United Kingdom General Election: July 4, 2024

[IceAgeComing]

Ought to note that this doesn't factor in tactical voting apparently so it could be even worse for the Tories than this.

Some quite remarkable seats stated to fall especially in the South: including both seats in Worthing (East Worthing isn't that surprising considering Labour had it within 10% in 2017 and actually held up well in 2019: West Worthing is safe Tory at the moment); both seats in Bournemouth and most remarkably to me both seats on the Isle of Wight; where the Tory majority for the current single seat is 32%. This could be a sign of duff data obviously but what is quite interesting is that across all of these seats (assuming the trends on the Island are fairly consistent across the Island which I'd be inclined to think they are; its a pretty homogenous place) the trends are remarkably consistent; the Lib Dems collapse in 2015 with votes scattering all over the place plus UKIP getting a decent chunk of votes; then in 2017 the UKIP vote disappears; the Conservatives increase but Labour jump quite significantly and then in 2019 when Labour fell back quick significantly across the country they held up (vote actually increased in the Isle of Wight).

The Isle of Wight one feels weird and is one that gets called out in these but I actually sort of see it: while there are traditional links to the Conservatives and its not historically a place Labour has done well its also in the decline typical with a lot of these seaside resorts - less people visit as tourists; the last few Council admins (Conservative 2005-13 and 2017-21; 2013-17 was an Independent group mostly made up of ex-Lib Dems; 2021-now is a mix of Independents and the Greens) have cut back heavily on spending on tourist facilities because like all councils they have no money which has made things worse; poverty is a big problem; no one can afford to buy houses locally so kids of Islanders are sucked up the mainland; and those that do live locally have to deal with the ferry company duopoly which is incredibly expensive if you want to take your car anywhere (which is sort of required on the Island). I think there's a similar story to a lot of these seaside areas: they're either gentrifying which brings in Labour/Green as the increasing party; or they've been in decline for so long that they aren't really natural Tory spots either (probably Labour/Reform/Lib Dem); or both. I have family links there and there are bits that have declined so much in the last ten-fifteen years where its just incredibly sad: Sandown is the prime example of this.

I guess the counter for the Isle of Wight is that the local Labour Party isn't exactly big and doesn't have that big an activist base - they have one Councillor while the Greens have two and the Lib Dems 4 (plus I suspect the independent councillors include a few hidden Lib Dem types); and the latter have both made local by-election gains and have held the seat in the past while Labour never have. Its one I'll keep an eye on for sure.

[IceAgeComing]

The map seems to show Labour winning the Isle of Wight...don't they usually get single digits there and its more of a Tory/Lib Dem marginal

Hasn't been a Lib Dem stronghold in a while. The last time the Lib Dems got over 10% of the vote was in 2010. Second place in the last three elections has been UKIP -> Labour -> Labour, and the Lib Dems didn't have a candidate there in 2019. The Greens have performed relatively well there lately, too.

The Lib Dems stood down on the Isle of Wight to back the Greens who've become stronger on the Island; as part of an anti-Brexit strategic voting campaign. The Green vote fell so it clearly didn't work - although interesting Labour's vote share actually increased in 2019 on 2017; and was actually Labour's best election since 1966 which is before the Liberals broke through for the first time and became the default opposition candidate. The Lib Dems do have a stronger councillor base (admittedly entirely through local by-elections and defections) and I suspect might be the 'tactical' choice for some people there that remember the Lib Dems winning it; but Labour are doing better than they historically have.

[IceAgeComing]

I mean based on the opinion polls there's unlikely to be that many cases like that - according to the Yougov big aggregation of their polls (31 October-17 January - 14k sample so probably better than individual subsamples but not perfect) you had the Tories at 9% for 18-24 year olds, and 10% for 25-29 year olds - indeed in both they are in fourth place behind Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems. Indeed according to this the Tories don't break 20% until 50-59 year olds. There's another similar poll that had similar conclusions (actually remember the Tories being behind Reform in younger voters on that one - so not good at all).

I assume its a combo of Weird People, people not answering honestly and dodgy recall more than anything else.

