Britain's Elections

Britons ushered Tony Blair and the Labour Party into an unprecedented third term of office in Thursday's nationwide election. Blair had been heavily criticized for his support of the war in Iraq and his closeness to President Bush, with recent focus on pre-war memo leaks adding fuel to the fire. Yet despite the challenge of Michael Howard, a Conservative, and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy Britain's two-term Prime Minister emerged victorious, albeit without the margin or popularity that brought him to office in 1997 or 2001.

Philippe Naughton, chief reporter for London's TimesOnline, was online to discuss the outcome of Britain's election and the obstacles faced by Tony Blair.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Delmar, N.Y.: As of 9:30 this morning in the Eastern U.S. time zone, all but 19 of the 646 seats in Parliament have been declared with the following results: Labor has won 355 seats, the Conservatives have 197 and the Liberal Democrats 62. While Labor won only 36 % of the raw "popular vote" they will control about 55% of the seats in the House of Commons compared to the Conservatives 32% "popular vote" resulting in 30% of the seats. Even though Labor has lost close to 50 seats they still will have a huge margin over the Conservatives, by about 150 seats. Based on these figures why is it being reported that will Blair and his new government will have difficulty governing. Any Party in the U.S. would love to have such a majority in the House of Representatives.

Philippe Naughton: It's not the majority over the Conservatives that count, more the absolute majority - which looks like being around 66. Historically, that's a very comfortable working majority, so he can definitely govern. It's just a question of whether he can push through more contentious legislation against his own party rebels, and whether those rebels will start playing up. If 30-odd Labour members vote against their party, then the Government can lose votes.

More to the point, though, people here are seeing the reduction in Blair's majority - he had a 161-seat majority before the election - as a sign of his political mortality. Since he's already said that he will not contest another election, at what point does he become a lame duck?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Paxman was brilliant last night with Galloway, though I suspect some might be upset with him. Any news on reactions in Blighty to the interview, or on what "Respect" plan on doing with their one seat? Is it feasible Galloway holds rogue Labour MPs feet to the fire on close votes?

Philippe Naughton: Paxman is always brilliant, but I must admit I thought George Galloway came off best. He forced a congratulation out of him and promptly ended the interview. Classic.

I think Galloway is going to be a massive irritant for Labour over the next few years. He is extremely eloquent and never afraid to speak his mind. And he's got a mandate to complaint. In his last months as an MP, when Labour had already frozen him out, Galloway had trouble catching the eye of the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker won't be able to ignore him now, especially on Iraq-related debates.

Beyond that, I'm not sure where Respect is headed. Galloway said this morning that he is the only MP in history to have been elected after declaring that he would not stand in the same seat next time around...

_______________________

New York: Does anyone in Britain support the Iraq war other than Tony Blair? Although he lost votes based on it, it seems that a lot of people must have supported it considering that he still did win and the second place party supported it as well. Is there a "silent" majority (or minority) who does support it but just doesn't say so out loud?

Philippe Naughton: I don't have any figures, but there was definitely a large percentage of the population that supported the war, or was willing to accept Tony Blair's case for the invasion.

But many of these have since become disaffected over the accusation that he manipulated the argument - or simply lied over the WMD intelligence.

The million and a half people who marched through London before the invasion were never going to vote for Labour this time. Labour knew that. But it was trying to prevent centrist voters, middle-class voters, deciding that Labour didn't deserve their vote. It didn't entirely succeed.

I don't think many people specifically voted for Blair because they supported the war. Labour's key argument during the campaign - which is why Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, was joined at the hip with Blair - is that they have run the Western world's most successful economy over the past eight years and the Tories would threaten that success.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How quaint that Brits actually care whether their leaders are honest to them before leading them into war. Here in the U.S., if ours fabricates up any number of threats, hypes the intelligence he likes and stifles the opinions he doesn't, we re-elect him! Why do you suppose the Brits hold honesty up as a moral value, but Americans no longer do?

Philippe Naughton: Interesting question. In many ways, the US presidential election (from where I was sitting, at least) seemed to be fought on "moral" grounds, more so than this election in the UK.

But Blair was definitely damaged by the issue of trust and by accusations that he misled Parliament and the people over the case for war. It's a tough comparison because the inquiries into the intelligence failures in the States were much more hard-hitting than ours, but at the same time not so damaging politically.

In normal times, maybe we all expect our leaders to lie to some extent, but not over issues such as whether to send soldiers into combat. I suspect the answer is that lots of Americans still like Bush, or liked him even better at the end of last year than a couple of years ago, whereas Blair has been in power a long time and the love affair has dimmed.

