When it comes to foreign policy, the British public and the three main parties do not currently see eye-to-eye. Two recent polls, on military intervention and Europe respectively, suggest an ominous divergence between the mainstream political elite and the electorate on key issues.
In a week when the coalition sent a small UK force on a training mission to Mali and our own Jim Murphy espoused a new doctrine of ‘preventative intervention’ – early, limited deployment of troops to potential trouble spots before conflicts emerge – we learned that the public is split on sending troops overseas. According to a Guardian/ICM poll 48 per cent believe ‘military interventions solve little, create enemies and generally do more harm than good’, while only 45 per cent think they have a positive effect.
More starkly, a few days later an FT/Harris Interactive poll noted that ‘given an in-out referendum on EU membership tomorrow, 50 per cent would vote “out” against 33 per cent “in” and 17 per cent who would not vote either way.’ Contrast this with the position of the three main parties: all remain committed to Britain’s continued EU membership in the medium to long term.
These polls are not outliers. They confirm trends noted in, for example, the 2012 Chatham House-YouGov survey on UK foreign policy, in which 49 per cent of ‘general public’ respondents said they would vote to leave the EU if a referendum were held, and only a minority supported intervention on humanitarian or peacekeeping grounds. The public also remain persistently sceptical of the benefits of international aid, again despite broad-based support from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour.
This gap between the main parties and the public is a negative force that should be taken seriously for two reasons. First, as we have already seen with UKIP on Europe and (to a lesser extent) Respect on intervention, public disillusionment with the traditional parties creates space for more radical elements to fill. The British political system generally does a good job of keeping a lid on polarising forces, but UKIP’s rise should not be taken lightly – if Farage has continued success, it may be a harbinger of things to come.
Second, the gap has a negative impact on allies’ faith in Britain to deliver on international policy issues. Voices in the US and mainland Europe have already expressed concern at the main parties’ perceived inability to prevent a British exit from the EU should a referendum be called. If doubts persist, foreign investors will begin to vote with their feet, and our prominent role in international organisations will be called into question.
For Labour in opposition, the elite-public split provides an additional problem ahead of the 2015 election. Just as we must restore public faith in our ability to manage the economy, we must convince voters that we can deliver an effective British foreign policy, and neutralise any negative perceptions of our pre-2010 record – on Iraq in particular. This task is made more difficult by the fact that the tenets of a progressive foreign policy (including humanitarian intervention, international development and European cooperation) now appear to be unpopular with many prospective voters.
Strategically, we can either pander to the electorate, persuade voters to change their minds, or find a middle ground where we reconfigure our message to reflect the public mood but stick as closely to Labour values as possible. Recent speeches by Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy suggest the latter approach is the one we are currently adopting – and rightly so. Labour’s foreign policy message is nuanced, but logical and consistent. We are pro-Europe, but want to push reforms in Brussels from within. We are pro-intervention, but would prefer troops to be used in non-combat roles before conflicts develop.
This is a good start, but I believe we can do more to shape the debate. We should not view public opinion as static and impervious to change, and we should not shrink from combating the more hysterical voices in the media. Labour’s foreign policy should be made more accessible to help build support for progressive positions: the successful ‘Bringing Foreign Policy Home’ campaign under David Miliband’s tenure at the FCO is a good example of how directly listening to and engaging with the public on foreign policy issues, instead of relying on statistical arguments and rhetoric, can pay dividends. As others have noted, we also need to get better at ‘storytelling’ and making foreign policy issues relevant to voters’ lives.
Current polling, then, suggests a political problem on foreign policy for all three main parties. We must bridge the gap between public and elite opinion to prevent the rise of radicalism and an erosion in Britain’s international standing. For Labour, the need to claw back credibility on international affairs lends additional impetus. But this should be seen as an opportunity as well as a threat. We should take this chance to re-engage with the public on foreign affairs and ensure that a progressive approach to British foreign policy gets a fair hearing.
—————————————————————————————
Greg Falconer is a political risk consultant and former Whitehall civil servant. He tweets at @gregfalconer
—————————————————————————————