Before election day, a lot of column inches and airtime will be expended on discussing what the impact of a hung parliament would mean for British politics. Will the Liberal Democrats suddenly become essential to governing, raised from the relative parliamentary irrelevance of third party status to holding the balance in a divided parliament? Will domestic politics be targeted by a new generation of pressure groups, eager and empowered to influence the political horsetrading that would inevitably flow from the whips desperate struggle to get the government’s legislative programme through? Will politics in Britain become far more like that of our American cousins, with accusations of pork barrel activities designed to persuade wavering legislators to support a particular bill?
Less attention has been given to what the impact might be on foreign policy, and our ability to commit British troops to conflict should the need arise.
Many in the BBC and other media organisations have repeatedly made the error of describing the war in Iraq as a decision to ignore the will of the cabinet and parliament – in fact the decision to go to war was, for the first time in British history, subject to a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote in parliament, a vote which could have brought down Tony Blair’s government had he been defeated. Labour has promised to subject any further military interventions to a parliamentary vote in future, and a future Conservative government would be under great pressure to do the same. In a hung parliament, that could well mean that the Liberal Democrats have crucial votes which could affect the outcome, if there wasn’t a consensus between the two main parties on taking action.
One could imagine a situation where Labour sought to take action to intervene to protect citizens who were being ethnically cleansed, but a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals sought to diplomatically appease those involved, much as the Conservative government did in the Balkans in the 1990s. It is worth remembering that while the Iraq war had the legal basis – albeit disputed – of security council resolution 1441, there was no similar UN resolution supporting military intervention against Slobodan Milosevic.
It would be a constitutional crisis, given that traditionally it has been the prerogative of the monarch, and in reality her prime minister, to take ultimate responsibility for committing British troops to battle. Some might argue that Blair, having sought the will of parliament for the action against Saddam, has been held more personally responsible for that action than any of his predecessors.
Could we really have a situation where there was an urgent need to take military action (for instance, intelligence that pointed to the development of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran, which required an immediate strike by coalition air forces) but we lost the ability for any British involvement in a first strike because it would need to be publicly debated between the three parties in parliament?
Of course there has been a generally well-respected tradition in Britain of private and public co-operation between the parties on matters of national security. But the issue of Iraq drew a sharp dividing line between the Liberal Democrats and the two main parties. Could America really rely on Britain as a critical ally against al-Qaida or other extremists if discussions on defence and security policy were subject to the kind of political horsetrading that would affect domestic policy in a hung parliament? Is the world a safer place if security decisions of the British government become subject to the political positioning of small minority parties?
America of course faces a similar situation in its constitutional structure, with power vested in the congress to approve major military action. But in a culture which only has space for two political parties, getting consensus is far easier than it would be in Britain, with a third party that has been wary of taking military action in recent years.
In the event of a hung parliament, a new set of rules will need to be agreed between the parties to enable the government to take swift action to protect British interests in the event of a major security threat.
In the aftermath of Iraq, and in the discussions that will take place in the event of an unclear general election result, that will be a particularly tough challenge to overcome.
Alex,
I have to admit that I am horrified by the implication of your article – that democracy needs to come second to the freedom of a Prime Minister to go to war when he or she feels the need. The US Senate experience is not a story of two political parties but rather 100 individuals with complex political calculations, and that does not hold back the Executive enough – the recent culture in the US in support for military intervention is a far greater determinant. And in the UK, the divisions over Iraq were not between but within parties. I for one would welcome greater hesitation on the part of PMs to take us to war that a hung Parliament would bring. But whether or not we welcome that, surely we should welcome the greater public and media interest in foreign affairs than in the past, that probably has a much greater impact on the decisions to go to war, than whether democracy brings about a hung parliament?
You don’t need concensus to act, just the support of two main parties. Tony Balir consulted with the other two party leaders ahead of the war and got the support of the Tories. So the Lib Dems, unless they hold a majority, won’t stop necessary military action.
If action is opposed by thwo of the three main parties it is probably a bad idea to pursue it given it won’t have wide public support.
So I don’t see what you are wringing your hands over.
When it comes to war we tend to have short memories. Surely when we went into Iraq, it was against the wishes of millions of people, including many in the Labour movement, whose concerns turned out to be vindicated. For the parties to be so at odds in the future, it is iinevitable that the electorate would be equally divided. Potential delays are likely, but more from a distrust of the validity of the supporting information than from opposition to war “in principle”. A more likely scenario is that inclusion of the renewal of the Trident nuclear defence programme in the forthcoming strategic defence review becomes a bargaining point in a hung parliament. And I for one would applaud – how can we say we need to spend nearly £100bn before we assess our priorities and look at other options for keeping a nuclear deterrent (or not). Not much point in us all agreeing to send the troops in if we can’t afford to equip them properly.
Alex, did you feel that adding that you’re an associate of the Foreign Policy Centre would somehow make your article look authoratative/give it credibility? I also hope that this is simply a questioning of the right for Parliament to approve to go to war, and not the bad attempt to have a go at the Liberal Democrats that it comes across as. Yeah we don’t like them “cos they sit on the fence and they have no values” – but this would be a really weak attempt if it was just trying to have a go.
You are absolutely right that in a hung parliament the Liberal Democrats, as the likely “king-maker” party, will have crucial votes on issues. However, you seem to also be arguing that somehow (on the matter of whether to go to war or not) these crucial votes will stop military action taking place when, in fact, it should.
I concede that technically your fourth paragraph imagined scenario could happen. But, in reality, this could happen regardless of whether there is a hung parliament or not, and could happen as a result of LibDem, Conservative or Labour MPs voting together against said military action. After all, the vote you cite regarding Iraq was a free vote and, as you say, could have gone the other way. So you would hopefully acknowledge that it would also technically be possible that British MPs could vote against military action in, for example, the Middle East where said military action may be being pursued under the thin mask of disarming a “rogue state” of its “WMDs” and in doing so those MPs help prevent the unnecessary loss of life of coalition troops and “rogue state” civilians.
Ultimately, a hung parliament has pretty much zero impact on whether a majority of MPs vote for or against military action – the principle of a free vote on whether to go to war or not can bring that result in any scenario (Labour deals with the DUP ring a bell?). Nor is it the case that Liberal Democrats would automatically, as you suggest is likely, vote against military action. You later cite the Balkans – where Paddy Ashdown, was a staunch supporter of intervention, so much that he was later appointed under the Dayton Agreement to be High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
You contemplate that we could “have a situation” where “we lost the ability for any British involvement… because it would need to be publicly debate between the three parties in parliament”. This again is possible, but extremely unlikely. As you later mention, in the United States, Congress has the power to declare war (similar to the newly proposed convention that Parliament should have the power to declare war in the UK). The USA also has the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Since its introduction, successive American Presidents have declared the War Powers Resolution 1973 to be unconstitutional because it overrides the presidential veto. But the Resolution does something to prevent your described scenario that the UK could duplicate. It requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action – therefore permitting military action to commence up to 48 hours before Congress is alerted to it, as was the case in Panama and Grenada. Preparations for military action (like recently in Iraq) are broadcast 24 hours a day on rolling news – but the initial element of surprise in conflict could be preserved and our ability to act in the case of humanitarian intervention protected.
Personally, I feel more reassured in having Parliament vote on whether or not to go to war as I hope it will prevent us having a replication of the negative fallout of the debate over whether it was right or wrong to go into Iraq in 2003.
The lefter of the major parties has usually been the more aggressive, as Blair’s deplorable record shows, engaging in mass murder of Albanian Kosovars under the pretext of defending them (remember the NATO strike on the train, as well as the attack on Belgrade’s TV Centre?) as well as Iraqis and Afghans. But Bigham need have no fear: it was the Liberal Cabinet of 1914, more precisely the swindlers Asquith, Grey, the very bloodthirsty Churchill and Haldane who kept the military aspect of the Entente a secret until it was sprung on the LibLab parliamentary party. they thus converted a European squabble into a World War (to end all wars…!) and prepared the ground for WWII, won by the USSR and USA…
Btw, the UK tricked the USA into both world wars against a very lively anti-aggression US opinion. (William Stevenson even corrupted the US opinion polls to ensure that no anti-aggression candidate stood for president – Wendell Wilkie!! The FO are greatly to blame for the continuing breach of the US constitution by successive presidents. Bigham, helped by Murdoch, is going far to convince me that Clegg is the least of the evils. I well recall 2002 Conference when Blairite propagandists infested the floor with their bogus support for the UN (Bigham’s claim that Res 1441 justified the 2003 aggression ignores the fulsome assurances of ‘no automaticity’. Yeah, yeah, and Eden was acting for the UN in 1956 to attack that other “Hitler’ figure – Nasser. PostBlair, Labour offers only a veil of hypocrisy for US aggression. Bigham confirms this verdict.
So now Gordon Brown (debate 2019 hrs) is going to get AngloUS forces back into Somalia, to reinforce the cruel and incompetent Ethiopian puppet government. Black Hawk down again – not much of a success over the last 17 years. Quite similar to our child-abusing allies in the Afghan police whomGordon describes as our partners (2023 hrs). Frankly the four generals have not only more sense but values more in common witht he ‘progressivism’ to which you’all pay such fervent lip-service.
It sends chills down my spine that any party (especially mine) who describes itself as ‘progressive’ not just continues to defend the invasion of Iraq, but wants to argue that a change to the Parliamentary system would prevent future Iraqs happening and say that this is a bad thing….?
The fragile ‘responsibilty to protect’ doctrine was shattered by the Iraq war. If any future ‘humanitarian’ forces were going to be scuppered it would be because of the lack of integrity of the doctrine post Iraq, not a hung Parliament or the rise in popularity of the Lib Dems. I am a Labour supporter but reading this makes a hung Parliament more tempting, at least a stronger Parliament (maybe even with with more Lib Dems) may exert more control over individuals who are a bit to keen to reach for the weapons. I am not a pacifist but I do think greater Parliamentary scrutiny (and maybe listening to the millions who protested against the war) might lead to less blood shed rather than more. Given the dent to Labour party membership post Iraq and many who will never come back to the party I would like to ask Alex how many more people would he like to leave by writing articles such as this?