Today, in the time-honoured (and let's face it, quaint and rather antique) tradition, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair went visit the Queen today to ask her permission to dissolve Parliament - it is still "Her Majesty's Government", after all (but don't get me started on THAT one!!)

The General Election will be held on Thursday May 5 (for some reason elections here are always on Thursdays).

As ever, the BBC has an extensive coverage section on their website

Most commentators expect Blair to win comfortably - they still lead in most polls, and even if that changes, the first-past the post election system here ensures that even if the main Conservative (or "Tory") opposition lead in opinion polls, or in real votes, they may not win enough seats to get into government.

Many Labour voters are disillusioned in the slow pace of change in public services (here the debate is not over whether government should spend money on health or welfare, but how much), and there is still underlying hostility towards him for his support of the Iraq War (most Britons opposed it). Overall, they have lost a great deal of public trust, particularly over Iraq, and this is a particular problem for "Bliar" (as many opponent now call him) personally. The thinking is the Labour vote may stay at home, leaving the field open for opposition parties.

The Tories are more organised than they have been for some time, and more focused, but still have internal divisions over our relationship towards the EU, and for many voters, still have a reputations for incompetence in government.

For the first time in about 100 years, there is a third party in serious contention - the Liberal Democrats. Their leader, Charles Kennedy, is personally one of the most well-liked politicians in the UK, largely because he eschews mainstream yah-boo politics. And, as the only mainstream party to formally opposed the Iraq War, he has picked up some extra support. However, the only Lib-Dems with any experience of government are those that have defected from the other two big groups.

Unlike the USA, parties publish a manifesto of policies they plan to use in government, and no candidate for the party can deviate from that manifesto.

Whatever the outcome, there may be important global implications. The presidency of both the G8 and EU falls to Britain later this year (after the election), so whoever wins will have more than the usual amount of influence. As things stand, Bush administration relations the BLair government are cosy & warm, with the Tory leadership are distinctly cool (odd, since they have so much more in common politically), and with the LibDems are more or less non-existent.

Questions for debate:
From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

Most Americans couldn't care less about British elections. I, myself, am a disinterested observer. Although I feel that Blair has done a nice job in his anti-terrorism stance, I remain clueless about his domestic policy (which I probably wouldn't agree with anyway). Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

I expect Blair to win and from an American perspective, I want Blair to win. If nothing else, it sends a message to those who are anti-US and anti-US supporters (Blair and Howard, mainly).

As for the future, the British government has already stated that its strategy is to make sure it can work with the US for the foreseeable future, including close military operations. It has tied itself to US policy by taking this stance.

The US needs a few strident allies. The UK and the US have a strong relationship, one that I hope continues.

The British elections would make very little difference to US / UK relations, because it's never really going to be in British interests to move away from the US. So unless the liberal democrats (anti-war, third most popular party) get in, whether the Tories or Labour win is kinda irrelevant from a UK perspective.

From a domestic point of view, I'm not really happy about any of the 3! I prefer the liberal democrats because they are very socially liberal, however they're economic policies are far too populist. Labour are too centralist and the Tories are - well, they're Tories....

I think Blair is fairly Clinton-esque in his policies - and generally I'm in favour of progressive taxation in somewhere like Britain, which has entrenched upper classes, so I guess either Labour or the Lib Dems, except that I'd only vote for Lib Dems as a protest vote, because I don't think they've demonstrated that they have the competence to run the country.

On the highly unlikley chance that any of the three major parties ever adopted a republican Britain stance, then I'd vote for them, regardless of anything else, until the monarchy went, and then I'd go back to looking at the normal stuff (economy, EU etc).




Until elected, of course, when they can do what they like!



Not so odd, conservatism in the US has a marked religious aspect that is generally lacking in UK politics (and indeed UK life in general). Other than both following similar economic policies, they don't have THAT much in common...

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

I hope the Scottish Nationalist Party win in Scotland and it seperates out from Britain. The Scottish economy is currently shrinking at about 0.5% a year, so I doubtt it could be run any worse from Holyrood, (Edinburgh) than it currently is when run from Westminster (London).

Labour will win, but by a pretty small margin. In Scotland the Conservatives will win no seats, and we may even see a Lib Dem majority.

I think we need to participate more in Europe, cause otherwise the French and Germans will (frankly) cause the EU to break up, by trying to tie the development of the EU to narrow Franco-German interests. This is not something I can readily see Eastern Europe acquiesce to. Not so bothered about US relations, because only an entirely insane UK government would try to damage them.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

Like Amlord, I'm not terribly up on the various issues facing the UK at the present time. From a purely US perspective though, I'd like to see Blair continue as the PM. His strong support of the US in the war on terror has been absolutely critical. There is no question that under Blair's leadership the UK is far and away the strongest and most steadfast ally the US has in the world and I'd like that relationship to continue. I don't know what the other guys would do, but I'd just as soon not find out.

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

I would expect from my limited exposure to UK politics that Blair will continue as PM. My experience is limited to watching "Questions to the Prime Minister" and frankly what I've seen on that is that the other guys are flipping idiots.

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

I'd like to see things pretty much continue as they are right now. As long as the US has the Brits as friends and partners in all of this, things are going to work out OK.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

As 50% English I would like to see the Lib dems win since they are the only party that would actually reform the UK into a modern democracy. I don't mind the Labour party, as it has been traditionally, but I regard Tony Blair as a liar and nothing short of a criminal and have no faith in him or his policies.


What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

Blair will win I think because the British people (like the Americans) are too far stuck in their political rut to understand how much their country needs political reform.

The primary alternative to Tony Blair, Michael Howard is a nationalist xenophobe who incorporates everything bad about conservative politics and none of the good. He is a walking disaster area and his nomination for the post of party chairman is nothing short of a disaster for British politics. They might just as well have elected Mark Thatcher.


What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

I'm quite happy with most aspects of the current British position. I just want them to get rid of Tony Blair. How that man can lie, and be seen to be lying, to the House of Commons and not be removed is both a badge of shame for the House of Commons and a naked testiment to the impotency of the British electorate to have any say in who runs Great Britain.


(And on a side note... whats with all these Scots in the British government if Scotland is to be independent?)

