Why delaying the election won’t save Sunak from defeat

The prime minister’s ‘hold on to nurse for fear of something worse’ strategy will not be able to withstand Keir Starmer’s promise of real change, warns Andrew Grice

Rishi Sunak’s pitch will be: the economy is on the right track, don’t let Labour ruin it (PA)

Rishi Sunak’s decision to delay the general election until the autumn was inevitable, given Labour’s 18-point opinion poll lead – but it will not save him from defeat.

There are no new election campaigns in politics, only updated versions of old ones. Sunak’s delay makes his strategy clearer. He has placed his chips on voters feeling the benefits of an improving economy by October or November and rewarding the Tories for lower inflation, tax cuts, higher wages, a fall in interest rates, and the pain of higher mortgages being less than it might have been as rates come down (though it will still be painful for many of the estimated 1.6 million people who renew their fixed-rate deals this year).

Sunak’s pitch will be: the economy is on the right track, don’t let Labour ruin it. In other words: “Hold on to nurse for fear of something worse.” Elections often boil down to “time for change” versus “let us finish the job; don’t let the other lot ruin it”. In 1959, the Tories won re-election on a slogan: “Life’s better with the Conservatives. Don’t let Labour ruin it.” In 1987, Margaret Thatcher won her third victory with: “Britain is great again. Don’t let Labour wreck it.” In 1992, John Major’s Tories retained power with their lethal “Labour’s tax bombshell” and “Vote for recovery. Not the start of a new recession.”

Such slogans can help make the political weather but cannot turn a storm into sunshine for those who deploy them. In 1997, John Major failed with: “Britain is booming. Don’t let Labour blow it.” After 18 years of Tory rule, voters decided it was safe to give the other side a chance and did not reward the incumbents for an improving economy. Today, Joe Biden is not reaping the benefit of an improving US economy.

“Bidenomics” might be in vogue with Keir Starmer’s Labour but is going out of fashion in the Democratic Party.

With the economy the voters’ top concern in the UK, Sunak can’t avoid it. But his approach has two fatal weaknesses. Firstly, I don’t think he will secure a political bonus even if things are getting better. Voters are unlikely to reward him for fixing economic problems they think the Tories created. Playing it long won’t erase memories of Liz Truss (or Boris Johnson); Sunak can’t wipe the dirty slate clean. Crucially, for the first time, real household disposable incomes will likely be lower at the end of a five-year parliament than at the start.

Secondly, “holding on to nurse” requires Sunak to convince the public Labour would be “worse”. The Tories will reply to Starmer’s “Project Hope” with “Project Fear” as they try to scare voters about a Labour government. But their scattergun attacks – claiming Labour would raise taxes or borrowing or both – underline how Starmer stubbornly denies them the real ammunition they desperately need. That won’t change: Starmer is not suddenly going to launch any tax bombshells. Indeed, he is defusing them, gradually diluting Labour’s £28bn-a-year green investment plan.

To have a chance of making his strategy work, Sunak will need to fill in the blank page of what an unprecedented fifth Tory term would mean. He must answer the “Why the Tories?” question, just as Starmer addressed the “Why Labour?” one in his new year speech.

Although the Tories, the media and even some in Starmer’s party might clamour for more Labour policy detail, we have a much better idea of what Labour would do than what would happen if the Tories held on to power. The status quo? (No thanks.) Reheated Thatcherism? (Good luck with that.) One-nation conservatism? (His party and MPs wouldn’t wear it.) Sunakism? (What’s that?)

Sunak’s answer will probably be: “repeated tax cuts.” I suspect he will revive his 2022 Tory leadership pledge to reduce the basic rate of income tax from 20p to 16p in the pound by 2029. But he will need to tell us what that would mean for our already creaking public services. (He won’t.)

A confident-looking Starmer made a good start on the “Why Labour?” question. But too often, he phoned the politician’s old friend – economic growth – when he was rightly pressed by journalists on how Labour’s plans would add up. It felt like just the sort of “miracle cure” he decried. More work required here.

However, any leader would rather be in Starmer’s than Sunak’s shoes. I think the powerful “time for change” tide in the country will sweep away Sunak’s “hold on to nurse” pitch. Three in four people want a change of government – including a remarkable 47 per cent of 2019 Tory voters.

More than half (52 per cent) say they are ready to vote tactically; of these, 38 per cent would do so to remove the government, and only 13 per cent to keep Sunak in Downing Street.

After 14 years of Tory rule, Sunak cannot be the change the country wants; to voters, he looks too much like part of the problem, and so cannot be the solution. Starmer can be the changemaker; his task now is to persuade people he offers more than more of the same.