) or he does and loses a few seats (in which case he looks very weak) or he keeps his majority (in which case the whole exercise was a waste of time).
He’ll win an election - because of 10 years of prosperity, because it’s him not Blair, because the Tories are fundamentally weak - but he won’t boost his majority, because he’s got no big ideas and he won’t generate the groundswell that Blair at his best could. And boosting his majority is the only good reason to call an election.
And the news is that he has decided not to go for an early election. It will be interesting to see whether heads roll because of this. First big fuck-up of the Brown era.
It’s beyond me why Labour won’t do what the Conservatives have and make a few simple yet very popular pledges. Brown, to me, comes across as a lot less slimy than Cameron, yet while the Conservatives have used their conference to pledge things that really would (if they’re not lying again) make a real positive difference to a lot of people’s lives, Labour have seemed to concentrate on “look how well we’re doing, and the other guys are poopyheads”.
In my opinion, the limits on stamp duty and inheritance tax really do need to be raised in relation to how much things cost these days. Rather than being a fair tax on those playing with excessive wealth, it is now the difference between first time buyers affording a one-bed flat or not, and children keeping a roof over their heads were something to happen to parents, etc.
I’m very disillusioned with all of them.
I completely forgot to make my point in the above post. I agree this was a massive mess up on Labour’s part, and I think it was at the conferences they lost it. I think that forced them into a rethink.
As Usram said, he’s bottled it. What a prat. Still, Wednesday’s PM’s Quetions should be very interesting. 
What’s the longest he could wait until he’d have to call an election? Five years since the last one, right?
Have there been any by-elections since Blair left, and how have those gone for Labour?
There were some by-elections for local government councillors and they went well for the Tories, but I no longer have the details.
For information on UK parliamentary elections, look here, particularly this pdf. Also the Electoral Commission, particularly the Representation of the People Act may be of interest.
There have been two parliamentary by-elections since Blair left… indeed, one was to replace Blair in Sedgefield.
Despite Cameron’s personal intervertion in both constituencies, Labour won both seats, with the Lib Dems in 2nd, and the Tories in 3rd place.
Both were safe Labour seats, and in Ealing, the Tory candidate made a rather large gaffe but still reduced the Labour majority.
The Tories genuinely thought they had a good chance in Ealing… they even put “David Cameron’s Conservatives” on the ballot.
Honestly, the Tories were gutted they came in 3rd in both, especially Ealing.
In all honesty does it really matter who gets in power?
All politicians are tarred with the same brush, lying, schemers, money grabbing twats who care little apart from lining their own pockets.
Fuckers, every last one of 'em
QFT.
Of course it matters - it’s the difference between bad and worse. Much sharper than between good and better.
Now there I think you’re wrong - most of them aren’t “money grabbing twats” - they’re mostly power hungry twats 
Just out of curiosity, what is the status of the Lib Dems these days? For most of my life, British politics have been Labour vs. Tory, with everyone saying that the Liberals are moribund – but they keep coming back, gaining support and offering a viable middle ground, then, when given a chance to demonstrate what they’d do about it, managing to punt horribly.
So are they for real this time, or in the same boat they’ve been in since 1929?
You’ve picked an interesting time to ask. Having done better than expected in the 1997 and 2001 elections, they more or less plateaued in the 2005 election, under then leader Charles Kennedy (I think they had a net loss of 2 or 3 seats). In December 2005 (maybe Jan 2006) Kennedy was ousted in an internal putsch, whose leaders were motivated by the wholly reasonable belief that a shambling alcoholic was not the man to drive the party forward. (Rumours about Kennedy’s alcoholism had long been rife, and long been denied by these same plotters.) After a scandal-ridden leadership election, Sir Menzies Campbell (Menzies is pronounced Mingis, and generally shortened to Ming) was elected as a safe pair of hands.
Ming was an elder statesman (late 60s, I think) with a background in foreign policy. He had at that point won a considerable amount of respect for his gravitas, knowledge and experience, as was apparently demonstrated by his judicious opposition to the Iraq war - which, in 2005, was rapidly losing popularity. I believe the thinking was that, against an increasingly untrusted Blair, and a young and inexperienced Cameron, Ming would appear to be a wise and tested statesman.
That’s all come crashing around their ears. Ming resigned abruptly last night to his fellow Lib Dem MPs and has retreated to his home in Edinburgh without speaking to the press. This comes after a recent promise to fight the 2009 election. Once again, there seems to have been an internal coup. It would be prompted by the following considerations:
Polls now show the Lib Dems at 11% - the recent highwater mark is c.23%.
Ming does not play to the public as a wise statesman - he comes over as old and out of touch. (A ludicrous and mercifully shortlived attempt to portray himself as “hip” dramatically reinforced this idea.)
His performances in the House of Commons and on media have been woefully ineffectual.
He has failed to lead the party, or at any rate to make it clear what the Lib Dems stand for.
Again, polling is badly down. For politicians, this is the be-all and end-all.
It would be unfair to portray his term of leadership as a complete failure. As noted above, the Lib Dems did well in two recent by-elections. People within the party credit him with making it a more professional party. (Of the three main parties, the Lib Dems are notoriously the most lacking in executive authority: “all the fun of a school debate club, none of the messy compromises of government”, to quote a friend of mine who inadvertantly attended their conference.) Much comment from all sides of the house focuses on the fact that he’s a decent and principled man.
So they’re now firmly in the “punting horribly” phase, to borrow your terminology. There are however a number of possible successors, all young and ambitious, and it may be that the shake up of a leadership debate is just what is needed to kick-start them again. Alternatively, it may split the party - there are two strands within the party, one much more economically right-wing than the other, and both represented by hotly-tipped leadership candidates.