The results of Britain's election are uncertain but unimportant

The UK is in the midst of a general election. That is hardly novel. The first general election for the UK occurred in 1708, after the union between England and Scotland. England has had a parliament since the 13th century. Moreover, since the second world war, only the election of Labour in 1945 and of the Conservatives in 1979 had a big long-term impact. Where might this election fit in? Should outsiders be concerned about what is happening in UK politics? Not so much, I think.

Certainly, the politics are now highly unpredictable. One analysis suggests that the votes of the two main parties are likely to be close and their combined share is likely to be below 68 per cent. Furthermore, given the first-past-the-post voting system, the geographical concentration of votes is very important for minor parties. Despite being expected to win fewer than 4 per cent of all UK votes, the Scottish National party might win more than 40 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, could get four times as many votes but quite possibly fewer than 20 seats.

The nature and strength of any new government is, as a result, highly unpredictable. The campaign might still deliver large shifts. But, at present, it is possible that both the Conservatives and Labour would be more than 40 seats short of an overall majority. If so, coalitions between either party and the entirely respectable Liberal Democrats are likely to fall short of a majority. That raises possibilities of minority single-party governments, minority coalition governments, coalitions of more than two parties, or yet another election. The UK would become like the politically unstable France of the Fourth Republic.

The question arises whether (and how) any new government might deliver further fiscal consolidation. The main parties agree that the cyclically adjusted current budget should be balanced. Disagreements are over whether the overall budget should be in surplus, and over the balance between spending cuts and tax increases. These differences matter to people living in the UK. But their significance must not be exaggerated. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net borrowing at only 4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2015-16. The UK government is also able to borrow exceptionally cheaply. These are not close to crisis numbers. In his last Budget, George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, promised public spending would end up at close to its lowest level, relative to GDP, since the second world war. That is unlikely to happen. But higher spending need not cause a crisis, provided taxes were adjusted.

The economic philosophies of Labour and Conservatives are at odds. But neither is likely to govern on its own. Moreover, we must not exaggerate these differences. By the standards of the past, when Labour was committed to nationalisation, the differences of economic philosophy are strikingly small. All main parties are pro-market and pro-globalisation. This tightly constrains the policies they can pursue. The outlier is the UK Independence party's anti-immigration and anti-EU stance. But Ukip will not be in power.

Similarly, the foreign-policy stance of the UK is unlikely to be much affected by the outcome. The country has neither the resources nor the will to play deputy sheriff to the US any more.

So where might the outcome make a difference? First, the next government seems likely to be very weak. In normal times, that might not matter. But it would matter in a crisis. Second, should the Conservatives return to office, a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is probable. It is unlikely, however, that the UK will vote to leave: the leadership of the main parties and the business establishment will argue in favour of staying in. The British public is consistently conservative (with a small "c"). That is unlikely to change soon.

Finally, constitutional tensions are likely to rise. One issue could be the unfairness of the voting system. A bigger issue could be raised by an SNP-backed Labour government. The last time a national party held a large share of seats in the UK parliament was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the Irish. That ended with the departure of the Irish Republic. The relationship between England and Scotland is better. But demands from the SNP for more autonomy, combined with English resentment over a Scottish voice in their government, is likely to exacerbate tensions. The risks of a break-up remain real, though the Scots would find fiscal independence a huge shock at current oil prices.

In all, the political situation of the UK is fascinating. The bedrock of politics is shifting. The house is wobbling. But it will not collapse.

[email protected]

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation