On the surface, it does seem a strange headline. Who has ever heard of a political party not wanting to retain power and win the next election?

Yet it really is not in Labour's best interests to win the General Election in May 2010, although in the long term it would not ideally suit the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats either. Whichever Party wins next year's election will inherit the highest levels of public debt on record in British political history and the unenviable task of making unpleasant cuts or unpalatable tax rises or a sour combination of both.

As it stands, it seems likely that David Cameron's Conservative Party will win. In the main, for the past eighteen months they have enjoyed double digit poll ratings over their main rivals and in the short term, after three Parliaments in a political wilderness owing to the size of Labour's majorities, election success next spring will bring a welcome relief to many in the Party.

The reality is the next Government will have to preside over a Parliament of unprecedented cuts in Government expenditure coupled with increased tax bills to bring public expenditure in line with EU borrowing rules, and it is unlikely this task will even be completed within the lifetime of a single Parliament.

For voters protesting against Labours failed experiment in neo-Keynesian economics over the last twelve years, there will be no "new Jerusalem" after the election. The next Government will have neither the financial freedom to expand frontline public services nor reduce the personal tax burden amongst voters. With most economists estimating that it will take as long as twenty years to restore Britain's public finances to pre 2008 levels, the prospects for the new Government, as they prepare for an election in 2014 or 15 are bleak. A sustained period of public austerity is ahead of the country and five years is a long time for people to be told to exercise constant restraint.

The next Government will not have the luxury of a stable economy growing at a rate that may help mitigate the scale of cuts and taxes necessary to balance the public books. UK unemployment is likely to continue in an upward trend towards the end of 2010 and may still be rising after the “honeymoon” period of the next Government has been and gone. In this setting, it will be the Government of the day that receives the public backlash and in the typically fickle memory of the British voter, the misjudgement’s of the previous Government that caused the problem originally will be forgotten.

House prices may not have quite recovered to pre 2008 levels. For many homeowners, they will be entering the 2014/15 election having seen no, or a negative, return after inflation on the investment made in the purchase of their homes. Again, it will be the Government of the day that receives the blame, as the escalating debt spiral and the failures (some would say vacuum) in financial regulation of the first decade of the 21^st Century becomes a part of modern history.

Non Formal welfare is likely to be the easiest of targets for cuts for any party coming into Government in 2010. Although estimated to save the NHS billions of pounds each year, cuts in Local Authority expenditure will have a major impact on the 3^rd sector. On this, however, depending on the political make-up of town halls in England and Wales, the Government should be able to “spin” its way out of trouble by blaming local councils for the lack of funding to what are in many places, essential services.

Year on year restraint in public sector pay rises, may well lead to another “winter of discontent” as tax burdens increase and public sector pay is either frozen or pegged at the respective annual levels of inflation. Real, disposable incomes will fall and a resurgence of union membership could emerge that may lead politicians of all parties to reconsider Trades Unions as a major bargaining force once again. At present, whilst such a prospect may sound appealing to the Labour Party, it should not assume this will provide an increase in their support. The unions will be mindful of the series of broken promises under the combined Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and may instead seek to renegotiate their social contracts with the Liberal democrats.

Unemployment will peak early in 2011, however, if the country manages to avoid a “double-dip” recession, recovery will be slow and unemployment rates will fall, but more slowly than seen in previous recoveries. Again this will hinder the prospects of the new Chancellor whose potential for tax receipts is hampered by stubbornly high levels of unemployment while at the same time is picking up the benefits bill for otherwise out of work tax-payers.

MP’s elected to the majority party in Spring 2010 with majorities of 8,000 or less should be aware that they are entering only temporary employment. The volatility of a much more enlightened electorate with a greater understanding of the issues of the day and what they expect from their Governments will not be bound by the traditional lifetime political associations of the past. The “floating” voter should no longer be considered as someone who has not made up their mind how to vote, and instead should be considered an educated and discerning consumer who will decide to vote for their interests, whichever party represents them.

It would be cynical in the utmost to believe that the collapse of the banking industry last year, provided Labour election strategists with the option of losing power for one term only on the knowledge that the incumbent would not be able to recover a position needing decades to bring under control in time to secure a second term. The Party matured considerably under Tony Blair in terms of its ability to manipulate public relations and there are enough bright young things in the Party who will look at next spring as the opportunity to clear out the existing leadership and spend their opposition years re-inventing themselves again as they did in 1997.

Gordon Brown was an electoral liability before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. After the crash Labour strategists would have known a new leader would be unlikely to turn fortunes around and unsurprisingly, although there had been much media speculation of leadership contests during the last year, no candidates came forward.

To allow the Tories to win the next election gives Labour five years of constant criticism of a Government whose hands will be tied before it comes into office. Tied by the billions spent propping up failed businesses because as banks they were at the heart of British foreign earnings, tied by the billions spent printing new money and calling it “quantitive easing” and tied by bringing forward large scale public capital expenditure works programmes in an attempt to buy the country out of recession.

By 2014/15, Labour will have repositioned themselves with a new leadership of young energetic politicians. They will demonstrate, just as Tony Blair did, that they are different from previous Labour governments. They will claim to have learned the lessons of the past, and if the economic cycle rolls with the electoral cycle in their benefit, The austerity of a single Parliament under the Conservatives will guarantee them at least another two consecutive terms in office.

It is hardly surprising that Labour wants to lose the next election.

Communicity, September 2009.