How’s Blair going to deal with his dissenters?
March 30th, 2005
-
Will there be Flight-style sackings of the 17 who’ve signed the anti- Iraq ticket?
With the Tory leader, Michael Howard, under pressure for being too tough over Howard Flight’s comments on tax how is Tony Blair going to deal with dissent within his own party by a group MPs who have signed up to making the Iraq war a key “issue of trust” at the general election.
According to the Independent this morning 17 of them have signed a declaration saying: “I was and remain totally opposed to the war on Iraq. If elected as your parliamentary representative in the forthcoming general election, I will do everything in my power to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end.”. They plan to include this statement in their election leaflets.
The chairman of Labour Against the War and MP for Nottingham South, Alan Simpson, is quoted as saying: “The war and the leader are the biggest factors on the doorstep. Those MPs who opposed the war would be daft not to make that clear to their constituents. It’s the biggest single issue driving Labour supporters into another camp - either the war itself or the question of trust. ..At parliamentary by-elections, the party has pursued the Basil Fawlty line. The basic instruction is, whatever you do, ‘don’t mention the war’. But it’s the issue that gets thrown back at Labour candidates on the doorstep.”
This could give Tony Blair the chance to contrast his approach to dissent within his party with what many are saying was Michael Howard’s “over the top” move to de-select Howard Flight. The problem is that this would just keep Iraq on the agenda and this is not an area that Labour strategists want to dwell upon.
Some new polling research that’s just been put on the MORI website shows that the war might be a bigger issue with the “grey vote” compared with the electorate as a whole.
To the question Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is handling the current situation with Iraq? the overall split was to disapprove by 63% to 28%. Amongst the 65-74 age group the split was 70% to 23%.
Just before the start of the Iraq War in March 2003 MORI showed that 30% of the public approved of Blair’s handling of Iraq, and 54% disapproved so opinion is hardening.
Meanwhile on the betting markets the Labour spreads have remained pretty stable on 351-356 seats with IG Index. But it’s moved down to 350 - 351 with Spreadfair so there has been some Labour selling.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
The very reason that I am still betting on the LDs Mike.
Betting on them to do what?
to come third…?
“The war and the leader are the biggest factors on the doorstep..”
It’s interesting that other Nulab activists are saying that nobody mentions the War on the doorstep. What is the experience of activists from other Parties? Can any lurking Libdem or Tory activists comment?
4 - I dont lurk! But I can confirm that no-one at all has mentioned the war to me when I have been canvassing. They do hate Blair and the local council. They also do mention immigration!
“The war and the leader are the biggest factors on the doorstep..”
If nobody else is hearing about the War when canvassing, does that apply to “the leader”?
I.e. are many people saying on the doorstep “I’d vote Labour, but for Tony Blair”?
Celebrity endorsements will win the day. Lib Dems now have the intriguing mix of Brian Eno, Tariq Ali, Samuel Brittan, Germaine Greer and Nicholas Parsons. But the early release of prominent supporter Jonathon King offers hope to a Tory campaign that had rather lost its way…perhaps he will now be imposed as the candidate in Arundel!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1447677,00.html
http://www.libdemthistime.org/
Mike - another unsourced nod to this site in Matthew Oakeshott’s Indy piece today about “Why the Tories don’t stand a chance in this election” - it mentions spread-betting and the current Tory spread of around 200 seats.
7- Speaking of celebrities endorsements, the SNP has Sean Connery phoning voters.
Richard [5] - I doubt people will mention the war to Tories. One point canvassers of all colours need to bear in mind - in reporting issues “raised on the doorstep” is that many people say “no, not interested” (with varying degrees of charm :))…
It might be of interest if those who are canvassing chose to say what %age of people raise any issue with them…
When is the next poll due?
David, the next poll is Populus for the Times around the 6th April (next wednesday , I think)However,following the election announcement on Monday they will probably come along everyother day
Thank you Peter 5 I needed a smile this morning.
Could it be that people only mention what they think the canvasser wants to hear? Most people aren’t good at small talk.
So if all you have to do at the sight of a Tory is say “These bloody Gypos….” or to the Lib/Dems Blair wants putting up against a firing squad for what he’s done in Iraq…..” Or to Labour “Is David Blunkett really likely to get his job back…..” then everyones happy. I bet not one person changes rtheir vote because of a cold call.
14 - I alway do that. I have to admit that the Labour part called, one of those terrible recorded voice messages so you are not actualy speaking to anybody, and asked who I voted for in teh last election and who I intended to vote in this election - I told them Tory in the last election and Labour this (I obviously lied about who I am goign to vote for in this election). I don’t see how canvassers can actually tell who is telling the truth or not.
Surely Jonathan King will be snapped up by the Lib Dems, they still have plenty of seats to fill
These references to that monster which seem to be coming from all political colours are beginning to strike me as a little bit sick.
17 - especially if you heard Radio 5 yesterday.
17 Jonathan King is off-topic, but I find him one of the creepiest people I have witnessed.
IA at 11: about a third the people I talk to raise an issue, interpreted broadly (it could be something as vague as “I liked what you did about that gun shop”); non-candidate canvassers report much lower levels. Around one in ?20? of those raise Iraq, normally critically; of these, the majority agree after discussion to vote Labour through varying degrees of clenched teeth. But I did at last meet one yesterday who said “I cannot vote for you because you supported an illegal war” - I nearly said “You are Mike Smithson and I claim my £10!” (More seriously: I find that most people take a view on the merits of the war more than the perceived legality.)
About one in ?10? raises immigration, around two thirds arguing that we’re too soft and one third quoting the Tory campaign as a reason to vote Labour - there’s an overlap with the anti-war group - “I didn’t agree with the war but now I see those bloody Tory posters I suppose I’d better get behind you”. One in ?20? mention Blair in both directions - he still reaches some who would otherwise not vote Labour, and vice versa, but mostly they’re reinforcing their natural inclination (”I always vote Tory and I can’t stand that Blair”/”I always vote Labour and I think Blair is great”). Otherwise it’s all over the shop - anything from packaging taxation to garden waste recycling to hunting to New Deal regulations. It’s good fun, and I’m doing it four hours a day now.
Picked up some queries in past posts - sorry to have missed them before. Iain Lindley - yes, have used national direct mail too, though edited it fairly extensively to suit my personal approach. Cynic - hadn’t intended to conceal anything in the BBC quote (if I had, I wouldn’t have quoted the web site reference for the full text): my affection for European cooperation and animal welfare issues (the only bits that got squeezed out, I think) are very well-known locally anyway - anyone who wants to withdraw from the EU and restore hunting would be insane to vote for me. Are you on my email list, by the way? - if not, drop me a line at NickBroxtowe@aol.com.
And those 500 helpers that someone said most MPs have. ??? In my dreams. Maybe 80 in 1997, 50 in 2001, 80 again this time (because it’s closer rather than because they’re keener). Sincerely doubt if many MPs on either side have 500, unless that includes purely passive members.
King is releasing a cd , it’s as absolutely awful as he is and that’s saying something.
Re my 9 - here is the article: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=624652
I assumed it would be a pay article so didn’t post the link first time round.
More on Mr Flight: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1447893,00.html
Just read a Reuters article which says the last four opinion polls have put “non” in the lead in France - anyone know a market on this.
I know completely off-topic but is Blair going to get off lightly again??
24- the last one was 54 for the non and 46 for the yes.
According to the polls, more than 70% of the left-winged voters will vote non.
“I’ll be buggered if we let Jonathon King stand for the Tories in Arundel” say’s irate party chairman Chairman.
20. That must explain why for the first time in eight years the Labour Party claim that they are to be tough on asylum if elected. Is there an election around the corner and what about the last eight failed years of Labour in office?
Iraq is a vitally important issue on the doorstep and the fact of the matter is that had the Conservative Party known then what they know now then there is no way the vast majority of Conservative MPs would have voted in favour of going to war. The bottom line being once again that Mr Blair is a liar.
As for the current sitting MP for Arundel - the soomer the flight is grounded the better. Michael Howard has handled this issue with superb leadership.
23 It’s a pity this rule wasn’t in place in time to deselect the Mellorphant Man.
The differences between Blair and his anti-war MPs makes Howard and Flight look small fry. I doubt Tony Blair will want to draw attention to this.
I have many letters from anti-war MPs and it is clear that some despise Blair. They contrast with the sychophantic yes-men who would have been against the war ONLY if Tony Blair had also been.
I think all anti-war MPs seeking re-election will get a boost in their vote. I hope the issue of the war is elevated on the eve of the election by the likes of Lib Dems, Respect and the Greens.
28 - I said that yesterday funnily enough! And of course Neil Hamilton. The Tatton Conservative Assocation (especially after the way they behaved with Hamilton) are extremely lucky to have the lovely George Osborne as their MP.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/17571384?source=Evening%20Standard
This is quite an amusing item.
Geoffrey at 27. If everyone knew there were no weapons then no-one would have voted for war! But if you are saying that IDS would have gone against the Americans unlike Blair then you really don’t know your own party. IDS to his credit (unlike your present leader) has never hinted otherwise. Which is why, perhaps some consider the difference between Mr Howard and a slippery eel to be not that apparent.
31 Sean.
That looks like proof that Labour MPs recognise Blair is a liability!
I notice the opposition like to call Labour: “Tony Blair’s Labour Party!”
Although curiously Blair always gets higher approval ratings than the Government itself (albeit only by 2 or 3 percentage points).
I hope there is an anti-war/anti-Blair march a few days before the election which brings London to a standstill as a million people come out to get rid of Blair.
Blair is unpopular, and at one level a liability for Labour. He does have formidable political skills though, which makes him an asset.
Nonetheless, it does make sense for opposition parties to put “Tony Blair’s Labour Party” on their literature.
“”I would burn at the stake for Howard Flight,” Mrs Agar declared,”
Who would you burn at the stake for!
Opposition parties should definitely put pictures of Blair looking smug on their literature.
Nick [20] - thanks very much.
Jon [24] - this is exactly why Blair is so relaxed about the EC referendum issue. It may never happen, and if it does he may even win it, and if he doesn’t it’s a perfect Colombey-les-deux-Eglises moment…
38 With the question ‘Would you buy a used car from this man ?’.
40. Beware. For all the laughs that poster generated NIxon won re-election in 1972 by a landslide.
I would just put a leaflet out saying “Can you ever believe a word they say?”
Which party are you Geoffrey?
27 Geofrey, I hesitate to rehash arguments from the Other Side, but IDs and the Tories had exactly the same information as CK & Co about Iraq, yet chose a different judgement call on the war. I have my own views as to why they did so, but to say that they were any more misled than anyone else is disingneuous.
There is no doubt that Tony Blair antagonises Tory voters, and the more they are reminded of him, the more likely they are to vote.
Tony Blair is also deeply unpopular with that small number of voters for whom the war is important, they may vote Lib Dem or protest, but may be persuadable by individual MPs/candidates.
On a broader level though the judgement seems to be that Tony Blair is popular especially with that group of voters who voted Tory in 92 and Labour in 97, and thus is still a key asset to the party.
Which is why Gordon Brown isn’t Prime Minister.
“Which is why Gordon Brown isn’t Prime Minister. ”
didn’t some polls show that Brown is popular and respected by the majority of voters from all parties, while Blair is popular with Labour voters, but unpopular with nonLab voters.
Yes. Though to be fair, a PM is likely to draw much more flack than a chancellor.
Howard Flight off the leash is like a breath of fresh air - someone daring to say that large amounts of spending on things like health is not necessarily a good thing (see Evening Standard) - there could be Tory campaigns this year - one from the shadow cabinet saying virtually nothing on each policy in turn and then a headlining grabbing quote after each announcement by the press-friendly Flight!! Eg shadow cabinet: we think we could reduce the numbers of immigrants; Flight: we should flog them… etc etc
49 - it solves the pensions crisis!
48- yes. But I think that the new voters Lab got in 1997 (and kept in 2001) won’t switch back to the tories if Brown is the party leader (like pregethwr seems to suggest in his last part of his 45 post).
I don’t doubt that if he becomes PM, his ratings will start to go down.
27 - The Tories declared themselves overwhelmingly in favour of the war BEFORE the dodgy dossier even saw the light of day. Certain Tories, including Ken Clarke, were not convinced of the case for war and knew no more than the Lib Dems or any other MP. This was a judgement call and the Tories got it badly wrong.
The issue really for the election’s outcome is not primarily how many people are feeling like Iraq is a major issue, but who is. Many solid libdem voters are highly vocal about the war when canvassed.. but they’d vote libdem anyway. The key is how many of those who are inclined to vote tory or labour feel that Iraq is an issue, and then whether that will tip their voting towards either the tories or the libdems.
I suspect, and phone canvassing would also indicate, that there are a large number of labour voters, particularly the more educated ones, considering their position as a result of Iraq. Unfortunately for us liberals it seems the majority of these will simply not vote at all (or at least that is what they tell me!)
The Tory voters Labour picked up in ‘97 and ‘01 are unlikely to switch back now. It seems to me that NEW labour have given them just what they wanted.
47 - Brown’s higher poll ratings are due in no small part to the fact that he has kept his head down on tuition fees, the war, foundation hospitals et al. If he becomes PM he will have to nail his colours to the mast and will,as a consequence, begin to alienate certain voters and see a decline in his popularity. Current poll comparisons between Blair and Brown are consequently bogus.
Margaret Thatcher won three elections and unless my memory has gone she was the most unpopular leader any of us can remember. Basically the leaders popularity doesn’t seem to matter at all.
56. At least Maggie wasn’t unpopular with her own party and supporters for much of that time.
Margaret Thatcher’s approval ratings fluctuated wildly. She had very positive approval ratings in the run up to the 1983 election, and her ratings were certainly better than Blair’s currently are in the run up to the 1987 election (MORI had her at -6% for March 1987). Blair’s approval rating is similar to that of John Major in 1997.
Which is why it all comes down to Labour turn-out.
53 - ” that there are a large number of labour voters, particularly the more educated ones, considering their position as a result of Iraq.” thomasjpaul Iraq has never been a problem for me as I never supported Saddam,I’m voting labour,why are you implying I’m not educated?
Despite the best efforts of President Blair and his small band of trusted advisers, the British people still seem to vote in the endearing belief that they we have a parlimentary system where they vote for a local candidiate and the party he or she stands for. Here! Here!
The leadership effect has always been overplayed, despite attempts to rewrite history Labour would have comfortably won in 1997 with John Smith as leader. Blair probably added something like 30-50 to the majority.
Hear hear Vino.
Vino wrote:
Iraq has never been a problem for me as I never supported Saddam,I’m voting labour
Reply:
I doubt that many anti-war voters supported Saddam.
But I expect lots of them supported the families of the 100,000 that are dead, the thousands of orphaned Iraqi children with limbs blown off, the weapons inspectors who wanted more time, the UN who did not give approval, and the concept that intelligence shouldn’t be spun.
I have argued all along that the Tory position on the war is a serious problem for them. However they play it now undermines their position. If they say that they wouldn’t have gone for it if they knew what they know now, then it is quite legitimate to ask why the LDs came to a very different conclusion on the same evdidence. If they continue to say they would have gone to war anyway, but we have a problem with the evidence then it is legitimate to ask whether they would have a) ‘misled’ the British people themselves or b)supported regime change as a goal - a position that most in Britain are uncomfortable with. Either way, their position is not unequivical, and therefore difficult for them to play. Their best hope is that all the spotlight on the issue is directed at Labour and that they aren’t questioned too much on it during the campaign. If it is a major issue during the campaign though they are going to have a tough time explaining their position IMO.
WRT Iraq, I think the spotlight is on Labour, rather than the Tories. I don’t think that the Tories gain anything from the issue, but Labour definitely lose from it.
It’s slightly similar to the ERM. Labour were as committed to it as the Tories, but only the Tories got hit when we came out of ERM.
64 - Compared to Labour, their position on the war is a lot more easier to defend. Ultimately the Tories were not the party who sent us to war, they can say their position was down to the duff information they were given by the Government and to be honest, the people who are most against the war were never going to support the Tories anyway.
Vino at 60. I’m not sure where the link between saying that canvassing experience shows that if someone is rethinking their labour allegence (sp?) then it is probable that they are among the more educated of voters and the claim you seem to be reading into my post that if you are educated you will not vote labour!
Your post implies all those who were against the war supported sadaam. I was against the war, does that mean that I am the supporter of torture and illiberality?
63, Printz, Yes , but as one who didn’t support the war , we shouldn’t delude ourselves that pre-war Iraq was a place of milk and honey - it was a terribly ravaged country led by a wicked and evil monster . Also there were those on the tory benches who wanted Blair to bomb Bagdad sooner !
66 Yes, and the (substantial number of) Tories who opposed the war in Iraq are more likely to regard it as a mistake, rather than as something so outrageous that they must punish their party over.
Nick at 20- the surprising ommission from the BBC article you quoted was “HE IS A LABOUR LOYALIST” - Are you not? Is publicwhip.org wrong? You are proud of your governments achievements why not tell people you are loyal to them?
If those few words didnt fit in the box then maybe a larger box or a slightly smaller font would help!
Nick (20) - I did not say that most MPs have 500 helpers. I said that a well organised Lib Dem Local Party would have 500 helpers. The Lib Dems rely much more heavily on local organisation to getlost of leaflets through doors in their target seats than the other parties. I guess they have also, up until now at least, tended to be rural or suburban where delivery is slower. There are several Lib Dem target seats that regularly mail 1500-2000 members and helpers.
What the anti-war lobby, and indeed the Tories, haven’t said is how they would have dealt with Sadam Hussain, given the choice.
Leaving him alone was not an option while there was the slightest chance he might be developing WMD, sanctions were starving the Iraqi people (about the only thing I agree with GG about), and there was no sign of any change coming from within.
Jack W wrote:
63, Printz, Yes , but as one who didn’t support the war , we shouldn’t delude ourselves that pre-war Iraq was a place of milk and honey - it was a terribly ravaged country led by a wicked and evil monster . Also there were those on the tory benches who wanted Blair to bomb Bagdad sooner !
Reply:
Is Iraq a better place now? Is the world a safer place? Was Britain regarded as a top AL-Q terror target before Iraq? Yes Saddam had to be dealt with, but in a way which would create a minimum fallout. It was clear that Bush didn’t give a damn about the Iraqi people and he was motivated by the agenda set out by the PNAC. Blair should have been calling the shots or not got involved, but he was in awe of Bush, possibly the one man he thinks is more powerful than him.
As for the Tory position. It was pathetic and I wouldn’t even try to defend it.
IDS was like a schoolboy out of his depths who believed what Blair told him. Tory MPs largely agreed with IDS, because politicians usually follow their leaders like sheep, plus at the time they probably IMO thought that war usually makes the government popular.
Michael Howard’s position is that he would have supported the war come what may but would have said it was for regime change not to get rid of the weapons. What an absurd opportunist he is!
Printz, what do you mean when you say ‘Saddam had to be dealt with, but in a way which would create a minimum fallout’ ?
If you’re arguing that the war could have been prosecuted better and a better plan put in place for rebuilding then I agree with you absolutely. However even with hindsight I’m not sure what actions the British government could have taken to bring it about.
Roger - Whilst we’re on the subject of ‘absurd opportunists’. Its good to see that Labour policy is now being dictated by celebrity chefs. Or do you really believe that Labour have been planning this for months? We’ll have Keith Floydd setting the liscensing laws next.
What about when Blair stepped in to save Phoenix the calf. Presumably that was to do with new veterinary advice and nothing to do with public sentiment. Its fine to hace a go at Howard but when it comes to naked opportunism your leader is hard to beat.
Cynic at 70. Your point is bizarre. In this country we vote for a party. So “party loyalist” should be taken as read. Any MP who want’s to announce themselves “disloyal” should fight their seat as an independant.
I don’t think Blair has any problem with the dissenters on Iraq. Whenever I watched the debates he always respected their views whilst trying to persuade them that they were wrong. If you can’t have different opinions in a political party, we might just as well have a dictatorship. Which neatly brings me on to Mr Flight and Mr Howard. The action taken by Michael Howard is unprecedented. Even the Maastricht rebels had the whip restored to them by John Major before the general election so they could defend their seats. Howard/Crosby have blown it big time, but they were never going to be elected by trying to be a slightly nastier version of New Labour. The next time there is a Tory government will be when they come forward with a distinctive message which chimes in with the mood of the people, not trying to be all things to all men. The amount of net tax cuts the Tories are promising IS peanuts. Why dont they have the guts to say what they really want to - that they will slash spending, give people back £000’s of cash in tax cuts and give tax relief for private health insurance. It might be really popular.
Somebody has already made the point, but how would the no-war brigade get rid of Saddam. Can you imagine the world no wwith him still in power. There were many good reasons to get rid of Saddam, not just WMD, anyway how many people honestly can say they thought Saddam had no WMD. The Secret Services of France, Germany and Russia thought he had, even Dr David Kelly was convinced. How could Blair not beleive it, after all its all weve been told for years, in Thatcher, Major, Bush 1, Clinton. Remember Clinton bombed Saddam in 1998 because he did not cooperate, and even high and mighty Robin Cook supported that. Saddam danced with the devil too many times and lost, we could not keep thousands of troops in Saudi because of Al-Queda threats and trouble there. Saddam HAD to be got rid of, one way or another, it was messy, but Kennedy, Howard would all have had to deal with the situation, with the Americans breathing down their necks. And lets remember Blair about bust a gut to America to go down the UN route.
76 - LOL at the Keith Floyd line, though I’m more a Nigella man myself, but wouldn’t you be accusing Labour of not listening to public protest if they hadn’t done anything about school meals?
I was thinking that Max. What was that charge about jumping on bandwagons. Oh it’s OK now because it’s Tony and he just responds to public concern.
74, no. It makes it a good deal harder to deal with other rogue states if the stated reason for going to war in Iraq turns out be false.
83 . The irony is we would never have known the reason to going to war was false if there had been no war!
79. George Galloway not only had the whip removed, but he was expelled from the Labour Party (rightly IMO).
74 Roger - it’s one of those irregular verbs.
I am in tune with public opinion, you are an opportunist, he jumps on the bandwagon.
81 - Half Deep fried pizza with chips three times a week never did me any harm (rugby twice a week so had to make do with crisps, chocolates and post training ciggies)! I’m not sure if you have this delicacy south of the border.
Sadly it’s something I’ve been deprived of, Max!
Max [87], is it true that if you know where to go in Glasgow you can get a deep fried pint of heavy?
FOR MIKE SMITHSON……Mike , If you could find the time would you please contact me via e-mail. Many thanks .
“74 Roger - it’s one of those irregular verbs”.
Andy.If you’re referring to my name I think it’s known as an “active” verb!
burbachris - how are the “war brigade” going to get rid of Mugabe, Sudanese, Burmese govts etc, Iran, North Korea etc etc? More wars. Er no. Plus plenty of people who were rather well informed did not believe there were any WMD - the weapons inspectors for several plus dozens of investigative journalists (Parris wrote a piece in the Times listing their names a few years ago). Perhaps you can explain why they were not allowed to finish their mission?
89 - BV as a Scots Tory I prefer a deep fried single malt!
The argument surely is that going to war was unnecssary.And that the threat wasn’t imminent. I’m as against the war as anyone. But I don’t believe for a second that TB took the country to war believing there were no weapons. Why would he have done this knowing his deception would soon be found out?
94. They believed they would be showered in flowers by a universally grateful Iraqi public. The troops could be quickly brought back democracy would reign and possibly a few rusting mustard gas shells from the Iran-iraq war would show up, and with all sweetness and light who bar some letter writers to the Indpendent and Guardian would care about any exaggerations.
Truly Roger after all that’s been said and done you must be the only one in the Country who believes Blair ever really believed the 45 minutes claim at least. No doubt you may argue he did it from the best of motives but we all know Blair is a smart guy and knew precisely how much he was pusjing the envelope
Jon. War is obviously not the answer to most situations, but Saddam did have 12 + years to complly with UN sanctions and the ceasefire he agree to in 1991. As I said he danced with the devil too long.
And its amazing so soon after 9/11 that they decided they must go to war with Iraq.
95. Thr 45 mninute claim was not even mentioned in the commons debate.
Ian G wrote:
Printz, what do you mean when you say ‘Saddam had to be dealt with, but in a way which would create a minimum fallout’ ?
If you’re arguing that the war could have been prosecuted better and a better plan put in place for rebuilding then I agree with you absolutely. However even with hindsight I’m not sure what actions the British government could have taken to bring it about.
Reply:
Saddam was already humiliated before we even attacked. He was dismantling his unguilded missiles, normally seen in museums.
The weapons inspectors were in there, but what about the human rights inspectors? Is it credible to wait through a decade of sanctions and then claim it was about regime change for the good of the people after not finding any weapons?
You can only make good decisions, unless you are lucky, with good information and a clear head. The politicising of every department, right up to intelligence and dossiers by Blair may have meant he was deluding himself, as he and his own people weren’t putting enough distance between spin and reality. Anything that had caveats had those caveats taken away. The case was made for war, not peace.
The UN could have passed a resolution declaring Saddam was wanted for crimes against his own people and for breaching international law.
Why didn’t they do that if Saddam was such a bad man?
Bush and Blair could have bombed Iraq with aid and propoganda that their own leader had betrayed them and was a wanted man and urging them to rise up. By winning goodwill, they could have built a truly worldwide coalition to put intense pressure on Saddam, while at the same time keeping their eye on the ball of what is really a threat: Al-Q and climate change, not that, that is important to Bush.
If as much effort and money had been put into removing Saddam through peaceful means, I doubt Iraq would be in the mess it is in now. Even if it failed to remove Saddam, Britain and America would have won the propoganda war and Saddam would be cut down to size.