_______________________

Newark, N.J.: Was there ever a more compelling indictment of multi-party politics? Blair, largely despised and untrusted in Britain, achieves "an historic victory" by claiming for his party barely over 1/3 of the votes. Amazingly bad system, ay wot?

Philippe Naughton: I say, old chap, steady on. At least we didn't have any hanging chads (just dodgy postal votes)!

Labour did what it needed to do under the first-past-the-post system to secure a majority of seats. If you lived in a constituency deemed "safe", you'd hardly have noticed that an election was even happening. Much the same as if you lived in Wyoming or California. All political systems are "gamed" by the people who play in them. So the final percentage share is not that important, unless you were on the losing side.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Does Mr. Blair really understand the anger of not listening to public opinion as it relates to Iraq and President Bush?

Philippe Naughton: I think he understands it better now, or at least he is acting chastened. I don't imagine that he is going to start apologising now for committing UK forces to the invasion of Iraq. His victory speech in Sedgefield last night acknowledged that it had been a divisive issue, but he promised to listen to voters' concerns on issues such as the economy, health and law and order (the latter being the Conservatives' strongest card during the campaign).

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Does this mean Tony Blair is done? If so, how soon? If he goes, will there be a pull out of troops from Iraq?

Philippe Naughton: If I knew that, I could make a lot of money gambling on his departure date. A London bookmaker opened the first book on when he will quit or be forced out as Labour leader and 2007 is the year with the shortest odds, meaning that he will serve about half this term before moving on. You can get 12-1 (if you're a gambler) on him leaving No 10 Downing Street this year.

I don't think his departure would have an immediate effect on the UK presence in Iraq, however. There would be nothing to gain for a Labour government in pulling troops out before the time was right.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Tony Blair has been a good friend to the U.S. and I for one will be sad to see the day he steps down (or is forced out). He has shown far more courage than many other politicians in the U.K. or over here. Having said that, if he could do the two years preceding the Iraq War all over again, do you still think he would have endorsed the war and committed British forces?

Philippe Naughton: Yes, I think he would, especially since he now knows that he definitely could do so and still become the first Labour leader to win three straight elections.

It depends why you think, or one thinks, he decided to throw his hand in with George W. Bush in the first place. Maybe he decided that the world would be an even more dangerous place if American unilateralism was not checked and the best way to check it, or check the perception of it, was to join in.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Who is Tony Blair's principal opposition now -- the Conservatives on the right or the Liberal Democrats on the left?

It seems interesting to me that he lost votes based on the Iraq war to another party that also supported the war. If that was the dominant issue, why didn't the Liberal Democrats become the primary opposition to him?

Philippe Naughton: The Conservatives remain Her Majesty's Opposition, since they are the second-largest party, but the Liberal Democrats have their highest number of MPs for 80-odd years so they will be a force to be reckoned with, especially if Labour left wingers start to block legislation.

The Lib Dems didn't become the primary opposition to him partly because this election was not fought on the question of Iraq. Labour did all it could to make sure it was fought on other issues, the economy etc.

And the Lib Dems were in a very difficult position. They were the only major party to oppose the war, but they couldn't fight this campaign on that basis alone without being perceived as sliding to the left - thus endangering their core centrist vote. Clearly, the Lib Dems are the most "left-wing" of the three major parties now, if that means anything, but you won't get any of them to admit it. The BBC's been trying this week, to no effect.

Last night's individual victories for the Lib Dems came in seats where they were seen as the anti-war party. They would have much preferred to take some seats of the Conservatives, but in fact lost a couple to them.

_______________________

Greenwich, N.Y.: Good morning. The Washington Post article today states "...Blair had failed to divulge to his own cabinet an opinion by the attorney general that raised serious doubts about the legality of the war and memos suggested Blair had agreed to support the Bush administration's efforts to oust Hussein as early as April 2002". Can you elaborate please on the memo referred to that was exposed in the British press and read pertinent portions, as it would certainly seem to be an important news item in our own country and regarding the legality of the war. As in Britain, a great number of citizens do not support this war and are gravely concerned it has endangered our own security and economy rather than enhanced it, and these important issues should be aired and publicly debated, as the federal government exists to provide national security, not expose the people of this nation to greater harm. Thank you.

Philippe Naughton: The memo was a 13-page piece of legal advice written by Lord Goldsmith and given to Blair on March 7, 2003, shortly before the invasion. Goldsmith didn't say that the war would be legal, just that a case could be made for its legality - but he warned that that case might not stand up to too much scrutiny.

