Blair can still be toppled
Published on June 10, 2004 By O G San In International
As someone who thinks of himself as left of centre, I naturally hope that this week's European elections see a large number of members returned to Strasbourg under the umbrella of the Party of European Socialists (PES). I certainly hope that one of these new MEPs has a Belfast accent. But strangely, I also hope that as few as possible of the PES' MEPs are members of the British Labour Party. It is sad but true that a meltdown in suport for the Labour Party in this week's poll could actually be a good thing for the left.

It's often said that Tony Blair's evangelical support for the US invasion of Iraq sets him at odds with his own party, or at odds with the British people, or at odds with other European governments. It's less often remarked that he is also at odds with the left to which he, at least titularly, still belongs. All the other pro-war leaders - Bush, Howard, Berlusconi, Aznar - are unmistakably men of the right. No other leftist party in Europe, of which I'm aware, supports this war.

I happily admit that I'm furious with Blair for going along with Bush into the mess in Iraq. As such, I've looked forward to his political demise for quite some time now. I had hoped that the tuition fees vote and the publication of the Hutton report on consecutive days in January would do for him. One aborted rebelion and one whitewash later, Blair was still standing, if anything looking stronger than before.

Since then, I've viewed the European elections as the last chance for his party to dump him before the general election, which will probably be held next year. Today's vote is the first opportunity for the British people to give their verdict on Blair's adventurism. I hope as few as possible of them vote for the Labour party.

I'm not motivated by any natural animosity towards the party itself. In the course of its history, it has achieved many laudable things. Most of its members are thoroughly decent people who want exactly the same thing that I want - a better world. But none of this changes the political dynamic of the moment. Whether you like it or not, a vote for Labour, is a vote for Blair, is a vote for the war in Iraq. This is grossly unfair on the many Labour party candidates who are as vociferously anti-war as anyone. But the fact remains that Blair will portray each and every Labour vote as an endorsement of his aggression in the Middle East.

Only a serious drop in Labour's support, and I mean a meltdown, can bring a change at the top with a general election so close. There have been rumblings against Blair within his own party for a long time now. But with the Chancellor Gordon Brown unwilling to make a lunge for the crown, the party needs a severe jolt if it is to dump Blair.

Labour needs to be presented with unambiguous evidence that its vote-winnning leader of yesteryear has become a liability since he threw in his lot with the neo-con cabal in Washington. For a leadership challenge to occur, there has to be a large increase in support today for the anti-war forces in British politics: the Lib Dems, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the sundry elements of the far left.

Have no doubt, deposing a prime minister this close to a general election would be a high-risk move. Only the strongest impetus will bring this about.

Comments
on Jun 10, 2004
Does this mean that you consider the UN resolution supporting the new Iraqi government meaningless?
on Jun 10, 2004
what's this 'still' stuff? He's gone! Latered! Outtahere'd!
on Jun 10, 2004
Even if you disagree with Blair and want him out of power, you should respect him. He obviously wasn't thinking of himself when he decided to along with Bush, seeing how widely unpopular such an action was and is today. It takes courage to do what you think is right, even when everyone else is telling you its wrong.
on Jun 11, 2004
Madine,

The other countries at the UN are playing nice now, so what? The war was wrong, Iraq is a mess and things will not get better after July 1st.

Miki,

Huh?

Hyzhenhok,

Why should I respect him? Breaking wih the Americans would have taken a lot of courage.

"when everyone else is telling you its wrong"

So basically you're saying that Blair was told that this would be a disaster but he did it anyway.
on Jun 11, 2004
The other countries at the UN are playing nice now, so what?


I agree that the UN resolution has little or no intrinsic value. There were some people who cited the lack of a UN mandate as a reason to oppose the occupation in Iraq.

Do you think Iraq would be better off if Saddam was still in power?

things will not get better after July 1st


There isn't going to be some magical transformation that day. However, I think over time the following things will get better:

There will be an elected government, that would be better than an unelected government.
The availability of healthcare, education, and electricity will increase.
Deaths due to violence of insurgents/terrorists will decrease.

on Jun 11, 2004
Madine, thanks for your comments. I've blogged about some of these issues before, so here is a shameless plug:

Link

Link

As for your question about Saddam, what comes after him? Civil war in which perhaps tens of thousands die? Is Saddam worse than that?

He is a terrible man but there are many more like him. What if I said I thought the West should invade China and bring democracy to the people there? Would you be pro-Jiang Zemin if you opposed this idea on any grounds?
on Jun 11, 2004
Why should I respect him?


So you only respect someone who goes against the tide if you happen to agree with them? I can respect someone without agreeing with them.

The man did what he believed was the right thing to do even though his own party was against it. It surely must have occured to him that it could well have meant political suicide. But, faced with that, he still did what he believed was the right thing to do. I'd say that shows courage and integrity. Two qualities that deserve respect whether you agree with the situation or not.
on Jun 11, 2004
The man did what he believed was the right thing to do even though his own party was against it. It surely must have occured to him that it could well have meant political suicide. But, faced with that, he still did what he believed was the right thing to do. I'd say that shows courage and integrity. Two qualities that deserve respect whether you agree with the situation or not.


Mason, you could also argue that Blair took the easy way out. It was much easier to stand up to his party that it was to stand up to the US. Depending on your point of view, you coud say that Blair shied away from courage and integrity, and bowed to the political pressure of the US--this would be the reason that respect and admiration are not running rampant for Blair.
on Jun 11, 2004
shades, I agree that any situation involving human motives is highly subjective at best, but it still makes no sense that siding with the US could be viewed as the "easy way out" for him when it could mean the demise of his career. Seems to me the easy way out would have been to go along with his party and protect his personal career and interests.

I still say it appears to me that he did what he thought was best for his country. Whether it actually was best or not is another debate.

A lack of respect and admiration for him (within his party and like-minded peoples) is the expected result of him taking the stance that he did. Not everyone lacks respect and admiration for him you know.
on Jun 11, 2004
As for your question about Saddam, what comes after him? Civil war in which perhaps tens of thousands die? Is Saddam worse than that?


Yes he is, he killed about 500k people during his rule. On what basis do you think a civil war is a plausible scenario?

He is a terrible man but there are many more like him.


This is true. The main reasons for choosing Saddam are that we had a legal pre-text, his country is in a strategically important area of the world, and his military was not capable of inflicting a large number of casualties.

What if I said I thought the West should invade China and bring democracy to the people there? Would you be pro-Jiang Zemin if you opposed this idea on any grounds?


No, but statements like "Iraq is a mess" have to be taken within the context that Iraq used to be ruled by Saddam Hussein. I think that toppling Saddam was the course of action that would have brought the most benefit to the Iraqi people.

I think there was no hope of a peaceful reform in Iraq. I believe that peaceful paths to democracy are much better than war.
on Jun 11, 2004
I read on Reuters that Labour did poorly in the recent local elections.
on Jun 13, 2004
Indeed but not quite poorly enough as far as I'm concerned:

Link

on Jun 13, 2004
i thought elections were closed today? and since i dont live in europe or dont anything about it, can someone plz explain what the **** is a european parliament (is it like EU?)
on Jun 14, 2004
That link didn't work, apologies.

a radical,

The vote was from Thursday-Sunday (different countries traditionally vote on different days). The count was on Sunday and, in some places, Monday.

Madine was refering to the council elections which were held in parts of England and Wales on the same day as the Euro vote.

The European parliament is an institution of the EU. It's not a parliament like national parliaments - it doesn't have that much power. Power in the EU resides (unfortunately in my view) with the European Commission which is the EU's bureaucracy if you like.
on Jun 14, 2004
thanks og san