What has happened to the Conservative Party membership?

Posted on November 12, 2024 by Andrew Defty

One consequence of the frequent changes of leadership of the Conservative Party is that it provides a regular update on the size of the Party. Political parties in the UK are not required to release data on the number of members and the Conservative Party has consistently refused to publish membership figures. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but there are a number of possible explanations. It is possible, although unlikely, that accurate figures simply don’t exist. At various points political parties, including the Conservative Party, have been comprised of different organisations or branches with different kinds of membership. Individuals might join a local party branch or a national party, a youth wing or an affiliated organisation. Others have suggested that the Conservative Party may simply be too embarrassed to publish figures which indicate a declining membership. The Labour Party, in contrast, has published membership figures since 1928, and Liberal Democrat membership data can be found in the party’s annual accounts. In 2018, the Conservative Party Chairman, Grant Shapps urged the Party to be more transparent about its membership, even if the figures were embarrassing.

Despite this, the Conservative Party continues to refuse to publish membership figures, forcing observers to estimate the membership based in part on periodic comments made by party members.  In recent years, for example, at least one authoritative source has relied on a 2021 Tweet by the Conservative Party Chairman, Brandon Lewis, expressing his delight that the party membership had reached 180,000.  

Conservative leadership elections

While the Conservative Party has been somewhat cagey about its membership, the election of new party leaders has in recent years been conducted in the full glare of publicity. Conservative Party leaders are elected in a two-stage process. The first stage involves a series of votes amongst Conservative MPs in order to whittle a list of potential leaders down to two candidates. In the second stage, Conservative Party members in the country choose their preferred leader from the two remaining candidates. The new leader is announced by the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, crucially along with voting figures from the poll of party members.  The relatively frequent changes in Conservative leadership in recent years have therefore provided a useful and fairly regular update on the size of the party, with the notable caveat that not all party leaders have been required to go through both stages of the election process.

The first leader to be elected on a ballot of party members in the country was Iain Duncan Smith in 2001. Duncan Smith was replaced by Michael Howard in 2003, however as no other candidates were nominated, Howard took over without an election. The next leader to be elected by a poll of Party members was David Cameron in 2005. When Cameron stepped down after the EU referendum in 2016, Theresa May became leader without a vote amongst party members when the only other remaining nominee, Andrea Leadsom, withdrew from the contest after the second round of voting amongst Conservative MPs. In 2019, Boris Johnson defeated Jeremy Hunt in the ballot of party members. Following his resignation in 2022, Johnson was replaced by Liz Truss who was favoured by Party members over Rishi Sunak, but when Truss stepped down 45 days later, she was replaced by Sunak without an election when all of the other potential leaders withdrew their nominations. Kemi Badenoch, is the eighth Conservative leader since 2001, and the fifth to be elected in a ballot of Party members.

What do Conservative leadership contests tell us about the state of the Party?

The five ballots of Conservative Party members since 2001 provide an insight into the recent decline in Conservative Party membership. It is a depressing picture for the Party. The Conservative Party has lost almost 200,000 members since 2001, almost 60% of its membership. Moreover, that decline has continued almost unchecked during a period in which the Party has been in opposition, in government as part of a coalition, and also with a sizeable majority. The Party lost over 94,000 members in the (admittedly quite long) period between the election of David Cameron in 2005 and Boris Johnson in 2019. The number of eligible voters in the 2022 leadership contest indicated a slight rise in party membership, suggesting that Johnson was perhaps the only leader across this period capable of attracting new members. However, there has again been a marked fall in membership in recent years. In the two years between the election of Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch, 40,757 members have left the party, almost a quarter of the party’s 2022 membership. If Conservative Party membership continues to decline at the same rate it has since 2001, the Party will effectively cease to exist before the middle of the century.

One possible crumb of comfort for Party managers is that there is some evidence of continued engagement amongst those members who remain. Average turnout across the five leadership elections is around 80% and peaked at 87.1% in 2019 with the election of Boris Johnson. However, turnout for the election of Kemi Badenoch was a long way below that 72.3%, and the lowest across all five of these leadership elections.

These leadership contests provide just a snapshot of the state of Conservative Party membership. It is also possible to argue that the moment at which a party changes leader is not when it is at its most popular. Nevertheless, there is clearly a long-term decline in membership, and this has real consequences. Political parties need members to stand for office and crucially to campaign. A decline in membership subscriptions will also lead parties to seek funding from alternative sources such as wealthy donors. This has wider implications for the health of our democracy.  Political parties don’t have a right to exist and those which fail to attract support will eventually disappear. If the Conservative Party is to avoid this, it will need to rebuild, from the ground up.  

________________________________________________________________

This post draws extensively on data from two House of Commons library research briefings on Leadership Elections: Conservative Party, by Neil Johnston and Membership of Political Parties in Great Britain, by Matthew Burton and Richard Tunnicliffe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on What has happened to the Conservative Party membership?

What do the British public think about another Trump Presidency?

Posted on November 8, 2024 by Andrew Defty

Keir Starmer was quick to congratulate Donald Trump on his ‘historic victory’ in the US presidential election this week. His aim was to remind the President-elect of the close and ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the USA, and perhaps also to gloss over some of the comments he and others on his front bench have previously made about Trump.

The British public on the other hand, have always been somewhat more sceptical than their political leaders about the so-called ‘special relationship’ with the United States. UK opinion polls indicated widespread public concern about Trump during his previous term of office which crystallised around Trump’s state visit to the UK in 2019. Recent polls suggest that public opposition to the incoming President has become even more entrenched.

Does the public care about the outcome of the US election?

In a year in which there have been national elections in more than 100 countries across the globe, the US presidential election certainly seemed to loom larger in the UK public consciousness than any other, even perhaps than the UK general election. It is notable that in a YouGov poll in January, more than 10 months before the presidential election, 64% of the public indicated that they were very interested in the outcome of the US presidential election with 19% somewhat interested, whereas turnout in the UK general election in July was only 59.8%, the second lowest turnout since 1918. A poll by Ipsos earlier this month indicated that more people in the UK cared about who won the US presidential election (49%), than about the outcome of the Conservative leadership contest (31%). Moreover, the public are not just interested in the outcome of the US election, there is also a widespread view that the results will have significant consequences for the UK. In a YouGov poll in early October 76% said they thought the outcome of the US election mattered a fair amount or a lot to the UK, with 49% saying they thought it would matter to them personally.

What did the public think about President Trump during his previous term of office?

Perhaps one reason why the UK public were so interested in the outcome of this presidential election was that they had such firm views on one of the candidates based on his previous term of office.

Following the 2016 presidential election, Theresa May, not unlike Keir Starmer this week, was quick to congratulate Trump on his election, but also somewhat unusually, promptly invited him for a state visit to the UK. Trump’s state visit caused considerable controversy. A petition calling for Trump not to be allowed to undertake a state visit was the third most popular petition ever posted on Parliament’s petition site, with more than 1.8 million signatures. A YouGov poll indicated that 55% of the public thought the visit should be cancelled, while only 31% thought it should go ahead. Trump’s visit did go ahead in 2019, but prompted widespread demonstrations in the UK and the President was kept at some distance from the public for most of his visit.

The British public were fairly unequivocal in their disappointment at Trump’s first presidency. In a ComRes poll in 2016, 66% of respondents agreed with the statement, ‘Donald Trump as President makes the world a more dangerous place’. In the same poll 53% said they thought Trump would be a bad President, while only 15% thought he would make a good President. Moreover, there is little evidence that the UK public changed their views in the course of his presidency. In a YouGov poll from 2018, 18% of respondents said they though Trump had been a poor president, while 49% thought he had been terrible. In contrast only 9% thought he had been a good president and only 2% thought he had been great. Moreover, these views largely confirmed what the public thought when Trump was elected with 59% agreeing with the statement, ‘I thought Trump would do badly and he has.’

Has the British public changed their views about Donald Trump?

The response to this week’s presidential election indicates there has been little change in UK public attitudes towards President Trump, and if anything, public opposition to a Trump presidency has intensified.

In the UK at least, Kamala Harris was more popular than previous Democratic opponents of Trump. In 2017, 56% of UK citizens polled by YouGov said that if they were able to vote in the US election they would have voted for Hillary Clinton while only 12% said they would have voted Trump. In 2020, 54% said they wanted Joe Biden to win, and only 15% hoped Trump would be re-elected.  Harris was more popular than both of her predecessors. In a YouGov poll in the UK earlier this month, 64% said they wanted Kamala Harris to win the presidency, with only 18% supporting Trump.

