I didn't think that wishing for a Labor win even under Blair was a good idea. In time, Labor would dump pro-American Blair and then the anti-Americanism of Labor would deny America an ally for the remainder of Bush's second term.
It didn't take long for the signs to appear:
A disaffected section of the party has long been unhappy with Blair's leadership and angry that he ditched much of Labour's socialist ethos to woo big business and the middle class vote.
Calls for Blair to quit are commonplace among a hardcore group of rebels. But the disappointing election result has increased the number of lawmakers ready to speak out.
Some insist he should go immediately. Others believe he should step down within two years, to give his successor time to prepare for elections. Blair has said he wants to serve a full third term, until 2009 or 2010, before he steps aside.
"Anybody who has spoken with voters on the doorsteps knows that Labour won despite Tony Blair," said Mark Seddon, a member of Labour's ruling executive. "They (Labour members) would like him to leave with dignity, but would like to know there is some kind of timetable."
Labour lawmaker John Austin said Blair may face a leadership challenge if he tries to hang on for too long.
"I think I, and many colleagues think, it would be better if he went sooner rather than later, to allow his successor to establish himself," he said.
Britain will remain in Iraq with us through sheer inertia, I imagine. But British support to deal with Iran will be pretty difficult to gain under the circumstances. Much of Blair's party thinks Bush is a bigger threat to peace than the mullahs of Iran.
We didn't go 3 for 3. We are 2 for 3. The Labor Party won in Britain and Blair serves at their pleasure. And there isn't a whole lot of pleasure there.
