Murdoch Says 'No' To Election, So Go For It Gordon.

Britain's unofficial and unelected leader Rupert Murdoch has spoken. Will Brown capitulate? Dare Brown call an election in the face of the Times and Sun opposition?. Could an 8 point Labour lead*UPDATE - 11 POINTS CLEAR! survive a Murdoch onslaught throughout an election campaign?

Every previous New Labour electoral success has meant cutting a deal with Murdoch, would a promise of a treaty referendum be enough? Who runs this country anyhow? Isn't it about time democracy prevailed rather than the media moguls?

For all these reasons I would now like to see...

an early election and maybe the tide is moving that way. Of course it is risky, but maybe not having an election now is even riskier still (surely the hype has reached such fever pitch that Brown will look like he has bottled it if he doesn't call an election). Can Brown really steer a radical first term course without a clear 4 years for the electorate to see progress?

It is a warm feeling for me to be sitting here after 10 years of a Labour government contemplating the possibility of another election victory. With longevity comes a real chance of embedding progress. Previously Labour governments have been a brief interlude in the Tory hegemony and this has limited what has been possible. The smoking ban, surestart, improved human rights, freedom of information, transparent party funding, changed social attitudes towards ethnic and sexual minorities (crucially led by legislation - something the fake libertarians would never understand) and the expanded funding of health and education (to name just a few areas) could benefit this country for many decades.

When I hear right-wing critics and the media concentrate on a diminishing list of problems in the country and scream 'Labour have had 10 years to put this or that right', do they really believe 10 years is enough to turn around 18 years (or more) of underfunding in all parts of our infrastructure? To train and establish the millions of staff needed? And what government would look good when compared to perfection? Of course some mistakes have been made but at least Labour have made some sort of attempt to put things right rather than just ignoring the problem until it became intolerable (as the Tories happily did and would do again).

This country has always been a social democratic country but despite the majority always voting for higher taxes and more public services they have been mostly denied by a ridiculous electoral system that rewards conservatism over radicalism every time (even when the evidence for progressive change is overwhelming - e.g the failure of prohibition and higher prison populations - just two examples of failed policies well past their sell by date that survive due to the lack of real debate we get with 'first past the post' elections and our biased media). There are limits to what Labour can achieve under this biased electoral and biased media system.

The constraints this system puts on Labour will always prevent a more sensible rehabilitative line towards criminality, or an end to prohibition, or real change to protect the environment, or a citizen's income to end severe inequality and end the inefficiencies and perverse incentives of the poverty trap.

Labour of course, promised a referendum on electoral change in 1997 and it would have been the perfect time to implement such a change (with such a huge majority there could be no accusations of gerrymandering). But we have to hope that electoral reform is not buried, we have to hope Gordon WILL be different and take on the media, above all we have to hope that Labour can get re-elected because without a Labour government looking forward we face the politics of fear taking us back to the Tory era of criticising everything and knowing the value of nothing.