Moreover, support for Harris and opposition to Trump, was almost universal across all demographics and, with one notable exception, across the political spectrum in the UK. More than 80% of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters said they hoped Harris would win. While Conservative voters are more divided, 57% said they hoped for a Harris victory, while 25% supported Trump. Only amongst Reform UK voters did a majority (54%) support Trump while 26% hoped for a Harris win. Across all age groups, all social classes and all parts of the UK, more than 60% of the public were hoping for a Harris win. As in the US, men were more likely than women to support Trump, but in much smaller numbers, with 24% of men hoping for a Trump victory compared to 12% of women.

Perhaps not surprisingly then the British public are unhappy and also concerned about the prospect of another Trump presidency. In an Ipsos poll conducted in the UK before the election, more than 60% of respondents were fairly or very concerned about the impact of a Trump presidency on international security and on global economic stability. 61% were concerned about the impact a Trump victory might have on political stability in other states, while 59% thought a Trump victory might negatively impact the UK economy. In a series of YouGov polls conducted since the election, 57% of UK respondents said they were unhappy with the results of the US election, while only 20% were happy. 55% think Trump’s election will be fairly or very bad for Britain, compared to 18% who think Trump’s election will be beneficial to the UK.

There is, of course, little the British public can do about the results of an election in another state. Keir Starmer may well have to navigate some choppy waters, but the UK government will need to work with the incoming Trump administration. Moreover, there is another lesson from Trump’s previous term which may serve to reassure the government. Whatever the public may think about Trump they are generally pragmatic about the UK’s need to stay close to the US. According to one YouGov analysis from 2018, while they may not like  him, a significant proportion of the British public are ‘Trump pragmatists’, who believe the British government should try to work with, rather than distance themselves from President Trump, as long as he isn’t invited for a state visit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on What do the British public think about another Trump Presidency?

Is it worth assessing the Government’s progress after 100 days?

Posted on October 19, 2024 by Andrew Defty

Saturday 12th October marked 100 days since the Labour government led by Keir Starmer came to power. This prompted a predictable raft of media reports evaluating the progress of the Labour government in its first 100 days in office. The general consensus is that Labour has struggled to make progress in key policy areas and has often been distracted by having to respond to claims about Cabinet ministers receiving expensive gifts and by changes of personnel in Downing Street. Progress has also been hampered by the time it has taken Labour to bring forward a budget. Without clear spending plans it is difficult to present a clear policy agenda to Parliament or the public. Opinion polling commissioned to mark 100 days indicated that voters are disappointed in the government’s overall performance and  Starmer’s personal approval rating is at the lowest point since he became Labour leader. In a BBC interview, Starmer himself admitted that the Government had been buffeted by ‘sidewinds’ and that being Prime Minister was ‘much tougher than anything I’ve done before’.

Aside from the, far from startling, revelation that being in government is more difficult than opposition, is there any value in judging a government’s performance after only 100 days? It is a nice round number, but 100 days has no political significance. It doesn’t represent the length of a parliamentary session and has no significance in the electoral calendar. Moreover, Labour, wisely, did not seek office by presenting the electorate with a list of things they planned to achieve in the first 100 days.

What is the political context for 100 days?

There is some historical context which perhaps provides some justification for evaluating progress after 100 days of government, but this lies across the Atlantic. Franklin D. Roosevelt became US President in 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression. At his inauguration Roosevelt announced that the country faced such terrible challenges that a special session of Congress would begin immediately and would sit for three months in order to address these problems with some urgency.

There followed an unprecedented period of legislative activity. Congress passed more than 70 Bills, including 15 major pieces of legislation in three months, many of them providing federal emergency relief to those suffering the effects of the economic crisis and in the process expanding, in some cases in perpetuity, the reach and significance of the federal government of the USA.  

Significantly, however, although he instituted this rapid and dramatic expansion of the role of the federal government, Roosevelt did not promise to turn around the country’s fortunes in 100 days. Indeed, he only used the term ‘100 days’ later when referring back to this period.

Can we compare Starmer and Roosevelt’s 100 days?

Roosevelt’s achievements were certainly significant. Whole books have been written on the first 100 days of the first Roosevelt administration. In contrast, as one UK newspaper observed, the first 100 days of Starmer’s premiership will soon be forgotten.

There are however some good reasons why we should not compare the two. The context is obviously different. While Starmer clearly inherited a difficult economic situation, we are not currently living through another Great Depression. Moreover, many of the levers of state support put in place by the Roosevelt administration have existed in the UK for decades, and in some cases were already in place before Roosevelt came to power in the US. Although some might disagree, there is no need for a burst of legislative activity to fundamentally remake the UK welfare state.

Perhaps more significantly, Starmer has had relatively little time to drive forward his legislative agenda. The 73rd Congress of the United States sat in almost continuous session from the day of Roosevelt’s inauguration on 4 March to 15 June 1933. In contrast, the UK general election took place on 4 July, just before Parliament was scheduled to head into its summer recess. Parliament returned on 5th July, but the first six days of the new session were taken up by the swearing in of members. Labour’s term in office began in earnest with the State Opening of Parliament on the 17th July. However, Parliament went into its summer recess ten days later on 30 July. Parliament returned on 2nd September and sat for two weeks (a total of 8 days) before going into a three-week recess for the Party conference season. By the time Labour had reached 100 days in office, Parliament had sat for just 22 days since the State Opening of the new session. There has simply not been enough time to pass significant legislation in that period.

Unsurprisingly not a single Bill has yet been passed by Parliament in the current session. There are currently 66 Bills before Parliament, although the majority of these are Private Members’ Bills which won’t make it onto the statute books. Only 17 Government Bills are currently making their way through Parliament. Some of these are significant but it will be some time before we can evaluate the impact of the Great British Energy Bill, the removal of hereditary peers or the return of the railways to public ownership.

Given the limited opportunities for Government to legislate and Parliament to scrutinise, it is perhaps not surprising that the media have focused so heavily on things taking place beyond Westminster including donations, disagreements at party conference and the Government’s response to the summer riots. There is of course, always something to write about, but the 100 days tag is not a particularly useful milestone against which to measure the progress of the UK Government.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Is it worth assessing the Government’s progress after 100 days?

The 2024 General Election in numbers

Posted on July 9, 2024 by Andrew Defty

The election

Number of seats (constituencies) contested: 650

Number of candidates: 4,515. Considerable higher than 3,327 in 2019.

Average number of candidates per constituency: 6.9. In Northern Ireland 7.6; Scotland 7.4; Wales, 7.3; England 6.9.

Number of constituencies with 10 or more candidates: 27.

Number of MPs standing down: 132 (75 Cons; 34 Lab; 9 SNP; 9 Ind; 3 Sinn Fein; 1 each from Greens and Plaid Cymru).

Constituencies

Number of constituencies in England: 543

Number of constituencies in Scotland: 57

Number of constituencies in Wales: 32

Number of constituencies in Northern Ireland: 18

Number of constituencies which have been subject to boundary changes since 2019: 585

Number of constituencies which have not been subject to boundary changes: 65. Although 4 of these have a new name.

Electoral quota (average number of voters) in each constituency: 73,393. Except for 5 protected island seats.

Number of constituencies with single word names: 152. Down from 206 in the previous parliament.

Number of constituencies with “and” in their title: 250. Up from 161 in the previous parliament.

The results

 VotesVote Share %SeatsNet Gain
Labour9,706,12533.7411+209
Conservative6,827,11223.7121-244
Liberal Democrat3,519,16312.272+61
Scottish National Party724,7582.59-39
Sinn Fein210,9810.770
Democratic Unionist Party172,0580.65-3
Reform UK4,106,66114.35+5
Green Party1,943,2586.74+3
Plaid Cymru194,8110.740
Social Democratic and Labour Party86,8610.32–
Traditional Unionist Voice48,6850.21–
Alliance117,1910.41–
Ulster Unionist Party 0.31 
Workers’ Party of Britain210,1940.70-1
Others/Independent805,1122.86+6

Turnout

Turnout: 60%. Down from 67.3% in 2019. Turnout in 2024 was the second lowest this century, only slightly higher than 59.4% in 2001.

Seat with the highest turnout: Somerset North (76.3%). Where Labour’s Sadik Al-Hassan defeated Cabinet Minister, Liam Fox.

Seat with the lowest turnout: Manchester Rusholme 40%.

Number of seats with a turnout of over 70%: 32

The parties

Candidates fielded by party: Conservatives, 635; Labour, 631; Liberal Democrats, 630; Green, 629; Reform, 609; SNP, 57; Plaid Cymru, 32; Independent, 459; other parties, 518.

Number of parties with candidates standing in more than 600 seats: 5 (Lab, Cons, LD, Green Party, Reform).

Number of parties winning seats: 13. Three more than in 2019, but the same number as immediately prior to the dissolution.

Number of seats Labour won from the Conservatives: 182

Number of seats the Conservatives won from Labour: 1, Leicester East.

Number of seats the Green Party wone from Labour: 1, Bristol Central.

Number of seats Reform UK won from the Conservatives: 5.

Number of seats Labour won from the Scottish National Party: 36

Number of seats the Liberal Democrats won from the Scottish National Party: 3

Third largest party in terms of votes: Reform UK, 4,106,661 votes.

Third largest party in terms of seats: Liberal Democrats, 72 seats.

Number of parties representing constituencies in Scotland: 4 (Labour, 37; SNP, 9; Liberal Democrat, 6; Conservative, 5).

Number of parties representing constituencies in Wales: 3 (Labour, 27; Plaid Cymru, 4; Liberal Democrat 1).

Number of parties representing constituencies in Northern Ireland: 6. Up from 4 in 2019.

Number of seats lost by the Conservatives in Wales: 12

Number of independent candidates winning seats: 6. Up from 0 in 2019 but down from 17 prior to the dissolution of Parliament.

Seat share and vote share

Lowest number of seats ever won by the Conservatives: 121 in 2024. Previous lowest 157 in 1906, and 165 in 1997.

Largest number of seats won by Labour: 419 in 1997, followed by 412 in 2001 and 411 in 2024.

Number of times a party has won more than 400 seats: 6 (1832, 1895, 1900, 1924, 1931, 1997, 2001, 2024)

Share of the vote for parties other than Labour: 66.3%

Share of seats by parties other than Labour: 36.8% (239 seats).

Share of the vote for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives: 42.6%

Share of seats won by parties other than Labour and Conservatives: 18.2% (118 seats)

Number of votes per seat won by Labour: 23,616

Number of votes per seat won by the Conservatives: 56,422

Number of votes per seat won by the Liberal Democrats: 48,877

Number of votes per seat won for Reform UK: 821,332

Largest party share of the vote which did not win any seats: 0.7% (210,194 votes) for the Workers’ Party of Britain.

Majorities, marginals and safe seats

Labour majority: 172. Labour’s second largest majority after 179 in 1997. Largest ever majority was 209 for the Conservatives in 1924.

Seats won by fewer than 100 votes: 7

Smallest majority: 15, Hendon, Labour, David Pinto-Duschinsky.

Largest majority: 21,983, Bootle, Labour, Peter Dowd.

Seats won with more than 50% of the vote: 96

Largest winning share of the vote: 74.3%, Chorley, the seat of The Speaker. Among contested seats 70.6%, Liverpool Walton, Dan Carden, Labour.

Smallest winning share of the vote: 26.7%, Norfolk South West, Labour’s Terry Jermy’s victory over Liz Truss who won 25.3% of the vote.

Members

Number of MPs re-elected: 300

Number of MPs elected for the first time: 335

Number of retreads, MPs returning to Parliament after a gap in service: 15  (including Douglas Alexander, Heidi Alexander, Nick Dakin, Melanie Onn).

Age of oldest MP elected: 80, Sir Roger Gale, Con,  Herne Bay and Sandwich.

Age of youngest MP elected: 22, Sam Carling, Lab, North West Cambridgeshire.

Number of women MPs elected: 263, 40% of the House of Commons. Up from 220 (34%) in 2019.

Number of women MPs by Party: Labour 190; Conservatives, 29; Liberal Democrats, 22.

Proportion of candidates who were women: 31%

Number of MPs from an ethnic minority: 90, 14% of the House of Commons. Up from 66 (10%) in 2019.

Proportion of MPs who were privately educated: 23% compared to 7% of the UK population.

