The Empire Used To Have Standards. Will Blair Pay The Price For Iraq?

[DistressedAmerican]

I've been thinking about the big three leaders that dragged us into this miserable war and it occurs to me that with the loss of Aznar and the "victory" for Bush, the score now stands at 1 to 1.

Yesterday while watching some of the "CNN Loves Iraqi Democracy" coverage I heard someone suggest that the election in Iraq is very good for Tony Blair politically because it shows "that Brits aren't dying over there in vain."

In the light of the news on the downed British transport plane, here's my question: Will Tony Blair ever pay the political price for becoming George Bush's lapdog on the war? There hasn't been much discussion on his fate that I've seen recently. What do you think? Any good links on the current thinking over there that you could share?

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[Taxloss]

1. It's being intensely debated.

Blair faces an election in May. He will almost certainly win, because the prospect of a Tory victory is too horrible to contemplate. There are no credible anti-war parties; the Lib-Dems weren't anti-war and RESPECT is a bit of a joke.

My prediction is that there will be tactical voting on a massive scale and Blair will enter a third term as a lame duck. We know he intends to quit some time within the next three years; it may be sooner than that. He may quit very soon. The G8 conference will be a test; if he can't achieve anything on global warming, he may go very quickly.

[TR Fan]

2. Well, no

Howard was re-elected in Australia and has control of both houses (for the first time in quite some time). And anyone who thinks that:

1. Labor will not win the next election or
2. Labor will dump Blair, who led them back from the wilderness
after the 1992 loss to John Major (John Major!!!)

is simply kidding themselves.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Yeah, I Almost Forgot About Howard.

Has he been able to capitalize on the same fear used by Bush? He certainly wasn't pandering to the 4 million Christian conservatives that didn't vote for him first time around. What's the guy's secret?

[Taxloss]

6. Well, Labour WILL win

It's pretty much in the bag.

However, your second assertion is a bit shaky. For a start, the wilderness started in 1979, and more people than Blair were involved in the effort to Bring Labour out of it. Next, Labour probably won't have to "dump" Blair; he'll resign. He's already pledged not to fight beyond a third term. In order to oversee a reasonable handover, he may well resign within the next two years. His "project" is nearing completion.

[TR Fan]

10. I agree that the wilderness started

in 1979, but Thatcher became extremely popular (and hard to beat) in the ensuing years. In 1992, however, with Neil Kinnock leading the party, they lost to a colorless, bland, John Major. I remember after that Blair, with his "Third Way" was viewed as the party's white knight (although they probably would have beat the Tories in 1997 anyway).

Just an opinion, however, with no supporting evidence other than a gut feel: I don't think Blair will resign during his third term. It just doesn't fit his personality. And after Blair, who? Gordon? Certainly not one of the "outsiders," Short, Cook, etc.

[Taxloss]

19. In 1992 people voted for Thatcher.

Just as people voted for Reagan in 1988. Also, Major had just emerged from victory in the first Gulf War; it was very much a khaki election. Kinnock's campaign had impressive momentum, and he could have won, but he fucked it all up in the final weeks with the Sheffield rally (the British equivalent of the "Dean scream"). People just didn't trust him, compared to Major, who at the time had a rather warm and personable air about him. Also, the election slashed the Tory majority, and made their government almost impossible; and within months, the currency crisis had destroyed the government. Blair did make Labour more credible; but people forget John Smith's work (he came between Kinnock and Blair). Also, the Tories self-destructed. They would have lost the election to the Teletubbies.

[AP]

3. Just for fun, imagine the Tories win in May. What would happen next?

They'd use Iraq to make British companies very wealthy. There would be no attempt to solve the I-P problem. Iran would be in trouble. They wouldn't play as a team with the EU. They'd tried to transfer the middle class wealth created under Blair to the top.

What else? What am I missing?

[Taxloss]

5. I don't think that's fun at all.

Fortunately, Howard is less popular than IDS. So he'll lose. But what we'd get is a photocopy of GWB's programme. Privatisation, flat taxes, asset-stripping, contracts for BAE in Iraq.

And we might well withdraw from the EU, making us about as marginalised as North Korea. We'd be up shit creek, and no mistake. The present Conservative party makes the Republicans look like Greenpeace.

[AP]

7. Niether do I. I think it would be a disaster and it would move the world

right up to the brink very quickly.

I think the Labour party may not look it, but they're probably doing more than any political party in history (other than the Democrats in the '30s and '40s) from preventing chaos of an ubelievable scale.

