The UK must choose

It's clear that a 30-year period of reckoning for Great Britain vis-a-vis the EU has finally come due. Britain must choose whether to be part of a more financially integrated EU, even if it stays out of the Eurozone, or decide what it wants to do outside of that.

And, of course, this is all complicated by politics within the UK.

Assuming that financial services is that much a part of the British economy, I think Tories have to ask whether it will shrink more as part of the new EU or outside of it.

Frankly, a tighter monetary EU will, eventually, boost the Continent's role in finances, especially if any directives from Brussels are ultimately influenced by glances at Berlin. So, if Prime Minister David Cameron wants to walk around in EU purgatory, or even, as Tory backbenchers clearly want, leave the Union entirely, I think he's an idiot.

Sign on. Britain's financial sector will take some sort of hit, true. But, not immediately, and not in a way that Cameron, if he has any brains (questionable) can't actually fulfill his talk about leading a new type of Conservative Party.

The option of playing at the EU edges? Assuming Merkel and Sarkozy can pull something off, that's not a long-term option.

Cameron's stiff upper lip talk otherwise, larger EU-27 institutions will lose relative power if the narrower eurozone gets new financial strength, new financial regulations strength and, above all, is less unwieldy and more open to easier reform of governance. Eventually, the other "outsiders," even those already given tentative eurozone approval, will have to sign off on the bottom line, too. So, unless Britain can convince a minority of "outsider 10" to follow it, a two-tiered EU just doesn't sound that plausible.

So, ditching the EU entirely? Unhelpful. Despite new openness on banking, Switzerland's tight world would make it equal to an independent UK as an EU counterweight. The rest of the Commonwealth? Canada's tied to the US. Australia is largely independent. Other countries matter less.

Labour would, albeit reluctantly, surely take the plunge, also liking more of Brussels' regulatory powers and ideas.

Per Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail, choose wisely, Mr. Cameron. You may not get a second chance.

And, per U.S. conservatives, don't root for Cameron to choose to opt out. The "special relationship" will only be diminished if Britain itself is.

At least not at the head of a government.

That said, if this leads to a referendum, Labour won't be able to do any "straddling" itself.

And, whoever leads the country, if Britain winds up in financial outer darkness, does it wind up as more a "lapdog of the US"? Thoughts for all British political leaders.

It's not the choice of the EU vs. a more independent UK. That ultimate 30-year reckoning on alignment may be coming due.

Roger Cohen agrees about that and about Cameron's short-sighted stupidity.

LibDems have no balls

I'm reading The Guardian's live blogging of the annual party conference of the Liberal Democratic Party, and that's my No. 1 takeaway.

Why?

If the Lib Dems really wanted to be a third way, rather than David Cameron's lapdogs, they would fire Nick Clegg as party leader, and end coalition, either by that act alone, or having the new leader bring a no-confidence vote to the Commons.

The voting reform referendum massively failed, and had Conservatives semi-officially opposing it. Meanwhile, the Lib Dem half of the coalition, from what I see across the pond, has failed to modify or soften a single major Tory initiative.

Power corrupts, eh?

Murdoch spied on the Queen?

WTF? I was dumbfounded enough when I heard News of the World had snooped on then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

But, spying on Queen Elizabeth II? Murdoch, though now an American citizen, was born in a Commonwealth nation. He knows this crosses new lines.

His reporters were also accused of paying Queen Elizabeth II's bodyguards for secret information about the monarch, potentially jeopardizing her safety. ...

London's Evening Standard newspaper reported that corrupt royal protection officers sold personal details about Queen Elizabeth II — including phone numbers and tips about her movements and staff — to journalists working for the Murdoch tabloid News of the World, raising questions over a breach in national security.

And, raising new questions about just how low in the unethical gutter Murdoch will stoop. The story notes he's arrived in Britain to try to perform fire control. I'm surprised he didn't cut his staff off, stay in America, and let them sink or swiom on their own.

That said, there may be a silver lining here in the U.S.:

Legal experts said Monday it is possible Murdoch's U.S. companies might face legal actions because of the shady practices at the News of the World, his now defunct British tabloid. In the U.S., Murdoch owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, among other holdings.

They said Murdoch's News Corp. might be liable to criminal prosecution under the 1977 Corrupt Foreign Practices Act, a broad act designed to prosecute executives who bribe foreign officials in exchange for large contracts.

But, because Obama's a suck-up who's "looking forward," this is unlikely. And, should such case be appealed to the Supreme Court ... how many of its members who take money from people with ties to Murdoch would recuse themselves?

Still, we can dream, can't we?

