I've been reading the various threads here about the US Election, but very rarely posting on them because - well - it ain't my election.

But here's an interesting (and balanced) article from today's Observer newspaper (UK) describing a British angle. The UK government traditionally refuses to endorse either candidiate in a US election (good diplomatic politics! Afterall, you don't want to end up having to work with someone you publically opposed). I've added some explanations in italics in a couple of places.

-------------------------------
from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus...163828,00.html

Kerry may not be the ideal bedfellow for Labour, says Kamal Ahmed, but he would be a better bet than Dubya

Ten days ago, at Number 10 Downing Street, a reception was held for Ministers and 'progressive thinkers'. Professor Anthony Giddens, Tony Blair's Third Way mentor, was asked to say a few words.

He spoke about the need for social democrats to come together and discover a popular language to defeat the neo-conservative strand of American thinking that had come to dominate the White House. 'Maybe we could call ourselves the neo-progs,' he joked. And then, in a throw-away line, he said what a lot of people in Downing Street and particularly the Prime Minister's inner circle feel about events across the Atlantic. 'We need to get George Bush out of the White House.'

Peter Mandelson, who was chairing the dinner, made sure that his face was a mask of studied neutrality. Government Ministers kept their well-practised poker looks. But for many Labour thinkers, Bush is a large fly in the Prime Minister's political ointment. If he were to go, many would heave a sigh of relief. But would John Kerry, the Democrat candidate slated to fight Bush this November, be good or bad news for Blair?

The Prime Minister must play a careful political game. Convention dictates that he gives no hint as to his views on the presidential election and, superficially, that will be the case. But the signals have been slowly emerging. ABB. Anyone But Bush.

First there was the comment by Giddens. Then came the plans for a Commons Early Day Motion signed by a group of Blairite backbenchers welcoming Kerry's candidature. Then there was the Downing Street official spoken to by The Observer last week who said that multilateralism, made much of by Kerry, is a progressive's idea, not a neo-conservative one.

And what of the fact that Blair has yet to make it to America to accept the Congressional Medal, one of the highest honours the US can confer on a foreign leader? Downing Street knows that pictures of a grinning Bush clasping Blair by the shoulder are not what might be described as 'politically helpful'.

'We need a US that constructively engages with the European Union and the wider world,' Giddens wrote in last week's Prospect magazine. 'I hope a Democratic President will be elected who pursues such an aim.'

Kerry, who speaks French and Italian and has lived in France and Ger many, is no Europhobe. Not for him the Old Europe negativity of Donald Rumsfeld. Bridges, Number 10 hopes, will be rebuilt.

But, as in all politics, Kerry has good and bad sides for Blair, and he will not be comfortable with all of the candidate's facets. Yes, Kerry has the Real Deal to help working people prosper, where Britain has the New Deal. Yes, he has a commitment to the world environment and Kyoto that Bush did not.

However, on the biggest international issue of the day, Blair will not have an ally in the White House if Kerry, as some polls suggest, wins. Although never as fully frontal in his attack on the war in Iraq as the former presidential front runner, Howard Dean, Kerry has made his position clear: he does not support the conflict.

This is uncomfortable for Blair. It has been whispered around Number 10 that the preference would have been for John Edwards, who has concentrated on domestic economic issues and has left Iraq largely to others. Much more Blairite in appearance and tone, Edwards was spoken of as Blair's new Clinton. They could have been political buddies.

With Edwards now playing for the running mate role, Number 10 knows it has to work out how to 'play' Kerry. Much of the relationship between Blair and Kerry will be smoothed by the Prime Minister's next-door neighbour, Gordon Brown (The Chancellor of the Exchequer - in practice, the most powerful politician after the Prime Minister). Brown is close to Bob Shrum, Kerry's campaign manager; just before Christmas Shrum was seen dining with Sarah Brown, the Chancellor's wife, in the House of Commons. The two families spend time together during Brown's annual summer trip to America.

Blair can engage in one helpful manoeuvre. The Democrats have made it clear they would rather that Blair stayed away for the duration of the campaign. Steve Morgan, one of the Kerry campaign team responsible for relations with the foreign media, said that Blair was still seen as an electoral asset in America and if he came to meet Bush there could only be one winner. The present President.

