Why Brown’s out, whoever wins
Some blog readers are surprised I jumped the gun and said Gordon Brown’s days as prime minister are numbered. I’m not telling you how to vote – or telling you how I’ll vote – but rational analysis points only in that direction.
With Labour third in many opinion polls, ask what is the chance of the party gaining an overall majority of seats in the general election, even with the constituency bias that gives it seats above its voting weight? I’d say the chance is very low.
What is the chance of the Conservatives gaining an overall majority? Possible. That would make David Cameron prime minister. The chance of an overall Liberal majority, despite the party’s improved popularity, remains negligible however.
If the Tories win most seats, but not a majority, it could form an alliance with smaller parties to give it that majority. A Conservative-Labour alliance has a zero possibility. A Lib-Con alliance is possible but Tories (already tied to the Unionists in Ulster) might also try to link with nationalists: but whatever the combination, Cameron would be leader and thus in Downing Street.
The possibility of Labour gaining most seats but not a majority is low but feasible. Again, a Lab-Con pact is a non-starter but Labour too could seek a pact with smaller parties, Liberals or others. Yes, that could still leave Brown as prime minister, but it is an unlikely outcome. It might well also lead to an early second election that could consolidate Labour’s control – but might lead to a Conservative government.
Just as unlikely is that Labour ditches Brown after the election so that a new Labour leader can form a pact with the Liberals. But if that did happen – and the public would feel cheated at being given a prime minister not flagged in the immediately preceding election – Brown’s days would still be numbered.
And popular though he is, the possibility of Nick Clegg being next prime minister is nil, either from an outright victory or from acting as kingmaker by allying the Liberals to another party.
Voters clearly want change but do not clearly want the Conservatives. It says little for the Tories that they are not walking into Downing Street after 13 years of Labour and the current economic crisis which, whoever is to blame, cannot be the fault of an opposition party.
It is that uncertainty that is making some people say they want a hung– or “balanced” - parliament. But there is much confusion of what this means. It is not a coalition government of all parties: it would be two factions trying to work together, opposed by the third. The Liberals, if they joined with either of the other parties, might get some of their policies into the next Queen’s Speech but they might also have to sit in a Cabinet enacting policies they oppose. Alternatively, the only legislation to emerge would be that which the two allied parties can live with while anything controversial would be abandoned.
At a time when bold policies of some sort are essential, that would be a government of inaction when action is required.
My guess – not a recommendation or an endorsement – is that as polling day approaches, the electorate will polarise to one of the main parties and that, to achieve change, will be the Conservatives. Rightly or wrongly, Cameron will be the next prime minister.
