保守黨執政聯盟將有利於英國

The hue and cry of Britain’s general election obscures an inconvenient truth. The first peacetime coalition since the 1930s is likely to be followed by another inconclusive election. The old world of two party politics delivering decisive single party government may be over.

英國大選中的喧鬧聲掩蓋了一個不好說出口的事實。英國自上世紀30年代以來首屆誕生於和平時期的聯合政府即將任滿，但很可能再次迎來一場沒有決定性結果的選舉。兩黨政治產生行動果決的一黨政府的舊世界或已終結。

David Cameron, prime minister, and Ed Miliband, the Labour party leader, still hope they can snatch outright victory on May 7. Voters appear unmoved. This has been a dispiriting campaign, where a few dozen swing constituencies have been targeted like battleground states in a US presidential election. For Cuyahoga County, Ohio, read Solihull, West Midlands.

現任首相戴維•卡梅倫(David Cameron)和工黨(Labour party)黨魁埃德•米利班德(Ed Miliband)仍然希望在5月7日的選舉中取得全面勝利。選民看上去無動於衷。這是一場令人沮喪的競選，幾十個搖擺選區就像美國總統選舉中的搖擺州一樣，被各黨派激烈爭奪。你只用把西米德蘭茲郡(West Midlands)的索利哈爾(Solihull)，想象成俄亥俄州的凱霍加縣(Cuyahoga)。

A tactical, data-driven campaign mobilising core supporters ignores how Tony Blair and, more recently, Angela Merkel in Germany reached out to the centre ground and won three successive elections. The lesson should still hold true in Britain, despite the fragmentation of politics represented by the rise of the Scottish National party and the europhobic UK Independence party.

這場競選講究策略、依賴數據，動員核心支持者，而忽略了前英國首相托尼•布萊爾(Tony Blair)以及德國現任總理安格拉•默克爾(Angela Merkel)走中間路線連續三次贏得選舉的經驗。這一經驗在英國應該仍然管用，儘管蘇格蘭民族黨(SNP)和恐歐的英國獨立黨(UKIP)崛起使英國政壇碎片化。

Five years ago, the prospect of coalition government attracted dire predictions of instability in markets and gridlock at Westminster. Neither proved true. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has shown European-style cohabitation can work. Curiously, Mr Cameron has not trumpeted its successes. He has preferred to wage a campaign of fear. Labour, he argues, would prove untrustworthy on the economy; and a Labour government would be held hostage by a separatist Scottish National party. The risk of a cross-border leftist alliance is not negligible; but even some Tories worry that its invocation encourages English nationalism.

5年前曾流傳一種悲觀預言，認爲聯合政府上臺將導致市場動盪，議會也將陷入僵局。這兩點都沒有成真。保守黨與自民黨(The Liberal Democrats)的結盟證明了歐洲式的聯合執政行得通。奇怪的是，卡梅倫並未大肆宣揚聯合政府的成功。他選擇打“恐懼”牌。他提出，工黨的經濟政策不可靠；工黨政府將被奉行獨立的蘇格蘭民族黨綁架。出現一個跨境左翼聯盟的風險不可忽視，但就連一些保守黨人也擔心，總提這一點將會助長英格蘭的民族主義情緒。

Labour’s campaign has also played relentlessly to its core vote. Mr Miliband has belatedly signed up to balance the budget in the next parliament. Fearful of public sector unions, he has not specified where heavy spending cuts would fall. He has rarely met a market he did not consider to be broken. Only Nick Clegg, the embattled Liberal Democrat leader, has occupied the centre ground. He has argued persuasively that the Lib Dems contributed to sensible fiscal consolidation and tempered the wilder Tory impulses, particularly on Europe.

工黨在競選活動中也不遺餘力地爭取核心選民。米利班德承諾在下屆議會推動預算平衡，儘管他這麼說有點晚了。因爲擔心遭到公共部門工會的反對，他沒有具體闡明削減開支的重頭戲將落在哪裏。很少有一個市場在他看來是不失靈的。佔據中間道路的只有眼下處境不妙的自民黨黨魁尼克•克雷格(Nick Clegg)。他令人信服地指出，自民黨促進了合理的財政整固，緩和了保守黨一些較爲瘋狂的衝動，特別是在歐洲問題上。

The Financial Times has no fixed party political allegiances, but we have a clear vision of the priorities for the next administration.

英國《金融時報》沒有固定支持某個黨派，但我們清晰地看到了下一屆政府應優先處理的問題。

The economic challenge goes beyond cutting public spending. The government must support enterprise and job creation. The dependence on credit-fuelled consumer spending and London-based financial services must be reduced. Britain’s productivity gap must be narrowed, by long-delayed investment in infrastructure, education and housing. A new constitutional settlement is needed, one that preserves the union and transfers powers rationally and fairly to the nations and regions of the UK. On Europe, it is time for constructive engagement. A new relationship would recognise the UK is not part of the monetary core but is still a vital member of the European family of nations.

