The Post-election UK:
People are recovering from the shock and asking what on earth it
all means. The general view is that Cameron now not only has a
stronger hand for the EU referendum but that he will win it. There's
also growing support for my view that the UK will transmogrify into a
federation. Our old friend, Timothy Garton Ash, put this forward in
The Guardian and his article was reprinted in El País. And see the
article at the end of this post for Niall Ferguson, "Britain's
leading historian". As he says: The election result is
being seen by many commentators as a threat to both unions: the
British one and the European one. True, the Scots voted for a party
that wants to leave the UK. True, the English voted for a party that
promised a referendum on leaving the EU. But neither danger seems
that real. The SNP is much less eager for independence than its
leaders like to pretend, while Cameron will win his referendum on
Europe. Even The Guardian itself has fallen in behind me: So
now we need a Federal Kingdom of Britain. Otherwise this most
dramatic British election result could mark the beginning of the end
of Britain, and of Britain in the the probably paltry results of
Cameron’s self-styled renegotiation with Brussels. So let’s think
big in response. It will take years to get there. But on Monday, when
we have caught up on lost sleep, let’s start designing the
foundations for the new state we need: the Federal Kingdom of
Britain. Remember: You heard it here first! Me for President.
By the way . . . If
you're a supporter of Britain's exit from the EU, this is the site
you should be reading every day.
Here in Spain, the peal
of midnight on Thursday saw the official start of the campaign for
local elections later this month. Unofficial activities began before
12 but those responsible will be fined, if they can catch them.
Anyway, one second after midnight and all over Spain, party activists
rushed to paste inordinate numbers of posters wherever they could.
Which explains this scene that foxed me on Friday morning.
Down in Valencia,
members of the public, angered by policemen (local,
regional and national) have been venting their spleen on Facebook.
Here's a few examples, shorn of colourful Spanish swear words:-
'Tweed-capped red-neck
yokels'
'Tinpot second-rate
rustlers'
'Nobodies'
'Cocky show-offs'
'Cheap and worthless
Clint Eastwoods'
“Brazen, pig-ignorant
cops'
"Abusers of their
authority"
These have been
accompanied by fotos of patrol cars in disabled parking spaces, on
yellow kerbs, in front of garages with 'no parking' signs or in taxi
ranks. But now the city council is investigating whether there are
grounds for prosecution for libel because "They go beyond the
principle of freedom of speech'. Additionally, the police have
demanded of Facebook that they take down the page, on the grounds it
constitutes 'incitement to hatred'. Plus, they say that, as civil
servants, they're entitled to time off for their morning coffee and
it's most efficient to park near the café. Only in Spain?
Finally . . . Don't you
love the advertising slogans of big companies, particularly that of
the Yorkshire - We care about here. I mean, WTF does it mean? Why
not - We care about here, there and everywhere? My guess is it's
a bit of regionalism, playing to the 'independence' (i. e.
bloody-mindedness) of Yorkshire folk. Of which I'm an admirer, of
course.
NIAL FERGUSON
The election result is
seen as a threat to the United Kingdom and the EU. But Scotland won’t
break away and Cameron will surely win his referendum, says Britain’s
leading historian
Try explaining this
election to an American. Even the tiny number who follow British
politics are baffled.
“So what happened in
the English election?”
“You mean the
election in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Well, the Conservatives won in England, but the Scottish nationalists
won in Scotland. Nothing much changed in Wales and Northern Ireland.”
“Wait, but didn’t
the SNP just lose that referendum on independence?”
“Yes, but this time
the Scots were voting for people to represent them in London. So they
naturally voted for people who are against being governed from
London.”
“Got it. So now does
there have to be a UK referendum on membership of the European
Union?”
“Yes.”
“I guess the Scottish
nationalists want out of Europe, too.”
“No, they would
ideally like to leave the UK but stay in the EU.”
“They’d rather be
governed from Brussels than London?”
“Something like
that.”
Come to think of it,
even I as a Scotsman am feeling a wee bit bemused.
As every commentator
has said, the scale of the SNP’s victory in Scotland was epoch
making. (I was so excited that I predicted a “seismic earthquake”
on Channel 4 News, which is the kind of thing you blurt out when
stuck in a darkened Massachusetts television studio with nothing but
an earpiece connecting you, after several seconds of maddening delay,
to London.)
All but three Scottish
seats fell to the nationalists. The Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems
were left with just one seat apiece. But the biggest loser by far was
the Labour party, which for half a century has been able to count on
at least 40 seats north of the border. From 41 to one. That is not a
defeat. That is a massacre worthy of Glencoe in 1692.
For more than a
generation, the Scottish Labour party has been over-represented not
only in the House of Commons but also on the party’s front bench.
For more than a generation, many cabinet-level Labour MPs have spoken
with a Scottish accent. That era is now over. Gordon Brown’s
Kirkcaldy seat has gone. In Renfrewshire East, the Labour leader in
Scotland, Jim Murphy, was soundly beaten. Douglas Alexander, the
party’s election strategist, lost his Paisley and Renfrewshire
South seat — to a 20-year-old woman with a Gaelic name (Mhairi
Black).
Five years ago, the SNP
won just under a fifth of Scottish votes and a mere six seats. This
weekend Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s formidable new leader, has 56
and owns the country. She also has, in the form of her predecessor
Alex Salmond, a wily political operator in the belly of the English
beast, the Westminster parliament.
