In the final days of the British election just completed the Conservative candidate for Prime Minister, David Cameron, finally began to speak out in a gingerly way about the need to limit the reach and intrusive power of the bureaucrat-dominated European Union.
Perhaps that is because he knew full well that there were a number of swing constituencies, especially in the Southwest of England, where Conservative chances of unseating Liberal Democrat incumbents hinged directly on the subject of UK relations with the EU. Cameron's comments helped, it would seem, in several (Truro & Falmouth, for example), but were too weak to matter in others.
The UK independence Party (UKIP), whose party chairman is Lord Malcom Pearson of Rannoch, saw its number of votes rise 50 percent over previous elections, making it the fourth largest party in the country. UKIP still has not elected a Member House of Commons. But what it did accomplish was the attraction of enough votes in the Southeast to make the potential difference between a Conservative defeat and a Conservative victory in about seven constituencies. And those seats, had they joined a couple of others in the Southeast that moved to the Tories anyhow, might have made the difference now between a hung parliament and a narrow Conservative majority.
For example, in Plymouth-Moor View the winning Labour candidate got 37 percent of the vote, the Conservative 33 percent, Labour 17 percent and the UKIP 7.7 percent. Had the UKIP votes gone, hypothetically, to the Tories, the Conservative margin would have been 40.7 percent. They'd have the seat now.
Likewise, in St. Ives on England's southernmost and westernmost coast, where palm trees grow, the 5.6 percent for the UKIP represented enough votes, had they switched, to have elected the Conservative. The same was true in Somerset & Frome, Wells, Dorset Mid & Poole North, St. Austell and the hotly contest Southampton & Itchen riding. Narrow defeats in this region disappointed Mr. Cameron mightily.
All in all, it could be argued, the seven seats the Conservatives failed to win in the Southeast, plus a deal with the eight Unionist Party members from Northern Ireland, could have provided the Tories at least a bare working majority in Parliament. (Technically, one would expect the majority to be 326, half of the 350 seats in Parliament, plus one. But the Sinn Fein members in Northern Ireland refuse to be seated and there are a couple of seats awaiting a new vote, so I estimate that the minimum working majority would be 321. The Southeast seats I am describing would have enabled Cameron reach that figure or come very close.)
As is, the Conservatives are working hard to cut an awkward coalition deal with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats. Looking to the months ahead, they must realize that a looming, almost inevitable series of budget cuts--like those that members of the European Union are facing on the Continent--may make the new Government very unpopular and precipitate a new election at a most inauspicious moment.
Of course, "what if" doesn't matter much in politics. In this case, the Tory leadership might counter, plausibly, that if they had taken a harder line on Europe they might have lost key votes in other constituencies, say those around London.
On the other hand the EU, which has many advantages--up to a point--is not looking as glamorous as it did when the Tory leaders alienated the Euro critics. With fires burning in Greek riots and unease gripping Portugal and Spain, the British Tories may wish they had taken a principled stand on the EU earlier and stronger.
--
Overall I'd prefer a relatively low tax regime, but those are examples of redistribution I'd support. We should study Australia, which has a pretty egalitarian system despite fairly low taxes.