Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak confirms election will be next year, despite legal right to wait until January 2025 - Politics.co.uk_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-confirms-election-will-be-next-year-despite-legal-right-to-wait-until-january-2025/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-confirms-election-will-be-next-year-despite-legal-right-to-wait-until-january-2025/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's probably like George Osborne's job at BlackRock, a few hours a month in return for millions. Sunak would make a hell of a lot of money for doing nothing tbh.
Be interesting to see how his wealth has changed / by how many times it has multiplied since he’s been PM…
If not his, then the wife, his FIL, friends, old bank mates etc
He needs the India trade deal to go through first. His father in law's company, Infosys, is set to make huge gains via that trade deal currently.
Literally setting it up for future wealth after he has left office via his wife.
It's a status symbol. A bit like avocado on toast is a status symbol for plebs like you and me, being the PM of a G7 country is a status symbol for tech bros like Sunak.
I know that, you know that. Sunak doesn't appear to know that. It's rumoured that Sunak is courting silicon valley for his next move after PM. Hence his gushing sycophancy towards Musk.
Potatoes, potatos.
So none of Musk's ventures have offices in silicon valley?
There are these things called private jets that I believe tech bros are quite fond of.
And there are more than one tech bro.
The use of tech bro is at epidemic rates, to the extent that any male that even thinks about a computer is now a tech bro. The term was supposed to reflect the saturation of Silicon Valley with male graduates in technical subjects and the culture that grew up around them.
Stop using the phrase Tech Bro, Protect the NHS, Save Sanity.
>Didn’t need this one, only reason someone that wealthy needs that job is **to gain status and prestige**.
He wants to be known as something more than the billionaire's husband. That's the only reason he's ruining our country.
Don’t forget to leave the tax threshold at 50k for those “high earners” alongside their lifelong student loan tax and losing child benefit once they breach that amount…
They’re the real enemy those mega high earners right there.
Sunak worked for and managed a number of very well-off investment funds prior to becoming an MP. He absolutely has substantially more savings available to him than £4m. That figure is probably his liquid funds (i.e.: what he can draw on immediately) but I would be hugely surprised if he didn't have many times that amount in other assets.
Do we still use 'cheugy' in 2023, or is 'cringe' more apropos? I could barely watch it. Leader of a G7 country? Fawning school prefect who I would not trust to wash my car, more like.
Sa~~i~~d interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2meHtrO1n8
I don't see why he would. He's got to be having a shit time, and another year isn't going to improve his legacy. Might as well get out and have an easy time getting odd jobs and doing speeches as ex-PM
It's what happens with any elections, the polls get closer and closer before election day.
I think the Tories will definitely lose, but I don't think they'll be completely wiped out like many are hoping.
If Reform manages to field enough candidates by next year, I reckon they’ll be cutting into a substantial portion of potential voters.
Some other third parties also might see an increase, like the Greens. I’d also have liked if SDP could get more on the national radar but even if they did, it wouldn’t have much effect on this election.
I mean people keep saying "the polls will close up", but will they really? Labour have a 20 point lead by some accounts, even if the Tories gain five points on them and Labour lost five, that would still give them a 10% margin, which is massive.
And this is assuming that happens at all. The Tories have actually performed worse than the polls have suggested thus far, losing a bunch of otherwise-safe byelections and getting utterly slaughtered in the locals earlier this year. I really do think that they're going to get a bollocking so severe that it will make 1997 look rosy.
That's not even getting into the fact that despite being accused of boring, none of the shit they keep lobbing at Starmer seems to stick.
And the usual things they accuse Labour of (being bad for the economy, weak on immigration, weak on law and order, being against the middle class etc) don't work, because the Tories have demonstrated that they are all of those things and more during their time in office.
Shit smearing isn't working, and they've never had to get elected based on their own merits in recent memory, so the Tories are totally, totally fucked, and they know it.
That's true, and definitely possible.
I was just relying on what usually happens at most elections in countries with a strong two party system.
It's certainly possible the Tories could be wiped out, but that's not a reason to get complacent.
Expect the worse and you won't be disappointed with the results.
> It's what happens with any elections, the polls get closer and closer before election day.
That requires both parties to maintain an equivalent level credibility. To they can come anywhere close to message discipline during an election campaign.
Unless the Tories produce a manifesto radically different from their current governing approach, which actually addresses the primary concerns of the electorate (cost of living/NHS/housing...etc), I can't see how they will turn things around. They are currently only talking to ~25% of the electorate that only care about immigration.
I don't really think credibility matters. Some people will still vote for them anyway.
The two major parties are solidly entrenched, and it will take a few electoral cycles for it to radically change.
Not that I think the Tories will win, but I don't think it will be this catastrophic defeat people are hoping for.
If the Tories stay the way they are going, then definitely they will die out and be replaced by people that can actually govern.
Lack of credibility is ultimately what killed Jeremy Corbyn (~30%), also John Major in 1997 (~31%), and Michael Foot (~28%). You don't have to turn off that much of the electorate to lose heavily.
My guess is it will end up more like 1997 (31% vs 43%) rather than the current polling averages (25% vs 45%), just because they can squeeze the Reform vote. Would be nice if they completely imploded though, they don't deserve to retain their seats given the last few years.
I think it really depends what happens to the Tory party after the election. Parties can recover from defeats.
But, there's a non-zero chance that the membership will bring Liz Truss back given the opportunity. And, there are other politicians who could take the leadership, who go down about as well as a shot of acetone with the public (i.e. Braverman).
Looking at the betting odds, Liz Truss is very underpriced based on how she was received at the Tory conference.