Goldsmith said the best option was still to get a second Security Council resolution expressly authorising action, but that was blown out of the water within days by the French confirmation that they would veto any such motion. So the British (and Americans) had to go it alone without the UN.

I can't go through all the arguments here, but you can find the document on the No 10 website, number-10.gov.uk I think. It's well worth reading. Very lawyerly piece of advice.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Mr Naughton,

Thanks for taking our questions. Re: Blair as a "lame duck", sure, that might be technically correct. But we also have a President who won't be running again, and is thus a "lame duck". That's not stopping him from working for big reforms (Social Security) or being successful (bankruptcy reform, etc.). So why would it be an especially big problem for Blair?

Moreover, even though his absolute majority is smaller (at around 66), isn't Blair (at least domestically) likely to run to the left - that is, propose left-ish proposals on which he might get Liberal Democrat support?

Philippe Naughton: Second-term US presidents always (except perhaps for Clinton) go for the bigger picture because they don't have to think about re-election all the time. And everyone knows that that is their last term. But in Britain, if you sign your own death warrant in advance that is definitely a problem. Labour MPs will want to be reelected in 2009, or whenever the next election is, and to ensure that they need to have a leader in place who can lead the party to that end. If Blair had no internal battles to fight within his party, he could carry on until 2007 with no problems. In any case, no one, including Gordon Brown, will want to step forward if it looks like there will be a referendum on the EU Constitution within 18 months (so Labour rebels will be hoping that the French reject it later this month).

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Call me ignorant of the British electoral system, but I have a basic question: Some are already mentioning Blair will step down quite soon and hand power over to his successor in the Labor party (whose name I'm forgetting). Why would a PM do this? Does it generally happen when their "political capital" is completely spent? Thanks.

Philippe Naughton: No it's not usual. Blair appears to have done it partly to take the pressure off the row between him and Gordon Brown (who is now, it appears, his anointed successor) and to appease voters in advance of the election. It does imply that his political capital is spent, but Blair denied this furiously during the campaign. Both he and Brown said that a third term was crucial to entrench the "New Labour Project" in such a way that it cannot be turned back.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: I see that Hartlepool voters solidly reelected former soccer mascot Stuart Drummond. Considering he's actually had apparently a surprisingly good first term, is there a long-term political future for him?

Philippe Naughton: Sorry, I missed that one. I shall certainly try to find out, for myself at least.. It would be said if he had to throw away the monkey suit.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Has Galloway been cleared of taking money from Saddam, or is it just that he's denied the charges?

Philippe Naughton: He sued the Daily Telegraph for libel because it made allegations without checking them fully first or giving him the chance to respond properly. As far as I understand - but please check this - the case never looked at the substance of the allegations because that was not the legal issue being argued. Galloway strenuously denies any impropriety.

_______________________

Cheverly, Md.: Do you see the Tories making a comeback any time soon? It seems like they're already scraping the bottom of the barrel for leaders--who's next?

Philippe Naughton: A good question. Michael Howard said this morning that he would quit as soon as new leadership rules were sorted out (the current ones are a bit of a mess). I think the Tories should not be in any rush, however. They made a costly mistake after the last election by choosing the wrong leader.

As for names, David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, is seen as the favourite, but although he's popular within the party, I'm not sure he's the man to reinvent the Tories as Blair, Brown et al managed to reinvent Labour in the 1990s.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Did the group who came out in support of fox hunting make any difference? They were making all kinds of threats to un-seat Labour members in marginal seats but I do not see anything about their impact.

Philippe Naughton: That is an interesting question and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer yet. Certainly, a lot of pro-hunt activists helped the Tories canvass in marginal seats, but I don't know what effect they had or if they managed to swing any individual contests. That will probably come out in the next few days, but I suspect they didn't have too much effect.

But hunting itself, although an issue that raises a lot of emotions, was one of those issues that dare not speak its name during the campaign. The Conservatives said they would overturn the ban, but did not really publicise that because for every hunting fan you win over (who will probably vote Tory anyway) you risk alienating more than one opponent of the sport.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: For this war supporter, we've now seen Bush reelected, John Howard reelected, and Blair reelected. What an enormous vindication.

Philippe Naughton: I don't know. All three are consummate politicians who know how to nurture their voters and extend their natural constituencies. The Spanish election went the other way and Silvio Berlusconi is not doing so well in Italy...

_______________________

2008: Considering this result, what do you see as the prospects for full integration with Europe in the next few years?

