United Kingdom General Election 2024 : (Date to be confirmed)

[Oryxslayer]

I was suspecting the election won't happen until January 2025, so that the Tories drag it out as long as possible. It would be interesting if the election happened around the same time as the US presidential election.

Everyone knows that it's foolish to drag yourself along for only say 3-4 extra months when compared to say fall 2024. This is cause winter brings traveling,  holidays,  and snow in a number of areas. All things that would impede a campaign. Nobody wants to haveto vote in the cold when there are alternatives.  The NHS like clockwork also finds itself under strain during winter, leading to deflated perceptions of the government party.

There at present are two dates in everyone's minds. The first is May, after the budget and coinciding with the locals. This is preferred by everyone outside of power for a variety of reasons,  but local governments especially would like saving the money.  The stall option is seemingly October, which Sunak suggested as an option a few weeks back.

[Oryxslayer]

George Osborne claims he has inside info the election is being planned for November 14th.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/11/general-election-likely-to-take-place-on-14-november-says-george-osborne

Not sure why it's being so dragged out, if this is true. The result will essentially be a done deal at this point. Whatever keeps the Tories in power for whatever time they have left, I guess.

I think that someone wrote, I believe in the Internation discussion thread, that the "plan" is banking on a Trump's win in the US election and then the Tories would campaign on the "stability card" in face of unprecedented times to win the election. Of course, this has one major risk: Trump could lose and then what? What's your pitch, Tories?

But also, the idea that they would have any claim to the "stability card" at this point is laughable. Continuity =/= stability and I feel the vast majority of the British public understand that at this point.

Continuity and stability are interesting in this contest because the Conservatives have for a decade tied the two together. This of course is because from the time of the coalition until a year ago, Labour couldn't get a poll that put them in reliable majority territory on their own. So they would need to invite in support from others whose views towards the large English population range from anathema to hostility. "Another coalition of chaos," they would say. So in addition to the classic motivator of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" the Tories were able to bind it together with fear of just how much it would break,  based on the legacy of the coalition.  

But now the situation is broken, and Labour will win a majority barring a 15 point swing at least from where polls are. So it seems like a case of Tories being too deep in the tunnel to realize their messaging has no merit anymore.

[Oryxslayer]

The other issue with Reform right now is we have had a myriad of statements how the voters expressing that desire are just unhappy Conservatives. Shifting right or left in policy won't bring them back, they are parking a vote with Reform for tor the same reason others went to Labour, only difference being that these voters opt to stay in the right 'bloc.' Both are unhappy with the government in general, no super-specific certain policy. Some will come back via a FPTP campaign, some won't. Thats it.

[Oryxslayer]

is it plausible to think the Tories would win even 6 seats in Scotland when there support is down as much as it is? I know that if you do a strict swing analysis there are some seats that were close SNP/Tory contests last time that would notionally go Tory now because the SNP vote is down even more than than the Tory vote compared to 2019 - but I wonder if that will happen in real life or whether SNP losses will be more in areas where Labour is competitive and they may hold their own in seats where they are the clear tactical anti-Tory choice?

It's hard to do swing calculations based on the national picture in Scotland, maybe even mistake. Cause the picture is Unionist vs Nationalist to many, with the national overall mood just determining who has the opportunity against the SNP in the most areas.

So yes, we should expect more two-way races - with say approximately 80% of the vote for the top two - than the overall picture shows. This is of course cause a section of the Unionist vote is after more than a decade of SNP realignment are primed to vote tactically. Yes, this includes Labour for the Conservatives and Conservatives for Labour. There is plenty of local and by-elections from just last year if you need it.

Obviously, the people who will vote tactically are not the SNP -> Labour voters. The seats where those votes will matter are numerous and in the central belt. There, the Labour coalition will be Regular Labour votes, SNP -> Labour, and tactical voters from the Tories and Lib-Dems. Despite the differing reasons for voting Labour, with each group likely needing it's own messaging, the overall result is a wide coalition. This is why Rutherglen was such a blowout. It's also probably the case that this same coalition exists for the Lib-Dems in their 4 mainland targets, except maybe in Caithness.

The issue with the Tory seats is that the coalition is very different. Yes, the Tories are down nationally. But when we look at things from the Unionist perspective, why would a voter who has a unionist MP right now risk letting in the SNP? They have incentives to vote Tory even if their true preferences would be Labour in the the vast majority of seats. Similarly, the SNP -> Lab voters are not going to be voting for a hardline Unionist position. So the vast majority are going to stay with the SNP with the minority maybe voting for one of the minor parties if they can't stomach the SNP after the scandals. So the Tories hold their own, even during a overall disaster.

These differences in voter behavior are not captured by the simple swing models, which is why its hard to explain. For these Labour takes much more from the SNP than the Cons, which pushes the SNP below the Tories in their current seats. It's this nuance that leads to theories about the Tories gaining a seat or two off a energized and tactical Labour base, cause they are still going to be the Unionist candidate in a few more seats than their present 6. It's also why there has been previously large swings in the seat count - in both directions - and likely will be once more.

[Oryxslayer]

I'm a bit mystified at how the Tories still manage to do as well as they do among people 70 and over. Its not as if the Labour Party is some newfangled party that old people have never voted for. Briton who are 70+ are of a generation who likely would have voted in large numbers for Labour in the 70s and 80s and again in the big Blair landslides. So who are the people who consistently voted Labour in the 70s, 80s, 90s and to some extent in the 00s - who are now steadfastly sticking with the Tories under Sunak or else flirting with Reform UK?

The normal way to understand age gaps (beyond the classic argument of changing cultures and one party no longer appearing to a voter the same as it once was) is differential turnout. People who enter the electorate ASAP with passion and ideals tend to gravitate towards parties promising those ideals and change. That in many countries means the Left, but in many more with less glamour means the Right.  As the overall electorate ages though, more and more people enter the voter pool and progressively drown out the ideologically committed. And the later you enter the pool, more often the issues that will motivate you align with parties most in tune with your generation. Retired cohorts usually have the highest turnout, meaning new voters who care about retiree issues.


Then there is also the morbid theory that people who worked in the mines, factories, and other strenuous jobs from that time are going to die earlier. Not exactly young, but health complications are going to be more prevalent than commuting for a 9-5 from one's London suburb. Not sure how much weight one should assign to this over other explanations though.

[Oryxslayer]

I mean in theory those both should be PC seats after a upcoming election IMO. The issue is you can never trust the sample of a constituency poll.

[Oryxslayer]

Mirror out with peice on a potential May election.  Seemingly the biggest point here is Sunaks colleagues want to prevent a rebellion once the budget is through,  something that only becomes more likely with every cut delivered electorally by Labour.

[Oryxslayer]

Who is this even for, at this stage?

I think this is directly to the Conservative electorate. Polling and forecasts, not to mention the image this government gives, are so bad for them that they fear the Tory electorate will just skip this election and not vote. So, they need to send "propaganda" saying "look, it's close", "(please) go vote, we still can win this".

Once the election starts we'll probably see the massage shift to something like "Don't let Labour go unchecked" if the intention is actually to get the base out and save some amount furniture/dignity.

[Oryxslayer]

I mean, anyone predicting a Lib Dem victory in Finchley could take a look at the last local elections there… (see also Kensington and Cities of London constituencies).

To a degree it depends on candidate selection by the Lib Dems (or, really, if they have viable candidate options to start with). Has that happened yet in any of those seats?

They had viable candidates in 2019 because all of them were sitting MPs riding the wave of remainer backlash. The fact they won next to nothing in the 2022 elections (despite Lib Dems usually doing much better at local elections) suggests they haven’t used the 2019 result as a foundation, but rather it was a blip. Compare to somewhere like Wimbledon where they have solidified themselves as the local, and likely national, alternative to the Tories. The best of their 3 star candidates, Luciana Berger, isn't even a Lib Dem anymore.

A excellent comparison in this regard is Elmbridge/Esher & Walton. The Lib-Dems had a small presence locally in 2019 but they were able to ride that Remainer/Anti-Tory energy to almost unseat Raab. The Lib-Dems since then have basically used that result as a foundation and have built themselves into a sizable local force over the subsequent years, to the point they could make their council minority a majority in May. Now nobody really doubts with Raab's retirement that Esher & Walton will flip.

That story as you noted didn't really play out in Barnet. This IMO is down to the disappearance of the factors that propelled the Lib-Dems in 2019. Starmer quickly sought to mend ties to the Jewish Community that had been broken by Corbyn. So when the borough elections were up in 2022 the Lib-Dems were an afterthought for Barnet voters.

[Oryxslayer]

Because that MRP confirms my priors I will call it the most accurate and ignore the others

[Oryxslayer]

The Lib Dems winning more seats than 1997 on 2/3rds the vote share, and up less than a point on 2019 still feels a bit off to me. Could their vote really get *that* efficient? I kinda think they're underpolled and are going to stumble into 16-18% through strong seconds in the shires.
And I just can't see that Reform UK vote coming out in an election. They're getting pitiful donations (less than Sinn Fein last year!) and I really can't imagine them sustaining an election campaign on the level of UKIP 2015, much less getting a similar result.

The gap between the Lib Dems and the Tories in percentage terms is actually lower than it was in 1997 on this.

The main thing about the Lib-Dems (at least from a pre-election perspective) is that their campaign is limited. Of course they will have candidates almost everywhere, but their targeting is direct. In most of these seats the Lib-Dems are already the primary challenger to the Tories, either based on past wins or a second-place result in 2019.

This limited campaign seems to be weirdly beneficial at the moment because a good chunk of Labour's lead is anti-Tory not pro-Labour. Since in their limited targets the Lib-Dems are known to be the anti-Tory option, their path to victory is simple: just to convince voters who have already soured on the Conservatives that they are the anti-Tory option in a particular seat. It helps that often (but not always) Labour are not viable in their targets, and that Labour are starting from such a commanding position nationally that voters can safely feel free to choose another option. Most importantly though, this has already proven to be the case locally, with anti-Tory voters going for the most viable option in their region.

[Oryxslayer]

IMO the two Powys seats are 'accidental' gerrymanders, and that's why at least right now I think they will stay Blue.

Accidental in that cutting so many seats at once in the tight confines of Wales was always going to produce some oddities. The commission didn't intend to favor a party or population when they drew those lines, or create seats with confusing community connections, but that's what they did. Both seats now have multiple communities with different social and political traditions. Arguably at least in this part of Wales pairing the two rural seats and then throwing the excess population elsewhere might have made more sense, but the commission must have tried that and found the cascading changes even worse.

Gerrymanders in that the differing political traditions in the paired regions mean that the old rural sections of both seats still dominate the vote. In the case of both seats almost a 2:1 population ratio between that retained from the old seat and that coming in. That retained has little modern Labour tradition and is mostly Conservative/Lib-Dem, and that coming in is mostly Labour with some Conservatives and no Lib-Dem tradition. You cannot reconcile the two. It's a fairly clear case of cracking, where the limited rural vote is made more powerful by throwing in some other areas it'll outvote especially through a divided opposition.

And the cracking benefits the Conservatives cause they are the party of the rural Powys seats. That fact that (as stated) both Labour and the Lib-Dems are likely to contest the southern seat for lack of targets just proves the point. Now things can easily still change, especially since there is no election campaigns yet, but right now I suspect  things shake out with the Tories on top of a horrendously split vote.

[Oryxslayer]

This is a good thread (there's more than just below) on the left-of-Labour types who might have once been more at home with Corbyn. The TL:DR is at this point Labour lead and the the change desire is so strong that diminishes all other issues. Also, from my perspective,  the Greens are playing a bit too limited to have this seriously matter, even if it could. Their initial four focus seats, as mentioned during their local elections launch last week, are: Bristol Central, Brighton Pavilion,  North Hertfordshire, and Waveney Valley covering most of Mid Suffolk. That's only one seat where activist angst is the primary driver.

https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1778702629788377536?t=hJo9_OtY9WjEhLeIgCpVpQ...

https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1778703799026176237?t=6u8lZFVF2OmSp4niUj4HlA...

https://twitter.com/LukeTryl/status/1778706279147397598?t=Nw_qKpVI77LyY6MZfkHD0A...

[Oryxslayer]

The one thing going for Indies like this is that the environment remains more anti-Tory than pro-Labour. So in a similar vein to how one suspects Labour voters will behave differently in Lib-Dem target seats, they probably will vote for independents like Bagge if these candidates can actually demonstrate enough viability.

[Oryxslayer]

Bizarre flurry of speculation yesterday that Sunak is going to announce a GE this coming Monday.

*Probably* not true is now the consensus, but keep your ears peeled just in case I suppose

I saw those rumors flying about, the Tories themselves had to deny them. The question we really need to ask is if there are benefits to going right now rather than keep holding. Surprisingly, in my estimation, there are some. But maybe not enough...

1) The single biggest reason would be if Sunak does not expect to survive the locals. Massive councilor losses seemed already priced in at HQ, but losing people like Street who have run away from the national brand may be too much. If this is the case, the question is not now or later, but now or under someone else.

2) We have always assumed the Rwanda scheme would be a failure that Labour would end, but this week perhaps revealed just how much of a failure in the public eye if allowed to get going. Maybe strike when things are still a little rose-tinted in the eyes of the base.

3) Put the SNP in a very difficult spot. The Tories are not going to be the SNP's main rival this cycle, but they are still ideologically the Conservative & Unionist Party.

