When British Prime Minister Theresa May called 18 April for a snap general election to be held 8 June, her decision shocked everyone. She stated on numerous occasions that she was against the idea of an early vote. Nevertheless, her move was hailed as brilliant by many. Her approval rating was high. Just before her announcement, opinion polls placed the Conservatives at 21 points ahead of Labour. She hoped to boost the Conservatives slim working majority of 17 seats in the House of Commons, to strengthen her hand in Brexit talks with EU leaders and domestically. “We need a general election and we need one now,” she said. “I have only recently and reluctantly come to this conclusion, but now I have concluded it is the only way to guarantee certainty for the years ahead.” Appearing in total control of her party and the government, Mrs May emphasised the decision she would put to voters in the election would be all about “leadership”. She looked and sounded like the “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, to whom she so much wants to be compared. Not any longer. It is not the plain sailing she expected. It is actually looking very tough, and the outcome of the election is anything but certain. At the start of the campaign, some opinion polls had the Conservative Party at almost double the vote share of the Labour Party, indicating that the most likely outcome would be a landslide victory that would increase Mrs May's current working majority in the House of Commons. However, the last six weeks could not have been more challenging for Mrs May and for the country. Her election manifesto came under fire because of cuts in public spending and austerity measures. She was forced to make a painful U-Turn on funding social care. She refused to appear in direct election debates with other party leaders, a decision which made her look either over confident or cowardly. Most importantly, twice since the announcement of the elections, Britain has been the victim of terror attacks. And Mrs May's record as home secretary for six years, and as prime minister, are now firmly in the election campaign spotlight. In cases of terror attacks, there are always expectations that people would rally round their leader, but instead the attacks exposed Mrs May's decisions when she was home secretary. Why did she cut the number of police by 20,000 and reduced the firearms force at a time of rising risk? In 2010, May as home secretary agreed to a Treasury demand to cut police budgets by 18 per cent. Over the next five years the number of police officers in England and Wales fell from a peak of 144,353 in 2009 to 122,859 in 2016. At the same time, the number of specialist armed police officers has fallen from a peak of 6,796 in 2010 to 5,639 in 2016. The Labour Party has been targeting cuts to the Home Office's policing budget, accusing Mrs May of “letting austerity damage her ability to keep us safe”. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan did not hide his dismay, warning it could be harder to “foil future terrorist attacks” if the Conservatives cut police budgets in London. “The Conservative plans mean another £400 million of cuts to the Met (Metropolitan Police),” he said. “I'm simply not willing to stand by and let this happen”, he warned. Amid increasing criticism, the Conservative Party insisted police numbers “remained high”. Meanwhile, the PM defended her record, saying she had given the police extra powers to deal with terrorists and that there had been an increase in the number of people reporting suspected extremists to the authorities. But she agreed “things need to change” in the fight against terrorism, calling for more to be done about online extremism and for a review into whether security services needed extra powers. For the Conservative Party to have to defend its record on security and spending cuts is the last thing Mrs May would have wanted in the last days of the election campaign. She wanted this election to be about two main issues: Brexit and leadership. Indeed, she does not look the formidable leader she was six weeks ago. And on the question of Brexit, her strategy also came under fire. Her “No deal is better than a bad deal” approach to Brexit is looking increasingly like an empty gesture and dishonest. Under no circumstances would Mrs May stick with the “No deal” option. It is the worst possible outcome as the business leaders in London warned her. So, if Mrs May was hoping, from calling an early election, to gain more seats and strengthen her hand, she is not certain to get what she wanted. Opinion polls show that the British public seems unconvinced with her argument that a landslide victory is good for Brexit talks, the economy and national security. The latest general election polls show that Labour are continuing to narrow the gap with the Conservatives, and that the prime minister may not actually win many more seats. YouGov's latest poll has the Conservative Party lead at just four points over Labour. A good Conservative majority is still possible, but Labour now look set to win more of the vote than they did under Ed Miliband in 2015. If the race continues to tighten and the polls results are replicated on election day, Theresa May could be on course for a much smaller majority than anticipated. All options are actually bad options for Mrs May unless she upsets the opinion polls and pulls a big win. However, even if this happens Mrs May might have contributed to weakening her position in the eyes of the British public. She is looking haggard, hesitant and weak. If she does not win by a big majority, she might encourage dissent against her within the Conservative Party. In politics, you cannot afford to lose an elections gamble, especially if such elections were not strictly necessary. Even worse for Mrs May, she would appear weaker in the eyes of European negotiators just as the two sides prepare to start Brexit negotiations. On the other hand, the elections might also cause problems within the Labour Party. If Jeremy Corbyn loses many seats he might be forced out, opening the way for the election of a new leader. This is bad news for the Conservatives as a new leader might be a stronger challenger in any future general elections. If Corbyn resists this might cause a civil war within the party and might even push many MPs to split to form a new party. Even if Corbyn manages to win more seats in the election, turmoil within the Labour Party will not be over. Britain might end up with a weak prime minister and a weak opposition. It is a really strange election.
