Blair defeated over terror laws

Been watching :)

Serves him right. as Idiot in Cheif would say...."Ahhh fool me once shame on ahhhh you........ah ah ahh.............you fool me we won't be fooled again..ahhhhh "

Have you seen Blair lately? He looks like death warmed over and his impeccable gift as an orator is DEFINITELY lacking in the recent past. He's got that look of what could be characterized as a "caged animal."

Damn! Tony, no baloney, you look bad! :P

of the Poodle Administration as we know it.

I was listening to the BBC World News today and they were talking about it. So glad it went this way!!

Suck on THAT poodle-boy....!!!

I LOVE that picture!!! Fuggin' brilliant! :rofl:

by about the same amount - I think this must mean the votes split roughly as before (the Tories and Lib Dems had agreed to the 28 day limit; there was another possible vote for 60 days, and I'm not sure if that now goes ahead or not).

28 days is still draconian, compared with other 'developed' countries. I still wonder if Labour came up with 90 days to make 28 look reasonable. Though Blair putting himself so much behind the 90 days seems to show he really wanted it.

During the 28 day detention it was agreed that a High Court Judge would review each case every week to decide if detention was still justified .

for its own survival. He's history just like Maggie.

Thanks to the 322.

...if progressive Labour backbenchers would stick together, the Bush/Blair agenda would be destroyed much more quickly.

Why am I hearing from Labour MPs that public opinion was behind the 90 days policy? I don't know a single person who thought that this was a good idea.

low like the US and =Australia! good for them.

which claimed 72% supported the 90 days in one form or another. For my reasons why I think it was dubious, see here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=191&topic_id=12597&mesg_id=12609

But this is one of those cases where many people will say "I know I won't be affected by this, and I trust the police, so I'm sure they won't misuse it". I wouldn't have thought 72% would think like that, though.

... to say the least. The public comments at the BBC tell a different story.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=284&&&edition=1&ttl=20051109180957

and more negative as is bush's. The tide is turning!

The MP who proposed the 28 day limit was a Labour MP, and in his speech he said "this isn't an attack on the government, or a vote of confidence, it's about getting the right balance between the justice process and civil liberties". Also, I think a vote of confidence would imply a general election, rather than just Blair resigning and (presumably) Brown taking over - and few of the Labour MPs would vote for the election.

The leader of the opposition, Michael Howard, has called on Blair to resign (the Conservatives are themselves currently holding a members' election to choose Howard's successor).

See this leaflet from Parliament (for some reason I can't copy text from it). Just changing the leader of the government may not be enough (and by convention, according to that leaflet, isn't).

That's talking about a formal vote of confidence in the Commons. There's nothing stopping the Labour party voting him out.

on edit: My mistake. I assumed that the original question was talking about a vote of confidence within the Labour party. I understand where you're coming from now.

The reduction of days is nice, but what would be the probable cause? What would constitute having a "tie" or a "link" to a terrorist? And what would happen--would be suspect be subject to torture.

:shrug:
rocknation

On your phone... Or sniffed around the wrong kind of website...

And of course you're classified as belonging to the 'wrong' ethno-social-religious 'group'...

This law refers to 'suspects' against whom they would have no evidence acceptable in any court. That's why they want time to go sniffing (or arm-twisting) to find...

FUCK YOU, BLAIR!

(Plus, we repudiated Schwarzenazi! Woohoo!)

An MP accused him of promoting a police state, and he was indignant. He really doesn't see that's exactly what he's trying to get - his whole reasoning has been "the police want this, they should get it", despite that fact that the police haven't been able to show any reasoning for the 90 day limit.

Are even better, though...

Tony Blair says his authority is intact despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat as prime minister.

He said he hoped MPs "do not rue the day" they rejected his call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.

MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling.

Tory leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair should resign. Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy warned Mr Blair could become a "lame duck" leader.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm

One more lame duck and who gives a flying fugg -bybye Bliar!! You're toast!!

we all know too well who really is the irresponsible one
take a look in the mirror Blair


Tony Blair suffered his first House of Commons defeat since he came to power as MPs snubbed his proposals for police to be allowed to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge. The House of Commons instead voted for a much shorter 28-day period - a figure Mr Blair had made clear he considered inadequate for the nation's security needs. He reacted angrily to the defeat, suggesting that MPs - including a significant number of Labour rebels - had behaved in a "deeply irresponsible" manner.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2218882005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4421888.stm

And, while he continues to claim this was not an issue of his leadership or authority, it has dealt him a serious personal blow and already led to a demand for his resignation from Tory leader Michael Howard.