As it is now polls show most people around the world think Bush is the most dangerous man on the planet. Our own Intelligence said that attacking Iraq would inflame a backlash and now we are seen as a top terror target, so why did Blair rush to meet Bush’s timetable when most of the nations at the UN said they wanted just 45 more days for the inspectors? Those nations had compomised a lot, why couldn’t Blair? Was it because Bush had already made up his mind come what may he was going to take out Iraq?
Nations did not trust Bush’s motives. The neo-cons had already planned that they should take Iraq to gain a powerful middle east presence and secure security of the oil as laid out in the PNAC before Bush was even elected.
War must always be the last resort and those initiating that war shouldn’t be seen to profit from it and have a duty of care to the citizens of the country they are attacking.
The reason why this war was a bloodbath is that Bush was interested in war and not peace. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but if your objective is war and not peace you aren’t likely to reach a peaceful solution.
What tosh Printz. Come to the real world. It took 12 + years of trying to get rid o Saddam without war, it didn’t work. We even tried to assasinate him at the start of the war, and gave him a final ultimatum, if we had backed down, Saddam would be seen as as the victor in the arab worlds and the US humiliated.
Gentlemen and Ladies - respectful reminder re Mike’s Noise-level maxim.
98 Split hairs if you like but we know why the claim was put in the press, what it was intended to aschieve and what it did achieve. As i say it is a perfectly plausible argument to say that doing this was justified for moral/geo-strategic reasons but it was put out there by the Govt and thus ultimately Tony himself.
Burbacc - but we now know that he had complied with them - I ask you again why did Blair not allow the weapons inspectors the time they needed to find that out? Of course we both know the answer - Bush had decided on regime chance and the troops were waiting to go. Blair found himself caught between two very uncomfortable positions and made a choice which I and many others always believed was the wrong one.
Did Blair lie - absolutely he did. He said that the intelligence was authoritative and beyond reasonable doubt and much more besides and it was not, even before everyone knew for a fact there were no WMDs. Had he said the intelligence was thin and contradictory as it was who knows if the vote would have been different.
Roger @ 78
The context of this is that Nick quoted on, his leaflet delivered to constituents, a 100 word article from bbc.co.uk to describe himself, the parts ommited were: “HE IS A LABOUR LOYALIST” &(he takes a strong interest in international affairs) “FROM A STRONGLY PRO EUROPEAN POINT OF VIEW.”
It is a legitimate point to ask why it was edited like that. the other ommission was understandable as it was about his animal rights stance which was covered in the leaflet elsewhere.
Amazing. There are still posters on here who seem to believe that Iraq is a vote loser for Tony Blair’s Labour party. My fellow Sun readers and myself respect stregnth in a leader—and thats what he showed(s). Sure, it has damaged a little of his credibility, but has loads of that in hand. Sure, he’s dishonest, but who’ll cast the first stone?
Accepted—the chattering classes didn’t approve of the war, but they are outnumbered by Sun readers by, say 10-1.
Not in the polling station they aren’t David.
105 - Did all Sun readers support the war or even more so believe they had not been lied to?
99 - Printz, I trust you’ve read “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchal Collectivism” by Emmanuel Goldstein?
David has a wonderful line in irony…was almost folled myself!
As Bernard Woolley might have put it “The Sun’s readers don’t care who runs Iraq so long as she has big…. “
TS @108, No, but the movie, IIRC Charles Hawtrey and Hattie Jacques playing the leads, was a veritable classic of its genere…
FWIW David is a declared UKIP supporter so I’m betting irony was not intended but prepared to eat humble pie if proved incorrect!
I have just read an extract of Bernard Cricks’ biography of Michael Howard . It’s also available at w.w.w.timesonline.co.uk . Click T2 and then Mission Accomplished.
It deals with Howards’ failed leadership bid in 97 and Widdercombes’ successful sabotaging of it. There are some juicy qoutes in there and I’m sure they will provide much ammunition for tory opponents in the coming weeks. The book is published on April 4th !!
Yes, virtually all Sun readers supported the war, and were encouraged to do so by the editorials. But that doesn’t mean that the Rev. Tony is going to be backed at the GE, either by us readers, or the editor.
The Sun feels pretty undecided to me, so a large number of don’t knows may be detected by you experts…
111 “Carry on up the Collective Farm”? John, I hope you stood on one leg when writing that post!
114 Don’t get your hopes up. Labour have been hard at Michael Howard for months. The only effect of it’s timing will probably be some extra book sales for Mr Crick and the serialisation in the Tory hating Times. MH has been busy putting out there all the details Crick intended to “reveal” himself.
113, Sorry link ishttp://timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1546093,00.html“> http://timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1546093,00.html
sorry that should have been 113.
Yes, the Times is definitey the most Tory hating of all the papers.
Sophia @ 119. I would hardly class The Times’ attitude to the Tories as hate, rather veering on the side of dislike. If you want to see hate, pick up The Express or The Daily Mail; as far as I can see, its whole reason for existence is to give voice to prejudice and vitriol.
Alright, I rephrase that as the newspaper that dislikes the Tory party the most!
113- Howard wanted to join the Labour party in the 60’s.
