The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on June 10th, 2017 at 09:27 am
Before the US election, The Guardian thought Bush might lose:
Do not put the champagne on ice yet – there are, after all, five months to go before the election – but it is beginning to look as if Senator John Kerry may have the beating of President George Bush in November.
Now, before the UK election, The Guardian’s Martin Kettle thinks Blair might lose:
The election is probably still 58 days away. A lot can happen between now and then. But that billboard [a Conservative poster on immigration] makes me uncomfortable. What is this country really thinking? It forces you to ask yourself this: can the Tories win? And there is something about the knowing confidence of that message that makes you think the answer is: yes, they really can.
- You know, this has to be the first time that the al-Guardian has actually endorsed a Tory – even by implication – for Prime Minister. Which, in itself, is a pretty good indicator of just how screwed-up the Tories truly are…Posted by Wes S. on 2005 03 09 at 10:01 PM • permalink
- I’m looking forward to the letter writing campaign informing British voters how Americans and Aussies want them to vote. When do we get started?Posted by Randal Robinson on 2005 03 09 at 10:32 PM • permalink
- I’m just waiting for some fool to predict that the Liberal-Democrats will replace the Tories as the official opposition. Ever since the Labour Party emerged at the expense of Asquith’s Liberal Party in the 1920’s, pundits have been predicting a Liberal resurgence to the extent that they will once again be a potential party of government. In the 80’s, they were supposed to replace Labour.
Personally, I don’t care who wins the election. A good Labour government is better than a bad Conservative one. The problem is, with the exception of Iraq, it has not been a good Labour government at all. A Tory victory will be interpreted by the left as an electoral vindication of their own position on Iraq. Of course, the fact that the previous Opposition Leader (Ian Duncan-Smith), supported Blair’s position in the lead up to the war will not deter them in the slightest. The worse possible outcome will be a hung parliament with the Liberal-Democrats holding the balance of power.
- I’d like the Guardian to predict that a rich and beautiful young woman will never fall in love with me and marry me. Do they have a Requests Dept?Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2005 03 10 at 01:08 AM • permalink
- Do not put the champagne on ice yet – there are, after all, five months to go before the election – but it is beginning to look as if Senator John Kerry may have the beating of President George Bush in November.
Oh, THIS? Just a typo; “Preposition trouble,” as Daffy Duck might say. They meant, …Senator John Kerry may get the beating from President George Bush in November.
Good call, eh wot?
can the Tories win? And there is something about the knowing confidence of that message that makes you think the answer is: yes, they really can.
Shockingly he may just be right. A month ago I would have said the worse Blair could have done was get a hung parliament, now things aren’t that clear.
In a few months we too might have a PM called Howard who won against a slimy Labour leader.
- I am a conservative right wing Republican and so am generally opposed to those on the left.
Blair has done one thing right while in office and that one thing he has done so brilliantly right I would hate to see him replaced by an aimless Tory.
Labour has not done a whole lot good for the UK and were it not for Blair’s resolute stand on the WOT I would be cheering for the Tories.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 03 10 at 11:33 AM • permalink
Blair has done one thing right while in office and that one thing he has done so brilliantly right I would hate to see him replaced by an aimless Tory.
So if Kerry had agreed to keep on with the Bush Doctrine you would want in as president?
Pardon my utter ignorance on matters of English politics, but has UKIP already self-destructed?
More or less.
- Bilster,
Very good and untrivial point. Now my understanding may not be right, as I don’t follow UK politics too closely but it is my understanding the Tory leader is opposed to the action in Iraq and WOT in general.
If that understanding is wrong please correct me, as this is key to my position here. If I can be assured that the Tories and their leader are good on the WOT then I reverse course and endorse the Tories. I have read too many articles by Theodore Dalyrymple to think over the long term that Blair is good for the UK.
That said, if Kerry would have endorsed the Bush doctrine it would not have made a difference. Since with respect to the WOT they would have been equal, I would have moved onto other criteria.
My (admittedly less than perfect) understanding is the Tories have knee jerked their WOT position into opposition to Blair. From your repsonse it seems I am wrong in this belief.
Posted by Marcus Aurelius on 2005 03 10 at 02:56 PM • permalink
- “…<u>probably</u> still 58 days away”? Hasn’t it been scheduled yet? Don’t they own any calendars at the Guardian? (Or are they not able to count up to 58?)Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 03 10 at 03:00 PM • permalink
- if Kerry had agreed to keep on with the Bush Doctrine you would want in as president?
Over the course of the primary and general election campaign, Kerry took every possible position on every issue, entirely as a function of the prevailing wind and whichever audience he happened to be addressing at any given instant.
My answer, thus, is that if Kerry had agreed etc, I wouldn’t have believed him.
Posted by Steven Den Beste on 2005 03 10 at 03:07 PM • permalink
- The Tories were against the PM misrepresenting the evidence he had to go to war against Iraq, not the war.
In other words, they’ve been playing the same “but…but…no WMDs!” card for the last two years that any lefty has internalized as their primary response to any question involving democracy and Iraq.
I’d be grateful for any links showing that Michael Howard et al. have a modicum of enthusiasm about what’s been going on with Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran etc. lately.
In other words, they’ve been playing the same “but…but…no WMDs!�? card for the last two years that any lefty has internalized as their primary response to any question involving democracy and Iraq.
Not at all. It is not about the lack of WMD but about Blair’s behaviour when presented with evidence that did not support his case.
I’d be grateful for any links showing that Michael Howard et al. have a modicum of enthusiasm about what’s been going on with Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran etc. lately.
A quick search of their website will find all of that and trying to get ‘Hezbollah placed on the list of terrorist organisations proscribed by the European Union’. http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=120461