Understandably, Salmond
was ready on Thursday night with a triumphant soundbite about the
lion that roared. He also claimed that David Cameron now lacked
“legitimacy” in Scotland. However, such characteristically
bombastic rhetoric should not panic anyone into expecting an imminent
Scottish secession from the Union.
First, the SNP has to
focus its attention on the Scottish parliament elections due in May
2016. It needs to repeat last week’s performance to control
Scotland itself.
Second, the party needs
to decide how to react to the latest blandishments from the Tories.
It is clear from statements by Cameron, George Osborne and Boris
Johnson that the Conservatives intend to offer the SNP a deal it will
be hard-pressed to turn down.
Whether it is “fiscal
autonomy”, “devolution max” or the “federalism” floated by
Johnson, this deal will involve granting more spending and
tax-raising powers to Edinburgh.
The Tories have a
stronger hand than anyone expected. They know Scots were reluctant to
back the SNP when the issue was independence. Instead, they voted SNP
when the issue was Scottish representation at Westminster.
Salmond and Sturgeon
would be mad to risk another referendum now. On the other hand, they
must worry that yesterday marks the high tide of their popularity.
The nationalists may
also fear that a long overdue Tory revival in Scotland could start
today. There is, after all, nothing unnatural about Conservatism in
Scotland — or rather Unionism, to give it the correct name.
In 1955 the Unionists
were the biggest party in Scotland with more than half of the popular
vote. As recently as 2010 the Conservatives could still get nearly
17% of Scottish votes. Last week they fell just below 15%, double the
Lib Dem share of the vote and only 10 points behind Labour.
The SNP cannot expect
to monopolise power in Scotland for long. The real question is who
will emerge as the natural party of opposition to the nationalists.
With Cameron triumphant in the south, might it finally be time for a
Unionist revival?
The other problem for
the SNP is how to co-operate with Labour at Westminster, if there is
to be anything like a united opposition, while at the same time
seeking to destroy them at Holyrood. Such a two-faced strategy will
surely be impossible.
Technically, Cameron
has a 15-seat working majority. In practice, so long as the SNP and
Labour are at daggers drawn, he faces a divided opposition.
Meanwhile, Cameron must
now honour his pledge to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU
membership. Could this lead to the break-up of the EU? No, because
this is a referendum he should easily win.
First, with no further
need for the Lib Dems, his powers of political patronage have been
doubled. Disaffected backbenchers will soon be receiving calls for
meetings with the PM. Some will succumb to the tempting offer of a
junior ministerial job. Euroscepticism is not dead, but it will be
weakened. The Conservative party always loves a winning leader.
Second, Boris Johnson
is now inside the government tent, rather than outside as he has been
as mayor of London. Having won a Commons seat, he is likely to be
given a high-level post in due course. Nothing could more effectively
constrain him and put a stop to his occasional opportunistic sallies
against the EU.
Third, Ukip’s failure
to win more than a single seat is a heavy blow for Nigel Farage,
whose populist campaign failed to deliver the breakthrough he had
hoped for.
Finally, it is hard to
see Labour doing more than mutter “Amen” to Cameron as he seeks
to wrest concessions from Brussels and Berlin. Whoever emerges as
Labour leader — whether it is Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall or Chuka
Umunna — will need to be very afraid of the progress Ukip has made
in the north of England. The party’s 12.6% share of the nationwide
vote was impressive — and a large chunk of that came from
disillusioned Labour supporters.
The point about Ukip is
that it is much more an anti-immigration party than an anti- Europe
party. Nevertheless, it cannot possibly help Labour counter the Ukip
challenge to make Europe an issue in the coming years, especially if
that means being more pro-Europe than the government.
The election result is
being seen by many commentators as a threat to both unions: the
British one and the European one. True, the Scots voted for a party
that wants to leave the UK. True, the English voted for a party that
promised a referendum on leaving the EU. But neither danger seems
that real. The SNP is much less eager for independence than its
leaders like to pretend, while Cameron will win his referendum on
Europe.
Paradoxical as it may
seem, the British electorate voted on Thursday like true Europeans.
British politics, once the domain of two parties, is now
characterised by multiple parties. Regional nationalists and
environmentalists now enjoy substantial public support.
Two venerable parties —
Labour and the Liberals — are in dire straits, victims of the
post-crisis backlash against political establishments that we see all
over Europe. Moderate conservatism, as personified by Cameron, is
clearly the dominant force in England, as it is in Germany, where
Angela Merkel is a vital ally.
No one can overstate
the importance of this unexpected Tory victory. On paper, it is true,
Cameron has a majority almost as small as Attlee’s in 1950 and
Wilson’s in 1964. Unlike those leaders, moreover, he cannot opt for
a second election on the old “back me or sack me” basis. Over
five years, he is highly likely to lose seats and could end up
running a minority government with Ulster unionist support.
On the other hand,
Cameron now confronts a deeply divided opposition. The trick will be
to lock in these fissures by devolving more power — and more
responsibility — to Scotland (where the SNP tide is bound to
recede) without losing the essential foundation of the existing
parliamentary system: the historic first-past-the-post method of
choosing MPs, which remains the ultimate guarantee of firm government
for the UK as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment