UK 10 December 2009 Is a March election back on? Why Brown should not delay Print HTML 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 › Operation Nobel George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman. Subscribe More Related articles Peter Mandelson: I pray every day for an early election to end Labour's awful state Jeremy Corbyn to tell members: "Prepare for a 2017 general election" What will Labour's new awkward squad do next?