Britain’s fateful election offers no good choices
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
For three years and more, British politics has taken a fearful battering. Two Conservative prime ministers have gone, broken by Brexit. Parliament has polarised; the two-party system has splintered. The gulf in trust between the public and the political class has never yawned so wide.
Yet rarely have Britain’s political leaders seemed so ill-equipped to respond adequately. The Conservatives and Labour, colonised by populists, have abandoned the centre. Both have purged voices of moderation. Both offer illusory remedies that hark back to a half-imagined past — Boris Johnson’s nationalist Tories to the days of warm beer and empire; Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-left Labour to the state control of the 1970s.
These hard facts make the coming election singularly difficult for the Financial Times. We have long embraced liberal democracy, free trade, and market-based economies. We believe in private enterprise, even if we advocate reform of corporate capitalism. We believe the UK’s ties with the EU are central to its engagement with the world — all the more so when dealing with climate change, a rising China, and a US president seemingly bent on undermining the multilateral rules-based system.
The party most distant from FT values — and whose policies are most perilous — is Labour under Mr Corbyn. Its socialist blueprint would replace a thriving market economy with a statist model. Labour aims to reverse, not revise, the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s. Britain cannot entrust its prosperity or security to a leader who appears to believe the wrong side won the cold war. Mr Corbyn’s failure to stamp out the vile strain of anti-Semitism infecting his party is inexcusable.
In normal times all this would argue for support for the Conservatives. These are not normal times. This Tory party is high-risk. Mr Johnson has played fast and loose with democratic norms. His word is rarely his bond. His vow to “get Brexit done” offers a deceptive comfort to those craving an end to dither and delay. His withdrawal deal targets the hardest and most economically damaging Brexit: a “Canada-minus” trade deal, with commitments to regulatory alignment and security co-operation watered down. Creating a border in the Irish Sea risks weakening the cohesion of the UK.
The trade negotiations with the EU will make the wrangling over the divorce deal look like a playground squabble. The idea a good deal for the UK can be done by December 2020 is fantastical. But if Mr Johnson continues to insist he will not extend Britain’s EU standstill agreement beyond then, a damaging trade rupture looms a year from now.
The main parties’ desertion of the centre ground offers the Liberal Democrats the chance to be a voice of moderation. The party is close to many of the FT’s values. But it has run a poor campaign. Jo Swinson, the leader, has underperformed, and her call to revoke Brexit — without another referendum — is not this newspaper’s position. In past elections, the FT has variously supported the Conservatives or a moderate Labour party. This time, the main parties have put ideological purity before the good of Great Britain. Neither can command our support.
We recognise that many in the business community and beyond will inevitably conclude they must vote Conservative, however reluctantly, as the only way to keep Mr Corbyn from power. While a hung parliament might, in theory, allow Brexit to be rethought, this too would risk ceding dangerous influence to the Labour leader. Current polling suggests Mr Johnson is on course for a majority. He would then have — in theory — the political elbow room to be more honest about the onerous choices Brexit entails, and to adjust his goals to reality. Yet little in his past suggests he is capable of pivoting from opportunist to statesman.
If Brexit goes ahead, the priority must be to ensure a close and constructive future relationship with the EU. Brussels has made amply clear the trade-off between sovereignty and the access Britain enjoys to the lucrative EU market. The biggest manufacturing industries have warned that retaining regulatory alignment is crucial to their competitiveness.
Britain should not pursue a bare-bones EU deal in hope of reaping greater benefits from agreements with the US and others, which may amount to crumbs at best. A regulation-light, Singapore-on-steroids model will do little to help struggling post-industrial areas.
The next government must aim to build on the UK’s economic strengths. The depth of its capital pool should ensure the City of London remains Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre. In professional services, creative industries, in the research and educational excellence of its universities — and more recently in its vibrant tech start-up scene — Britain has durable advantages. Yet nine years of austerity have starved public services of funding. Infrastructure is creaking. An incoming leader must create the right environment to sustain foreign investment and take the chance to borrow cheaply, but prudently, to build the infrastructure enterprise needs.
Maximising economic opportunity across the UK will be vital, too, to avoid further fragmentation. Losing Scotland post-Brexit would be a tragic end to one of history’s most successful political unions. The country must focus on holding together and safeguarding its global influence.
Above all, the UK needs a political realignment, a swing back from the extremes to the centre. It needs a parliament ready to put aside three years of trench warfare in search of constructive consensus. It needs internationalist, pro-business MPs who recognise that even outside the EU club, Britain can — and must — remain a liberal, open European power. To those candidates who share these values and are ready to fight for them, the FT lends its wholehearted support.
Letter in response to this editorial comment:
Lib Dems are now the natural party of business / From Sir Michael Rake, former president, CBI
Comments