[Taxloss]

8. Well their domestic work is remarkable

in terms of tackling poverty. Really incredible.

Internationally, Blair's headlock with Bush, although it represents an enormous domestic handicap, is balancing some of the rhetoric. Bush can't really bear the prospect of the UK pulling out of the coalition. So he can't risk angering Parliament too much.

Incidentally, the UK under Labout would not involve in the Iran adventure. Under the Tories, I'm not sure.

[AP]

9. Libya, Isreal, Iran -- I think it's obvious that Blair watns a chaos-free

world.

The Tories do not have track-record of wanting the same.

[DistressedAmerican]

13. You seem pretty literate

Any chance you could identify the old guy in the painting for me?

Sorry to show my ignorance. I suspect he's a recent king but, The Queen has been around as long as I can remember.

[Taxloss]

15. He's not a king.

The feathers suggest a colonial governor. Do you have the link for the source image?

[DistressedAmerican]

17. I got it at the Whitehouse website's photo gallery

www.whitehouse.gov

I was just doing a search for all images in a large range of dates. So, I'm afraid I do not have the exact one. I'll look and see if I can find it.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Here you go

Apparently it was a trip Bush took to Northern Ireland In April 2003. Maybe he was associated with the castle?

No biographical info but here's the link and the photo caption:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ireland-trip/photoessay/04.html


-caption-
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice listen to President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair during their joint press conference at Hillsborough Castle, near Belfast, Northern Ireland, Tuesday, April 8, 2003.

[Taxloss]

22. Ta. I'm sorry to say I haven't a clue.

Considering it's Hillsborough Castle, it may well be a former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

[DistressedAmerican]

23. Well, At least I feel better not knowing myself.

It would have been embarassing if it was someone really obvious. I have more to go on now than before this little chat.

Thanks for playing. Any other guesses out there?

[DistressedAmerican]

12. So Do I Have It All Wrong?

Do you think I should be pulling for the guy? Sounds like the alternative is awful. Thanks for the background.

[AP]

14. I think one of the easiest political emotions to have is a knee-jerk...

....hatred of Tony Blair.

But I think the truth of the matter is that Blair is playing a very delicate game with the best interests of the people in mind.

I think it doesn't look pretty, but history is going to look back on this coming four years, and if Labour holds Gov't in the UK, people will say the only way we survived without global chaos was because of Blair.

[Taxloss]

18. Absolutely true.

Talk about becoming a hero for all the wrong reasons.

I used to love Blair. I've voted for him twice and plan to vote to him for a third time, a difficult decision for me.

It's sad, but Atlanticism is now dead in this country. RIP Atlanticism, 1916-2004.

[Taxloss]

16. It sticks in my throat to vote for Blair.

I hate him and the way he deceived this country. But he is far, far better than the alternative. Sad but true.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Looks Like England Doesn't Have It Any Better Than Us.

290 million Americans and look at what we get to choose between.

Is there anyone over there you WOULD support if they were in a position to get the PM job?

[Taxloss]

25. Gordon Brown.

Kept his powder dry over Iraq. Voted yes because voting no would spark civil war, but we don't know what he really thinks. There are several others, but Brown is the most likely to become PM.

I think we have it a bit better than you; on many issues Labour does a credible impression of being a left-wing, social-democratic party. And some of their achievement you just can't sniff at - the minimum wage, improving schools, poverty, especially child poverty, is falling fast, lots of investment in housing, good management of the economy, independence for the Bank of England, devolution for Scotland and Wales, great work on race relations and regeneration.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. Interesting,

Sad to see good people acting like tyrants. Not much different here. The Dems stand up and make pretty speeches against Bush's policies then turn righ around and vote for them. Maybe they think they are avoiding civil war too? The rest sounds like a pretty good agenda. How about medical marijuana? Too much Christian morality built into our laws to allow for it even for the sick and dying.

[Taxloss]

27. By "civil war", I meant the splitting of the Labour party.

It would have been, and would be, a disaster, and Brown's loyalty is to the party, not its leader or policies.

Not an actual fighting-and-shooting civil war.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Take a look around DU...

We are on the verge ourselves.

[lovuian]

11. I do think Blair will lose and it will be a Liberal Democrat win

I don't think Blair can survive this!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. Sorry, not going to happen.

Blair will win easily. There is nobody even close enough to touch him. And the only chance of getting rid of him is if he resigns.