Hoping For Blair To Lose?

[Annie]

I've seen the following sentiment at many conservative sites, I've yet to be persuaded, though I am well aware of Blair's European outlook. Seems to me that he is a man in the middle, probably good from our point of view. Most Britons remain unconvinced of the EU, they weren't crazy about the Euro. With Blair on the foreign scene and the people on the domestic, I'm of the mindset of 'why switch horses?'

Links at site

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/4/16/21390/6194

Rooting for the Tories
Tony Blair Must Go
By: Erick · Section: Election 2005


We are suppose to like Tony Blair. Her Majesty's Prime Minister is a dynamic figure on the world stage who has worked hard to tie Europe to the United States and has steadfastly supported President Bush. With an election at hand, there is a natural American inclination to support Tony Blair. We should not.
Read on . . .

Apr 16th, 2005: 21:39:00, Not Rated



Most media outlets cast the vote in Britain as a vote between Blair and the Tories, the British Conservative Party. In fact, the vote is between Labour and the Conservatives. Blair is just the chosen leader of Labor and can be ousted by Labour at any time. Both Labour and the Tories have released their manifestos. It is abundantly clear that both are hiding in spin, but only Tories are committed to a strong Britain and a strong Britain is what the United States needs.
The Labour Party under Tony Blair has been a staunch ally of ours on the global stage, but at home Blair and Labour have increased socialism, weakened Britain, and sold out the British people to the European Union -- an entity increasingly looking like the second coming of the Soviet Empire. Under Labour's weak immigration policies, Britain has become a hotbed of radical Islamic activists, mirroring continental Europe. Even with Blair at the top of the ticket now, it is well known that he has promised to step aside in favor of Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is openly a socialist and less supportive of our interests and the interests of the individual Briton. Blair's support of the war is enough for us to support Blair, but should not be justification for us to support his party -- the majority of which only went along with our Iraq policy because Blair forced them to.

The Conservatives, though they have used the Iraq War as a club against Blair, have come on strong towards the end of this election season. After years of wandering in the wilderness, they have taken on a political whore as a leader, but a whore who at least recognizes he needs to get back to party principles to get elected. The Conservative agenda is as Thatcher as it can get in this election season: fight crime, cut immigration, give parents power at schools, provide individual choice in the healthcare system, and keep Britain a sovereign nation. The Conservatives also have gone on record as fully supportive of our role in Iraq and the process of democratizing the Middle East (including a full throated defense of Israel). Labour, on the other hand, would willingly pack up and get out of the Middle East were Blair not in charge of it -- and there is a good probability he will not long be in charge of it.

One of the funniest parts of Labour's manifesto is this bit

No one waiting more than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. No hidden waits. Free choice of hospitals.
All of this Labour promises to have done by 2008! Contrast that with the Conservatives who advocate cutting the health care bureaucracy and allowing individuals more choice through using health care plans.
When we look at Labour in Britain, we see Tony Blair. That is our mistake. By failing to pay attention to the party behind the curtain, we fail to see the socialists who would sell out Britain to the continental European Powers in the EU, drag the country further down the road towards socialism, back down from the visionary goal of democratizing the Middle East, and further cripple private initiative and the entrepreneurial spirit through increased taxes and regulation. The Tories may not be as conservative as we'd like, but their ideas are less disastrous for Britain and with them the fate of the British-American alliance does not depend on the telegenic predisposition of one socialist in capitalist clothing.