Posted on 02/25/2005 9:41:49 PM PST by familyop
LONDON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- There is really only one burning question in British politics, with a general election now expected to be just 10 weeks away. Why should all polls and commentators agree that Tony Blair will be re-elected prime minister when a majority of the British people say they don't like him, don't trust him and that he has been in power too long?
Blair's record could hardly be more impressive. He is the first prime minister of his party to win two successive general elections by landslide, or to serve two successive terms. Hitherto, every Labor government has been associated with economic crisis, depression, or austerity. Blair is the first to deliver boom times, and to lead two highly competent governments who have delivered eight solid years of uninterrupted economic growth.
Put it another way. Under Tony Blair's leadership, the British economy has enjoyed its best performance since records were first kept over 200 years ago. Under Blair's leadership, Britain has become the world's fourth-most powerful economy - when Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was down at number seven. Britain now has soared past Italy and France and is closing in on Germany, with a higher GDP (gross domestic product) per head than the Germans.
But voters do not judge by economics alone, even though in the years of relative decline from the 1950s to the 1970s, it seemed that the trade deficit or the interest rate or the value of the pound or unemployment were the only issues in British politics. And Blair was voted into power eight years ago despite his total lack of governing experience, because he seemed more in touch with British voters and their desire for a change and modernization, and a great deal less government after the firm hand of Margaret Thatcher.
Blair responded by decentralizing power away from his government. He entrusted the Bank of England with the power to set interest rates, widely recognized as a major step in reassuring the financial markets that the pound was in good hands. Blair launched elected regional governments in Wales and Scotland, elected mayors for big cities, and referendums to see if people wanted regional assemblies (so far, they don't). All of this gave Blair a unique cross-party appeal, in which even loyal Conservative and Liberal-Democrat voters recognized that Blair used to be Labor's biggest asset.
Not any more. The big change that accounts for Blair's unpopularity is that he no longer seen as a unifying national figure. Conservatives see him as an electoral liability by a margin of 41 percent, and Liberals by a margin of 14 percent (according to this week's ICM poll, in a sample of 1013 adults). By contrast, his deputy and main rival, Finance Minister Gordon Brown, is seen as an asset by Conservatives and Liberals alike (margins of 24 and 43 percent respectively.)
And among his own core Labor voters, Blair suffers a double burden. The Iraq war is unpopular, and its ugliness was brought home this week by guilty verdicts against two British soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners. The war also highlights Blair's closeness to the even more unpopular President George Bush. "Bush's Poodle" is the sneer of the traditionally Labor-supporting tabloid Daily Mirror. That was why Bush's Europe trip carefully avoided Britain, and Blair's only private meeting with his closest ally was a hurried breakfast together in Brussels. The last face Blair wants pictured alongside his own as Election Day approaches is that of the "toxic Texan."
It is up to Blair to pick the date for the next election, so long as it is held by May 2006, within five years of the last one. But custom and political caution usually means the election takes place a year before this deadline, and May 5 is the date widely predicted in Westminster, Britain's political village around the House of Commons and Downing Street. Indeed, two weeks ago Blair launched what looks like the pre-campaign, with a vapid slogan ("Forward, Not Back") and pledge cards for all parliamentary candidates to carry with promises of security and opportunity for all, to be cited at every opportunity on the campaign trail.
Labor, Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats are now all out-bidding each other on promises of more money or fewer taxes for old age pensioners, for working mothers and single mothers. Billboards are being booked across the country - one of the few ways that parties can advertise under the tight British rules on campaign finance. The election is coming.
And it might just be closer than most people thought. The latest ICM poll suggests that Labor's support is dropping, from 40 percent to 37 percent, while the Conservative support in climbing, from 31 t0 34 percent, with the Lib-Dems steady on 21 percent. The momentum seems to running against Blair, despite the lackluster Conservative leader Michael Howard.
But the mathematics of British elections run in Blair's favor. Blair has such a large majority already that it will take a heavy swing to the Conservatives to win enough parliamentary seats to topple him. Right now, the best polls have the Conservatives trailing Blair by three points. They will have to lead him by at least three points even to have chance at a hung parliament, in which they could theoretically combine with the Lib-Dems in a coalition (and that is highly unlikely - the Lib-Dem policies are markedly to the left of Labor). And the Conservatives would need a lead of five points over Labor to win power - something they have achieved in no poll since 1992.
So the smart money is on Blair to win the election, probably with a reduced majority, and then to invest the last of his political capital in trying to win a Yes vote in the promised referendum on the new constitution for the European Union. Again, the polls are against him, and most of the press openly despises Europe, but Blair should not be counted out.
There's a rather sad joke among Labor backbenchers that Blair could probably win the referendum, so long as he promised to retire immediately afterwards: "a small price to pay to be rid of him," runs the jibe. But even as the Labor party thrills to the prospect of Blair's replacement by the much more socialist Gordon Brown, they should be careful what they wish for. However unpopular he may be today, Blair is the best electoral performer and the most accomplished campaigner Labor has ever known. They'll miss him when he's gone.
I suspect GB has a much larger silent majority than the US does. Especially considering how slanted the EuroPress is.
By the way, you'll notice how much our gracious US President went out of his way to avoid having any effect on the UK Election.
Watching their campaign on this issue reminds me of Harry Truman's aphorism: "Give the American people the choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll pick the Republican every time."
Take out the words "American" and "Republican" and replace them with "British" and "Labor Government," and the same applies truism applies here.
That's a good synopsis. Howard has a couple of things working against him. Immigration's also a big issue in the UK. There's some more interesting info behind the following, if you read the numbers and quantifiers between the NYT rhetoric lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/international/europe/26britain.html
Some people say Blair is doing such great things for England, but I'm not so sure about that. Britain's level of gun violence has spiraled out of control since the gun bans; see "Down the British Path to Hell" at:
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/british_path_to_hell/
Sounds like the Blair administration doesn't want people to exercise the fundamental human right of self-defense. They'd rather have you be at the mercy of criminals, and make an example of you if you dare harm the burglars they've made sure now have free reign to break into your house any time they want.
This is something the liberals are also working doggedly for here in the USA. Whatever the current climate of FreeRepublic may be, and whatever surveillance list I'll get on for speaking my mind, I still think the Blair administration is cracked.
Actually, it was Michael Howard (the current leader of the Conservative party), who when he was the Home Secretary in 1996, passed the pistol ban in Britain. Although, Blair's government did extend the ban to all .22 calibre target shooting pistols, (including the single-shot ones used by the British Olympic team). Both the Labour party and the Conservative party have failed to protect gun ownership rights in Britain. Unfortunately, most Brits regard the RKBA as a naive American concept and every time there is any nasty gun crime in Britain, (even one committed with illegal firearms), then the politicans compete to enact more gun laws to get votes from the hoplophobic majority.
Wasn't it the Blair government that is trying to take away the rights of British fox hunters simply to appease the animal rights groups?
I think you're right about the fox hunters, but I have to check up on that. It seems like the Blair administration has gotten carried away with the hoplophobia, anti-self-defense, and anti-hunting sentiments of their predecessors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.