BS: Blairs first defeat

Subject: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Cllr
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:35 PM

I know there are other threads on the subject of this topic but I couldn't resist stating this one as it has a slightly different focus than the specific view on the rights or wrongs of the Bill itself. What do people think is this the start of the end for blair or just a blip in the path of the mighty war machine that is new labour?. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:39 PM

I'm sure the rest of the Blair haters know what you're on about, but any clues for the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Cllr
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 01:52 PM

As you well know, oh big and pink, I dont hate anybody, (there are a few people I don't like very much but that's a different story) the serious question behind my remarks is about Blair's political longevity. The loss of one vote may not have serious ramifications or it might single to other ambitious labour politico's that Blair is in a much weakend position. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:05 PM

He's down! And the circling wolves know it's only a matter of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: mandotim
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM

Blair had already set up his 'default' losing position, as would any shrewd politician. The polls show that there is massive support in the country at large for the 90 day detention without charge, and Blair is in a perfect position to play heavily on that. He is weakened temporarily, but can you imagine how the Labour rebels and the opportunist Tories are going to be portrayed when the next terrorist outrage happens? There will inevitably be another one, from one source or another.
There were lots of delicious moments in this debate; Blair defeated when for once actually doing what most of the the people want; Michael Howard, by common consent once the most rabidly right-wing Home Secretary we've ever had, arguing for a more liberal approach to custody and habeas corpus. Great stuff, I might even start taking an interest again.
Tim from Bit on the Side

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:40 PM

Too bad there isn't any provision under which the Labour MPs get a chance to vote whether they want to keep him as their leader or not. Of course there's nothing to stop him inviting them to do that, the same way John Major did at one point, but I very much doubt if he will - the chances are they'd tell him to step down.

If he couldn't get a majority over this, he hasn't a chance of getting a majority on a lot of other isssues. I rather suspect that as that realisation sinks in, we may be told that his health has taken a turn for the worse, necessitating a resignatiion on health grounds, that being the traditional way in such situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:40 PM

absolutely crazy - if the cops say they wanted it, they should have got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:43 PM

Cllr - My apologies ... I never meant to insinute you hate anyone, gosh forbid! You're one of this forum's best-loved philanthropists ;o)

However, for my fellow thickies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

Yes whatever The Gestapo said they needed - they tended to get.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:23 PM

The incredibly reliable and competent guys who shot Jean Charles de Menenzes?

The point is they don't use the powers they have intelligently and appropriately. Asking for more powers and fewer restrictions is just a way of avoiding facing up to the mistakes they have made. And of course they needed to tell Tony Blair what he wanted them to tell him - that's how "intelligence" works with this administration. Here's an article about all this which is worth reading - Don't be duped by yet another dodgy dossier :

"Any MPs who hold misgivings about supporting an invasion on the basis of a dossier later discovered to have been utterly misleading ought now to be demanding a proper, transparent investigation into what the police did and did not do that might have prevented the bombings in London of July 7; and they ought to treat with extreme caution the "dossiers" prepared to support 90-day detentions."

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:32 PM

And who is going to "carry the can" when the next lot of terrorist bombs go off and the Police say that it could have been prevented if they had the power to?. It won't be Blair with egg on his face then will it? So who will people blame for them...the Police? NO! they tried.....Blair? NO! He tried......who will get the blame next time....all academic really as the damage to human life will have been done!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:38 PM

First defeat - and then de neck.............

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,redhorse
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:54 PM

90 days was always a political figure rather than objectively based. The police's job is easiest if they can operate without any restraint: 90 days was merely the longest figure they thought they could get through, and may even have been a bargaining position.
So far only 11 people have been held for the full 13/14 days: all were charged, none released. Nothing in the police case argued the relative merits of 30/60/90/120/360 days; it just made a moderate case for something longer than 14. Blair needs to understand that there is a bit more to making a compelling case than repeating "It's a compelling case"

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 06:27 PM

28 days was finally voted in.

My own feeling is that following the Blunkett farce this is another blow which his detractors will use to undermine him. Add his inept wife's faux pas and the record of some of his ministers ineptitude and you have a man with no authority.

He has already said he will stand down at prior to the next election, GB will be making moves behind the scenes to become leader and maybe Prime Minsister.

28 days would seem about right to hold a person without charge, longer and you are playing around with fundemental freedoms.

I agree in these days you need to have stronger powers to combat potential terrorism, but they have to be weighed against potential power to abuse basic freedoms which the UK has enjoyed as part of their law.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 07:08 PM

28 days would be about the right time for Blair to make his excuses and leave.

