Will Gordon join George in the footnotes of history?

It's a fair bet that George Canning (left) has occasionally occupied the thoughts of Gordon Brown recently. Mr Canning was, by all accounts, a fine public speaker, a brilliant military strategist and a practical joker. His long record of public service isn't what he is remembered for, however.

Political anoraks with the highest tog rating remember old George because he holds the record as the British prime minister who served for the shortest period - 119 days. He is a footnote in British political history.

The reason why I say it is a fair bet that Gordon Brown has been thinking about George Canning recently is because if Gordon gets wrong his big decision about the election date, then Gordon will join George in the footnotes. If Gordon Brown calls an election for October 25th, and loses, he will have been premier for 120 days - a day longer than George.

But unlike George, who was removed from office by the grim reaper via pneumonia, Gordon will forever be remembered as the shortest serving Prime Minister removed from office by himself.

"Gordon Brown" will join "Eddie the Eagle" as by-words for farcical incompetence in the English language lexicon. ("Did you do any good in the snooker last night, Dave?" "No, mate, I Gordon Browned it, I'm afraid".)

And Gordon won't want that.

So the memory of George Canning, as well as that of Jim Callaghan (British history's "shorty" Labour prime minister) will have been weighing heavily on Gordon's mind. It's all very well talking about one brilliant ICM poll, but general election campaigns can take on a life of their own. Another banking crisis, more continued foot and mouth outbreaks (there was another affected farm announced today), one or two "events, dear boy" and a lucky break for the opposition parties could all sweep Labour from power on October 25th. Or, at least, hobble them with a wafer-thin majority.

Douglas Alexander says Labour have the "cash and organisation" to go the polls in October. That's interesting. A few weeks ago, when I last bothered to check, Labour had a debt of £20 million. The last general election cost them £20 million. So if you assume that a campaign of about half the duration of the last one will cost them about half the amount, that's £10 million needed for an October campaign. Lord Sainsbury has recently given them £2 million and they say that they've had lots of other donations recently. Let's be optimistic for them and assume they have recently slashed their debt to, say, £15 million. So an October poll would leave them back where they were a few months ago - with a debt of £25 million. Their bank managers or loaners seemed just about ready to live with that sort of debt at that time, so one can assume that they will live with a level of £25 million debt again.

So, Labour can just about finance a quick election. (The Tories, however, will probably have more money at their disposal.) But I wouldn't like to be their bank manager. £25 million is quite a debt. But, then again, they will have four years in which to pay it (or a good chunk of it) back before the next election, hopefully (for them).

They're in the realms of knife-edge finances, though. (But then again, I will stop there on the finances subject, before someone shouts "Michael Brown!" at me).

There is another risk with going to the country in October. The great British public, roused from its comfy armchair to walk down to the polling station on a blustery, cold autumnal day might actually come up with this collective thought: "We went down to the polls just two and a half years ago. Why on earth is that Scots-porridge oat Brown forcing us out into the cold, down to the polls so soon?"

It's a good question. There's a good answer. Because Brown is a new prime minister and would like a nice new shiny mandate from you, oh great British voter, thank you very much.

But then the great British voter might just reply: "Yes, but we didn't force Blair to leave office - you did, you collossal numpty", before putting their cross against a candidate from any party except Labour. After all, when you go down to your local pub these days, is your entry impeded as you are pushed back by an almighty gust of wind caused by the assembled populace angrily shouting "Brown must go to the polls now!" ? Of course, not - normal people hardly mention the subject.

Even if Brown wins an October election we will still be left with a lingering question. Why did we use up all that time and money and run all that risk (money markets, temporarily paralysed civil service etc) of an election on October 25th 2007 when, according to our constitution, such as it is, we didn't need to have one until May 5th 2010?

Look at it that way and you find yourself sleep-walking inexorably towards a huge neon sign flashing the words "FIXED TERMS" on it. Local councils have them. The Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have fixed terms. A few old biddies sitting round in a lounge in Philidelphia 220 years ago agreed on fixed terms for those governing our cousins across the pond.

So why the Sam Hill do we still have this refrain of "guess the election date" playing on as an almost constant leitmotif to British politics? It's insane.

One consideration which may be kicking it's way back and forwards through the brain space of our dear Prime Minister may be this. Will the traditional Labour vote hold? Well he might ponder over this. As Ming Campbell called it, "Blue Labour" is lucky to have any of its traditional supporters still voting for it.

Is the Labour party coming together now in Bournemouth one that would be recognised by Keir Hardie, or Harold Wilson or Clement Atlee if they, by some divine happenstance, alighted there? Well, if they bumped into Dennis Skinner or Bob Crowe they would feel at home.

If they bumped into Labour minister Digby, Lord Jones or Labour MP Quentin Davies they might immediately give their excuses and leave, assuming they had mistakenly stumbled in on the Conservative conference.

It's not just the personalities. The conference itself is changing. This will be the last time that the conference will be able to debate and vote on "contemporary motions". There are other changes also in the offing. Gordon Brown enthusiastically advocates those changes in an article in today's Guardian (which is helpfully succeeded with the note "Gordon Brown is the prime minister").

In fact, the gist of Brown's argument is sound. Hand the power to decide policy to all the party members - not just the conference representatives. Very laudable. I am not sure the way he intends to do it is consistent with this aim, however: "A one-member, one-vote ballot every four years on the party programme".

Indeed, if you read Tony Benn's interpretation of the internal party constitutional proposals, it seems Brown is as usual, perhaps, being devious. He is, cynics would suggest, smuggling through a move to silence the conference so that it can't mess up a Blue Labour government by injecting any pink or red into it:

If the new proposals - now endorsed by the NEC and apparently some major trade unions - are accepted, delegates will only be allowed to identify issues they want looked at by the policy forums, and the manifesto that emerges will be put to a referendum of party members to accept or reject in full, with no possibility of amendment. This would complete the New Labour project under which the conference becomes a platform for ministers and a few handpicked delegates - and, of course, a big trade fair. There would be no point in joining the party locally or affiliating as a union in the hope of discussing policy.

But that's Brown's "new politics" for you. Just like Gordon's "Big Tent", where he involves people from other parties just as long as they are the ones likely to wind up their respective parties, Gordon's "Big conversation" will involve any debate as long as Gordon ends up winning it.

Brown says the new conference process will end "resolutions without solutions".

Well, you only need to look at this year's conference agenda, at what is on it, and, more tellingly, what is not on it, to see what Gordon Brown wants to avoid. The Unison union has proposed a "contemporary" motion saying that the equal pay law has not redressed the inequality of women in low paid jobs. It also attacks Hazel Blears' green paper which calls for councils to become "enabling authorities", no longer providing public services themselves. The GMB union criticises the management of state-owned Remploy for creating a "sense of insecurity and trauma, and...the cruellest harassment of already very vulnerable workers".

And look what "contemporary motions" were dropped like hot potatoes from the conference agenda this year: several highly critical of the government's stewardship of the NHS, one criticising British military aid to Columbia, oh, and one slating the government for allowing the US to use the Menwith Hill base in Yorkshire for a new missile system. (What was it Ming said about sneaking "out a short statement on the last day of Parliament signing us up to host America’s Son of Star Wars on British soil?")

So it is quite clear that Brown is attempting to muzzle the Labour party conference. This means more Blue Labour and more injustices and Tory-lite policies like the ones which Ming listed in his speech last Thursday. I can't see traditional Labour voters standing for this for much longer. Many have already stopped voting Labour. I expect more to do so.

So, Gordon Brown cannot completely rest on his laurels. He cannot be entirely confident that, if he goes to the polls on October 25th, he will escape the company of George Canning in the altogether chilly environs of the footnotes of British political history.

Oh, and, by the way, George Canning was a Tory. Very appropriate company for Gordon.

Gordon Brown, the great policy nicker, is at it again

On September 4th I mused:

It could be that Brown has a cunning plan. Speculate about an October election. Get Cameron firing off all his salvoes in the form of his various policy initiatives. Then don't call an autumn election and pick and choose the best of Cameron's initiatives and implement them as government policy before the actual election next spring, or whenever.

Clever that.

No sooner said that done. Brown has nicked a policy idea straight out of the Conservatives' Quality of Life report, only a few days after it was published:

The Chancellor is planning to introduce a "purchase tax" of up to £2,000 on the most polluting vehicles, it has been claimed.

The idea is set out in a leaked Treasury paper ahead of Alistair Darling's forthcoming Pre-Budget Report.

According to the paper, obtained by The Sunday Times, there will be the one-off charge and the so-called gas guzzlers will also be subject to higher road tax.

More fuel-efficient cars would be eligible for a £2,000 rebate, under the proposals.

Officials apparently acknowledge in the leaked document that the measures would be "presentationally difficult" but argue that they would also "strengthen the environmental signal".

The proposals bear a remarkable similarity to those contained in the Tories' Quality Of Life policy report, which was unveiled by David Cameron this week.

Maggie and Gordon

Yesterday at my cousin's funeral I spoke to someone I haven't seen for about thirty five years. At the time, he was the only person I knew, or had known, who read the Guardian. He was/is also a very fair-minded chap who spent, and still spends, much of his time campaigning for political causes. I have ended up reading the Guardian, and being allergic to other papers (even the Indie) and he started me on it, all those years ago.

My friend left the Labour party 11 years. He expressed his astonishment at the pictures of Maggie on the steps of Number Ten with Gordie. "That says it all".

Iain Dale sums up the event as "...another example of (Brown) knowing just which button to press to get under the skin of the Tory Party".

Indeed, it is. Our Gordon is a very clever man. But it doesn't change the fact that, as my re-met old friend said, it won't stop us being ruled by a Conservative government.

Union chief reckons Brown isn't ready for autumn election

The "snapometer" swings back and forward with everyday. Today, it swings away from an autumn election a tad due to the chief of the Unite union saying he does not believe that Gordon Brown should or will call an autumn election.

At last! The antidote to hysterical talk of coalitions

The pamphlet “In the balance: coalition and minority government in Britain and abroad” from CentreForum is a welcome contribution to the debate on hung parliaments.

Earlier this week I pooh-poohed an article from Mark Oaten on a potential Lib-Con coalition. Perhaps that was unfair, given my welcome now for CentreForum’s opus. However, Mr Oaten has a book to promote and a career to kick-start. His article suggested commonalities between the LibDems and the Tories which I simply don’t think exist.

In contrast, the CentreForum pamphlet is more objective and authoritative. It takes a look at the structures of minority government and coalitions, using the recent examples of Wales, Scotland and Germany.

I am always very reluctant to enter into discussions about coalitions. That is often because such discussions have, historically, tended to be ridiculously simplistic and bordering on the hysterical. “In the balance” covers the various complexities of balanced governments and, from them, produces some very objective and sober conclusions. As such, the pamphlet is the antidote to those hitherto frenetic, conclusion-jumping debates about coalitions.

The pamphlet goes through the history of hung parliaments here and abroad. One aspect of history, which it highlights, is one which is often conveniently forgotten. John Major’s government was kept in power by the Ulster Unionists in 1996. Also, while Conservatives have slammed Brown’s use of advisers from other parties, the paper notes that Churchill did this in 1951 - with those awful Liberals, of all people!

“In the balance” relates some of the institutional structures present elsewhere, and absent in Westminster, which are essential in facilitating stable coalition government. In Germany they have fixed term parliaments which stop any shenanigans with the election dates (bliss!). They also have a system where the ousting of a government requires a “constructive vote of no confidence” – i.e. “the Chancellor can be removed from office only by the Bundestag if he or she is replaced by an alternative candidate in command of a parliamentary majority.” In Scotland they have had specialist, expert committees which have often provided “cover” for political parties to take action to defuse controversial problems.

The paper makes an interesting observation about the possibility of similar structures for Westminster:

In principle, Westminster parties could also set up such mechanisms. The potential difficulty is that a political culture which sees minority or coalition governments as short lived anomalies would have little incentive to build mediating institutions. This could potentially have serious implications for the viability of coalitions at Westminster.