*laughter* ...This is really a British concern, that France and Germany are trying dominate the EU. From a German perspective the picture is totally different, some folks here desire more cooperation from GB, I agree with that. Only thing that Britian and the EU are simultaneously mentioned in the newspaper I read is when Britain has vetoed an initiative or blocked something and so on and so forth. And I know that British newspapers are very EU-sceptic and even hostile towards those two countries.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

I wouldn't want to see neither of the two established parties to win, the Tories are too conservative and even less supportive of the EU and Labour & Blair have become vassals of Bush and his war propaganda machine. They could be more cooperative in the EU. Since I have no idea what the Liberals are up to, I can only I hope for the best.

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

I haven't been paying too much attention to Blair's standing in the polls, but I presume he will be reelected.


What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

Well, to make a choice. Either they commit themselves fully to the Unification process or they step out of it. I consider GB to be the biggest obstacle of a United Europe by an "ever-closing union". I guess Britains consider America as the better choice, instead of being part of the European way. I still recall that "letter of the eight" which totally ruined a unified voice in the case of Iraq.
I guess Britain will reduce the troops in Iraq, but I doubt that there will be a main policy change after the 6th of May.

I was one who voted extremely interested. First of all I have the poor habit of being very interested in a lot of things.

However, it is true that the UK is one of the biggest players on the world stage and it makes a enormous difference that it is well run. It's not really a matter of self-interest, decisions made in London will affect much more than America.

It is for this reason that I hope (and suspect) that Tony Blair wins another term.

moif says he is a liar, and I see where he is coming from. He displayed an impossible degree of certainty about the presence of Iraqi WMD.

That said exaggerated certainty does not mean he was intentionally misleading anyone. I cannot stand to hear the short-sided nonsensical claims that Blair is Bush's poodle and the like.

Tony Blair had been concerned about the threat of Iraq WMD long before Bush ever ran for office. Despite the inaccuracy of his conclusions I admire his concern, consistency and resolve. I truly believe in the good faith of Tony Blair. He's one of a very few leaders I can say that about.

His positions on various international issues such as anti-terrorism, the promotion of democracy, debt relief and poverty reduction are all things the world are in great need of now.

I doubt many of his competitors could match that combination.

American leaders have the very bad habit of being insular I am afraid. The world counts on Britain to be the world power that acknowledges... well the world.

One that, for even a moment, refuses to be caught in the trap of pure self-interested government. That's a rare thing on both sides of the Atlantic.

A European leader who can stand in front of cameras and say:

Africa report findings welcomed
has guts.

There is man who can lead rather than follow.

First of all, thank you very much for giving us self-centered Yanks a chance to remember that there is a world outside of the USA.

From the article you provided, one thing absolutely delights me:



This is charming. I can't imagine any situation (short of the death of a major public figure or a wide-scale disaster) which would end campaigning in the USA. Three cheers for the British for keeping things in perspective.

Of course, I'm pulling for the Greens. As long as I am building castles in the air, I am sentimentally pulling for full independence for Scotland and Wales. (Don't ask me for a solution to the Troubles.)

More realistically, I'm very close in many ways to a Liberal Democrat:

Preamble to the Party Constitution

If I had to bet money, I'd say that Tony Blair will take it in a squeaker. I expect the Conservatives to put up a good fight, and I have a terrible fear that they might win. The only reason that this prediction is different from my preference is that I am a little bit more left-of-center than the "average" British citizen. (Which means that I am extremely far left-of-center compared to the average American citizen.)

Let me make a total fool of myself and make some predictions:

Tony Blair remains Prime Minister.
The Labour Party loses a few seats in Parliament.
The Conservative Party gains a few seats in Parliament.
The Liberal Democrats gain a few seats in Parliament.

Please come back after the election is over and let me know how poorly I did.

I'd like to see the UK take a major role in finding a way to allow the nations of Europe to work together without losing individual identity. This is a tall order, to be sure. I would also like the USA and the UK to remain best friends, as they have for such a long time. This doesn't mean we have to agree on policy. The UK and the USA share a very special relationship, and I hope that no spat over politics will destroy that (as the very special relationship between France and the USA has been spoiled.)

Yes, but the reason we're Eurosceptic is because France and Germany try to exert so much influence over everyone else! (& who blocked the services directive? Britain didn't! ) At the end of the day, the fate of the EU is an economic one - whether to follow anglo-american liberal economics or franco-german social democratic economics. I want a PM who argues Britain's case, rather than backing down in the face of France or Germany, because the EU has the potential to be the worlds largest and most productive economic area, and yet somehow it still manages to flail around uselessly....
Also, at the end of the day, the EU can still fail. It is a long way from perfect and if member states don't feel that they are getting enough, then they can leave it. If the EU is to survive, then it needs to listen to complaints from countries like Britain, rather than dismiss them as being obstructive.



The Liberals are hugely pro-EU - although, just like everyone else, they tend to believe that the EU exists to serve the interests of Britain. A pro-Europe British government (and frankly, Blair is very pro-Europe for a British PM) is still going to be awkward, because the EU is highly flawed and someone should be there to point it out!




Again "no"!, we are committed to unification, but not unification whereby France and Germany end up dominating the EU. Easten Europe doesn't want that either! That Britain has so far been skeptical of the EU is not because we're irrational Brits who like to view themselves as a seperate island apart from Europe, it is because we have fundamental (and justifiable) worries about the direction the EU is taking!
Europe's 'ever closer union' is a dream shared by - oh - all of 5 countries out of the 25 in the EU. More than half of the countries in the EU were pro-Iraq and are pro-USA. Britain isn't the awkward country here, we're just the one asking the awkward, yet important questions.

turnea

Don't you find it just a little bit odd that that this initiative happened when it did? Are you really going to tell me that you believe Blair and Brown have launched this campaign now, because they couldn't have done so before their popularity ratings dropped so far?

I shall judge Blair by his actions, not his words. Let us see Africa benefit before we start cheering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ptarmigan

I agree with Sevac.

I live in Denmark, as you know, and I can assure you that we are far more EU sceptic than even the British (and we have the referendum results and opt outs to prove it) and yet there is no fear of any Franco German alliance here.

France is regarded with some distrust, but this is not due to any French/German agenda, but rather the actions of the Chirac government who is seen as a minor irritation.


Yes, but we don't need the UK to do this. We have our own Eurosceptic voices and we all have our own idea's as to how the EU is flawed. The difference between Britain and the rest of Europe is that the rest of Europe is willing to compromise in order to repair those flaws. Britain merely stands aloof and throws fuel on the fire.

What the EU needs from Britain is commitment that goes beyond the lip service offered by the Blair government or the obstructions thrown up to counter French policies that don't sit well with messrs Blair, Brown and Bush.


