Bush and Blair

Mark Steyn on British election:

If one were to outline the Bush administration's preferences, they'd run:

1. A Blair victory. Ol' Landslide was the president's key sidekick in the Coalition of the Willing. And, even though Iraq hasn't figured much in this campaign, a defeat for Blair would be seen as a Spain-like repudiation of the war.

2. A Tory victory. On the other hand, even if Blair goes down, he'd lose to the Conservative Party. And, though British Tories are not entirely comfortable with the evangelical cowboy aspects of this administration, a Conservative in Downing Street is still better news for Washington than that wacky anti-war Socialist who took over in Madrid.

Alas, Washington's likely to wind up with a third option: a Labor victory, but with a weakened Blair. Unlike U.S. presidents, British prime ministers aren't elected to ''terms.'' The Parliament the voters choose on Thursday can sit for five years, but the prime minister could be gone in one or two or three. Margaret Thatcher won her third election victory in 1987 but was bounced by her party in a grisly act of matricide after a turbulent few weeks in 1990. Maggie's 11-year run was the longest since Lord Liverpool 200 years ago. It's unlikely Tony Blair will hang around long enough to equal it. The main consequence of this election is that his designated successor, the more conventionally Laborite Gordon Brown, will take over sooner rather than later. That's bad news for Washington.

British politics are amazing as are all coalition based forms of government. Read the whole thing to get a feel for what the potential ramifications are if Blair is forced out. It wouldn't be good for America at any rate unless a Tory with a spine were to ascend, which is highly unlikely.