[A-List] UK state: political realignment

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

One result of Blair's frenetic dance concerning Iraq has been to sideline
the Conservative Party, which might otherwise have been a focus of bourgeois
opposition to Blair. However, since Iain Duncan Smith and others around him
have long been taking their orders from Donald Rumsfeld (check the
archives), that renders their ability to oppose Blair somewhat stunted.

In this connection I reckon that there is still space for a new party of the
centre right in Britain. The New Party is clearly a rest home for
millionaire loony rightists who obviously missed out on all the fun of the
1970s. Meanwhile politicians of some depth like Michael Portillo and Kenneth
Clarke remain hamstrung by their continuing allegiance to an institution
that is as good a reflection as any of the outdatedness of the British state
apparatus in general. Without a complete makeover there is little chance of
any recovery of the Conservative Party, which means the official opposition
will become the Liberal Democrats, now pretty much left of New Labour,
although without the organic ties to the working class that remain via the
trade union link "enjoyed" by the Labour Party. But it does seem that a
significant section of Tory opinion (as opposed to punk Thatcherite opinion)
is rather more concerned about the fact of a US hegemonic superstate than
the myth of an EU hegemonic superstate.

-----

Disquiet among Tory MPs over Duncan Smith's backing for US

Michael White, political editor
Thursday February 13, 2003
The Guardian

Simmering tensions among Conservative MPs have resurfaced this week over
Iain Duncan Smith's robust support for the White House's hawkish stance over
Iraq. But few critics wish to rock the Tory boat in public at a time of
crisis.

Though the most dramatic manifestation of discontent came in Michael
Portillo's extravagant praise for Tony Blair's handling of the crisis - "I
prefer the new Blair to the old Blair" - the decision by the former cabinet
minister, Douglas Hogg, to sponsor a critical anti-war motion is potentially
more significant in the long run.

Mr Hogg's reported claims that up to half the 166 Tory MPs at Westminster
back his opposition to the Bush-Blair policy is thought to be wide of the
mark by colleagues. Some critics of Mr Duncan Smith suggest it could be as
high as 50, but others say 10 to 15 is more realistic.

The Commons motion which Mr Hogg, a former agriculture minister and QC,
sponsored with Labour's Chris Smith, another cabinet veteran, seeks four
preconditions for war: "clear evidence" that Iraq is an imminent threat to
peace; a substantive Commons motion authorising military action; a specific
UN security council resolution; and all other policy options to have been
exhausted.

Many, if not most, of this weekend's anti-war demonstrators could sign up to
such terms. Mr Blair would probably regard them as ideal, but dare not close
down his options as he struggles to keep the US on the "UN route".

But only John Gummer, a former cabinet minister, and Edward Leigh, a
rightwing former minister, have joined the 40 or so mainly Labour MPs who
have signed the motion.

"Iraq isn't the top issue for us as it is for Labour," says a critic of the
Duncan Smith line, one of the Tory MPs who believe the party leader has not
asked enough critical questions about the US or British strategy.

Mr Duncan Smith, a former defence spokesman, often takes his line from
friends in Washington. That has left the field open to Liberal Democrat
leader Charles Kennedy to ask pointed questions about the nature of
Britain's military commitment, the chain of command in the event of war, and
plans for post-war Iraq, political and humanitarian - many still unanswered.

Tory backbenchers report that their constituents are turning against the war
as it looms, "for decent human reasons". They blame Mr Blair for not making
his case earlier and his senior colleagues for not helping more.