經濟方面的挑戰不止是削減公共支出。政府必須支持企業和就業創造。必須減少對信貸推動的消費者支出和以倫敦爲中心的金融服務業的依賴。必須落實推遲已久的基礎設施、教育和住房投資，以縮小英國的生產力差距。此外還需要達成新的憲制協議，保留英國各民族之間的聯盟，同時將權力合理、公平地下放給各民族和地區。至於歐洲問題，英國是時候採取建設性參與的態度了。與歐洲的新關係將承認英國不屬於核心歐元區，但仍然是歐洲大家庭的關鍵成員。

The choice is therefore between a dynamic, flexible and open economy delivering higher living standards for all, and a pinched nationalism that clings to the past. Little England or Great Britain.

因此，我們有兩個選擇，一個是成爲有活力、靈活、開放的經濟體，讓全體國民享有更高的生活水平，另一個是成爲奉行民族主義、經濟窘困、留戀過去的國家。這就是選擇成爲小英格蘭還是大不列顛的問題。

The UK is in far better shape than in 2010. Growth has picked up sharply. The numbers of those in work are at an all-time high. About 2m new jobs have been created. But austerity spells a joyless recovery and the public finances remain fragile. The deficit is shrinking to an expected 4 per cent of national output this year. This is still too high but better than the near 12 per cent when the coalition took over.

當前英國經濟形勢比2010年要好得多。經濟增長明顯加快。就業人數創下歷史紀錄。新增就業崗位約200萬個。但緊縮政策意味着復甦將是缺乏喜色的，公共財政也仍然脆弱。預計今年赤字將縮減爲國民產出的4%。這仍然偏高，但聯合政府剛上臺時這個比例接近12%。

Britain needs a strong economy to fund the National Health Service and an ageing population. But a strong economy alone does not guarantee political stability. Today, the integrity of the United Kingdom remains at stake. The failure of the Scottish National party to win last September’s referendum on independence ought to have settled the issue for a generation. But if the SNP wins most of the 59 seats in Scotland, it could hold the balance of power at Westminster. At the very least, this will complicate new constitutional arrangements between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; at worst, it could stoke separatist fire north and south of the river Tweed.

英國需要強勁的經濟，來爲國民衛生服務體系(NHS)和日益老齡化的人口提供資金。但僅憑強勁的經濟無法保證政治穩定。眼下，聯合王國的完整仍面臨威脅。蘇格蘭民族黨未能在去年9月的獨立公投中取勝，這應該意味着至少二三十年內無須再擔心蘇獨問題。但如果蘇格蘭民族黨贏得蘇格蘭的大部分議席（共59個），它可能成爲英國議會中的一支重要力量。至少，這種情況會讓英格蘭、蘇格蘭、威爾士和北愛之間的新憲制安排更加複雜；在最壞的情況下，它可能讓特威德河（River Tweed，蘇格蘭與英格蘭的界河——譯者注）南北的獨立主義火焰燒得更旺。

The second constitutional question turns on Europe. Should the Conservatives win an outright majority, Mr Cameron has pledged to re-negotiate the terms of UK membership and hold an in-out referendum within two years. His move threatens to consume the first two years of a Tory government. It could ultimately push Britain out of the bloc, a seismic change in the country’s relationship with its chief trading partners and for the balance of power in the EU itself. It might also break the Tory party.

第二個憲制問題則是關於歐洲的。卡梅倫已經承諾，假如保守黨獲得絕對多數票，他將重新就英國作爲歐盟成員的條款進行談判，並在兩年內就英國是否留在歐盟舉行全民公投。他的舉動可能會耗去保守黨政府的頭兩年任期。此舉可能最終推動英國脫離歐盟，徹底改變英國與其主要貿易伙伴的關係、以及歐盟內部的力量平衡。此舉還可能導致保守黨分裂。

The preoccupation with Europe obscures a more troubling development. Britain’s standing in the world has diminished. Her Majesty’s armed forces have shrunk, and her diplomats reduced to handing out export brochures for business.

把注意力放在歐洲問題上，掩蓋了一個更令人不安的變化。英國在世界的地位下降了。女王陛下的軍隊縮小了，她的外交官也淪落到幫企業派發出口宣傳冊的地步。

Two bloody wars of choice, in Afghanistan and Iraq, have carried a high price. Politicians on the left and right are increasingly looking inward. In Europe’s first post-cold war crisis in Ukraine, Mr Cameron has been a bystander, despite the UK being a signatory to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum covering Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament and territorial integrity. His insistence on spending 0.7 per cent on overseas aid sits ill with his refusal to commit to 2 per cent of GDP for the military.

在阿富汗和伊拉克，英國參與了兩場不是非打不可的流血戰爭，付出了慘重代價。爲此左右翼人士都日益把目光轉向國內事務。英國是1994年《布達佩斯安全備忘錄》(Budapest Memorandum)的簽字國，備忘錄內容包括烏克蘭將放棄核武，而其他簽字國會捍衛烏克蘭的領土完整。但在烏克蘭發生歐洲冷戰後的第一場危機時，卡梅倫袖手旁觀。他堅持海外援助支出應達到GDP的0.7%，但拒絕承諾軍費支出至少要達到2%，這兩點形成了鮮明反差。

The Conservatives’ economic record ought to provide a winning hand. The mix of a loose monetary policy and a tight fiscal policy has worked. Mr Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne, supported by Mr Clegg, showed political courage to tackle the public finances and shrink the state. The Tories have also driven two promising shifts in Britain’s political discourse: the challenge to the benefits culture and the re-introduction of much-needed rigour into the country’s schools.

保守黨在經濟方面的過往表現理應是它的優勢。寬鬆貨幣政策與緊縮財政政策的組合拳行之有效。卡梅倫和財政大臣喬治•奧斯本(George Osborne)展現出政治魄力，去解決公共財政問題、縮小政府規模，而克萊格也支持他們的做法。保守黨還推動英國的政治辯論中出現了兩個有益變化：對福利文化的挑戰，以及在英國的學校中重新推行嚴格的紀律。

Labour has been more competitive than expected. Mr Miliband has been vilified by the Tories, but he has stuck to his guns on Europe, refusing to cave in to demands for a referendum. His willingness to stand his ground deserves credit.

工黨的競爭力已超出預期。米利班德不斷受到保守黨人詆譭，但他堅持自己對歐洲的看法，拒絕向公投要求讓步。他這種堅守立場的態度值得讚揚。

Yet this cannot conceal the fundamental weakness in Labour’s plans. Mr Miliband is preoccupied with inequality. His prescription is an increase in taxes such as restoring the 50p level for high earners and imposing an ill-conceived mansion tax.

然而這無法掩蓋工黨競選綱領中的根本性弱點。米利班德專注於社會不平等現象，他的策略是增加稅收，比如恢復高收入者50%的所得稅，以及實行考慮欠妥的豪宅稅。

Mr Miliband has too often found himself on the wrong side of the argument. He promised to freeze energy prices shortly before world prices collapsed. An already heavily regulated banking sector and private landlords are now in his sights. He has stepped too far away from the New Labour position that markets can be harnessed to progressive outcomes. At times, he appears to be fighting his campaign in the style of France’s François Hollande in 2012. True, Mr Hollande secured victory but at the price of a weak economy and an exodus of talent, often to London.

米利班德常常發現自己言論失當。他剛承諾要“凍結”能源價格，國際能源價格就開始暴跌。現在他的目光又投向已受到嚴格監管的銀行業以及私營業主。“新工黨”認爲可以讓市場發揮積極作用，而米利班德偏離這一立場太遠了。有時他的競選方式似乎復刻了2012年時法國的弗朗索瓦•奧朗德(François Hollande)。誠然，奧朗德贏得了勝利，但代價是經濟疲弱以及人才外流——通常流到倫敦。

At this delicate moment, the best outcome would be a continuation of the 2010 coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems. Mr Clegg’s party has proved a responsible partner in government. Tough decisions, such as the reversal of his party’s stance on university tuition fees, will hurt the party. The Lib Dems would be more awkward in a second term coalition. It is also far from clear whether they will have enough seats to be kingmakers with either the Tories or Labour.

在這個微妙的時刻，最好的結局將是延續2010年保守黨和自民黨的聯盟。克雷格領導的自民黨已證明是負責任的執政夥伴。但在一些棘手問題上的決定可能會傷害到自民黨，比如該黨在大學學費方面立場的轉變。自民黨在第二個執政聯盟中將更加尷尬。而且目前也不能確定他們是否將拿下足夠席位來輔佐保守黨或工黨。

Voters must decide not just on the party but also on the combination which would have the best chance of forming a stable, reform-minded government. The country would benefit from the countervailing force of Lib Dem moderation at Westminster. In seats where the Lib Dems are the incumbent or the main challenger, we would vote tactically for them.

選民們要選擇的不僅是政黨，還有政黨聯盟，推斷哪些黨派最有可能組建一個穩定的、具備改革意識的政府。自民黨在議會中的抗衡力量將令英國受益。對於自民黨人有希望保留或拿下的席位，我們會策略性地將票投給他們。

Ultimately, however, there is only one leader and one party that can head the government. There are risks in re-electing Mr Cameron’s party, especially on Europe. But there are greater risks in not doing so. Its instincts on the economy, business and reform of public services are broadly right. Mr Miliband has not offered a credible economic prospectus and would apply a brake on enterprise. In the circumstances, the FT would like to see a Conservative-led administration.

不過，歸根結底只能有一名領袖、一個政黨來領導英國政府。重選卡梅倫領導的保守黨是有風險的，尤其在歐洲問題上，但不選他的風險更大。保守黨在經濟、商業以及公共服務改革方面的思路大致正確。米利班德沒有拿出經濟方面可信的的施政綱領，還將實施阻礙企業發展的政策。在這種情況下，英國《金融時報》希望見到一個由保守黨領導的政府。