"Often in error, never in doubt" is the motto of the professional pundit. Today's election is deeply troubling to conservative Washington pundits; even now, most of us cannot answer the simple question, "Should Tony Blair win or lose?"

Mr. Blair has been as staunch a friend as the U.S. has in the world. Throughout the war on terror, he has been brave, eloquent, thoughtful and incredibly helpful. A Blair victory would be interpreted around the world as a vindication of the Bush-Blair policy in Iraq.

Nor has Mr. Blair's domestic record been so bad from a conservative point of view. UK taxes remain low by European standards. Unemployment is down, home ownership up. On the other hand, his government has abolished the deduction for mortgage interest. It has raised fuel taxes and increased national insurance contributions. Worse definitely lies ahead. Public spending has risen from 38 percent of national income to 42 percent over the past three years, with more projected. Half the net new jobs created since 1997 have been in the public sector. It seems that two-thirds of Mr. Blair's party is plotting to boot him out in favor of Gordon Brown, the ultra-statist chancellor. So would it not be best for the electorate to replace Mr. Blair now?

But with what? Michael Howard's new model Conservative party is not exactly boiling with free-market zeal. It has offered a derisory tax cut and almost as much new spending as Labour. Mr. Howard himself was one of the finest home secretaries of the past three decades and has wise and reasonable things to say about crime and immigration. But unlike George W. Bush, U.S. president, who disguises many bold ideas in the sugary rhetoric of compassionate conservatism, the Conservatives' horrible "Are You Thinking What We're Thinking?" advertisements have wrapped those reasonable ideas in the snarling tones of Enoch Powell on his third whisky.

Altogether, there is a dreadful whiff of opportunism over today's Conservative party, summed up by its disturbing past vacillation (and current silence) over Iraq. On radio last week, Mr. Howard said clearly that he supported the war in Iraq at the time and would have supported it even if he had known of the absence of weapons of mass destruction. That is a trenchant and welcome opinion. Unfortunately, it follows numerous attempts to exploit antiwar sentiment in the UK. Mr. Howard has been urging Mr. Blair to resign over Iraq since February 2004. He has called him a liar and warned that nobody would trust Mr. Blair to lead Britain into another war even as the UK negotiates to press Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The Conservatives' reckless words on Iraq will cost Britain dearly. What happens if the Iran crisis spirals and a narrowly re-elected Mr. Blair presiding over a divided Labour government needs Conservative support to do what Conservatives in their hearts know is right?

And yet, it is also true that Mr. Blair's foreign policy is creating its own hostages to fortune. Mr. Blair has committed himself to a European constitution that would if adopted almost surely prevent any future government from following the Atlanticist foreign policy for which he has risked so much. The new constitution would create a centralized European foreign policy apparatus that would undoubtedly be influenced more by France, Germany and Spain than by Britain and would be bound to weaken the transatlantic relationship. Some Conservatives seem to think it safe to support Mr. Blair today because the French can be trusted to vote No in their May 29 referendum on the constitution. This is incautious. Mr. Blair has always believed he can unite opposites and he now believes he can bring together a united Europe and a strong Atlantic alliance. If re-elected, he will dedicate himself to resurrecting the constitution no matter how many nons, nejs and neins it collects.

So there is the dilemma. British voters must choose between a leader who has been consistently courageous on Iraq and one who is wise about Europe; between the dreadful symbolism of a Blair defeat and the dangerous realities of a Labour re-election; between the present government's solid record of economic management and its appalling record on crime and public order; between what has rightly been called the "manipulative populism" of New Labour and what can only be described as the inept opportunism of the reinvented Conservatives. Speaking from Washington, I am relieved it is not my choice to make.

David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.