4) Reform. If we are looking at any eventual election from the Conservative perspective as just saving furniture, then they need to convince voters that Reform isn't viable. It is very likely that Reform do awful at the local elections, since they have little local organization. That is exploitable. But that message can only really be exploited if people are paying attention, it will get lost if people only care about the big numbers on top of the night.

[Oryxslayer]

How much does it really matter in the end? Either they lose 200+ MPs next month, sometime in the summer, or in the fall.

The question is about if they can get away with losing less, and avoiding losing more. Beyond the fantasy of winning, holding 200 would be a very good result given the past year of polling,  and if the Tories see a path there they will pounce. Similarly,  if waiting to the last possible date will potentially put them in a sub-100 situation,  then it's better to go sooner. If neither are possibilities...then keep waiting.

[Oryxslayer]

why call a general election with local elections days away?

As explained by me and others above, if the call were to come before the locals, it would preempt and prevent action in response to the disastrous Tory result. The most serious of these potential actions is the toppling of Sunak, but there's plenty more possibilities. That would be a justification if the call actually happens of course.

[Oryxslayer]

If I was on manoeuvres to be PM, in an increasingly marginal seat -  this is exactly what I’d do. Drop a slightly dodgy poll that shows I’d survive against the odds - implying that I was still a safe bet, and had a sizeable personal vote that might shake up the election.

Getting your local allies to commission it, and dropping it literally the day before what’s supposed to be Sunak’s moment of maximum weakness is a bit on the nose, though.

I guess we should start expecting that the Tory talking heads will find ways to bring up the wipeout that is likely coming to the Portsmouth Conservative Councilors after the results there declare. Cause if results are bad, and Mordaunt's group is actually gonna try something against Sunak, that would be how to rebuff it. Point out how her 'brand' did nothing, for the Tories, and they suffered just like everyone else nationally.

In the extremely, extremely, unlikely event that her local allies actually gain seats against the wave that will have proved her position beyond doubt - at least from London's narrative. And that would make a Coup much more likely, cause everyone else would have undeniable 'evidence.' But as we have discussed in the local thread, this will likely not occur, and the Portsmouth Tories will see their remaining delegation halved.

[Oryxslayer]

A trio of Scottish polls have been released, each showing an SNP -> Labour swing. Norstat and Savanta both record their first lead for Scottish Labour:

• Savanta: 4% Lab lead
• Norstat: 5% Lab lead
• YouGov: 1% Lab lead

All polling was conducted between the coalition break-up and Swinney assuming office as First Minister, so he may steady the ship and recover a lead. It does appear in line with the medium-term, though:


See here for full details, and links to cross tabs.

Make that a quarter of polls - Redfield and Wilton just released a poll showing Labour leading the SNP 38-31 - needless to say this would give Labour a sh**t load of seats in Scotland and the SNP would lose dozens and dozens

Doesn't Labour need seats in Scotland to form a majority? I don't know why someone in Scotland would vote for the SNP in the general election. Independence isn't going to happen and you are throwing away your votes to help one of the main parties form a majority. Its like voting third party in the US

If we are looking at the 2014-2019 political era, yes. Scottish seats were theoretically necessary for Labour to win, and the SNP's existence therefore was just one reason why many noted how unfavorable the political geography had become for Labour. Labour "wasting" many votes while not being able to win more than 1 Scottish seat hurt when converting votes to seats in FPTP. You have to remember though to look at things from the perspective of Scotland and Scottish voters: voters who support the SNP (or other such parties at times in Catalonia, Quebec, Flanders, etc) don't see themselves in the other parties. It's not voting third party if voters behaving differently in this devolved region makes Scotland into a Unionist - Nationalist duopoly rather than a Labour - Tory one.

Now though? Labour could easily win a majority without Scotland. If Reform voters end up back with the Conservatives, Scotland is merely the difference between beating or matching Blair's result. If the Conservative voters remains split, then the SNP could win every Scottish Seat and Labour still would be pushing 500.

However, Labour are likely at the moment (and probably the future since a GE is not too far) are going to probably win the most seats in Scotland. And it may not be close. Remember how Labour were wasting votes in SNP-held seats? Well that means there are many central-belt areas where things get interesting if the SNP-Labour margin narrows even by a bit like in 2017.  And it has narrowed considerably over many months of SNP infighting, criminal investigations, as well as Labour just doing well nationally. Add on the fact that approximately half of Labour's current vote is primed along with the other unionist electorates to vote tactically against the SNP, depending on the seat, and things are very complicated for the SNP in a GE. The SNP hasn't won a local by-election this year, and there have been many. And they lost Rutherglen Westminster By-Election in a landside thanks to all these factors. Maybe things will be different in two years after Labour take power and are the national incumbents, but there is a good chance the situation stays the same.