What if -- perish the thought -- a Shadow Government contributor made a policy suggestion
that turns out not to work? In the
interest of self-scrutiny and blogosphere accountability, that just might be
the case with this recommendation
by yours truly from a couple months ago that President Obama build a close
relationship with soon-to-be-elected British Prime Minister David Cameron. A recommendation I still stand by -- but only
if Cameron actually does get elected. Which
is now by no means certain, as the May 6th election date looms and
UK voters begin to tune in. A spate of polls here in the UK in
the last couple of weeks show the Conservative lead dwindling to the point of
discomfort. Yes, the Tories are still
ahead, but margins
as low as 4 points are nothing like the steady
lead of about 15 points that they had enjoyed for much of the past year -- numbers that it seems were driven more by voter disdain for Labour and Gordon
Brown than by a genuine embrace of the Tories. And given that the electoral map is
heavily
biased towards Labour, as Gerald Warner points out the Conservatives probably
need to win 41 per cent to Labour's 29 per cent to ensure an effective
majority. Put another way, David Cameron
needs to get 2 million more votes than Gordon Brown merely to draw even in
Parliamentary seats.
Add to this
the unprecedented
television debates scheduled between Cameron and Brown which introduce a
whole new wild card -- surprisingly, such televised campaign face-offs haven't ever
before been done here in the land of Prime Minister's Question Time. While popular expectations are that the deft
Cameron will have the upper hand, Brown might be able to play the underdog role
to his advantage and pleasantly surprise just enough viewing voters to tip the
scales. And playing (to put it in
American terms) the Ross Perot-Ralph Nader-spoiler role, Nick Clegg and the
Liberal Democrats just might win enough seats to be king-makers in a coalition
government (though don't take the comparison too far -- Clegg is a more
credible leader than Perot or Nader, and the Lib Dems are a viable third party). With all of this electoral uncertainty, even
talk of a possible "hung
Parliament" is becoming commonplace.
Even as
President Obama's future British counterpart remains unclear, the overall U.S.-U.K.
relationship is in rocky straits. Existing strains in the alliance were worsened by Secretary Clinton's awkward
remarks about the recent Falklands imbroglio. Her words may have caused hardly a blip in
the United States but dominated headlines here in London, and provoked another bout of British
hand-wringing over alleged American disdain and the perilous state of the
Special Relationship. Yet just when
U.S.-U.K. ties are in serious need of sustained attention from each nation's respective
head of government, on both sides of the Atlantic domestic issues are consuming
all of the oxygen (e.g. the health care debate in the United States; elections and the
economy in the United Kingdom).
Letting
this drift continue will only harm vital U.S. interests. Many of the front-burner international issues
that the Obama administration faces -- such as Afghanistan, Iran, energy
security, and the fragile global economy -- cannot be addressed without active
European involvement, and the U.K. still remains the key linchpin for US ties
with NATO and the EU. Not to mention
that President Obama still needs
to forge a real friendship with at least one and preferably several world
leaders. His delayed-but-upcoming trip
to Indonesia and Australia offers a chance to connect with, respectively, SBY
and Kevin Rudd. The White House should
add to this list the U.K. Prime Minister who emerges on May 6 -- whoever he is -- and sit down with him very soon thereafter for fish and chips,
a pint of bitter, and a nice long talk.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE