BS: Blairs first defeat

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Shambles
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 05:38 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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