Broadsheet

It's the Brit smoke and mirrors. Even though they, including Simon LeBon, feel free to bitch about the terrible American president and the terrible American war, they have deep denial over their own involvment.

And it really doesn't look like this election is going to change that even a little bit.

But will the New York Times have a headline that says "How can Xnumber of people be so dumb" when Blair wakes up in power once again?

 

It really isn't done to flame on a blog so I won't but the idea that the British are in 'denial' about their involvement in the Iraq war is risible. And the implied message that the British are indulging in Yankee-bashing while ignoring their own responsibilities is, well, inaccurate at best. The media bash Bush but Blair doesn't get off scot-free either.

In denial? If memory serves London had the largest anti-War demonstration in Europe in the run up to hostilities and even if it was not then there can be no mileage in the idea that we are indifferent when the march started off in three streams, came together at Piccadilly Circus and was so dense that it took over an hour to get from Eros to Green Park.

In denial? Why then is the UK media, all of it, uniformly hostile to Blair and his actions over Iraq. Divided about the actual war perhaps, but unanimous over Blair's writhings and wrigglings to get us there.

In denial? why then was the Foreign Secretary grilled - and I do mean ROASTED - for 15 minutes this morning on the BBC's most prestigious current affairs programme about the legality of the war and the government's refusal to publish the legal advice it was given. An interview by the bye so ferocious that I cannot imagine any American politician submitting to it. Nor was this in any way a unique event.

In denial? Why then are both the Tory and LibDems raising the issue with such energy?

In denial? Why then did the government face repeated and often large rebellions from its own MPs many of the rebels being widely respected figures within the Party and with the public generally?

If the Iraq war isn't going to bring Blair down - it isn't - that is not a sign of indifference or denial it just demonstrates what we all know; people take a whole bundle of issues into a polling booth.

And if we are to accept the premise that lack of change at an election equals denial of responsibility(which I don't; vide supra) then perhaps The Mirror could have better adapted its notorious headline to read "How can Xnumber of people be so blind?"

Campbell

 

Campbell: what do you mean, it really isn't done? What other point is there to blogging?

While I don't pretend to follow Blair's career closely at all, I was at a big anti-war protest in London, and it seemed like an awful lot of sub-30's there, and a lot of recent immigrants and their relatives. I think that, on the whole, the British are way more in touch with their government and its failings and the need to do something about them than we are, but that just makes it all the more upsetting that they have let Blair keep his job without any real consequences.

I believe the problem is not that either population is more or less vocal or outraged, but that the US Political Machine is far more adept at keeping issues out of the equation, and keeping interviews like those you refer to out of the media.

 

I knew I should never venture outside of Live Journal. Wheeee... it is nice to be taken so seriously.

I won't debate or challenge anyone who seems to have significantly far more thought into the whole thing.

All I will say is that my tiny little points are completely based on personal experience.

I've asked two people in the UK about the elections and have gotten the same answers from both -- and that is that the war isn't figuring largely in the discussions.

And again I say, this really surprises me because when I was in London, that's all anyone wanted to talk about and when I saw Duran Duran, even Mr. LeBon, who should really focus on his tight little pants, had something to say about it.

I am very much anti-war and I did my time at the protests in DC. However, I never once saw Simon LeBon there -- and, God help me, I'd have known it if he was.

So, you know, in all instances I was more than happy to share in the Bush criticism. However, it got a little frustrating when no one I talked to (a very scientific sampling of about a dozen people) voiced similar frustration towards Blair.

And you know, there was all this stuff about American Imperialism and then I went to the Brittish museam... And, well, I wondered. That's all I just wondered.

Anyone can now confirm that I'm an ass and best ignored.

Happy Holidays ~ Messy Hair Girl, aka Messy Logic Girl

 

ooo - fight! fight! :-) Just kidding. Good points all around. Actually, I have to agree a fair amount with Campbell on this one, and if you run over and check out Steve's blog for the Financial Times Zero five, I think you'll see that it's becoming a major issue, along with immigration and the NHS, in this year's battle.
"The paper points out that of the record 155 candidates standing as independents at this election, many are using the war as their focal point."
I agree that Blair will probably win again and it won't change a thing, but it won't be because of the war. Bush wasn't reelected because of the war either, he was reelected by conservatives, the religious right, and a country divided by cultural idealogy. The war was just a metaphor for that. Well done, all.

PS Touche' on the notion of American Imperialism compared to the Brits MHG. Well done. That's all I'm sayin....

 

jwer: well it's like I say, you take more into the polling booth than just a single issue. I am sure Blair will be punished, my prediction is a much reduced majority, followed at a decent interval by his being replaced by Gordon Brown; and that will be almost entirely down to the war. Think of it like two currents in a river. On the surface the river moves fast and turbulent, but there is an undertow slower moving but inescapable. The election is the former, hence people being misreading what is going on, but the latter is very much there and will have its effect in due course.

mhg: Really; if you do your political polling at a Duran Duran concert I am surprised you din't come to the conclusion that the Old Age Pension wasn't the issue of most concern to the electorate!

Linda & MHG: On the imperialism point consider this. We WERE an imperialist power and at the end of WWII one of the prices we paid for US support was the dismantling of said Empire. You guys have BECOME an imperial power despite all the windy rhetoric. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it", so less of the smugs, thank you very much

C

 

MHG: you really do go on about Mr LeBuns, don't you? Meanwhile, I would submit that the reason that Brits can criticize American imperialism is that they recognize it well.

Campbell: Fair enough. I've just never much cared for Blair, for most of the same reasons that I was never entirely overjoyed with Clinton. I've no problem seeing the back of either.

Also, I don't think the British Empire has been dismantled; while many of its physical properties have been divested, it would require a massive change in policy for me to consider it gone. The British are just more realistic about what size empire they can support.

 

jwer: eh?