Posted on 05/06/2005 8:58:05 PM PDT by naturalman1975
TONY Blair's comfortable victory in the British election completes the remarkable series of wins by the three amigos of the Iraq war. George W. Bush won in the US with an increased vote, John Howard won with a much increased vote and Blair won with a reduced margin. Blair's parliamentary majority, though, will still be the best non-Blair majority for the Labour Party since Harold Wilson in 1966.
Blair's win must give Howard much heart. Iraq was a vexatious and difficult issue, but the plain truth is 70 per cent of the British electorate voted for parties that strongly supported the war in Iraq.
The war was wildly opposed by the media elite and by Britain's Islamic minority. They seem to account for about a quarter of the electorate. But here's the trick: you don't win elections with a quarter of the electorate.
Blair will be excoriated now, but he is the most successful leader in the entire history of the British Labour Party. He is a public Christian, economically orthodox, socially conservative and hardline on national security.
Who does that remind you of: Labor leader, public Christian, social conservative, hard-headed on national security? It reminds me of Kim Christian Beazley and it helps explain why Beazley is going to be an extremely formidable contender at the next election, and also why Howard has a much better chance of beating him than does the Treasurer, Peter Costello.
Beazley's policy performance after 1996 was nothing to write home about, but his political performance was excellent. He achieved a thumping 4.6 per cent swing at the 1998 election and won the two-party preferred vote. In 2001, in the face of Tampa and 9/11, both of which exaggerated the benefits of incumbency, Beazley lost 51-49. In the wake of the Latham debacle, anyone who doesn't think those are big political achievements is nuts.
It's pretty obvious that Beazley would be much stronger against Costello than he is against Howard.
Howard's electoral strength rests on his strong national security credentials, a strong economy, generous welfare payments, conservative social values and his role as griever-in-chief and emotional father to the nation at times of crisis from the Bali bombings to the Asian tsunami.
Insofar as Costello has struck a series of mild and ambiguous poses in the past few years to distinguish himself from Howard, these have involved gestures to the media zeitgeist, culminating in a hilarious parody of an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on Friday presenting Costello as a multicultural battler against an imaginary Howard from an elite, sheltered background.
There is no criticism of the journalist who wrote this. He was accurately reporting the ludicrous pitch that Costello backers are making to the media. What's interesting is that it's a politically correct pitch to progressive orthodoxy. The problem is the Liberals are never going to win as the politically correct party of progressive funky-dom.
Howard has forged an electoral connection with outer suburban voters who support Labor at state elections precisely because he stands up to the media zeitgeist. This is something that Howard has evolved from an initial clumsiness to a contemporary work of art. A family-focused welfare system that delivers money to the outer suburbs and an approach to social issues and national security that is conservative - not reactionary but conservative - are the secrets of Howard's success with these voters.
To the extent Costello genuflects to the politically correct zeitgeist, that zeitgeist will expect him to act to distinguish himself from Howard in that direction. Further, Costello has no profile on national security, whereas the one thing all the electorate knows about Beazley is that he loves our soldiers and, if anything, would be even more devoted to national security than Howard has been.
Costello would also suffer from the age comparison against Beazley. Beazley will be in his late 50s, Costello in his late 40s, at the next election. As usual, the media has the age thing absolutely backwards when it talks about generational change. John Hewson and Mark Latham represented generational change. Beazley would benefit from being older and looking a little less slick than Costello.
If Howard ran at the next election and stayed on until halfway through the following term, he would be 69 when he retired. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he first became US president and he was the most effective president since World WarII. Winston Churchill was 65 when he first became prime minister. Charles de Gaulle was 68 when he first became president of France. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, is 79.
The only way age would be a factor against Howard would be if he were visibly failing physically or mentally. That's clearly not the case.
In fact, it's hard to see what the argument for Howard to go is at all. Bob Hawke, Australian Labor's most successful prime minister, saw his vote decline at every election from his first victory in 1983. There was a case in Labor that Hawke was heading for oblivion. Howard, in vivid contrast, increased his vote in 2001, then increased it again last year.
So the case for Costello seems to be simply that it's his turn and if he doesn't get it he'll blow up the Government. But voters are profoundly unimpressed with the argument of any politician that it's his turn.
The one area where Howard is weakest is in seeing the urgency of economic reform. Yet Costello has run no crusades here. The two most notable acts of economic reform of this Government are the GST and industrial relations deregulation, both intensely associated with Howard. It's difficult to get Costello in private conversation even to admit that taking half of every additional dollar that people earn in tax is too much.
The bottom line on national security is that you have to wonder whether Costello would have had the strength to take the decisions Howard has taken. Beazley must be praying that Costello wins the leadership, preferably after a long struggle. But as Blair has just shown us, it doesn't do to count out any of the three amigos too early.
Love the title.
The article ain't bad either.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
bttt
I'm not so sure Blair is that. After all, he repealed Thatcher's rule that schools can't promote homosexual activity (a most sensible and needed rule if you ask me), and has enacted same sex civil unions. Abortion is, of course, fully legal.
Weren't they just dying to see Howard, or Bush, or Blair - at least one of 'em! - lose?:) The old left-wing agit-prop machine ain't working so good any more.
I can see Chrissy Matthews crying himself to sleep.
The left-wing victory in the Spanish election caused so many cruel false hopes for them.:)
"All the leftists were anxiously waiting for these three guys to be defeated in the elections. The lefty propaganda machine went into high gear, churning up hatred and venom 24/7. Guess it didn't work."
Blair is a leftist.
"socially conservative
I'm not so sure Blair is that. After all, he repealed Thatcher's rule that schools can't promote homosexual activity (a most sensible and needed rule if you ask me), and has enacted same sex civil unions. Abortion is, of course, fully legal."
I'd certainly agree that Blair is not socially conservative although, with regard to your points I would point out that the repeal of section 28 was supported by most of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (it was a terribly poorly drawn up piece of legislation) and that abortion has been legal since 1967.
I should point out that one can't get an abortion after 24 weeks - a limit which is tighter than many other countries, including the United States.
What is astonishing is that the fellow who introduced the bill to legalise abortion, Lord Steel, has called for the band to be tightened further.
Regards, Ivan
Absolutely and really he was in no real danger of loosing this election it was always a question of how was his majority going to be reduced.
And also points out how weak the Spanish were relative to Americans, Australians, and now the Brits......
Let's hear it for the Three Amigos..........strong leaders, all!
BTTT
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.