Posted on 04/30/2005 10:17:57 AM PDT by quidnunc
London – There's a week to go until the British election, and it's a typical day for Tony Blair. During the morning press conference, he is variously accused, by reporters and opponents, of having lied to take his country to war in Iraq, of having covered up advice from senior lawyers that the war was illegal, and of having smothered internal dissent about his foreign policy. After lunch, on the stump in the west of England, he is pressing the flesh of some hesitant-looking voters when one turns away, and with hands clasped firmly to her sides, says, "I will not shake the hand of a killer." Over dinner back in London, he hears news that a veteran Labour MP has left his party to join the left wing and antiwar Liberal Democrats, urging voters to "give Mr. Blair a bloody nose" in the election this Thursday.
Then, just before he crawls into his Downing Street bed, the prime minister receives the latest batch of opinion polls from tomorrow's newspapers. Labour is increasing its lead over the Conservatives--to 10 percentage points in one poll--pointing to another huge, historic parliamentary majority of perhaps more than 100 seats. It is hard to recall an election anywhere in recent memory when a political leader so apparently disliked, despised, and distrusted was so assured of being kept in office with a solid mandate for another term. But this curious state of affairs is only one aspect of the enigma that is Tony Blair and modern British politics.
To Americans who follow these things, the standing of the British prime minister is hard to fathom. American conservatives revere him as the steadfast ally of President George Bush, the solid friend of America who stood firm in the darkest days of the war against terrorism. Bush himself, though diplomatically quiet during the campaign, has not disguised his desire to see Blair continue in office. Yet Democrats, even those who opposed the war, admire the way Blair has done something they have signally failed to do: take the main left-of-center party out of the wilderness and fashion it into the most effective electoral machine in Western politics.
-snip-
If he is so darn unpopular, why is he getting reelected. Maybe it's much like America, where the minority are simply loud and boisterous in their opposition, while the majority continues to grow in power.
In Britain's parliamentary system voters don't vote for the prime minister, they vote for their member of parliament.
The party leader of the party forming the government then becomes prime minister.
Blair is the leader of the Labour Party bec ause he is the best politician in Britain.
His opponent is a Bob Dole.
Unfortunately for the Conservative party, they don't seem to be picking up the votes Blair is losing. Instead the voters who have been turned off by of the recently leaked documents showing that Blair lied the war seem to be going for the LibDems. The LibDems are up 3-4 points on last weeks polls.
I'm having difficulty understanding this premise. Labor does well in the elections (projected if not reality yet), Blair remains PM, his Party remains on top a position he is largely credited for bringing about, he survives the rhetoric against him about the war, stands on principle, defends his country....and this translates to his 'undoing'? Okayyy.
I suspect the definition of words is being altered once again. Blair will not be heralded, I suspect, anytime soon. In that this person is correct. Just as G.W.'s measurement as a President will not be fully appreciated in near future. Give it 50-100-150 years and that will not be the case. Those disconnected from the personal connection of the moment will see events disppassionately and each will receive their full due as it is deserved where they excelled.
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.