You can time the election for when you think it would be optimal for you. (e.g. a summer month will mean students will be at their parents which swings university cities more conservative)
The existing Conservative government are a shambles at the moment, with a whole series of defections and by-elections. The longer the stay in power, the more it damages their brand. They're expecting to lose this election, and bounce back in the next.
Also, old people are the Conservative government's key constituency. Old people vote more in the warmer, dryer summer months, than if the government waits until winter.
This is the answer which resonates most with me. The current government has long since run out of steam, and it must now be clear to them that they are going to lose the election. If they bow out in July, then they're pretty much guaranteed to be the official opposition (albeit with a much reduced majority) which gives them time to regroup and try again in 2029.
If they hang on until January 2025 then there's a small -- but real -- risk that the defeat is so bad that the Tory party effectively ceases to exist.
The same system is in Canada, and typically the party in power tries to time the election so they have the best chance of winning. Any numbers of factors could come into this (polling numbers, expected news event during the campaign, length of campaign, etc).
I am not Brit but I've been talking to few Brits about it.
The government is doing many popular short term changes and calling and election.
The reason, according to those people, might be because they expect a major drop over party acceptance after that.
This could be linked to recent news as the government announcing smaller inflation rates, attacks against legal and illegal immigration and conservative gender policies.
They expect to reach fed up people that might react to voting with them (without remembering most of those policies were established by that party) with BoJo.
I know this is a slice on the opinion of a small set of people, but I still find interesting that this might mean that the government might still be willing to postpone certain measures for effect of the election.
There has just been some economic 'good news' released that inflation has fallen to 2.3%. If there is a risk of bad news later, it's best to go after some good news. For example the infected blood scandal has just been somewhat dealt with by a mea cupla and announcment of large interim compensation payments, and the Rwanda migrant scheme is technically operating.
There was also concern from Conservative activists about campaigning in cold and wet November weather - these people are mostly retired.
I assume you are asking from the perspective of the governing party?
There is a strategic aspect to it. If you assume that your position will become worse in the future you want to capture the moment. This is commonly done from a position of strength. When the opposition is in tatters and your poll numbers are great you want to "lock" the numbers in. I'm not sure if that logic applies now. Maybe they suspect their polling will get worse with time?
Well the party in power can time is so it's best for them, so it's a little unfair and fixed dates are better IMO.
However you have to question this timing, as everyone thought he'd hang on until the end, so he either things something bad will come out about them soon, or vice versa, something bad will come out about Labour soon, and wants to capitalize on that.
the economic picture is not getting any better. In part because so many people each month are coming off fixed-term mortgage deals bought in the ZIRP era. The more time they give Labour to govern, the more rope they give them to hang themselves with. Or so the theory probably goes. They're already massively, massively behind in the polls and if recent local elections are anything to go on.
Good point about all the people about to hit a mortgage renewal crisis.
For our friends in the USA: in the USA it's common to have a long-term fixed-interest mortgage. In the UK they are limited to a few years, then you have to renew. Because interest rates have risen so much in recent years, people will have to pay much higher mortgage payments when their current fixed-term ends, which is coming due fairly soon for many people. On top of that, because people's other costs have gone up more than incomes generally, that reduces their credit rating at renewal, so their payments may rise even higher than interest alone would suggest, at the same time as their ability to pay is lower than it was a few years ago.
Often done when winds are more in your favor. Some of the internet buzz put it down to the decrease in inflation.
A general reason for doing it is the government isn't really working or passing many laws and some things they want to do seem to be questionable in their effectiveness
Other thing is that they might expect things to get even worse and maybe world economy will enter proper recession/depression. In that sense either they are secure or get to dump it all on other side.
Only that the current government can call it when it might be beneficial to them, i.e. if they think they are more popular now than they will be in the future/when it will be mandated.
The optimal time to call an election is when public support is highest.
If you expect it to go up, you wait. If you think it will go down, call it today.
Thanks! I had just figured the natural inclination from politicians would be to cling to power as long as possible but I guess there's some motivation to play a longer term game?
We're close to the 2% inflation target, thanks to energy prices dropping. The Bank of England will probably drop interest rates soon, and anyone with a mortgage will be thankfull. I suspect that this is why the Conservatives are calling it early.
From the article, at least one Conservative MP thinks that's a reason to wait longer:
> Privately, there is confusion in at least some parts of the Conservative Party about why Rishi Sunak decided to call the general election sooner than was widely expected. “I just don’t understand it,” one Conservative MP said. “The economy is improving. Why not give that more time to bed in?”
Allegedly, the Conservatives are against calling a winter election, as their largest cohort of voters (OAPs) are less likely to turn out to vote due to cold weather, darkness etc.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011, intended to make the election timing more predictable (every 5 years) to reduce all the weird politics and posturing for years in the run up to unknown election times, was ignored (by parliamentary supremacy) since being enacted, so nobody took it seriously in the end, and it was repealed in 2022.
Prior to that Act, and since it was repealed, I don't think there's any clear mandate saying when an election must be held. Only convention, that the Prime Minister calls it when they feel the time is right, and it tends to be around the 4-5 years mark.
It's a bit of a surprise the PM has called it for this summer at short notice, after saying he wouldn't for so long.
Pollsters and commentators anticipate a sweeping change of government from a large Tory majority (right wing, Brexit-will-solve-our-propblems, blame-the-immigrants flavour, "party of business" yet tanked the economy and terrible for business these last few years, cruel to disabled and/or poor people) that most of the country seems to be fed up with by now, to a predicted large Labour majority (left wing, that few really trust because they avoid committing to a clear policy direction, perhaps for election strategy reasons). Even for people who don't like Labour, widespread tactical anti-Tory voting is likely.
It's been in the interests of the PM and Tory party to delay the election as long as they can, hoping for something good for them to happen, like a major improvement in the economy, or some world event, or some political embarrassment to Labour, to improve their chances and maximise the number of seats they will get when the election takes place.
So commentators have been expecting the election to be near the end of this year or early next year, in the strategic party-political interests of the current government pary, while saying that it would be better for the country if it were sooner.
It's a surprise that the PM has decided to get on with it after all. Some MPs in his party are surprised. The opposition Labour party is delighted.
I think this will change the mood of the country quickly - before the election. Crudely, although there is a wide spread of opinions and allegiances, for a lot of people change represents hope because they blame the current government and party for so many difficulties. There are many distressed and unhappy people, still recovering from effects of Covid-19, hard Brexit, and in economic precarity due to rising costs, shrinking wages and, for a chunk of the population, disappearing savings and unusually high levels of small business bankruptcy, all of which has occurred under the current party (though not the same PM, and the last two PMs were not elected by the people).
I understand why this got flagged, but I'm sad that it did.
There are a million places to discuss politics on the internet, but none of them quite have the perspective that HN does. As a relatively long-term reader (I don't think I commented at all for the first decade or so), I find that these days my horizons are expanded more by the non-technical threads on the site.
In particular I was looking forward to learning how the HN crowd in the USA and Europe view our politics at the moment. I'm not sure where else I would go to learn that; I suppose could look on Reddit or a clone, but any unique views there tend to be drowned out by memetics.
I agree. I don't want a million world news stories, but I do find the comments on this forum enlightening and an interesting perspectives, so it's frustrating that a cohort of folks can't just skip these stories but feel the need to flag. Plenty of things come up on here that I have zero interest in but I don't flag them.
Ruling party has been the ruling party since 2019, but how many governments and heads of state in that time?
I think the parent is right, even if it's still "the conservatives" there have been plenty of governments in the 15-odd years that the tories, as a party, have clung to power.
I think the pm changing is a new government in the legal sense or whatever since they have to go to the head of state saying they have the confidence of Parliament to form a government. There has only been 3 governments since 2019. The past 10 years have been a bit chaotic in UK standards. 2004-2014 had three different prime ministers with like 2 or more elections (I don't remember when the second Labour one was)
If he had waited until 11th July, that would have been between the semis and the final.
Conclusion: he backs England to play in the quarter finals, but not to get as far as the final.
I think a meaningful number of English folk will subconsciously have their vote swayed by how well England do in a football competition, yes.