“In the balance” also makes a point which is often forgotten in debates about hung parliaments – “minority government is a viable alternative to a coalition” – a point which is now receiving a timely demonstration, to some extent, by the SNP in Scotland.

The paper also interestingly highlights the importance of the public’s perception when forming governments after elections. If it is clearly thought that an existing government is “knackered” and that there is a popular view that they “lost” the election (even though the arithmetic may not be so overwhelming) then that perception plays a key role in what happens after the election.

Pulling all this together, the pamphlet concludes:

In the absence of significant electoral reform, coalition or minority governments are likely to remain exceptions to the norm in Westminster – although a continued long term decline in the standing of the two major parties and a more fragmented party system may make them more frequent than they have been since 1945. As such, the institutional structures and cultural norms which sustain coalitions are likely to remain absent in Westminster without a very conscious effort to put them in place, which, in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, further reduces the viability of coalitions here. Nonetheless, the examples show that Westminster should not fear minority or coalition government. This form of government may introduce added complexity, and the need for certain new institutional mechanisms. But (our) essays show that coalitions and minority governments can produce both stable and productive governments, and may pave the way to a more consensual style of politics.

Lord Sainsbury's generosity shifts betting on snap election

The "Snap election-ometer" must have shifted a little bit in favour of October with the news that Lord Sainsbury's has given Labour £2 million.

Every little helps. Oh no, that's Tesco.

We can all rest easy - David Miliband promises to restart his blog

David Miliband's blog has been idle for two months. But Miliband had promised it will restart soon.

Heavy sigh.

Chris Huhne revealed that it was costing £40K a year to run it.

Presumably, the civil servants who were updating it for him, in his last department, are no longer at his disposal, so he is now looking for some unfortunate FCO mandarin to do his dirty work.

The BBC describes the blog as Miliband's "personal weblog".

Do me a favour.

If it was a "personal weblog" it wouldn't cost a penny and it might be worth reading.

Gordon Brown - serial kleptomaniac of political ideas

Just a few days ago, David Cameron proposed a crack down on violent videos and computer games viewed by kids.

Now Gordonius Brownus has stepped in:

Gordon Brown promised yesterday to look again at banning violent computer games for teenagers.

He said he was aware of growing concern about the effect of screen violence on youngsters. And he would study whether new rules are needed on advertising and sale of violent games to them.

What a surprise.

We can expect more of this. The highly shrewd Mr Brown has coaxed Cameron into revealing all his best ideas, so that Brownus can adopt them and pull the rug from under the feet of the Camster.

Brown's cunning plan?

George Jones in the Telegraph says that Cameron's summer wobble is in danger of turning into a winter of discontent. He also says that Cameron is in danger of using up all his ammo (all these commission policy announcements) too early.

The latter point was one that has occurred to me in the last few days. Gordon Brown's middle name is "devious" and one has been searching for a motive, other than the obvious, for all this October election speculation.

It could be that Brown has a cunning plan. Speculate about an October election. Get Cameron firing off all his salvoes in the form of his various policy initiatives. Then don't call an autumn election and pick and choose the best of Cameron's initiatives and implement them as government policy before the actual election next spring, or whenever.

Clever that.

It is also possible, of course, that Brown is just as confused as the rest of us. But I doubt it.

Populus poll "kills off" October election speculation

Call me old-fashioned, but I have never thought an election this year was going to happen. That was mainly because I couldn't see where Gordon Brown would find £10-20 million, to fund Labour's election campaign, at the drop of a hat.

But after all the prevailing wisdom in the press saying an autumn election was imminent, we now have the Times saying that it's off. The Tories and Labour are 36% to 37% respectively in a Populus poll. The Tories are ahead in key marginals.

Oh well, that's it then!

Except that surely Brown is not calculating that his poll position will improve next year, so that it will be any better than it is now, is he? So, I don't see how this poll makes a 2007 election any less or more likely. In fact, it may make it more likely. Brown may calculate that he needs to go now before things get even worse for him.

Heavy duty Grammar check ready for Prescott memoirs

We are to be treated to John Prescott's memoirs. As usual the reverse self-justification rule applies: the more the author tries to justify their actions and sanctify themselves, the less the books sell.

I don't expect a great readership for this oevre.

Brown tells Labour - get all PPCs in place by conference

Gordon Brown has ordered all Labour constituency parties to have PPCs in place by the time of the Labour conference in the autumn.

I am beginning to start to believe this snap autumn election malarkey. However, if it is likely, despite Labour needing something north of £20million , perhaps even £40 million, to fund it, why do they keep dropping hints about it?

Surely a "snap" election loses a lot of its "snap" if it is touted in advance ad naueseam, does it not?

On balance I tend to go with Andrew Rawnsley's verdict:

Gordon Brown hasn't even told Gordon Brown when he will call a general election. He doesn't know either.

Sun photo of Tracey Temple sitting on John Prescott's knee at his desk

Very cosy. All in a government office, by the look of it.

Brown nearly landed himself in the Brown stuff

Andrew Rawnsley as usual provides Sunday merriment in the Observer:

When the floods were inundating his new realm, Gordon Brown almost found himself in the shit. Touring drowned areas of England, he asked those handling that emergency what they most needed. He was disturbed to learn that there was a problem with sanitation which was threatening to go critical. Soon afterwards, the chairman of the civil contingencies committee back in London found he had the Prime Minister on the phone growling at him to get 900 Portaloos to Tewkesbury.

Government officials avoiding calls from 'hyperactive' Prime Minister

The Times confirms that the Prime Minister actually lives in Number 11 Downing Street. So all this stuff about him moving into Number 10 was rubbish really. He actually moved OUT of Number 10 into Number 11 when he became Prime Minister. Strange but true.

Any road up, The Times also reports the Paddy-like early morning activity of the PM, which is in sharp contrast to Blair, apparently:

His weapon of choice is the mobile phone, which will ring from 6.30am, with the bright-eyed, perky Prime Minister demanding papers, discussing strategy and even asking for feedback.

“You can literally hear the spoon going into the cornflakes as he’s talking,” one member of the Government who has received the early call said. “He is a very early riser and he goes to bed quite early, which is not good for the body politic, which mostly consists of people who go to bed late and are not early risers.”

...Another said: “We’ve got to the point where people deliberately avoid taking a call because he phones up so frequently. If you float an idea, he will ask you to write a policy paper on it and he’ll keep phoning you until you’ve written it. It’s absolutely nonstop.”

I see. So government officials are seeing "PM calling" on their mobile screen and rejecting the call or ignoring it. Crikey!

Labour bids to close down Ashcroft cash to Tory marginals

The Independent reports that Labour are looking to have a bill in the autumn whose provisions will include the closing down of a loophole which allows Lord Ashcroft to fund Tory candidates in marginal constituencies in between elections.

It is remarkable that Labour believe, rightly or wrongly, that this type of funding has such a powerful impact that they have to bring in legislation to stop it. Indeed, it seems that they fear they may be too late:

(Harriet) Harman, who is also Leader of the House of Commons and in charge of the legislative programme, has warned the Prime Minister that she cannot get an electoral reform bill on the statute book before autumn next year, and by then, Lord Ashcroft's impact could have a deciding effect.

There's bound to be an autumn election - Martin Salter says so. Oh well, that's a cast iron certainty then

The Times and others are reporting that we are likely to have an autumn "snap" General Election. The reports are based on a quote from Martin Salter MP.

So, given that priceless imprimatur there isn't a remote chance of getting that story confused with other typical August stories about the Cornish "JAWS 2", Crop Circles, the Loch Ness monster, the Beast of Bodmin etc is there?

56 days dentention - Is Brown trying to out-Tory the Tories?

It is very welcome to read of the report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which says that there is no evidence to support an increase in the detention without charge period beyond 28 days.

Chairman Andrew Dismore MP 'said there was only one serious alleged plot where six people were held up to 28 days - three of whom were then released. "You could say, on the one hand, those three, there may have been evidence against them, but equally, were they simply being held in case something turned up?," he said.'

The committee observes that other countries facing a terrorist threat have much shorter detention periods.