Anyone But Bush might be good for Labour, even for Blair. It would allow him to offset at least one of the criticisms made of him by his legion of detractors. Blair has always said that Bush is a man he can do business with. Many around him believe that it is about time that business came to an end.

Spot on, I imagine. Not just because Blair and Kerry might have more in common politically, but because Blair could do without being occasionally seen in the paper with Bush. Before this whole Iraq thing happened everyone trusted Blair (no, really. I know it seems odd now), and I think that his close alliance with Bush horrified a lot of people and made Blair look like a warmonger. I suspect that had someone other than Bush been in the White House Blair would be in a much sturdier position now.

Blair needs Bush gone real quick. He knows he can't disassociate himself from Bush now, he's in to deep. Bush losing the election is the only easy path for Blair - it allows him to lose the association with Bush, and get some nice publicity pics with Kerry. If Bush wins, then Blair's in trouble. I don't think it will lose Labour the election here in the UK, but I think that Blair might be forced to step down, with Brown becoming the new PM.

I also agree with the reporter when he said that Blair would have preferred Edwards as the Democrat candidiate and as President - you can see the similarities in style between Blair and Edwards. They'd have got on well.

How much of a role does the issue of Great Britain becoming more integrated into the EU play in this?

I've read commentary that the biggest reason Poland, Spain, Italy, and a few other nations sided with us on the Iraq invasion was because they didn't want to be pushed around by France and Germany. Was this a consideration in England?

How does Labor feel about increased integration into the EU? And how does Blair feel about it as an individual?

I don't think this was a factor behind Blair backing Bush.

I don't know about Spain or Poland, but I doubt that this was the case why Italy sided with the US invasion of Iraq - Italy's got a right-wing government, and probably followed the US through those political motives. Berlusconi's a slimey bastard, though, and it might have been a minor factor.

Labour is generally more pro-EU integration (with individual exceptions), while the Conservatives are very much anti-EU integration (with individual exceptions).

The Labour line is for slowly and gradually integrating further with the EU when the economic conditions are right - for example, they haven't adopted the Euro yet because the UK's Chancellor says that the conditions aren't right yet, but the line is that at some point we will adopt the Euro.

As an individual I think Blair is very much pro-EU, and probably would have liked to have started the steps to adopting the Euro already, but that decision lies with the Chancellor - Gordon Brown.

I think that certain countries were extremely annoyed when France and Germany claimed to be speaking more or less for the whole of Europe against Bush, and I think that it annoys them that France and Germany assume the mantle of European leadership on other occasions without actually asking anyone, but I don't think that was the basis for their stances. It wouldn't have been worth it politically, and I don't think many governments form policy because of pique.

Gordon Brown would join the Euro like a shot, but because Blair lets our country be sat on by Bush's fat arse, and The Sun newspaper says Europe is evil, we haven't.

I have always been against Blair, I voted Lib Dem the last time I voted. It would have been ideal for the UK to have the Lib Dem's in power. For a start, they would have taken a better approach towards the war in Iraq I think.

To be perfectly honest, I think Blair is already a neo-conservative, he took out the peoples clause, I dislike him not only for that but the way he has always turned a blind eye to the "people". Hes so set on being all for the USA that he has neglected his role as a "liberal". Trouble is, most of the people in the UK know that he is not and has never been a liberal. It makes my blood boil to see a conservative trying to hide in the name of a socialist. Hes a fucker.

I know that "new" labour will be voted in again but tell me this, do you think that even if the conservatives were to be voted in anything would change? They would keep "New Deal" which I think is shitty because I was on that when I was pregnant and only started claiming benifits when I was in my seventh month of pregnancy dispite my frequent trips to the hospital due to my serious epileptic seizures.

Enough on the New Deal thing. I think that Blair has stuck is foot in it with Bush. He didn't listen to the masses in the UK and went ahead anyway, licking Bush's arse dispite the public outcry. Its his own fault and now hes wanting Bush out of the White House. Makes me laugh because I bet everyone is all like "Told ya so!!!"

