As Britain is now into its
fourth day of a hung parliament, some of the gallows humor here in London is
asking whether the country is in fact the world's newest ungoverned state. Not that Britain is at any risk of becoming
the Somalia of the North Sea, especially since the negotiating process thus far
between David Cameron's Tory team and Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats has been
calibrated to send positive, reassuring signals to the British public and
(perhaps even more importantly) global markets. A range of outcomes remains possible, but as the very well-informed Tim
Montgomerie points out, a Cameron-led minority government (with LibDem
support) seems most likely at this point, rather than a formal Con-LibDem coalition
government that elicits much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the bases of
both parties.
But considering that the last hung
parliament dates back to 1974, this is almost unprecedented territory. And a possible Labour role in forming a government
even lurks in the background, as the hapless Gordon Brown clings to the doorway
at 10 Downing Street while dispatching Labour emissaries for covert
overtures to the LibDems.
Still, it is very likely that within a matter
of days (or perhaps even hours), some type of deal will make David Cameron the
newest British prime minister. He will
preside over a hung parliament and unstable government, and likely have to call
a new round of nationwide elections within a year. Consistent with the
no-one-really-knows-what-will-happen theme, herewith four reasons why the U.K.'s
hung parliament is a bad outcome -- and two reasons why it could be a good
thing.
The Bad:
-
Continued
inaction on Britain's fiscal crisis. The U.K.'s budget deficit currently stands at around 12 percent
of GDP -- a staggering, and staggeringly irresponsible level. If that number doesn't mean much to you, then
consider by comparison that Greece's budget deficit is around 9.3 percent of GDP. A fragile coalition or minority government in
a hung parliament simply may not have the electoral mandate, political will, or
even just votes to take the hard but necessary budget cuts. Yet as Margaret Thatcher's illustrious
Chancellor Lord Lawson (who knew a thing or two about inheriting a fiscal
crisis) points
out, global markets will demand urgent and resolute action.
-
No
clear leader in a time of need. Cameron as Prime Minister will be constantly tending to his unwieldy,
fractious coalition, while also being mindful of another looming election -- and
just will not have the job security and support to lead Britain on the world
stage. This hinders President Obama as
well, as a hung parliament is not conducive to Obama building a firm
relationship with the new U.K. leader. In
other words, this may not be the needed "re-set" button for the Special
Relationship.
-
No
firm anchor for the EU. Amidst the
tumult in Britain, it can't be forgotten that the EU itself is facing its own
crisis of legitimacy. Sunday's German
election results sent a resounding "nein" to Chancellor Merkel's bailout
package for the profligate Greeks, and were the latest body blow to the
buffeted EU project. Britain in recent
years has played a helpful dual-role vis
a vis the EU: helping interpret the EU to the U.S., and helping
channel the EU in constructive directions while restraining it from its worst
impulses. A hamstrung U.K. government
cannot play any of these roles, even in the EU's hour of need.
-
No
clear posture for national security decisions. Though national security issues played almost
no role in the campaign, the pressing issues remain, including the U.K.'s sizable
troop deployment in Afghanistan, an aging nuclear deterrent, and the ongoing
threat of terrorist attack. A U.K.
government distracted by domestic politics cannot be an effective government on
international politics.
Or, the Good (hopefully):
-
A
clarifying moment. Apropos of the first bad reason above, a hung parliament can also be a clarifying moment for the
nation. The voters have spoken, but the
market functions as a powerful electoral voice as well -- and the risk of
deepened economic crisis, credit rating downgrade, a plummeting pound, or even
a reprise of the 1976 IMF bailout may all provide the clarifying moment and
political will that Britain needs to make difficult but necessary economic choices.
-
An
opportunity for Cameron. He stands at the crossroads and faces the
question: will he be a caretaker leader or a transformative leader? He pursued a "split the difference" campaign
strategy of waffling between muddled centrism (e.g. no NHS cuts, vague talk of
a "Big Society" which as my colleague Ryan Streeter points out means "bungled
Parliament") and principled conservatism. British voters responded to this strategy by splitting the difference
themselves between Tories, Labour, and LibDems. Cameron now has to navigate now a restive base that feels bamboozled by
his "rebranding" and the realities of coalition governing. But this may be his opportunity to show his
stature as a true national leader, by abandoning the focus-group marketing and
following the path of principle. Which
just might be rewarded by voters when given a clear choice the next time around.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE