Bloggerheads to back Blair

Posted by Tim Ireland at November 26, 2004

Category: Tony 'King Blair

This entry was posted on
Friday, November 26th, 2004
at
11:22 am and is filed
under Tony ‘King Blair.

I’ve been pondering for quite some time on the matter of the upcoming election and what my role would be. Now I know.

This is my position/task-sheet on campaign/political work (I’ve said by email many times; not sure if I’ve blogged it):
1. To the best of my ability, I will work to expand/defend the open form of political blogging that we now enjoy, and be very aware that the campaign season will bring a very dangerous breed of highly publicised one-way campaign blogs.
2. Know and accept that the above requires my offering guidance and assistance to individual MPs from almost any party bar UKIP or the BNP.
3. Know and accept that – on a party level – I can’t work for Labour while I oppose Blair, I won’t work for the Conservative Party full-stop and the Lib-Dems simply can’t afford me.

This pretty much leaves me out of the game. At best, shouting from the sidelines. I’m not happy about that.


A quick detour, a thought or two on timing:I’m approaching this knowing that there’s a very real risk of a snap election in February. The reasons?1. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; to see Blair’s lies in their purest form, turn to The Sun (which, on Wednesday, declared on their front page that the election would be on May 5).2. This is the weekend after May Day. I know that this year’s May Day was a very quiet affair, but are they really so confident of keeping it quiet again this year in light of this and other tensions on the union front?3. The ‘likely’ Bush visit in February that would more or less rule out a February election may be a feint.Also, I should mention that this caught my eye the other day. Consciously, I didn’t think much of it. But subconsciously… whammo. In fact, it wasn’t until this morning when I saw it again on Blogdex that I realised what a significant effect it had had. Just take a look at what people will accept as normal. Sure, we may shout about it, but what bloody good does it do?The moment we point out they’re treating people like sheep, they can counter will the always-useful “Hey! This elitist just called you a bunch of sheep!” argument.There’s also this that I blogged this morning. Worth considering, that bit about arguments and facts. So, bang goes any plan to shout from the sidelines. It doesn’t do any good.Back to the guts:1. Blair’s victory in Feb/May 2005 is a foregone conclusion. You need to accept that. The Tories simply aren’t a threat, and nobody can picture the Lib-Dems running the country (not even the Lib-Dems themselves).2. I opposed John Howard; John Howard won. I opposed George W. Bush; George W. Bush won. And I hate losing.For this and for many other reasons that I will share with you soon, I have decided that – during the election campaign – I will be backing Blair.It may not make any sense right now, but that’s the way it is.You’ll probably need a few days to get over this. Talk amongst yourselves.








4 Comments

  1. Simon Lidgate says

    That logic will surely help give Blair a much larger victory than he deserves, and with it let him assume he can get away with anything, again. I personally hope that people don’t follow your logic. I don’t much care for your personal monetry reasons either.What do you think of the arguement that a friend of mine gave me, that having the conservatives in power with a left leaning opposition is probably better than a centre-right labour with a right leaning opposition? At least with a conservative government both sides of the coin might be argued. Still wouldn’t make me vote conservative though.

  2. Manic says

    Money wasn’t a reason. It was merely a factor in the decision-making process.;o)

  3. underblog says

    I’m still not sure I believe you. I mean, if he led britain into an illegal war, killing tens of thousands of civilians, by misleading parliament and shitting the public up about terrorism, surely to support him would be total moral bankrupcy?If the tories had a chance, you could at least say “I have to support blair to keep the tories out”. Because they don’t have a chance, you’re claiming to support blair because he’s going to win?As for Dr. Si’s comment, I agree to a certain extent. It would certainly have been harder for a tory government to do things like top-up fees, foundation hospitals, “city academies” etc than it has been for labour. On the other hand, labour can point to the minimum wage and NHS investment as stuff that would never have happened under tory rule.

  4. Nosemonkey says

    I dunno. I’m coming round to the Blair idea. The lack of any feeling of responsibility for what the government’s been doing for the last few years via the old “well, I didn’t vote for ’em, nothing to do with me” argument has made me feel a bit out of it…And in any case, Bush got back in based on the same firm principles and moral conviction that Blair has. Say what you like about this government – and about Bush’s – but at least its moral values are in the right place.Give Blair time – two terms isn’t anywhere near long enough for him to introduce the changes he wants – he’s only just managed to find time for the fox hunting ban, after all! Give him a break!

  • NEW! You can now support Bloggerheads by buying handmade firelighters for camping and utility or deluxe firelighters for your home fireplace. Visit fireburngood.com to see my products.

    Fire Burn Good fire lighters

  • External Channels

  • Tim Ireland

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion