Alan Cowell’s report from London on the alleged precariousness of Tony Blair as prime minister is a masterpiece of hyperbole. If you know anything about British politics, you will immediately recognize the people quoted upfront in the piece as extremists of various sorts. Tam Dalyell is described as a “maverick.” He’s actually a far-left extremist, whose visceral anti-Americanism is legendary. To make him your source in your lead while consigning the second most important figure in British politics, Gordon Brown, to the last paragraph is simply bizarre. The inference is that left-wing MPs could simply vote Blair out of office. But Blair controls the committee which would allow such a vote to take place and it’s solidly behind him. Clare Short, for her part, is not in any sense “influential,” as Cowell describes her. She too is from the pacifist left of the party, and Blair’s decision to ignore her has been widely viewed in London as a sign of Blair’s strength, not his impending demise. Cowell concedes there is no threat to Blair’s parliamentary majority. To get a measure of where opinion currently hangs, check out the Guardian this morning – one of the major press opponents of his policy. It still dissents but accompanies this with admiration of Blair’s honesty. Of Blair’s political future, the Guardian opines:
For his pains, hot and furious criticism has been heaped upon his head, sometimes in this newspaper. It is possible that the damage will be lasting, possible that his standing is permanently impaired. But there is one thing Mr Blair cannot be accused of: he may be wrong on Iraq, badly wrong, but he has never been less than honest.
That doesn’t sound like the sound of an impending coup to me; and a few calls to London this morning confirms this. Yes, some far-left Labour party members would be happy to see him go. But even the Daily Telegraph concedes that the left agitators “[a]t present represent a small but vocal minority and there is no sign yet of widespread support for challenging the Prime Minister.” I’m not saying Blair isn’t in trouble. He’s far more exposed than Bush. But the tenor of the New York Times’ story reeks of Rainesian intervention to me. Cowell must know this story is excessive. But his editors have a war to undermine.
The Dish 