Can Blair survive Bush?

[GePap]

As of right now, a showdown over Iraq in the UN seems to be fast approching:

Jan 27: UN weapons inspectors report
Jan 28: US State of the Union speech
Jan 31: Summit between Bush and Blair in Camp David.

As various threads state, the possibility that the UN explicitly renounce a invasion of Iraq at this point seems possible, which brings up the point about Tony Blair's political position.
Popular support for a war right now in the UK is very low, and the same is true or support within the ruling party: unlike in the US, popular opinion (and party opinion) in the UK can bring down governments, with votes of no confidence.

So, lets take the following, possible scenerio (likely one, too):
The US declares that time has run out for Iraq, that a war will soon be on, but the UN refuses to support Bush, thus makin this war, one of the "willing"; Blair, having gone in too deep, has to back Bush and send Britian to war as well. What happens in Britian then?

1) Mass protests by anti-war groups, but Labor backbenchers decide to stick with Tony?
2) ditto, except that Labor backbenchers revolt, throwing the current Labor leadership (that is, Tony) into a political crisis?

[Proteus_MST]

Would Blairs decision be backed by his government?
This is the big question.
I remember reading about rising dissence about the War in Iraq within the party and the parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/09/nirq09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/01/09/ixport.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=74494

If Blair acts smart he will support Bushs war only if the UN give their O.K.
And I somehow trust Blair more on this matter than George W. Bush

[CerberusIV]

Various fairly prominent anti war types in the Labour Party have been rather quiet. It is quite likely that they have been more or less promised no war without an explicit UN mandate. Time will tell.

[Az]

It depends the way war on Iraq goes.

I don't really see an alternative. The tories are actually very supportive of Blair. now if they could actually switch sides without getting flag for inconsistency... nah, that would be too ... continental.

[Dauphin]

The government majority is so big that a massive back bench revolt is required.

There is also no guarentee that the Tories would vote against the government if IDS is made privy to the things Tony "knows".

[KrazyHorse]

A vote of no confidence is doubtful. But Tony might be in for a leadership review sometime before the next election if he massively violates the wishes of his caucus, as a war without UN support is likely to do.

[KrazyHorse]

This is, of course, assuming I'm reading Brit politics correctly. I'm not as plugged in to them as I am to Canadian and American politics.

[chequita guevara]

Massive anti-war protests could bring Blair down. No one thought tax protests would bring down Thatcher. Most likely Blair would resign rather than face a vote of no-confidence, which would force an election.

You Brits need to hop to it. Blair needs to be reminded he serves the interests of the British elites, not the American government.

[Az]

You Brits need to hop to it. Blair needs to be reminded he serves the interests of the British elites, not the American government.

[Clear Skies]

There's already steam building in the Cabinet over the issue - and not just Clare Short shooting her mouth off either (though we all love it when she does). Cook and even Brown himself are said to have reservations about a war on Iraq.
Also...what size is Blair's majority again? 160 something? So it requires a revolt of a little over 80 to push a vote the other way...I'd say it's unlikely, but not impossible. Especially with public opinion swinging so obviously away from a war. 77% (from www.mori.com) oppose a unilateral war against Iraq, while 39% oppose even UN-backed military action.

[The Viceroy]

Blairs position is still too stong for even a bad war to threaten his position, especially as the opposition is even more pro war, and the lib dems are still not breaking into 2nd position. At the end of the day, British politics is about re-election, MP's will think carefully, do they support the war in Iraq .. probably not, will they still have their seat at the next election, probably .. so they will not be too concerned. Of course, there are a few MP's who have put their own morality before party, and it is those that are making noises now.

I would not say that support for war amongst the British people is very low, Id say an American attack on Iraq without UN agreement would certainly not be supported, however, a UN backed war on Iraq would receive a 50/50 for/against.

A lot of the protesters at the recent anti war rallies are the usual suspects, along with a few religious groups who should (in my opinion) have been out on the streets in equal measure after Sep 11th .. but thats another thread.

War in Iraq will not threaten blair, however, if a credible opposition was to come about, (ie IDS replaced with Kenneth Clarke) and big mistakes were made, and people were killed .. then I believe blair would find for the first time, his job on the line.

[Provost Harrison]

It is very scary that Blair is still intent on taking the country into war in the face of the majority being opposed to it. He is really going to cause trouble if he keep going ahead.

[Ned]

I can just see Blair being overthrown because France vetoed a U.N. authorization for war against Iraq.

My god, but the people of England must really love and respect France.

[The Viceroy]

Nahh won't happen .. the British people couldn't overthrow maggie for 3 terms, and Blair will be no different.

some people don't like what is happening, but when they look at the alternatives, they suddenly realise, who else is there ???

Blair will not loose an election, he will stand down sometime in his 3rd term.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
I can just see Blair being overthrown because France vetoed a U.N. authorization for war against Iraq.

My god, but the people of England must really love and respect France.

Yeah, right. The only reason the UN won't authorize force is that the French will veto it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the US has failed to provide any evidence whatsoever of Saddam possessing WMD.