It does seem remarkable that whereas throughout the Irish troubles, aside from reasonably limted periods of the enforcement of internment, the law change currently in place, let alone the suggested extension to 56 days, was not required, the Labour government think it is necessary now.

One wonders what Gordon Brown's motivation is in suggesting an extension to the 28 day period. The police aren't asking for it, say the committee. Even the 28 day period has not been used except in three cases. And the proposed allowance of interviews of suspects after charge dissolves one of the main arguments used for having the 28 day period in the first place.

So what exactly is Brown's motivation? Looking "statesmanlike"? Out-torying the Tories?

It's also worth noting that Liberty have suggested a number of measures which could be introduced instead of detention without charge, such as:

• Remove the bar on the use of intercept (phone tap) evidence because its inadmissibility is a major factor in being unable to bring charges in terror cases. Liberty welcomes the Government’s proposed Privy Council review.

• Hire more interpreters: Prioritise the hiring of more foreign language interpreters to expedite pre-charge questioning and other procedures.

• Criminalising failure to disclose encryption keys: Begin to use existing powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which enable a civil court to require an individual to hand over an encryption key (which unlocks data on seized computers). Anyone who fails to comply with such an order will be committing a serious criminal offence.

• Add resources: More resources for police and intelligence services.

• Emergency measures in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be triggered in a genuine emergency in which the police are overwhelmed by multiple terror plots, allowing the Government to temporarily extend pre-charge detention subject to Parliamentary and judicial oversight.

Stinging criticism of Brown from Labour MP

Gisela Stuart MP is an unlikely "rebel". She's your archetypal "Blair babe". On election night in 1997, her successful result at Edgbaston came early on, and gave a clear signal that we were in for a Labour landslide.

Ms Stuart has been criticising Gordon Brown for not holding a referendum on the European Constitution/Treaty. She should know what she is talking about. She helped write the original "constitution".

Her article in the Sunday Telegraph is couched in extremely strong terms and entitled: "If Brown won't listen, how can we trust him?" She accuses Labour ministers of talking "rubbish" when they say the treaty is just a "tidying up" exercise. And she accuses them of being "disingenuous" or of not having read the treaty:

Trust the people" has been a clarion call down the ages. The results are sometimes unpredictable and sometimes even uncomfortable for politicians, but it is the ultimate bulwark of democracy.

"We the people agree to leave it to you the people who know more than the people" doesn't have quite the same ring; but that's what seems to be on offer with the new European Union treaty. The politicians claim that they know best, because it's all too difficult for voters to understand.

It's true, a majority of voters do not know the minutiae of the treaty - but then neither do most MPs and ministers. In the same way, not many voters read party manifestos at general elections, but by and large they have a pretty good idea of what's at stake.

...So the real issue has become one of trust. The Government undermined trust by its original handling of the EU constitution. It should never have pretended that it was just a "tidying up" exercise, and it has continued on a similar line with the new treaty. Well, it was rubbish then and it is rubbish now.

The only way to regain this trust is to return to the original promise: trust the people and let them decide.

The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have said there is no case for a referendum. Either they are being disingenuous or they have not read the treaty (perhaps because the only official version available so far is in French). I hope that both will use the opportunity for a bit of serious summer reading so that at least one of these alternative explanations for their current assessment can be eliminated by the time Parliament returns to the issue in the autumn.

Such sharp criticism from such an authoritative source is very powerful.

Snap election? - Forget it, unless someone gives Brown £40 million

The Independent repeats something I have read in several places recently. Although there is much talk of an early general election, it is estimated that Labour will not have enough cash to fight one until 2008, probably autumn of that year at that.

Labour spent £17.9 million on their 2005 general election campaign. They are currently around £20 million+ in the red. (It was £25 million at the end of last year but there have been reports of an improvement since then).

The Conservatives have cut their debt to £9 million.

So, it does not take a rocket scientist to work out that, unless someone gives Gordon Brown a sum of money somewhere north of £40 million, the chances of a "snap election" are slim. That calculation, of course, assumes a need for zero Labour party debt before going to the country, which is, of course, not absolute.