The Guardian is comparing the dramatic developments in British politics, as a junior Defence Minister and several Parliamentary Secretaries resigned to force Blair’s hand on the leadership transition, to an episode of the Sopranos. Columnist Polly Toynbee draws a parallel with the Iraq mess, which is seen as being at the root of Blair’s rapidly growing unpopularity (he’s now rated twice as low as Thatcher was at her nadir), and describes the Labour stoushes as a civil war. Meanwhile, the Tories, under David Cameron, are following a Europe wide trend also in evidence in the Swedish election, and presenting themselves as a kinder gentler and more pragmatic centre-right party, rejecting the hardline policies of the last election. Blair to be gone by Christmas? It’s on the cards.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/blair.jpg"
Tim Dunlop over at Surfdom raised asked what the implications are for Howard if the Dems take back congress in the US:
[link]
It will be interesting to see how Howard fairs in foreign policy debate once the whole landscape has changed, i.e. a chastened Bush and a non-existent Blair. Will the Dems, the Tories or the left of British Labour be so kind to Howard as Blair and Bush have been?
The BBC channel was reporting about 30 minutes ago that Blair was going to state that he was going to resign in May, possibly May 21.
A related story on the BBC is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5322094.stm
Is there any truth in the rumour that Blair after he resigns his leadership of the Labour Party, will be visiting Australia to study Stingrays on the Great Barrier Reef?
Aus and England were about equally against the war when it was being planned. Aussies and Poms both believe that the case for war was sexed up, accoridng to polls. Yet Blair is reviled in England while Howard is still popular.
Is it possible to escape the conclusion that we’re a nation of utter bastards?
Instead, ask yourself the question of how things would have panned out if a Beazley led Labor Party had taken us into Iraq?
On Phill’s question, I suspect there is truth to the rumours that Blair plans to go to work for Murdoch.
As to Tim’s question, mick, I have my doubts. Howard will spin it as the last man of steel standing or something. The other real difference is the absence of Aussie deaths/casualties compared to the US and UK.
The situation with a Beasley led Labor Party for the invasion of Iraq?Umm me thinks it would depend on the interest rates at the time.Of course under Beazley our soldiers may have been able to get some of the essentials of being a soldier,like a gun,or pair of decent boots.
Student T,well for mine at least a tad over fifty percent of the population of voting age are utter bastards to be sure.
Blair’s hubris and disastrous foreign policy have allowed this coup to happen at this point in time. The Iraq lies are the original stain on his credibility, and of course, this coup is the culmination of a long-running leadership battle, but Blair’s handling of the Israeli attacks on Lebanon (before he scampered off to Caribbean) was the last staw. This coup was given momentum by the way Blair facilitated Israel’s bombardment (using UK airports to transport missiles to Israel, delaying the ceasefire), so causing the little authority that Britain retained in Middle East peace negotiations to evaporate.
Blair has been a ‘lame duck’ in most people’s eyes for a long time, but its taken a lot to persuade Labour MPs that open revolt is the only way to get rid of him (and some still seem to believe in an ‘orderly transition). I think after the Labour party conference it will become clear whether he has months or days left.
That’s pretty much right, I think. Blair’s refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire, coming on top of the humiliating open mike incident, has done him in. It’s not just the left MPs and the Brown groupies anymore, but large centrist and formerly Blairite bits of the parliamentary party have now turned against him.
He has to go sooner rather than later, or Labour’s disastrous slide in the polls may be irreversible.
Particularly since the suspicion that he’s trying to get an “anyone but Brown” result by hanging around is looking more accurate.
I don’t know, Mark. Overnight CNN was reporting that Blair will go within a year but he’s refusing to set a date, thought the UK tabloids have been touting May next year. Since he has said all along he’s not standing at the next election and needs to give his successor time to settle in before the poll, this would be according to schedule and it seems to me that all this media fire and fury has accomplished exactly nothing. I think Blair may have more backbone than you seem to be assuming. And The Guardian’s pronouncements on this issue are little more than wishful thinking, so deeply do they hate the man.
Good commentary from Harry at Harry’s palce.
What does Blair want?
Absent a remarkable turnaround in perceptions about “progress” in the GWOT, he’s dead meat, and he knows it. He said that he will not be PM at the next Labour Party Congress in 2007.
He also wants to avoid the worst-case scenario of a spill, which would see him tipped out in a most undignified fashion. Blair has an eye to his role in the history books.
