Other people’s elections are usually baffling and boring, which is certainly true of the UK’s vote tomorrow; indeed, many Britons share the sentiment. The longest election campaign in UK history has been strikingly short of focus. Nonetheless, the campaign contains three important pointers for other Western democracies.
The first is that former US president Bill Clinton’s famous campaign slogan from 1992 — “It’s the economy, stupid” — is itself stupid, or at least insufficient. If it was the economy that would decide Britain’s election, British Prime Minister David Cameron would be leading a much more confident campaign.
For the past 18 months or so, the UK has had Europe’s fastest-growing economy, and at times has even outpaced the US. The unemployment rate, now 5.6 percent, has fallen to less than half that of the eurozone.
However, good economic indicators have made little difference to the standing of Cameron’s Conservative Party in opinion polls and have done nothing to save their coalition partner, the centrist Liberal Democrats, from a severe slump. Too many voters, it seems, still do not feel better off, and for good reason: Average incomes have barely begun to rise, following seven painful years.
So the right slogan in this campaign might be: “It’s the living standards, stupid.”
Or, more accurately, though more cumbersomely: “It’s the perception of future living standards, stupid, and the perception of fairness surrounding those prospects.”
Either way, the point is straightforward: Statistical recovery is not enough.
This seems to be why, although it has only a small lead of 2 to 4 percentage points in the polls, the center-left Labour Party has had the best of the campaign. Labour leader Ed Miliband was widely derided last year as weak, unconvincing and unlikeable; but, perhaps benefiting from low expectations, he has looked steadily more credible and statesmanlike as the campaign has gone on.
The second pointer is that foreign affairs, though rarely a major factor in any country’s national elections, can contribute to a general sense of unease about political leadership. It had been widely assumed that the UK’s continued membership in the EU would be a leading campaign issue, given the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and Cameron’s pledge that, if re-elected, he would hold a referendum on the question by 2017.
Indeed, Cameron’s promise is arguably the most consequential issue at stake in the British election: If he remains prime minister, there will be a referendum; if Miliband takes over, there will not be. Britain’s strategic future rests on this choice.
Yet there has been near-silence on this choice. Both UKIP and its charismatic leader, Nigel Farage, have slipped in opinion polls and have struggled to get attention. More importantly, Cameron has said almost nothing about either Europe or immigration; and, though Miliband’s clearly stated pro-EU stance has endeared his candidacy to many business leaders, he, too, has played down the issue.
Perhaps this reflects my own bias, but I suspect that this evasiveness on the part of Britain’s main political parties has weakened support for them, by diminishing their status as valid representatives of the country. Voters might not list Europe or foreign affairs among the main issues that concern them. However, the daily news about migrants dying in the Mediterranean, the war in Ukraine, Greece’s possible default, the turmoil in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Gaza, Iran’s nuclear program and more heighten voters’ awareness that their country needs to be defended robustly, by a government with a coherent foreign policy.
And yet Britain’s defense forces are weaker than at any time since the 1930s. The general perception is that Britain’s voice in international affairs is less influential than at any time since then, too. Whatever voters think Britain’s foreign and defense policy should be, they believe their country should have one.
The final pointer of the UK election might partly reflect the vacuum in national leadership that such silence epitomizes. Whatever the result of the election, the most striking phenomenon will be the rise of regionalism, most notably a surge in support for the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP).
No one can predict whether the SNP might end up in the paradoxical position of joining a coalition with Labour to govern a country that it was campaigning to leave in its independence referendum of September last year. However, the SNP’s likely electoral gain is too large to be explained by secessionist sentiment alone. The party appears to be attracting many people who voted against independence, but who want more regional autonomy and a stronger voice for Scotland in the Westminster Parliament.
The absence of a broader “feel good” factor from economic recovery, resentment of economic inequality, mistrust of national political leaders and greater faith in localism: These are the main features of Britain’s election campaign. Whether or not they make Miliband the next prime minister — in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, or both — they are likely to characterize elections elsewhere as well in the years ahead.
Bill Emmott, a former editor-in-chief of The Economist, is executive producer of a new documentary, The Great European Disaster Movie.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry