I talk in this morning's video about the threats to democracy and the fact that voting is not the only indication that democracy is alive and well in a country.
That said, I have also noted growing speculation that Labour might hold an election before Christmas, with Kemi Badenoch, on behalf of the Tories, suggesting it is possible, and strong rumours that some close advisers to Andy Burnham think it might be advisable.
The suggestion is supported by growing rumours that John Healey is to present a stopgap Budget on 28 October this month, with full plans for a Burnham government to be revealed in a Budget in the spring of next year.
Will Burnham take this risk? Will he want to avoid the allegation that he is using Starmer's major majority for his own gain, without a mandate of his own?
I think that possibility is real and rests on two factors. One is the so-called Burnham bounce, which is, at present, seemingly bringing voters back from the Greens to Labour. The second is that Reform's popularity is currently on the wane, but Farage has a habit of bouncing back, so the opportunity has to be exploited. Burnham may be tempted to use these two situations to hold an election now.
What would happen if he did? Opinion polls are not certain as to their predictions, but what they agree on for sure is that Burnham would not win a majority if he were to hold an election soon. A range of current projections from YouGov, Electoral Calculus and More in Common all suggest that Labour would win around 250 or so seats. What is more interesting is what would happen to Reform, with Electoral Calculus putting them at under 100 seats and a More in Common MRP poll suggesting a much higher figure of close to 150. Their gains and losses appear to be at the cost of the Conservatives, whose forecasts vary widely from 120 to 160 seats, whilst Liberal Democrat forecasts appear to be fairly consistent at around their current 70-seat level, with the SNP recovering some of their losses in the 2024 election.
What would the outcome be then? At best, Burnham could look forward to a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. He might even need an alliance with the SNP as well to hold off a Tory/Reform alliance. No one is forecasting a significant role for the Greens at present.
The question is whether he might take that risk, seeking to replicate David Cameron's relatively stable government between 2010 and 2015 rather than face a greater loss in 2029, which would be almost inevitable given likely changes in the world economy in the meantime.
I think it is just possible that he might take this risk. The deciding factor might, however, be based on another aspect of Cameron's coalition government, which is that he then went on to win a general election outright.
There is something else to take into account. Cameron did not know why he wanted to be Prime Minister, and had very little policy, austerity apart, which was Osborne's idea. Burnham is another man without very many policy ideas, and his Cabinet, one or two exceptions apart, is made up of people who could not think themselves out of a paper bag. Might he therefore want a coalition to have a partner he can blame for inaction in the future? To me, that is the most compelling reason why he might now choose to go to the country. It's not a good one, but it is at least plausible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Though I reckon he’ll find the SNP less easy to blame than the Liberal Democrats were by Cameron.
What the SNP and Plaid would demand is an interesting aspect of a snap election!
The SNP’s primary demand will almost certainly be a rewrite of section 30 of the Scotland Act, permanently placing the right to referendums in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. Plaid won’t ask for the same thing, but are more likely to present a list that closes the gap in powers between the Senedd and Holyrood.
Of course, the practitioners of dark arts at Labour HQ will refuse to compromiseon any of it, then insist to their friends in the media that the resulting general election is all down to nationalist intransigence.
Cant see him risking throwing away his majority in a snap election. <p>
He would be much better advised to say ‘things have changed’ so he has to invest in public services to employ unused real resources – doctors nurses unemployed young people, get building houses , rent controls, equalising tax rates on earned and unearned income etc etc<p>
Joining EU customs union and single market (to boost exports, and attract ‘real’ investment in production rather than financial engineering), public ownership of water, rail, energy – to get a grip on profiteering, and ‘cost of living'<p>
Of course Burnham’s donors and Labour Together masters wont let him do this – but he may try to pretend he is doing some of it – in a futile attempt to prolong the ‘Burnham Bounce’ toward 2029<p>
How long can the Burnham honeymoon/bubble last? A budget that does not improve the wellbeing of an already cost of living stressed population will not secure him the 400 odd majority He enjoys now. How ridiculous it looks if he is seen to sailed into office and not started any radical improvements when he has such a huge majority now. The 6 weeks or so it takes to get an election organised will see the shine that Burnham may enjoy now greatly reduced.
Can’t see Tinkerman Burnham taking such a big risk and losing the current majority.
His biggest threat is the UK’s lack of strategic planning for reserves of diesel/gas/petrol/food etc.
If the US/Israel war on Iran and the Saudi’s campaign against the Houthi’s are not resolved correctly pretty quickly the current shortages will impact at speed.
Even if these conflicts are resolved it will take months if not several years for the supply chains to get back to “normal”.
Guess who will be blamed for the shortages? Yes Tinkerman.
Thank you, Richard.
One wonders if Burnham is also wary of what may come out of Manchester(ism) and the football and real estate scandals.
Older readers may remember the dithering of Callaghan in the autumn of 1978, paving the way for Thatcher*, and Brown in the autumn of 2007, paving the way for Cameron.
One wonders if people are aware that Thatcher’s chancellor and foreign secretary, Geoffrey Howe, was married to the sister of queen Camilla’s father. I learnt that over the week-end and the network of connections and appointments, not a deep state, but a permanent one. Burnham is just passing through.
Perhaps. The drumbeats were audible in the Sunday newspapers. If not this side of “General Winter”, then certainly by May.
I reflected on this on a bike ride (glorious day in Bx btw).
As of now, Burnt-ham has zero to show for being PM. Absolutely nothing. As you observe, the cabinet is yes-men/never weres/has beens, an election would not clear them out (& Miliband is well past his sell-by-date). So if there is an election what will LINO offer? more of the same. Neo-libtardism writ large (again). Wrt the Greens, & their election chances, the anti-sem pedal will be pressed loud (by the UK meeja). Fart-rage will say that LINO had their chance & blew it etc etc, with the Tories being talked up by the usual trash-rags. Bunrt-ham’s excuse for an election? “I need a full 5 year term to make a difference” – yeah pull the next one. All that said, there needs to be clear out of the current crop of politicos, too old, too stupid, too “part of the problem”. An election will not solve that.
That does not mean it will not happen.
My view is that if he is serious, then Burnham needs more time. An election might give him that or bring forward what our worst fears are. It will all depend on him, and what he can do, but has he got the minerals to do what needs doing between now and that election.
I have been saying he would be mad to delay as the state of the nation is only going to get dramatically worse very quickly. His honeymoon period will have a very limited life. He is likely to get 200-250 seats but Labour is likely to be the majority party. If he promises electoral reform he will be able to lead a coalition: would it be wise for the LD’s to agree to join following their previous experience with the Tories? I am not writing off the Tories who still maintain their 20% vote share in most polls. There would almost certainly be tactical voting so the outcome is very hard to predict. I hope he decides to go the distance until 2029 which will give The GP and any left of centre party a chance to mount a challenge.
Burnham’s chance to make changes, if that is what he truly wanted to do, has come and gone. With such a unique majority and a parliament filled with Labour MPs who might not agree with him but who would not want another leadership spill so soon he could have pushed through some radical changes. He had the power to ruffle feathers and make enemies, to take control of the BoE and ride out any short-term turbulence in bond markets (hence proving how little power really rests there) without being thrown overboard before the sky failed to fall in around him and some sunshine began to show through instead. Calling an election now will just prove that he never actually had anything useful to offer in the first place and can’t think of what else to do to occupy his time over the coming months.