After this revelation, what could we expect next? Maybe Ann Widdercombe thought to join Galloway’s Respect. Not that it would be essentially a bad news for the tories.
I read the extract. There didn’t seem much in it that wasn’t already public knowledge, although I was struck by intensity of Ann Widdecombe’s loathing for Michael Howard - she really is an oddball.
116 j, I’m not getting any hopes up . But you may bet your bottom dollar that Labour have been preparing their Howard election offensive for years . ie Widdercombe left a message on her answer machine after the “Paxman” interveiw . It stated “For anybody tempted to vote for Michael Howard, last night’s Newsnight should be compulsory veiwing” Cue Labour party political with the tag “Are you thinking what we’re thinking ?”
Dopeople agree that given the way History turned out 1997-2001 that MH looking back owes Widdecombe an inadvertent Thanks for thwarting him in 1997. Of course he may yet be buried this time but i think all will agree that trying to fight Blair at the height of his popularity would have been utterly hopeless for anyone, and as Hague ultimateley mounted the kamikaz attack in 2001 Howard’s career was thus prolonged since it wasn’t him who took the rap.
Re:27 Frankly, anyone of reasonable intelligence and having a good judgement of people’s character could have seen that Blair was lying through his teeth about the war on Iraq. That so many Conservative MPs with, sadly, few honourable exceptions, couldn’t is a worrying sign of their unfitness to be the Official Opposition let alone a potential government!
124 - they’ve been running hard against Howard since January. Howards’ approval rating has risen sharply since then.
125 - yes. I think that was one contest that it was good to lose.
Re 124. Exactly the point i was making i don’think Mr Crick would learn anything new about MH that hadn’t already been known by the Labour Party who no doubt have been puttinh him under the microscope for years.
Sophia @ 121. Yes, I now see that is what you meant the first time.
My mistake. Interesting to see how a lot of newspapers have shifted positions since 2001. The Express (under Rosie Boycott) was largely pro-Labour, so was The Guardian and to an extent The Independent. I can’t recall if The Mail was even slightly supportive, or grudingly accepting of NuLab?
129 - yes it was for a while post 1997 - didn;t Blair try to woo Dacre? My lefty journo friend was able to justify working there at that time so it must have been ok!
124 - I have seen a couple of the proposed Conservative election broadcasts which are incredibly powerful.
131 “Are you thinking what we’re thinking? Howard Flight wasn’t, and we’ve got him in a programme of “re-education”"
Re:63 and the British soldiers who are now dead and their families bereaved because of a PM who lied his own county into an unnecessary war and an ‘Opposition’ who were too stupid to know that he was lying to them and the country!
I am not sure election broadcasts make that much difference - I usually push the off button when they come on.
Re:72 Just because a country has WMD or is developing them is not a sufficient reason by itself to invade said country. After all, the state of Israel is loaded to the teeth with WMD so why not invade that country?
Andy @ 131. Let me guess. Filmed in stark black and white. Images of rats leaving a sinking ship then cut to images of dirty, starved and half diseased immigrants looking shifty and uneasy in front of the cameras. Sinister music, ebbing and flowing. Bold white letters with messages like, “Immigration out of control”, “Our borders unguarded”, “Blair helpless to protect Britain”, “No one knows how many are here, and what they might be doing?”. We see M. Howard, stern, concerned, unhappy as he shakes his head before telling us all how this country is in danger of the spread of immigrants, and asylum seekers. He will explain that after 8 years of dithering and political correctness, this country is a soft touch when it comes to protecting our values, our resources. Its time to be tough, its time to get a GRIP (he will probably clench his fists for emphasis) of this threat .. and so on. At the end of his softly spoken, but stern tirade we will probably see “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” on the end caption.
*shudders*
Re: 123 Ann Widdecombe is one of the few Tory MPs that non-Tory voters have any time for. She is respected I think amongst these people because although her opinions aren’t liked by them she is forthright and doesn’t care who she upsets with them. She is a politician of the old-school in this respect and is liked for it.
Tabman Steve , I see that your foil kinkel is having his posts deleted . I was going to e-mail his post about kilroy to a mate but it’s gone west . Has the site lost its sense of humour or are we to be treated to 6 weeks of party diatribes and points scoring without a little light relief from time to time . Any explanations please ?
136 , AlexQ , You’ve seen it then !
Jack - I think Mike has set him up under the Spamtrap because of his piece on Norfolk North, wich probably sailed a bit close to the edge of unacceptability. The aristocracy don’t usually have to observe such niceities.
He has to be careful given the litigiousness of certain political figures (including GG).
However, I look forward to edited versions of his latst constituency surveys - hopefully from around the East Midlands.
Jack W @ 139 .. Yeah, in my worst nightmares. I wouldn’t put it past Tory HQ to play very hard with immigrants and asylum seekers; appearantly its their strongest card in polls and focus groups. I don’t think they mind too much if they are cast as the nasty party, as a lot of people respond to toughessness, and being tough often comes with being nasty for maximum effect. It worked for the Nazis.
Yes, it worries me what a desperate party might do to grab hold of the levers of power.
141 - burn down the HoC? Support FPTP???
141 Or to hold it for that matter? I doubt TB would relish the AG’s full advice being published in the extremely unlike event he either loses or his position is o weakened Brown replaces him.