[IceAgeComing]

That's the thing with Lee Anderson right; people speak about him as if he was some local champion that had been around politics for years; and therefore building up some personal vote. He was elected as a Labour councillor in 2015 (and I suspect his being close to the incumbent Labour MP helped with that); campaigned for Labour in 2017 when the Tories had their biggest swing (Tory vote increased 19.3% in 2017; even as Labour's vote marginally increased and the Ashield Independents stood a candidate); then defected in 2018. In 2019 the Tory vote fell in Ashfield (by 2.4%): the reason he won was because Labour fell hard and Zazrozny jumped into second.

I think its fair to see that Ashfield will be a constituency where national polling will be of limited use with the presence of the Ashfield Independents complicating things (they control the local council and hold most of the relevant seats on the County Council as well; but are facing some troubles and Zadrozny is currently being prosecuted for tax evasion and other things); and also Anderson (who has some media notoriety which may well attract attention to his campaign) meaning that it will be a very complex campaign. I suspect it'll be Labour vs Zadrozny; had Anderson not been booted from the Tories I would suspect there was an outside shot he could sneak through the middle but as a Reform candidate I think that will split the right vote and eliminates that chance. That's the thing; the Con+Brxt vote in 2019 was only 44.2%; Zadrozny had 27.6%, Labour 24.4%. For Anderson (or the Tories) to hold on they'd need that 44% to go very strongly for one candidate and not to leave to Labour (or the Independent) instead which goes against all recent elections so feels very unlikely.

[IceAgeComing]

For what its worth; the Finance Bill hasn't yet gone through Parliament yet - believe its Committee of the Whole House next week and Bill Committee end of May. It is sort of important that parliament pass something because if they don't then the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act motion lapses and the government can no longer collect Income Tax which would not be great, to put it mildly. That does sort of rule out a 'we're dissolving Parliament tomorrow' thing unless they tip off Labour and get hasty agreement to barrel through legislation on the last day with no debate.

That's why there's always a wash-up period for any election call that isn't literally going as late as possible: when it happens there'll be agreements between the big two on what legislation passes and fails: and anything contentious will get binned until after the election.

[IceAgeComing]

The most likely timetable is this:

July 23rd 2024: Parliament rises for the summer, and Conservatives start campaigning on the quiet
September 2nd 2024: Parliament resumes after summer break
September 11th 2024: Autumn Statement where there is another 2p cut in National Insurance, a 1p cut in income tax across the board and the promise of another 1p income tax cut if the Conservatives win another term of office
September 16th 2024: If Labour's lead in the polls is greater than 10%, no election will be called, if it is less than 10% election called for October 17th 2024

In other words, it's either going to be October 17th 2024 or January 23rd 2025, and if it is the latter I am very minded to go to London and see if I can wangle helping either the BBC or ITV with their coverage in some way and then on the Sunday after the election, attend the memorial event for the death of King Charles I

I'll ignore the frankly bizarre last line and focus on the tax bit of this.

They have to make a call on the budget eleven weeks before (required period for an OBR forecast - which they will do) so it would be clear if there is one in the next few weeks unless they fancy following Truss's views. They also need to meet their fiscal rules which are already based on some incredibly sketchy grounds with there being no Spending Review until after the elections so the existing numbers for spending from 2025-26 on are sort of fake. In order to fund tax cuts (and the ones you are laying out would be pricy - the 2% cut in the Spring Budget cost £10bn in 2028-29 and for fiscal rules reasons that is the key number; a 1% Income Tax cut would probably be a little more than half that in addition as more people pay it; lets see roughly £17bn total in 2028-29 as a rough ballpark figure) would require funding that from somewhere else - and considering that amount it would require a combination of a very positive economic forecast (and if anything the recent trends are pessimistic on this); finding significant amounts of revenue from somewhere else (and that won't be from freezing thresholds because that's baked in; it needs to be raising other taxes or reducing evasion/avoidance or fiddling with reliefs and getting billions from that is difficult) or through 'cutting future spending' - and the OBR have already said that are sceptical of the governments spending plans and they might refuse to score further cuts without a spending review.

There's also a strong legislative barrier - you need to pass a National Insurance Act to reduce NICs rates; and a Finance Act for other taxes and that takes time even if you are doing it through wash-up - and I suspect that discredits your plans because inevitably Labour objects to bits that raise revenue and that means that the final thing might not be as scored and would be less credible. NICs Bills also have to go through the Lords which adds more time. I also would suspect the Opposition would be quite hostile to bumping two quite significant bills and then immediately calling an election - and you really need the opposition on board to fast track things.