And like Sevac said, this British nightmare vision of a Franco Germanic domination of the EU is nothing but a phantom created by nationalist Brits who fear the loss of autonomy they see in the EU and capitalized upon by successive British governments since it serves their pro US agenda so well.

There is no 'Franco Germanic domination' of the EU and there never will be. Two European nations, no matter how rich and powerful they once were, cannot dominate a union of 25 European nations, especially when the other twenty three nations are more than aware of the political movements of the two!

Get over this ridiculous notion that France and Germany in some way exert a special control over the rest of Europe via the EU. They don't and never will.


In my direct experience, it is exactly because so many Brits are irrational with regards to the EU that so many of the people of Britain live with the deep seated distrust and suspicion that the EU is something dangerous to their interests

As for Eastern Europe, I don't know where you get your information from, but the Eastern European nations are all largely pro EU and can't wait to intergrate fast enough. Like those EU nations who have been member states longer, they are also well aware of where the centre of gravity currently resides in the EU, and well aware of what that means for them, now and in the future.


I disagree entirely.

Britain is not 'the one asking the awkward, yet important questions'. These questions are being asked by every single nation within the EU, even in France where the Chirac government is in a quiet panic at the prospect of a no in the upcoming referendum regarding the EU constitution.

The rest of the EU is far better clued into the reality of the EU than the people of Britain, a good many of whom are still living in the 'we won the war' mentality. I don't doubt that if the people of Britain were given a chance to engage in the EU debate (beyond the scare tactics of the British nationalists) then they might actually know more about the EU* but no thanks to the Blair government, the British people are still largely ignorant of what the EU is and what it means to them. They don't even get to vote in referenda on the subject!

Tony Blair is not 'pro-Europe'. Tony Blair is an opportunist who has, on several occasions tried to impose his will upon the EU in order to further a 'pro US' agenda. Just like John Major** did before him. Britain has tried, repeatedly to stand with a foot in either camp, but repeatedly demonstrated that when push comes to shove, it will side with America before it sides with Europe. All the Eurosceptic talk that comes out of Britain is just the smoke screen by which successive British governments have tried to mask their duplicity, and frankly, I don't think it really fools any one on the mainland. Most just shrug and carry on regardless.
If Britain, and her government, which ever one it is, is really going to be a counter weight to the French and Germans, then Britain needs to get in the boat first. As it is at the moment, Britain is slowing the EU down, and I have no doubt that that is the whole point of Britains exagerated talk of a 'Franco German domination'.

This up coming election will make no difference what so ever to the British relationship to the EU for the simple reason that the results of the election are practically a foregone conclusion. Even if, by some miracle Michael Howard should emerge victorious, he will continue the same policy towards the EU that his predessesor did.

Perhaps if Charles Kennedy actually had the chance to come to power, then, and only then might the people of Britain actually have a chance to understand what the EU is and what it means to them. Who knows, perhaps they might even get the chance to vote on the subject and open their eyes instead of always having their opinions handed to them.

Of course, the likelihood of Kennedy actually coming to power is just as remote as the likelihood of the British getting over their post imperial PC navel gazing any time soon.


* Here is an example from my personal experience to highlight what I mean: When I studied at University in England, it was the EU that paid my tuition fee's. When I was asked by Brits as to why I, a Dane should be granted a place in their university system whilst Brits were unable to get a place in a Danish university I had to repeat (endlessly) that as citizens within an EU nation they had every right to study at a Danish university, and that many foreigners do. Also, that as members of the EU they were just as qualified as I was to apply to the EU to get their tuition fee's paid for by the EU. Even when I showed them how to do this, even when I gave them the address to write to, no one ever did. They chose instead to complain rather than to act.
My experience showed me that a majority of the Brits I spoke to on this subject were so prone to xenophobic delusions that they were actually afraid of travelling to a country where people didn't speak English. They were indifferent to the benefits offered by the EU, because in their minds, the EU was a bunch of foreigners.

** ...and like John Major, he will no doubt reap the benefits of his loyalty to the USA once he is finally removed from power at some point in the future.

...and one last point, just to clarify my position. I shall be voting no to the draft EU constitution.

Of course. That the British are skeptical about the EU is NOT because the EU is flawed. Oh no, it is because the British are ignorant pigheaded fools. How silly of me not to realise.



It's not really a Franco German alliance per se, its more that France and Germany are heavyweights in Europe and , like everyone else, will want to direct the EU towards their interests. Hence we have no agreement on the services directive because the French don't like it, hence Eastern Europe gets hassle over its corporate taxation policies because they make Germany uncompetitive.


Yes, but why compromise to try and make something that is flawed work? If you try and reach a compromise that 25 nation states can agree on - then you basically end up with very very loose agreements.



I suppose thats where we fundamentally disagree. How can the richest, most populous states - the core of the original 6, not exert influence over the EU?



Well, my information probably comes from the same sources as yours - i.e. what I read!
Well, err the Economist, the Times and the Guardian I guess...

Certainly Eastern Europe is pro-EU, but because they see advantages in trade, not because they are keen to adopt socialist democratic (is that how you spell it) economics, which, IMO, blight Germany and France. They are also considerably more Atlanticist (i.e. pro-USA) than France, Germany, Spain, Italy (other than Berlusconi) et al.



Yep, we're holding back those crazy German and French economies alright. Thats us....without Britain acting as a deadweight, the Eurozone would be experiencing amazing growth...uh huh.


Cause Chirac has never ever ever tried to impose his will on the EU to further the French agenda! Sheesh..Blair is incredibly pro-Europe - I appreciate you may dislike Blair, he may well be a devious little liar, but he still has done far more to try and make Britain engage in the EU than any other British PM.

The thing is, you can accuse me of anti-Europe rhetoric, and I can accuse you of being blind the the sizeable flaws of the EU and that no-one is doing a damn thing about them. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between, however, I certainly think the EU is something which needs to be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Ptarmigan

Yes. On the whole, I find the British to be both largely ignorant and very stubborn with regards to the EU. I'm not calling them 'fools' as such, but I do believe the British people have a very foolish and uneccessarily hostile attitude towards the European (political) main land.


So your point is based on a few examples of when agreements have not been reached due to French or German obstruction as opposed to the many agreements that have been reached despite agreement all across the board?


Because in politics there are only three ways to make things work. Either you have an overiding majority (which no one in the EU can ever have), military domination (which is unacceptable in any true democracy) or you compromise. Its really that simpe.


