This idea came from William Rees-Mogg's article in the Times yesterday wondering why Labour seemed happy to call a snap election if they won Glenrothes and arguing the current state of the polls might make them think twice even if they hold the Scottish seat.
My feeling is that Labour do have reasons to be cheerful. I remember a lot of effort last parliament from the Tories to put out a lot of policies which were geared towards the interests of the majority of people - talking about the "right to choose" in healthcare and education, for example, or childcare/maternity payments to assist mothers-to-be, or the standard output on immigration and school discipline - but can't see much of the same activity happening now, for example, even when the Tories had the initiative and the agenda-setting powers over the spring and summer. With the lead currently at roughly 8 or 9 points (the Independent's poll of polls today puts the lead at 11 points, but includes the 12-point Guardian lead done just prior to Yachtgate, which is unrepresentative because it was published before Osborne's fracas with Mandelson, Rothschild and Deripaska - "who's been schmoozing on MY yacht?!") one would think that Brown would not cut and run until he really had to, i.e. June 2010 (Parliament has to be dissolved by May 2010, but that means a three week election campaign, so the last possible polling date is in June that year).
However discussions with colleagues during the 2005 election suggested to me that poll leads actually narrow during the campaign and leads projected in polls, particularly in mid-term, are always subject to change at an election as people make up their minds based on competing platforms. It is also that election which suggests the Tories want to leave it as late as possible to reveal their manifesto to prevent Labour using their executive mandate to implement large slices of it before polling day, in order to neutralise any popular policies coming out of CCHQ. But as Matthew d'Ancona suggested too, that although between the 2004 conference and 2005 election lay seven months of hard campaigning time (four of them which I took off work to participate on that campaign), the Tories could not expect to beat Labour in 28 weeks. The Tories currently have no concrete manifesto, no over-arching programme, have had to reorientate their plans away from the vague "sharing the proceeds of growth" ideals they had adopted, and recently abandoned the plans to keep spending at Labour levels for two years after the changeover (a move made about two weeks before conference), probably meaning they now need to rethink tax/spend plans or make them up as they go along after riding into government on a crest of a wave of disillusionment and apathetic anti-Brown public energy.
Michael Howard meanwhile had a well-thought out and well costed strategy, a clear campaigning message and other policies which moved the Tories away from traditional battlegrounds (Europe and immigration) to talking about health, education, social security provision and so on. He got me, a long-time Labour supporter born of Liberal (Democrat) parents, into the Tory party, a decision which took me six months and got me nothing but grief from my parents and ex-boyfriend. Now I would still vote Tory, but see no reason to campaign so vigorously for a leadership which cannot even make up its mind what it would do about vague spending plans, let alone come up with punchy, interesting and relevant ideas to fit in around macroeconomic projections.
At what point does this caution become a liability? Will the Tories currently win an election or would they have to have a change of personnel at the top to actually overcome this dangerous inertia and stop people going back to the government because of policies that are increasingly looking like they will be made up on the back of a beer-mat two or three days before the polls close? Meanwhile, will Labour win with Brown in charge, or will they too have to start afresh?
Because this is a question with four possible scenarios, I have split it down into four different posts, all of which I hope to have published by the time the Glenrothes result comes in on Thursday night.
This particular post is to do with NO CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP FOR EITHER PARTY - that is, David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party and Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party/Prime Minister.
a. CONSERVATIVE PROSPECTS.
1. Polls apparent now. ACE OF PENTACLES - "The Ace in the earthy suit of Pentacles represents potential for financial propositions or business ventures. It can signify lump sums suddenly being made available, either through shrewd investment or generous gifts."
The Tories are banking on a solid lead being maintained and carrying this through a three-week campaign without loss. This is why some commentators assume the Labour Party are deluding themselves on the winnability of any election between now and next summer, let alone 2010, given the bleak economic prospects and the probability people will blame this on Brown.
2. Underlying stability of campaign. II WANDS - "The Two of Wands describes a situation in which there is more than just a vision - some solid work has been achieved and the project is viable. Although it suggests only the early stages of a venture, there is certainly more than just an idea."
There may be viability in Tory commentators' assumptions that by going to the polls now Labour can avoid a complete wipeout and maintain a more dignified oppositional approach rather than let the Tories win a 1997-style landslide. However since Wands are the least stable of the suits (as opposed to the firmer Pentacles) there is a danger that by pressing hard for an election now - as the Tories did last time one was proposed in September/October 2007 - without doing more work on policy they risk losing the apparent solidity of the poll lead and seeing it evaporate. Without another conference to put the skeleton of a proper manifesto out, they cannot make enough noise to capitalise on the current 8-9% lead.
3. Results of any election between now and June 2009. KNIGHT OF SWORDS - "The Knight of Swords represents a sudden change. Although this may be disruptive, it is necessary as the current situation may be getting stagnant."
The Tories would be rash to rely solely on mid-term polls and push for an election now rather than spending more time working on policy and spinning the parliament out as long as possible - the last two changes in government have both come only at a time when the government was forced to call an election rather than when it could freely choose the election date. Despite people disgruntled with Labour or Brown calling for an election to remove him from office, any election now would only disrupt Tory preparations and allow Labour to catch up, surpass and win a 1992-style victory against the odds.
b. LABOUR PROSPECTS
1. Polls apparent now. - KING OF SWORDS - "The King of Swords suggests it is time to start developing your mental skills and intellectual prowess in new ways. It can also mean that a figure of authority, perhaps connected with the legal profession, may enter your life."
The devil is in the detail here for Labour as they are able to see things - whether in private polling or other similar research or psephological studies - that journalists discussing poll ratings cannot. Brown would need to be certain that he could pull off a "1992" scenario before going to the polls, but the precedents for an election during a recession are nonetheless fairly encouraging for the governing party.
2. Underlying stability of campaign. STRENGTH - "The Strength card suggests the possibility of achieving self-awareness, personal inner strength and determination, and the courage to take on the task of self-discipline."
Strength to me suggests that Labour is much more controlled and controlling, meaning that their certainty is greater than the Tories' that the poll ratings would in fact narrow and the gap probably close and/or open up in the other direction. The Tories cannot here match Labour's policies despite the recession Britain is entering. Moreover Labour can also be assured that in its current form the Tories are not seeking to capitalise on Labour's discomfort in Scotland or its position in Wales, and are not developing parliamentary bases outside England from which to launch more MPs onto a Westminster career. Without these areas, they would not be able to break Labour's grip, however tenuous, on government. So Labour have more reasons to go to the country than to hang back until forced to.
3. Results of any election between now and June 2009. PAGE OF CUPS - "When this card appears it hints at changes in the emotional life. On a literal level it can bring news of the birth of a child, or it could symbolise the birth of new feelings."
Labour would not by any stretch of the imagination win another landslide, but if a poll was called within the next eight months they would make a tentative recovery and provide solutions to challenges faced by the country, enough to erode Tory confidence and belligerence. The possibility of government for the Tories would have to wait until 2013-14. Labour could govern adequately on a small majority and the Tories would have little new responses beyond the failure of the Cameron leadership. Thus Labour are actually right to be hopeful of fully reversing the trend visible over the previous year because of Tory inertia.
All other things being equal, of course.