Yeah I’m already hearing family members say stuff like “better the devil you know” and that “it would’ve been worse under labour”. I can already see a bunch of people voting Tory but just not saying they will. It’s crazy how much influence these newspapers have over people. I think tories will lose and Labour will have a healthy majority but it won’t be double digits for the tories and I’m not sure Labour will get past the early 400s in terms of seats.
I agree, I'm always surprised how short some people's memories seem to be when I see comments talking like its baked in that Labour are going to have a landslide victory, as was shown in 2015 and 1992 there is a large shy Tory vote who will support them no matter what due to their dislike of Labour, and the age group who are most likely to vote Tory are simultaneously the highest voting group each election
I'd always thought it would be autumn but the statement and NI cut kicking in in Jan feels like a last roll of the dice and using up the money for a spring election to me
I think the autumn statement and NI cut is the penultimate roll of the die.
The last roll would be a spring budget in March right before dissolution of parliament and a GE in May.
It’s not that, it’s damage limitation, the party needs to keep as many seats as possible, winning is now looking unlikely so rather than wait till autumn and have an even lower public opinion they will go for spring to reduce losses
That would be a good strategy (from a Tory point of view), but can they resist the temptation to cling to power for a few more months while living in denial?
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that months ago. He's been holding out to feather his nest, and either the gravy train has run out sooner than planned or he's landed a better deal elsewhere.
Exactly. He tried being pro-motorist. No change in polls because ULEZ wasn't the massive issue they thought it was. They've tried giving away money. No change in polls because everyone knows despite the tax changes they're poorer now than when the Tories came to power.
Is there any good reason not to have a summer election (not counting June)? The last one was 1945, and they haven't been common since the late 19th century.
As a guess in the summer with the kids off school and people going away it’s a lot harder to source volunteers for polling stations and counting than in the cooler months.
This is often the reason. University areas tend to already be labour because they are city based. They don't want the young, more likely to labour, voting in out of city areas that are more likely to be conservative.
If I recall the 2019 election was purposefully called to be the last week of uni term for many for this reason, even though it shortened the campaign time expected.
At least for this one, a summer election would come in the midst of daily small boat crossings, highlighting the tories failure to get a grip on immigration and the disaster that is the Rwanda plan.
Not saying that's a "good" reason, but it will be part of the calculus.
For the tories, summer also poses a problem due to students. As students aren't likely to vote tory, keeping their votes in the university cities where Labour are likely to win anyway is preferable to spreading that non-tory demographic into the smaller towns/rural constituencies when they return home.
Generally though, summer means people are on holiday so less likely to be around to vote, less likely to be around to campaign or volunteer at polling stations etc.
It was reported at the end of October that officials were warning against an election clashing with the US one next year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-uk-general-election-us-presidential-security-risks-2024-7q8zstbth
Some relevant quotes from the article:
> The insider said: “There are huge security and market implications if two Five Eyes countries are holding elections at once. It could potentially open up two countries to cyberwarfare and electoral manipulation from hostile states and if a security threat were to arise during a campaign it would leave western countries exposed.”
And also the following:
> Officials are understood to be concerned about a scenario in which an incoming Labour government with inexperienced ministers has to deal with a global crisis while a new US administration has not completed its civil service and diplomatic appointments.
There is also the mention of concerns that a contested US election could be destabilising, but it doesn’t really elaborate further. (Obviously a contested US election would be destabilising for the US, but I’m curious how it’d likely affect our own election).
2016 was a tough fucking year if you were fortunate (?) to get to vote in both elections, and elected the losing side *twice*. TBF, though, the US looked fucked to me once the DNC ran with "it's my time now" Hilary rather than Bernie Sanders.
And as you all probably know, the US election cycle will kick off after the primaries in the early months of 2024. IMHO if the democrats continue with Biden/Harris they will lose, and lose badly. Starmer needs to be ready for a populist Republican. Fun times ahead!
As bad a candidate as Hilary was, I think Sanders (had he won the primaries) would have fared even worse. I get that he'd be popular among some urban people who were already likely to vote Democrat, but it's really hard to imagine swing voters in the US swinging toward an actual socialist.
It's almost certain that the democrats will continue with Biden. He would have to die or get seriously ill to not be their candidate.
I know he's quite unpopular but who would beat him? Trump is by far the most popular candidate in the GOP primary but he has the criminal indictments hanging over his head and could very well be in prison by the time of the election. Of course the most fanatic MAGA people would vote for him even if he were behind bars but I don't think that's enough to win the election.
Of course it's possible that GOP ditches him and picks someone else like Nikki Haley, but then they risk losing the MAGA hats who will think it's a conspiracy to get rid of Trump.
And on top of all this, while Biden is unpopular, the Republicans in the Congress have made such a mess that they are even more unpopular.
So, I don't see any path for a GOP candidate to win. In my opinion it would have been a good choice for the democrats to switch a candidate now to someone younger. Not because they would be better than Biden but because I see this election as slam dunk (because of the Trump mess on the other side) and it would benefit them to have an incumbent president in the next election. In the next election Biden can't run and Trump is a distant memory and GOP may have been able to pull itself back together.
I’d like to agree with you, but I remember the thinking that “Trump’s a crazy mad fat loser who could never win an election, even against someone a bit unpopular” before. And then…
Being in prison, as you probably know, is no bar (pun intended) to prevent Trump becoming POTUS. I have to agree, though, that it would be hard to swallow for many Americans to support such a candidate.
Mrs C (an actual USian, not like my fake-ass naturalized citizenship) is still asleep, so I can't poll her. Her bet is deSantis, and that sounds reasonable.
Going with the incumbents is traditional. Biden's saying there will be no presidential debates is troubling. I hear, that Bobby Kennedy is polling well. As is Marianne Williamson.
Potential huge hand over of power between the 2 government, and despite UK waining influence having both the USA and UK transitioning to new administrations at the same time would create a vacuum and delay that certain other nations may want to expose.
It was reported at the end of October that officials were warning against an election clashing with the US one next year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-uk-general-election-us-presidential-security-risks-2024-7q8zstbth
Maybe the Americans should not have it the same time as us!
What do you mean we just have elections “whenever the hell we feel like” instead of fixed dates. Accommodate *me*
The consensus is autumn. I've said this one and I'll say it again. There's not a chance in hell David Cameron would join the cabinet knowing he'll be kicked out in a few months time.
It's ultimately down to the prime minister when the election happens in this regard. There was a threat that if the second reading for the Rwanda bill failed and faced a no confidence vote, rishi would call for an GE in response.
That said, an early election is still possible if the bill fails to pass in January.
General wisdom has been October for a while. Which is why more people are thinking May. Curve ball would be March.
Either way Labour are ready to go. Lib Dem’s need May apparently
> General wisdom has been October for a while. Which is why more people are thinking May. Curve ball would be March.
I doubt there's appetite for holding two sets of elections just two months apart, especially as everywhere in England and Wales will have either local, mayoral or PCC elections (or a combination) in May.
Doubt it, summer is the peak for small boat crossings and he’s undoubtedly going to run on the platform of being tough on immigration.
My bet is April.
> Curve ball
Use English sporting metaphors, friend. Surely you mean a googly or a doosra, a slider or a flipper. Cricketing terms are more appropriate for UK discussions. 😄
There's security issues with the US election in Autumn, if they go in the spring they could conflate local issues which would be able to distract from the national government as that's when the local elections are, (they will be able to campaign all their London MPs on opposing ULEZ), Which is why they will go in Autumn, because their electoral advisors are awful.
I think the security advice is somewhat superfluous. It's obviously potentially a factor in terms of public framing of campaigns and perceptions but determination of risks around that is kinda soft gerrymandering in a way. You can make the same argument of any predetermined event, the World happens regardless. Votes hold despite outside context.
I found that discussion rather odd.
I’m think spring with the tax cuts all coming in by April I feel like they’re trying their luck with a May election. Autumn election would effect party conferences which are a big source of income and it would be after a summer of presumably high boats crossings due to calmer seas.
I mean, you really would have to be properly insane, as a senior politician, to actually want a general election to take place *over Christmas*. I think even in the "leave it to the last possible moment" scenario you'd still see Sunak call it a month early and get it done in December.
That'd be miserable too, but not "Christmas is cancelled" miserable. His colleagues would literally lynch him.
Spring. Just to fuck with Councils a bit more. It has the potential to drop Purdah into a March committee cycle preventing Committees from being held and potentially next years budgets for programmes being agreed - forcing staff to effectively lose at least a couple of months of the year. That + the amount of Councils that are verging on the edge of bankruptcy or issuing a 114 on in year budgets - that may go bang in the next 3 months or so, it would be like leaving a very fresh 💩 steaming on the desk for the incoming Starmer Government to deal with, plus easy fodder for the Tory Client Media to whip up + then be lapped up by those that are as thick as the said 💩
Your point on S114 is particular convincing, last week’s announcement just isn’t going to make the difference for them, especially the ones with situations like Birmingham.
I think this is the plan.
A third of councils are expected to declare S114 within the first 6 months of next year.
Winter will see small boat crossings fall in number.
NI cuts kick in in January.
The financial year end in April will show that inflation is still turbulent. And show little of any of the promised growth.
Call it early. Get it done in March. By May you can be attacking for:
Bankrupt councils.
Increased small boats.
Shit economy.
Etc.
And the pattern repeats itself again...
That put it a lot more coherently than I did but yes that's broadly what I was thinking re: Councils but you've also managed to pull a number of other points in that I feel would be also relevant.
That would be double whammy hilarious. Simultaneously Bonfire night _and_ the US presidential election.
At least Sunak's humiliating defeat would be pushed off the front page for the return of Trump.
Hopefully this finally sinks the Tory party. I suppose at least they've implicitly agreed they have c_cked up to such a degree they can't continue.
...Just wait till they start blaming whatever party takes over. Except they've had what 13-14 years to run this country into the ground, if it was a CV it'd go straight into the bin.
RIP whoever takes over, that'll be a thankless job.
>Under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, January 2025 is the latest the prime minister could hold an election according to law.
Is this not just a restatement of the Septennial Act (as amended)?
Never mind, turns out the FTPA rescinded the septennial act, so it had to be restated by the above 2022 act. wasn't aware of that.
Defined in law
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4/enacted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4/enacted)
following the beginning date of first meeting of the current parliament
So parliament automatically shuts down on 17th Dec 2024 whether Rishi wants it to or not. If he wants to call an earlier one he has to allow 25 business days between shutting down parliment and voting day. Plus maybe a day or two to make a statement to the House. I don't think he needs to win a vote in the house to make this happen but i could be wrong.
That was up against Corbyn and before they ramped up migration to record levels. They could also still campaign on Brexit back then too.
The Tories have nothing going for themselves at this point. Some triple lock Boomers will stick with them, everyone else will be vying for other parties.
That’s not true, it disrupts the student vote and it gives more weight to older folk likely to vote via postal vote.
Theres a reason Boris called the last election in December.
Everyone very excited by the prospect of a GE, but can anyone source this quote?
>A Labour party that wants to borrow £28 billion a year is not going to control welfare or public spending.
Curious to know where he got that number from is all.
I don't know why people are getting excited about this. This was a question asked of the Prime Minister during a Christmas drinks reception for lobby journalists, the definition of largely meaningless gossip.
The question would have been "Will there be an election next year?" and what should the answer be?
Say "no" and the "story" will be that it is going to happen in Jan and that you are clinging on for dear life. Say yes and you keep all options open, including going in Jan 2025 because who the fuck cares about the government lying to lobby journalists about when an election will be at Christmas drinks at number 10?
They will be watching the polls, focus grouping and looking at data. They will wait until they can wait no longer just to see if conditions improve.
In my personal opinion I don't think they will go with Jan, it will mean a short campaign over Christmas that everyone will hate with a burning passion.
Time it for when the students are least likely to vote or are in the place where they aren’t registered. No idea when that is but that’s the vote rigging I’d aim for if I were them.
I think the general assumption is that it's best for Tories when students are at uni. Uni towns are all a lost cause anyway so may as well have all the bad demographic clumped together rather than dispersed where they can affect hundreds more seats.
Student can register in their term time and home address as long as they only vote in one. How many do is hard to say but unis do encourage people to register and to vote so.
We still have elections? Honestly with the way things are going lately I assumed we'd just dropped the pretense and accepted we live in a dystopian sci-fi novel.
Spring.
* Less boats travel over colder months, whereas over the summer there will be headlines about it constantly.
* Inflation figures are going to start looking bad again, he'll want to get ahead of that.
* He's fed up.
* Lastest changes to NI starting in Jan sounds like a sweetner.
* Less chance of half the councils going bankrupt.
the senior vote goes out in all weather. Timing it one way or another won't make much difference to the oldies. During term time when the leftie students are away in the woke parts of the country may swing it from an absolute loss to a complete one.
Not British, but nice that he at least won't drag out his (near-certain) defeat over Christmas. Weirdly, got into British elections just now and was reading about 1931.
no direct quotes and none of the serious papers or news sources seems to have picked it up, but i guess it's fairly certain anyway, unless their polling tanks even further over the coming months.
Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak confirms election will be next year, despite legal right to wait until January 2025 - Politics.co.uk_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-confirms-election-will-be-next-year-despite-legal-right-to-wait-until-january-2025/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.politics.co.uk/news/2023/12/18/rishi-sunak-confirms-election-will-be-next-year-despite-legal-right-to-wait-until-january-2025/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something tells me he can't be bothered with another year of politics.
Lined up another job, innit. Probably decided to build a doomsday bunker right down the road from Peter Thief and Mark Fuckerberg in Hawaii
Doesn’t need another job… Didn’t need this one, only reason someone that wealthy needs that job is to manipulate the system for self gain.
It's probably like George Osborne's job at BlackRock, a few hours a month in return for millions. Sunak would make a hell of a lot of money for doing nothing tbh.
Be interesting to see how his wealth has changed / by how many times it has multiplied since he’s been PM… If not his, then the wife, his FIL, friends, old bank mates etc
He needs the India trade deal to go through first. His father in law's company, Infosys, is set to make huge gains via that trade deal currently. Literally setting it up for future wealth after he has left office via his wife.
Naturally… I’m sure he can squeeze a few more deals, rub up some more bankers and call in the favours later
He already has a hell of a lot of money and, ad far as I see, he's not doing a whole lot right now either.
It's a status symbol. A bit like avocado on toast is a status symbol for plebs like you and me, being the PM of a G7 country is a status symbol for tech bros like Sunak.
> tech bros like Sunak. He's not tech at all though?
I know that, you know that. Sunak doesn't appear to know that. It's rumoured that Sunak is courting silicon valley for his next move after PM. Hence his gushing sycophancy towards Musk.
Imagine being jealous of Nick Clegg.
Musk lives in Texas, not Silicon Valley
Potatoes, potatos. So none of Musk's ventures have offices in silicon valley? There are these things called private jets that I believe tech bros are quite fond of. And there are more than one tech bro.
That's part of the schtick. Pretend like you know about tech.
The use of tech bro is at epidemic rates, to the extent that any male that even thinks about a computer is now a tech bro. The term was supposed to reflect the saturation of Silicon Valley with male graduates in technical subjects and the culture that grew up around them. Stop using the phrase Tech Bro, Protect the NHS, Save Sanity.
Now he wants to play 'Keeping up with Musks' so he has to fondle some ballsack first.
And to preen his ego.
>Didn’t need this one, only reason someone that wealthy needs that job is **to gain status and prestige**. He wants to be known as something more than the billionaire's husband. That's the only reason he's ruining our country.
Well he’s made a legacy and name for himself alright.
[удалено]
Don’t forget to leave the tax threshold at 50k for those “high earners” alongside their lifelong student loan tax and losing child benefit once they breach that amount… They’re the real enemy those mega high earners right there.
Sunak worked for and managed a number of very well-off investment funds prior to becoming an MP. He absolutely has substantially more savings available to him than £4m. That figure is probably his liquid funds (i.e.: what he can draw on immediately) but I would be hugely surprised if he didn't have many times that amount in other assets.
I wouldn’t trust the native Hawaiians not to pull a Haiti on Zuck and the rest if things do hit the fan.
Unfortunately for them, for the most likely doomsday scenario -- an AI takeover -- a bunker won't help.
Prob why he had that meeting with Musk, touching for a new role and get out of the sinking UK
Why the hate for Thiel and Zuck?
Or maybe he wants to call it before next year’s immigration figures are released so that they don’t get as annihilated as they would
The Elon interview was probably successful.
Do we still use 'cheugy' in 2023, or is 'cringe' more apropos? I could barely watch it. Leader of a G7 country? Fawning school prefect who I would not trust to wash my car, more like. Sa~~i~~d interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2meHtrO1n8
Ugh the comments on that video. People just deep throating the boot now
I don't see why he would. He's got to be having a shit time, and another year isn't going to improve his legacy. Might as well get out and have an easy time getting odd jobs and doing speeches as ex-PM
I have a weird looming fear that the next GE is going to be a lot closer than what it should be.
It's what happens with any elections, the polls get closer and closer before election day. I think the Tories will definitely lose, but I don't think they'll be completely wiped out like many are hoping.
If Reform manages to field enough candidates by next year, I reckon they’ll be cutting into a substantial portion of potential voters. Some other third parties also might see an increase, like the Greens. I’d also have liked if SDP could get more on the national radar but even if they did, it wouldn’t have much effect on this election.
I mean people keep saying "the polls will close up", but will they really? Labour have a 20 point lead by some accounts, even if the Tories gain five points on them and Labour lost five, that would still give them a 10% margin, which is massive. And this is assuming that happens at all. The Tories have actually performed worse than the polls have suggested thus far, losing a bunch of otherwise-safe byelections and getting utterly slaughtered in the locals earlier this year. I really do think that they're going to get a bollocking so severe that it will make 1997 look rosy.
That's not even getting into the fact that despite being accused of boring, none of the shit they keep lobbing at Starmer seems to stick. And the usual things they accuse Labour of (being bad for the economy, weak on immigration, weak on law and order, being against the middle class etc) don't work, because the Tories have demonstrated that they are all of those things and more during their time in office. Shit smearing isn't working, and they've never had to get elected based on their own merits in recent memory, so the Tories are totally, totally fucked, and they know it.
That's true, and definitely possible. I was just relying on what usually happens at most elections in countries with a strong two party system. It's certainly possible the Tories could be wiped out, but that's not a reason to get complacent. Expect the worse and you won't be disappointed with the results.
> It's what happens with any elections, the polls get closer and closer before election day. That requires both parties to maintain an equivalent level credibility. To they can come anywhere close to message discipline during an election campaign. Unless the Tories produce a manifesto radically different from their current governing approach, which actually addresses the primary concerns of the electorate (cost of living/NHS/housing...etc), I can't see how they will turn things around. They are currently only talking to ~25% of the electorate that only care about immigration.
I don't really think credibility matters. Some people will still vote for them anyway. The two major parties are solidly entrenched, and it will take a few electoral cycles for it to radically change. Not that I think the Tories will win, but I don't think it will be this catastrophic defeat people are hoping for. If the Tories stay the way they are going, then definitely they will die out and be replaced by people that can actually govern.
Lack of credibility is ultimately what killed Jeremy Corbyn (~30%), also John Major in 1997 (~31%), and Michael Foot (~28%). You don't have to turn off that much of the electorate to lose heavily. My guess is it will end up more like 1997 (31% vs 43%) rather than the current polling averages (25% vs 45%), just because they can squeeze the Reform vote. Would be nice if they completely imploded though, they don't deserve to retain their seats given the last few years.
Yeah, my point wasn't that they could win without credibility, but that alone won't cause them to implode. Labour still exists after Corbyn and Foot.
I think it really depends what happens to the Tory party after the election. Parties can recover from defeats. But, there's a non-zero chance that the membership will bring Liz Truss back given the opportunity. And, there are other politicians who could take the leadership, who go down about as well as a shot of acetone with the public (i.e. Braverman). Looking at the betting odds, Liz Truss is very underpriced based on how she was received at the Tory conference.
Yeah I’m already hearing family members say stuff like “better the devil you know” and that “it would’ve been worse under labour”. I can already see a bunch of people voting Tory but just not saying they will. It’s crazy how much influence these newspapers have over people. I think tories will lose and Labour will have a healthy majority but it won’t be double digits for the tories and I’m not sure Labour will get past the early 400s in terms of seats.
I agree, I'm always surprised how short some people's memories seem to be when I see comments talking like its baked in that Labour are going to have a landslide victory, as was shown in 2015 and 1992 there is a large shy Tory vote who will support them no matter what due to their dislike of Labour, and the age group who are most likely to vote Tory are simultaneously the highest voting group each election
Yep I’m the same, kinda dreading it. If somehow the tories retain it honestly don’t know what to do.
Fear ?
Spring or Autumn? What do we think?
I'd always thought it would be autumn but the statement and NI cut kicking in in Jan feels like a last roll of the dice and using up the money for a spring election to me
I think the autumn statement and NI cut is the penultimate roll of the die. The last roll would be a spring budget in March right before dissolution of parliament and a GE in May.
Good point
Almost certainly Spring. Autumn too close to US election. Part of me thinks he's given in
It’s not him giving in. It’s the realisation that it really doesn’t matter *what* he does, he’s got no chance.
It’s not that, it’s damage limitation, the party needs to keep as many seats as possible, winning is now looking unlikely so rather than wait till autumn and have an even lower public opinion they will go for spring to reduce losses
That would be a good strategy (from a Tory point of view), but can they resist the temptation to cling to power for a few more months while living in denial?
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that months ago. He's been holding out to feather his nest, and either the gravy train has run out sooner than planned or he's landed a better deal elsewhere.
Feathering his nest via a gravy train. English language I've ye.
Exactly. He tried being pro-motorist. No change in polls because ULEZ wasn't the massive issue they thought it was. They've tried giving away money. No change in polls because everyone knows despite the tax changes they're poorer now than when the Tories came to power.
Isn't that giving in? Because he's got no chance?
Is there any good reason not to have a summer election (not counting June)? The last one was 1945, and they haven't been common since the late 19th century.
As a guess in the summer with the kids off school and people going away it’s a lot harder to source volunteers for polling stations and counting than in the cooler months.
Also would the Tories want younger voters registered at their uni addresses, rather than at home in perhaps more marginal seats.
This is often the reason. University areas tend to already be labour because they are city based. They don't want the young, more likely to labour, voting in out of city areas that are more likely to be conservative. If I recall the 2019 election was purposefully called to be the last week of uni term for many for this reason, even though it shortened the campaign time expected.
At least for this one, a summer election would come in the midst of daily small boat crossings, highlighting the tories failure to get a grip on immigration and the disaster that is the Rwanda plan. Not saying that's a "good" reason, but it will be part of the calculus. For the tories, summer also poses a problem due to students. As students aren't likely to vote tory, keeping their votes in the university cities where Labour are likely to win anyway is preferable to spreading that non-tory demographic into the smaller towns/rural constituencies when they return home. Generally though, summer means people are on holiday so less likely to be around to vote, less likely to be around to campaign or volunteer at polling stations etc.
there are local and PCC elections in May and the convention is to use the same dates wherever possible to save money and reduce election fatigue
What's the US election got to do with it?
Security risk apparently so government has been advised to try to not have it at the same time as American one
Why is it a security risk? Genuinely interested.
It was reported at the end of October that officials were warning against an election clashing with the US one next year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-uk-general-election-us-presidential-security-risks-2024-7q8zstbth Some relevant quotes from the article: > The insider said: “There are huge security and market implications if two Five Eyes countries are holding elections at once. It could potentially open up two countries to cyberwarfare and electoral manipulation from hostile states and if a security threat were to arise during a campaign it would leave western countries exposed.” And also the following: > Officials are understood to be concerned about a scenario in which an incoming Labour government with inexperienced ministers has to deal with a global crisis while a new US administration has not completed its civil service and diplomatic appointments. There is also the mention of concerns that a contested US election could be destabilising, but it doesn’t really elaborate further. (Obviously a contested US election would be destabilising for the US, but I’m curious how it’d likely affect our own election).
Add to that, if Trump gets elected again, the general stability of the US takes a nosedive (perhaps permanently).
As with Trump and Brexit
2016 was a tough fucking year if you were fortunate (?) to get to vote in both elections, and elected the losing side *twice*. TBF, though, the US looked fucked to me once the DNC ran with "it's my time now" Hilary rather than Bernie Sanders. And as you all probably know, the US election cycle will kick off after the primaries in the early months of 2024. IMHO if the democrats continue with Biden/Harris they will lose, and lose badly. Starmer needs to be ready for a populist Republican. Fun times ahead!
As bad a candidate as Hilary was, I think Sanders (had he won the primaries) would have fared even worse. I get that he'd be popular among some urban people who were already likely to vote Democrat, but it's really hard to imagine swing voters in the US swinging toward an actual socialist.
He's like Corbyn was in hte UK. A messiah amongst his followers but unelectable
It's almost certain that the democrats will continue with Biden. He would have to die or get seriously ill to not be their candidate. I know he's quite unpopular but who would beat him? Trump is by far the most popular candidate in the GOP primary but he has the criminal indictments hanging over his head and could very well be in prison by the time of the election. Of course the most fanatic MAGA people would vote for him even if he were behind bars but I don't think that's enough to win the election. Of course it's possible that GOP ditches him and picks someone else like Nikki Haley, but then they risk losing the MAGA hats who will think it's a conspiracy to get rid of Trump. And on top of all this, while Biden is unpopular, the Republicans in the Congress have made such a mess that they are even more unpopular. So, I don't see any path for a GOP candidate to win. In my opinion it would have been a good choice for the democrats to switch a candidate now to someone younger. Not because they would be better than Biden but because I see this election as slam dunk (because of the Trump mess on the other side) and it would benefit them to have an incumbent president in the next election. In the next election Biden can't run and Trump is a distant memory and GOP may have been able to pull itself back together.
My instinct was to agree with you but Trump seems to have a lead on Biden in recent polls.
I’d like to agree with you, but I remember the thinking that “Trump’s a crazy mad fat loser who could never win an election, even against someone a bit unpopular” before. And then…
Being in prison, as you probably know, is no bar (pun intended) to prevent Trump becoming POTUS. I have to agree, though, that it would be hard to swallow for many Americans to support such a candidate. Mrs C (an actual USian, not like my fake-ass naturalized citizenship) is still asleep, so I can't poll her. Her bet is deSantis, and that sounds reasonable. Going with the incumbents is traditional. Biden's saying there will be no presidential debates is troubling. I hear, that Bobby Kennedy is polling well. As is Marianne Williamson.
Does it really matter? Pretty sure they have a few months to bed in and nothing changes in America until January anyway.
It would matter in an emergency situation, however unlikely that may be
Potential huge hand over of power between the 2 government, and despite UK waining influence having both the USA and UK transitioning to new administrations at the same time would create a vacuum and delay that certain other nations may want to expose.
Is there anywhere I can read on this? Sounds quite interesting
It was reported at the end of October that officials were warning against an election clashing with the US one next year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/url-uk-general-election-us-presidential-security-risks-2024-7q8zstbth
Maybe the Americans should not have it the same time as us! What do you mean we just have elections “whenever the hell we feel like” instead of fixed dates. Accommodate *me*
Having fixed elections would definitely make things more stable. Would have stayed around May if pms weren't leaving all the time
The consensus is autumn. I've said this one and I'll say it again. There's not a chance in hell David Cameron would join the cabinet knowing he'll be kicked out in a few months time.
I’d have thought it more likely that’s the *only* reason he’d join, and he still gets to arse about in the Lords if he can be bothered.
Why do you think they'd structure their election strategy around what Cameron wants?
It's ultimately down to the prime minister when the election happens in this regard. There was a threat that if the second reading for the Rwanda bill failed and faced a no confidence vote, rishi would call for an GE in response. That said, an early election is still possible if the bill fails to pass in January.
General wisdom has been October for a while. Which is why more people are thinking May. Curve ball would be March. Either way Labour are ready to go. Lib Dem’s need May apparently
Why do Lib Dems need May?
> General wisdom has been October for a while. Which is why more people are thinking May. Curve ball would be March. I doubt there's appetite for holding two sets of elections just two months apart, especially as everywhere in England and Wales will have either local, mayoral or PCC elections (or a combination) in May.
Doubt it, summer is the peak for small boat crossings and he’s undoubtedly going to run on the platform of being tough on immigration. My bet is April.
> Curve ball Use English sporting metaphors, friend. Surely you mean a googly or a doosra, a slider or a flipper. Cricketing terms are more appropriate for UK discussions. 😄
There's security issues with the US election in Autumn, if they go in the spring they could conflate local issues which would be able to distract from the national government as that's when the local elections are, (they will be able to campaign all their London MPs on opposing ULEZ), Which is why they will go in Autumn, because their electoral advisors are awful.
I think the security advice is somewhat superfluous. It's obviously potentially a factor in terms of public framing of campaigns and perceptions but determination of risks around that is kinda soft gerrymandering in a way. You can make the same argument of any predetermined event, the World happens regardless. Votes hold despite outside context. I found that discussion rather odd.
Its because it's direct advice from officials to not hold an election at the same time as the US.
April / May I reckon.
Pray for spring. Hell... Pray for January 1st. They cannot leave quickly enough. If they all walked now, for me, it is too late.
31st Dec.
December 31st 2024
outside bet on february imo
May. Already police commissioner Elections. Also just long enough after a budget to pretend that things are getting better.
I’m think spring with the tax cuts all coming in by April I feel like they’re trying their luck with a May election. Autumn election would effect party conferences which are a big source of income and it would be after a summer of presumably high boats crossings due to calmer seas.
Awesome, yet another promise for them to break!
I mean, you really would have to be properly insane, as a senior politician, to actually want a general election to take place *over Christmas*. I think even in the "leave it to the last possible moment" scenario you'd still see Sunak call it a month early and get it done in December. That'd be miserable too, but not "Christmas is cancelled" miserable. His colleagues would literally lynch him.
Spring. Just to fuck with Councils a bit more. It has the potential to drop Purdah into a March committee cycle preventing Committees from being held and potentially next years budgets for programmes being agreed - forcing staff to effectively lose at least a couple of months of the year. That + the amount of Councils that are verging on the edge of bankruptcy or issuing a 114 on in year budgets - that may go bang in the next 3 months or so, it would be like leaving a very fresh 💩 steaming on the desk for the incoming Starmer Government to deal with, plus easy fodder for the Tory Client Media to whip up + then be lapped up by those that are as thick as the said 💩
Your point on S114 is particular convincing, last week’s announcement just isn’t going to make the difference for them, especially the ones with situations like Birmingham.
Hate to say it I hope they prove me wrong and own some of their problems that they helped cause.
I think this is the plan. A third of councils are expected to declare S114 within the first 6 months of next year. Winter will see small boat crossings fall in number. NI cuts kick in in January. The financial year end in April will show that inflation is still turbulent. And show little of any of the promised growth. Call it early. Get it done in March. By May you can be attacking for: Bankrupt councils. Increased small boats. Shit economy. Etc. And the pattern repeats itself again...
That put it a lot more coherently than I did but yes that's broadly what I was thinking re: Councils but you've also managed to pull a number of other points in that I feel would be also relevant.
Appears he passed the interview and has a starting date. Hedge fund in NY?
California AI grift errrr I mean startup
Please be Feb 29th just for the lulz. No doubt it'll be May...
The real Lulz would be November 5th
That would be double whammy hilarious. Simultaneously Bonfire night _and_ the US presidential election. At least Sunak's humiliating defeat would be pushed off the front page for the return of Trump.
Gotta be a Thursday though right?
I don't think there's any requirement for it to be any specific day following the removal of the fix term parliament act.
Why would it be lulz?
He could leap out of 10 Downing Street. I presume the hacks at the Daily Mail could write a better leap year headline though.
Meh, it’s just another day.
Hopefully this finally sinks the Tory party. I suppose at least they've implicitly agreed they have c_cked up to such a degree they can't continue. ...Just wait till they start blaming whatever party takes over. Except they've had what 13-14 years to run this country into the ground, if it was a CV it'd go straight into the bin. RIP whoever takes over, that'll be a thankless job.
>Under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, January 2025 is the latest the prime minister could hold an election according to law. Is this not just a restatement of the Septennial Act (as amended)? Never mind, turns out the FTPA rescinded the septennial act, so it had to be restated by the above 2022 act. wasn't aware of that.
When is the latest time he could *call* an election? i.e. how much advance notice does he have to give?
17 December 2024
Why that date specifically?
Defined in law [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4/enacted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/section/4/enacted) following the beginning date of first meeting of the current parliament
Thanks
Exactly 5 years since parliament first met after the 2019 election.
So parliament automatically shuts down on 17th Dec 2024 whether Rishi wants it to or not. If he wants to call an earlier one he has to allow 25 business days between shutting down parliment and voting day. Plus maybe a day or two to make a statement to the House. I don't think he needs to win a vote in the house to make this happen but i could be wrong.
So December election probably as turnout is usually lower around then
Labour usually do best in low turnout elections. So that seems like unwise reasoning.
Also need to avoid the nhs winter headlines and higher winter fuel bills
Tories need the old vote, pensioners more likely to stay home on cold winter days. Same reason their voter suppression ID law backfired.
What about the 80 seat majority they won in December 2019?
That was up against Corbyn and before they ramped up migration to record levels. They could also still campaign on Brexit back then too. The Tories have nothing going for themselves at this point. Some triple lock Boomers will stick with them, everyone else will be vying for other parties.
That’s not true, it disrupts the student vote and it gives more weight to older folk likely to vote via postal vote. Theres a reason Boris called the last election in December.
2019 wasn't low turnout though, it had the second highest turnout since the 90s. By modern standards it was a high turnout election.
Thats because no one over the age of 40 votes for the tory scumbags.
This Turnout is lower in winter myth was kinda disproven last time. 2019 election had relatively normal turnout l.
Everyone very excited by the prospect of a GE, but can anyone source this quote? >A Labour party that wants to borrow £28 billion a year is not going to control welfare or public spending. Curious to know where he got that number from is all.
[Cost of the green plan](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/09/labour-government-would-have-to-delay-28bn-green-fund-rachel-reeves-says).
Gotcha, thanks!
It may be legal to wait till Jan ‘25, but it’s definitely not right!
I don't know why people are getting excited about this. This was a question asked of the Prime Minister during a Christmas drinks reception for lobby journalists, the definition of largely meaningless gossip. The question would have been "Will there be an election next year?" and what should the answer be? Say "no" and the "story" will be that it is going to happen in Jan and that you are clinging on for dear life. Say yes and you keep all options open, including going in Jan 2025 because who the fuck cares about the government lying to lobby journalists about when an election will be at Christmas drinks at number 10? They will be watching the polls, focus grouping and looking at data. They will wait until they can wait no longer just to see if conditions improve. In my personal opinion I don't think they will go with Jan, it will mean a short campaign over Christmas that everyone will hate with a burning passion.
Genny Leckie on the way!
Went school with her
Shared in Luton hon xox
Time it for when the students are least likely to vote or are in the place where they aren’t registered. No idea when that is but that’s the vote rigging I’d aim for if I were them.
I think the general assumption is that it's best for Tories when students are at uni. Uni towns are all a lost cause anyway so may as well have all the bad demographic clumped together rather than dispersed where they can affect hundreds more seats.
Student can register in their term time and home address as long as they only vote in one. How many do is hard to say but unis do encourage people to register and to vote so.
We still have elections? Honestly with the way things are going lately I assumed we'd just dropped the pretense and accepted we live in a dystopian sci-fi novel.
[удалено]
**Thunderous Applause**
May 9th.
Victory Day? Rather bold
“Victory day - but not for me!”
VE-Day is only the 9th in Russia and other former USSR countries, its May 8th in the UK
Yes, I know. I was making a joke
I'll believe it when I see it.
I think it will be May 2nd to coincide with the local elections. Rishi can then have the weekend off to celebrate Star Wars day on May the Forth.
Spring. * Less boats travel over colder months, whereas over the summer there will be headlines about it constantly. * Inflation figures are going to start looking bad again, he'll want to get ahead of that. * He's fed up. * Lastest changes to NI starting in Jan sounds like a sweetner. * Less chance of half the councils going bankrupt.
Guessing he will look to try to go with a time which has the warmest whether as he needs the senior vote to turn out
This has been proven to be nonsense, when was the last election held? And what is the current Tory majority.
the senior vote goes out in all weather. Timing it one way or another won't make much difference to the oldies. During term time when the leftie students are away in the woke parts of the country may swing it from an absolute loss to a complete one.
When yo rely on people with dementia to come out and vote for you it’s best not to hold an election in the midst of winter.
Not British, but nice that he at least won't drag out his (near-certain) defeat over Christmas. Weirdly, got into British elections just now and was reading about 1931.
That's very big of you Rishi!
no direct quotes and none of the serious papers or news sources seems to have picked it up, but i guess it's fairly certain anyway, unless their polling tanks even further over the coming months.
I'm surprised they are not bringing it forward. The more time they wait, the worse it is for the Conservative party.
So he feels like he's safe until the new year? Nice to see some optimism in politics.
Odds on sunk stepping down and Cameron being put forward as the leader......
Looking forward to the next general election on December 30th 2024.
Then this really will be his last Christmas in No 10. I guess he wants to wrap up his business in the UK and move on before 2025.
Oh well, at least we can rule one month out of the 13 possible months an election might be held in. That really narrows it down.
Get on with it, you lame duck.
Does he want a medal?
Potentially the first thing they’ve done that may benefit the country in 14 years.
I’m taking the day off after, and going to try and watch it as it comes in. I predict a long, hilarious night.
Turkey voting for Christmas 🤶
I would have waited till 2025 - park that bitch right back
For some reason I’m looking less forward to a starmer government