...er, because they are are heavily out numbered.


And what is this based on? Because eastern European nations have expressed a desire to join NATO? So what? Western Europe is NATO to the core, and carries the majority of sans American NATO weight, but again, so what?

NATO is political history. The EU is the future, whether we like it or not. For the eastern Europeans, joining NATO is as much a statment of defiance to Moscow as it is a statement of support for Washington, and either way, it makes no difference to the eastern European nations desire to join the EU. They are not being asked to choose between the one or the other.

The fact is they are going to benefit far more from the EU than they will from NATO. NATO can only bring them certain military political advantages. The EU will/is going to bring them into the quality of life enjoyed by their western European cousins.


Where did I say anything about their economies?

I'm saying that Britain's governmnts do all they can to keep Europe divided in order to retain their political ties with Washington. That when the EU becomes a single political entity, the British will have to choose a side so the British governments do all they can to ensure that the EU never becomes a single political entity.


Of course Chirac has tried to impose his will on the EU to further the French agenda. Thats his job.

The difference between Blair and Chirac is that Chirac does not divide his allegiences between the EU and the USA.


Well if your going to accuse me of being blind to the sizeable flaws of the EU then perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what those flaws are.

The EU finds it easy to reach agreement on irrelevant subjects. So what? If it can't agree on CAP reform - which would affect millions of people around the globe, or if it is unable to agree on a common military strategy, or to what extent EU members open their markets up to everyone else, then it is fundamentally divided. A few important disagreements outweigh a thousand minor agreements.



Jolly good, but my point was that attempting to reach a compromise between 25 parties with different agendas necessitates nebulous agreements. Again - it's easy to agree on things which don't really matter, but the nations within the EU have not (yet) grown to trust each other enough to think beyond their own national interests and so all little agreement is reached on important issues.


You mean outnumbered because, jointly (and I think it is fair to consider them jointly, because they do act in tandem on EU issues) - jointly they make up 31% of the population and 36% of the GDP (CIA World Factbook)? 'Outnumbered' implies that the other countries also act in concert. They don't - no other country (excepting the UK) comes even close to their populations and GDP.



Who said anything about NATO? Eastern European countries have a very pro-USA attitude when compared to Western continental countries....and France and Germany have stated that they want the EU to be a balancing superpower in a multipolar world, rather than a US dominated one. Well and good, except that Washington don't like it, and if Washington don't like it, neither does Warsaw et al.
And if you actually look at Eastern European economies then you see a whole lot of liberalisation, privatisation and low taxation, which is really what makes them liberal economies as opposed to a social democratic economies.

And NATO provides these countries with a guarantee that they will have allies should Moscow decide to invade. It matters to them, even if it does seem somewhat archaic to Western Europe. And Eastern European countries worry about Moscow, even if invasion looks a little unlikely right now, who says what the future holds.


Chirac has allegiances to the EU insofar as it can be used to promote a French agenda. To say Blair divides his allegiances presupposes that the EU and USA should have different agendas and that one has to choose....and maybe right now that is true, but that doesn't mean that Blair is wrong to try and have the EU and USA moving in the same direction, rather than getting into squabbles, which ultimately damage the EU a lot more than they damage the USA.


Well, to borrow something you said in your last post, perhaps you would care to enlighten me on exactly when and how British governments have tried to do this.

Time I answered my own questions, I think.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?
My absolute dream ideal would be for Blair to win with a majority at the low end of current expectations - perhaps 40-50. Still more than enough for functional, rather than paralysed, government, but low enough to tip the Labour party into pushing Blair to step down sooner rather than later.
Then Brown takes over within 6-8 months of the election (my hunch is that the current mood in the country would see the Tory "vote Blair, get Brown" scare story as a positively GOOD thing) and takes the party back in the direction that people wanted in 1997 and 2001 when they voted Labour in the first place.
And I would also like to see the LibDems surge in support and, through a combination of luck and cleverly-targeted campaigning, overtake the Tories to become the official Opposition after the election, with the Tories coming a poor third.
The Tories would then start tearing themselves apart the way they really ought to have done immediately after their 1997 defeat - as I believe is necessary for them before they can possibly rebuild - but too late to do them any good electorally for perhaps 20 years.
So the first half of the 21st cenury - or, at least, the rest of my lifetime if that's longer - in Britain would see alternations between Labour (assuming they drop the "New" as soon as Blair goes) and LibDem governments, with the Tories as little more than a joke fringe party.

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?
Blair wins with a reduced majority, on a pitifully low turnout, then hangs on for rather too long in Number 10, stoking the public resentment of him personally to such levels that whoever takes over has to accept a poisoned chalice. Internal to the party, he will try to anoint someone other than Gordon Brown to take over as leader, storing up such bitterness and resentment inside Labour that once we lose the 2009/10 election we'll be out of power for another generation.
The Tories under Howerd will show strongly, so unlike recent poor showings, Howerd will stay on in the leadership, even though he'll be pushing seventy by 2009/10. He'll win then, and immediately turn the clock back to the 1980s Thatcherism that the Tories still think is what they should be doing. (They have never fully accepted why they lost in 1997.) This will fail as dismally as it did after 1990, and they will fall apart while in governmnet yet again, further alienating the electorate.
The LibDems will also show strongly, but not enough to

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?
I would like to see more of some of the good stuff - the agenda for Africa badly needs pushing forward, and at the moment only the British government has both the inclination and the opporunity to do so.
On the EU, I tend to agree with moif and sevac - we have to engage more with Europe, not less. Britain cannot be a counterweight to France +/or Germany (and I think it's now mainly France that's the problem - more specifically Chirac) if they aren't firmly attached to them through the EU. We need to sign up to the constitution and work to change things from the inside, not stand outside and say we won't play unless the rules are changed before we start (which is what Britain has tended to do ever since the formation of the Coal & Steel Community back in the 1950s). The French may not ratify it themselves - and if they don't it will be because they think it is "too British" and doesn't go far enough in the French-dominated superstate (where the French get paid subsidies out of everyone else's taxes, as now) direction.
And, I would like to see some cashing in of the credit account that Blair has built with the Bush administration - Africa would be a good place to start, but I'd also like to see at least one public foreign policy disagreement, if only to demonstrate that Britain is nobody's poodle or puppet. (I never really subscribed to that view - I remember arguing that Blair was more like Jiminy Cricket to Bush's Pinnochio than Bush's puppet, but that was before the lies he told to the British public about WMD came to light.)

