Liberal Democrats will be hoping that the nightmare of the US presidential campaign will be over on November 5th, with a clear win for Kamala Harris, accepted by Donald Trump, leading Republicans and state and federal courts. But at present that looks the least likely outcome. More likely by far will be either a contested result, after chaotic events during the voting and state counts, or a narrow Trump victory with chaotic consequences for US politics and foreign policy. Either will have major implications for British politics and foreign policy.
The continuing rumble of opinion polls suggests a virtual tie between Harris and Trump, with the outcome dependent on who turns out among the small minority of undecideds. Challenges to names on voting registers are under way in several states. Counting may well be disrupted; there were some assaults on election counts four years ago, and the atmosphere has become more fraught since then. Republican local organisations are ready to use the courts to challenge any contestable declaration or hint of malpractice. We may not be sure who has won for some time. And the consequences of a Trump win are as uncertain as the candidate’s utterances have become. So how should we react to what will be an assault on the principles of liberal democracy and on the transatlantic partnership which has been at the core of the UK’s position in the world since 1941?
One Liberal Democratic theme, I suggest, must be to remind disillusioned citizens in this country of the importance of constitutional institutions and limited government, and the dangers of sliding down the road towards populist rule. Britain has just emerged from several years of chaotic government, with a populist prime minister attempting to prevent Parliament from returning from a recess when he had been in office himself for only s few months. We have witnessed right-wing attacks on our supreme court, an Elections Act that lifted constraints on political donations and restricted the autonomy of the Electoral Commission, and Conservative ministers supporting conspiracy theories about ‘liberal elites’. We now have a Labour government which has won the most disproportional parliamentary majority since 1832: 63.4% of MPs from 33.7% of the votes cast, on a worryingly low turnout of 58%. Public trust in ‘Westminster politics’ has sunk to the lowest recorded point since opinion surveys began. The potential for an anti-democratic backlash, if this government fails to improve both economic growth and public services, is high.
With media here and in the USA focussing on breaches in democratic behaviour across the USA, we have the chance to draw public attention to the weaknesses of British democracy. The Labour government has so far shown itself happy to take over the executive powers that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss misused, and sideline Parliament as far as possible. Government whips have told their MPs that they should not think of amending legislation; appointment to Select Committees have been tightly controlled. There’s no sign of any effort to revive local democracy across England, after repeated reorganisation, shrinking of functions and a long-term squeeze on funding. Manifesto promises to tighten controls on political finance, lobbying and corruption have not yet led to proposals for action. There’s plenty for us to campaign on.
Britain’s place in the world has rested, since 1941, on the claim of a special relationship with the United States. That’s become something of a myth in recent years, as US attention has turned away from Europe to the Middle East and Pacific and as Britain’s diplomatic and defence capabilities have shrunk; but it was nevertheless the foundation for the Brexiteers’ vision of ‘Global Britain’ standing with its American partner, apart from Europe. A Trump victory would kill that vision. A contested Democratic victory, with a Californian President struggling to contain disordered migration from Latin America, would be less damaging, but still leave the UK dependent on our relations with our European neighbours for an effective voice in Washington. I’ve already seen one think tank suggesting that a Trump presidency would force other advanced democracies – in Europe and Asia – to concert their international policies without such an unpredictable American presence. Closer alignment of British foreign, defence and international economic policies with Europe would be essential.
Maybe the nightmare will pass, and President Harris will be accompanied by a Democratic majority in Congress. But we need to be ready to respond to a different outcome – and to tell the British public, and the other political parties, what responses this country will need to make.
* William Wallace is Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues in the Lords.
8 Comments
And just to cheer us all up, the Wall Street Journal has just reported that Republican donors have raised $140m for ‘election integrity’ activities from November 5th on, including “scrutinizing voter registrations on an industrial scale and working to slow down the vote count, bury local election officials in paperwork and lawsuits and elect like-minded politicians at the state and local levels who will support efforts to contest the vote.”
This is a bit wild. “Appointments to Select Committees have been tightly controlled.” Aren’t three LibDems chairs of select committees?
@Mark. They’re not worried about LibDems. The enemy is behind them.
Unlike in the US Congress, not all MPs get to serve on Commons select committees. Election for chairs may well be contested, in spite of Whips’ recommendations, and recommendations for membership also involve a tug between whips’ preferences and occasional backbench revolt. Nominations for public Bill committees, which consider legislation in detail, have been even more tightly controlled under the last government, with expert MPs often excluded; it’s too soon to see how the Labour government will behave on this. Between 2019-2024 most Bills were sent to the Lords unamended and largely unexamined, which meant that the Lords spent far more time on detailed scrutiny of Bills than the Commons.
I mean @Mark Frankel the three Liberal Democrat Chairs of select committees were all unopposed so it isn’t just the government wanting to tightly control back benchers…
One thing we can predict with fair certainty will be the two candidates’ comments at the close of polling. Trump will announce that he has won indisputedly, even before the counting begins, while Harris will argue that we should await the result of the counting before she makes any claim. It is, of course, a question as to whom the average American voter listens to.
……………………….We now have a Labour government which has won the most disproportional parliamentary majority since 1832: 63.4% of MPs from 33.7% of the votes cast, on a worryingly low turnout of 58%………….
Being pedantic the turnout was actually 59.7% ..BUT on UK voting be careful what you wish for.. We got fewer votes than Reform UK and ended up with far more seats…
The presidency is now on a coin flip if we believe the opinion polls. The Republicans will win the Senate, the House could go either way, the Democrats are slight favourites.
The best case scenario is that Harris will win the presidency and the Democrats win the House. Without control of the Senate Harris will not be able to do very much. The legal action against Trump will continue and if he goes to prison there will be civil war. It will be far worse than Northern Ireland in the 1970s given the availability of guns in the US.
And again, this is the best case scenario.
So how do you prepare for this?