Britons Give Liberty A Bloody Nose

Being an American, I lack the first-hand experience of my Britannia brethren on such matters, but it looks to me like the United Kingdom is unfortunately on its way to becoming a nanny state, but for the moment is holding ground as a supporter of foreign nations gaining/maintaining sovereignty by the people.

As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."

It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.

If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.

There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.

So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.

Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.