An April election could be back on the cards

It is possible, but unlikely, that Gordon Brown will call a snap election.

Could we still be in line for an April election? Speculation rolls on.

An ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph today showed the Conservatives on 39 per cent (down 1 point), Labour on 30 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats up 2 to 20 per cent. This is the first ICM poll to show the Tories on less than 40 per cent since last June. Continuing the recurrent theme of recent polls, if these results were repeated at the general election, they would result in a hung parliament.

It's heartening for Labour. In an interview with the Observer, Gordon Brown appeared buoyed by his recent success in Northern Ireland, the UK's emergence from recession (just about) and signs of Tory inconsistency on policy. "I'm not complacent," he said, using a word generally reserved for the obvious front-runner. "But Labour can still win it. I'm absolutely sure of that."

So, it's possible that Labour could attempt to capitalise on this feeling that the political tide is turning, and wrong-foot the Tories by calling the general election a couple of weeks earlier than the expected date, 6 May. Both the Telegraph and the Mirror report that this is what Labour strategists are advising Brown to do.

There is a strong case for Labour to call the election in mid-April. It would bypass the potentially problematic growth figures, released at the end of April, which could show Britain falling back into recession. The Tories are wobbling on economic policy, and, at the moment, Brown can still claim to have led the country out of recession.

But lest we forget, the improvement in the polls for Labour that everyone is so keen to shout about gives them, at best, a hung parliament, and nothing approaching an outright majority. If Brown genuinely believes that Labour can still win it -- and his self-belief is notoriously unshakeable -- it seems more likely that he will want to hang on in there and narrow the lead further, rather than take rash action.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

UnHerd's rejection of the new isn't as groundbreaking as it seems to think

Tim Montgomerie's new venture has some promise, but it's trying to solve an old problem.

Information overload is oft-cited as one of the main drawbacks of the modern age. There is simply too much to take in, especially when it comes to news. Hourly radio bulletins, rolling news channels and the constant stream of updates available from the internet – there is just more than any one person can consume. 

Luckily Tim Montgomerie, the founder of ConservativeHome and former Times comment editor, is here to help. Montgomerie is launching UnHerd, a new media venture that promises to pull back and focus on "the important things rather than the latest things". 

According to Montgomerie the site has a "package of investment", at least some of which comes from Paul Marshall. He is co-founder of one of Europe's largest hedge funds, Marshall Wace, formerly a longstanding Lib Dem, and also one of the main backers and chair of Ark Schools, an academy chain. The money behind the project is on display in UnHerd's swish (if slightly overwhelming) site, Google ads promoting the homepage, and article commissions worth up to $5,000. The selection of articles at launch includes an entertaining piece by Lionel Shriver on being a "news-aholic", though currently most of the bylines belong to Montgomerie himself. 

Guidelines for contributors, also meant to reflect the site's "values", contain some sensible advice. This includes breaking down ideas into bullet points, thinking about who is likely to read and promote articles, and footnoting facts. 

The guidelines also suggest focusing on what people will "still want to read in six, 12 or 24 months" and that will "be of interest to someone in Cincinnati or Perth as well as Vancouver or St Petersburg and Cape Town and Edinburgh" – though it's not quite clear how one of Montgomerie's early contributions, a defence of George Osborne's editorship of the Evening Standard, quite fits that global criteria. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the full page comment piece Montgomerie got in Osborne's paper to bemoan the deficiencies of modern media on the day UnHerd launched. 

UnHerd's mascot  – a cow – has also created some confusion, compounded by another line in the writing tips describing it as "a cow, who like our target readers, tends to avoid herds and behave in unmissable ways as a result". At least Montgomerie only picked the second-most famous poster animal for herding behaviour. It could have been a sheep. In any case, the line has since disappeared from the post – suggesting the zoological inadequacy of the metaphor may have been recognised. 

There is one way in which UnHerd perfectly embodies its stated aim of avoiding the new – the idea that we need to address the frenetic nature of modern news has been around for years.

"Slow news" – a more considered approach to what's going on in the world that takes in the bigger picture – has been talked about since at least the beginning of this decade.

In fact, it's been around so long that it has become positively mainstream. That pusher of rolling coverage the BBC has been talking about using slow news to counteract fake news, and Montgomerie's old employers, the Times decided last year to move to publishing digital editions at set points during the day, rather than constantly updating as stories break. Even the Guardian – which has most enthusiastically embraced the crack-cocaine of rolling web coverage, the live blog – also publishes regular long reads taking a deep dive into a weighty subject. 

UnHerd may well find an audience particularly attuned to its approach and values. It intends to introduce paid services – an especially good idea given the perverse incentives to chase traffic that come with relying on digital advertising. The ethos it is pitching may well help persuade people to pay, and I don't doubt Montgomerie will be able to find good writers who will deal with big ideas in interesting ways. 

But the idea UnHerd is offering a groundbreaking solution to information overload is faintly ludicrous. There are plenty of ways for people to disengage from the news cycle – and plenty of sources of information and good writing that allow people to do it while staying informed. It's just that given so many opportunities to stay up to date with what has just happened, few people decide they would rather not know.