Tony Blair's fortune and the British electorate

What did the election result signify for UK, the international community and, above all, our bilateral relations with that country? The impact on the people of the United Kingdom evidently gets precedence over others in this consideration. The first and foremost impression one gets about the election results is that, on the whole, it represents an endorsement of the policy and actions of the Labour Party, albeit in varied depth and dimension, in contrast to those attributed to the other contending political parties. The loss of the Labour seats represented corresponding gains of the Liberal Democrats and also, to some extent, of the Conservatives. Both the Conservative and the Liberal Democratic Parties won more seats than in the last Parliament. The swing votes from the Labour were more to the Liberal Democrats than to the Conservatives. The total popular votes won by the Labour registered a decline and those by the Liberal Democrats relatively a sharp rise, with those for the Conservatives remaining static. The general turnout of voters in the election was slightly higher than almost record low in the last election of 2001.

The core issue in the Parliamentary election, as expected, was the highly controversial question of Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq. The rebel Labour members of the Parliament formed a sizeable group and sought to threaten Tony Blair's position as Prime Minister. But they failed. Perhaps, they did not seriously try for it. They also could not dislodge him from Party leadership in subsequent Party conventions. Even resignation of Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and former Development Secretary Claire Short from the cabinet did not evoke adequate moral compunction for Blair to renounce leadership. The rebel leader George Galloway, who had been expelled from the Labour Party, appeared to be the most outspoken critic of Tony Blair on the Iraq issue. His scathing criticisms of Tony Blair's bundles of lies, assertion of possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussain, responsibility (part) for the killing of a hundred thousand Iraqis since the war broke out, wastage of British taxpayers' money in waging war instead of using it for the welfare of the people were widely publicised before election. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, sought to defend his policy by saying he would not try to justify the war, but whatever he did in this matter was done in good faith, and claimed he did not lie.

As an election strategy, Blair sought to divert attention of the electorate from Iraq to the economy. The economy had never been so good and buoyant, he claimed, as it was during his regime. As a matter of fact, in his time the economy registered a steady progress with GDP amounting to an annual increase of 3 per cent, which was one of the highest in Europe. The unemployment figure came down to an almost record low of 5 per cent, the health and education sector also having made substantial progress at the same time. Whereas only 10 to 12 per cent of the population, who demonstratively opposed war in Iraq, consisted mainly of students and intellectuals, the large majority of the people comprising the rest were more concerned about measures having direct bearing on matters of their interest and personal welfare. The external and international issues did not generally appeal to them as much as the domestic issues, hence perception of relatively less adverse impact of the Iraq factor on election than what had earlier been predicted by many.

The overseas reaction to re-election of Blair's Party mostly followed the set pattern from cautious endorsement to jubilation. Although the protocol of expressing happiness and commitment to close collaboration in future marked the character of messages of felicitation sent to the victorious Prime Minister, one would assume that President George W Bush might have felt, though not expressed, some responsibility for the diminished popularity of his friend and ally, the leader of the trans-Atlantic country enjoying special relations with USA. A large section of the international community might have nurtured hopes of Blair receiving a real bloody nose, but their hopes were undermined in the same way as had been witnessed following re-election of Bush to American Presidency. The European colleagues of Tony Blair now appear to have subordinated their differences on Iraq to other pressing matters of interest in European affairs.

The British election is not likely to effect any change in Britain's bilateral relations with Bangladesh. Britain, irrespective of Party in power, maintains a consistent policy of promoting positive, friendly and co-operative relations with Bangladesh. Consequently, the new Labour government is expected to continue its role as a significant development partner of Bangladesh and as a hopeful for promotion of democratic values and human rights there. The other factor relates to its reaction among the Bangladeshi expatriate community in the UK. For quite some years, they have been participating actively in local politics in the UK. But their attempts to put up a Labour candidate of Bangladeshi origin for a Parliamentary seat are yet to bear fruit. They rested hopes for this in their principal habitat in East London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow, which had been represented by the late Lord Peter Shore, a former Minister, who was a forerunner in the movement for liberation of Bangladesh. But following his death several years ago, the Labour nominated a lady of non-British origin, Oona King, as his successor. Even she was beaten in this election by rebel Galloway of the newly formed Respect Party.

Someone commented that want of a Bangladeshi Parliamentarian in UK may have been compensated, in some measure, by appointing someone of Bangladeshi origin, Baroness Paula Uddin, as a member of the House of Lords in the British Parliament, and also by posting another Bangladeshi British as Britain's High Commissioner to Dhaka.

In retrospect, one may conclude that victory of the Labour Party in Britain may not necessarily mean victory of its leader, Tony Blair, who is deemed to be giving way, sooner than later, to his friend and political rival, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. Even following the election, a group of Labour MPs went to Blair demanding his resignation. They considered the Prime Minister now being a political liability. The Conservatives, on the other hand, stood by is tradition of supplanting its defeated leadership by a new hopeful, whereas the Liberal Democratic Party abounds in joy by gaining more swing votes than ever before and claiming emergence of a cognisable third force in British politics.

MM Rezaul Karim is a former High Commissioner to UK and a Member of the BNP Advisory Council.