For some reason I've not yet been able to explain, Tony Blair fascinates me. Whenever I flip by CSPAN and he's on, I have to stop a few minutes just to hear what he's talking about.

I'm not surprised that the NYT doesn't mention UKIP. They might be "fabulously paleoconservative" (whatever that means!) but they are also as nutty as a fruit cake - and have about as much chance of affecting the results of the election. They made a showing in the Euro elections, but I'd be very, very surprised if the General Election is anything other than a complete wash out for them. I'm a bit surprised that the Lib Dems didn't get mentioned though. They could pick up votes from both disaffected Tories and Labour supporters and could well end up with a significant presence in the Commons.

I'm a bit surprised about your comments about the British media. My impression is that our broadcasters are much harder on our government, and politicians in general, than mainstream journalists in the USA. How much of a hard time has Bush had in serious interviews leading up the 2004 elections? By contrast, have you ever heard an interview by (say) Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys?

The American media gave Bush a near-pass on the invasion of Iraq. The fact that the media didn't ask hard questions of Bush after September 11 and leading up to Iraq is one of the reasons he was able to get his Patriot act so easily and to get away with his "your either with us or against" us bombast.

Also, Blair has to subject himself to questioning from the opposition, which no American president is required to do.

I'm surprised that the NYT piece didn't mention the Liberal Democrats; the writer might have been looking for a-pox-on-both-their-houses effect, as she went after both parties.

At least from a distance, it looked like Howard was an improvement over Duncan Smith; is this gal right in that Howard's "more hopeless?"

The UKIP got 16% in EU elections, but those elections were proportional-representation, so smaller parties could get more votes. In a first-past-the-post election, they'll probably revert back to middle single digits (or is that a single middle digit?), being lucky to pick up one redneck district.

How much of a hard time has Bush had in serious interviews leading up the 2004 elections?

Well, Bush gave very few interviews leading up to the elections. The mainstream media in the US typically avoids directly criticizing anyone. Instead, they give coverage to those who are doing the criticizing. So if left-leaning folks think the media gave Bush a pass leading up to Iraq, that can largely be attributed to the fact that those who questioned the need for military action had trouble coming up with convincing arguments against it.

The media has more than made up for that, however, with their obsession for bad news from Iraq ever since.

...that and their tacit approval of the "Bush lied, people died" angle for the last year or so.

I rather doubt that any modern mainstream media (by terms of circulation) is engaged in serious criticism of any establishment.

For my part, I share Bobby's fascination with Blair; his speech on the eve of the invasion was masterful. (NPR broadcast it.)

Interesting twist on the tired old "false dilemma" fallacy.

"given a choice, some would choose death by beheading, while others would choose death by firing squad. My fellow Britons, I propose a third way! I say we can all choose death by asphyxiation!"

I don't think that re-electing Blair is horrible at all. I am an American living in Britain and seems that nearly 10 years of low inflation, low unemployment, relative peace and security is a reason to return the Prime Minister and his party.

It is true that he is Clintonesque in his permanent campaign mode, but he has had a relatively scandal free time in office, but done the occasionaly mea culpa when he was wrong (i.e. Iraq invasion)

Blair's 3rd way captures enough of the center ground in Britain's system to keep him and his party in office for a long time. With only really liberal capitalism as a guiding philosophy in Western governments, Blair does straddle that fine middle ground, but it works for him.

It Britain 30% will vote for the most liberal party (Lib-Dems today) and 30% will vote for the most conservative party (Conservatives, but maybe UKIP...notice Conservatives move to the right lately), so that leave 40% up for grabs. Blair's 3rd way captures them brilliantly and he stays in power.

A good governor with good governance

An interesting parallel might be Canada. Jean Chrétien and the Liberals held onto power during much of the 1990s due to continued anger at the old Tory (Progressive Conservative) party of Brian Mulroney and a perceived lack of credibility among the alternatives (which, BTW, includes a third party, the New Democrats). Of course, the old Progressive Conservative party split and collapsed, but it has since been patched together as the new Conservative Party.

In Britain, the Conservatives never had it as bad as their Canadian counterparts, but they have failed so far to generate the excitement and credibility that would ensure wrestling the government away from Labour. But although the Labour Party seem poised to win the next election, it may well be with a seriously reduced majority.