If the opportunity arises
Since war on Iraq began, the shift in British opinion appears to be dramatic. Alexander Alistair reports from London
Click to view caption |
Police remove protestors during a sit-down in the centre of Belfast, Northern Ireland. A number of demonstrators held an anti-war protest as the Bush-Blair summit ended
|
Prior to the war, a BBC opinion poll in mid-February showed a mere nine per cent of the public supported attacking Iraq without a further United Nations resolution. But last weekend, a survey showed that 60 per cent of the population now supports Britain's role in the war on Iraq, despite defying the UN.
So can Tony Blair relax, safe in the knowledge that the British public think he was right all along? Hardly. But the polls do suggest that -- for the time being at least -- opposition to the war both inside and outside Westminster politics will struggle to have the impact on government that it did only a month ago.
This extraordinary shift in public opinion can partly be explained by the breadth and depth of support the anti-war movement gained before military action began. When between one and two million people marched in London on 15 February, it was clear that a huge number of those taking part would never normally consider themselves part of any peace lobby. Now that military action has begun many of those who marched for the first time now feel that British forces putting their lives at risk must be supported, whatever misgivings they may have about the conflict.
Many also feel that the war will be quick and decisive, and public opinion will be little more than a distraction until it is concluded. Few doubt that Saddam will be ousted and many are waiting for that to occur before marching again.
Furthermore, it is hardly surprising that following the enormous demonstration in February many in the anti-war movement question its effectiveness. If a march of that size failed to shift government policy, will more marches -- probably smaller in number -- be any more successful?
To some extent, public anger was abated by two debates in the House of Commons over Iraq. The first saw a rebellion of 122 Labour MPs, and the second on 18 March, a rebellion of 139 Labour MPs. For Tony Blair, these unprecedented levels of dissent initially appeared very damaging. But they did at least convince many of the public that their views were at last being expressed by a significant number of elected politicians, and that a genuine debate -- a rare thing indeed in Westminster -- had actually taken place on military action against Iraq.
Since war began, opposition within the Commons appears to have melted away. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, the third main British party, had gingerly positioned himself as against military action, going so far as speaking at the 15 February anti-war march. No sooner had the bombs started falling on Baghdad, however, than he swung behind the government, urging the country to "unite" behind British forces.
Of the Labour rebels, few have stuck their heads above the parapet in the last couple of weeks. Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet days before the war began, wrote an article for a Sunday newspaper appearing to call for an immediate cessation to hostilities.
"I have already had my fill of this bloody and unnecessary war," he wrote, "I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed."
But, bizarrely, by the evening of the same day, he appeared to be furiously backtracking.
"Now that the war has started it's vital that it ends in victory," he now claimed. "There could be no worse outcome than one that lets Saddam Hussein survive."
The perennial Labour maverick MP George Galloway also courted controversy in an interview with Abu Dhabi TV.
"The best thing British troops can do is to refuse to obey illegal orders," he said.
He also accused Tony Blair and George Bush of attacking Iraq "like wolves".
The pro-war Sun newspaper promptly put him on the front page under the headline "Traitor". And, predictably, allegations about his misuse of charity funds quickly followed. Now Labour Party officials are reported to be moving to expel him from the party. While the media is keen to make a scapegoat out of Galloway, the tone of his comments makes him an easy target and -- for the government -- a welcome distraction.
No one doubts, however, that Tony Blair's relationship with his party has been deeply damaged by the conflict with Iraq. Many senior Labour figures might be keeping their head down for now, but will be devoting considerable effort in the future to challenging Blair at a time of their choosing.
On the embattled prime minister, one former Cabinet minister told The Observer newspaper: "I'm not organising to get rid of him. But if the opportunity arises, I'll be the first to help."
Such views were unimaginable only a couple of months ago.
And the anti-war movement is still very active. There was a rally in London on 22 March of between 200,000 and 500,000 people -- the former estimate being that of the police and the latter the organisers'. Such numbers are, by any standards, impressive, but pale when compared to the march in February. The media, by then fixated on battle footage from its "embeds" in Iraq, was quick to declare the anti-war movement "on the wane" -- somewhat unfair considering the demonstration was organised in under a week.
There have also been a number of direct action protests around Britain, much of it focussing on military bases. The weekend of 5 April saw a "Reclaim the Bases" weekend at a number of locations. Turnout, however, was relatively small, numbering in the hundreds rather than the thousands at each base. The protesters were easily contained by police, using draconian anti-terrorist laws to seal off whole areas and hold activists for several hours.
Other small demonstrations have occurred throughout towns and cities throughout the UK. Another national demonstration is planned for this Saturday, and the Stop the War Coalition is expecting a number of people marching somewhere between that on 15 February and the rally three weeks ago.
The turnout and reaction to the demonstration very much depends on how the war is perceived to be going. There is still considerable opposition to the war on Iraq, but it is clear that, with the British military embroiled in the conflict, the dynamic of the movement has shifted decisively.
The anti-war movement came remarkably close to stopping the government in its tracks over the war in Iraq. Doing so would have created one of the most extraordinary upheavals British politics has ever seen.
But, having come so close, to have a similar effect on Britain's support for the United States after the war has finished, the movement must muster the same kind of momentum all over again. With Blair's authority severely diminished that is tantalisingly achievable. But it won't be a cakewalk.
