By John C. Dyer, UK Correspondent
2 Jan 2012. London.
David Cameron became the latest European leader to warn his country that this coming year will be severely challenging. Last week fellow Conservatives Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel preceded Cameron with similar messages.
Cameron defended his government’s policies as necessary, but pledged to "do whatever it takes” to pull Britain out of the difficulties ahead. Cameron was short on the specifics of "whatever." Is this more than words meant to reassure restive UK businessmen? Does he mean something different or just more of the same? Cameron did pledge to tackle bank regulation, although, again, he mentioned no how.
Cameron at least invoked hope for future improvement, just not in 2012. Unlike Sarkozy, Cameron did not call for stoicism, precisely. But Cameron, like the Queen in her annual address the week prior, called upon the British public to “suck it up” or “dig deep” as it would be called in the United States. Both called up the British to summon their famed emotional strength in time of adversity to deal with the unnamed difficulties ahead. While nonspecific, both speeches succeeded at conveying the aura of a Churchillian wartime address (albeit without the fine turn of phase).
Perhaps the two clearest messages in Cameron’s speech were nonverbal. The first message was conveyed in his face. His lips curled as if sucking a lemon. I have seen this expression before at moments of real political crisis for the Prime Minister. The second message was the fact that Cameron delivered such a message at all. It was only last year he predicted the country would emerge from its difficulties in 2012. My how time flies. . .
Looking at the polls and British history one might wonder why Cameron displayed nervousness.
I will suggest the answer may lie in the intangibles of the character of David Cameron and in the dangers of separatist movements, but first a bit of background is required.
The electorate – those who say they will vote in the next election - appear to be in a frame of mind that would accept the Prime Minister’s message. Polls have shown for months, that the majority of those intending to vote in the next parliamentary election believe the Prime Minister’s approach is necessary. This is so even though a separate composite figure shows a majority believe the approach hurts the economy. A third composite majority continue to believe that Labour is more at fault for Britain’s situation than the Coalition.
The polls are not refined enough to tell the degree of overlap between these three composite majorities. However, understanding the nuances of those intending to vote may not require a PhD.
First, the prevailing synthesis in Europe supports the government's framing of the economic issues.
Those sources widely reported by the media and in whom the public place their trust overwhelmingly characterize the situation as a “debt crisis” created by governments and individuals spending money neither had. Hence austerity.
The IMF says it. The Bank of England says it. Commentators reporting the attitude of “the markets” say it. The now widely Conservative Euro leadership says it. The OCED said it. The World Bank said it. The European Bank said it. Respected journalists say it. The Chinese government says it. The US- for-Europe says it. Even Labour leaders acknowledge debt must be addressed. The daily gyrations of the bond markets and credit ratings keep the message before the public’s eyes.
For those who dig a little deeper into what generates government revenues, these same sources blame the economy on the global marketplace and a lack of "competitiveness" in Western economies. Pundits from news journalists to Chinese officials claim European workers must work harder, longer, for less, and expect less from government. Don't look at the free trade treaties. Some add what may be meant-to-be hopeful phrases like unless and until “the economy is rebalanced,” “deficit spending” eliminated, and sovereign debt paid down.
I don’t hear that reassurance coming from China. Interesting that this debate has flipped. It was not that long ago that Western leaders lectured Chinese counterparts that they had to increase the share of Chinese workers in China’s new prosperity.
But even the hope-offering pundits now caution recovery will take a very long, long time.
The prevailing synthesis leaves out dissenting voices.
Arguably equally credible experts have contradicted some or all of the prevailing synthesis. Examples who have commented on both the UK and the Eurozone as well as the United States include Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz, Pettifor, Marglin, and Delong.
But the existence of dissenting views (and of their impressive credentials) has not been widely reported in the UK, much less given the same level of respectful in depth coverage as the prevailing synthesis. More typical is the reaction of one BBC presenter to the Euro crisis this past November. In discussing the so-called "Big Bazooka," she asked her European correspondent in exasperation words to the effect of “don’t they get it?”
The prevailing synthesis is right, the dissidents’ view is wrong.
Perhaps remarkably, the prevailing synthesis does not deny that austerity is hurting the economy now. Even proponents of austerity use analogies to the 1930s first offered by dissenting economists. However, it is the nature of belief that proponents and pundits alike explain that the very failure of the synthesis to either grow the economy or cure the deficit problem demonstrates the need for those policies. Authorities need to work the same failed approach harder for longer.
It is little wonder that the polls show what they show.
It is tempting to rail against the synthesis and to accuse Cameron of using PR techniques to deceive the public.
But Cameron deserves a better evaluation. True, he is a PR expert. True, he does use PR techniques. But he is also a “one nation” Conservative who has consistently advocated a better Britain for all. He is not a “Thatcherite” who feels comfortable saying, as Thatcher did say, that widespread unemployment is a price worth paying.
I believe the electorate sees this also. So attacks on him for insincerity backfire on the attacker.
History suggests the synthesis may simply reflect a prevailing national attitude toward sacrifice and trusting the political classes to run the government. Cameron himself as much reflects this attitude as exploits it.
This is not the first time in history this attitude has supported a Prime Minister.
At least one pundit compares David Cameron to Stanley Baldwin, another suggested parallel to the 1930’s. Baldwin was, like Cameron, a “one nation” Tory. Baldwin served 3 terms as Prime Minister during the time period leading up to World War II and including the worst of the Great Depression.
Since World War II historians have faulted Baldwin both for Britain’s lack of military preparedness going into World War II and for Britain’s inadequate response to the Depression. However, while history has not been kind to Mr. Baldwin since World War II, Baldwin was popular among the electorate prior to World War II despite the austerity of his policies and the hardships the public endured. This is the basis for the analogy.
