Article by Michael Portillo on the election that never was, for The Sunday Times, September 10th 2007.

Gordon Brown must be relieved that Labour has slipped in the opinion polls. The party’s clear lead during the summer suggested that the government could substantially increase its majority in an early election. The news was too good for comfort, putting pressure on the Prime Minister to call an autumn poll, something which was not in his game plan. Nor did it fit his temperament and image to renounce the serious business of running the country for a premature campaign. On top of that, there was the risk – as there is in any election – of losing. If having waited impatiently for power for a decade he then sacrificed it within four months he would enter the book of political dunces.

So he has probably been hoping for reasons not to call an election, or more precisely, waiting for the temptation to call one to vanish. Labour (though not Brown himself) has now slipped back a bit according to the pollsters, so the Prime Minister can revert to plan A. That might bring an election next year, or as late as 2010, depending on how he sees his prospects.

Even so, it has been a very satisfactory summer for Brown. The mere hint of an election threw the Conservatives into spasm. Voters would now be hard pressed to say whether David Cameron has moved to the centre or the right, or a bit of both. They would be unlikely to believe that the party has changed much. So the last couple of months have undone much of the patient work that Cameron had done since becoming leader.

Even if there were a prospect of stability breaking out in the Conservative Party, Brown can sow dissent when he chooses. Last week he gave advisory positions to two Tory backbenchers. Reportedly, he will also acquire the services of Johan Eliasch, the substantial Tory donor who has resigned as a party deputy treasurer. He quit, it is said, because he thinks Cameron has shifted to the right. Meanwhile the supposedly centrist former party chairman, Michael Ancram, launched a strongly worded attack on the leadership for moving to the left.

The party’s disarray could not be more manifest. Both Eliasch and Ancram chose to make their headline-grabbing interventions while an October election still seemed plausible. Evidently, Cameron should not expect the party to close ranks even when the contest does draw close. Tony Blair’s government used to aggravate the Tories by giving every position, from Speaker to hospital trust board member, to a card-carrying Labour supporter. Now Brown has demonstrated how much more mischief he can do by appointing a few Conservatives with a grudge against their party. He can repeat the trick almost endlessly.

Still, given the lead that Labour took over the summer a poll in the autumn of 2007 will remain one of the “might-have-beens” to be debated in years to come. Brown might look back ruefully on an opportunity missed if the going now gets tough.

It seems very likely that it will, both abroad and at home. In Iraq, for example, withdrawing British troops may not prove very popular after all. Brown is taking the easy course by bowing to public and military pressure, but the mission is ending, if not in defeat, then certainly not in victory. Not many British prime ministers have had to pull UK forces out from a failed campaign. Anthony Eden did from Suez in 1956 and was destroyed by it. If southern Iraq implodes behind us, if American generals mock our failure and if US troops have to fill in for Britain in Basra, humiliation may lie ahead.

It is ironic that when America and Britain invaded Iraq it was hard to demonstrate how the action was linked to the war on terror. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were scarcely connected. But post-Saddam Iraq is Al Qaeda’s happy hunting ground. In the south we have been fighting a war by proxy with Iran, member of the axis of evil and noted exporter of terror. There is no doubt that Tehran sees British withdrawal as our defeat.

Iran will be a great worry for Brown. President Ahmedinijad has announced another important milestone in the country’s development of the centrifuges that produce enriched uranium. He is emboldened by the humiliation of our sailors and marines captured by Iran earlier this year and by our departure from Basra. More importantly, for all President Bush’s bluster about the success of the American troop surge in Baghdad, Iran knows that the US too is on the way home from Iraq. So, Washington does not look like it has the forces or political capital to strike Iran any time soon.

But over the next few years the West must decide whether to sit back and watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons, or make a desperately dangerous military intervention. Both options look appalling.

Meanwhile Britain does not escape the sight of body bags just by quitting Iraq. In Afghanistan we are sustaining horrific casualties. How we can win is far from clear. Even if we kill 100 Taleban for every one of our fatalities we are unlikely to prevail, and we cannot destroy them at that rate without killing lots of civilians.

We are in Afghanistan largely because we are so worried about the stability of its neighbour Pakistan. Whether being in Afghanistan helps to prop up General Musharraf is debatable. It is clearer that the flow of guerrillas and equipment across the Pakistani border helps the Taleban to fight us.

The instability in Pakistan is the most alarming feature of a disquieting international scene. Terrorist bombs go off frequently. Islamist extremism poses a serious threat to the government. Even under pro-Western leadership it is in Pakistan that terrorists are trained to attack British cities, and it is from Pakistan that nuclear weapons technology has been sold to some of the world’s worst regimes. At least, Pakistan’s official nuclear deterrent remains in the hands of our ally: for the time being.

It is not just terror that causes anxiety. There may well be new turmoil in the world’s financial markets. We have so far paid only a small a price for years of over-borrowing and unsustainable inflation in global house prices.

British mortgage holders must get used to higher repayments. If house prices dip they will feel more concerned about their debts. In coming years, government spending will rise much less than it has recently. Its growth rate will be below that of the economy. It is bound to affect all those who supply services to the public sector, who have done well from the years of plenty. Between now and the election British voters are unlikely to feel as prosperous as in any year since 1992.

So, in retrospect the autumn of 2007 may acquire a rosy hue. It will be seen as the time when our Iraq nightmare was ending but before other worries crowded in, and as a moment when we could believe that the good economic times would endure.

So will Brown wistfully reflect on a golden moment for an election that he passed up? I doubt it. He is indeed probably destined to wrestle with problems more serious than those that faced Blair (even remembering the invasion of Iraq). But as we have seen from Brown’s first months, problems can strengthen a prime minister as easily as weaken him. In foreign policy especially Brown is rapidly acquiring experience and confidence. It is hard for a leader of the opposition who has never held office to compete.

Cameron can and should do what he can to blame Brown for our coming difficulties. As Chancellor he presided over the credit boom and should therefore be held to account for the bust. He kept the lid on defence spending, leaving our army undermanned and poorly equipped.

But voters look forward more than back. If we are losing the war against Islamist extremism and if economic hard times lie ahead, electors may want to cling to the strong man. To stand a chance, Cameron needs to look tougher than he does. That will not be easy for as long as he cannot control even his own party.