A Very British Coup. May stuns Westminster and beyond with audacious early election decision

As the esteemed, if underestimated, social and political commentator Ms Kate Bush once put it: “Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow Wow! Unbelievable!”. Theresa May’s decision to ask the House of Commons to approve an early election on 8 June was made late, defied expectations and kept a secret with the customary deployment of an inner circle that outsiders cannot permeate. It is less a ‘U-Turn’ than a ‘V-Turn’, a complete reversal in stance executed with ruthless efficiency.
All the initial signs are that her previous disavowal of a snap poll will not count against her. This is hardly the first time the Prime Minister has changed her position on a significant issue but somehow emerged the stronger for it. She is a little like that character in The Vicar of Dibley whose catch-line was “no, no, no, no, no … yes” except that she seems to be viewed as more decisive for being so.
There is not much doubt that she will have her way on election timing. She has been aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition whose insistence on demanding a general election on an almost daily basis has left him little choice but to be that rare item, a turkey asserting that this year Christmas should occur six months early. Even in the unlikely event that she does not obtain the two-thirds majority in the House of Commons that the Fixed Term Parliament Act decrees, there is the second option (the so-called West Germany 1983 strategy) of the government moving a vote of no confidence in itself as the other means of securing an election. The die is cast. It will be 8 June.
It is, to borrow a phrase from a book by the then Labour MP Chris Mullen, A Very British Coup. Why has the Prime Minister chosen this course, what will determine the outcome of the election and is there any reason to suspect that if she obtains the mandate she seeks it will affect the Brexit talks?
The election is about exploiting 2017 but crucially about avoiding a contest in 2020
In retrospect, as with most political surprises, the choice looks obvious. Why would one not hold a contest at a time almost of your choosing and when the odds are that you will win by a substantial margin? Yet actually this is quite a close call and the Prime Minister’s insistence that she came to it “reluctantly and recently” does seem reasonable. It will not have been a straightforward decision.
The arguments for exploiting the circumstances of 2017 are manifest. She has incredibly impressive personal opinion poll ratings. The Labour Party and its leader are in a catastrophic condition and it is nowhere near where it would need to be to have a coherent message or any polished set of policies. UKIP is in a state of disarray as well and this election is the chance to finish them off once and for all. The Liberal Democrats have been staging something of a comeback of late, especially in those parts of the country where they were previously strong, and moving now means that this shift towards them will probably not acquire an intensity of a strength that will enable them to unseat many of the Conservative MPs who ejected them from their seats in May 2015. And with the Brexit dialogue in a largely symbolic early phase until elections are held in France and Germany, it cannot really be said that Mrs May has done any harm to those deliberations by opting for a comparatively short and sharp election contest, and she will hope to claim a massive mandate for her negotiating position.
Yet all of the above was true four weeks ago when Parliament awarded the Prime Minister the legal authority to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Mrs May had the option then of delivering the letter to Donald Tusk two weeks earlier than she actually did, which would have allowed her the time to ask the House of Commons for its blessing for an early election on 4 May, the logical date this year as such a large number of elections are already scheduled to take place on that occasion.
The crucial element that may have been the catalyst for the belated choice of an early election is most likely to have been the realisation that the 2019-2020 period looked increasingly awkward. If Brexit went badly it would do so with the UK leaving the EU a mere 12 months before the start of 2020 election campaign. It is increasingly probable that a second referendum on independence in Scotland could not be deferred beyond September 2019 at the latest. If there was a risk of an economic hit from Brexit then Treasury advice is that it would be most likely to take place in the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal from the European Union. Furthermore, there were signs that her insurance policy (Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party) might be terminated courtesy of the trade unions before 2020. Put that lot together and 2017 looks like the safe option.
The size of the Conservative majority will be largely determined by the Labour Party not the PM
It would be an absolutely stunning development if the end result of the election was not that Mrs May was returned to office with an increased majority in the House of Commons. Indeed, her most taxing challenge in the next few weeks is expectations management. As of today, anything less than at least 40% of the popular vote and a majority of 100 seats would seem a disappointment.
Whether the Conservatives can clear that hurdle and move closer to 45% of the vote and a majority nearer to 150 seats than 100 depends, perhaps ironically, less on themselves than Labour. The Conservative campaign, its themes and its discipline, are entirely predictable. It will be called ‘dull’ by the media but it, like the Prime Minister herself, will be sober and effective. It will focus remorselessly on holding the current pro-Conservative coalition together and turning it out to vote.
What is less clear is whether Labour will be able to make the most of its brand, keep its core support together and thus push itself closer to 30% of the national vote than 20% and so limit the damage inflicted to it in potentially marginal constituencies. For this election presents the hard left and the Momentum faction will a very serious dilemma. Any sort of defeat means that Mr Corbyn would be unlikely to last longer than the party conference in September. That would mean an internal election on the current rules that require 15% of MPs to nominate a contender. This would be curtains for the likes of Momentum, especially as this snap election means that all sitting Labour MPs who want to stand again will, because of the pressure of time, be automatically re-selected and so cannot be deposed by hostile activists and members. The atmosphere between essentially anti-Corbyn Labour candidates and their many strongly pro-Corbyn local campaigners is likely to be little short of toxic.
Would a clear May victory have an impact on the Brexit negotiations?
'Yes’ is the simple answer, although the scale of the effect is much harder to estimate. It depends in part on perceptions as to how much any victory was an endorsement of her Brexit stance and not just a repudiation of her opponents. It also depends how explicit she decides to be in the campaign and the Conservative Manifesto about her ‘red lines’ in terms of both the so-called ‘divorce bill’ and the trade-off between single market access, migration control and payments to the EU budget.
It also depends on whether a relatively clean win for her is countered by equally stark triumphs for whomever emerges as President of France or Chancellor of Germany, or whether she might benefit from an outcome in Paris in which the new President does not have a reliable majority inside the National Assembly and whether the next Chancellor in Berlin can form a stable administration.
At a minimum a May victory in 2017 takes any notion (slim as it might be) of a second EU referendum in the UK off the table entirely. It also may make adopting transitional arrangements that could now last until June 2022 rather than May 2020 without being politically uncomfortable for Mrs May a more appealing possibility. That might well end up being the most meaningful aspect of this election.
Tim Hames
Director General, BVCA