Could Leaks Sink Tony Blair?

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/02/03/AR2005040701070.html

The drip drip drip of press leaks about Tony Blair's decision to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq is eroding the British prime minister's lead in public opinion polls heading into Thursday's election, according to British online commentators.

With Blair and the Labor Party holding only a three-point to eight-point lead in a three-way race with Conservative Party leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy, pundits say revelations about Blair's Iraq policy are threatening to alienate Labor voters.

That would be ironic because Iraq does not seem to be a central issue in the minds of most voters. In an online survey, the Daily Mail, a London tabloid, asks "Is the war a key election issue for you?" Fifty-nine percent say no.

But the debate over pre-war decision making is demanding Blair's attention and, based on the media coverage, may be taking a toll on Labor. The latest revelation, published in The Sunday Times over the weekend, is that Blair privately told President Bush in April 2002 that Britain would support "regime change" by force in Iraq. At the time Blair told the British public that no decisions had been made about going to war.

[tuvor]

1. Do the Brits have any real alternative?

From the little I understand, there's nothing but right bastards up for election.

[Stand and Fight]

2. It appears the British can be ever bit as stupid as Americans...

Check out this gem:

Tony Parsons, a columnist for the Mirror, another popular tabloid, says "we don't even blink" about the Iraq revelations "because we expect to be lied to by Tony Blair and crew."

Nonetheless, says Parsons, he will vote for Blair "with a sigh."

Oh, the humanity of it all... :hurts:

[Frederik]

3. The thing is

nobody actually votes for Blair in a UK parliamentary election. They vote for their local MP candidates. The choice is usually between a Tory arsehole, a Labour MP and a LibDem who doesn't stand a chance of being elected. The Labour chap may be a jolly good fellow. So the choice is often, will I vote for the Labour chap that I quite like, or will I vote for the LibDem fellow and thus, perhaps, help the Tory bloke get elected. The Tories are considerably worse than Labour in every aspect.

Tony Blair is expected to stand down soon anyway, and, provided Labour retain their majority in the Parliament, the next prime minister is expected to be Gordon Brown. Brown is actually a jolly good fellow. He is infinitely preferable to Michael Howard any day of the week.

If British prime ministers were elected directly, like US presidents, I think Tony would get considerably fewer votes than Labour is going to get in this parliamentary election.

[EarlG]

4. Indeed

I often see folks on DU suggesting that my fellow Brits would be stupid to vote for the Labour Party in the upcoming election, but the truth is that they will be a damn sight more stupid if they put the Tories back in power, especially with Tony Blair set to retire. Blair's Iraq war policy was shameful and I can absolutely understand people wanting to get rid of him and clean house - but if anyone thinks that having a Tory government in the UK would be a better deal than Labour, they're mistaken. Makes me cringe thinking about it.

[BlueManDude]

5. Constantly amazed at those who want to "send a message"

by dumping Blair. What would that prove? Making a left of center politician pay for Bush's atrocities? Karl Rove & Co. will be laughing so hard they piss their pants if this happens.

Blair has opposed Bush on just about everything but the war.

If the Consevatives win I certainly don't want any anti-Blair Brits bitching to me about how bad they are.