The U.S. needs Blair to win...Big time.

I've already laid out my case for a Labour victory in tomorrow's British Parliamentary elections. Essentially, U.S. interests need Blair to remain as PM not to mention the fact that he has been, and remains, a loyal friend.

The American Spectator's John Tabin argues that it's in America's interest for Blair to not just win, but for his party to have a strong enough showing to keep him at the helm. The Tories are too isolationist and a weak victory might cause Labour to supplant Blair with Finance Minister Gordon Brown - no Atlanticist, he.

Almost no one expects Labour to lose its majority. They are ahead in every poll, and even allowing for the historical tendency of the Tories to outperform their poll numbers, Labour is secure; the makeup of the British electoral map means the Conservative Party needs to outperform Labour at the polls by about six percentage points to achieve parity in Parliament. Labour could, however, see its current 160-seat majority shrink significantly, possibly to below 80 seats according to one analysis of polling in "marginals" (what we would call swing districts). That would be bad news, since the conventional wisdom is that the worse Labour does, the harder it will be for Tony Blair to survive. The thinking, writes John O'Sullivan, is that if "Blair's majority falls below 60 seats, he could go within months; if it hovers between 60 and 120, then he might survive a year; only if it remains triumphantly above 120 will he be able to stay as prime minister for the duration of the parliament."

Thus, an irony: The fate of Tony Blair, a true friend to America, depends on electing
many MPs who are anything but. Very well, then: Go, Labour, go!

So grit your teeth and cross your fingers. We should have an idea by late tomorrow afternoon.

Posted by: Gary at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.