What Do Britain’s Elections Mean for the United States?

Britain holds parliamentary elections this Thursday (May 6) that are widely viewed as the closest in the country’s recent history. The latest polls show the opposition Conservatives under David Cameron in the lead with anything from 33 percent to 37 percent, against 27 percent or 28 percent each for Gordon Brown’s governing Labour Party and the upstart Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg. These figures are difficult to interpret as Britain does not elect its prime minister in a national vote in the way that Americans elect their president. Voters choose only members of Parliament for their local constituencies, and the leader of the party that wins the most seats traditionally forms a government. This time could be different because the polls suggest that no party may win an absolute majority, and the Conservatives and/or Labour might have to woo the Liberal Democrats for their support in order to govern.

Q1: Why does the election matter for Americans?

A1: The way Britain is governed is important for Americans because the United Kingdom is in many ways the United States’ closest ally, and British global influence, while declining, is still significant. The United Kingdom is a strategic nuclear power (thanks to cooperation with the United States), a permanent veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, a member of both the G-7 and G-20 groups of leading countries, and one of the six nations leading efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

Militarily, Britain is the second-biggest provider of troops, after the United States, to the coalition in Afghanistan (as it was in Iraq) and is usually the ally most ready to fight alongside American forces. This helps provide legitimacy for U.S. interventions, both internationally and in U.S. domestic opinion, and also makes other European allies more likely to join such coalitions. The two countries cooperate closely in intelligence and counterterrorism operations, and their relations are marked by a high degree of mutual trust.

Diplomatically, the United States and the United Kingdom often take much the same line in the UN Security Council and cooperate in framing draft resolutions. Britain and the United States tend to see world problems in much the same light and to agree on the need for action—when other countries are more prepared to live with difficult situations. Washington is also generally grateful for British influence in the European Union, where London’s position is sometimes closer to Washington’s than to that of some other EU members. Britain is the most reliable free trader of the main EU member countries, and it shares similar though not always identical views with the United States on international finance—not least because New York and London are the world’s two leading financial centers.

Q2: So, have the issues that concern the United States figured prominently in the UK election campaign?

A2: No. The campaign has been largely about who should be trusted to rescue Britain from an economic crisis caused by escalating budget deficits—to which no party has wanted to give a full answer—and the differing personalities of the three leaders. Clegg inserted himself into contention with a sparkling performance in the first of three televised debates among the three leaders, the first ever such debates in Britain, upsetting the two-party rivalry that has dominated British politics for most of the past century. Brown, who was chancellor of the exchequer (finance minister) for 10 years as number two to Tony Blair, insists that he is the only one with the economic skills and experience to deal with the economic crisis and has tried to dismiss Cameron as an upper-class lightweight. Cameron argues that the country needs a change after 13 years of Labour government and that the Conservatives are no longer as distant and unfeeling as they are sometimes reputed to be. Clegg, however, has to a large extent stolen Cameron’s message of change and is offering a fresh approach different from those of the “old parties,” both of which have been badly damaged by a scandal involving the rigging of expense accounts by members of Parliament. Cameron’s main problem is that much of the general public is not quite sure where he stands on a number of issues and who exactly he really is. There have not been huge differences on most policy issues.

Q3: Does it matter for the United States, then, which one wins?

A3: In some ways. The most specific concern for Washington is the future of UK defense spending and whether Britain will be able to maintain its role as a global player and a U.S. comrade-in-arms. All three leading parties have promised early defense reviews after the election, which are bound to lead to budget cuts. Generally speaking, the Conservatives will be the least inclined to go for big cuts. All three are committed to the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan—although all would like a way out—with Clegg the least enthusiastic. Cameron and Brown have promised to renew Britain’s U.S.-supplied (submarine-based) Trident nuclear deterrent, while Clegg has equivocated. On a number of issues, the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour. A Conservative government would be more hostile to further European integration than either of the others—and would seek to withdraw from some EU commitments—while the Liberal Democrats are by far the biggest euro-enthusiasts. Even if many in Brussels fear a Cameron victory, he would not in practice be banished from the European Union’s inner counsels.

The question of personal chemistry with U.S. president Barack Obama is unlikely to arise in the case of Clegg, as it is virtually impossible to envisage him becoming prime minister. Brown’s relations with Obama are notoriously fragile. Not only has Obama signaled that he does not care too much for Britain, but he has frequently been interpreted as snubbing Brown—both by the British media and by Brown himself. Cameron would at least start with a clean sheet, although he would be unlikely to become particularly intimate with Obama, who has a record of disdain for European leaders. The main problem facing a British leader in dealings with the White House is that Obama is the first president since World War II who is not an Atlanticist.

Reginald Dale is director of the Transatlantic Media Network and a senior fellow with the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.