Why Hasn't the Blair Government Fallen?

[Arkham House]

Could one of our British friends please explain this? I've always thought--perhaps naively--that, unlike the United States, in Britain, the word of the ruling government meant something, that its honor was more than a word, and that when a government is caught red-handed deceiving the Commons and the people, there were consequences. Blair has lied and deceived again and again...so why hasn't the Commons revolted? The latest revelation is the amazing discussion between Little Boots and Blair, wherein Bush rants about dressing up US planes in UN colors in order to provoke a war... I dunno. Is there a general feeling that Bush is a psychopath, and only Blair can prevent the blowing up of the world? This is at least understandable...but I can't think of any other reason why Blair remains at Ten Downing...

[Warpy]

1. He is fortunate in his enemies

because the alternatives put forward by the other parties are worse.

[LSdemocrat]

2. Another factor is Blair has promised to step down before the next election

That removes much of the urgency of some of his intraparty enemies to take him out.

[Greeby]

3. Simple answer

Because even with the Tories, Lib Dems, smaller parties and the dwindling number of real Labourites coming together to fight his police state legislation, Blair still has his New Labour ideologues who continue to back him.

As for the election just gone, chalk it up to people not voting out of disgust over the war :shrug:

[MissWaverly]

4. their committment is not as great as ours

they have just lost their 100th soldier. they are based primarily in rural areas not
metro areas.

[Todd B]

5. He hasn't fallen, but...

..the numbers of his Labour Party majority were severely decreased in the last election while the Conservatives numbers increased.

Tony Blair aside, however, Labour is still a fairly big party in the UK - that, and the fact that the Lib Dem's didn't really offer an alternative (I seem to remember that they didn't really come out against the Iraq War, even though support was dwindling).

[Taxloss]

6. Well, the situation for the UK left is rather tricky.

We are trying to depose Blair while maintaining Labour in office. Labour has to stay in office - there is no viable leftist alternative. This means we need Blair to quit, or to be ousted by the parliamentary party.

Now, the PLP is increasingly emboldened and getting better at derailing parts of Blair's programme. Some shocking, humiliating defeats have been inflicted and Blair is being weakened daily.

Believe me, it might not look like anything is happening, but the strength is ebbing from Blair and his circle.

[PassingFair]

7. Kinda like if....

Lieberman were the President?

[Taxloss]

9. Yes, pretty much.

Like a DNC faction had total control of a dominant Democratic party, and the only way of changing things was to convince as many Democratic congressmen as possible that he would have to go or the Republicans would win the next election.

Of course, our systems are so different it's hard to draw parallels, but that's getting close.

[PassingFair]

10. You mean D"L"C

DNC is under Howard Dean now.....!

[Taxloss]

12. Oops, sorry! n/t

[Arkham House]

14. Thanks--that makes me feel a little better...

[Tom Bombadil]

8. It disgusts me that there weren't

consequences for Blair. However...

The Butler report into WMD intelligence and the Hutton report into the death of David Kelly were establishment whitewashes. Both criticised the government but neither was prepared to go for Blair‘s jugular. Of course in Blair’s eyes he was vindicated after escaping from both reports relatively unscathed.

During the last parliament the Conservatives led by Howard supported the Iraq War so they were not a viable alternative for the anti-war vote. Unfortunately, the liberal democrats, who were anti-war, weren’t considered mainstream enough by the electorate, Charlie Kennedy didn't seem a potential Prime-Minister.

The Commons never revolted because there were too many Labour MPs in the house who lacked the courage to stand up to Blair, perhaps through fear of losing their jobs.

The sad truth is that the British Electorate just didn’t care enough about the Iraq War or the fact that they had been deceived into it. It was still largely considered an American War, casualties were relatively low and most Labour voters voted for Gordon Brown and the party, not Blair.

These are just a few ideas, there’s obviously a lot more to it. A plus point. Blair has suffered for his Iraq travails. He’s aged 20 years since he became PM, and history will not judge him kindly for his role in the Iraq War.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I've been wondering exactly that for years.

And BTW welcome to DU from August Derleth country.

[Arkham House]

13. Thanks...:-)

You're the first person who's ever figured out where my screen name comes from...LOL...

[abex]

15. one word. diebold.

[Taxloss]

16. Er ... we have paper ballots ...

Diebold has nothing to do with it.

We also have an independent Electoral Commission.