A Very Important Election

New Sisyphus, a US foreign service officer, has a very important post on the coming election in the United Kingdom.  There are three major parties in the UK:  Labour (or New Labour as under Tony Blair); the Tories, the party of Margaret Thatcher, that has stumbled badly and lost direction; and the Liberal Democrats, a party even more to the left than Labour.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost a great deal of confidence of the English electorate, and while he had taken many plays from the Clinton playbook of co-opting the opposition and finding a "third way", New Labour is becoming more like old Labour. 

I have a great deal of respect for PM Tony Blair, who has been the staunchest US ally since Winston Churchill, surpassing even the esteemed Mrs. Thatcher.  However, the war in Iraq cost Mr. Blair a good deal of popular support.  While the Tories have been in the political wilderness, they could win by voter dissatisfaction with the status quo.

New Sisyphus sums up the election:

"The real astonishing news is the continued rise of the fanatically pro-European Union Liberal Democrats, a party which, in our estimation, is absolutely astonishing in its ability to be wrong on just about every important issue of the day, foreign or domestic. The depressing reality is that more than 1 in 5 Britons now fervently agree that they should be ruled by Belgians and Italians rather than Parliament and that somehow a vague concept of “human rights”, which is nothing more than the established prejudices of a left-wing social order, has the force of 'law.'...

The fact is that the Tories have always had more than a strong element of anti-Americanism in its ranks. This fact, along with the natural opportunism of an opposition poised to take advantage of the governing party’s support for a deeply unpopular war, has bred a new sort of Conservatism, the kind that can rise in Parliament and ask the Prime Minister, “How many Iraqi women and children must die before the Americans have their vengeance in Falluja?”

There is a reason Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, has not been invited to the White House, as have virtually all of his predecessors. Nor was the Conservative Party delegation given a very warm welcome back at the RNC in 2004. Riven by incompatible positions on the only question that matters—that of Europe—the Conservatives have become a party of mush that offers nothing except platitudes and snarky comments.

We never thought we would say this, but……British friends: please vote for the socialist."

Dawn's Early Light could not agree more.  The Tories have given little reason to the average UK voter to reconsider them. 

The Economist sums up the election this way and explains the oddness of a party putting forward a candidate that will not serve until the next election:

"But it isn't just the war. Other factors also make for uncertainty. One is the curious proposition which Labour is putting to the electorate. For the first time ever, a prospective prime minister is going into an election committed to leaving office before the end of the new government's term. So people who opt for Labour will be voting partly for Mr Blair and partly for somebody else—probably, though not absolutely certainly, Gordon Brown. In a system which concentrates as much power in one man's hands as Britain's does, this prospect makes it hard for the electorate to know exactly what it is voting for.

The Tories have become more like New Labour, which could set up the Liberal Democrats to be a big spoiler in the election, much like H. Ross Perot was in the 1992 election:

The domestic debate is also up for grabs. Not that there are huge policy differences between the two main parties: the Tories, seeing that Labour made itself re-electable in 1997 by adopting and adapting Tory ideas, have decided to play Labour at its own game, and many of their plans are hard to distinguish from the government's. At the same time, the answers on the big domestic policy question, of whether the government has delivered value for money in public services, are nuanced: things have got a bit better, but not much."

The next few weeks of the campaign will be interesting.  The War on Terror requires the United States to have a steady committed partner.  With the EU-3 working on Iran, and the British commitment to rebuilding Iraq, and the UK role of bridging the gap between the US and Europe, it would be best to see continuity of leadership.  Hopefully Tony Blair will retain his address at 10 Downing Street.

Comments

[Andy]

Just a few points:

First, although the Liberal Democrats are to the left of Labour on some issues, on other issues they are to the right of Labour.

Secondly, as a pro-EU Brit, I have to say that Sisuphus' claim that people want to be ruled by Belgians and Italians is oversimplified and misleading crap - in my opinion as misleading as many of the left's facetious anti-war arguments. What pro-EU folks actually want is to rule the EU with the Belgians and Italians. Whether that is a good idea or not, is certainly up for debate, but we can't really debate the issue properly if people continually make misleading statements like this.

Thirdly, although as you note the Tories have an anti-American wing, so do most parties in Europe (and the rest of the world for that matter). However, I'd say the Tories are actually more pro-US than Labour, and the US would have a equally strongly committed ally in Britain whether it is under a Tory or Labour government. The Liberal Democrats, it is true, would most likely push for significant clear water between US and UK foreign policy.

Oh, and anyone who thinks Tony Blair is a socialist is about as smart as a man who repeatedly sticks knitting needles through his brain. Blair, although a member of the Labour Party is probably it's most right wing member.

OK, rant over.

[Bill Rice]

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time and posting a comment on Dawn's Early Light. I am not sure that the New Sishyphus was saying Tony Blair is a socialist, but rather his party is well to the left of him. It is much like the Democratic Party in America, without Clinton they drifted way back to the left and as the last election saw, anyone with a centrist view was destroyed in the primaries, like the pragmatic Sen. Lieberman.

While I am not a fan of Labour, I am a fan of solid conviction. Prime Minister Tony Blair has demonstrated this type of conviction to principle (he is often occused of being the opposite) in his foreign policy positions and steadfast support of the Greater War on Terror, something that is extremely important to us Americans and generally less important to the member states of the EU.

I agree with you that the Tories are more pro-American than the Labour Party, though I would doubt more so than the current Prime Minister. It is the complete disorganization of the Tories and lack of creative new ideas in domestic or foreign policy that makes me think their time in the Wilderness is not over yet. I could well be wrong, but I find it difficult to see a strong UK with the current conservative leadership.

I am curious to know what positions the Liberal Democrats hold that you are most in support of?

Kind regards,

Bill Rice
Dawn's Early Light

[Andy]

I've been a Lib Dem supporter for quite a while and to say my support has been tested by their opposition to the Iraq war would be an understatement!

I firmly believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but I cannot support the way that the Labour government took us into the war. To put it bluntly, I believe that by using and massively overstating the threat that Iraqi WMDs posed, they lied to the British publc. On the war, although both the Lib Dems - who, of course, opposed the war - and Labour have completely opposition positions, I find that I can't support either party's position.

Which pretty much leaves their domestic policies.

(I should say at this point also that I think the Conservatives are - mostly - a bunch of ignorant, bigoted Little Englanders and will not get my vote even if hell freezes over).

I like the liberal aspect of the Lib Dems (personal freedoms and all that).

I'm also very much in favour of their policy of replacing the council tax (local tax based on the value of the house you live in) with a local income tax.

I like the fact that in local government (where they have been far more successful) they have been very effective. They've done more or less what they promised to do, and they've run their local councils well.

I don't like the fact that they plan to scrap student fees and fully fund education from the public purse. I'd much rather a US style system based on loans. Having said that, I hate the Labour halfway house of letting universities impose piddlingly tiny fees even more. I also dislike the fact that, under the current system, it is very very difficult to get sensible loans that you can defer while you are undertaking postgraduate study (as I recently did, much to my financial cost).

Plus, I'm English. Gotta support the underdog...