May’s June Come-Uppance
Sometimes gamblers lose. That is the case with UK Prime Minister Theresa May, whose Conservative Party did not win enough seats for an absolute majority in Parliament. She incorrectly believed that in preparation for two years of Brexit negotiations she could hold a snap election to increase the majority that the Conservatives won in 2015, after years of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
May could have continued as Prime Minister with an absolute majority until 2020, when by law she would have had to call an election. Her party is no doubt furious at her poor judgment, and she may well lose her position as Prime Minister through an inability to form a government or a vote of no confidence.
Instead, the election has unexpectedly thrown British politics into flux. Last month the Conservatives held 330 seats. Although they won more seats than any other party on Thursday, 318 projected out of 650, they no longer have an absolute majority in Parliament. Hence, they will need the support of the other parties—such as Labour or Liberal Democrat—in order to govern.
May has turned instead to the tiny Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, with its 10 seats in Parliament, for help in forming a government. But she will still have to deal with the other parties. The Labour Party is projected to hold 261 seats, the Liberal-Democrats 12 seats, and the Scottish National Party 35 seats.
One factor in the shift to Labor is the unusually high turnout of young voters. Sky News projected that 66 percent of those aged between 18 to 24 year olds voted, compared to 43 percent in the last election in 2015. An additional million young people registered since the election was announced.
The young were generally deeply disappointed with the Brexit vote and in favor of remaining in the European Union. They could not envisage having to produce a passport to travel to another European country. But they did not vote in large numbers during the Brexit referendum last year, and many blamed themselves for the outcome. Yesterday they were determined to make this up.
One young voter told me, “Many of these results are a reaction to the hard Brexit. It serves Theresa May right for having taken such a big gamble and pandering to UKIP.”
May’s position is similar to the situation in the United States, where the House is one party and the Senate the other and where negotiations are common.
But the British are not used to negotiations because coalition governments are the exception rather than the rule—even though Conservatives also had a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats from 2010 to 2015. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—the equivalent of the American Secretary of the Treasury—stands up on Budget Day and announces the tax rates for the year ahead, without consulting the opposition.
The checks and balances that are taken for granted in the United States—between Congress and the President, and between the House and the Senate—are generally not a facet of British politics. It is Winner Takes All.
Negotiations between the Conservatives and Labour will not be easy. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was not expected to gain broad support. Corbyn is one of the more Socialist Labour leaders in decades. He ran on a platform of higher taxes and more government spending. Last night he said, “People have said they have had quite enough of austerity politics.” In the foreign policy sphere, Corbyn has praised Irish Republican Army terrorists and Hamas and Hezbollah.
The biggest policy casualty of the election is Brexit. Until yesterday, Prime Minister May was promising a “hard Brexit,” with a definite end to ties to Europe such as immigration, trade, and the right to work. One interpretation of the election is that voters have rejected this hard Brexit, and want a softer touch on the negotiations—or no Brexit at all.
In its manifesto, Labour stated, “We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.” Labour’s Brexit deal means a continuation of the single EU market, equal rights for EU citizens living in Britain, and no change in regulations. That means practically no Brexit.
Elections have consequences and this election more than most. The Conservatives will be far more limited in what they can do. The pound sterling has fallen, the direction of the Brexit negotiations is uncertain, and the way forward for forming a new government is as yet unclear. Sometimes gambling does not pay off, even in politics.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is senior fellow and director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning Ebrief.
Photo by Carl Court / Getty