Is a March election back on?

Why Brown should not delay

There's renewed speculation over a March election this morning after Alistair Darling's highly political pre-Budget report yesterday.

I've long thought that Brown should go to the country in March rather than May or June. First, it would allow him to avoid the ignominy of calling an election at the last possible date. Second, a March election would mean Labour could neatly avoid breaking its pledge not to raise income tax during this parliament. The 50p tax rate won't kick in until April, raising the possibility that the Tories may be forced not merely to tolerate the tax, but to actually introduce it. Finally, with Labour now enjoying its biggest poll bounce since the beginning of the financial crisis, Brown should strike while the Tories are rattled.

Over at the Wall Street Journal, Iain Martin predicts 25 March will be the date:

In this scenario, Brown would ask the Queen for a dissolution after parliament returns from its two-week recess on Monday, Feb. 22. That would lead into a four-week-and-a-bit campaign.

Last month, Nick Robinson suggested there was no chance of a March election, because the Budget is likely to be read in the same month. In fact, after the negative media response this morning to Darling's performance, I'd argue it's far more likely the Budget will be postponed until after the election.

Brown and Darling won't want to go through another morning of universally negative headlines about tax rises and the size of the deficit before the election. And with the pre-Budget report now a second Budget in all but name, there's no need for them to do so.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.