UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Mike88]

How credible is the snap October election theory?

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537845004751847425

[Oryxslayer]

How credible is the snap October election theory?

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1537845004751847425

This comes up every few weeks. It always seems that the Tories are high on their own stash when the justifications are laid out against the polling. The Conservative Westminster bubble may have lost touch with reality, but they still can read the room when by-election losses head the papers. And so we reach the conclusion that such a action would be either totally absentminded in regards to the end goal of holding power, or purely vindictive on Boris's part. Both situations defy logic so nobody can say it will happen until it happens.

[Blair]

The historic reason to call one this early is to increase your majority- even on a good night that is unlikely to happen.

I can’t see it happening- largely because there will always be a reason not to have one, and to say ‘we just need 3 more months to do x and then we’re ready.’

[Torrain]

How credible is the snap October election theory?

Many PMs float the possibility of an early election, but back out once they look at the polling, and just run out the clock on the current Parliament instead.

• Jim Callaghan was widely expected to call an early election in the summer of 1978, but held off until 1979, when his government was brought down by a confidence vote.
• John Major was urged to hold an early election when his popularity spiked after the Gulf War in 1991 - he decided to hold out until the natural end of the Parliament in 1992 (which worked out ok). He did the same in 1997 - to considerably worse results.
• Gordon Brown appeared to make serious plans for a 2007 election, but backed out once he got the numbers back - the u-turn was rounded mocked, and contributed to a decline in his popularity.

Vulnerable PMs typically try to stick it out for the full five years if they have the seats. You do see confident leaders with decent polling (Thatcher, Blair) to go to the country after 4 years (to frame the election around a successful period), but you have to be desperate for more seats to go earlier than that. Calling an early election just to "renew your mandate" is rare and risky - and produced counterproductive results for the Conservatives under May, and Heath before her.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How credible is the snap October election theory?

The Conservative Party is presently down an average of about twelve points since the last General Election. The way FPTP works, this would mean a lot of defeated Conservative MPs, including many with large majorities.

[YL]

If we look at early elections (taken as before 4 years or so after the previous) we have

2019: government didn't have majority
2017: attempt to increase majority
Oct 1974: government didn't have majority
Feb 1974: "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted
1966: attempt to increase majority
1955: mandate for new PM
1951: attempt to increase majority
1931: mandate for new government
1924: government didn't have majority
1923: mandate for policy change
Dec 1910: mandate for constitutional change (Parliament Act)
Jan 1910: mandate for passing Budget

It's hard to see how Oct 2022 fits in, assuming Johnson is still PM.

[YL]

How credible is the snap October election theory?

The Conservative Party is presently down an average of about twelve points since the last General Election. The way FPTP works, this would mean a lot of defeated Conservative MPs, including many with large majorities.

... including, very probably, the member for Uxbridge & South Ruislip.

(Though Gavin Williamson has today denied a rumour that he might make way for a Johnson move to the ludicrously safe South Staffordshire seat.)

[MABA 2020]

If we look at early elections (taken as before 4 years or so after the previous) we have

2019: government didn't have majority
2017: attempt to increase majority
Oct 1974: government didn't have majority
Feb 1974: "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted
1966: attempt to increase majority
1955: mandate for new PM
1951: attempt to increase majority
1931: mandate for new government
1924: government didn't have majority
1923: mandate for policy change
Dec 1910: mandate for constitutional change (Parliament Act)
Jan 1910: mandate for passing Budget

It's hard to see how Oct 2022 fits in, assuming Johnson is still PM.

2022: Desperate attempt by PM to stave off his political demise

But seriously there won't be an election, he's better off clinging on and just hoping things get better in a year or two than facing certain defeat in an election and throwing the rest of the party under the bus alongside himself.

[Mike88]

If we look at early elections (taken as before 4 years or so after the previous) we have

2019: government didn't have majority
2017: attempt to increase majority
Oct 1974: government didn't have majority
Feb 1974: "Who governs Britain?" Not you, Ted
1966: attempt to increase majority
1955: mandate for new PM
1951: attempt to increase majority
1931: mandate for new government
1924: government didn't have majority
1923: mandate for policy change
Dec 1910: mandate for constitutional change (Parliament Act)
Jan 1910: mandate for passing Budget

It's hard to see how Oct 2022 fits in, assuming Johnson is still PM.

2022: Desperate attempt by PM to stave off his political demise

But seriously there won't be an election, he's better off clinging on and just hoping things get better in a year or two than facing certain defeat in an election and throwing the rest of the party under the bus alongside himself.

A similar trend with past snap elections was that, at dissolution time, the party in government was polling well, even Heath in early February 1974 was recovering in the polls, which is not the case with Boris as he's been polling badly for some time now.

[Alcibiades]

Imagine being in such a bubble that you think the Rwanda disgrace was a ‘success’ in the court of public opinion. The delusion is strong with this one.

[Continential]

https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1537918335072862208
This is disgraceful.

[Blair]

Also October would be on old boundaries.

