IS THERE A 4TH WAY? :

The end of the affair? : For years, about half of Britain seems to have been in love with Tony Blair. But there are signs that the famous smile may at last be turned against him. (John Kampfner, 1st July 2002, New Statesman)

[T]he NS commissioned a poll from YouGov on what voters think of Blair personally and how this might affect policy. It goes beyond the usual headline question about trust, and it does not make good reading for the PM or his people. More than two-thirds of Britons believe Blair "often twists things to tell people what they want to hear". Well short of a third see him as "basically straight and honest". Women, the 30-50 age group and ABC1s are more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but only marginally.

Some of the other results are no more than mildly troubling. Although just over half the respondents agree that "Blair does not really know where he is heading", as many as 44 per cent think that he "has a long-term vision for Britain". But another result will be depressingly familiar to Downing Street strategists. Ask people in the PM's office to pinpoint the public mood, and they often use the word "disappointment". That is borne out by our poll. The biggest group of voters is disappointed in Blair (40 per cent), followed by those sympathetic with the problems he faces (35 per cent). A mere 4 per cent are proud to have him as their Prime Minister, but 20 per cent (rising to 25 per cent among the over-fifties) are angry that he is Britain's leader.

These results seem surprisingly similar to what you might have gotten for Bill Clinton had the Monica fiasco not blown up in his lap. One wonders if maybe this isn't a function of the politics the two men espouse as much as anything. The "Third Way" or "New Democrat" way requires that they run almost as conservatives and, if the opposition is in a sufficient state of crisis, allows them to get elected. But then it comes time to govern and their own party won't let them do most of what they talked about during the campaign. (Clinton was lucky, at least in this regard, to have Republicans win the Congress so that he could govern as a conservative.) They are then left in the awkward position of having been elected on a platform that their fellow party members loathe and having to govern as something other than what they presented to the voters. It's almost inevitable that they come across as somehow untrustworthy and as "disappointments". If Tony Blair believes all that he has said in the past--with the glaring exception of his support for the EU--shouldn't he head the Tories, not Labour? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 2, 2002 7:52 AM