Vote 2006?
I've been thinking about when the next General Election will be, and while conventional wisdom says next May, I'm not entirely sure. It's the most likely date, I agree, but I'm not sure that it's the locked on certainty that we're assuming it is.
I already mentioned this week that the possibility of a February election - slim though it was anyway - is now pretty much ruled out because that's when the hunting ban is set to come into force. Seeing that Labour are trying to make law and order a main theme of the next election campaign, it doesn't strike me as a good idea for them to be holding it agains the backdrop of what seems likely to be mass-lawbreaking, widespread protests and all the other stuff that's likely to happen.
However, if that is going to happen - and it seems rather likely - it's entirely possible that it won't be over in a week or two and protests are likely to carry on for months, which means they'll still be going on into April and May and it runs the risk of pushing hunting up the agenda (perhaps even to the top) of election issues, a prospect that's not going to be pleasing any Labour strategists.
The sensible solution then would be to decide to wait, allow the issue to settle down and hope to come up with a compromise solution that eases the tensions. However, that means they have to come up with a new election date. Autumn 2005 would be good, except for the small matter of Britain holding the EU Presidency during the second half of next year and - as others have pointed out - the focus that requires effectively rules out holding an election during that time, not least because - as far as I can tell - no country has ever held an election while holding the Presidency.
So, we move into 2006. There aren't too many problems caused by that - the Government still has a thumping great majority, even allowing for by-elections and an extra year in office complete with G8 summits and EU Presidencies gives lots of good 'Tony as world leader' photo ops and there's the chance that Iraq will be sorted out and safe by then. And while Blair probably doesn't want to be seen as drifting into an election, he can always revisit the most recent scenarion, make everyone think he's waiting till May 2006 and call a quick election in February.
I already mentioned this week that the possibility of a February election - slim though it was anyway - is now pretty much ruled out because that's when the hunting ban is set to come into force. Seeing that Labour are trying to make law and order a main theme of the next election campaign, it doesn't strike me as a good idea for them to be holding it agains the backdrop of what seems likely to be mass-lawbreaking, widespread protests and all the other stuff that's likely to happen.
However, if that is going to happen - and it seems rather likely - it's entirely possible that it won't be over in a week or two and protests are likely to carry on for months, which means they'll still be going on into April and May and it runs the risk of pushing hunting up the agenda (perhaps even to the top) of election issues, a prospect that's not going to be pleasing any Labour strategists.
The sensible solution then would be to decide to wait, allow the issue to settle down and hope to come up with a compromise solution that eases the tensions. However, that means they have to come up with a new election date. Autumn 2005 would be good, except for the small matter of Britain holding the EU Presidency during the second half of next year and - as others have pointed out - the focus that requires effectively rules out holding an election during that time, not least because - as far as I can tell - no country has ever held an election while holding the Presidency.
So, we move into 2006. There aren't too many problems caused by that - the Government still has a thumping great majority, even allowing for by-elections and an extra year in office complete with G8 summits and EU Presidencies gives lots of good 'Tony as world leader' photo ops and there's the chance that Iraq will be sorted out and safe by then. And while Blair probably doesn't want to be seen as drifting into an election, he can always revisit the most recent scenarion, make everyone think he's waiting till May 2006 and call a quick election in February.
Nick got away with this at 1:02 PM
12 Comments:
Hello there! I think we've met on LJ (I'm the Birdwoman), via Itchyfidget if I remember right. I just came here via Green Fairy and was surprised to see a familiar username! I've just set up my own "real" blog (A bird's eye view) and I was on a quest for other British bloggers. It's a small Internet, isn't it? By the way, I'll be perusing A Fistful of Euros with interest...
I don't see why February is ruled out. If you're going to run a law and order campaign, surely it helps if the supporters of your opposition are engaged in mass lawbreaking. Think Nixon in 1968.
Assuming there really are going to be elections held in Iraq in January, the Iraq situation is going to look as good in February as it is likely to get for several years. With that and the Conservatives campaigning on foxhunting, if I were Blair, I think I'd chance it. The polls look pretty good, anyway. On the last couple of polls, the Conservatives could actually lose seats. Why wait?
jam
Ah, but if you're using Nixon in 68 as an example, he wasn't in power at the time - Humphrey, who was Vice-President, lost the election - and the law they were breaking wasn't one that Nixon had brought in.
I don't think Blair is going to go for an election in February anyway, but playing devil advocate for a second - the hunting ban doesn't come into effect until Friday February 18th....so Thursday February 17th is still in play :)
The idea of an election on 5/5/05 is so embedded in the media's consciousness now it would be portrayed as him running scared if he didn't go for it. In reality Blair could ride that out of course, but he'd rather avoid it in the first place. I think if Blair was considering leaving the election later we'd have heard some hints about it from friendly journalists, softening us up for the delay.
Anthony
For what it's worth, a friend of mine (who probably ought to remain anonymous) is a Parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party and thinks a November 2005 election is on the cards. Leaving it until 2006 could well allow assorted oppositions to assemble themselves, whilst to be honest the government's popularity isn't that likely to recover any time soon, just as Iraq isn't going to be "sorted out and safe" any time soon. Better to stop the rot and call the election sooner, rather than later.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
there are very few labour marginals with large rural bits - about 6. so, not that much of a threat. plus, i think the tories are going to have problems defending those hunt supporters intent on breaking the law. what kind of message does that send to the voting public and mr & mrs law-abiding middle englander?
february vs. may. this is a conundrum. the political "logic" these days is that you have to have an election in may (or possibly june). call an election any other time and people (or pundits) wonder why.
i think blair will most likely call a may 05 election because it suits the flow of the present govt. he has the neat backstop of going until may 06 for the reasons you mention (g8, eu prezzy, iraq "sorting itself out") - though i think iraq will not "sort itself out" by may 06, esp if the current puppet doesn't get elected (or does?).
notwithstanding the above (you can tell i used to be a civil servant!), the opposition is so pants that blair could dance down the street naked and still win by a mile. (this scenario was painted for me by a capitol hill lobbyist with reference to sen john breaux (d-ms). the same now applies to st tony.)
if blair could be defeated over a rural issue he would have lost in 01 over foot and mouth/cjd. the only scenario i can see to mortally wound labour is for the economy to tank or (gawd 'elp us) for a seismic terrorist event like the madrid bombing on the eve of an election.
when will the tories learn that, now tony has pinched their policies, they'll only win if they appoint a popular leader like bozzer johnson or port-a-loo?
Given what happened to the last two governments that decided to go to the wire and hold elections as late as possible (Callaghan in 79, Major in 97), that in itself is an overwhelming argument for 2005 over 2006. Next year, Blair has plenty of room to manoeuvre, but in 2006 he may be at the mercy of as yet unforeseen events.
Granted, he's almost certainly going to win regardless, but given the current state of the Tories an election sooner rather than later would seem to make most sense.
The argument against a May 2005 election is simple: unforeseen circumstances. Providing there aren't any of them eg. a foot and mouth outbreak it will be in May. All these periodic rumours about earlier dates are simply placed to have the opposition wasting valuable time on contingency plans, or hide some other story which might embarrass the Government - if you're a bit worried the press might run with an anti-Labour story on a slow news weekend it's better if you give them an alternative story in advance.
Michael,
re: your comment on the last two governments to take it to the wire ...
These were both Major, in 92 (won) and 97 (lost).
Although your point stands as a general rule. Since the war we've had:
Home in '64 (5 years and 7 days!) (lost)
Callaghan in '79 (4 years 7 months - lost vote of no confidence) (lost)
Major in '92 (4 years 9 months) (won)
Major in '97 (5 years and 22 days!) (lost).
Mea culpa - I forgot all about Major in 1992. Of course it was a five-year Tory administration: it's just that the break with Thatcher was so dramatic that it felt like two shorter ones!
Post a Comment
<< Home