Who can hold Blair in check?

[muriel_volestrangler]

A slightly self-justifying piece by Gavyn Davies, but, by and large, he's right. If Blair can get off unscathed from Iraq, then when will a Prime Minister ever be held to account, apart from the dodgy first-past-the-post parliamentary elections?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1324257,00.html

The Senate's examination of the Duelfer report was a model of serious democratic debate. John Kerry has now staked out a clear alternative point of view on Iraq, and there have been three hours of head-on Bush-Kerry television debate in the past week. So the US election is, among other things, a plebiscite on the Iraq issue. If the American people choose to re-elect their president, we are at liberty to disagree with their verdict, but at least democracy will have spoken.

Those who wrote the US constitution were obsessed with checks and balances. Their handiwork remains intact today. And how sharp the contrast is between America, and Britain. Where are the checks and balances constraining Blair, the ability to hold him to account?

I have been searching in vain. Compare Duelfer's rigour and honesty with that of his British equivalents, Lords Hutton and Butler. Of the inept former, enough has been said. For the latter, I have much more time. I suspect, though, that Robin Butler was constrained by others on his committee, and in the end they bottled out of assigning responsibility, having published more than enough evidence to show that there had been political interference in the intelligence dossier. No 10 ended up controlling both of these supposedly independent inquiries.
...
Even more troublingly, our electoral system seems incapable of holding No 10 to account. Regrettably, the Conservatives have been so hamstrung by their original support for the war that they have been unable to land a single telling blow in 2004, despite being let loose in a veritable candy store of political opportunity. The Liberal Democrats have done better, but given the expected low turnout next year, Blair's tendency could get the support of less than 25% of the electorate and still win a large Commons majority.

[T_i_B]

1. Love us or hate us

We the electorate are the best hope of holding Blair to account. Currently Blair has a landslide majority, which is why he is so very unaccountable but a considerably reduced majority at the next election should force Blair to change his ways. For better or for worse that's the best hope for change.

I get very worried when the media start claiming that only they can hold Blair to account. By all means the media should investigate and report the truth about the government but the media is hardly without fault itself. Media influence in politics is not always a good thing. Just look at Rupert Murdoch. The more power the media has the more the government will try to spin things as well.

[non sociopath skin]

2. I hear what you say, Mu, but ...

... I can't see a Blair with a small majority suddenly seeing the light and proposing the kind of agenda which would appeal to "traditional" Labour voters. Rather, I think we'd see him drifting even further into a right-wing, self-righteous agenda in order to retain the "Middle England" vote.

This will be especially true if - as I suspect - the LibDems make a rightward turn socially in order to attract voters in those constituencies where they are second to the Tories while retaining their anti-war stance to attract the protest and muslim vote. Charles Kennedy could slip into a Ken Clarke mode nae bother. Anti-War. Caring-Conservatism, Avuncular Mien, Scotch 'n' Smokes - all he needs to do is invest in a pair of hush puppies.

So we're likely to have a choice between two Pro-War Right-Wing Parties and an anti-War Right Wing party. Or one could always throw our vote away on Respect or the Greens and let the rest of them slug it out.

Ho-hum.
:eyes:

The Skin

[sweetheart]

3. Cherie holds blair in cheque

She's got his name on her cheques. ;-)

Truth be told, i think Mr. Blair has a conscience, and truly believes
that labour will lose if he projects weakness, so he's doing the
stiff upper lipp and all that. When Kerry wins, Blair will step
down after the general election, as he will have lost face, and
even his transatlantic fuck-buddy will be gone, leaving a sense
of retirement in its wake.

That aside, Mr. Blair is about business as if nothing has changed and
his wars are just another tiny fire in his daily firefighting.
Amazing how the insular media deconstructors have created this
illusion. When the facts will slap them one way or another.

There is a significant populaton in the UK that has stopped all
political support for anything pending 1 word: " I R A Q ." Tony
can deny them franchise at his meetings, and pretend that nobody
is listening, yet those wise people have more power than labour
has today in britain. Tony should listen and apoligze. His mistake
is the same mistake of nixon... the hubris for such a simple thing
as "i done wrong... I'm sorry."