What does the economy mean for the election date?

After poor growth figures is the election now set for 22 April?

So everyone was sure the election was set for 6 May. At least until 9.30 yesterday morning, when the fourth-quarter GDP figures, showing growth of only 0.1 per cent, were released.

There's now real fear in Labour circles that the next quarterly figures, due out on 23 April, could show Britain falling back into recession. David Blanchflower and others warn that the return of VAT to 17.5 per cent, coupled with the bad weather -- hitting retail sales and construction -- could lead to a double-dip recession.

For the economy to return to negative growth just 13 days before the election would be humiliating for Gordon Brown and a gift to the Tories. As a result, there is now serious talk of an election on 22 April, the day before the GDP figures are published.

There's little chance of a March election, as Brown and Darling have confirmed that a Budget will be read. By law there must be at least three months between the pre-Budget report -- presented on 9 December -- and the Budget. Thus, the earliest possible date for this year's Budget is 9 March. That is after the last possible date -- 1 March -- on which Brown could call a March election. But, looking at the latest economic data, Labour strategists may now conclude an April election is the best option.

After Bob Ainsworth appeared to name 6 May as the day, bookies suspended betting on the date of the general election. I wonder if they'll reopen it now.

Here are the dates to watch:

9 March Earliest possible date for a Budget

25 March Likely date for a March election if Brown and Darling renege on their pledge to present a Budget

6 May Date of the local elections and probable date of the general election

3 June The latest possible timing for a general election

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.