Sunak’s snap election looks like a calamitous error

Until yesterday there was a fair amount of goodwill towards Rishi Sunak amongst his colleagues. Tory parliamentarians would not have been happy with a defeat in an election forced upon the Prime Minister at the end of the year, but they might have understood it. Most MPs felt the PM had been dealt a dire hand by his two predecessors, that he had scored a few good recent wins, and even that he might be able to negate some of the worst damage if his stewardship of the economy and implementation of the Rwanda plan paid off. 

Sunak’s rain-splattered announcement changed everything. By bringing the election forward on a surprisingly brisk timeline Sunak has scuppered that sympathy. A minister texted me calling it ‘suicidal’. Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times has said the word ‘selfish’ keeps coming up. MPs are genuinely shocked, some angry that Sunak seems to have put ending his personal anguish in the job at the expense of the party. Whether that is fair or unfair, one thing is indisputable: whereas previously Truss and Johnson may have received a fair share of the blame, Sunak will now own the defeat.

We are told that Sunak’s election adviser, Isaac Levido, counselled for an election in the autumn. I agree with him. By going short, Sunak may have made things a lot worse for the Conservatives.

Let’s look at the arguments for going short. One is that, try as he might, the Prime Minister simply cannot change opinion. In those circumstances, why wait? 

But squint at the polling and there has been some indication that bold action on policy can make a difference. After Sunak’s Net Zero announcement last September, his ratings ticked up a notch. Our last poll at J.L. Partners, published at the start of the month, found that a good month for Sunak had impacted the numbers. Labour’s lead went from eighteen points to fifteen. Sunak saw a bump with male voters outside of the margin of error, closing a 13-point deficit vis-a-vis Starmer to just a 4-point gap between the two.

‘Immigration’ disappeared as a hesitation amongst existing Tory voters about sticking with the party, reflecting the progress made on the Rwanda bill. And whereas more people identified Sunak as a ‘follower’ in April, in May it was Starmer who had taken that unattractive mantle. Reform UK has also dipped in recent polling. Sustained, disciplined success over months could have plausibly narrowed the polling gap further.

Other arguments centre on the economy. One is that the reduction in inflation yesterday was not significant enough for the Bank of England to significantly cut interest rates any time soon. Even if it were true (there are numerous opportunities for rates to come down over the next few months), it would be a fallacy: the idea that the PM only decided to call an election after he found out inflation was 2.3 per cent rather than 2 per cent misunderstands how No. 10 works and the amount of planning that goes into something as big as an election call. 

What about if Rwanda failed? The case goes that, without the changes ex immigration minister Robert Jenrick and former home secretary Suella Braverman pressed for before their resignations, the Rwanda plan was never going to work, and the coast would be beset by a flurry of summer crossings. This is highly plausible. But regardless of how badly the public think the government is doing on the issue, they still trust the Conservatives over Labour.

Our most recent polling on the issue gives the Tories a six-point lead over Starmer’s party on who they think is best to handle illegal immigration. If the worst had happened, Sunak could have weaponised the issue, making it into a showdown over the European Court of Human Rights, driving a wedge between Labour’s voters. The Rwanda bill is backed by every group in society except for Labour supporters who are split down the middle. That is the very definition of a wedge issue. Even if it stuttered, it would have formed a dividing line between Sunak and Starmer’s intentions to do something about small boats. I consistently found when I ran polling at 10 Downing Street that the intention to do something on immigration mattered more to voters than the record in doing so.

Perhaps going short has lanced the Farage boil, robbing him of momentum he could have gained later in the year. But hasn’t this made a Farage return more likely rather than less, with a short campaign that will not disrupt his life and his plans stateside? We could find out as soon as today. If he does come back into the fold then Sunak’s decision will look even more foolish.

Fundamentally, when you are behind by double-digits it is better to wait and pray that something comes along to save you.

Instead, Sunak has locked the Conservatives in to a timeline that harms rather than helps them. The message on day one, a key framing moment, was lost in the rain. When voters do hear it, it is unlikely to land: when I read out part of the message on a focus group the other week ('We should stick with the plan') swing voters laughed out loud and asked, 'What plan?'. The pitch has not yet been rolled and Sunak has now deprived himself of time to roll it. 

Rishi Sunak’s best chance of salvaging something of his party was by going long. By not doing so he has restricted his party’s room to recover. Yesterday could end up being one of the greatest unforced errors the modern Conservative party has ever made.