Polly Toynbee (Guardian Utd): Tony Blair's time is over

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Wednesday May 4

Tony Blair's time is over
The middle England magician has lost his touch and put the election at risk. He must go - and soon
By Polly Toynbee

Give Tony Blair a bloody nose on Thursday? This election has already inflicted a more mortal wound. Even without knowing the result, the election has changed everything. The political talk of just six months ago already belongs to a bygone era. Even if Labour wins a sizable majority, Blair's time is over as the ground shifts fast beneath his feet; he is yesterday's man. By 2am on Friday morning, after the first flood of results, the only question in the television studios will be: when will he go? It will be the only question in the Westminster lobby, twice a day, every day. Even a very unlikely three-figure majority will make no difference to his own trajectory now. If Labour wins, it will be despite not because of him, and that marks a mighty change in the political weather.

Every Labour MP and canvasser out there has heard enough "No, not for Tony Blair" to know he could never now persuade a sullen electorate to do anything difficult - and a prime minister who has run out of persuasion has run out of power. I have been struck forcibly - and taken aback - by the level of dislike, anger and contempt for him. It isn't just a chattering-class thing; it is everywhere, even in all the places where people have most reason to appreciate the best that Labour has done. Polls may find that people regard him as the most competent of the three leaders to run the country, but that's no tough contest. He could never now, for instance, see Britain safely through a referendum on the European constitution. As the French swing round to "yes", a new leader needs to be in place with the best chance of winning that tough argument for us.

Iraq was never parked, even among the non-political. It swirls about everywhere, either for itself or as a totem of rebellion against Blair, who now takes the entire blame for anything and everything. The anti-Blair response on the doorstep has been a near-universal phenomenon, and when MPs return to find gaping holes on the green benches where close comrades once sat, they will all have experienced that blowback from every front door. It has been strange, but Blair has drawn all the party's poison on to himself - liar, untrusted, smirker, whatever. But his war explains only half of it.

For something else has been at work here that we should be wary of. Call it the Sharon Storer effect from the last election - but shouting at him or other ministers has become the instinctive posture of even the most non-political voters. It is the Daily Mail effect, day after relentless day of heaping scorn. It is the Humphrys/Paxman effect. It is the result of seeing people encouraged by David Dimbleby to shout at the prime minister as if that were now the ordinary mode of address to politicians. Blair's "masochism strategy" may have attracted sympathy or even respect for not running away, but in the broad sweep of relations between people and politicians it was a another downward step. Indignant personal anecdote is eagerly devised by producers who think politics boring and abuse makes good TV - but it illuminates nothing about politics or the ideological divides between the parties. Personal anecdote drives out ideas and only encourages the dismal view that politics is all me, me, me and what my MP will deliver me, shopping not voting.

Read more.

Correct me if I'm worong, British DUers, but I believe Ms. Toynbee is a journalist who is usually in Blair's corner. If so, this is significant.

She is firmly pro-Gordon Brown and never cared for Blair much, at the same time she is quite sympathetic to the Lib Dems.

Although I do agree with her analysis in the article.

that the Tories will take advantage of a weakened Labour Party.

This reminds me of what we were urged to do in '04. Hold our nose and ABB for fear that a third party vote would give Bush the edge. I hope the stategy works better over there. Although her idea is that Brown will be able to control Blair or the Party if Labour wins strong. I wonder though if Blair is any more controllable than our Emperor. Who's to say that Brown would be able to take over from Blair with a big Labour win. It would seem just to give Blair the "mandate" that Bush thinks he got. They seem "joined at the hip" to me in the way they govern.
:shrug:

Here's a quote:


Our wicked voting system obliges pointless warfare between Labour and Lib Dem: there is more political difference within each party than there is between them. Of course they should be in coalition, fighting the common enemy, but it makes no sense to vote Lib Dem where they can't win. Some voters daftly imagine that reducing Labour's majority will turn them leftwards, but letting in more Tory MPs will do the opposite.

Many like me will vote Labour gladly, but the reluctant must hold their nose one last time - then join the fight for proportional representation so no one ever need do that again.