Llewellyn
King
Read Llewellyn's bio and previous columns
October 1, 2007
Gordon Brown's
Election Dilemma
Gordon Brown, Britain's new prime minister, is facing a political
dilemma: Should he call an election this year or early next year, or
should he serve out the full time left two-and-a-half years to this
parliament? It is a tricky question.
It is not whether he would win this election: The polls show his Labor
Party would be returned with a reduced majority, energizing the Liberal
Party and positioning the major opposition party, the Conservatives, for
a win in five years. Any weakness in an election would suggest that the
Labor administration is losing favor with the British public.
Labor has had a long and successful run, most of it under Tony Blair,
but there are problems building in Britain. Putting aside the
unpopularity of the Iraq war, there are social issues, long-term
concerns about the economy and simple weariness with a party that has
ruled for more than a decade.
Electorates get restless and bored if the same party stays in power too
long. The Conservatives found this after Margaret Thatcher left office,
and the same may be true for Brown's government.
The smart money is on a new election. If Brown wins it easily, he will
be confirmed as his own man, rather than Blair's designated successor,
and he will be empowered to pursue goals close to his own heart. These
include putting more space between himself and the United States, and a
serious commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also would
like to pursue goals of social justice for the British by modernizing,
and possible extending, the programs of the welfare society.
At the top of this list is the National Health Service (NHS). During
Blair's government, when Brown was the finance minister, substantial new
money was allocated to the health service and it has shown some
improvement. But recent studies indicate that much of this improvement
was to doctors' and NHS administrators' salaries. The speed of health
care delivery improved, but not as much as Brown had hoped. It is said
in Britain that the health service is great if you have a heart attack,
and a disaster if you have an ingrown toenail. Brown would like to see a
more efficient health service. But he has learned that it can absorb
money with little improvement if the structure goes unchanged.
Brown is brilliant, reserved, and does not have his predecessor's
capacity to suffer fools. He can appear rude and uninterested if his
intellectual standards are not met.
A
Scottish socialist, who came up in the trade union movement, Brown is
all business, sometimes humorless, and notably lacking in political
small talk.
When I met Brown, I found him to be a man interested in big projects and
very confident of his own judgment. At the time, he was pushing for a
$50-billion relief fund for Africa. When I asked him how this money
would not be wasted, as so much else has been, he snapped, We'll give
it to the right people. He does not care to have grand schemes he
endorses questioned. Yet, you get the feeling that there is something
wise about Brown, that he is more genuine than Blair, and more removed
than most politicians from the day-to-day business of politics.
It is not difficult to imagine Brown as an American businessman. It is
much harder to imagine Brown as an American politician, negotiating the
frothy waters of sound bites and political correctness.
Where Brown may differ most profoundly from contemporary politicians,
including his former leader, is that he believes that the state can
deliver. Brown has shown none of Blair's enthusiasm for private
business. Nor has he shown any of Blair's enthusiasm for the world
stage, leaving the business of government to his cabinet.
For domestic political reasons, Brown appears intent on setting a course
away from America, although it would be wrong to say that he is
anti-American. He has traveled here often, and has vacationed on Cape
Cod. He likes the place, but doesn't always agree with it, a British
political observer told me.
Domestically, Brown has the problem of coming to power at the end of a
long period of economic prosperity. The pound is strong and unemployment
is low. But the country has been seriously shaken by the collapse of one
of its large mortgage lenders, Northern Rock. The Rock took a beating in
the liquidity crunch that followed the sub-prime mortgage debacle in the
United States.
Brown also has to deal with divisive issues of immigration, Islamic
terrorism and public loutishness, which are causing native Britons to
leave in droves. While Labor Party faithfuls feel Brown should ensure
five years of government by calling an election right away, the canny
prime minister may be worried about the danger of opening so many wounds
at this time.
© 2007 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This
is Column # LK010.
Request permission to publish here. |