There is speculation that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may call a snap Genera; Election later this year - probably 1st November - whilst he still leads the Tories and the Liberal Democrats in the polls. Brown took over as Prime Minister from Tony Blair on 17th June, but was not elected to power (the British don't elect the Prime Minister, they elect the political party they want to rule them). General elections are held every 4 or 5 years and the last one was in 2005 meaning the next should have been in 2009 or 2010, but with Brown and the Labour Government currently riding high in the polls, with Cameron's Tories in second place and the Liberal Democrats some distance behind in third place Brown may decide to call an early General Election this year instead. That way he could then be in power until 2011 or 2012 when the next election takes place, whereas if he didn't call an election he could be in power only until 2009 or 2010.
But Brown seems to be undecided about what to do. If he calls a snap election in November and the Tories somehow win, then Brown would then become the second-shortest serving British Prime Minister in history, behind George Canning of the Whig party, who became Prime Minister on 10th April 1827 (taking owner from Lord Liverpool who retired as Prime Minister) and died in office on 8th August 1827 during the reign of King George IV.
The political weather is changing - that's why Mr Brown would be mad not to call an election right now
3rd October 2007
Daily Mail
STEPHEN GLOVER
Sometimes the political weather changes.
I have a feeling it has done so in the past week.
For months - in fact from the very day he took over from Tony Blair - Gordon Brown has carried all before him.
He has been a reassuring presence during July's floods, at the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and during the Northern Rock crisis, even though he might be said to have contributed to it.
He has seemed not only to absorb every crisis, but to grow more substantial as the result of them.
Gordon Brown meeting British soldiers in Iraq this week: Brown's announcement on Iraq troop withdrawals was political spin, and the Tories know it
By contrast, David Cameron, who deserted his flood-stricken constituency to go to Rwanda, has appeared immeasurably slighter than the Prime Minister, a young man playing politics versus an experienced and battle-honed professional.
Perhaps that is how the nation still sees the two men.
An impression built up over months or years is unlikely to dissolve in a few days. But this past week Mr Brown has made his first serious mistake, and the Tories and Mr Cameron have had a successful conference.
In themselves these developments may not have changed very much, but they indicate shifting sands.
Mr Brown's mistake was to try to steal the Tories' thunder in Blackpool by flying to Iraq.
There was no need for him to go. He wanted to make an announcement about troop withdrawals in the most eye-catching way, thereby winning, so he hoped, brownie points before a general election. So he proclaimed that 1,000 British soldiers would be home by Christmas.
The trouble was that we had previously been told that half these troops were coming home, and 270 of them are already back in Britain. It was a put-up job, a piece of egregious spin, an example of shameless media manipulation.
The wonder is that he could have been silly enough - or is he growing overconfident? - to do it.
Close observers of Mr Brown know that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was capable of unveiling the same initiative five or more times so as to milk it for all it was worth.
Most people, however, were unaware of this, or if they knew they scarcely cared. Understanding any one of Mr Brown's economic announcements was always a challenge, which is why he could serve them up again and again without our noticing.
But we understand about soldiers' lives. Most of us can count up to a thousand. So when he plays tricks with the figures to gain crude electoral advantage, we can see what he is up to, and it is a rather shocking sight.
This from a man who banged on so much about trust and honesty when he became Prime Minister.
There is a further deception, which has not been remarked upon. Mr Brown is presenting himself, again for electoral advantage, as a peace-maker - the man who is bringing our boys back.
But who put them there in the first place? In the build up the Iraq War in 2003, Mr Brown was virtually co-Prime Minister with Mr Blair. He controlled the purse strings - and you can't assemble an army of 40,000 servicemen without digging deep into the coffers, which he oversaw.
Some commentators inferred, possibly as a result of off-the-record briefings, that Mr Brown was a reluctant warrior.
But he did, in fact, publicly endorse the war. If he had really disapproved of it, there was always the way out taken by his old adversary Robin Cook, namely to resign from the Cabinet.
Mr Brown remained at his post, and so was complicit in the invasion.
If Gordon Brown calls a snap General Election on 1st November and then loses the election, he would become the second-shortest serving British Prime Minister in history, after George Canning, prime minister from 10th April 1827 to 8th August 1827 a mere 119 days. He is buried in Westminster Abbey
Naturally I am glad that our troops are being removed from what is an impossible situation, but when Mr Brown attempts to gain credit with the electorate for putting an end to an unfortunate and unpopular adventure, I cannot forget that he was once four-square with Mr Blair, though we have no reason to suppose he was personally involved in misleading us over weapons of mass destruction.
You may say that these sleights of hand are not very serious. In themselves they may not be, but they suggest a slipperiness quite at odds with the steadfast image which Mr Brown has hitherto cultivated.
They also imply a lack of sound political judgment, of which we have also had other glimpses. The Prime Minister has involved himself far too much in the Madeleine McCann affair. When Jose Mourinho recently resigned as manager of Chelsea, Mr Brown had to stick his oar in, judging the Portuguese loud-mouth 'one of the great characters of the game' who made a 'significant contribution to British football'.
The self-appointed father of the nation is not merely, it would seem, less straightforward than he would like us to believe, but also someone who wants to stick his finger in every available pie.
Presumably his intention is to suggest to the regulars of the Dog and Duck that he is on their wavelength, but the regulars may find that difficult to believe, or wonder why he has to have an opinion on everything.
No one could deny that Mr Brown has played a blinder and enjoyed a remarkable honeymoon, but I suspect it may be over.
He is an earthbound politician after all, with a number of character defects that could set some of his new-found supporters against him.
At the same time, David Cameron's statesmanlike speech suggested that the Tory leader may, in spite of having sometimes given the opposite impression, hold some principles dear, and that many of these may be authentically Tory.
If the political weather has changed, as I suggest it has, Mr Brown would be mad - literally mad - not to call an election now. His recent mistakes are not so serious, or Mr Cameron's successes yet so epic, as to reverse in a flash Labour's considerable lead over the Tories in the opinion polls.
Mr Brown would surely win a November election, though not, I would venture to suggest, by the whopping margin which almost everyone was predicting last week.
Strong performance: Tory leader David Cameron has had a good conference, but not epic enough to change the polls
The electorate will see much more of Mr Cameron during an election than they do at normal times, and if he is anything like he was yesterday, a lot of them may like what they see.
Equally, some of Mr Brown's failings might emerge under the spotlight. Even so, it is very difficult indeed to imagine Labour losing an election were one held next month.
But what if this innately cautious man, perhaps wary of a resurgent Mr Cameron, were to postpone the election? Well, then anything is possible.
We do not know the trials and crises ahead that might damage the Prime Minister. We now have good reason to believe, though, that Mr Cameron is more substantial than he may have seemed, and that Mr Brown, though undoubtedly formidable, is not superhuman after all.
If the Prime Minster wishes to re-establish his credentials as a politician whose word can be trusted, he could do no better than call the referendum on the European Treaty that Mr Blair promised us on the almost identical European Constitution.
If he does not, the reinvigorated Tories will surely have the nous to question his good word.
Unless Gordon Brown is careful, honesty and trust and probity could become the defining issues of his prime ministership, as they were for Tony Blair's.
GEORGE CANNING - BRITAIN'S SHORTEST SERVING PRIME MINISTER EVER
When Lord Liverpool resigned in 1827 King George IV interviewed Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington and George Canning for the post of prime minister. When the king appointed Canning, Wellington, Peel and several other leading Tories resigned from the government. Canning was forced to rely on the support of the Whigs to hold on to power. Those Whigs who accepted government posts had to promise not to raise the issue of parliamentary reform.
Canning first concern was to tackle the problem of the Corn Laws. On 1st March, 1827, Canning introduced the proposal that foreign wheat should be admitted at a 20s. duty when the price had fallen to 60s. This new sliding scale enabled the duty to fall as the price rose, and to rise as the price fell. The Duke of Wellington led the fight against this measure and although passed by the House of Commons, it was defeated in the House of Lords.
Even before being appointed prime minister, George Canning's health was in decline. The strain of office made matters worse and on 29th July he informed King George IV that he was seriously ill. Canning was taken to the home of the Duke of Devonshire. He died on August 8, 1827, in the very same room where Charles James Fox met his own end, 21 years earlier. To this day Canning's total period in office remains the shortest of any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a mere 119 days.
He is buried in Westminster Abbey.
dailymail.co.uk
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRcanning.htm
But Brown seems to be undecided about what to do. If he calls a snap election in November and the Tories somehow win, then Brown would then become the second-shortest serving British Prime Minister in history, behind George Canning of the Whig party, who became Prime Minister on 10th April 1827 (taking owner from Lord Liverpool who retired as Prime Minister) and died in office on 8th August 1827 during the reign of King George IV.
The political weather is changing - that's why Mr Brown would be mad not to call an election right now
3rd October 2007
Daily Mail
STEPHEN GLOVER
Sometimes the political weather changes.
I have a feeling it has done so in the past week.
For months - in fact from the very day he took over from Tony Blair - Gordon Brown has carried all before him.
He has been a reassuring presence during July's floods, at the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and during the Northern Rock crisis, even though he might be said to have contributed to it.
He has seemed not only to absorb every crisis, but to grow more substantial as the result of them.
Gordon Brown meeting British soldiers in Iraq this week: Brown's announcement on Iraq troop withdrawals was political spin, and the Tories know it
By contrast, David Cameron, who deserted his flood-stricken constituency to go to Rwanda, has appeared immeasurably slighter than the Prime Minister, a young man playing politics versus an experienced and battle-honed professional.
Perhaps that is how the nation still sees the two men.
An impression built up over months or years is unlikely to dissolve in a few days. But this past week Mr Brown has made his first serious mistake, and the Tories and Mr Cameron have had a successful conference.
In themselves these developments may not have changed very much, but they indicate shifting sands.
Mr Brown's mistake was to try to steal the Tories' thunder in Blackpool by flying to Iraq.
There was no need for him to go. He wanted to make an announcement about troop withdrawals in the most eye-catching way, thereby winning, so he hoped, brownie points before a general election. So he proclaimed that 1,000 British soldiers would be home by Christmas.
The trouble was that we had previously been told that half these troops were coming home, and 270 of them are already back in Britain. It was a put-up job, a piece of egregious spin, an example of shameless media manipulation.
The wonder is that he could have been silly enough - or is he growing overconfident? - to do it.
Close observers of Mr Brown know that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he was capable of unveiling the same initiative five or more times so as to milk it for all it was worth.
Most people, however, were unaware of this, or if they knew they scarcely cared. Understanding any one of Mr Brown's economic announcements was always a challenge, which is why he could serve them up again and again without our noticing.
But we understand about soldiers' lives. Most of us can count up to a thousand. So when he plays tricks with the figures to gain crude electoral advantage, we can see what he is up to, and it is a rather shocking sight.
This from a man who banged on so much about trust and honesty when he became Prime Minister.
There is a further deception, which has not been remarked upon. Mr Brown is presenting himself, again for electoral advantage, as a peace-maker - the man who is bringing our boys back.
But who put them there in the first place? In the build up the Iraq War in 2003, Mr Brown was virtually co-Prime Minister with Mr Blair. He controlled the purse strings - and you can't assemble an army of 40,000 servicemen without digging deep into the coffers, which he oversaw.
Some commentators inferred, possibly as a result of off-the-record briefings, that Mr Brown was a reluctant warrior.
But he did, in fact, publicly endorse the war. If he had really disapproved of it, there was always the way out taken by his old adversary Robin Cook, namely to resign from the Cabinet.
Mr Brown remained at his post, and so was complicit in the invasion.
If Gordon Brown calls a snap General Election on 1st November and then loses the election, he would become the second-shortest serving British Prime Minister in history, after George Canning, prime minister from 10th April 1827 to 8th August 1827 a mere 119 days. He is buried in Westminster Abbey
Naturally I am glad that our troops are being removed from what is an impossible situation, but when Mr Brown attempts to gain credit with the electorate for putting an end to an unfortunate and unpopular adventure, I cannot forget that he was once four-square with Mr Blair, though we have no reason to suppose he was personally involved in misleading us over weapons of mass destruction.
You may say that these sleights of hand are not very serious. In themselves they may not be, but they suggest a slipperiness quite at odds with the steadfast image which Mr Brown has hitherto cultivated.
They also imply a lack of sound political judgment, of which we have also had other glimpses. The Prime Minister has involved himself far too much in the Madeleine McCann affair. When Jose Mourinho recently resigned as manager of Chelsea, Mr Brown had to stick his oar in, judging the Portuguese loud-mouth 'one of the great characters of the game' who made a 'significant contribution to British football'.
The self-appointed father of the nation is not merely, it would seem, less straightforward than he would like us to believe, but also someone who wants to stick his finger in every available pie.
Presumably his intention is to suggest to the regulars of the Dog and Duck that he is on their wavelength, but the regulars may find that difficult to believe, or wonder why he has to have an opinion on everything.
No one could deny that Mr Brown has played a blinder and enjoyed a remarkable honeymoon, but I suspect it may be over.
He is an earthbound politician after all, with a number of character defects that could set some of his new-found supporters against him.
At the same time, David Cameron's statesmanlike speech suggested that the Tory leader may, in spite of having sometimes given the opposite impression, hold some principles dear, and that many of these may be authentically Tory.
If the political weather has changed, as I suggest it has, Mr Brown would be mad - literally mad - not to call an election now. His recent mistakes are not so serious, or Mr Cameron's successes yet so epic, as to reverse in a flash Labour's considerable lead over the Tories in the opinion polls.
Mr Brown would surely win a November election, though not, I would venture to suggest, by the whopping margin which almost everyone was predicting last week.
Strong performance: Tory leader David Cameron has had a good conference, but not epic enough to change the polls
The electorate will see much more of Mr Cameron during an election than they do at normal times, and if he is anything like he was yesterday, a lot of them may like what they see.
Equally, some of Mr Brown's failings might emerge under the spotlight. Even so, it is very difficult indeed to imagine Labour losing an election were one held next month.
But what if this innately cautious man, perhaps wary of a resurgent Mr Cameron, were to postpone the election? Well, then anything is possible.
We do not know the trials and crises ahead that might damage the Prime Minister. We now have good reason to believe, though, that Mr Cameron is more substantial than he may have seemed, and that Mr Brown, though undoubtedly formidable, is not superhuman after all.
If the Prime Minster wishes to re-establish his credentials as a politician whose word can be trusted, he could do no better than call the referendum on the European Treaty that Mr Blair promised us on the almost identical European Constitution.
If he does not, the reinvigorated Tories will surely have the nous to question his good word.
Unless Gordon Brown is careful, honesty and trust and probity could become the defining issues of his prime ministership, as they were for Tony Blair's.
GEORGE CANNING - BRITAIN'S SHORTEST SERVING PRIME MINISTER EVER
When Lord Liverpool resigned in 1827 King George IV interviewed Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington and George Canning for the post of prime minister. When the king appointed Canning, Wellington, Peel and several other leading Tories resigned from the government. Canning was forced to rely on the support of the Whigs to hold on to power. Those Whigs who accepted government posts had to promise not to raise the issue of parliamentary reform.
Canning first concern was to tackle the problem of the Corn Laws. On 1st March, 1827, Canning introduced the proposal that foreign wheat should be admitted at a 20s. duty when the price had fallen to 60s. This new sliding scale enabled the duty to fall as the price rose, and to rise as the price fell. The Duke of Wellington led the fight against this measure and although passed by the House of Commons, it was defeated in the House of Lords.
Even before being appointed prime minister, George Canning's health was in decline. The strain of office made matters worse and on 29th July he informed King George IV that he was seriously ill. Canning was taken to the home of the Duke of Devonshire. He died on August 8, 1827, in the very same room where Charles James Fox met his own end, 21 years earlier. To this day Canning's total period in office remains the shortest of any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a mere 119 days.
He is buried in Westminster Abbey.
dailymail.co.uk
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRcanning.htm
Last edited: