There seems to be a lot of talk this morning about whether Labour can afford a snap election. Actually, snap election talk is the current Westminster gossip it seems. Personally I think much of the speculation is being stirred up by Labour sources who want to make the Tories edgy in the hope that policy announcements are made which they can either (a) rip apart over time, or (b) try to describe a lurch to the Right. There is something of an irony in the latter given the strategy of trying to portray Brown as a lurch to Left, but I digress.
Christopher Hope in this morning's Daily Telegraph argues that the accounts for the year ending December 2006 which were filed with the Electoral Commission (see here) shows that they're in £24 million of debt and the loans from the "cash for peerages" affairs are due to be repaid shortly.
Meanwhile, in the Times, Tim Hames points out that "[t]he thesis that Labour does not have the money to fight an election is feeble. If a party looks like it will win, then cheques always turn up pronto." This does too me sound realistic, and whilst Labour are in debt, you have to ask yourself, what is that debt, and who do they owe it too? As I understand, a significant amount of it is mortgage, or more correctly re-mortgage debt. It is not debt upon which it is contingent to pay off before they could consider an election.
This said, if Labour were genuinely preparing to go to the polls, they would be recruiting big time into their HQ wouldn't they? Yet we're not hearing about that from anyone in the media that might be connected to Labour. Then again, has anyone thought to ask them how many people they've recruited recently? Possibly not. Then of course, there are the Unions, and in particular, Unite.
The merger between Amicus and TGWU which created the super-union Unite has assets alone totaling £177m. Their income was £72m with expenditure of £51m. That means they're in surplus to the tune of £21m. They could, if they chose to, fund an election campaign on they're own. Add in the other Unions and the argument that Labour can't afford it is risible.
Personally I don't think it's going to be in October. As much as there are apparently orders to get candidates in place by their conference, it's not going to be money that's the issue but organisation. Mind you, it's interesting to see that Tim Hames has suddenly floated November out there instead. Whether this is speculation off his own back, or something that has come from a briefing I do not know. But if it's the latter I think it fits in with a desire to stoke uncertainty by Labour and make the Tories react.
No one can really be sure when an election might be, but it makes sense to encourage constant speculation to draw attention away from the malaise of policy failures. If people talk about elections they also talk about polls, and current polls make for morale-sapping reading for the Tories. It makes perfect sense for Labour to concentrate Tory minds on they're polling with the hope that the party will implode once again in reaction to it. For all we know, this election narrative is just part of Brown's media agenda grid for the summer.
10 comments:
As Lance Corporal Jones said "Don't panic!" But, for Heaven's sake, let's get some Tories out there in the papers and on TV. The BBC's reporting of the Redwood proposals over the weekend was nothing short of scandalous - Cameron ought to get stuck into them.
I think the Tories are screwed.
I'll probably vote for them to limit the Labour majority but if(when) they don't win the next election I think there will be questions about whether they should continue to exist.
Their's is an image problem. No matter what they do Labour will say "1980s = 3 million unemployed". The fact that Thatcher's reforms were absolutely necessary and are directly responsible for our prosperity today is irrelevant to today's voter. Labour will always be able to point to those that lost out which is a most successful scare tactic.
I'm not sure what kind of recruitment drive at Labour HQ would keep Cameron awake at night but the tasking of the young Miliband with drawing up an manifesto, Alexander as election co-ordinator and the recruitment of Mendelsohn from FD-LLM as election director surely counts.
Labour are also setting up a beauty parade to find an ad agency.
Does this necessarily mean that he'll call an election - no, but that's the point. Keeping everyone guessing is the plan.
By planning for an election he has the luxury of calling one or not. Either way Cameron is struggling to keep up. What Cameron does not seem to have learnt over the last month is to plan for the long term, or to be seen doing so at least.
They could, if they chose to, fund an election campaign on they're own. Add in the other Unions and the argument that Labour can't afford it is risible.
Then why the cash for honours Dizzy ? ..Hmmmm. The Unions will not hand over all their assets and if they did it would be at a price unpayable by an electable Brown. I agree this is not insoluble but pretending there is no problem is obviously nonsense as we can tell by the desperate efforts of Labour to raise money.
Bernie Eccles-cakes
Private Equity schmoozers
Would be knights
Why bother if the Unions can do it
Bunkum
IMHO
It's definitely part of the Grid, a control-freak like GB does not allow ungridded activity. Whether it is a charade is not quite so clear, but my bet is that it is, simply because unbalancing the opposition all the time, by any means, is Nulab's characteristic activity.
If Brown's optimism is founded in polling, he should not be all that confident. The figures publicised are often not weighted to include likelihood to vote as with YouGOv, or possibly wrongly weighted as are arguably ICM Guardian.
Also poll seem incapable of keeping a consistent picture about smaller parties.
The SNP might wipe Labour out of Scotland entirely - especially if somehow Conservatives there vote tactically. In England the BNP are rolling out into 500 Constituencies for the first time, and they seem to be pulling large numbers of Labour voters.
Some polls give others 15%. Others give others 11% which is up from 7% at the 2005 GE. If you take the 11% figure, this in theright place could lose labour her majority.
Polling does not or cannot provide any convincing evidence about the two new threats that labour is facing. Brown's position could in fact be highly precarious if he called an election.
My take at http://tinyurl.com/23n2ua & http://tinyurl.com/yrolp4
is that for all the hype surrounding some volatile opinion polls, this is a case of follow the money and watch what is happening in Scotland.
Conclusion? No GE this year and probably not in the spring.
Hmmm ! So UNITE has millions in its political fund ?
I think not.
I didn't say it had millions in its political fund. I said it had millions in surplus.
Mark my words, the next GE will be Thursday October 25th 2007.
I'm willing to lay money on it.
Post a Comment