Brown’s strategic problem
Brown said again yesterday during PMQs that he had "no plans for an election." Of course this will not stop him calling one in 2009 if he thinks it will be in his interest to do so. Brown is careful never to rule out for definite an election this year. But if 2010 is when the next general election will be held, Brown has a strategic problem.
His current political strategy is based on contrasting his approach to the recession with that of the Conservatives - "doing something vs. doing nothing," as he likes to frame the debate. This is a battle that Brown seems to feel he is winning/can win.
The problem for Brown though is that he is running out of time as his current strategy would only work in a general election campaign if the election was held in early 2009. Only then could he put to the electorate a clear choice between the Labour and Tory approaches to the economy.
More...
2009 beneficial for his current strategy
Why? At the beginning of 2009, it is too early to categorically know which economic strategy would be best. Prime Minister Brown is still in the process of implementing his and Leader of the Opposition Cameron cannot implement his. Hence we have a stalemate as both sides claim they are right and the other wrong. Thus, in the first half of 2009, Brown would be able to have a general election campaign based on his favourite dividing line. The electorate would get to choose which economic approach to endorse to see them through the recession. Although the opinion polls still show an overall Tory lead (4-10 points), Brown leads on the issue of who is best placed to see Britain through the current economic crisis (though his lead is decreasing).
But at the moment Brown is shying away from really asking voters to choose his approach over Cameron’s as he has not yet called a general election, and keeps dismissing the prospect, obviously weary of the trouble he got himself into in the autumn of 2007.
2010 would see a shift in the current debate and electoral defeat
I said above that Brown was running out of time because if he waits until 2010, more than a year will have passed and the debate will have shifted away from his current strategy. The debate will cease to be about what to do (a choice for the electorate between two contrasting world views), and will have shifted instead to one about whether Brown’s economic policies have worked or not.
If Brown does indeed wait until 2010 to call an election, he will hope that a combination of his policies - fiscal stimulus, bank recapitalisation, business loan guarantee scheme, global co-ordinated action and very low interest rates - will have got the economy moving again, making the recession shorter and shallower. Under this scenario, Brown is the “saviour of the world,” well, at least of Britain, and he is duly rewarded by an appreciative electorate who return Labour for a fourth consecutive term.
However, that is an unlikely scenario.
By 2010 the economy will have deteriorated and will be in a much worse state than it is today with possibly as many as three million people unemployed.
Forget the Chancellor's growth forecasts that the economy will start growing again in the third quarter of this year, with steady, modest growth of 1.5 and 2 percent in 2010. Both Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have been backtracking from these forecasts and Brown refused to endorse them when challenged to do so by Cameron during PMQs yesterday. Brown now says that whether the growth forecasts are met will depend on international co-operation which is strange seeing as Darling said the Treasury had settled on its optimistic growth forecasts “because of decisions taken in the Pre-Budget Report” – namely, the government’s much trumpeted fiscal stimulus would be responsible for making the recession shorter and shallower.
I’m hugely sceptical whether Brown’s policies will work – as is Brown if his lack of confidence in his own growth forecasts is anything to go by. His fiscal stimulus is unlikely to work as it is very modest at only 1 percent, the VAT cut is very likely to prove a waste of money and bringing forward big-spending capital projects is no panacea as it is slow and can lead to vast waste; the bank recapitalisation may have “saved the banks” but it did not get them lending; as such, we now have a business loan guarantee scheme that looks like it has arrived several months too late and at only £20 billion, is far too timid; global co-ordinated action should help the world economy; but very low interest rates will take time to feed through to the economy and besides, the problem is not the cost of credit but its lack of availability.
Even putting to one side these criticisms, and hypothetically assuming that Brown’s massive borrowing and ever growing debt to fund his economic policies are just what this country needs, the problem for Brown is that even by 2010, it might be too early to see clear, perceptible signs that his policies have been successful.
Moreover, up until now Brown’s actions have been viewed as a strength by the electorate but this could change as the months roll on if the action Brown takes fails to noticeably improve the economy. The more frantically Brown tries to look like a man of action, the weaker he could look because voters could conclude he is ineffectual and powerless.
Consequently, a 2010 election will take place against the backdrop of a harsh recession and most likely the apparent impotency of government. The 2010 campaign will be about whether Brown’s policies have succeeded or not. The Tories will point relentlessly at the revised growth forecasts as evidence that Brown’s policies have failed. Indeed they are already doing so. The Tories will seek to make the 2010 general election campaign about a government and Prime Minister who not only were partly responsible for getting us into this mess, but failed to get us out of it, and now will tax us for the privilege as fiscal discipline finally has to be brought to bear on the parlous state of Britain’s public finances. It is not difficult to see how the British electorate could conclude that Brown’s policies had failed – whether because they were wrong-headed or just failed to be seen to have worked. (A country can have moved out of a technical recession even though it still feels like it is still in one). I would therefore expect a 2010 election to lead to a comfortable Conservative victory.
2009 has to be an option – but watch the polls
If 2010 is not a favourable climate for the Prime Minister to call a general election, early 2009 is an eminently superior date. Not only will the economy not be as bad as 2010, but 2009 will allow Brown to put his current political strategy into play in a general election campaign. Therefore, Brown must still be eyeing a 2009 election as a strong possibility. Forget his denials to the contrary. The man is always the electioneer.
Scuppered by the polls, 2010 will lead to electoral oblivion
However, if the polls continue their current trend back towards the Conservatives, the 2009 option will be scuppered. No Prime Minister is going to call a general election because he thought it would limit the damage to his party if it meant it would lead to his own personal defeat. Ego would prevent such a defeatist attitude. All Prime Ministers would continue, clinging on until the last minute in the hope that something will come up to turn round their political fortunes. In this respect, one can envisage Gordon Brown and 2010 becoming for Labour what John Major and 1997 were to the Conservatives.
Brown said again yesterday during PMQs that he had "no plans for an election." Of course this will not stop him calling one in 2009 if he thinks it will be in his interest to do so. Brown is careful never to rule out for definite an election this year. But if 2010 is when the next general election will be held, Brown has a strategic problem.
His current political strategy is based on contrasting his approach to the recession with that of the Conservatives - "doing something vs. doing nothing," as he likes to frame the debate. This is a battle that Brown seems to feel he is winning/can win.
The problem for Brown though is that he is running out of time as his current strategy would only work in a general election campaign if the election was held in early 2009. Only then could he put to the electorate a clear choice between the Labour and Tory approaches to the economy.
More...
2009 beneficial for his current strategy
Why? At the beginning of 2009, it is too early to categorically know which economic strategy would be best. Prime Minister Brown is still in the process of implementing his and Leader of the Opposition Cameron cannot implement his. Hence we have a stalemate as both sides claim they are right and the other wrong. Thus, in the first half of 2009, Brown would be able to have a general election campaign based on his favourite dividing line. The electorate would get to choose which economic approach to endorse to see them through the recession. Although the opinion polls still show an overall Tory lead (4-10 points), Brown leads on the issue of who is best placed to see Britain through the current economic crisis (though his lead is decreasing).
But at the moment Brown is shying away from really asking voters to choose his approach over Cameron’s as he has not yet called a general election, and keeps dismissing the prospect, obviously weary of the trouble he got himself into in the autumn of 2007.
2010 would see a shift in the current debate and electoral defeat
I said above that Brown was running out of time because if he waits until 2010, more than a year will have passed and the debate will have shifted away from his current strategy. The debate will cease to be about what to do (a choice for the electorate between two contrasting world views), and will have shifted instead to one about whether Brown’s economic policies have worked or not.
If Brown does indeed wait until 2010 to call an election, he will hope that a combination of his policies - fiscal stimulus, bank recapitalisation, business loan guarantee scheme, global co-ordinated action and very low interest rates - will have got the economy moving again, making the recession shorter and shallower. Under this scenario, Brown is the “saviour of the world,” well, at least of Britain, and he is duly rewarded by an appreciative electorate who return Labour for a fourth consecutive term.
However, that is an unlikely scenario.
By 2010 the economy will have deteriorated and will be in a much worse state than it is today with possibly as many as three million people unemployed.
Forget the Chancellor's growth forecasts that the economy will start growing again in the third quarter of this year, with steady, modest growth of 1.5 and 2 percent in 2010. Both Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown have been backtracking from these forecasts and Brown refused to endorse them when challenged to do so by Cameron during PMQs yesterday. Brown now says that whether the growth forecasts are met will depend on international co-operation which is strange seeing as Darling said the Treasury had settled on its optimistic growth forecasts “because of decisions taken in the Pre-Budget Report” – namely, the government’s much trumpeted fiscal stimulus would be responsible for making the recession shorter and shallower.
I’m hugely sceptical whether Brown’s policies will work – as is Brown if his lack of confidence in his own growth forecasts is anything to go by. His fiscal stimulus is unlikely to work as it is very modest at only 1 percent, the VAT cut is very likely to prove a waste of money and bringing forward big-spending capital projects is no panacea as it is slow and can lead to vast waste; the bank recapitalisation may have “saved the banks” but it did not get them lending; as such, we now have a business loan guarantee scheme that looks like it has arrived several months too late and at only £20 billion, is far too timid; global co-ordinated action should help the world economy; but very low interest rates will take time to feed through to the economy and besides, the problem is not the cost of credit but its lack of availability.
Even putting to one side these criticisms, and hypothetically assuming that Brown’s massive borrowing and ever growing debt to fund his economic policies are just what this country needs, the problem for Brown is that even by 2010, it might be too early to see clear, perceptible signs that his policies have been successful.
Moreover, up until now Brown’s actions have been viewed as a strength by the electorate but this could change as the months roll on if the action Brown takes fails to noticeably improve the economy. The more frantically Brown tries to look like a man of action, the weaker he could look because voters could conclude he is ineffectual and powerless.
Consequently, a 2010 election will take place against the backdrop of a harsh recession and most likely the apparent impotency of government. The 2010 campaign will be about whether Brown’s policies have succeeded or not. The Tories will point relentlessly at the revised growth forecasts as evidence that Brown’s policies have failed. Indeed they are already doing so. The Tories will seek to make the 2010 general election campaign about a government and Prime Minister who not only were partly responsible for getting us into this mess, but failed to get us out of it, and now will tax us for the privilege as fiscal discipline finally has to be brought to bear on the parlous state of Britain’s public finances. It is not difficult to see how the British electorate could conclude that Brown’s policies had failed – whether because they were wrong-headed or just failed to be seen to have worked. (A country can have moved out of a technical recession even though it still feels like it is still in one). I would therefore expect a 2010 election to lead to a comfortable Conservative victory.
2009 has to be an option – but watch the polls
If 2010 is not a favourable climate for the Prime Minister to call a general election, early 2009 is an eminently superior date. Not only will the economy not be as bad as 2010, but 2009 will allow Brown to put his current political strategy into play in a general election campaign. Therefore, Brown must still be eyeing a 2009 election as a strong possibility. Forget his denials to the contrary. The man is always the electioneer.
Scuppered by the polls, 2010 will lead to electoral oblivion
However, if the polls continue their current trend back towards the Conservatives, the 2009 option will be scuppered. No Prime Minister is going to call a general election because he thought it would limit the damage to his party if it meant it would lead to his own personal defeat. Ego would prevent such a defeatist attitude. All Prime Ministers would continue, clinging on until the last minute in the hope that something will come up to turn round their political fortunes. In this respect, one can envisage Gordon Brown and 2010 becoming for Labour what John Major and 1997 were to the Conservatives.
No comments:
Post a Comment