Bush loyalist Blair swoons in opinion poll

If President Bush (news - web sites) is alarmed by his declining poll numbers, he should see Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s.


In a poll published in the Sunday Times, 46 percent of those surveyed said the British prime minister should step down before the next general election; 22 percent said he should go soon after the election, which is expected in about a year.


In the same poll, 61 percent said they no longer trust Blair; 31 percent said they did.

snip

Blair's troubles can be summed up in two words: Iraq (news - web sites) and Bush. The war and the American president are immensely unpopular in Britain, and Blair is closely identified with both. After the release of photographs showing the abuse of Iraqi detainees at the hands of American GIs, senior members of Blair's party and pundits across the political spectrum pleaded with him to put some daylight between himself and Bush.

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&e=5&u=/chitribts/bushloyalistblairswoonsinopinionpoll

he went along with chimp so he deserves what he gets.

It would be a shame if the Tories took back over. It would be as bad as Bush coming in after Clinton for Britain.

Bush is History this Fall. Blair needs to come to his senses.

that's why the Labour party has to turf Blair, get Brown in as leader soon so they can begin to rebuild the public's support.

has won the subsequent election, I believe. I could be wrong, but I think there's a history of it working out very poorly.

I think the Tories smell this. Brown is very uncharismatic and I doubt he could win an election on his own, or at least, the Tories would have a pretty good chance against him. They want to force a VoNC as part of a strategy to win the next election.

They also know that if Kerry wins the next election, Blair will have time to rehabilitate himself.

The private political consutancies will be pushing hard all fall to destroy Blair before Kerry wins.

opposition. The plans are already underway for his ousting, from articles posted over the weekend, it is only a matter of timing.

will win and Blair will be fine.

Do you think that the Tories haven't hired PR firms? What do you think the PR firms are doing to earn their fees.

So you say there ere lots of articles in the press this weekend?

he doesn't need it, he is doing it to himself, without their help. Yes, re articles this weekend, about a meeting between Brown and others, planning the ousting. I live in a country with a Parliamentary System of governance and have seen what happens to politicians who have poll #s like this. Check out what happened to the Conservative Party after Mulroney screwed it like Blair. Check out what happened to the NDP Party in British Columbia after Clark screwed it like Blair. You are right, replacing the leader won't get Labour the election, most likely, so you can plan on a Torie government after the next election.

think he shouldn't run again in the next election (and, no doubt, they published the results of this survey because he probably won the survey of the question, "would you vote labor or tory if the election were today?").

The Tory PR crews will be working hard to get Tony out before Kerry wins in the fall.

When Kerry wins, Blair will be able to redeem himself.

And I see we agree -- replacing Tony (under any circumstance other than Blair leaving willingly) would result in a Tory vicotry in the next election. Guaranteed.

because this seems to counter your argument that it is the opposition that is plotting Blair's downfall. There is no doubt they are but they aren't the only ones or even the most important ones, as shown in the article:

Meanwhile, the succession already is taking shape. The tabloids dubbed it the "Oyster Bar Plot" after word leaked that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, widely seen as a Labor kingmaker, and Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer and Blair's presumed heir apparent, met for 90 minutes in a car parked behind the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar, a restaurant in Scotland.


According to the political chatter, the two discussed how to smooth the transition to the post-Blair era. Prescott, a staunch Blair loyalist, fueled the speculation in an interview over the weekend in which he acknowledged that a seismic shift in the political terrain is under way and that senior figures in the party are beginning to position themselves for the transition.

and not behind it.

But, "behind" probably sounds more omininous than "in front" where people are walking in and out and could plainly see two of the most recognizable faces steaming up the windows of their Ford Mondial.

You need to read these articles more closely. Never do they ever quote a source. It's ALL rumor. It's BARELY journalism.

That a brief pit-stop at an Argyll seafood restaurant can be elevated to political legend illustrates the febrile state of politics, as MPs speculate endlessly about whether Mr Blair might be about to quit. Rightly or wrongly, the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar will now rank alongside Granita as a synonym for secret deal making.

http://www.lochfyne.com/pages/content.asp?PageID=631

whether the front is the front and the back is the back or whether there was steam on the window and I will parse whether Blair's #s are bad or really bad.

...characterization of events, isn't it?

You're really telling me you don't see it?

the kind of journalism you've used to support your argument.

news outlet as the Oyster Bar, forgive me, I am sold now!

than the major media.

That, in itself, says a great deal. However, it's probably a reprint of someone else's article.

Apparently the PR money which buy's opinion has reached down to the food reviewers, or to the small town press on the west coast of scoltand.