Yet, Cameron gave the speech and the nervousness was apparent. What does an analysis of polls and history miss that may have been on the Prime Minister's mind?
It appears that Cameron has at least temporarily tamped down his right wing rebels. Maybe the European veto. Maybe the polls, Maybe their calculation of his strength and what it would do to them to undercut him. Maybe his socially conservative rhetoric over Christmas. Whatever it was, November and December's “running of the wolves” has abated.
There are indicators of restiveness within the business community. Cameron appeared to be addressing this with his generic, I’ll-do-whatever-it-takes statement. But with VAT and train tickets set to rise yet again, anticipated dismal results from Christmas shopping right around the corner, bleak predictions concerning more belt tightening, the business community grows increasingly restive.
But I don’t think that either is the concern of the moment. The business community is somewhat a captive constituency. I have already pointed out that the political calculus does not favour back bench rebellion.
The answer to the Prime Minister’s nervousness may lie in two intangibles not disclosed by the composite polls.
First, there is the man himself. If ever a man was born and conditioned to lead it was David Cameron. He received a first in the prestigious Oxbridge program designed to prepare the nation’s future leaders. He is not, by reputation, a man who accepts failure easily. He is, by reputation, well aware and disappointed by his government’s failure to produce a viable growth plan. Stanley Baldwin’s mantle cannot rest easily on his shoulders. He is well aware how history judged Baldwin. History’s judgment is important to a man like Cameron.
Second, and perhaps as objectively important as the first, is something the composite poll figures disguise.
The “headline” figures are composite nation wide majorities. But all politics are local and in the UK even more so than in the United States. The composite polls do not show the geographic distribution of voter intention (although such figures are available if one digs).
The detail reveals a significant North/South divide in the UK. This is not news to pundits in the UK. The North tends to support Labour, the South the Conservatives. This divide reflects the economic divide in the UK. In general, the further one lives from London the less general the prosperity. The South, especially the so-called “home counties” surrounding London, benefit from and benefit Tory governments.
The headline figures also don’t disclose what those who are not intending to vote intend to do, if anything, about how they feel. One cannot assume what is on the minds of this large group, more than half the eligible electorate. One also cannot be sure its geographical distribution.
Why is this important?
It is important because the dynamics that held the United Kingdom together have changed. Force of arms held the United Kingdom together for most of its history. There is a residue of strong separatist national identity in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall. One only need look at the Balkans to understand that such residual identities survive seemingly forever and reassert themselves when the central state weakens. In the past ruthless force quashed these separatist movements. But today, for all their identity as the successors to the Normans, the Tories cannot “harrow the North” into submission if the North concludes its destiny better lies along a different path than that of a United Kingdom.
There is a leader with the capacity to capitalize on this dynamic, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Alex Salmond’s party is the Scottish National Party. That party stands for Scottish independence. Salmond has promised Scotland a referendum on Scottish independence before the next Parliament.
In the past, polls have not shown independence high on the agenda of the Scottish electorate. However, Salmond has pursued a New Deal approach to the economic situation. He has been critical of both Labour and the Conservatives. Some credit his approach with Scotland's economy performing better than the United Kingdom as a whole. He therefore demonstrates and symbolizes the viability of a different synthesis.
The South has tried, unsuccessfully, to force an immediate referendum. Salmond holds firm on a future date prior to the next Parliament. In the meantime polls show the Scottish National Party gaining momentum. Salmond recently chuckled that David Cameron was the Scottish National Party’s best friend in building support for independence.
If Salmond succeeds only in drawing attention and hope to an alternative plan, that success will grow those who have begun to look outside London for their salvation. Electoral dissatisfaction with the options presented by the Coalition and its disappointingly weak Labour opposition have in Salmond a rallying point. Whether or not Scottish independence succeeds, tectonic plates slip beneath the figurative feet of the economically weakened United Kingdom.
We know from pundits this prospect is of major concern to the Queen. It is also should be of major concern to London. The loss of Scotland alone would be almost incalculable. But the success of an alternative could reinvigorate movements in Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland and even the North of England.
At times, living in the North of England feels a little less like living in the same country as the "Home Counties" than living in a colony. Contemplating the British attitude toward government has been one of those "ah ha" moments for me, contrasting with the values inculcated in America's public schools. I grew up at a time when adults told American youth they were the leaders of the 21st century. The government was an expression of the will of its citizens, their servant.
In the UK, regardless of rhetoric, the people as a whole seem less citizens than subjects of a government that is the expression of the wills of something called "the political classes." The political classes had been penetrated by the working class in the 20th century, but once again they are becoming increasingly an elite indoctrinated-in-an-elite tradition in elite educational programmes.
It also often seems that government only sees itself to be working if it is hurting and imposing. Hence the Thatcher government readily wrote off communities centered on mining and naval dockyards. Hence unemployment was an acceptable price to pay. Because the decisions came from political classes tied to an economic structure based in the Home Counties and imposed on the subjects. Nothing in my experience prepared me for this. It has been as vivid a discovery as the beautiful green landscape, the powerful waves crashing the Cornish coastline, and the picturesque village square of Lytham.
It is not surprising, therefore, that independence movements have grown up in Scotland, North Ireland, Cornwall, and Wales. With each succeeding month of economic bad news, elimination of public services, loss of military capability, and accretion of power to the elite "political classes" it is as unsurprising as it is sad. It is certainly something Whitehall cannot ignore.
Perhaps this was not what troubled the Prime Minister. The severity of the difficulties ahead would be enough. But whatever David Cameron's private thoughts, it is very clear that 2012 will bring gales to a divided house with fracturing foundations.