Meanwhile, how much more balls-less will British Deputy Prime Minister/Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg be? How much more balls-less will the party be, rather than break coalition with the Conservatives and Murdoch toady David Cameron? If not over this, it will be over nothing.

Whither the Lib Dems?

The electoral reform move that David Cameron and his Conservatives promised Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats as part of agreeing to coalition government in Britain came down to a referendum vote on whether or not to change Britain's current first-past-the-post election system, similar to America's, to an alternate vote, or instant-runoff vote, system.

And, the "reform" side was a massive fail; Britons voted for status quo by a 68-32 margin.

For the Lib Dems, add in two other facts: They got shellacked in local elections held at the same time, and that, in turn, is in part because the British public supposedly is dumping on them the majority of blame for the government's huge budget cuts. (Rightfully so, on assessing the blame, as Cameron couldn't do what he's doing if it were as a minority government.)

So, seriously, what happens next?

To me, from what I understand of parliamentary systems in general and Britain's in particular, I certainly could see the Lib Dems booting Clegg from leadership at the next party caucus. And then voting to leave coalition.

That said, would the government fall, or would the Queen bless a minority government?

O, Canada, the NDP is now on guard for you?

I hadn't blogged about the Canadian elections until now because of a mixture of forgetfulness to check the results and other things.

That said, it appears the New Democratic Party surge was real. Per the Christian Science Monitor, is Canada now a two-party system, with the Liberals serving as similar to the Liberal Democrats in Britain or the Free Democrats in Germany?

It's certainly possible.

At the same time, Stephen Harper's Conservatives were able to take an absolute majority in Parliament, for the first time in 23 years.

Even if he hadn't lost his own seat, former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff deserved to resign over the poor timing of the no-confidence vote (why not a year ago), his party's poor run and other things.

Look for Harper to become more Bush-like, for NDP leader Jack Leyton to exploit parliamentary opportunities in opposition better than Iggy did, and for that and by-elections to force the next parliamentary ballot in about .... 30 months.

But, will it be first-past-the-post, still, like the U.S.? A CBC column wonders if, should Britain adopt alternative voting today (the "electoral reform" the Conservatives and David Cameron promised Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems) whether Canada might follow suit?

Four months and counting on Tory-Lib Dem coalition?

I'd been wondering when the "deal" on electoral reform, that was Liberal Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg's price for joining in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives in Britain, would happen.

Guess I'd not been reading the Guardian often enough to see that a referendum on alternative voting, i.e., an instant runoff system, to replace the first past the post system, has cleared the House of Lords and is set for May 5.

Hence the four months and ticking.

British voters will go to the polls May 5 for a vote on electoral reform, the promised payout by the Conservative Party to Liberal Democrats for joining it in coalition.

Britain's biggest union has officially come out in opposition, though. That despite the fact that the Labour Party could benefit.

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband says he will campaign hard for a yes vote. But, will the party as a whole follow him? So far, 114 Labour MPs have pledged opposition. Even more, on the other side, will the Conservative rank-and-file follow Prime Minister David Cameron? For that matter, how enthusiastic and active will Cameron be in working for the measure?

Witin Labour, it appears, per the opposition of Unite and another large union, to be an Old Labour vs. New Labour split. As Miliband was elected to leadership with union support, it's surprising to see him so ardently push a yes. Could a failure in the referendum not only dissolve the governing coalition, but lead to a putsch against Miliband at the next Labour conference?

As the Guardian notes, Labour proposed IRV, also known as alternative voting, before the most recent national elections. The same editorial notes that Miliband's in his and Labour's interest to push yes, with either a win or a loss drawing Labour and LibDems closer, especially since Cameron's past record is of opposition. (That said, he seems to be honoring his pledge to LibDe's Clegg very narrowly - just putting the referendum on the ballot and not campaigning for a yes.)

Also, by Cameron insisting the referendum be put on the same day as local/regional elections, it looks like Cameron has wrong-footed Clegg pretty well. That is, unless the push for electoral reform really doesn't matter as much to Clegg as it does to the party faithful, as seems the case with other LibDem issues.

The Guardian has a webpage dedicated to the contest and its various issues.

I give the UK coalition six more months

To speak British-style, the Lib Dems have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories on the massive budget cuts in the service sectors and elsewhere in government.

But, Prime Minister David Cameron has yet to deliver to Nick Clegg on the electoral reform that was the Lib Dems price for joining coalition.

I give Cameron six months to deliver that. Why that long? I'm guessing that if it doesn't come by then, Lib Dems will sack Clegg as party leader. And, any promise he made to Cameron to see through the coalition for the full five years will not be binding on his successor.

Even now, the Guardian notes that support for the coalition, primarily within the Lib Dems but also from Conservatives, is falling sharply:

The latest Guardian/ICM poll finds that after six months of Conservative-LibDem rule just 43% think coalition government was the right decision for Britain while 47% now disagree. In May, in answer to a slightly differently worded question, 59% backed the coalition while 32% disagreed with the decision to form it.

Among LibDem voters, support is 50-50.

Meanwhile, Labour's Ed Miliband waits in the wings:

Asked about the party leaders, only 12% thought Nick Clegg's prospects would improve in 2011, against 47% who think he will have a worse year. For David Cameron, 23% think 2011 will be better and 36% worse. Only Ed Miliband can look forward to a happier new year. While 27% think the coming year will be worse for him than the one before, 29% think it will be better – the only net positive score on all the issues asked in the survey.

And, so, Labour hopes to peel off dissatisfied Lib Dem voters.

At the same time, Lib Dem and Tory ministers in government seem to be having more distance developing. (Speaking to a media roundtable where you as a politician think you're off the record and the media thinks you're not doesn't help!)

Nick Clegg officially has no balls

The head of Great Britain's Liberal Democrats, in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives, has given official proof of that.

The vote (on tuition hikes) put Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrat party in an awkward spot. Liberal Democrats signed a pre-election pledge to oppose any such tuition hike, and reserved the right to abstain in the vote even though they are part of the governing coalition proposing the change.

Those protesting in central London were particularly incensed by the broken pledge from Clegg's party.

"I'm here because the Liberal Democrats broke their promise," said 19-year-old Kings College student Shivan David from London's Trafalgar Square. "I don't think education should be free but I do think that tripling fees doesn't make any sense. We are paying more for less."

Inside the House of Commons and to the jeers from the opposition lawmakers, Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable insisted that the new tuition plans were "progressive" as a heated debate over the proposal began.

This in no way surprises me. And, it shows that while joining the coalition seemed like a good move in terms of political tactics, in terms of longer-term strategy, it will turn out to be horrible. Don't forget Clegg also signed a pledge to stick with the coalition through thick and thin.

Finally, Prime Minister David Cameron agreed to push forward electoral reform. Yes, it's still early, but, things move faster in parliamentary governments, especially ones that don't have a filibuster-empowered upper house, than they do in the U.S. And, we've seen nothing on this yet.

And, add this, courtesy WikiLeaks:

In March 2009, U.S. officials in England attended the spring political conference of the Liberal Democrats. The event was widely covered in the British media, but the U.S. Embassy's summary, a combination of speech excerpts and hallway chatter, was labeled classified.

Among the revelations: Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg and Conservative David Cameron "don't get along." Besides being politically obvious, this tidbit was available at any newsstand in England.

The British press has reported that Clegg dubbed Cameron "the con man of British politics." Cameron dismissed Clegg as a "joke" and privately called him "Calamity Clegg."

Britain 1931, Krugman-style

No, isn't it Britain 2010 right now?

Paul Krugman, in dissecting the British coalition goverment's likely-to-fail austerity fad, says, it may be 2010 now, but the clock could move backward soon enough.

He starts with what brought Britain to this pass:

Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit.

And, what's behind this all:

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

And, what's likely to result:

What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

If Britain 2012 looks even close to Britain 1931, the Liberal Democratic party faithful are going to demand Nick Clegg's head for bringing them into coalition with the Conservatives.

Lib Dems, be careful what you wish for

Oops, TOO LATE!

OK, the Conservatives have posted their austerity budget, as they promised before even finalizing a coalition with Liberal Democrats in Britain. Where's the electoral reform bill that was supposed to be a main part of the deal for Lib Dems? I give the coalition about six months to deliver before Nick Clegg loses his head as Lib Dem leader.

More on the likely-to-fail austerity fad from Krugman, along with what brought Britain to this pass:

Over-reliance on the financial industry largely explains why Britain, which came into the crisis with relatively low public debt, has seen its budget deficit soar to 11 percent of G.D.P. — slightly worse than the U.S. deficit.

And, what's behind this all:

Why is the British government doing this? The real reason has a lot to do with ideology: the Tories are using the deficit as an excuse to downsize the welfare state. But the official rationale is that there is no alternative.

Indeed, there has been a noticeable change in the rhetoric of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron over the past few weeks — a shift from hope to fear. In his speech announcing the budget plan, George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to have given up on the confidence fairy — that is, on claims that the plan would have positive effects on employment and growth.

And, what's likely to result:

What happens now? Maybe Britain will get lucky, and something will come along to rescue the economy. But the best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

If Britain 2012 looks even close to Britain 1931, even if Clegg has his electoral reform agreement, he'll be out on his ass, in all likelihood.

Nick Clegg, sellout?