Not even the support of Chancellor Gordon Brown succeeded in persuading his backbench rebels to fall into line behind the hugely-controversial proposal to detain terror suspects for 90 days without charge.

And not even another of his powerful and passionate performances during question time before the vote managed to save the prime minister.

-----------
Good riddance! Justice for Dr. David Kelly!!

At least the Brits are capable of honoring the rights of all (good or bad).


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror;_ylt=AoP5ulromVPCpwQIOgX6Q5as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-
Blair Suffers Major Defeat on Terror Bill

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 33 minutes ago

LONDON - In a political blow to Prime Minister
Tony Blair, British lawmakers on Wednesday rejected tough anti-terrorism legislation that would have allowed suspects to be detained for 90 days without charge.

The House of Commons vote was the first major defeat of Blair's premiership and raises serious questions about his grip on power. Blair had staked his authority on the measure and doggedly refused to compromise.

Lawmakers, including 49 members of Blair's Labour Party, opted instead for a maximum detention period for terror suspects of 28 days without charge.

Michael Howard, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, said Blair's authority had "diminished almost to vanishing point" and said he should consider resigning......

has fallen.

It's time to flush little Tony.

The reduction in the Labour majority in the House of Commons at the last General Election is now beginning to impact on his legislative program. Many the Labour MPs who lost their seats were Blairite loyalists whilst all the 50 old Labour refuseniks known to rebel against the Prime Minister were returned. It was this group whose votes ensured that the 90 day clause was defeated. Blair became accustomed to ruling by diktat after two massive landslide election victories in 1997 and 2001. He does not seem to be able to come to terms with the fact that the Parliamentary arithmetic since May 2005 no longer makes that possible. In order to get his current set of Bills through the House of Commons he is going to either have to start listening to some of the people on the left of his own party or else cut deals with the Conservative or Liberal Democrat opposition. Since all these groups have different reasons for wanting to see Blair removed from the centre of British politics I do not think any of these scenarios are likely to occur. From this point onward it is all going to fall apart.

:bounce:

The Neocons plummet!!!!

TONY BLAIR’S future — and his programme of reforms — were called into doubt last night after MPs defeated him over the terror laws, inflicting a severe blow to his authority. The Prime Minister, rocked by Labour’s first Commons defeat since he brought the party back to power in 1997, was facing the prospect of a year of rebellions as backbenchers gave warning that his “legacy” Bills on schools, hospitals and welfare were all under threat.

In a bitter personal rebuff, the Commons voted by a margin of 31 votes against his plan for the police to be allowed to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days. Instead they voted for the 28-day period favoured by the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and many Labour MPs.

The blame for the reverse was laid firmly at Mr Blair’s door because it was his decision to opt for a vote on the 90-day detention period when other ministers appeared ready to compromise. Last night it appeared to have been one of the biggest miscalculations of his premiership. Had he offered a compromise — as Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, indicated on Monday was likely to happen — the Conservatives would have been under pressure to accept it.

Forty-nine Labour MPs, including 11 former ministers, voted against the 90-day plan, a motion that the Government lost by 322 votes to 291. Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, claimed that Mr Blair’s authority had “disappeared almost to vanishing point” and asked him to consider resigning.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1865729,00.html

With people like Blair and Sharon, you know that they are gone only when they are gone, not a millisecond earlier.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/50529.html

Scotsman article:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=2219382005




Check out the mark of the W on his forehead. C-r-e-e-p-y

after the years of Thatcher and Major.

I was so thrilled when he was first elected, even though I knew
he was "New" Labour, but what a total disappointment he's been. Did
he really need to throw out all decent Labour principles? And did
he have to sell out his country to completely to Bushco?

them... and they have now lost it forever.

how democracies work now? People triangulate to the "centre" and say what they think will get the most votes. Bliar obviously figured that the Great British Public wanted "me-first" Thatcherism, but to feel good about themselves as patrons of the Welfare State too. I can't say he was wrong about that, strategically - the new votes for New Labour probably did. His principles are obviously rotten though.

90 days detention without trial.

Until the official enquiry about WHY the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Squad shot an innocent man eight times in the brain at point blank range in a public place (the subway train at Stockwell, South London)with a full complement of passengers watching, the Police's professional judgement on ALL dranconian policing measures is in the dock.