Blair mentioned the TUC Annual Meeting as the most distant named event he intends to attend.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the timing of Blair’s resignation will not be felt in Britain, but in the US.
The US is having mid-term elections in early Nov. A Blair resignation and a repudiation of British GWOT policies by Blair’s successor may go badly for the Bush Administration.
How much loyalty does Blair have for Bush? The loyal approach would be to seek to hang tough until after those US midterm elections. An earlier resignation would signal a less than entirely cordial relationship between Blair and Bush.
Moreover, to complicate matters somewhat, Blair’s Labour enemies are also opponents of the Bushite methods of fighting the GWOT, so they may seek to edge Blair out before the date of the US midterms, thus embarrassing Bush.
October 2006 could be a very interesting month in British politics.
Johnson, Boris at The Telegraph:
They should have made Boris leader of the Tories!
Rob, if he’s got a Parliamentary Party straining at the bit to get rid of him, and actual resignations – it’s hardly just media orchestrated sound and fury.
Excellent rhetorical question Student T.
The world needs to be warned about the pervasiveness of cynicism in Australian public life.
Australians aren’t cuddly little denizens of some imagined nostalgic demi-paradise at all.
Many of us even barrack for stingrays.
Katz,
Much that i hate to admit it, you are probably right that Blair’s role as poodle to Bush might mean that he continues to hijack British interests for the sake of the ‘special relationship’. And if that means yet more favours for Bush (despite the fact that the relationship has cost Blair electorally). For how long he will be allowed to continue this unreciprocal policy, who knows. Isn’t it just absurd that he would be helping the neoconservatives at the expense of his own party. Well, i guess that’s what happens to those who are blinded by their faith:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm
On the home front, i think the independent investigation into the legality of Blair’s decision to attack Iraq may well have very bad consequences for him. Perhaps he will be forced to move permanently to the US, out of the reach of the ICC.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072706K.shtml
Mark, I think the British bloggers have a better perspective on this. How seriously would we take their commentary on Oz politics?
Well, Rob, that’s no doubt a fair point, but are you reading a selection of British bloggers of different stripes?
The bare bones of it are pretty readable from this distance though – the Labour Party is at a 19 year low in the polls:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCO2TGJ8UQPU&refer=home
er, Rob, do we all have to state our nationality before offering opinion?
Is it a universal reflex that when events turn in an unwelcome direction, the media are to blame?
As Mark said, the BLP is on the nose with the voters. The media-conspricacist assertion is that these voters have been hypnotised and brainwashed by the media. But the problem is that there is such a diversity of media opinion in Britain, this imagined hypnotic effect lacks all credibility.
Moreover, and more revealingly, when folks see political events turn in their favour, they applaud the good sense of the independent-minded and intelligent voters.
How can the same people be both intelligent and zombies? It’s just silly.
You really only have to look at the last election – Blair needed bolstering by Brown and campaigned constantly with him at his side – and Labour’s majority was slashed massively. I don’t think it’s all a media beatup!
It’s the height of arrogance to blame ‘the media’ for people’s negative attitude to Blair. Those who voted for him in 1997 really thought New Labour was going to reinvigorate British politics. Instead of improving the NHS, transport and other crumbling public utilities, what we got was a massive spin machine, more interested in perception than policy, and outsourcing everything to unregulated private contractors. Its just gone downhill ever since.
People were infuriated by the decision to attack Iraq (I think Britain’s significance in legitimizing the attack is still understated). That’s why Labour performed so badly in 2005. Also, people in Britain are just totally turned off politics and politicians, hence the record low turnout.
If anything, the print media has kept Blair going. On Iraq, it was only the Independent that strongly opposed the war (the Guardian’s editorial line was ambivalent at best), and surprisingly, the strongest comments against the Iraq war and Blair can now found in Tory supporting, socially conservative Daily Mail. Since he did a deal with Murdoch, The Sun has, and continues to be a mouthpiece for Blair, so when they print a departure date, that’s the brief they’ve received from Downing Street.
There was a very interesting and informative interview on ABC Raduo National this morning with a Commons Member, Mr Pound (I think his name is) on Blair’s departure; I don’t know if it is podcast.
Will:
How right you are. When I was in Britain late last year, not many people had a good thing to say about him other than that has was better than Major (what???) or the hated, utterly loathed Thatcher.