The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : LABOUR PAYS FOR BLAIR

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jun 15, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

LABOUR PAYS FOR BLAIR

FOREIGN POLICY DOES not ordinarily occupy the top spot in the list of issues over which local elections are won or lost. But there is no doubt that Prime Minister Tony Blair's unstintedly servile support to the United States-led invasion of Iraq and his subsequent justifications of it played a vital role in the drubbing that the Labour Party has received in the British local government elections. Even Mr. Blair has been forced to concede that Iraq was a factor in the defeat. The party has lost control of councils that were its traditional strongholds and, unthinkably for itself, it has finished third behind the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party in terms of vote share — the worst performance by a ruling party in a crucial test of its popularity. The British Government's decisions on Iraq seem to have alienated not just Muslim supporters, which the Labour Party had braced itself for, but large sections of its electoral base across lines of race and ethnicity. It will not be easy for the party to shrug off this debacle in the way the British Government glossed over last year's mammoth anti-war protest in which nearly a million people participated.

The defeat places the spotlight on Mr. Blair and his leadership of the Labour Party, which he led to victory in the 2001 general elections but for whose sharp drop in popularity since then, he must take full responsibility. Britain's decision to join the U.S.-led coalition in the war against Iraq was supposedly the result of Mr. Blair's conviction that such a war was "just" and right, his near-missionary zeal for changing the world, and his personal relations with the U.S President, George W. Bush. By toadying up to the U.S., Mr. Blair pushed Britain into an illegal and anti-human war that his country did not want, and by doing this, he ran through his party's powerful popular mandate like a profligate. The British Prime Minister had sought to explain his decision to join hands with the U.S. against Iraq as a step that would moderate American unilateralism. It is quite apparent that Mr. Blair brought no such influence to bear on U.S. policy in Iraq, or for that matter, on the crucial question of resolving the Israel-Palestine crisis. Instead, his dishonourable gamble lost Britain much goodwill and respect around the world and alienated it from its European neighbours.

Even before the local government elections, the feeling had emerged within the Labour Party that Mr. Blair was more liability than asset. Post-debacle, that impression is bound to grow. One prominent Labour leader, Clare Short, has already publicly called upon Mr. Blair to step aside from the leadership. The Prime Minister's supporters within the party may say that the local elections are not a forerunner to the general election, which is due in about a year. But Mr. Blair's appeal to his colleagues not to lose nerve is unlikely to console jittery Labourites who are facing up to the party's worst electoral showing since the 1970s. While the Conservative Party's victory in these elections does not necessarily make it the frontrunner at the next parliamentary election, the results do show that as long as Iraq remains an issue with voters, Labour will continue to lose supporters, especially to pronouncedly anti-war parties like the Liberal Democrats. The hope in the Blair camp is that the transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government will soften voter anger. If that does not work, the only option for Labour might be to dissociate itself from Mr. Blair and his agenda.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion