READER BRAUN TACON EMAILS:
The world (English speaking world at least) has spoken:
John Howard
George Bush
Tony Blair
Seems to me those that oppose Iraq are in the clear minority, at least on the one particular topic of the war in Iraq.
What’s more, Meryl Yourish emails to note that George Galloway lost to war-supporter Oona King. I wouldn’t make too much of this, but you can bet that had these elections gone the other way, people would be making a lot of that.
[LATER: I think that Meryl is wrong about this — at least The Scotsman says Galloway is set to win it, and this report shows a Galloway victory. LATER STILL: Iain Murray says Yourish is wrong.]
Meanwhile, Jim Bennett emails:
What the media just isn’t picking up on is that this election is between the party that invaded Iraq because it wanted to enforce international order, versus the party that wanted to invade Iraq because Saddam needed to be taken out. Where else is that the case? The openly anti-war party is running a distant third — anywhere else, they’d be the govenment or the main opposition.
That’s not how it’s being reported, of course. There’s loads of electionblogging at England’s Sword. But Jim Geraghty is less sanguine on Blair’s account:
Summary at this hour: Labour wins majority, but greatly reduced. Blair’s political legacy is tarnished; the handover to Gordon Brown is just a matter of time. The Tories look set to have a surprisingly good night. And while the Liberal Democrats may do better than the exit poll, they may have increased their vote where they need it least (safe Conservative or Labour seats).
Stay tuned. I don’t know what to think — I like Blair for his support on the war, but not much else. The Tories, on the other hand, seem rather lame.
UPDATE: Bennett’s comment notwithstanding, it looks like bad news for Blair, and I suppose that war was part of the reason — though I wonder if it would have been different if it hadn’t been for the constant, and frequently dishonest, BBC coverage. But reader Hale Adams observes:
Blair’s reduced majority is probably due to: 1) the fact that his party’s been in power for eight years now, which is a pretty long run by modern standards (since, say, 1950); and 2) the fact that Labor’s majority was so lopsided at the start in 1997 as to constitute an elective dictatorship– even the loonier stuff Labor wanted could get through Parliament . . . . Both factors increase voter dissatisfaction because people get tired of governments (or Administrations, in American parlance) that have been around since “forever”, and because Labor has indeed passed some truly goofy laws in what is best described as a fit of absent-mindedness due to its huge majority.
If I were British, I’d be tempted to vote against Blair in spite of the war, based on other things. As an American, I of course would like to see him do well for diplomatic reasons. I guess there were a lot more British than American voters in this election . . . .