Well, it happened at last. On Saturday October 6, 2007, Gordon Brown finally put an end to speculation concerning the possibility of a ‘snap’ autumn election, declaring that he wanted to “show people the vision we have for the future of this country” and would not, therefore, be calling a nationwide ballot anytime soon. The PM’s political opponents reacted with predictable scorn and derision, the Tories’ David Cameron describing the pronouncement as a “humiliating retreat” which showed “great weakness and indecision” while Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, characterised Brown’s decision as displaying “a loss of nerve”.

At first glance, the choice does indeed seem somewhat bizarre. With both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems suffering mild leadership crises of their own, even as Brown enjoyed an extended post-Blair honeymoon period during which, it seemed, he could do no wrong, an autumn election would have been the perfect way for the new Prime Minister to reassert his status and stamp his authority upon the country before the festive season commenced. The need for a regenerated mandate was especially grave as a result of the manner in which he’d ascended to the premiership, sweeping to power unopposed while senior ministers were left to fight among themselves for the role of Deputy Leader; a successful election result, reclaiming control of the country and sending Cameron the way of Hague, IDS and Howard before him, would have gone a long way towards removing the bitter taste left in the nation’s collective mouth after the farcical ‘campaign’ events of May and June.

If one looks at the situation more closely, however, Brown’s decision starts to seem less like inexplicable indecision and more like pragmatic pusillanimity. A survey, commissioned by the News of the World and due to be published the day after the election-related declaration, showed that the Conservatives were inching ahead of New Labour for the first time since the leader assumed office; meanwhile, two other opinion polls, one an ICM ballot for The Guardian and the other a recent YouGov survey for Channel 4 News, also brought adverse tidings for the surly Scot. The former suggested that the Government and the Opposition were neck-and-neck in the race of public opinion while the latter gave Brown the edge, albeit with a drastically-reduced lead, and – even if the results on display are taken with a sizeable dose of salt – the message was still clear.

As I’ve stated elsewhere, New Labour’s long-standing hegemony in Parliament had been eroded, almost to the point of total annihilation, by Tony Blair and, in particular, the slavish support he provided to George W. Bush’s War on Terrorism. Would Brown have suffered the consequences, had he called an early election as many, myself included, predicted he would? It seems likely that, at the very least, he’d have been returned to power with a far lower House of Commons majority than he’d like, and it’s hardly inconceivable that he could have found himself facing a hung Parliament or even an outright Tory victory if the electorate truly turned against him at the ballot-boxes.

So what are the implications of these events?

To begin with, an optimistic assessment for Brown would place him firmly back in the proverbial driving-seat. He is under no obligation to initiate a general election until May 2010, and – although the uproar over the recent “Will he, won’t he?” farrago has certainly proven damaging to his credibility in the short-term – he can reasonably expect the public to forget all about this indecision and opportunism at some point in the near future. On this level, his choice was the sensible, if cowardly, option. With that having been said, he inherited a party which had suffered greatly at the hands of his predecessor and, now that his honeymoon period is well and truly over, he faces an uphill battle to restore New Labour’s image in the hearts and minds of the British public. Of these concerns, the War on Terrorism still looms large on the horizon, along with Europe, political transparency and sundry other examples. It will be interesting indeed to see how he copes with these issues. He is also in the notional dog-house on another front at the time of writing, having been publicly accused of stealing his rivals’ tax plans, but the notoriously-forgetful electorate will doubtless overlook these allegations before the next local ballots are held, let alone the subsequent nationwide poll.

On the other hand, this analysis may underestimate the extent to which his dilly-dallying over the election truly served to damage his longer-term aspirations. On October 11, Nick Assinder, writing for BBC News Online, described his “attempts to draw a line under a dreadful few weeks” (which, in the pundit’s view, constituted “his first major blunder”) as having “not only failed but even, in many cases, backfired.” These tricks, emerging from the Prime Minister’s sleeve in swift succession, included throwing himself upon the mercy of the press on the very first day of the new parliamentary session and hastily announcing that the British military presence in Iraq will be halved by Spring 2008; the former necessarily entailed the spurious claim that he’d have foregone the option of an early election even without the damning poll results, an unavoidable stratagem which nevertheless prompted hoots of incredulous laughter from his audience in the Commons, while the latter resulted in immediate accusations of playing politics with a highly sensitive and emotional issue.

As alluded above, Brown soon found himself facing allegations of policy theft, the inevitable result of a wiseacre decision to thumb his nose at the Tories by announcing plans to “combat” their prematurely-revealed manifesto plans. David Cameron duly made good use of all these issues during a particularly heated exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, describing his rival as “phoney” and stopping just short of accusing the PM of lying over the election-related excuses he’d offered to the House. When yet another unfavourable survey was published – this time an ICM poll conducted for the BBC’s Newsnight programme, showing that 61% of respondents feel Brown’s government is likely to be as pro-spin as his predecessor’s while 57% believe that the new Chancellor, Alastair Darling, had indeed stolen the Tories’ spending plans – Brown’s prognosis started to look less and less rosy.

As far as his political opponents are concerned, their agitated reaction to his decision belies the calm and cocksure exteriors they’ve worked so hard to cultivate over the past few months. Neither Cameron nor Campbell can truly be sure of the continued confidence of their parties, although the former has unquestionably benefited from the PM’s recent snafus; if the election is going to be delayed for as long as New Labour can hold out, possibly up to two-and-a-half years hence, then the Lib Dems and the Tories will need to make swift decisions about their leadership and decide whom to appoint in the hope of unseating Brown when that now-distant horizon finally draws near. Although they face different problems – Campbell’s detractors perceive him as being too old and out-of-touch, while Cameron’s naysayers believe he’s excessively insipid and overly-inexperienced – the end result is much the same.

