Why Gordon Brown won't go in March

Nick Robinson notes that the Conservative high command were concerned about whether Gordon Brown might try to surrpise them with a March election. Robinson then gives some rational reasons for why this won't happen, concerning the timeframe of the Budget.

Political decisions, be it who to vote for, where to allocate money or in this instance when to prorogue parliament, can be influenced by both rational and emotional factors. In short, is the decision made by the head following an informed and logical consideration of relevant material. Or does it reflect the dominance of the heart, not necessarily based on an assessment of the facts, but emotions such as like, trust and attraction.

I don't believe that just the head or the heart rules all 'political' decisons by voters or politician's, but in certain circumstances one or other may. When considering the merits of a particular policy a citizen may seek be more infleucned by the rational. But, as Drew Westen suggests that when push comes to shove, emotion may influence enough voting behaviour to make difference. This theory, which is contrary to the traditional Downesian rational choice model, would possibly explain why most commentators thought that the Conservative Government would lose in 1992, that when it came to it, enough people who felt Labour were the right party to govern could not actually vote for Labour at the last minute, so that the Conservatives squeeked in.

Hence, I suspect all Robinson's careful analysis is superflous, in fact human nature is that it is now unlikely that Brown will ask the Queen to dissolve parliament until he has to. If Brown was going to go early it would have been emotionally much easier shortly after he became PM. The longer he is PM, the more difficult it will be emotionally for him to risk his position.