L'Economist detta la linea: governo di minoranza dei Tory

La Copertina de L'Economist sulle elezioni britanniche

Il settimanale britannico Economist continua sulla sua linea di appoggiare i Conservatori di David Cameron, dopo l'endorsement a pochi giorni dalle legislative. Nell'editoriale che Affaritaliani.it pubblica in versione integrale, il periodico d'Oltremanica scrive: lo scenario più probabile è che Gordon Brown si farà da parte in modo abbastanza veloce dopo aver tentato di formare un esecutivo di coalizione con i Lib-Dem, le cui chance sono pochissime.

La Regina quindi inviterà Cameron a varare un governo. L'Economist si schiera apertamente a favore dell'ipotesi di un gabinetto di minoranza dei Tory piuttosto che il tentativo improbabile di mettere in piedi una coalizione con i Lib-Dem, ipotesi che lo stesso Nick Clegg osteggia.

Il Parlamento si riunirà per la prima volta il 18 maggio e il 25, quando il futuro esecutivo dovrà rendere pubbliche le sue priorità durante il discorso di Sua Maestà, è la non ufficiale deadline per il futuro della Gran Bretagna.

Ecco l'editoriale integrale dell'Economist

"In his reach"
May 7th 2010

An extraordinary election seems set to make David Cameron Britain's next prime minister

DAVID CAMERON, the leader of the Conservative Party, is on course to replace Gordon Brown as Britain’s prime minister. For all the ambiguities of the general-election result that much seems apparent. The third-placed Liberal Democrats had a disappointing night but nevertheless hold the balance of power. Nick Clegg, the party's leader, said that as the Tories won the most seats and votes they should try to form a government. But exactly what type of government Mr Cameron will front, and how long it will last, is still unclear.
The Tories looked set to end up with something over 300 MPs—more than any other party, but not enough for an overall majority in the House of Commons. Mr Brown’s Labour Party was poised to fall by 90 or so seats to less than 260, a result that will almost certainly bring to an end his premiership and extraordinary political career. It is conceivable that Labour could strike some kind of deal with the Liberal Democrats (who have lost some of the 62 seats they held before) to remain in office. By constitutional principle Mr Brown has the first shot at forming a government and reports from Downing Street suggest that he will try to do so. Yet the national mood is palpably set against him. And even added together, Labour and the Lib Dems would probably fall as far short of the 326 seats needed for a majority as the Tories themselves will do.

Indeed, the biggest shock of the night was the Lib Dems’ disappointing performance. The third party had surged in the polls after the first televised debate among the prime ministerial candidates three weeks ago, when Mr Clegg shone. Their new-found popularity turned out to be chimerical. The party did well where it always does, in its south-western heartland, but made little progress elsewhere.

Worst of all, in the chaotic hours during which politicians and commentators alike were struggling to discern any real pattern in the results, were troubling stories of electoral irregularities across the country. Some voters, it seems, were turned away by polling stations ill prepared to cope with a turnout that was higher than usual. The Electoral Commission, an independent body, expressed grave concerns, as did all the party leaders. There have been suggestions that voters denied a voice might launch legal challenges.
In other ways too it was a topsy-turvily eventful night. Peter Robinson, the scandal-hit first minister of Northern Ireland and leader of the Democratic Unionists, lost his East Belfast seat to the nonsectarian Alliance Party. Some high-profile culprits of last year’s parliamentary-expenses scandal were evicted from their constituencies, such as Jacqui Smith, the former home secretary. But fringe parties such as the right-wing British National Party and the anti-Europe UK Independence Party did not make much headway against the mainstream forces (though the Greens made history in getting their first MP elected). Esther Rantzen, a celebrity candidate running in a seat whose previous incumbent had been among the most egregious expense-fiddlers, won a humiliatingly small number of votes.

But results varied hugely across the country. The Tories won spectacular swings in the south of England, and often meagre ones, or none at all, elsewhere. And even within regions, results differed wildly—the Tories failed to take London seats such as Hammersmith and Westminster North, where they had made huge efforts, but did well in others. Similarly, the Lib Dems engineered epic victories in previously safe Labour seats such as Burnley and Redcar but flopped elsewhere in the north of England where they had hoped to make gains. The idea of a “uniform national swing”, on which so many polling projections were made, took a mauling. For all the talk of British politics becoming presidential, local issues and candidates seemed to be more important than ever.
But whatever the tales of the night itself, the story of the coming days (and, if it goes badly, the coming weeks) will be the manoeuvring to set up a new government. In the most likely scenario Mr Brown will take his leave relatively swiftly, after recognising that any efforts to prop himself up with Lib Dem support are likely to be hopeless. The queen would then invite Mr Cameron to try to form a government. He is likely to prefer to go it alone with a minority Tory administration rather than to attempt a coalition with the Lib Dems that neither his own side nor Mr Clegg’s could easily stomach. Parliament resumes on May 18th, and May 25th, when the new government will outline its priorities in the Queen’s Speech, is the unofficial deadline for this arrangement to come together.
A minority government could survive for a while. The Democratic Unionists are likely to vote with the Tories, though not without demanding goodies for Northern Ireland in return. Moreover, many of the Tories’ policy plans either may not require primary legislation (such as efficiency savings in government) or would win Lib Dem backing anyway (such as their schools reform package). And rebellions from Mr Cameron’s own MPs will be few and far between in his early months in office, as many of the things he will be doing (such as cutting public spending) will meet with their approval.

Hung parliaments do not tend to last long, however; the previous one, in 1974, survived for just a few months. This time too another general election soon, to produce a government with a majority of its own, is a real possibility.
What, then, of electoral reform? If that second election transpires, it looks increasingly likely to be held under the same first-past-the-post voting system that Westminster has always known. Certainly, the Lib Dems are in a weak position to demand a more proportional electoral model from Mr Cameron after this result. An election that seemed to promise nothing less than the remaking of British politics may end up being much less transformational than that. For all the talk of this being the era of change, a new prime minister appears to be about as much change as Britons really want. Almost certainly, this election has given them that.