In short the above proposals feel incredibly unrealistic unless there's some revenue raising hat to pull out of the bag (and they've done Non Doms already); and the timeline seems silly to me as well.

[IceAgeComing]

A question; will the ‘purdah’ rules which mean that the Government can’t act politically during a GE mean that deportation flights to Rwanda can’t happen?

There’s a very good argument they’re a political act in theory

My understanding is that the flights could go ahead as that is the existing law and policy of the government - but also that you are unlikely to see the Home Office boasting about it on social media (because government communications are limited) and that if there are legal challenges then the caretaker government (which is the Civil Service; and Ministers in post that can act is very limited ways) aren't going to make any active changes to policies. I could be wrong - I believe the official pre-election period starts tomorrow (probably de jure as of 5pm but in reality everyone in the Civil Service was watching the speech and went home or to the pub afterwards) and will go on until it is clear who the government will be; but I am not 100% sure.

[IceAgeComing]

(In what remains, interestingly, the only time one majority has been replaced by another majority at an election. Attlee, Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Major all left in the minority; Wilson was re-elected with a minority then re-re-elected with a majority; Cameron had his coalition.)

...no? Attlee was elected in 1950 with a majority of 5 that shifted to 3 after a by-election (they went thinking that they might get a more workable majority in 1951; Labour set an all-time record for number of votes cast for a party that stood until 1992 but the Tories got a small majority); in 1959 the Tories were elected with a majority of 100 that fell to about 90 due to by-election losses and a defection but which was still very much there; Wilson won a majority of 4 seats (falling to 2) in 1964 and then went again in 1966 because they were well ahead in the polls (using a defeat on steel nationalisation as the trigger); and then as you said in 1970 where Labour's much-diminished majority was lost straight to the Tories.

What is different with the others is that one side involves a very small majority - although the experience of the 2010s probably makes majorities of around 4 or 5 seem normal considering we had similar levels or hung parliaments the entire decade.

[IceAgeComing]

There's been quite a few examples of third parties being led into a general election by an uncharismatic figure whilst there is a more charismatic and obvious alternative lurking in the wings. Some of these would include Lord Pearson instead of Nigel Farage leading UKIP in 2010, Natalie Bennett instead of Caroline Lucas leading the Greens in 2015, John Swinney instead of Alex Salmond (although he perhaps was having a needed break) leading the SNP in 2001, Roy Jenkins instead of Shirley Williams leading the SDP in 1983. Of course charisma generally matters more when it comes to these kinds of parties. If Richard Tice had remained leader of the Reform Party then it would have fallen into this category.

Salmond fell out with a bunch of SNP people in 2000; resigned from the leadership and backed Swinney (bit a gradualist/fundamentalist election; Alex Neill was from the side of the SNP that was sceptical of devolution and backed a more assertive position on independence while Swinney backed it being a lower priority and requiring a referendum); then after a trio of dissapointing elections (losing Galloway to the Tories in 2001 and not making ground on Labour; losing more seats than Labour in a 2003 Scottish Parliament election less than two months into the Iraq war when the Greens and SSP made clear strides; and then in the 2004 European elections the SNP again fell more than Labour and almost finished in third behind the Tories) clearly the people that didn't like Salmond were willing to give him a go again if it got them back into government.

[IceAgeComing]

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1798632714427314219

I feel like this is a particularly stark poll that shows why the result will almost certainly be as the polling says it will be.

Yougov polled 22 issues asking people if things were better, worse, or the same than 2010. In 2 of the 22; net positive beat net negative. In 18 of the 22; 'better than 2010' polled less than 10% and in 14 of the 22 it polled less than 5%. This includes things like schools, the NHS, the armed forces, welfare, the economy, housing, local government services, immigration - basically the vast majority of what people actually interact with government most of the time. The things that did better were LGB rights which I don't think anyone actually credits the Tories for, Racial equality which ditto, Trans equality which the Tories are running AGAINST, and Climate Change which is still -9 despite being a key part of what Johnson wanted to make his legacy and broad cross-parliament consensus for most of the time since 2010.

In a world where 78% of the country believes the economy has gotten worse since you've been in power; you are doing to struggle to win re-election.

[IceAgeComing]

The Workers Party only have a chance in 1 and even then I'd say Galloway is the underdog - just look at his electoral history to show that. There's a chance he wins but I think not a massive one - the Rochdale local election results show that.

'Independents' are a group I don't think you can hold together - obviously massively ideologically diverse, but also tend to be organisationally questionable. Corbyn is likely to win in my eyes but also not guaranteed; I don't think any of the other Independents I'm aware of are likely to get close. In an election where people are clearly motivated to get the government out isn't one where unknown independents will rise.

Reform's vote is hard to fully analyse but it appears to be uniform - which means that unless they make a major breakthrough they'll struggle to get much if anything. There's also strong evidence that they underperform polling in actual results and the only telephone poll in the campaign so far (so more likely a random sample if older leaning vs self-selecting online panels) had Reform only on 9% behind the Lib Dems; so I would be slightly sceptical of that number. Realistically Farage has a good chance in Clacton and I think other wins would be shocking or very low Tory vote across the country; FPTP doesn't like uniform votes as the Alliance learned in 1983.

[IceAgeComing]

Any chance of Jason Zadrozny finally making it in Ashfield?

I think there's a chance but Labour are the favourites - the whole tax fraud thing I suspect is not likely to help him; and Labour were comparatively not that far behind in 2019. However this is a seat where local polling would help - considering Anderson standing for Reform as well. Although the last time we had mass constituency polling was 2015 and it was mostly wrong I think its unlikely.

[IceAgeComing]

On some of the above constitutional questions - its worth noting that the government still exists during the election period and Ministers are still in post (although with realistic restrictions to their powers to make new long-term decisions until after they clearly have a renewed mandate; or a new Prime Minister and ministers are appointed. I think that theoretically Sunak could resign as Prime Minister and suggest to the King that someone else be appointed for the interim - it would be highly unprecedented and the King may well settle on it not being his role to help or hinder the Conservative party's election prospects in whatever decision he makes. In terms of a replacement I think it would be logical to suggest that it only could be a senior member of the previous government who'd also retain their position - and that they were explicitly a caretaker until things were resolved (so logically the only candidates would be Hunt, Cameron or Cleverly as holders of the great offices of state; or Dowden who is Deputy Prime Minister). This is purely academic as this won't happen - if he did resign as Tory leader it would be destructive to their campaign as the offer to the public would be 'vote for us and someone dunno who will be PM' with no guarantee that they'd respect the election manifesto - plus it reminds people of the chaotic Johnson/Truss/Sunak period of continual chaos.

If Sunak was to die then obviously you'd see a much more muted campaign (it'd stop completely for a few days and I think the fire would naturally be taken out) - as above they'd hurriedly appoint one of the above names to fill the constitutional role of the job until things work themselves out. Probably the closest things to this would have been the historic decisions made by the Tory party before they had a formal leadership process and had to replace dead or ill leaders quite quickly. Again academic as any leader in that position by health would have resigned before; and a big accident would be very surprising.

If there was a crisis that required some sort of emergency powers I'm sure that through a combination of the existing executive powers and the royal perogative you'd get by until either they found a hack to bring back the old Parliament (which would require the consent of the opposition and realistically a national government) or have an election which then would retroactively pass legislation to formalise the arrangements that were previously introduced (the UK can do retroactive legislation in a number of cases - happens all the time with tax loopholes as the most obvious example). That sort of crisis though feels like something that would be clearly developing over the course of months so I would suspect this would only be relevant if a Parliament naturally expired rather than an early election. Realistically the main thing that would require emergency powers would be a war where there was a risk of the use of nuclear weapons and at that point constitutional order is not that important in the big scheme of things.

If you look back at the old Emergency Powers plans in the 70s/80s in case of the Cold War going hot the first set of emergency powers were pre-drafted bits of legislation they'd have gotten through Parliament quickly but the last set that effectively would have given Council chief-execs and Junior Ministers absolute powers in certain regions of the countries would have been announced and implemented with no parliamentary process because you don't need those powers until the bombs are in the air and then you've not got time to do it by the book.