Will Tony Blair still be PM by the time we reach the next General Election? It would have been a laughable question a year ago but there must be real doubt now.
Blair has staked his personal reputation on the Iraq war and the reasons for supporting it far more than any of his American “allies” did. Will he ride out the storm over the failure to find WMDs or will he be forced out. My initial feeling when it became apparant that the weapons were not there was that it would be a tough couple of weeks for him, then attention would move on to another subject of the day. It is now clear that this topic, like VX nerve gas, has an ability to remain in the environment for longer than you’d think.
There are literally millions of British voters who feel that Blair has personally misled them. 1.5 million people felt strongly enough against the prospect of war to march on the streets of London - many of these were swayed into an uneasy support by the troops by “intelligence” that is now proven false or suspected to be unreliable. This is extended to MPs, including many Labour MPs. I think that the pressure for an independent judicial enquiry is going to become irresistable (especially after the Commons Intelligence Committee reports and it becomes clear that the Governement will not publish this report in full). The strength with which Blair has so far resisted a public enquiry demonstrates his fear of what would result from that.
This is more an IMHO question… but in my opinion, he will, but only just.
The greatest danger to Blair with regard to dodgy intel (this was pointed out to me by yojimbo in the pub yesterday) is that whereas the US administration made unofficial rumblings about regime change for a while before it went for the WMD excuse to start the war, Blair staked his entire support for the war on the WMD issue - via the Security Council, and later in direct application to Parliament. As you pointed out, that isn’t going well with his own party, let alone the British public.
However, the Labour party is so spintastic that I predict there will be a succession of fall-guys, from MOD minors right up to Campbell, who will be sacrificed before the buck arrives at No. 10. If Cambell goes, then you know Blair’s really scared.
If Tony’s to go, I reckon it will be from within the party, not the electorate, and for a variety of reasons, not just the WMD - the public services issue might rise up from left field - it certainly returned Labour their lowest Bill majority ever this week. Even with all the current cynicism of the voters, and ground made up by the Tories, I still don’t think there’s a viable opposition. Maybe I’m wrong - we shall see.
I agree with jjimm’s last point.My guess is that this is the point when his failure to nurture the Labour grass-roots and the affiliated trade unions finally catches up with him. I think it’s fair to say his own party has no great personal affection for him, and left-wingers are now running a lot of the major unions, who both possess explicit Labour leadership voting powers and largely control the Labour purse-strings.
In 2 months time I can easily see him being invited for beer and sandwiches at TUC house and told he can go or face a damaging leadership challenge at the Labour party conference.
And let’s not forget there’s a completely credible and viable alternative waiting in the wings, who’s at least more popular with the unions and grassroots (Gordon Brown ).
My sense is that the Iraqi fiasco provides a very clear pretext for people who want him out anyway to ditch him. I could equally be wrong, of course.
He will survive any and all attacks from the various “anonymous” fantasizers and speculators quoted in the press, and supposedly from his own party.
Journalistically, this kind of speculation is known in my parish as a “beat up”. That is to say, reporters put forward their colorful speculations, the wilder the better, and claim it to be the latest news.
I’m sure there are also “literally millions” of British voters who realise that Saddam and his nonsensical and deranged family were Weapons of Mass Destruction in their own right.
Who cares. Apart from Kofi Annan of that morally vacuous organisation known as the UN, who the Hell misses the mass murdering buffoon?
The point isn’t “will Iraq be a better place without Saddam?” (absolutely) or “is the world a more dangerous place following the war?” (probably, IMO).
The question is “did Blair knowingly lie to Parliament?”. Regardless of the military outcome, that’s a serious charge, and could seriously affect his political future.
I do not believe he knowingly lied to Parliament. In fact, I don’t believe he lied at all.
I do not believe the political enemies, in his own party, would have a hope in hell of taking him on and succeeding.
His enemies are the political purists (I prefer the more accurate term political bigot myself) of his party and are simply making mischief while trying to remain safely anonymous. Blair would already know who most of them are, but he has to make nice to them in public as fellow party members.
Stupid and politically bigoted as they are, they are not going to foul their own nest and try to topple an electoral asset like Tony Blair. Under the political system they work under (don’t get me going on this - which is not different in principle to other “democracies” or “constitutional republics” incidentally) they would have absolutely no power or anything else without him, because the alternative leaders to him are absolutely useless.
Alan touches on the keystone. As long as Blair is an electoral asset, he will survive (q.v. Margaret Thatcher).
This time next year, absent further developments, most people in the UK will have forgotten the WMD issue.
Blair’s credibility is very problematic at the moment, not just due to Iraq/WMD but a whole raft of domestic issues - Europe, the Economy, Railtrack, transport, to name but four - and long-term that will be a key decider.
That said, I now take the view that it doesn’t matter whether Saddam had WMDs or not: if he didn’t have them, he made us believe he had them.
If you’re out walking and someone pulls a gun on you do you ask him if it’s a replica? Unless you can tell that the gun is fake, you treat it as if it’s real.
“Alan touches on the keystone. As long as Blair is an electoral asset, he will survive (q.v. Margaret Thatcher).”
Have you seen the latest opinion polls ? Labour are hitting 10 and 11 year lows.I disagree this is a crucial factor, anyway. The Labour party is almost certainly going to win the next election with or without Blair.
“I do not believe the political enemies, in his own party, would have a hope in hell of taking him on and succeeding.”
The Labour party leadership is determined by an electoral college comprising 3 elements…the constituency memberships, the afffiliated trade unions and the parliamentary labour party. Given that many of the affiliated unions have recently elected far left leaders, some of them beating candidates explictly endorsed by Blair, I think he’s probably lost that element of the college already. Even assuming the parliamentary party supports him (not ,in my opinion, a given) , it just takes 51% of the constituency membership to vote against him, and he’s out. Given that he only scored 58% of this vote in his original election, saying there’s no “hope in hell” of him being defeated is somewhat over the top,I suggest.
Slightly confused by this comment. The likes of Robin Cook, Clare Short, Chris Smith, etc have by no means been anonymous and are not “supposedly” from the Labour party.
I think lied is a rather absolute term. There is general agreement now that Parliament was given information that was inaccurate (although amazingly the Government claimed in it’s reply to the Foreign Affairs select committee that it still believed the September dossier to be wholly accurate, this includes the Niger uranium allegations and the infamous 45 minute claim). This is clearly a serious matter, but there has been very little attempt by the Government to establish why inaccurate information was produced, by who and how.
Maybe so, but I disagree that this is still as solid as you both seem to think, especially among the key voting groups who were attracted first to New Labour by Tony Blair and the image he portrayed as open, honest and trustworthy - he has forfeited that now with these people.
How did Saddam make us believe he had WMDs? By consistently saying that he didn’t and that they had been destroyed? Please cite! If you’re out driving in your tank and you see a guy walking along the road who doesn’t appear to have a weapon, replica or otherwise, and says he isn’t carrying a gun, is it fair enough to put a shell through him because he made you believe he had a gun?!
I was not referring to Robin Cook, Clare Short, Chris Smith et al, who mouth off their opinions in a manner falling mostlywithin the the bounds allowed by internal party bickering. I was merely referring to the latest stuff in the media which quotes “anonymous” sources claiming all kinds of horripilant things that Tony Blair is supposed to have done.
Frankly, in the larger scheme of things, I don’t think the Iraq situation matters an iota one way or the other in the long term.
I believe that one day, not too distant from now, a working nuclear device (not a puny and harmless “dirty” bomb) will, sooner or later, be detonated in a major city on this planet. On the balance of probabilities this will be done in an important city of the United States.
Said nuclear device will have been supplied, clandistinely, by someone with a mindset like Iraq’s Hussein or Libya’s Gaddafi, or the rulers of Iran, to a terrorist group on this planet most likely to use it with attitude.
Sorry about the pessimism, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein merely gave the people of this planet an extra five to ten year respite which, in the larger scheme of things, is probably pretty pointless.
"Tony Blair wants President Bush to agree by the middle of next week to repatriate two British terrorist suspects facing a secret US military trial - before his rare address to a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives in Washington.
Downing Street fears Mr Blair’s visit will be overshadowed by the growing Anglo-US conflict over the treatment of suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, and the fate of two Britons facing trial, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg.
Plans for Mr Blair to be awarded the congressional gold badge of honour for his loyal support during the Iraq war have also been shelved. …
With claims in Britain that Britain is not getting enough in return for its loyalty to the US, Mr Blair may be relieved not to receive the honour yet.
Nor may he want to be seen to be feted by the US Congress if he is still struggling to persuade the Bush administration not to send two British citizens for trial - and possible execution - in a secret court. …"
The US and UK were also guilty of this. IIRC, in his last report to the UN Hans Blix reported that although co-operation was still not all it might be, several issues had been overcome and he expected to be able to complete his task within a period of months.
Yes and that was getting on for 20 years ago. The US has previously used chemical weapons but now claim to have no stocks for offensive use. Do you believe them? So you are essentially saying that the invasion was pre-ordained by Bush and Blair and that Saddam could do nothing to stop it. Well, you may well be right, but we’re getting a little of topic.
Clare Short has repeated (on GMTV 13th July) her call for Tony Blair to resign- beginning to look like a a start of a campaign. Lots of hints all over the media that this is going on!
But why would anyone pay attention to Clare “I’ll threaten to resign, then wait a bit until my resignation looks like my bluff has been called” Short?
I agree that the ongoing debate around WMD looks bad for Blair, but what’s the alternative? Iain Duncan Who? Charles Who?
Even an internal Labour rebellion seems unlikely to me; the most belligerant backbencher surely can’t see Charles Clarke or Gordon Brown being more of an electoral asset than the smarmiest, most unctuous Blair, surely?
Clare Short can be seen as a bellwether- a sign that there is considerable momentum behind a challenge in the next few months- if not an internal election, then at least a running campaign against Blair.
Gordon Brown might become the most boring PM since Clem Atlee, but he is a credible alternative. Did you see the comment he made last week about a Treasury paper- he commented openly and with a wry grin that it had not been ‘sexed up’- quite a subtle but strong lance again Blair.
Myself, I’m more pissed with Blunkett and Straw who seem to be even more closet Tories than Blair!
Very true. My feeling, though, is that Labour backbenchers will suddenly become very conservative when the subject of an internal leadership challenge arises; I suspect a great deal will depend on Blair’s standing in opinion polls at the time of any challenge.