Now, did you read the article?

seeing as it is posted on the site of the restaurant in question in the article. There have been numerous NEWS articles on the meeting, repeat, NEWS articles, but if you prefer to believe the, again, don't quite know what it is, on the Oyster Bar site, rofl, feel free.

:)

I was hoping that it would be completely free from the taint of bias.

Nonetheless Brogan, does place the meeting IN FRONT of the Oyster Bar (because no tables were available), calls it a "pit stop", and writes about the meta message, which is, isn't it crazy the way the media has turned this into a big thing.

LOL

...critic who hasn't yet been bought off by a Tory PR firm.

Nonetheless, it's still a very nice contrast to the other article with the 90 minute back-parking lot description, don't you think?

(Did you mean to say, "I apologize for not reading it and seeing that it was from the Telegraph? If that's the case, I accept your apology.)

*

and could get this thread locked and I would rather not have that happen so this will be it for me. Blair's poll #s are plummeting and, if history is correct, he will either be turfed, stay and be defeated and the Tories will win. Carry on your debate about semantics with others if you wish.

Whatever. I'm still not sure why you projected an apology on me.

The article is from the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar web site.

It offers a very interesting contrast to the piece of spin that forms the center of this thread.

I can't get anyone to even respond to the question whether they're willing to admit that there is a contrast, which I find obvious.

This all relates to my other argument: attacks on Blair are probably coming from Tory PR firms because they're afraid that he's really out of the woods on Iraq (and I don't think that criminal acts by soldiers are going to undermine his government unless they're part of a policy (and even Muriel doubts they are)).

And I think the poll numbers are definitely a product of the Tory PR spin, but I still argue that they aren't enought to see him get voted out of office. For example, Muriel posted an article which notes that Labour's numbers are strong considering the point in the election cycle which Blair is at.

And the thing about cylces is that they turn, and the thing that is going to turn labour's cycle is Kerry's election, which means it's now or never for the tory PR firms, and thus you get stories in the press that have amazing contrasts in their characterizations of simple events.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1111698,00.html

Blair’s problems are playing into Gordon Brown’s hands. The chancellor emerges as a more popular candidate to succeed Blair than five other senior politicians — David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, Robin Cook, Peter Hain and Jack Straw — put together. A total of 4% of voters say they would be more likely to vote Labour with Brown at the helm.

Among the key group of voters who supported Labour in 2001 but are now disenchanted with the party, 32% say they would be more likely to return to the fold if Brown became leader, against 15% who would be less likely to support the party.

Although Blair is under extreme pressure, Labour’s overall position is relatively strong for this stage of the political cycle. The poll puts the party on 34% support, with the Tories on 37% and the Lib Dems, 20%.

So your guarantee is dubious. People already say they prefer Brown. The Tories already lead Labour. Blair is an impediment to Labour.

I think the strategy for the media is to try to manufacture the perception that Labour needs to get rid of Blair to win, when people pretty much accept that if there were an election called in a month, Blair would be the PM when it's over. It's going to take a lot more incessant PR spinning to get to the point where he couldn't.

Whereas in the last two years, Bush didn't mind the war looking bad because he knew it was hurting Blair (remember that link from democracy now I had you look at?), I think Bush needs the media to stop making the war look bad for his own hide. And that is going to prevent Blair from going farther down. It's all up for him from this point on. Bush didn't get Blair out when he could and it's too late now.

So, in many ways Blair is over the hump with Iraq. Of course, the torture thing hurt Bush, and they tried to rub that off on Blair, but it turns out that the UK probably isn't engaged in the Battle of Algiers-style imperialism America is engaged in and therefore doesn't have the designated torture prisons.

And when Kerry is elected, do you think Blair is going to stand in the way of Kerry cleaning up that mess? No. They're going to be the heroes.

On the other hand, get Blair out, win the next election for Tories (which is inevitable if Blair leaves with his tail between his legs), and Bush may be gone, but the new Tory government can continue the imperial project in Iraq. They can hire all those former tories from the major government who lost their lucrative contracts selling weapons to Milosevic thanks to Clinton and Blair.

but regard a Daily Telegraph article as a good bit of objective reporting?

Yes, I still remember the Democracy Now interview, and I remember that your interpretation of it was totally unsubstantiated. Bush has not been running the war to make Blair look bad. Why would he need to, when Blair has been so supportive? Bush did what he did because he's an idiot who can't plan an illegal war and occupation.

Blair is not out of the woods with Iraqi torture. The accusations did not depend on the photos. There have been accusations from the ICRC and Amnesty, and there's another set of photos that came up last year (but the public never saw them; when a squaddy gave them in to a shop for processing, the shop sent them to the police (http://www.spacewar.com/2003-a/030530093525.yb9ea7lp.html). However I don't think there's a suggestion of a torture policy by British troops; just random sadism. Some British intelligence agents are said to be involved with Abu Ghraib, though.

