Politaholic Got It Wrong

Politaholic is not yet a one year old. I have been bloggin since March 2006. In that short time I have made some pretty big errors:

• I thought - in April - that Blair would be gone before the end of the year (If the alleged Brownite "coup" had worked I might have been right). Now it seems obvious that Blair will clock-up his ten years.
• I thought that someone from "within the tent" might strike the fatal blow against Blair (I should have known better).
• I thought Prescott would resign: in some ways it is still surprising that he has not; but the political reason for his survival (to shield Blair) is obvious.
• I thought there would be a Labour Leadership challenge (after the failed "coup" extorted from Blair a promise to go before next September a challenge probably seemed superfluous, and potential challengers were deterred by the damage it might do to the party (which press reaction to the "coup" seemed to underline).

Doubtless there were other mistakes. These are the perils of blogging. No editors, no proof readers. You press the button and "hey, presto" there it goes into the blogosphere and afterwards you can't say "I didn't say that" because there's the proof. I like it.

I still think that Brown is by far the most likely successor to Blair, but I do think there will be a serious leadership challenge, probably by John Reid.

I still think the "Cameron question" is open: he is still vulnerable to the charge of being "all image and no substance" and the Tory opinion poll lead is not large enough for a Tory overall majority (or comparable with the lead Blair had at a similar stage in the electoral cycle); but there is no question that he has re-invigorated the Conservatives.

I am a little worried by the parties of the far right (BNP) and not quite so far right but still alarmingly right (UKIP): if Cameron's Tories become tree-hugging and gay-friendly where are all the traditional Tories going to go?

I am still convinced the war in Iraq was a disaster. I don't particularly want to link arms with Islamists in opposition to the war, but the "liberal imperialism" of the Euston group does not attract me either. Odd - isn't it - to recall that all those years ago the "tankies" were the Stalinist wing of the old CPGB; now the "tankies" are an assorted group of ex (?)-Trots, Blairites, and neo-cons. How the wheel turns.