Proportion of MPs who never attended university: 10%

Proportion of MPs who attended Oxford or Cambridge Universities: 20%

Number of University of Lincoln graduates elected: 2. Leigh Ingham (Politics, 2007), Lab, Stafford; Martin Vickers (Politics 2004), Con, Brigg and Immingham.

________________________________________________________________

This post draws on a number of sources, most notably the BBC general election results, the House of Commons library on boundary changes, candidates, results, the Electoral Reform Society, the Institute for Government on MPs standing down, and Philip Cowley and Matthew Bailey on constituency names.

Any mistakes are mine and happy to correct.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on The 2024 General Election in numbers

Why has the Prime Minister chosen to call a general election now?

Posted on May 23, 2024 by Andrew Defty

The ability to choose the timing of a general election is a significant resource in the electoral armoury of a Prime Minister. It allows a Prime Minister to go to the country at a time which is most advantageous when, for example, the opinion polls are favourable, the economy is buoyant, or events (a military victory or national sporting achievement perhaps) have conspired to generate a positive national mood.

It is, however, a diminishing resource. Parliament cannot sit for longer than five years and if a governments enters its final twelve months without holding an election, the opportunities to hold an election can rapidly diminish. If the polls are not supportive or the economic situation is unstable, a government may be forced to hold a general election at a time which is less than advantageous.

There is considerable speculation as to why the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has chosen to hold a general election in July but, whatever the reason, this is hardly a shock or snap election. The electoral clock has been running down since the start of the year and the last date on which an election could have been held is 28th January 2025.  

The Prime Minister could have chosen to go to the polls in May to coincide with the local elections which is the customary time for a general election. It is not clear why he did not choose to do so, but many had speculated that once the opportunity for a May election had passed the Prime Minister would go to the country in the Autumn.

However, the room for manoeuvre in the Autumn is relatively limited. An election could not be called until September after Parliament had returned from the summer recess. This would mean an election in mid to late October. Any later would take it beyond the end of British Summer Time. Once the clocks go back, nights begin to draw in and party activists may be less inclined to tramp the streets in search of votes, and voters may be less inclined to answer the door. A November election would probably have meant the Prime Minister would have to endure another party conference. These generally take place in September but can provide a prime opportunity for MPs and party activists to conspire against a leader struggling in the polls.

Moreover, the weather in the Autumn is altogether more unpredictable and few would relish another election in the depths of Winter. If the Prime Minister was tempted to leave it until as late as possible even his most fervent supporters would wish to avoid an election campaign which spanned the Christmas holiday.

In contrast a summer election does not seem entirely unpalatable. Notwithstanding the downpour which accompanied the Prime Minister’s announcement of the election, the weather should be fine in June and July. This will help to encourage party activists to head out onto the doorsteps once again, even if it is only a couple of months after the local elections. It may also encourage turnout, particularly amongst older voters who are more likely to vote Conservative.

The Prime Minister may also be hoping for a poll bounce if England, although perhaps not Scotland, do well in the European Football Championships which begin in mid-June and reach the quarter-final stage the week after the general election.

None of this should obscure the fact that from the government’s perspective this is not an ideal time for a general election. No Prime Minister would want to call a general election when they are twenty points behind in the polls. In fact, a Prime Minister would generally do anything they could to avoid an election in such circumstances. It is clear that many Conservative MPs think the PM should wait, in the hope that the situation improves. The only reason you would not do that is if you genuinely believed the government’s position might get worse.

The fall in the rate of inflation which was announced on the same day as the general election may provide the Prime Minister with a crumb of comfort. Although ironically this good news has been knocked off the front pages by the general election announcement. However, if the government has chosen to pin its hopes for electoral victory on this tentative sign of economic recovery that may be because they do not expect it to be sustained.

The summer may also reveal the weakness of some of the government’s other policies. Most notably its immigration policy. The Prime Minister may have been tempted to wait for the first flight to leave for Rwanda, but it is far from clear when that might be. Moreover, the small number of asylum seekers sent to Rwanda are likely to be eclipsed by the large numbers who will almost inevitably arrive on the South Coast in small boats across the summer months.

The simple fact is, no matter how bad the current situation is for the government, with barely six months to go before he is forced to call an election, the Prime Minister may well have calculated that this is as good as it gets. It is hard to disagree.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Why has the Prime Minister chosen to call a general election now?