Don't Go Wobbly!

Matt Drudge notes that the war has become the top issue in the upcoming British parliamentary elections. From the Sky News article:

With ten days to go, the election campaign is firmly fixed on Iraq, with opposition parties questioning the PM's decision to take the country to war.

Michael Howard has told Sky News he thought the war in Iraq was "probably legal" - but Tony Blair had misled the British public and was not to be trusted.

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has called for a public inquiry into the Iraq conflict.

Remembering the protests against the war over there and how much more generally anti-war the British public are, I wondered what Blair's chances might look like in the elections. A story from the Los Angeles Times (via RealClear Politics) offers hope that the Brits won't "go wobbly" on us, and does a good job of explaining why.

Now compare [Bush's and Blair's] electoral fortunes. Two weeks before last year's U.S. presidential election, the race looked too close to call — and it ended up depending on a mere 70,000 voters in Ohio. Today, two weeks before the British election, nobody believes Blair is going to lose, let alone have to stay up all night to see what happens.

How on Earth has he done it? It is not as if voters have forgiven him for Iraq. Opposition to the war remains extremely high throughout the country.

And that's not the only mark against him. Eight years ago, his Labor Party was swept into office on a tidal wave of revulsion at Conservative Party sleaze and incompetence. This time around, the revulsion is directed against Labor — and its habit of constructing an alternative reality out of spin and hype.

Even Laborites admit that the Conservatives have run their best campaign in a decade, talking tough on "dog-whistle" issues such as crime and immigration (in which their core supporters respond instinctively, even if you cannot hear the whistle). Blair has been sufficiently panicked by their assault to cozy up to Gordon Brown, his brooding chancellor of the exchequer and Labor Party rival.

And yet nobody is betting on a Tory victory. Why? Because the Conservatives have failed to make a case for change. Michael Howard, the Tory leader, is a good public speaker with a lawyer's forensic skills. But, even with the help of a notably glamorous wife, he still lacks the human touch. He has no vision, no story line, no compelling argument for dumping Blair.

It looks like we're fortunate that the Conservatives have made two of the same mistakes the Democrats did. (1) They are failing to offer a compelling alternative to the party in power. (2) The Tories have offered the Brits their own version of John Kerry in Michael Howard. (Fortunately for the Tories, his wife is not the British equivalent of Teresa Heinz, or there would be almost no point in holding the elections.)

Interestingly, the electoral system strongly favors Labor.

There is one more reason why the Tories are almost bound to lose: an electoral system that is grotesquely biased in favor of the Labor Party. Thanks to a mixture of canny redistricting and fortunate demography, Labor has managed to spread out its core voters across more parliamentary districts and also concentrate them in marginal seats.

Most polls show Labor about five points ahead of the Tories. But imagine if the two parties tied in the popular vote: Blair's party would still win more than 100 more seats than the Tories and have an absolute majority of about 60 — and he would stay on as prime minister.

For those who might be interested, here's an electoral map of Britain. It looks like it will be updated in real time. So, while the British people themselves strike me as very wobbly, it seems that the ruling party might not be.

-- CAV