I think that Blair made the UK America's bitches and he just has to pay the price for that. All he had to do was listen to europe including the people he governs like... Oh lets just say... THE WHOLE OF ENGLAND!!! He has totally shit on the people of England and Europe. I think he is a tyrant just like that fuckwit Bush.

I read an article when the war in Iraq started and the public were questioning Blair... One line stuck in my head and to this day, I still think this guy was correct.

They were telling Blair that he was not listening to his public, to his people and Blair was making excuses and being the bitch that is. This guy, just a random member of the general public said:

"You know what Blair? Your full of shit! You are worse than Thatcher! At least we knew what to expect with Thatcher!"

I think the UK have put up with Blair allowing Bush too much for far too long. Fuck Bush, we are English not fucking American! It STILL pisses me off that from the begining, the general public were totally against Blair doing this and because he just went full steam ahead and didn't listen to us, hes landed himself in the shit... HAHAHAHA!!!! Oh the irony!

I hope Gordon Brown does become the new PM. He can't make things much worse. Maybe then we can finally join europe. Blair has just ballsed up the UK. Nothing new really, when you elect a conservative to do a socialist's job then its understandable really... How many conservative PM's have fucked up the UK so far? Proving the point that we should NEVER have a tory as a leader.

Brown is much more of a political power-junkie than Blair is. Blair thinks he can do great things for the UK, though he's probably wrong. Brown just wants to make a great name for himself. He is one of the most cynical politicians in the UK today. When Blair was elected Labour leader Brown was also a supporter of the third way. He and Blair made a deal not to run against each other because they had similar views and would attract the same votes. Now Brown paints himself as the socialist alternative to Blair, and people believe it. I suspect that Brown would say anything to get into power. He's been dreaming of this since he was 15. He is a politician through and through.

Personally I don't care whether someone is socialist or conservative, so long as they govern well for the right reasons. I don't see that in Brown.


Also Lenina, given that the UK in the 1970s was an impoverished nation with a GNP close to that of Albania, where strikes reduced the working week to three days, where unemployment was at high levels and inflation wiped out everybody's savings, do you think that 26 years of, as you would have it, 'tory' rule has done the country a great deal of harm? Ordinary people are better off now than they were under Callaghan. I've no doubt that some people are worse off - miners can no longer demand %50 pay increases, poor devils. And yes, a lot of miners lost their jobs, but do you think that if Thatcher hadn't done that they would have those jobs now? They only way that they possibly could was if everybody else was paying them massive subsidies to do inefficient work (rather like our farmers, actually).

A little bit of me seriously thinks that Lib Dems could win next time.
A lot of the people I work with are hard line socialist union types, and even they won't vote Labour again, not even out of habit, but they will never vote Tory, so what's left?
If only Charles Kennedy wasn't Scottish, not that I'm against Scots, but many people just can't relate to him.
The time is now right for Paddy Ashdown.
I remember when there was that drive by at his house, his SAS training showed then, he was seriously relaxed about it.

If Labour get it, I think it has to be with Gordon Brown. I am writing this after doing a nightshift with News 24 on all night, and they've been going on about Brown's new book and the rift between the two.
Again, he's Scottish, but I think people trust him as he's had a fair amount of power and not done anything monumentally awful.
And he's not ginger. It always amazes me when people go on about gingers, I can't see the problem with them.

Didn't Paddy Ashdown resign because he was sick of the public being stupid? I dunno, I always voted Lib Dem.

Paddy resigned because he was caught warming his genitals in his secretary

Neon

But nobody really cares about that. If that was why he resigned, he's gone down in my estimation.
I think he just got sick of losing...it must get to you after a while...poor Neil Kinnock, welsh and ginger, didn't really matter what came out of his mouth...I quite liked him really..

Apparently the 'liberal' party cared, he was forced to resign in the whole sort of 'offer your resignation or we boot you out thing'

Neon

Oh well, if he was pushed, I forgive him.

Now if only Tony would have an affair, and Gordon, and Michael Howard, and...dammit, I could go on forever, so I won't.

And Prescott and Mandelson and ........