Tabman Steve 140 , I saw the Norfolk piece and laughed myself silly . I also showed it to my brother who is out and proudly gay and he was in stitches . What about the Kilroy item ? I’ve heard far worse on Radio 4 & 5 and frankly some of the “straight” political comment is far worse . I’d be sad to lose a little colour from the site .
Tabman @ 141. Careful what you say, you will be giving “them” ideas
Has this forum been swept for moles?
Please can we steer clear of invoking the Nazis in any serious discussion about how mainstream political parties conduct their campaigns?
j @ 143. They are all desperate, but I feel the Tories are more so because they have been humiliated twice and tried virtually everything, bar burning down the HoC. Desperate people do desperate things; hiring that Australian guy (Lynton) shows they are deadly serious this time. The Tories really are formidable. It might scare me into voting Labour .. again.
146 John, isn’t there some law of conversation whereby it takes only so long for the N word to come up?
John @ 146. Yes, I can see how inflaming that would be. I’ll be a bit more careful with my passion here
147 You’ll be telling us you realy believe Millburn’s line that the Tories can win next. Have you been listening to anything Mr Smithson has been saying?
Tabman at 148:
Godwin’s Law - “In any Usenet conversation, the longer it goes on, the probablility of the Nazi’s being mentioned approaches 100%” (or something like that). Often misquoted as “The first one to mention the Nazi’s loses the argument”
Re: 141 The only problem with the Tories’ stance on immigration/asylum is that it is all a deception to gain votes from UKIP/BNP. The fact is that many of their policies in this area are illegal under EU law so unless they are willing to pull Britain out of the EU then all they are doing is deceiving people.
Cynic at 70: yes, I’m a Labour loyalist - I’ve been a party member for 34 years through thick and thin, though I reserve the right to criticise policies or suggest new ones that aren’t the party line (not a hanging offence in the Labour Party as it appears to have become Elsewhere). I don’t think anyone who’s been in Broxtowe for a while is in any doubt about any of this, actually. I don’t remember leaving it out for any reason other than space (borne out by the fact that when you first asked about omissions I’d forgotten it!).
Perhaps we should transfer the discussion to vote-2005/Broxtowe when the site is back up, as it’s a bit off-topic on this site?
151 - Andy, many thanks for clarifying that.
152 - “unless they are willing to pull Britain out of the EU”; aren’t there several Tory MPs campaigning openly on this stance?
152. It’s unlikely becuase it’s unlikely they’ll win, but you can renegotiate. WEhat would they do invade? I think Maggie threatened to stop paying any money unless they got the rebate. Wouldn’t that have been illegal even then?
Re [152, 154]: at least those Tory candidates who are standing on a “quit EU” platform are consistent. A Tory government that was unwilling to go so far might be faced with the propsect of paying for an agreed derogation on immigration law with increased financial contributions to Brussels. As the Nazi on Rowan & Martin’s laugh-in used to say: very interesting… but stupid
105. Crony Tony just does whatever his spin doctors tell him to do including enter an illegal war.
I used to call my Mum a Nazi when I was 15 and she said I had to be in by 11 O’clock on a Friday.
157 Geoffrey , thank you for your incisive contribution . Now that Printz has vacated the darkened room , you might wish to take his place and lie down.
136 - couldn’t be further from the truth
Graham - knowing your mum I’m surprised you survived to your present age after that remark?
161 Graham …exactly how well did you know Jon’s mother ?
Jon. Under her formidible exterior, she’s very forgiving - she had to be to put up with my brother for 18 years!
Jack. I’m not sure I know his mother, but apparently he knows mine. I won’t go into all the women I have known - my wife my look at the site on the sly
A propos of absolutely nothing at all, some of you might be interested to hear about my in-depth political analysis of Scotland, carried out over the Easter Holiday. I carried out face-to-face interviews with a random selection of mainly ex-Edinburgh University students from 30 years ago. The usual motley collection of 50 year old medics, assorted health workers (other), software developers, accountants, teachers, academics and clergy. OK, the methodology would cause Graham and other serious pollsters to go off with a loud bang, but they were all I could muster in the time available for fieldwork. They came from Kirkaldy and Dunfermline, Edinburgh South, Renfrewshire East, Dunbarton East, Paisley (North?) and whatever they call Glasgow Hillhead these days.
My question was a simple one: Have you seen any signs of political life from any political party since Christmas? Any leaflets? Any canvassers? Any Voter Vault, push-polling, importuning for money or offers to kiss your babies?
The answer was that the couple from Edinburgh South had seen two leaflets, one from the Tories and one from the Lib Dems. And that’s all, folks! Nobody else has seen or heard a thing. In Scotland, it seems that these people are completely unaware that campaigning has (ostensibly) already started. These are fairly politically aware people – two expect to be on the G8 rally, some were on the Glasgow anti-war march and three were wearing anti poverty bracelets, but between them they were completely unaware of the excitement we are supposed to be generating.
Maybe we political hacks are all getting a little bit too excited? Because in Scotland at least, no-one seems to be getting their message across.
Nothing wrong with ‘particpant observation’ Augustus, as long as that’s your stated aim. Some anthropologists argue that it is the only way to get a true insight into the cultural norms of a defined population. I am not sure whether graduates from Edinburgh 30 years ago have been the subject of many anthropological studies before though.