If he can pull it off, however, he will have achieved the Tories’ greatest election win against the odds since John Major won a 21-seat majority in 1992.
Mr Sunak and Mr Major do have some things in common. Both were previously chancellor of the exchequer before becoming PM and both are accused by critics of being – well, frankly – a bit dull.
But in opting for a summer rather than autumn election, the normally cautious Mr Sunak is gambling on a number of fronts: chiefly the economy, migration and his “stop the boats” Rwanda policy.
On the economy, at Prime Minister’s Questions a few hours before Mr Sunak’s shock announcement, he told MPs inflation was “back to normal” and “the plan is working”.
Advertisement
Well, up to a point. Yes, inflation has hit its lowest level in nearly three years. But the fall from 3.2% to 2.3% was not as big as the government had hoped for.
And a June cut in interest rates now looks less likely. And what has happened to Mr Sunak’s pledge to cut income tax from 20p to 19p in the pound by the general election? Gone, presumably.
After his Budget in March, an upbeat Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, told Sky News his 2p cut in national insurance was “absolutely” not the “last throw of the dice” before the election.
With an October or November general election, which Mr Hunt clearly favoured, looking likely, another mini-Budget in September – with that promised income tax cut – was predicted.
But by opting for 4 July, the best the Conservatives can promise now in Mr Sunak’s dash to the polls is tax cuts after the election if he’s back in Downing Street. But we’ve heard all that before.
And on migration, the news is mixed. Nearly 10,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats already this year – a record – and the numbers invariably rise in the better summer weather.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party are ahead in the polls
So far, the threat of deportation to Rwanda hasn’t proved to be the deterrent the government hoped – but that could change once flights get off the ground next month. That could be a turning point.
Other good news for Mr Sunak in a snap poll is that although Labour are ready for an election, Reform UK are nowhere near ready. That was clearly a factor in the PM opting for an early poll.
The last general election held in July was in 1945, on 5 July, when Labour’s Clement Attlee – who had been deputy PM during the wartime coalition – defeated Winston Churchill with a 147-seat majority.
Margaret Thatcher was a fan of June elections, opting for 9 June in 1983, when she won a 144-seat majority, and 11 June in 1987, when her majority was 102 over Neil Kinnock’s Labour.
As for July, is a general election in high summer a good idea? Scots will complain that 4 July falls during their school holidays, which begin on 28 June and last until 16 August.
And what about the sporting calendar? The big sporting event of this summer is the Euros, in which Gareth Southgate’s England football team are strong contenders. 4 July is also in the first week of Wimbledon.
Image: Clement Attlee after winning the last election that was held in July. Pic: AP
The Euros start on 14 June and if England – or Scotland, to be fair, but less likely – progress to the last 16, those games are between 29 June and 2 July and the quarter-finals on 5 and 6 July.
General election coverage competing with football mania? Is Mr Sunak hoping for less election coverage? Or are the Conservatives’ election hopes in the hands of Gareth and the lads?
If history is any guide, footie fan Mr Sunak will hope Harry Kane and the boys powering their way towards the Euros final will create a feelgood factor that helps him win at the polls.
According to political folklore, Harold Wilson blamed England’s World Cup quarter-final defeat by West Germany, four days before the 1970 general election, for his defeat by Edward Heath.
So while Mr Sunak apparently doesn’t believe things can only get better for the Tories between July and the autumn, he will be hoping England’s footballers help things get better for him by 4 July.
Migrants convicted of sex offences in the UK or overseas will be unable to claim asylum under government plans to change the law to improve border security.
The Home Office announcement means foreign nationals who are added to the sex offenders register will forfeit their rights to protection under the Refugee Convention.
As part of the 1951 UN treaty, countries are allowed to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a “particularly serious crime” – which is currently defined in UK law as an offence carrying a sentence of 12 months or more.
The government now plans to extend that definition to include all individuals added to the Sex Offenders’ Register, regardless of the length of sentence, in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently going through parliament. It’s understood they also hope to include those convicted of equivalent crimes overseas.
Those affected will still be able to appeal their removal from the UK in the courts under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Image: More than 10,000 people have now been detected crossing the Channel. Pic: PA
It is unclear how many asylum seekers will be affected, as the government has been unable to provide any projections or past data on the number of asylum seekers added to the Sex Offenders’ Register.
More from Politics
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: “Sex offenders who pose a risk to the community should not be allowed to benefit from refugee protections in the UK.
“We are strengthening the law to ensure these appalling crimes are taken seriously.”
Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls Minister Jess Philips said: “We are determined to achieve our mission of halving violence against women and girls in a decade.
“That’s exactly why we are taking action to ensure there are robust safeguards across the system, including by clamping down on foreign criminals who commit heinous crimes like sex offences.”
The Home Office would like voters to see this as a substantial change. But that’s hard to demonstrate without providing any indication of the scale of the problem it seeks to solve.
Clearly, the government does not want to fan the flames of resentment towards asylum seekers by implying large numbers have been committing sex crimes.
But amid rising voter frustration about the government’s grip on the issue, and under pressure from Reform – this measure is about signalling it is prepared to take tough action.
Conservatives: ‘Too little, too late’
The Conservatives claim Labour are engaged in “pre-election posturing”.
Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is too little, too late from a Labour government that has scrapped our deterrent and overseen the worst year ever for small boat crossings – with a record 10,000 people crossing this year already.
“Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often this is frustrated by spurious legal claims based on human rights claims, not asylum claims.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:18
Has Labour tackled migration?
The Home Office has also announced plans to introduce a 24-week target for appeal hearings (known as “first-tier tribunals”) to be held for rejected asylum seekers living in taxpayer-supported accommodation, or for foreign national offenders.
The current average wait is 50 weeks. The idea is to cut the asylum backlog and save taxpayers money – Labour have committed to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of this parliament.
It’s unclear how exactly this will be achieved, although a number of additional court days have already been announced.
The government also plans to crack down on fake immigration lawyers who advise migrants on how to lodge fraudulent asylum claims, with the Immigration Advice Authority given new powers to issue fines of up to £15,000.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has called on government officials to address questions related to US President Donald Trump’s memecoin and his media company.
In an April 25 letter to Jamieson Greer, acting director of the US Office of Government Ethics (OGE), Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts and California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff requested that officials address concerns about Trump’s memecoin after the president announced a dinner and White House tour for some of the individuals who held the most TRUMP tokens. The two senators requested that Greer provide information on safeguards and guidelines related to whether foreign actors and others could buy political influence with the president, potentially impacting his policy positions and federal pardons.
“President Trump’s announcement promises exclusive access to the presidency in exchange for significant investment in one of the President’s business ventures,” wrote the two senators.
“In promising such access, this proposition may implicate several federal ethics laws and constitutional prohibitions, including the federal bribery statute and emoluments clauses of the US Constitution. It also raises the troubling prospect that foreign actors are using the memecoin as a vector to buy influence with President Trump and his associates without needing to disclose their identities publicly.”
April 25 letter from Sens. Warren and Schiff to OGE. Source: Sen. Schiff
The letter was sent the same day Warren reportedly expressed similar concerns about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to an April 25 Reuters report, the Massachusetts senator urged SEC Chair Paul Atkins to ensure that oversight of Trump’s media company was “free from undue political interference and influence from the President and his administration.”
Though ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Warren does not have the authority to direct Congress’s agenda with Democrats in the minority. Two Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives have already called for Trump’s impeachment over his memecoin dinner.
Warren added:
“The American people deserve the unwavering assurance that access to the presidency is not being offered for sale to the highest bidder in exchange for the President’s own financial gain.”
At the time of publication, it was unclear who among the top TRUMP memecoin holders would attend the dinner, scheduled to be held on May 22 at Trump’s golf club in Washington, DC. Speculation and analysis of users suggested that Trump supporters, including Tron founder Justin Sun, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and others, could attend, though none had been confirmed as of April 28.
Crypto users betting on the outcome of the snap election to determine the next Prime Minister of Canada appear to be favoring a Liberal Party victory as residents head to cast their votes.
As of April 28, cryptocurrency betting platform Polymarket gave current Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party candidate Mark Carney a 79% chance of defeating Conservative Party candidate Pierre Poilievre in the race for the country’s next PM. Data from the platform showed users had poured more than $75 million into bets surrounding the race, predicting a Poilievre or Carney victory.
Polymarket chances favor the Liberal Party’s Mark Carney over the Conservative Party’s Pierre Poilievre to be the next Canadian Prime Minister. Source: Polymarket
The odds suggested by the platform, as well as those from many polls, show a nearly complete reversal of fortunes between the two candidates after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned in January. Trudeau and, by association, many in the Liberal Party, faced criticism over the handling of Canada’s housing crisis and questions about how he would face US President Donald Trump’s then-proposed tariffs.
Following Trudeau’s resignation, Trump stepped up rhetoric disparaging Canada, repeatedly referring to the country as the US’s “51st state” and Trudeau as its “governor.” The US President also imposed a 25% tariff on goods imported from Canada in March. The policies seem to have led to increasing anti-Trump sentiment in Canada, with many residents booing the US national anthem at hockey games and making comparisons between the president and Poilievre.
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.