Philippe Naughton: If by full integration, you mean Britain joining the euro zone, I don't see it happening in this parliament. Gordon Brown controls the key economic tests that must be satisfied before the UK can hold a referendum on euro entry, and the euro would almost certainly be rejected, so it's not in Labour's interest to hold one.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Can you give us colonials an explanation for the county fair prize pig ribbons that candidates for British Parliament seem to always be wearing? I've always been curious what the story is with that.

Philippe Naughton: I'm afraid not. I've just done a Google and a Wikipedia search on the other screen and if that throws anything up I'll append it to another reply!

_______________________

Wisconsin: Did this election hinge at all on British attitudes concerning a United Europe? Isn't Labor more pro-European Union?

Philippe Naughton: Since Labour had already promised a referendum on the issue of the European Constitution, the sting was largely taken out of the whole European issue, so no.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Liberal Democrats were the moderate "swing" party for years in Britain. Even if you assume their opposition to the Iraq War was based on principle, wasn't much of their attempt to get to Labor's left on domestic issues really just opportunism?

Philippe Naughton: See the earlier answer - the Lib Dems are happy enough to get left-wing votes, but they don't want, any more than Labour or the Conservatives, to give up the middle ground.

That is Blair's genius. He's made the middle ground his, and run a strong economy to make Left v Right questions largely irrelevant, and the other parties can only really fight on the periphery.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: It seems to me like Charles Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats ran a horrible campaign. Blair was a very vulnerable incumbent who was dangerously unpopular for a party leader. Instead of running a campaign against Blair, much as the Conservatives did, they tried to run on their party platform, which apart from foreign policy is really not all that different from Labour's. Do you think the Liberal Democrats would have done much better if they had been more ruthless in attacking Blair?

Philippe Naughton: This is similar to a couple of previous questions. Possibly they could have run such a campaign and grabbed some more seats, but their long-term success relies on them being able to portray themselves as a mainstream party that could one day form, or take part in, a government. The seats they won because of Iraq this time around were largely because of the student vote in university areas - those students will all have got jobs in four years time.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I guess we know now that most Brits aren't thinking what Michael Howard is thinking. But in your view did Howard and the Conservatives undermine their position by not solidly, continuously, and vocally supporting Blair's Iraq policy? They relegated their support to one paragraph in their lengthy campaign brochure. Was this tepidness perceived as unprincipled and a lack of conviction?

Philippe Naughton: The Conservatives were on a hiding to nothing over Iraq. They supported the war, but (quite successfully) questioned Blair's integrity in making the case for war. I'm not sure that there were that many votes to be gained for them in a "principled" pro-war stand. The war has never been a popular one here - for the most part it's either opposed or tolerated as something that had to be done.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: What should we make of the apparent "success" of the U.K. Independence Party and the British National Party? They appear to have collected 3% of the total vote -- nearly double their 2001 totals -- even though the BNP only contested a fairly small number of constituencies (119, I think). Is it possible that within another election cycle or two they could move into Jean-Marie Le Pen/National Front territory (especially if the Tories let their focus on immigration/asylum issues wither), becoming a significant force for unrestrained nationalism and/or xenophobia?

Philippe Naughton: I don't think so - 3% is quite far off the level needed to gain any critical mass under the first-past the post system.

Le Pen, apart from being a much stronger politician in a country where race and immigration is an even bigger issue, could build support through the French system of regionalised proportional representation. I don't think the Tories will let their sights slip from immigration, either. It's worked quite well for them in this campaign, especially in Labour-Conservative marginals.

_______________________

Des Moines, Iowa: While watching your town hall meeting on C-SPAN, I was pleasantly surprised by the outright verbal lashings being dealt to Tony Blair (not because I don't like him, I find him to be an articulate, intelligent and very capable leader). Does Labour not screen crowds to prevent hostile questioners? Or did they want these attacks so that he could absorb them on television, show his understanding in order to give anti-war voters a bit of a catharsis prior to going to the polls?

Philippe Naughton: Excellent question. Normally, UK politicians don't like getting closer to unfiltered questions than politicians anywhere else. There did appear to be a deliberate masochistic tactic by Blair and his advisers (usually credited to his spin doctor, Alastair Campbell), along the lines - if I take what's coming now, maybe they'll let me off at the ballot box. And of course, Blair is an excellent communicator. There are not many politicians anywhere that can handle a hostile crowd as adeptly as he can.

_______________________

Philippe Naughton: Afraid I have to head off now - never actually got any sleep last night except for a few minutes on a bus this morning.

Thanks for all the questions. It's been fascinating. See you over at Times Online!

Philippe Naughton

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.