Why did Boris Johnson call for new elections?

Question

I find myself confused by the events of the day. The BBC reports them as thus

Tory rebels and opposition MPs have defeated the government in the first stage of their attempt to pass a law designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

The Commons voted 328 to 301 to take control of the agenda, meaning they can bring forward a bill seeking to delay the UK's exit date.

In response, Boris Johnson said he would bring forward a motion for an early general election.

Doesn't this effectively end Johnson's short stint as Prime Minister? Or did he have no other option?

Answer 1

Doesn't this effectively end Johnson's short stint as Prime Minister?

Only if he loses, which is not a foregone conclusion. And even then, he doesn't leave office until a replacement is ready to enter: if it's a hung parliament, he would keep the office during coalition negotiations unless he chose to resign it.

Note that until recently (the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 took the timing out of the PM's hands) it was considered normal for a Prime Minister who enters the office mid-term to hold elections fairly promptly: failure to do so was a sign of weakness.

Or did he have no other option?

He's been making a lot of threats to try to get MPs in line. Failure to carry out those threats would completely undermine him. Carrying them the threat to withdraw the whip from 21 Tory rebels has left him a long way short of a majority, so he couldn't realistically hope to accomplish much without elections. He would almost certainly lose the motion on the Queen's Speech when Parliament resumes after the prorogation, which would be a major embarrassment.

Answer 2

Calling a general election dissolves Parliament, which is currently giving Johnson grief. However, he remains Prime Minister, with the executive power of that office, until a new Prime Minister is appointed after the election. He may see this as a way to deliver a No Deal Brexit.

There also appears to be the possibility (raised in other questions) that as Prime Minister, he can change the date of the General Election after Parliament has risen, thus preventing a new Prime Minister from taking over before the current deadline of October 31st.

Answer 3

If he calls an election then it's possible he will gain a greater majority than he had (at the moment he has no majority of course).

This will mean that not only for Brexit, but for other stuff he wants to do, he will be able to act freely. Remember, Boris is a Brexit fan, because it is a way to get him the PM job, not because he is a true believer leaver. For example,

“We would have to recognise that most of our problems are not caused by “Bwussels”, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills, a culture of easy gratification and underinvestment in both human and physical capital and infrastructure,”

he said in his Daily Telegraph column in 2013.

Polling averages show that the Conservative party have a lead. If the Conservative party is backing the ultra-extremist "no deal" position (as is the case) then the Brexit party have said that they would not oppose them in many seats.

The Liberal Democrats find it difficult to make headway partly due to the first-past-the-post system. For a different view see here.

The Labour party have a couple of problems, apart from minor issues like Brexit splits and a hostile media.

First, the Labour Party is divided in its support for its leader Jeremy Corbyn. This ruined its chances last time, and this is probably still a negative factor. Second, in recent years the votes from Scotland, which was once a Labour stronghold have dropped off, due to Scots nationalism. It's hard to imagine the Labour Party getting a majority.

So if an election was called at the moment, even with Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservatives, it's highly possible they would win due to the weakness of the opposition.

Answer 4

Calling an election has a number of benefits.

Fresh blood

First of all, it's an opportunity to get rid of MPs from one's own party who aren't absolutely loyal. Those people may at one point or another block legislation from the government or even support a vote of no confidence. Getting rid of them means bringing in new people who are selected to be more loyal.

To support this, consider the Guardian's article on recent deselections:

Among the 21 rebels who lost the Conservative whip were eight former cabinet ministers, some of whom occupied the country’s highest offices just weeks ago, as well as multiple Conservative veterans including the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.

As you can see, those are not just backbenches, some are high-profile party members who only recently were cabinet ministers themselves.

Some background info on deslection from the BBC (separate quotes, the BBC article gives a much more detailed overview):

If an MP is deselected, it means they are removed as a candidate and cannot represent their party at a general election.

Tory MPs have been told if they defy the government in a series of Commons votes this week, they will have the parliamentary whip withdrawn and will not be able to apply to be a candidate.

Maintaining popularity (among Brexit supporters, at least)

Roughly speaking, the British population is split into remainers and Brexiteers. Boris Johnson and the (ERG) faction of the Conservative party won't satisfy those who want to remain in the EU. As such, there is little incentive from an electoral perspective to satisfy their concerns.

Instead, they seem to have opted to double-down on Brexit, promising no further delays. As quoted from CNBC:

He has already caused a stir by saying that the U.K. must leave the EU by the October 31 deadline “do or die, come what may” even if that meant leaving without a deal in place.

This seems electorally savvy, as the UK uses a first past the post system. As such, if Brexiteers unite behind the (cleansed) Conservative party, they are almost guaranteed a large number of votes. Indeed, the new Brexit party, which won in the 2019 European Election, has already vowed to join forces with Boris Johnson. From Sky News:

Nigel Farage has told Sky News his Brexit Party will stand down candidates against the Conservatives if Boris Johnson calls an election and backs a no-deal divorce with the EU.

He offered the non-aggression pact while warning Boris Johnson would "die politically" if he fails to deliver Brexit on 31 October.

The other parties, however, may not be as united and when they split their votes (e.g. a Liberal Democrat and a Labour candidate fighting for the same seat) they may lose even in a remainer district.

Legacy

Even if Boris Johnson doesn't manage to form a government after the election (for lack of seats), he maintains face. After all, he has outlined his principle (leave the EU as soon as possible, no further delays) and he seems to do everything he can to make that true.

Anything that blocks his goal is due to others and he can blame them. For example, when (Conservative) MPs vote against the government, that's on the MPs, not on PM Johnson. When he loses the election, it's an electoral choice, not his fault.

As such, from the standpoint that he has taken, his record remains unblemished.

Answer 5

He's currently in a situation with no way forward. His former majority of seats is now down to zero, so this means he can't get anything through Parliament by a "my way or the highway" approach.

Johnson’s political predicament came about after Conservative Party lawmaker Phillip Lee defected to the Liberal Democrats, who oppose Brexit and want to remain in the European Union.

NY Post: Boris Johnson loses majority ahead of no-deal Brexit showdown

He's specifically there with the main goal of moving the Brexit agenda forward.

With the status quo, he can't do that. He doesn't have the votes.

So, either, he needs to show that he does have the support of the nation, and has the votes to get it done (wins more seats in an election), or if he does not have that support or the votes (loses seats in the election), there's no point in him flogging that dead horse, and he's happy to dump that mess onto someone from an opposition party - it's much easier to oppose, obstruct and generally screw up what others are trying to do than it is to govern successfully - something May, and now Johnson, have discovered the hard way.

Answer 6

It does not end his stint as PM. It imperils it: his government now has a minority of seats in Parliament and thus could easily lose the confidence of Parliament. Unless that happens, or the Opposition agrees to hold an election, or his party chooses yet another leader, he will remain PM.

He had other options. At the very least he could have not called for an election. He also could have chosen not to kick 21 sitting members of his party out of caucus. One might also say he had the option to act like he has a functioning brain inside his skull.

Boris tried to play hardball with his own MPs and he lost, that's all. Then he somehow thought, erroneously, the Opposition would be nice to him and grant him an election.

I must say, with a view from Canada, that I find the freedom of backbenchers to vote against their party or leader in the UK Parliament to be very refreshing. The standard tactic in Ottawa is to make every important vote a confidence vote, which blackmails the gov't MPs into supporting the gov't. This makes for inflexible politics.