Britain Sends Brown Packing

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 9, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

             Slapping Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the polls, Britain’s diverse electorate asked for change, something they haven’t done since electing Labor Party’s Tony Blair prime minister May 2, 1997.  Blair took the reins after a good 17 years of Tory Party rule, began when Baroness Margaret Thatcher succeeded Labor Party Prime Minister Leonard James Callaghan May 7, 1979.  Thatcher’s popularity paralleled that, across the Atlantic, of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who, like Thatcher, inherited a financial mess of epic proportions—the worst economy since WW II.  Unlike the U.S. after WW II, Britain was in decline both as a colonial power and as a world leader.  U.S. took a strong leadership position helping rebuild Europe and to a large degree reversing the U.K.’s economic downturn.  Having lost much of its colonial empire, Great Britain’s economy contracted into recession.

            Thatcher, the 1946 Oxford graduate in chemistry, rescued Britain with a new sense of pride and determination to revive the economy.  A staunch Russian hawk, Thatcher won praises from Reagan and other U.S. conservatives, adopting of the U.S. conservative manifesto in the U.K., balancing Britain’s socialist ways with refreshing free market ideas.  When Thatcher finished her term Nov. 28, 1990, less than two years after Reagan left office, she passed the baton to fellow conservative John Major.  Like Reagan’s successor, former President George H.W. Bush, Major couldn’t continue Thatcher’s charisma, though he road her coattails into office.  Major couldn’t catch Thatcher’s momentum, leading to Blair’s stunning victory May 2, 1997.  Since Blair handed the reins to Brown June 27, 2007, the Labor Party—and the U.K.—returned to its old mediocrity..

            Yesterday’s victory for Tory Party’s David Cameron, while not overwhelming, was nonetheless decisive, because of the Labor Party’s 13-year run begun under the ever-popular Tony Blair.  Winning 306 seats in the House of Commons, Cameron returned the Tories to respectability, despite Britons’ propensity toward English socialism, something the late British novelist George Orwell called “Ingsoc.”  Following the 19th century industrial revolution, Britons grew wary of the Tories, known, if nothing else, for preserving Britain’s stodgy resistance to upward mobility, favoring inherited wealth over achievement and innovation.  Cameron capitalized on growing social and economic discontent, watching the Bank of England driven into more debt by a punishing global recession.  While he didn’t get the full 336 parliament seats, Cameron is only 30 shy of a governable coalition.

            Tories best bet of governing lies not with Brown’s Labor Party but with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats, winning 57 seats in the House of Commons.  Unlike conservatives in the U.S., Britain’s Tories have more in common with both Labor and Liberal Democrats.  Cameron has far more bad blood with Brown than Clegg, who, during recent debates, seemed to make the most sense.  Clegg and Cameron agree on keeping British troops in Afghanistan, at least until U.S. President Barack Obama begins a phased withdrawal in 2011.  Both the Tories and Liberal Dems seek to make Britain more green and cut taxes for low-income families.  They differ on Clegg’s support of the euro, a currency looking lately like it’s going the way of the dinosaurs.  Cameron opposes Clegg’s support for proportional representation, namely, apportioning seats based on percentages won in elections.

            Joining Cameron’s government has many advantages for the lesser-known Clegg, whose showing in the election wasn’t overwhelming.  Getting some representation in Cameron’s government gives Clegg far for clout than his currently marginalized place.  It would seem to me very strange in an election that was dominated by the economy . . . if the government of the U.K. was held ransom over an issue that the voters did not see as their priority,” said Tory legislator Liam Fox.  Fox was referring to Clegg’s insistence on electoral reform at the expense of the economy.  Cameron won’t compromise on selling of the U.K. sovereignty for participation in the European Union.  Unlike Cameron, several members of the Tory Party have no intention of compromising with Clegg and Liberal Democrats.  Liberal Dems, despite differences with Cameron, are expected to join forces with the Tories.

            Voter backlash against Brown’s Labor Party stems mainly from the U.K.’s punishing recession that has forced the Bank of England into excessive debt.  Cameron needs about 30 Liberal Democrat votes to cement a governing coalition.  Ultra-liberal Dems won’t get their way with Cameron on ending the current gerrymandering that leaves Britian’s major political parties in power.  Britain’s electorate rejected Brown because he’s too old-school, not hip enough for rank-and-file Britons.  While Orwell once said, “hope lies in the proles,” Cameron proved more affluent voters actually participate in Britain’s electoral process.  Above all else, Cameron and Clegg agree on ending Brown’s lackluster reign as British prime minister.  Both see the need for dynamic new leadership capable of renewing Britain’s lost faith in economic and foreign policy.  Cameron wants to rescue the U.K. much the way Thatcher did a generation ago:  By awakening, once again, British pride.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.