A snap UK general election was a surprise. The big question now is why, and why now?

To make the most of Labour disarray and seal an even bigger parliamentary majority. For sure. However there are risks attached, and other likely reasons too;

1. With many seeing the election as a Brexit proxy vote, bitter remainers may farewell to the Tories, if only for one election cycle. They may opt to give a new lease of life to the Lib Dems as the only party still singing a staunchly pro-Europe tune without the apprehensiveness of the current Labour opposition.
2. There is a remote possibility, given political discontent for a range of reasons, that a coalition involving some mish mash of LIB-LAB-GRN-PC-SNP could result from what may turn out to be a second referendum on EU membership that we were told so often would never come to fruition.

For the above reasons, the PM must be sure of her gamble, as any backfiring would be comically similar to her predecessor’s failure to secure a Remain result, having only agreed to a Brexit referendum in an effort to reunite his party by silencing hardline Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers and avoid politically-costly UKIP defections. It seems as though if she were to fail in her bid to gain a significantly increased parliamentary majority, this election will go down in history as a notably Cameron-esque gamble-gone-wrong by the PM.

However, if she is using this opportunity as a display of power and support ahead of Brexit negotiations with the EU to ensure we get the best deal, that makes sense.

But she needs to convince us her plan is only to marginalise Eurosceptic hardliners and pro-Europeans alike to ensure a smooth path towards Brexit rather than paving the way for a hard Brexit.  Her reasoning of wanting to prevent parliamentary blockages doesn’t really ring true as Labour MP Yvette Cooper pointed out this morning, with MPs and Lords both approving the triggering of Article 50 even if they did demand a vote on the final deal. Does she want the easier path to be able to ensure a softer Brexit? She is the PM, but, lest we forget, she was a Remainer before being promoted from the Home Office to the top job after the well-publicised BoJo-Gove clown show power struggle.

Yet on the other side of the coin, a parliamentary majority would allow the PM and her government ot pursue some of the more fractious policies that she herself has set out, most notably the intention to remove the UK from the single market, while perhaps even pushing for weaker guarantees for EU workers given her aversion to a Commons vote on the matter.

Whatever the reasoning behind the PM’s surprise decision, it will provide one certainty should she win. The power to hold office up until, and now far beyond, the official deadline of negotations with the EU as stipulated by Article 50 and a potential transitional period, during which time stability will be of the utmost importance. Instead of only being able to enjoy at most an 18-month Brexit-free period, May and her government will instead have the option to govern until 2022 (thanks to today’s loser, the one term old Fixed Term Parliamentary Act), a further 3 years of power and the ability to divert the electorate’s attention from what could inevitably end up a less than favourable divorce deal with the continent. That is of course assuming that such a scenario wouldn’t see her premiership dealt an abrupt ending.

For now, as has seemingly been the case for the last 12-months, we will continue to watch the polls; although having come full circle via the US, Italy, the Netherlands and now France, it looks like we’ll be doing so so on matters much closer to home.

For the second time in a year. Who’d have thunk it.

Michael van Dulken and Henry Croft, 19 April