Posted on 04/15/2005 8:58:29 AM PDT by quidnunc
It was no surprise when British Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier this month called an election for May 5. He could have waited a while, since British elections are usually called about a year before they have to be. The incumbents see this as good tactics. One thing about this election is surprising, though. Blair has got a fight on his hands. The odds strongly favor a third successive Labor victory, but it is going to be a closer contest than last time — and it is no longer inconceivable that the Tories, who recently looked crippled as a political force, might actually win.
Iraq is one reason why Blair is struggling — although the connection is subtler than you might think. Of course, like President Bush, Blair stands accused of lying about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. Again like Bush, he never outright lied, in my view. Blair almost certainly believed that the WMD or programs to produce them were there, but he manipulated and exaggerated what little was known for certain in presenting the case for war to the public. That is resented.
Had the Tories been in power, they would have taken Britain to war against Saddam and alongside the United States, just as Labor did, and the voters know that. So the harm Iraq has done to Labor's standing with the electorate rests not so much in the decision to fight. Labor's problem lies in the pattern of duplicity and insincerity that the reckless spinning of the war, before and after the fact, entailed.
Blair's Iraq policy is misunderstood in the United States. He is not the firm-jawed man of principle he is made out to be in America. The real Blair is one part sanctimonious phony and two parts political adding machine. He backed President Bush over Iraq not on principle — his views on international law and the United Nations were instantly discarded — but because his vanity and his devoutly longed-for standing as a great prime minister could not tolerate walking away from a fight (something Margaret Thatcher never did).
-snip-
The Tories make our RINOs look Reaganesque.
I have spoken to a few people associated with the top end of the Tory party and surprisningly they seem to feel a similar way. Personally I feel it is to close to call and that the results will be a shock all around.
Why is it that liberals can get away with being unpopular, and still get re-elected, but Republicans cannot.
It would be great to see the lot of them kicked out !
The real Blair is one part sanctimonious phony and two parts political adding machine.
____________________________________________________________
That is spot on! He has had a good eight years but that is enough.
I think having the parliamentary system has a lot to do with it.
The voters only vote for their MP, not for prime minister.
"The Tories make our RINOs look Reaganesque."
I know. I think Arnold and McCain would be right-wing extremists in Britain.
The spinning fnished them. The war was supported by a majority before invasion but the mistakes made in the Dossier and the Dr Kelly saga showed Blair and his cabinet to be a bunch of liars.
Personally, I don't care. Tony Blair had the courage and intestinal fortitude to stand by America and do the right thing in Iraq. You cannot take that away from him, and for that he has earned my respect. Just because his countrymen are weak-kneed, self-absorbed liberals or "moderates" reflects a greater national problem that no elected official there will soon be able to fix. I hope Tony Blair wins.
The Conservatives are a better option. Blair supports immigration, the EU and abortion. The Conservatives do not.
You certainly have a point. I provided a gut reaction. While I haven't followed the race that closely, it would be interesting to know if, for political points, the Tories are bashing Blair over the Iraq war or over the means of Britain's involvement.
The Blair you talk about is not the Blair us English know he supported the war simply to get his postion on the world stage he knows he could not do that with the States, IMHO of course.
Blair is not all bad. His foreign policy is good but domestically he is wrong on a lot of things. The key issues in this election are immigration and the EU. Iraq accounts for only 10-15% (so says the BBC). I am guessing this is the hardcore anti-war movement.
And in the case of Norway, with a ruling coalition, you can get a PM that is universily loathed. Our PM hoovers below a 5 percent approval rating.
I believe a large portion of those 5 percent must be his extended family :-)
Cheers.
I truly hope that Tony Blair wins this.
I must admit that I admire the man, but also the tories doesn't quite get it yet. Perhaps another Blair term will wake them up, and they can come back with a REAL conservative platform rendering parties such as UKIP and Veritas unneccesary.
MadIvan, what do you reckon?
Cheers.
The means of involvement they agree with the removal of Saddam but not the way it happened. The following is an extract from the Party Leader's Speech at our Conference last October.
***
Dangerous world
When the Cold War ended, we all hoped that our children and grandchildren would grow up in a safer world.
That hope was shattered on September 11th 2001.
Our world changed. Taking a plane, going on the Tube - all these things suddenly carried a new risk.
Meanwhile, we face the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
How do we confront this sense of insecurity? How do we tackle these threats?
First, people need to be told the truth about the threats we face. And if we consider the threat to our freedom and our interests merit military action, we should not flinch.
Every day British servicemen and women face great danger in Iraq. The way they carry out their duties does Britain proud, and makes Britain proud.
I believe it was right to go to war. That's a controversial view. Many people would prefer me to say something else. But that is how I see it. And I owe it to you to tell you how I see it.
The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.
Saddam had provoked two wars in the Gulf. He had used chemical weapons against other nations and against his own people. No one knew if and when he would get his hands on more weapons of mass destruction.
So I think it was right to go to war. But I also think it's right to tell the truth.
In the run-up to the war, Tony Blair did not tell the truth. He did not give a truthful account of the intelligence he received. He did not behave as a British Prime Minister should.
Tony Blair has said that mistakes were made. He has said he accepts responsibility. But it is not a question of responsibility. It is a question of credibility.
I hope that we will not face another war.
But the world is a very dangerous place, and you can never be sure.
*****
Do you know what the tories actual policy on abortion is? Do they have any legislation proposals?
They want to reduce the maximum term of killing down to twenty weeks from twenty four. Not as much as I would like but every bit helps. Blair does not want to change it.
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.