Any talks the LibDem leader had planned with Labour officials must have been perfunctory, if even conducted. Labour leader and PM Gordon Brown has stepped up his resignation to be effective immediately, with Clegg's Lib Dems and David Cameron's Tories allegedly forming a coalition.

I hope the LibDem rank and file takes an immediate party leadership vote and deposes Clegg. There's nothing to indicate Cameron improved his original offering to Clegg.

If you didn't want to coalition with Labour, you didn't have to enter a formal coalition with the Tories. Just agree not to oppose the budget, if not egregious.

Hey, LibDems; not so fast on Tory bed-hopping

A secret Conservative Party policy memo, drafted by policy staff and sent out under shadown Foreign Secretary William Hague's name to party leader David Cameron, says that not only have the Tories not abandoned their Euro-skepticism, they intend to fight for it fully in Parliament.

The Tories claim they have no idea what this paper is, despite the Observer having it vouched for quite well as a Tory document. And, Cameron has yet to disavow it.

Note to Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg: I think your own party will depose you if you sign off on a coalition with the Conservatives, or even guarantee Cameron an "unmolested" minority government. (And, if you do the latter, you throw away what bargaining power you have right now.)

An outright win for Conservatives in UK?

That's what Nate Silver is predicting at FiveThirtyEight.com. I hope he's wrong.

The best outcome, if the Tories are making a surge, would be to get close enough to the top to form a minority government, then implode.

Lib Dems continue to creep upward in UK

Between that and Tory leader David Cameron now refusing to rule out electoral reform as part of the price of coalition, I'd set the odds of a hung parliament in Great Britain after the May 8 election at 50-50.

Cameron up, Clegg flat, and Gordo?

Well if Tory leader David Cameron came out "up" in snap polls after the second British prime minister candidate debate, and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg held his own, then Labour leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is in more trouble, right?

And, Clegg was more than flat:

Mr. Clegg – standing between Mr. Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown – put up a strong fight in response to attacks from both sides. He was pronounced the victor in one poll, and came in second, after Cameron,in another.

Looks like Gordo is in trouble indeed, as noted yesterday.

Meanwhile, back to Clegg:

After winning the first debate last week, expectations had been raised for Clegg, explains Andrew Russell, a lecturer in politics at Manchester University. “Clegg withstood the pressure and did a great job, which means Britain is all that much closer to getting a hung parliament.”

Cameron, especially, attacked him as anti-American. No, he's more pro-EU than the Tories, and more open about it than Labour.

The Telegraph has details on how all three answered the top questions.

For more on the election possibilities, go here.

Could Gordon Brown stand down?

It certainly looks possible, as more and more Labour leaders mouth the word "coalition" in the face of what looks to be a continuing Liberal Democrat surge in advance of May 8 elections in the UK. Those voices include at least one cabinet minister.

As for Brown?

"I'm only here because I want to make a difference. If I cannot make a difference, I go," he said.

Sounds like he's resigned to the possibility of coalition, and the possibility that his head will be part of the price of it.

Meanwhile, debate goes on within Labour, not just about coalition, but overall conduct of the campaign. Sounds like rats and sinking ships.

Meanwhile, the Tories are resorting to scare tactics, saying any Lab-Lib alliance would force the IMF to take over British finance.

Tomorrow night, the three leading PM candidates hold their second televised debate, this one on foreign policy. Much of the debate hinges on whether Lib Dem candidate Nick Clegg can focus on British adventurism in Iraq, supported by both Labour and Tories, or whether Brown and Tory candidate David Cameron can raise Euroskeptics' fears by attacking the Lib Dems on their relatively greater support for EU-related issues.

What's likely to happen in the election, including hung parliment or coalition possibilities? Read here.

Is UK’s likely next prime minister a bit of a nutbar?

Well, it somewhat looks that way, and it looks like bits of personal and professional paranoia are the fuel for this.

Brooks – US conservatives could learn from UK

What? Brooks makes sense two straight columns? But, he’s right: the British conservatives are responsible adults. Unfortunately, America’s GOP has a long way to go to hit that point.

Ireland vote for EU bollixes British Tories

Just as election prospects looked more and more rosy for Conservatives, Ireland’s yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty threatens to split the party.

Continential Europe says no to Brown on stimulus

On the eve of the big G20 confab, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the Continent is definitely not interested in a $2 trillion (€ 1.45 trillion or so) stimulus package.

And it wasn’t just Germany.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Spanish Finance Minister Pedro Solbes said the same thing.

So Brown will be an impotent, impotent G20 host while the Conservatives look for Labor to fall further in polling.

Perhaps Merkel, Sarko and others even spoke loud enough for not only President Barack Obama, but also Paul Krugman, to hear.