Tony Blair suffered his first defeat of his premiership when the Commons rejected his plan to change increase the amount of time suspected terrorists can be held without charge. 49 Labour backbenchers rebelled. While this wasn’t a confidence vote (so he isn’t obligated to resign or call an election) it doesn’t look good for hime. How often does the government lose votes (excluding minority gov’ts)? Will he resign without serving a third term?
Dunno; this may be the start of the events that lead to his earlier resignation, or it may just make him grit his teeth and push harder on some of the other reform issues (particularly the education one) that he has planned.
In my opinion, he still wants to achieve something big and memorable that (so he may believe) history will look back and thank him for; I think he’ll stay, but we’ll see him trying even harder to force through his reforms by sheer force of personality (as opposed to forcing them through on the basis of sound, rational argument).
As this thread seems a bit quiet, may I post something contentious about the underlying issue (that is, the proposed extension of detainment without prosecution from 14 to 90 days)?
IMO, the issue is very similar to those surrounding the proposal of mandatory national ID cards:
1- A strong assertion that we need to do this to prevent terrorism
2- Failure to convincingly explain how the proposal will combat terrorism
3- Failure to present any past situation where, had we already accepted the proposal, it would have prevented some terrorist act
So it’s essential that we prune everyone’s civil rights in this way, but nobody can say why it’s essential, and it’s going to be really effective, but nobody can say how it will achieve anything.
Blair’s soundbite about it has been “Sometimes it’s better to do the right thing and lose, than to do the wrong thing and win”.
I think after this he’s going to get a bit desperate - Mangetout’s right, he’s wanting to find something that he can be remembered for other than the Iraq War.
I used to have at least some respect for the man, even if I didn’t agree with his politics; but him calling Blunkett an “honorable man” recently was pretty much the last straw.
Who’s Blunkett?
David Blunkett who has had to resign from the cabinet (for the second time) recently.
David Blunkett; he was Home Secretary, resigned at the centre of a moral/ethical scandal (marital infidelity and nepotism), reinstated as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, resigned again after another scandal, this time about conflict of interests (failed to declare his investments in a company that would be bidding for a contract he would be in a position to approve).
More on Blunkett here
My personal opinion is that he is a borderline sociopath; during his time as Home secretary, he tried very hard (yet failed) to force through a number of changes that would have eroded civil rights and privacy (for example he wanted to remove the right to trial by Jury and/or the double jeopard safeguard for certain types of offence).
The thing that gets me about the whole Blunkett affair (apologies for the pun) is that *no-one has admitted anything wrong was done * - Blair and Blunkett himself are treating it as if he was merely stopped by a technicality that is unimportant. At no time has anyone accepted that he might have done something wrong here at all, even with his affair which, unlike the conflict of interests problems, is clear-cut.
He will leave later, but first he will have to notice that following the lead of the Bush administration is no longer viable. This lack-of-due-process fight is the latest example.
Still, at least they’re better than those sleazy Tories. What we need is a Liberal Democrat government. They’re incorruptible.
Well they are now, ever since they got rid of the pillow-biter, Jeremy Thorpe.
And it’s easy to be incorruptable when no one thinks you’re important enough to try to corrupt.
I think British troops will be on their way out of Iraq before summer. I heard it from someone I respect in the intelligence community and I think it’s probable based on the source.
What the hell will Bush do then? And do you think a move like that will save Blair’s bacon at home?
That could be just a normal rotation of troops. But the sooner they’re out, the better.