Nothing would make me happier than to see Tony Blair lose the election over Britain's involvement in the war, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. Oh, he might lose the election, in a when-pigs-fly-(like on an airplane) sense, but it won't be because he supported George Bush in his war on Iraq.
The war is simply not an issue here, at least not one that's being talked about in any substantial way (other than by The Guardian newspaper, which is mostly read by Oxford students and Liberal Dems). Neither Labour nor the Conservatives mention it, nor does the average bloke on the street go on about it when interviewed. Television news is all about Rover, immigration, MRSA, and other domestic issues. Charles Kennedy, who is against the war, mentioned his position as a reminder that he's a man whose judgment is sound. In a recent poll only 3% ranked the war as the most important issue, which sparked some discussion over whether or not that was an accurate reflection, but not about the issue of the war itself.
In America, Tony Blair, despite his insistence on going along with George Bush's war, is regarded as intelligent, well-spoken, thoughtful, sincere, all the things we find missing in our own leader. Here, he is loathed. A large segment of the population simply can't stand him. I found that difficult to fathom at first. I remember hearing dual descriptions of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, in which one was described as well read, a deep thinking intellectual—a perfect description of Tony Blair, I assumed, while the other was called shallow, a performer, a smiling face who says what people want to hear. I wondered what kind of Barbie doll this Gordon guy was.
Of course, I had it wrong. It's Gordon who's the policy wonk, the well-read intellectual who's good at sums. Blair is regarded as two-faced, a man who can't be trusted, not just over the war, but because he went back on his promise to Gordon to let the other man assume the leadership of the party, and thus the mantle of Prime Minister after his own two terms.
Recent polls have Labour pulling ahead, after some harrowing neck and neck polling results earlier. They may have peaked too early, as part of their strategy rests on people being so scared of a Tory win they'll hold their nose and vote Labour. As in any close election, it's GOTV—Get Out the Vote—that will determine the winner. That's a lot easier to do if people think the election's close. (Parliamentary seats are much smaller than congressional districts, and a few hundred votes are sometimes all that separates the two leading contenders.)
But there are, of course, more than two parties. An excellent analysis of the impact of voting LibDem in a multi-party election can be found by Nick Barlow at What You Can Get Away With. With 659 seats in Parliament, and Labour currently enjoying a whopping majority of 408 seats (over 160 Conservative seats and 54 LibDem), it's virtually impossible for any other party to outright win. (Here's a handy election calculator in case you're not good with sums.) (On the other hand, if you're really into graphs and such, Phil Hunt offers another explanation of why a LibDem vote isn't wasted.)
Though the LibDems are generally to the left of Labour, it's not true that they're pulling votes only from pissed off Labour voters. They seem to be an equally attractive option for disgruntled Conservative voters, and are making headway in several marginal Tory districts. In fact, in Michael Howard's own district, Folkestone, a LibDem was his next closest challenger in 2001. (I know what you're thinking—I asked a knowledgeable friend if it was possible for Tony Blair to actually lose his own seat, and she said yes, theoretically, but party leaders are assigned to safe seats—there's no residency rule here.)
None of that convinces Guardian writer Polly Toynbee, who is offering free nose pegs to encourage people to vote Labour, in case the Tories squeak in whilst voters beat Blair about the buttocks. Maybe it's American of me, but when she calls the Conservative campaign "low, racist, insinuating, and populist" I can't help but scoff. I know low, racist, insinuating and populist campaigns, and Mr. Howard, you're no George Bush. Conservative election-meister Lynton Crosby is no Karl Rove, either, with a brace of Swift Boat vets hanging from his belt, and Michael Howard on his worst immigrant-bashing days can't outsmirk the Chimp in Chief.
But British voters seem alarmed by the prospect of a return to Thatcherite conservatism, nevertheless, and this might give Labour the edge. "Vote for Tony, and get Gordon later" seems to work well for them too.
And Iraq? The most we can hope for is a draw down there, which isn't such a good thing, frankly. The British troops have an excellent reputation when it comes to policing rough areas, a deft and delicate hand (Northern Ireland was a long time ago), which is what the situation calls for at present. The world needs more British troops, not less. (Another thing that took me aback when I first moved here: someone saying on BBC that the British troops were the best in the world. Patriotic bragging, I thought, but he was right. They really are a first class military, despite the fact they don't consume a defense budget larger than the next 20 nations combined.)
My prediction? (Keeping in mind I'm notoriously bad at these things, and have the bar tab to prove it.) Low turnout will lead to some election upsets. Tony Blair wakes up to a moving van outside No. 10, with Charles and Sarah's furniture inside, and baby Donald looking to usurp Leo's nursery. Tony trades in his House of Commons membership for a seat in the Lords, where he finds himself the only Lord with all original teeth. Conservatives wonder if it's not time to hang it up and join their soulmates New Labour in opposition, while George Bush convinces his new poodle Vicente Fox to send Mexican troops to replace British soldiers.
And pigs cash in their frequent flyer miles.