This would be especially important if Bush took any more aggressive actions under the figleaf of the "War on Terror". For example, if at some point during his second term, Bush does more than rattle his sabre against Iran, I want to see Blair say something along the lines of "No. Not if you want British help, George. In fact, if you go in without express UN authorisation, obtained by the book, with no backroom arm-twisting, I will be duty bound to commit British troops to fight against you to counter such an illegal act, and I will argue for other European nations to join me."

I don't imagine such a scenario would get to that point - for one thing, I seriously doubt Blair would do that. Even if he did, I don't think British opposition would prevent US troops from winning, but I think it would make Bush think twice (heck, getting him to think once would be an achievement). But I do think that such a thing would sow enough seeds of doubt to give the Bush administration pause, and, more importantly, it would be the right thing to do, you don't fight tyranny and nose-thumbing at international law by behaving like a tyrant and thumbing your nose at international law - a line that the Bush adminstration seems to have wobbled on, if not (yet) actually tripped over, in the past.

Umm, so assuming the US had a reason for invading Iran (i.e. that it has nuclear weapons), then you would like to see Blair not only do nothing to stop Iran from using these large and very nasty weapons, but to try and oppose Britain's closest ally, who helped us win WW2 and largely held back the threat of Soviet invasion? - Oh and they also provide us with most of our foreign intelligence (satellite data), provide us with defence research, not to mention huge amounts of American money invested in the UK - to be frank, even if the USA invaded Iran because it was bored, it's never really going to be in our interest to gainsay it. And, sad to say, politicians serve a nations interests, rather than serving morality.

Well I checked into this a bit and just as before Blair has been pushing this issue long before elections. He called for the Africa commission last year and has come up with a plan for the UK to meet it's aid pledges made in the Monterrey Consensus.

..all of this well before elections.

To add to that I don't feel this is an election maneuver because in all honesty, how many votes would it pick up?

Unfortunately, global poverty and development aid are not on a lot of political radar screens these days.

I am judging Blair by his actions and they speak of a sincere effort to craft good policy.

Well, fair enough, if a notional Iranian invasion were taking place because there was incontrovertible, public-arena evidence of an imminent nuclear threat to Western interests - as distinct from the kind of assurances from on high that "yes, there really were nasty things that might conceivably fall into terrorist hands, but no, we can't go into any detail; you'll just have to turst me on this" that got us into Iraq - then certainly Blair should pitch in because that would be the right thing to do.

And yes, I was exaggerating an already unlikely hypothesis to make a point. Realistically, public political oppostion to US adventurism from Blair would, I believe, be enough to tip American public opinion heavily against it and if not stop it dead, certainly undermine it. I'm thinking of the kind of position taken by Harold Wilson over Vietnam, with a more public face.

Having said that, I do think that if notional Bush case for war were especially transparent, specious, or malicious (and I give Bush enough credit to think it would not be, were it ever to materialise), then Britain's position as America's closest ally should be leveraged all the way to a military confrontation we couldn't realistically win, because it would be the right thing to do in this (frankly very unlikely) situation.

But don't underestimate the threat we would pose - knowing intimately how your enemy ticks is one of the best ways to make yourself dangerous (which, of course, cuts both ways). I don't think the US military has much need to be afraid of anyone, but I think they'd be more wary of the Brits than anyone else, man-for-man. We'd lose, but at a higher cost to them than maybe they'd be prepared to accept. (Any American views, if you can express them and stay on topic, which I'm perilously close to straying from myself? *ahem*)

Your national interest position is perfectly reasonable, but is it your contention that supporting the US in Iraq (regardless of the rights & wrongs of going in as a stand-alone argument) was emphatically in the British national interest? What direct benefits has Britain derived, other than some popularity brownie points for Blair personally, that outweigh the costs of the war to UK taxpayers, UK casualties & their families, and the additional risks of being close to the top of the Islamofascist hitlist?

We've picked up some of the reconstruction business, but nothing like as much as our investment might have justified, and companies from non-coalition countries have (eventually) also picked up some of this business. I would suggest that Blair's calculations in tying himself so closely to the Bush administrations policy on the War on Terror has so far been less focused on the effects on British the national interest, which I would say has been neutral at best, and more on his own view of what is the right thing to do.

And I'm with turnea that the movements on Africa that Blair has been leading internationally are not all for domestic electoral show - I think he really does believe in them and will do everything in his power to achieve them. Again, not because there is a direct or tangible pay-of to the national interest, but because it is the right thing to do.

In these last two aspects, Blair has already demonstrated he is prepared to sacrifice, or at least ignore, the British national interest for a higher good. This is, in my view, is one of his strongest points, and one of the reasons why, even now, I respect him a great deal more as a national leader than I will ever respect George W Bush, who - in a long, and mostly (but not exclusively) right-wing, American tradition - does not accept that there can be any higher good than the American national interest.

It is also Blair's Achilles heel - it doesn't win votes.

Zipping back to the topic at hand, my first ambition for the forthcoming election is to annihilate, as far as possible, the Conservative & Unionist party as an electoral force in the UK in the same way the Liberals were annihilated for much of the 20th century. Just to see the look on Michael Howerd's face.

My second is to follow a foreign policy that is both enlightened and prepared to oppose that of ANY other country, including America, where we disagree with it on principle and, if we oppose it enough, back our opposition with a willingness to use force.

Well, that comes down to your opinion on the Iraq war. Saddam was a major destabilising factor in the ME - and his removal makes it somewhat easier to having a peaceful Middle East. In addition, assuming that democracy spreads across the ME, then it becomes a stabler, more affluent region and so less likely to spawn terrorism. But really it stabilises oil supplies and price, which is in Britain's direct interest.
Now BEFORE going on, I should point out that, yes, the above points are widely contested. However, the same is true of claims that the UK went into Iraq purely to support the US, or that Blair & Bush are filled with crusading zeal or that it is all about control of oil. It is far to early to tell what the long term benefit or harm Britain's participation in the Iraq war will bring. (In terms of moving 'up' the Islamofacist hitlist - well, to be frank, we've been second on that list for decades anyway. It isn't as if Islamofacists aren't aware of the history of the Middle East, or Britain's involvement in it, or that we have basically been supporting the US's policies for decades.)

I think that 'national interest' is sufficiently nebulous to cover a large range of activities. So, yes, in the very long term, British opposition to an unwise US stance may be in our long term interest, however, the further away the long term is, the less popular it is going to be for politicians....



Oh I don't underestimate the armed forces at all, the UK army is good, it is a modern, highly professional well trained army. However, so is the US's, so is the French army etc. On a man-for-man level, there isn't a lot to distinguish them, (although our tabloids may tell us otherwise...) however, the US is decades ahead of the UK in terms of military tech, and a lot of the tech we do have is based on research that the US supplied to us - they do fund 95% of the worlds military research! So really, we wouldn't be fighting on a man-for-man basis, we'd be very quickly technologically out matched.



I think the problem there is who decides on the principle! I tend to believe that Blair wanted to get rid of Saddam out of principle, rather than because the US wanted to (indeed, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Blair persuaded Bush to invade Iraq, rather than the other way around)...so presumably he WAS acting out of principle, and felt that the UN was behaving in an unprincipled manner. So who decides what is principled? We can't have a referendum on everything, so to a certain extant, we have to vote in politicians to make these decisions for us, and by voting them in, we also are relying on them to use their own principles as a guide.

But going back to Blair and his goals for Africa, I think they are very much driven by his beliefs, rather than what might win votes. There is very little evidence to suggest that the average UK voter cares at all about Africa, so long as we give some sort of aid. I'm not saying we don't care, but it isn't what people vote on, because African poverty doesn't directly impinge on our lives.

I will admit, I'm something of an Anglophile.

I am hoping Labour wins big. If I'm a single issue voter, and I'm not, my single issue would be type of, not size of taxes. Labour is the home, as far as I can tell, of what little Land Value Tax movement there is in the UK. Baby steps, and we can change the world. I would not mind seeing the Liberal Dems gains seats though, they'd probably support a LVT if they knew about it.

As for USA v UK military: it'd never happen. We are still a volunteer military, and despite education to the contrary, we are still a country that values free thought, even in the military. Our boys know who your boys are, and I doubt many of them would be willing to pull the trigger, or push the button. From my conversations with mil personel, and my readings, the British are very well respected as infantry and paratroops, with a higher proportion of career / professional soldiers.

As for USA anywhere other than Iraq and Afghanistan: not without a draft or widespread international support.

I would like to see Blair lose and especially Labour lose. As an American I am not going to pretend that I fully or even partially know what's going on in Britain but from my few views of the House of Commons in session and the parliament address Blair gives like once a week I have come to the conclusion that I really do not like your labour parliament members. They seem like irrational, whiney, conspiracy theorists whose questions are never really questions but absurd accusations. I remember 1 question where a member wasted time to stand up and ask why "Britain was America's poodle"? to Blair which every Labour member stood to yell "Hear!." Not trying to offend any Labour members in here. Its just something that as an American I guess I do not understand and lack the sociological abilities or caring to try too.

When I take British Political Compass tests I always come up as a conservative. I personally classify myself as liberal but I live in a right of center country. So I hope because they best reflect me that the Tories win. I couldn't really tell you the first thing about Michael Howard but I as an unknowing outsider would support him based upon my American political inclinations and how they would translate into Britsh political philosphy.

So I want Howard in and Blair out and especially Labour out. Out of all Labour members Blair, Hoon and Straw seem the most rational to me and this is coming from a person who doesnt and has never supported the war and the reasons in which it was waged.

What I expect? Like I said I really am ignorant on British politics. I can add no insider info. I can only recycle what I have heard everyone say in various places. Low voter turnout and Blair and Labour retaining power. I have heard this enough to I guess expect this outcome. Not linking Australia with Britain (as Aus. is Conserv and Britain is liberal right now politically) but I remember reading polls that said Latham and Howard were neck and neck and then election day comes and Howard won in a landside. Granted Aus. was voting on economic premise but I think all Anglo nations have short attention spans and no matter how they feel about Iraq it never seems to figure in on election day.

I would like them to take a bigger role independantly in the world. To not invest so much politically with the US and the EU. This is something I think Britain has done well however, despite how every Euro continental tries guilt tripping Britain deeper into the EU by continuously saying their America's puppet. I liken it in the US to how conservatives always blabber on about liberal media bias with the intention of making people and the media so worried and uncomfortable that they may be tilting left that they slam hard the other way in a counter action. Like how they became cheerleaders for the Iraq war.

That is my input on the questions at hand.

I also think I saw somewhere that a poster wanted to know the feelings on a British and American war? I think this is an opening to a manhood measuring contest in order maybe to pad ego's but I would say of course the US would win a hypothetical war. Not because we have better anything but because we have more everything. Then again this scenario is situation dependant. By war if you mean invading and conquering Britain? Cannot see it unless its nuclear. Look at what is happening in Iraq. I imagine Britain would be several hundred times more severe and even if we pooled our resources and conscripted and did the whole WWII thing I would say conquering Britain would be too extreme of a goal. In addition America (aka great Satan) would not simply be facing Britain but 90% of the known world who would be filtering in money, weopens and aid to the Tommy's left and right. Similiar to how everytime Israel goes to war with anyone in the middle east they at least in some capacity are fighting the entire Arab League because muslims in the region feel obligated to aid in the fight against such a despised foe. America is the world's Israel in some regards. A world whipping boy to protest and ridicule.

Anyway you slice it a British/American war would not be good for either side and would need to be avoided at all costs.

I am hoping for Labour party again...just simply because they seem to be heading the UK in a real good direction economy wise. I was just there for a visit and things seem to really be well in London and EVEN in the small forgotten town my nan once lived in....in Kent...where my cousin who still lives there told me over 70% of the population is pensioners or children. The main street was for lack of a better term really revitalised in comparison to the many other times I have been there before...all new shops...and not just charity shops either.

I think the conservatives are going to make a bit of a showing this election ...I am sure Ptarmigan can back me up..they have been getting a lot of press and attention in the news..they have billboards splattered all over London focusing on immigration and health care standards..and I think these are two big issues..bigger than the Iraq war..that most Britons agree need better attention and that the Labour party is not handling well. Also taxes...taxes taxes taxes. That is all the news in the UK focuses on mostly right now. Who pays what and who will be paying more soon and so on. So I feel it will be these issues...domestic concerns that will decide the election...not Iraq and not anything to do with the US/UK international escapades.

The conservatives are so aggressive this year...and they are getting a lot of attention for it.

