Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 2

So Blair should rejoice at a comfortable victory. Given that the month long campaign was all about him, his character and whether or not he lied to the British people to get his country involved with the Americans in overthrowing the dictator in Iraq, Tony Blair ought to be celebrating the fact that his party was returned to office for an unprecedented third term. He did pledge before he dissolved Parliament and called for the election that this would be his last term. He would not seek a fourth.

One outcome which the British political commentators insist will be the case is that Blair will not serve out his full term. Because of the reduced majority, these commentators insist that Blair will turn his government over to Gordon Brown, Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is a post somewhat similar to the US Secretary of the Treasury. Brown and Blair are not unlike George Bush and John McCain. McCain supported Bush all the way in 2004 as Brown did Blair in 2005. But there is little love between Bush and McCain. The same is true for Blair and Brown. True, McCain supported Bush all the way in the Iraq war issue. True, Brown supported Blair on the same issue. Since the election, however, McCain has taken many swipes at the President over a variety of issues and may be one of the Republicans who refuse to go along with the "Constitutional option" to give an up-or- down vote to President Bush's judicial nominees. Brown clearly does not like Tony Blair's cozy relationship with George W. Bush and has hinted that if he gets to be Prime Minister he will chart an independent course for Great Britain. Blair cannot be forced to give up his position but if things get rocky he could be ousted in favor of Brown by a Labour Party Caucus, just as Margaret Thatcher was toppled by John Major in the caucus of the Conservative Party.

Meanwhile the Conservative Party has suffered its third straight defeat. Its leader, John Howard, never caught on with the public and it is entirely possible that he also will be tossed aside by a Conservative Party caucus later this year. Howard ran a disciplined campaign but his party did not oppose the Iraq War. So the campaign was about other issues, such as crime. Clearly the public was angry about the war to some extent but Howard, in a way, had the same problem which Sen. John Kerry had last autumn. Kerry also did not oppose the war in Iraq and some on the Left contended that had he done so he might have defeated George W. Bush. There is little evidence for that view, however, because Ralph Nader did oppose the Iraqi War and yet all but disappeared from the political landscape in 2004. If Howard had opposed the Iraqi War he might have picked up some of the vote which the Liberal Party received but it might have also depressed his vote as Conservatives have been among Blair's most vocal supporters of the War. The left wing of Blair's own party opposes the Iraqi War and but it is a minority.

So the voters have spoken but they did not speak as decisively as they often do. British commentators say very frequently that the British people always get the kind of government they want. So they will have Tony Blair to kick around again but for how long remains to be seen.

------------

Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

>> Back -- Page 1 2