Author
|
Topic: A plea for Britain
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 November 2004 07:42 PM
It will be interesting to watch the next year in the Labour party. The British people decided long ago, before the invasion of Iraq began, and the numbers of those opposed has only grown since then. It is not as though Blair doesn't know that. I mean, really: we know on babble, but Blair hasn't got the message yet? Blair's reasons for supporting Bush must have been complex, more complicated than people who call him Bush's poodle are admitting. I think it is believable that Blair feared USian unilateralism, and concluded (perversely, to me, but still believably) that an alliance would be better for international order than would be general defiance of the U.S. I think that Blair was wrong, and I fear for us all, all of us victims of that realpolitikisch view, but I see why he did it. I wish that the slaughter to come was not coming towards us, and that we wouldn't have to lay it at the door of well-intentioned liberals like Blair. But it is coming, and Blair is more guilty than most. The poor sod.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 04 November 2004 03:48 AM
I don't know they might loose to the Conservatives. Unless Charles Kennedy could pull something out. Skadal you're view is absolutely right. Blair seems so insistent that he's right about this. But everyone knows that Saddam didn't have those weapons. So know he's insisting that's okay because Saddam was such a bad guy. But he fails to see that he lied about why they should go to war. War is a very large decision, and you just can't lie about something like that (unless your an American President or to be fair leader of another Empire). And even then the consequences come back and bite you in the butt. The opposition is going to hammer him about the lie. And unlike the American public, he doesn't have that strong of a base to back him up. Labour voters will be less likely to go to the polls, unless it's for a rebel MP or to vote for some other party. They're in Iraq now so the job has to be finished, but I don't think it's going to be successful. It's just made things worse. And Blair has probably thrown his future out the window with it. You know I'm not to optimistic about the Labour Party dumping him. They could still do it I but it will have to be soon. Because legally they only have five years before they have to call another election, meaning they have to call one for early 2006. They ought to make a decision and do it quickly.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 04 November 2004 04:44 PM
Somehow I don't see Scottish independence happening that fast or all at once or, unfortunately, because of Blair and the war. I'm sort of half-thinking that Blair won't be leading Labour in the next election, but it's hard to tell from this far away. Everyone says that Gordon Brown (chancellor of the Exchequer) has been working hard since before the Iraq invasion to say nothing on the topic at all, which suggests he sees himself as leader in waiting. Maybe Labourites were waiting to see the outcome of the U.S. election -- ha! "maybe"! d'ye think? -- before they decided how to jump on their not-so-beloved leader. British caucuses can get rid of their leaders very fast -- remember Mrs Thatcher? Gone in hours, as soon as a couple of members in her divided caucus switched sides. Now that Bush is back in, I imagine that the pressure will be on to dump Tony from dissidents in the party and caucus. But the war is such an unknown; and what if there was an al-Qaeda strike in Britain? Anyway, we should start watching British papers more closely, I guess, to get a sense of how strong the dissidents have become.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|