The new boundaries are expected to net 10 seats for the Tories and imo would allow them to recast the parliamentary party slightly.

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1537918335072862208
This is disgraceful.

Unacceptable response, and not even consistent with his previous statements:

• October 2017 - "I am happy to affirm the SNP Westminster group will have zero tolerance of unacceptable behaviour"
• Tuesday - "Patrick’s going to face a number of challenges and so he should have our absolute full support"

How can Blackford credibly attack Johnson for his lack of scruples, when he can't keep his own house in order? It would be so easy to just withdraw the whip from Grady and be done with it.

The worst part for me is that Blackford summoned the victim to his office without warning. The victim was not told that Grady - who had assaulted him, would be in attendance, or that the two men would press him to accept an in-person apology from Grady, as a way to try and close the matter. That's bullying at minimum, and flat-out intimidation at worst. 

This isn't party political. It was unacceptable for Michael Fallon, Ross Thomson, Damien Green and Rob Roberts. It was unacceptable for Claudia Webbe, and Ivan Lewis. It was unacceptable for Mike Hancock.

[CumbrianLefty]

Imagine being in such a bubble that you think the Rwanda disgrace was a ‘success’ in the court of public opinion. The delusion is strong with this one.

Even more striking when you consider how well anti-migrant stuff *usually* polls.

[Blair]

Priti Patel has made some rather yikes comments today about the ruling.

I wonder if she made had them about a British Judge whether it could see a letter from Carter F**K arriving...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Imagine being in such a bubble that you think the Rwanda disgrace was a ‘success’ in the court of public opinion. The delusion is strong with this one.

Even more striking when you consider how well anti-migrant stuff *usually* polls.

David Blunkett was savaging it on Newsnight the other evening and that definitely counts as 'telling'.

[Alcibiades]

Imagine being in such a bubble that you think the Rwanda disgrace was a ‘success’ in the court of public opinion. The delusion is strong with this one.

Even more striking when you consider how well anti-migrant stuff *usually* polls.

Although it’s worth noting that public attitudes to immigration have actually got a lot more positive in recent years.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Imagine being in such a bubble that you think the Rwanda disgrace was a ‘success’ in the court of public opinion. The delusion is strong with this one.

Even more striking when you consider how well anti-migrant stuff *usually* polls.

Although it’s worth noting that public attitudes to immigration have actually got a lot more positive in recent years.

Probably one of the consequences of Brexit polarisation. Before then polling would generally show about 80% saying that there was too much immigration. Now it's more like 40-50%.

[afleitch]

The Rwanda debacle has been disastrous for the government on an aesthetic level.

1. It sounded bizarre and protracted.
2. It's Rwanda, with it's relatively undeserved connotations (and I'm not a Kagame fan) in the public eye.
3. It's deemed expensive; the moment you start talking about chartered planes, it suggests expense and 'waste'.

It also suggests more that we can't look after those claiming asylum rather than we just don't want to. And that's hard to sell even to some of the more reactionary anti-immigration drum beaters.

That's how you 'win' this one. Yes Rwanda is problematic for other reasons, yes there's issues with human rights and what is effectively government trafficking. But playing up the absurd and the dystopic is better than being technical about it why it's a disgraceful policy.

[Blair]

Yvette Cooper did a bit of it last week but the easiest thing to do will be to point to the numbers crossing & the small boats- the Government have framed this policy as stopping the crossing & people smugglers, which it very clearly won't.

Labour imo just need to come out in support of processing centres in France for Asylum applications & some other sets of policies which allows them to say they have a plan.

I would be curious to see voter attitudes- opposition to Freedom of Movement was often framed about the impact on public services & the suppression of wages. 

However I do honestly wonder if people who get worked up on facebook about 'them boats' are ever going to vote Labour. 

[Silent Hunter]

They won't - the best Labour can hope for is for them to stay at home.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's basically people who would never (and largely have never, except maybe in 1997 or thereabouts) vote Labour and a much smaller group of people who somehow always or nearly always vote Labour anyway, despite that.

[CumbrianLefty]

They maybe voted Labour when they were young in the 1960s/70s, or perhaps just once in 1997.

(some remarkably right wing people did so then, as was also anecdotally the case in 1945)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They maybe voted Labour when they were young in the 1960s/70s, or perhaps just once in 1997.

(some remarkably right wing people did so then, as was also anecdotally the case in 1945)

Yes - in very good years for a particular party a lot of people who would normally never vote for them end up doing so. Which may be relevant to politics right now, who knows. Who knows.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

They maybe voted Labour when they were young in the 1960s/70s, or perhaps just once in 1997.

(some remarkably right wing people did so then, as was also anecdotally the case in 1945)

My paternal grandfather (died in 2005) voted Labour in 1945 and subsequently said "never again", although he was never a particularly right-wing Tory (had reservations about Thatcher, including her handling of the Falklands). Legend has it that he was a radical leftie in the 1930s, however.

1997 saw Labour get the endorsements of some celebrities with generally unpleasant views - John McCririck (the now deceased horse racing bloke) and Michael Caine come to mind.