As that article I linked to mentions, up to now the police haven't actually used the powers they already have in dealing with terrorist threats. This is essentially political sleight of hand, designed to distract attention from the failures to date, and to give Tony Blair a chance to grandstand, and to face down the people in his own party who want him to go. It hasn't worked in either respect, it appears.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:16 PM

The trouble is, it's such an arbitrary number. Do the police claim that if given the 90 days they will increase their chances of stopping any terrorists by xx%? Of course not. Would only 45 days halve those chances? Who knows. I'd happily give them 6 months, if they can guarantee me results. But they can't, can they? And instead I am just running the risk of disappearing for 90 days the next time I return from Greece suntanned and run for the bus.

So - sell me a number of days, but give me guarantees; otherwise you just look inadequate.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 08:20 PM

As for what this defeat means for Blair, a pundit on the telly said it better than me: If he couldn't pass this Bill, when he staked his own power on it, what are the chances of passing the rest of the Bills on the Health Service, Immigration reform etc next year (all part of his "legacy agenda")?

He has been seen to be vulnerable, and no doubt the jackals will again grab a bite. He is a lame duck now - but it may take him more than 12 months to realise or acknowledge that.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:18 AM

There is no doubt that in Britain today there is a need for increased security and defence against terrorists. The increased "detention without trial" could well be a part of that necessity. But for a quarter of a year? A bit much, I say. And let's not forget that coupled with this attempt by the Prime Monster were little hardly-publicised proposals with regard to what constitutes "terrorism" or "activities in support of terrorism". All that aside, none of us should lose sight of the fact that had Blair had the nous to keep Britain out of the Iraq fiasco, the measures now being proposed would have been a damn' sight less imperative. Call me "Blair hater" if you will; it's not a badge to be ashamed of. He has made a shambles of the British Labour Party, and driven many moderate "lefties" to an extreme position because of the blatantly rightward march of "new" labour. While it is far too late to prevent further vengeful terrorist action, his demise cannot come fast enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:26 AM

Hooray for Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:10 AM

Why did Blair do it?
He knew that his own party would be hard to persuade.
What was in it for him?

He said that it was better to do the right thing and lose.

We know that a number of Labour MPs always vote against Blair.
We know that Tory MPs were privately strongly in favour, but saw a chance to hurt Blair.

So it is not melodramatic to say that politics took preference over the safety of the people.

The police say it was necessary.
So do the prosecution services.(Yes they sometimes make operational mistakes.)
The ordinary people were strongly in favour, and unlike polticians they have to ride the tube and use large hospitals and schools (likely next targets).

At least Mudcat Left are happy
And when the attack comes they will just say that the West had it coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:16 AM

yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:41 AM

Although not linked to yesterdays defeat this article that appeared in the Guardian shows that Blair and his team have often ridden roughshod and ignored local advice.

Sir Christpher Meyers view on Blair

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Paul Burke
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:55 AM

I'd really be glad to be rid of New Labour and Blair and Golden Brown.

If it weren't for the prospect of what would replace them.

Head back under the bedclothes for another 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 04:17 AM

In an ITV Poll this morning....support for Blair from 84% of the over 5,000 people who voted via phone and website..........what does that tell you? The General Public still believe in him!!!!!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: mooman
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:44 AM

Personally, I think it's the first serious nail in the coffin for him. Unlike GS above I perceive that public opinion is ebbing for him... polls are very often completely out depending on the way the questions are phrased.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:04 AM

you wish....

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: sapper82
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 06:54 AM

Irony.
One of the leading lights in New Labour is Peter Hain who made a name for himself as an anti-aparthiet campaigner.
90 day detention without charge was used as a tool be the SA security services in the '60s.

In addition I would not trust Ian Blair not to abuse this provision.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 08:53 AM

All powerful people tend to bring about their own downfalls. An example from recent history is Maggie bringing in the Poll Tax.
With this 90 day masterpiece Blair has not only alienated his own party but was very close to creating ideal conditions for terrorism to flourish in. As such he is merely following 'Tuchman's Law' (after the American historian, Barbara Tuchman who wrote a book called 'The March of Folly' about this same phenomenon).
I haven't seen any of the questions that were asked in the polls but I imagine the question was along the lines of: "are you for terrorism or against it?" - how do you think most normal people voted? Such evidence does NOT support imprisoning terrorist suspects, without charge, for 90 days. I don't doubt that if there is another terrorist outrage, in the near future, Blair and his supporters will be saying "I told you so!" Do not believe them - they told us no such thing!!

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:24 AM

If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial.
Go outside and ask around yourself.
Most people trust the police on this one.
The police and ITV are politically neutral.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:44 AM

Tactical voting intended to snub Mr Blair is my interperetation. Pity his first defeat wasn't the anti -fox hunting bill!

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:11 PM

Have to agree with you there Ted..it would have made much more sense to use the might of Political wrangling on something less 'crucial' to the Country.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM

Whether or not you believe in Blair, it can't be right to set up circumstances in which police can grab anyone off the street, lock him up for the equivalent of a six month jail sentence (90 days being the average served by a convict sentenced to six months), and go on a fishing expedition to see if he can be used to improve their clear-up rate.

