Friday, May 06, 2005
The UK Election
Well, it was a very mixed night for Blair and Co. The percentages are not yet in, but the basic forecast is a Labour majority just above 60 seats. The Tories have gained more than 30 seats, in large part due to strong performances in London and the East Midlands. Perhaps as surprisingly, they won 3 seats in Wales and 2 in Scotland, which puts them in their best position in either region since the 1997 blowout. That isn't saying very much, of course. They remain an English party with regional handicaps. Whatever the swing againt Labour, it didn't help the Tories make any headway in the Northeast or Northwest.
Indeed, what is striking about this election is how mixed its results are. No party experienced really sweeping gains. In Scotland, the SNP counted coup twice against Labour, gaining Dundee East and the Western Islands (now known as Na h-Eileanan an Iar). What is key about these gains is that they have occurred in districts the SNP lost to Labour in 1987. Fundamentally, the Scottish nationalists are retracing their old steps. Though they leave the election with 6 seats, they are not yet the opposition party they'd like to be. It bears mentioning that each of their two new seats was won with a fairly small margin.
Probably the most disappointing result was George Galloway's victory in Bethnal Green and Bow. He unseated Oona King, a longtime civil rights activist who had supported the Iraq war, with a bitterly divisive campaign. Galloway is the most contemptible individual in the British system. He declared in 2002 that " the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life." In 1994 he told Saddam Hussein "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." He won by appealing to the far left and to Islamists in a heavily Muslim constituency, saying "if you make war against Muslims abroad you're going to end up making war against Muslims at home." He may just get his wish, though his election will not help race or interfaith relations in the United Kingdom. It may, in fact, strengthen the Tory claim that more immigration controls are needed to keep fundamentalists out of the UK. If there's a silver lining, it may be that his presence in Parliament serves as a galvanizing force for the emergence of a more rational left. His defeated opponent, Oona King, was a respected MP, and Galloway is seen as having run a viciously divisive campaign. One BBC interviewer on election night gave him a hard time - the video attached to this article is both funny and informative. "Gorgeous George" may yet regret his decision to return to the spotlight.
The Liberal Democrats must be a bit disappointed - there was undoubtedly a lot of shared hope that their unambiguously antiwar stance would have catapulted them further. Instead, they gained eleven seats. I'd think they were hoping for more. They did win some hard-fought contests, prying away a seat (Ceredigion) from the Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru, for example (PC had an unambiguously bad election, dropping from 4 to 3). I think the future offers abundant dilemmas for the Lib Dems. Labour's reduced majority and the undoubtedly complex politics of the impending Blair-to-Brown transition may force the government to seek Lib Dem support. The Lib Dems, who occupy roughly the same portion of the political spectrum as Labour, may find themselves pressed between the need to show results, and the need to distinguish themselves from Labour. Blair has run for office on a domestic platform; he will need to begin showing results if he wants to bolster himself and serve for the bulk of the next five years.
From an American perspective, it's hard to say how this will affect the special relationship. The Tories are not pro-Europe; Michael Howard largely avoided the issue, and supported the U.S. during the Iraq war. Blair will probably be more hesitant to go out on a limb for us, largely due to the changed balance within his own party. Still, there's no sign that Britain's course will change.
This is the last of the post-Iraq elections. While the Spanish conservatives were defeated, that had more to do with the Madrid bombings than the Iraq war. The victories of Labour and John Howard's Liberals in Australia signify the basic continuity of politics in spite of the war.
Indeed, what is striking about this election is how mixed its results are. No party experienced really sweeping gains. In Scotland, the SNP counted coup twice against Labour, gaining Dundee East and the Western Islands (now known as Na h-Eileanan an Iar). What is key about these gains is that they have occurred in districts the SNP lost to Labour in 1987. Fundamentally, the Scottish nationalists are retracing their old steps. Though they leave the election with 6 seats, they are not yet the opposition party they'd like to be. It bears mentioning that each of their two new seats was won with a fairly small margin.
Probably the most disappointing result was George Galloway's victory in Bethnal Green and Bow. He unseated Oona King, a longtime civil rights activist who had supported the Iraq war, with a bitterly divisive campaign. Galloway is the most contemptible individual in the British system. He declared in 2002 that " the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life." In 1994 he told Saddam Hussein "I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." He won by appealing to the far left and to Islamists in a heavily Muslim constituency, saying "if you make war against Muslims abroad you're going to end up making war against Muslims at home." He may just get his wish, though his election will not help race or interfaith relations in the United Kingdom. It may, in fact, strengthen the Tory claim that more immigration controls are needed to keep fundamentalists out of the UK. If there's a silver lining, it may be that his presence in Parliament serves as a galvanizing force for the emergence of a more rational left. His defeated opponent, Oona King, was a respected MP, and Galloway is seen as having run a viciously divisive campaign. One BBC interviewer on election night gave him a hard time - the video attached to this article is both funny and informative. "Gorgeous George" may yet regret his decision to return to the spotlight.
The Liberal Democrats must be a bit disappointed - there was undoubtedly a lot of shared hope that their unambiguously antiwar stance would have catapulted them further. Instead, they gained eleven seats. I'd think they were hoping for more. They did win some hard-fought contests, prying away a seat (Ceredigion) from the Welsh nationalists of Plaid Cymru, for example (PC had an unambiguously bad election, dropping from 4 to 3). I think the future offers abundant dilemmas for the Lib Dems. Labour's reduced majority and the undoubtedly complex politics of the impending Blair-to-Brown transition may force the government to seek Lib Dem support. The Lib Dems, who occupy roughly the same portion of the political spectrum as Labour, may find themselves pressed between the need to show results, and the need to distinguish themselves from Labour. Blair has run for office on a domestic platform; he will need to begin showing results if he wants to bolster himself and serve for the bulk of the next five years.
From an American perspective, it's hard to say how this will affect the special relationship. The Tories are not pro-Europe; Michael Howard largely avoided the issue, and supported the U.S. during the Iraq war. Blair will probably be more hesitant to go out on a limb for us, largely due to the changed balance within his own party. Still, there's no sign that Britain's course will change.
This is the last of the post-Iraq elections. While the Spanish conservatives were defeated, that had more to do with the Madrid bombings than the Iraq war. The victories of Labour and John Howard's Liberals in Australia signify the basic continuity of politics in spite of the war.