It's not inevitable that Blair leaving would sink Labour. Thatcher went unwillingly (after she announced her intention to stand in the second round of Tory leadership elections, they had to send the entire cabinet in one by one to dissuade her), and Major won the election after that. The reason for that is probably his ditching the poll tax - Thatcher's most unpopular policy. Brown might be able to do this with Iraq (he's kept a low profile about it).

it wasn't written by a food critic who wasn't bought off by a tory PR firm.

By the way, did you notice the contrast?

where the Tribune article quoted some real poll figures? Yes; but that doesn't explain why you posted the Telegraph article in the first place. Did you just want to witter on about the Westminster gossip?

I googled it because I wanted to provide evidence to DU'ers that it doesn't have a back parking lot, to prove that the tone of the other article was intended to convey intrigue and coniving.

However, I got more than I expected, probably because my argument was so obvious. I found an article that not only placed Prescott and Brown IN FRONT of the restaurant, it explained why they were there, and, furthermore, it was an article about the spectualation about what was going on between them.

How do YOU resolve the differences between the characterizations of events.

There is no back parking lot at the Loch Fyne Oyster Bar. Why did the article place Prescott and Brown there?

in the Telegraph article. I'm gobsmacked that you think the important thing about the Tribune article is the location of the car park in the last-but-one paragraph, and ignored the rest of it - poll numbers, the problems Blair has being close to Bush, his quote supporting Bush, possible deployment of more British troops, and so on. The last 2 paragraphs are a summary of the events of the Telegraph article.

You are taking spin to a whole new level. You're not Peter Mandelson, are you? You hijacked the thread magnificently.

were worth mentioning.

It wasn't I who cut and paste that like it was something super important.

And anyone who cares at all about media spin would have been struck by the same thing, I believe.

I'm interested in the characterization of events, and, since there's no back parking lot at the LFOB, I'm going to trust that the Telegraph's characterization is more accurate.

He's a war criminal. How do you redeem yourself from that?

What do you think Kerry's plan for Iraq will be?

Do you think Blair is going to stand in the way of or facilitate a sensible plan?

Blair has enabled and participated in the illegal invasion and occupation of another country based on lies - lies from both b*sh and himself.

Should Blair be excused, even if he turns 180 on Iraq? No.

I don't think you're saying that, but I also want to make my position clear: Blair must be held accountable for his crimes, even if he distances himself from the man he committed them with.

Tory in office who won't cooperate with Kerry and who will treat Iraq like a get-rich quick scheme for their arms-dealer friends.

That's my prediction.

And it's not that I disagree with your prediction entirely.

Blair should still be held accountable. That's all I'm saying.

should be not to let a Tory become PM, even if it means that your sense of revenge against Blair isn't satisfied.

I know some will disagree, however, Blair has brought incredible change to the UK and moved if towards progress and democracy in ways that will truly hold back creeping fascism, and Iraq has been part of that stategy, in my opinion, I would be so quick to throw out the baby and the bathwater.

Does accountability for war crimes mean nothing these days?

I never thought highly of Blair who moved Labour Party to the right. But how could Blair stomach a vile nit-wit and his neocons buddies?

No excuses, no matter how appealing Blair might be were he not involved with evil men.

He made his bed, he must be shackled to it.

. . . it bleeds.

I think all he was trying to do was show British support for the US.

I'm not sure he likes Bush very much.

How could he have appeated to be such good friends with Clinton, and the same with Bush who is the complete opposite in every aspect?

Either one of these friendships was a lie, or he really doesn't like either one, and is supporting the aliegence between England and the US.

...simple answer to your query.

Maybe the ruler of Malaysia will keep him as a pet.

Without him, it would have been more difficult for Shrub to invade Iraq. He gave Shrub credibility. And, Blair sacraficed his countrymen for an unworthy cause. That shows poor leadership and a weak mind. Both reasons why Blair should be out.

without going out of his way to fellate chimp boy and getting hoodwinked into the Iraq disaster.

I thought Tony Blair was truly comforting after 9-11 (unlike *). I can't believe how far he has fallen. Such a waste. Such a shame. He'll go down in history as a failure, where he could have been one of the greats. All because he cast his lot with that miserable failure of a 'resident.

can sleep at night.

but i hope somebody out there can make the torries choke on their plans.
i'd hate to a democrat in here and tories in over there.

but he hitched up to a dead horse..

Make that milque-toast.