Stephen Vasciannie

The long shadow of the Iraq war continues to stretch across politics and life in the United Kingdom. Local government elections are due this week in London, and all expectations are that the Labour government will face a substantial decline in its already dwindling fortunes. The reason: the stark unpopularity of the war in Iraq.

It is clearly a mistake to assume, then, that local government has nothing to do with foreign policy. And, indeed, the significance of the Iraq war throughout Britain may have turned Tip O'Neil's dictum that "all politics is local" upon its head. Last Sunday's Times of London noted, for example, that the Blair government has declined six per cent since the 2003 Local Government Elections "before the Iraq factor kicked in".

New Labour Defeat?

Does this decline in support for New Labour portend defeat in the next general election? The early money may have placed the Conservatives under David Cameron in the lead, but the result is far from conclusive. In a matter of weeks Britain's main architect of the Iraqi expedition, Prime Minister Blair,will resign from office. Blair will commemorate 10 years in office next week, an a general feeling of disillusionment now prevails about his stewardship, the main source of his problems appears to be, again, the realities of Iraq.

So, then, the argument runs: When Blair is succeeded by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there may be scope for the Labour Party to extricate itself fully from Iraq, and to argue that the source of the problem has left office. This will be a stretch: Gordon Brown was, and has remained, a part of the Cabinet that voted in support of the invasion. He cannot easily absolve himself and his colleagues from responsibility for what has happened subsequently. Blair may be primus inter pares, but this is also Brown's war.

Notice that I have assumed that Brown will succeed Blair. This now appears to be a certainty, for Brown is said to have up to 80 per cent support in the Labour Party, a fact that has tended to scare potential rivals, and which has probably prompted Blair to offer support to his occasional rival and friend.

Ears to Hear

The long shadow of Iraq has also manifested itself in a debate about Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne. Prince Harry is in the army, and wishes to fight in Iraq. His uncle, Prince Andrew, fought in the Falklands War in the 1980s, so there is a recent precedent in favour of Harry's choice. The Queen has not opposed the idea, and in the earlier case of Andrew, she let it be known that no special treatment should be given to her son.

With princely will, precedent and presumed grand-maternal and majestic support, should Harry be allowed into the Iraqi war zone? Prime Minister Blair appears willing to dodge this particular bullet, with Downing Street noting that this is a matter for the army. But the army generals have returned the grenade, arguing that the question needs to be addressed at the highest political level.

Here, though, is what Abu Zaid, a Shi'ite commander in Iraq is reported to have said:"We are awaiting the arrival of the young, handsome spoilt prince with bated breath - we will be generous to him. For we will return him to his grandmother but without ears."

Prince Harry's presence in Iraq may satisfy some notions of egalitarianism and brotherly love for his army colleagues. It will, however, also make his entire troop vulnerable to special and brutal attention. This is not a case for Harry to show brotherly love; and indeed, sometimes brotherly love can be overplayed. Allowing the prince to enter Iraq would be a strategic mistake.

In truth, as the London voters have decided, the entire Iraq episode has been a mistake.