#2 Blair's chance of a repeat election just went down the drain.
Nope. It's ironic that Blair's now squirming over fox hunting and trying to get any ban stalled till 2006, when he's got the promised law to thank partly for his own success. Banning fox hunting was his token 'class war' gesture meant to reassure doubting traditional Labour voters that he really was, at heart, one of them. Most people acknowledge that the issue has got little or nothing to do with animal welfare (after all, it's true that statistically not one single fox's life is going to be saved by banning hunting with hounds) - it's all about bashing what's regarded as a toffs' game. Those affected by the ban - almost exclusively rural people - do not vote Labour. Battles in the countryside are usually between the Tories and the Lib Dems, and usually won by the Tories.
Look for the UK to cut and run in Iraq if he goes down.
Nope. Only in the event of a Lib Dem win, which is exceedingly unlikely. A Tory Government would probably be as steadfast as Labour, and possibly stronger, having less dissent in the ranks. Ignore the publicised spat between Bush and Michael Howard - Howard may be highly critical of Blair, but that's the character of British politics. Howard's predecessor was almost fawningly admiring of Blair's Iraq stance, so much so that it reflected badly on him, making the Lib Dems look like the more robust opposition party. The Tories may be trying to score points in litlle battles with Blair, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in the war itself.
This is a stupid move that wasn't even an issue that needed to be dealt with.
That's correct, only Blair's made it an issue that needs to be dealt with. You can look at it as Blair's pact with the Devil, if you like. He dangled hunting over the core Labour constituency like a fox over a pack of hounds. He's toyed with the issue for a long time, but if the hounds don't get what they were promised, they'll go for their master instead. |