What gave me a good laugh was when Blair was being abused on the budget and Mr. Brown showed up to parliament with a big red suitcase ...tada! ...goodies for all! I love the spectacle British politics often offers.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

Quite frankly, a typical Frenchman wouldn't give it much of his interest. Personally, I am only interested to see how the new government will affect the votes about the European Constitution when my British neighbors are asked to go to the polls again.

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

Well, I know nothing of the national problems and scandals taking place in GB at the moment, so I'm not one to make statements about any of the candidates and parties.

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

I think any removal from Iraq is a lost cause, so I'm not going to linger on that one. On the other hand, I would very much like to see how the new government will explain the interest of the European Constitution to a nation of traditional eurosceptics. If it's having half the trouble the French government has at the moment, it will be stormy indeed!

Bucket Yep, I can back you up! - immigration, health care and taxes are the big issues - and the Conservatives have done remarkably well by identifying these as the key issues. Really we should have pensions in there as well, because that'll be the next big issue in the UK, but pensions aren't quite on people's radar yet...
The economic improvements are a bit more cloudy - Labour point to the economic growth over the last decade and say it was down to them, the Conservatives argue that their economic reforms (which got them voted out) - were actually what allowed the economy to boom....

kalabus



Well, a lot of that is really the tradition of British Parliamentary debating - which generally to try and be argumentative wherever possible. And of course, America looks different from the outside. Britain gets a lot out of having a close relationship with America - and it is not inconceivable that a UK government would choose to side with the USA regardless of the 'rightness' of a particular war. That may or may not be the case in Iraq, but a lot of British foreign policy decisions are heavily affected by the US's stance, whereas the reverse doesn't really happen these days....so the threat of becoming the US's 'poodle' is actually quite a large concern in Britain.

Horyok


Actually the UK government are kinda desperately hoping for a 'Non' vote from the French on the EU constitution. Whilst the UK public are less Euroskeptic than they were 5 or 10 years ago, they're still suspicious of the continentals! - so a 'No' vote from a UK referendum is almost guaranteed. In which case, Blair really wants the French to vote 'No' first, so that France (rather than the UK) gets the blame for vetoing the Constitution...and Britain gets a few more years to persuade its populace to vote 'Yes'...ah, European politics at its best....

I was aware of this fact. I am saddened to hear a confirmation though... it seems that British politicians are very double-faced indeed about Europe. I wish your country representatives had more guts instead of hiding behind our vote...

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

As an American who is mostly happy wtih the Bush foreign policy, from a national perspective I'd support Tony Blair, who is a good ally.

What outcome do you expect to see & why? If there is a difference between this and your first answer, what do you think that difference is?

This question calls for greater understanding of the dynamics of UK politics than I possess.

What role would you like to see the new British government, as of 6 May, take in international affairs, and why?

As I said in answer to the first question, I'm hoping for continuity with Blair's foreign policy, at least with respect to supporting aggressive action in the war on terrorism.

An important question that occurs to me that wasn't asked: What would I do if I were voting as a UK citizen?

I'd be strongly inclined toward the Liberal Democrats, since at least according to the Political Compass quiz, they generally agree with me on domestic issues. However, I would still support Blair's strong alliance with the US vs. terrorism, and I also share Ptarmigan's concerns about the EU.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I'd like to see Labour mainatain it's majority, keeping Blair as PM, but I'd like to see the Liberal Democrats pick up some ground, as they are the only libertarian-ish party there.

I agree with most of the other posters here:

Labour: Wins but loses a few seats.
Tories: Pick up a few seats
LibDems: Pick up a few seats [hopefully enough to make them the major minority party, but probably not]

I'd like to see them stay the same, a pro-American government who helps present our case to the rest of Europe. I'd like to continue to see them help us out in our War on Terror as well.

I, like Izdaari, would vote for the Liberal Democrats, as they are a socially libertarian party.

CP

Just a note to offer the results of the election:

Link



That's a big loss, but Labour still seems to be in control. Blair's support for the war in Iraq seems to be the major factor in his loss of popularity.

A politician to watch might be the popular Treasury chief Gordon Brown.

The title, if you please, is "Chancellor of the Exchequer".

And he is most likely to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair (Blair has said that he will not serve his full term as PM, but will hand the reins over to Brown. It is generally felt that Blair's credibility has been greatly damaged by the inability to find WMD in Iraq and that his effectivness as PM has been greatly reduced).


Gordon Brown has overlooked a very stable economy - hence has a large degree of popular support (although large deficits are looming). He is considerably more left-wing than Blair. What this will mean for British foreign policy (and, by extension it's relationship with the US) will most likely be that British military intervention abroad will have to be ratified by Parliament first. (At the moment the PM has the special power (granted by the Sovereign of course ) to declare war etc without Parliamentary approval. Brown wishes to end this right - although when he is actually PM, he may prefer to retain it!)

Ptarmigan or Jules-- could you please explain what happened in your election? From the reports that I saw and heard I couldn't figure out if Blair had won reelection. What does it mean that he could be forced to step aside before his term ends? Aren't prime ministers like presidents here-- where they get elected and they serve their term? How can someone be "forced to step aside"? Sorry if this sounds ignorant on my part -- (but I am )

Haleyanne

It means that in the Parlimentary Labour Party, Tony Blair is starting to be regarded as a liability to his party's chances of winning the next election and he will be asked to step aside to make way for Gordon Brown who is still widely regarded as 'trustworthy' by the electorate.

There has been much talk that Blair has had a longstanding agreement with Brown to step aside in his third term. This a'greement' is said to date back to before Blair's first election victory when he was first elected to lead the Labour party. Gordon Brown was another possible leader and the story goes that in return for his support, he (Blair) promised Brown to step aside at a later date in order to grant them both the chance at leadership.

Tony Blair has survived the election but his credibility has suffered heavily, and as a result many Labour party members will shift their loyalties to Brown making Blair's leadership difficult.

thanks moif. But does it mean that he steps aside during this term? Or that he steps aside and doesn't run for the next term? Also, are they capped at how many terms they can do? (here it is two terms)

Haleyanne.

There is no legal limit as to how many terms a British Prime Minister can stand. As long as s/he is supported by the population and the party to which they belong, then they have free reign.

But, as Margaret Thatcher discovered, winning an election doesn't necessarily mean you'll stay in power. If your own party has lost confidence in you, then you will be replaced as party leader and the Premiership will pass to the new leader.

With regards to Tony Blair, he has already made it clear that he doesn't intend to stand for a fourth term so the question is, when will he step aside?

If he chooses to he can remain in power up until the next election, but its far more likely that he will step aside in about two years time in order to give his possible successor (Brown) the chance to consolidate his hold on power in time for the next election in four years time.

Wow. Thanks Moif. I had no idea that it worked like that. It would be unheard of here for a president to "step aside" during his term. Also, I didn't realize that Blair had been PM for so long. Very interesting. I kind of like the idea of them stepping aside if they lose their mandate. Of course, I also like the idea of having more than two major political parties! I wish we could change a lot in this country--- but I don't have much hope that we will move from the two party system during my life time.

THe thing to remember is that the public doesn't vote for Prime Minister, they vote for their local MP. The party that ends up with the majority of MPs in the House of Commons takes power and the current leader of the party (also an MP) becomes the Prime Minister. The party can pass a vote of no confidence and elect a new leader, or the leader can resign. If Blair resigns as leader, the Labour party would remain in power as they have the majority, they'd elect a new leader/Prime Minister and Blair would return to the back benches as an ordinary MP.

One thing to note on this outcome for Americans (not least the Bush administration) is that the faint chance of British support for any further American-led military campaigns of any scale, for example against Iran, unlikely though they may themselves be, has now almost totally disappeared.

Not only would the public support for such action be more or less non-existent, but Blair, with a much slimmer majority than he as been used to, could no longer count on winning any Parliamentary vote to commit UK forces.

And I'm no special insider, but Gordon Brown is no left-winger. He is, along with Blair and Peter Mandelson, one of the main architects of New Labour, and on public service reform, is the main driver for the Private Finance Initiative which many who really are on the left see as the creeping privatisation of public services that no Tory government ever dared to contemplate.

The way some of the media, led by the people around Brown, are portraying his (seemingly inevtiable) takeover as PM at some point during this parliamentary term as some kind of new renaissance of enlightened government can only, in my opinion, lead to further electoral disillusion. It could also be very dangerous for the Labour party - currently most party activists I've come across keep going in the hope that Brown will somehow reveal himself as some kind of dyed-in-the-wool socialist somewhere to the left of Tony Benn and we'll get the real socialist government we all wanted all along. That is not going to happen, and when it doesn't, I fear that the most will desert the party just when the Tories are finally getting themselves back onto the tracks (assuming that they ever do).

Much as I respect the Lib Dems, and I hoped they would overtake the Tories as the main Opposition this time around , I fear that, unless there is electoral reform along PR lines, the rest of our lifetimes will be governed by 20-year long alternations between Labour and Tory hegeonies, with only the first few years of each ever really achieving anything valuable. I would rather alternating single terms to that.

I just did not realize this! So the british never vote directly for a pm? What is a MP?

MP = Member of Parliament, very much like a US representative, there is no equivalent of the Senate. The best analogy would be to imagine that there is no presidency and that the speaker of the hiouse was the countries leader.

Parliament consists of two Houses, the House of Commons (elected MPs) and the House of Lords (um, unelected people, generally a mixture of the various worthies, hereditary peers, religious leaders etc).
The nearest thing we have to the Senate would be the House of Lords. However, as it is unelected (at the moment - reform is underway, although glacial), it has no powers other than to review bills. Unlike the Senate, the Lords cannot block a bill indefinitely. The Commons can force the Lords to accept a bill. Once the bill is passed by both houses, the Queen signs it and it becomes law.

Only the House of Commons can propose bills. All of the executive (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet - Cabinet being the body of advisors / ministers who are responsible for the economy, defence, internal affairs etc) MUST come from the elected pool of MPs.

Technically the Prime Minister is chosen from the MPs by popular vote amongst the MPs. MPs do not have to be in a party, various independent MPs do sometimes make it into parliament. However, a party (e.g. Labour, Conservatives) generally have agreed principles / policies and MPs within that party decide who the would have as PM. Therefore, the party with the majority in parliament chooses the PM.

From your own national perspective, what outcome would you like to see in the forthcoming UK elections & why?

The victory of blair and the pro-american faction is Critical to our interests. America and Britan are the only remaining conservative democracies in the first world, and while I count my self amoung the more liberal wing of conservatisim, I am still proud to say that I, as an American, fear taxes and embrace military power.

Were blair to loose, it would be a major, near fatal blow to American prestiege, and he is only probobly winning because of his incumbancy. Thus it is critical that the war in Iraq be resolved by the end of his servance.

Not necessarily, the main Opposition (Conservatives) are more conservative than the Labour party. They approved of the Iraq war and generally believe that the UK should act as it feels are in its (and its allies) interests. The Tories (Conservatives) would be (ideologically) quite comfortable with supporting the US WITHOUT UN support.

In other words, had Blair lost, the UK would have gone further to the Right, rather than further to the Left.

The wider issues is that the UK electorate do not trust Tony Blair and many disagreed with the Iraq war. This is not necessarily the same as mistrust of America, or even the Republicans as a party (although I would be lying if I said that there is not a certain level of British discomfort with Republican policies, especially the more religiously inspired ones). Certainly many do not trust either Blair or GWB, but this would not necessarily discredit the US in the long run.

As things stand, Britain is either voting for the Centre (Labour) or Right (Conservative). The Left (Lib Dems), despite an increase in votes, are still very far behind in number of seats.

(Certainly I think US prestige rests on somewhat firmer foundations than the support of Britain!)

In speaking of "Conservative democracy" I spoke not in the narrow sense of national politics, but in the broader sense, in refference to the culture of the english speaking world. When I spoke of the criticality of Blairs victory, I did so to emphasize what America would loose in international presitiege with the defeat of a pro-bush candidate, and never mentioned what the implications for the future of British politics might be.

Ah, I see, well it looks like a slightly misunderstood then.

However, the Opposition would have been largely pro-Bush too, in fact more pro-Bush than Blair's party. So it would have been a case of losing a pro-Bush candidate in favour of another pro-Bush candidate. The main 'anti-Bush' party (the Lib Dems) received a much smaller share of the vote.

Had Blair lost, the cause would have been Iraq, otherwise Blair has been a highly succesful PM. In fact, the final outcome was extremely damaging for Blair, despite being a marginal victory. The election results were the UK's public expressing their view on the specific issue of Iraq. However they were not an expression of wider anti-Americanism.

Certainly in the English speaking world, America is judged on a wider range of issues than Iraq alone. The election result has been a damning indictment of British involvement of Iraq, but not necessarily of the US.

I think I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'll shut up now.