We Voted Blair, Can We Have Brown Now, Please?

Well, the British general election is finished, done with, over - and as expected the Labour Party have won a historic third victory, more despite Tony Blair than because of him. Their majority is cut from 161 to around 67 which is a bit of bad news in anyone's book.

What can I say about the election that other pundits and commentators haven't already said? Not a lot. Newspapers, TV and bloggers have covered most of the really key points.

There is no doubt that the people's generally low opinions of the Iraq war were what weakened the Labour case. Especially with the recent revalations of the Real Memogate that Bush and Blair conspired to secretly set up a causus belli when there wasn't sufficient to justify an invasion they had agreed to launch.

When Blair, in his victory speech, said "Iraq has been a deeply divisive issue in this country ... (But) after this election people want to move on," it was mostly wishful thinking for his own sake.

And when he said "I've listened and I've learned and I think I've a very clear idea of what the people want for a third term." then what he learned was that people want Gordon Brown, the chancellor.
There is no doubt that Gordon Brown's genius with the economy is what saved Labour from outright defeat. Let's face it - when in the past did the pound's value ever drop on news of a reduced Labour majority? Traditionally, the pound rose when Labour lost and fell when they won. This alone is a measure of how well Brown has done and how he has convinced the money men that mixed-market socialism is the path of fiscal responsibility.

He is personally popular with his constituents too - Brown held Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath (the latter is my hometown) with three times the votes of his nearest rival.

It's probable that given the two items above, Blair will not be Prime Minister for very long. Brown has always been his heir apparent and now the movement to change the party leader will run riot. If the party faithful don't remove Blair as Prime Minister in a very British coup, then there is a good chance that legal proceedings led by the families of dead soldiers will.

The Conservatives are now officially the party of "little England" having made gains only in the South East. They seem destined for third party status, a fitting retribution for Thatcher's love affair with Reagan and American Republican politics. The Liberal Democrats can now make a good claim to being the main opposition party at least in terms of popular support if not in seats. Next election, they fully expect to kick the Tories out of contention.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party also made a strong showing, improving on their situation no matter how the brown-nosed Jack McConnell may try to spin the facts, (yes, I remember you and your coterie of coathangers from your Stirling University days, Jack - you wouldn't know solidarity if it bit you on the ass) while the Conservatives are down to one lonely MP and lost their Shadow Scottish Secretary.

That's the sum-up. Now let's see if I can maybe make a meagre contribution.

Blair has already announced his new cabinet, and one change stands out. Geoff Hoon has been moved of to be Leader of the House, a position with great prestige but little actual influence as the Chief Whip is the one with the real power over the party rank and file. To replace him at Defence, Blair has selected John Reid, who was Shadow Defence Secretary while Labour were last in opposition and was most recently Health Secretary where he made good inroads in the disaster zone the Tories had left of the NHS.

John Reid is from the socialist heartlands of central Scotland, from a town where poverty, unemployment and deprivation were particularly hard felt during the Thatcher Years. Maybe it isn't surprising then that he spent two years as a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain before joining Labour. He attended Stirling University (my own alma mater) at a time when Stirling was regarded as the most politically radical University in the nation. He is also more likely to stick by Brown when the eventual changeover comes.

Reid signals, as nothing else possibly could, that the new government will not meakly fall into line behind Bush's military adventures in foreign policy. A man of great intelligence and iintegrity, if he had been at Defence at the time of Memogate and therefore in the loop as opposed to being one of the misled members of the cabinet, he would have told Blair to forget the whole insanity or face exposure by Reid himself.

Imagine...a former commie running the British Ministry of Defence! US hawks must be having apoplexy!

With the anounced intention of Michael Howard to step down as leader of the Toties, a new leadership contest also waits in the wings. The eventual winner will tell us much about the future of UK politics. Many small-c conservatives have been deeply dismayed for over two decades about their preferred party's direction and it may be time for them to re-assert themselves. Their preference would be Malcolm Rifkin, who would signal continuity with the past while moving clearly towards a more moderate stance. Rifkin was at various times Scottish, Defence and Foreign Secretary for a while under Thatcher and Major. Rifkin has been an outspoken opponent of the UK's involvement in the invasion of Iraq. He is without a doubt the contender with most experience in actual government, as opposed to opposition and a noted public speaker.

If the Tories pick Rifkin and Labour picks Brown, then they will join Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats as a troika of Scots in charge of the three main UK political parties. There are many bigots, particularly on the far right and in the English south, who would be vocally unhappy about such a state of affairs.

So there you go. A couple of points I think the big pundits and the MSM have missed out on. Have I missed anything that's worth keeping an eye on? Let me know in comments.