Do the opposition parties have viable alternatives to their current incumbents? For the Conservatives, William Hague is by far and away their best option; however, following his disastrous showing in 2001 he is understandably gun-shy, and frequently denies that he will re-assume leadership of the Party under any circumstances. Otherwise, potential candidates are few and far between. Boris Johnson, the bumbling fop whose guest appearances on the BBC quiz-show Have I Got News for You have earned him the nation’s affection, is perhaps a little too eccentric to successfully climb that particular mountain (and besides, he has his hands full with a much-vaunted bid for the Mayor of London role, in which he hopes to defeat ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone next May).

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems may do well to consider reinstating Charles Kennedy, the charismatic and popular leader they unceremoniously ditched in January 2006 following his publicly-revealed treatment for alcoholism, but such a move would not be without its (self-evident) drawbacks. Kennedy aside, Vince Cable is an obvious candidate for the top job, especially as he is already the Deputy Leader of the Party; should they desire a younger nominee, Home Affairs Spokesman Nick Clegg and former MEP Chris Huhne may fit the bill. Once again, though, they would need to be sure that the upheaval caused by removing Campbell would prove worthwhile in the long run.

Unfortunately, due to the archaic nature of the British political system, which allows prime ministers to call elections as and when they see fit, Brown was absolutely within his rights to baulk at the aforementioned polling data and back out of dissolving Parliament in 2007. His decision was undeniably spineless and craven, but – from his own personal standpoint – it was probably the right course of action. Whether Cameron and Campbell will survive in their posts until the mooted 2009 ballot remains to be seen, but this much is certain: if the Tories and the Liberal Democrats want to mount a realistic challenge to Brown at the next election, whenever it is held, they need to decide upon their leaders as soon as possible and continue hounding the PM at every opportunity. New Labour may be on the ropes right now, but recent history suggests that they’ll bounce back very soon… and then, if the opposition have lost their current momentum, there may be no stopping PM Gordon.

As far as the voters are concerned, there’s little or no chance that Brown’s recent indiscretions will be remembered in 18 months’ time. He may have treated us all like fools by suggesting that the opinion polls weren’t the crucial factor in his decision, but Blair committed far more heinous crimes – especially in the form of his ill-disguised duplicity over the invasion of Iraq – and still managed to retain the voters’ trust, albeit inexplicably and to a lesser extent than that to which he’d become accustomed. In this sense, there is still everything for which to play in 2009 or 2010.

However, perhaps this line of thought is excessively superficial, almost to the point of being – whisper it – Blairite. History tells us that, while electorates generally possess short memories when it comes to the banal minutiae of government, their elephantine grudge-bearing capacities can prove crucial at election times. Just look at poor old John Major, for instance: he too assumed control of an incumbent administration midway through its term, and declined to seek an election for some while after taking office. When the time came, in April 1992, he was widely expected to lose the ballot to Neil Kinnock’s Labour Party; the fact that he eventually lived to fight another day had more to do with extraneous factors (the PR disaster that was Labour’s ‘Sheffield Rally’, a scathing Election Day cover story from The Sun which further dented Kinnock’s image, etc.) than anything he actively did. Fast-forward to 1997, by which time the Tories had been in power for almost two decades, and Major was the victim of a colossal landslide which put New Labour into Downing Street for the first time.

Perhaps the deal-breaking factor, then, will be the extent to which Brown can successfully separate himself from his precursor. Despite the well-documented antipathy which existed between Blair and his colleague, Brown was (quite rightly) regarded as one of the chief architects of the New Labour brand and has spent the last decade as PM Tony’s heir apparent, not to mention an integral part of successive Blairite governments as the longest-standing Chancellor in modern British history. By the time 2009 rolls around, the Party will have been in control of the country for 12 long years. Perhaps the British people will feel that it’s high time for a change. Maybe Brown will find himself in the same position as Major, a victim of his team’s success combined with the nation’s desire to start anew.

How can he avoid this fate? Only by coming up with some genuinely worthwhile policies, by implementing them cohesively and by making it clear that his recent dithering was nothing more than an aberrant blip. Simply moving forwards, in the vague hope that voters will forgive and forget, is unlikely to prove sufficient this time around.

UPDATE: On October 15, Sir Menzies Campbell resigned from the Lib Dem leadership, effective immediately. Although he did not make the announcement himself, leaving that task to Vince Cable and Party President Simon Hughes – a fact which raised many eyebrows in Westminster and across the nation – it is understood that he felt unable to turn around the poor poll ratings which had been inflicted upon both himself and the Party in recent weeks. Cable took over as acting leader, with a full-scale leadership contest expected to conclude before the end of 2007. Diplomatic excuses aside, it seems probable that he was cajoled into standing down rather than quitting of his own volition, for reasons aforesaid.

Pundits are already assessing how the British political landscape will be affected by his resignation/firing, with several musing that the change will be advantageous to Brown as well as to the Liberal Democrats; Campbell, for so long perceived as an ageing fuddy-duddy, was unlikely to attract many votes in a general election, but a younger and more energetic leader may well reap greater rewards in this regard further down the line. The votes accrued by the new leader, whomever he or she may be, are likely to be from wavering Lib Dem voters who may otherwise have considered switching their allegiance to the Tories. If this is indeed the case, a fresh Lib Dem principal will thereby weaken Cameron’s corner and simultaneously strengthen Brown’s by comparison. As ever, though, only time will tell.

 

PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS INFORMATION OFFICE.