This is factually wrong. A majority of Labour MP's and a majority of MP's as a whole voted for the war.
Blair did drag his feet -- that's a fact and demanded we go back to the UN once again which caused the long delay that put us into a poor weather situation.
Considering Tony Blair harassed Clinton to attack Iraq and Bush before 9/11 that really is poor analysis.
I watched those debates in the House of Commons very closely and I saw more genuine support coming from Tories than Labour. In fact, a coalition passed the bill not either Party.This is factually wrong. A majority of Labour MP's and a majority of MP's as a whole voted for the war.
The facts you assert do not disprove the statements you contest.If there is any opposition at all, it's not enough for a bare majority of a ruling party to support an action; if the oppositon doesn't favor that action a mere majority of the ruling party cannot carry the day. Indeed, it is routine for at least a few members of any majority party to dissent on any given issue - if not, the extent of the party's majority wouldn't matter. Whereas in fact Labour is apparently somewhat chastened by its losses in this election, its retention of the majority notwithstanding.
Politics sometimes contains frustrating roadblocks. The conservative majority in the US existed long before it became effective - for the historical reason that the conservative South, now the linchpin of the Republican majority, had been antipathetic to the Republican Party since its founding. When the opposing party to which the South was traditionally joined became anticonservative, southern conservatism was neutered until southerners could bring themselves to vote Republican. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?" Maybe not, at least in the "short run" of a generation or two.
According to F.A. Hayek Why I am not a Conservative, the American who calls himself a "conservative" today is typically more of an "old Whig." The American Whig party lost its way later on, got bogged in public works do-goodism rather than fighting big government tendencies, and - until the advent of socialism - the Whigs' older points were pretty much uncontested in America. So I guess in that sense the Whigs succeeded into irrelevance, as contemporaneous political debate went into other issues.
Today the Whig sentiments of James Madison's Constitution are on the defensive in our newspapers and in the courts - and in the filibuster efforts of a strong minority in the Senate. And so in Britain, you have Labour - the traditional party of socialism in Britain - and the Tories, a.k.a. Conservatives. It's not exactly edifying to an American to see the British hold elections in which one party is socialist and the other is, at least in name, the party which the Whigs defeated militarily in the American Revolution.
Do Britons even have a party which is close to the American Republican Party? (Of course you might ask me as a New Yorker if New York has a Republican Party, too . . .