Having failed to find any evidence, he can then be released without apology or compensation, having been blackened by the mere fact of his detention so that some people will believe he is guilty of some unspecified crime.

Oh, by the way, if this post gives the impression that I don't totally trust the police, I don't. Most especially I don't trust the intelligence on which they so often base their actions (remember WMDs).

Erosion of civil rights is a not a process to be undertaken lightly, and the last people who should be trusted with it are those who call for it in the first place.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:37 PM

If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial.

I'll go by the BBC Internet poll.

Most people trust the police on this one.

58% on that one say Bliar got it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM

Wonder what the terrorists think?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 02:11 PM

Good God Don! You'll be voting Labour next!

The crucial issue is this (I think). If you were an innocent man, and siezed and detained for 90 days (as this provision would empower) what would you think? If you think the police would never sieze you because you are innocent, you are barking mad.

This terror - the possibility of misuse of the power - must be balanced against what proper things it might achieve. A blank cheque for 90 days is unacceptable.

Do not forget the vast majority in Germany suported Hitler's additions to his own powers until it was far too late. Not (I hope) that Blair is like Hitler, but the majority can not be relied upon to defend those a minority, even when justice so requires.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:05 PM

Britains fair laws?, to realise what detentsion without trial means, Google up John McGuffins Internment, it`s a compelling read and for good measure also read The Guinea Pigs, this second book is an insight into what went on in detention.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: mooman
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 03:59 PM

If you imagine reputable, established polls would ask a question like that, you are in denial. I am not in denial.
Go outside and ask around yourself. I did and I did.
Most people trust the police on this one. Quite possibly but most people don't trust Tony Blair in general any more.
The police and ITV are politically neutral. Really! I never knew that!

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM

Keith, wee drummer GS......Blair is history, get over it!

He has become a liability to those craven people who supported him when they knew he was wrong.

Once again he tries to play the populist card to save his skin.. He failed and now that the rebels scent blood he's finished.
Many on the left see Blair and New Labour as a bigger threat to Socialism than the Tories.

Just as the Conservatives could never have involved us in Iraq, they would never have been able to attack our civil rights in the the way Blair proposed.

Legislation can never be based wholly on what the public "want".
If that was the case, Mr Pierrepont would still be in business and doing his work in public to a paying audiance...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:02 PM

Not likely Richard, as long as what passes for Labour is led by this crooked, lying b*****d.

Give me a socialist party to vote for and.................

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 05:11 PM

Guest DB....You are quite correct.

Apparently, before yesterdays vote questionaires were circulated to Labour MPs from the whips office asking simplistic questions on whether they "supported terrorism " or not .

Most of the replies were unprintable ...and Blair lost the vote ..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: DougR
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 11:45 PM

Okie dokie, ye happy folks at Blair's defeat, but if some person held on suspicion of planning or executing terrorism is the key person to cause an event that results in great devastion to the people of Great Britain, don't cry on our shoulders because of it. (Must be nice to terrorists.)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:32 AM

Doug R.---I have in the past had respect for your strongly held rightwing opinions---but I have NEVER seen such a pointless and deliberately insulting concoction of trash as your 11.45 pm posting.
We WONT be "nice" to terrorists. Neither should we or anyone else be nice to those who create terrorists. Now here's something which would doubtless prompt Tony Bliar to stick the label on me ---if any foreign country invaded mine with as little provocation as the Iraqis displayed a few years back, with tanks planes bombs and guns, then I for one would take up any weapon that was within my grasp and use stealth and darkness if necessary in order to level the playing field, and to impres upon the invader that there was no profit in his staying around. Now wouldn't Tony and wee Georgie [and Doug?]just be real keen to stick the "terrorist" label on me? Have I

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 12:38 AM

As I was about to say---"Have I said anything wrong, Doug?"

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:17 AM

Doug R,

The argument about a person released after fourteen days going out and blowing up a bunch of people is specious. The same could be said about someone who had been held without trial for a month, or a year, or a decade.......

Do you seriously suggest we grab anyone who looks a bit Muslim and hold them for life just in case?

Get real, for God's sake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:31 AM

yeh ask the Jordanians if 28 days seems about right this morning.

There remain many places in the world (Jordan possibly being one of them) where there are no safeguards to protect their people from being imprisioned indefinitely on mere suspicion - or places where there are no effective laws at all. I hope you are not suggesting that we join them?

As it would seem that having these powers does not protect them from terrorist attacks and some may argue that such unchecked powers make terrorist attacks more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:15 AM

I'm heartened by the posts above from good people who are intelligent enough to realise that stopping terrorism needs more than brute force.

Force, either legal or military will always inflame the situation.
I can hardly think of one conflict involving "terrorism " which has been solved by force.

After many weasel words and bluster from the politicians, any sort of peace has been arrived at through diplomacy, and whether we like to admit it or not the "terrorists" always win.

People using terrorist tactics, be they blacks in South Africa, Republicans in Northern Ireland, or insurgents in Iraq, have always an ideology which drives them, even when that ideology is a madness like fundamentalist Islam.

We on the other hand are driven only by the need to keep this corrupt system in place dividing our society and causing death and destruction throughout the world.
We are ideologically bankrupt, as can be seen from the postings of Doug Keith ect.

The best we can hope for is to start showing a good example for a change ...and keeping our fingers crossed...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:20 AM

Keith A of Hartford suggests that I am "in denial" about dodgy polls - I only wish I was - although I do admit to some SLIGHT exaggeration in framing my fictional poll question.
The fact is that another characteristic of powerful people is that they always seem to require justification for their actions and, these days, this always comes down to having numbers available to support their agendas, preconceptions and prejudices. The interesting thing is that the likes of Blair, who must operate within a parliamentary democracy, needs such numbers, spurious or otherwise, to support his case but even unconstitutional tyrants seem to need them as well. Until recently I worked for such a gang of tyrants (typical British bosses!) and they were always commissioning studies carefully designed to give them the answers they wanted.
As someone with an interest in data and statistics I get sick and tired of the phrase, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". I can't remember who coined this phrase but he was WRONG: there are only LIES!
By the way, what is the point of going to all the trouble and expense of running a spurious study - why not just make the numbers up?

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Davetnova
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 09:14 AM

After trying so hard to get 90 day detention, I find it surprising that the British goverment are so upset about the thirteen day dentention of two britons arrested by in Iran in disputed waters.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: The Shambles
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 05:27 PM

I heard on the news today that Jordan had arrested just about everyone and their cat for the attack................

Perhaps if they had done this before the attack - the measure may have prevented it. One thing is sure - taking such action after the event will not.

Subject: RE: BS: Blairs first defeat
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 06:58 PM

Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer should engage their brains for a moment.

Where is the evidence that holding and questioning suspects for 90 days without charge would make us any safer? If between the three of them they can answer this, they will have done better than Blair, who was asked this question repeatedly on Wednesday and could give no answer.

A couple of hours later the home secretary (working hand in glove with the nation's chief constables) did manage to come up with an example. He told MPs that the risin case might have resulted in a conviction had the 90 days been an option, whereas in fact the suspect had been released and had left the country by the time forensic evidence came to light.

This example was shot down by one of his own backbenchers, Chris Mullins, who pointed out that the suspect had not even been held for the 14 days then available to police, but had been released after just two! All very heartless of Mullins, given that this was the only example that Blair, Clarke and 40 police chiefs had managed to turn up to support their curious fixation with 90 days.

Why the sudden enthusiasm for dancing to the police's tune? The police are against extending the hours during which alcohol may be served, but that is not going to dictate the legislation. Politicians should take account of professional advice whether it's from lawyers, clinicians or whoever, but it in the end they are elected to exercise their judgment.

Even if there was some new code that said the professionals should dictate the legislation, what about the country's most senior judges, the Law Lords, who are opposed to 90 days? "Exhorbitant" and "reprehensible in a free society" are among the comments they have made. At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Balir responded to that by saying "As for the Law Lords, I would rather listen to the police than them." Why? Because he is obsessed with blowing in the wind of public opinion and believed he saw a chance to embarrass the Tories in that respect.

Those in this thread who think it was the Tories who were playing party politics on Wednesday are not in the real world. The Tories have lost members to terrorism, and their cabinet could easily have been wiped out in the Brighton bomb. Lord Tebbitt suffered serious injury in that bombing and his wife was paralysed. To suggest his oppositon to the 90 days was political expediency is as offensive as it is stupid.

Have people forgotten the catastrophic effect of internment in Northern Ireland? In what real sense is the equivalent of a six-month prison term morally more acceptable? Have we really learnt nothing from that staggering blunder (as all but the DUP lunatics now accept it to have been)?

What if Georgiansilver's ofrecast is fulfilled and there is another atrocity? Well first of all, to his acute disappointment, it would probably turn out to be like any others that have occurred so far - that is, completely unaffected by any 90-day legislation. But even if it turned out to be the very first case where such legislation would have made a difference, and even if such an atrocity was certain to occur within six months, I'd be happy to take my chances.

We live with risk every day. None of us can assume we will live three-score years and ten, and even if another atrocity was guaranteed within the next six months, we're probably all at greater risk of being killed by a piece of office furniture than of being caught in that blast. We're certainly at greater risk from road traffic accidents and the consequences of alcohol abuse by others.

One thing's for sure - the Sun newspaper will flourish as long as there are people like Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer to swallow its ranting crap without question.

Oh, and yes, of course Blair's finished.