Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Great news - Blair DEFEATED over terror laws

by RogueTrooper Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 10:54:18 AM EST

From the front page

Blair defeated over terror laws

Prime Minister Tony Blair has lost the key House of Commons vote on plans to allow police to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.

MPs rejected the proposals by 322 votes to 291. They are now voting on whether to accept a compromise detention limit.

The defeat came despite Mr Blair saying MPs had a "duty" to give police the powers they needed to tackle terrorism.

The vote - the government's first Commons defeat - will be seen as a blow to the prime minister's authority.

But it does not mean he will have to stand down as prime minister - something he has said he will do before the next election.


'No police state'

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and some Labour backbenchers said the 90-day plans went too far.

Civil liberties groups compared the proposal to internment - a charge rejected by ministers.

In his final plea for MPs to back the plans, Mr Blair urged MPs to take the advice of the police who had foiled two terrorist plots since the 7 July attacks in London.

In heated exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "We are not living in a police state but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism."

Ministers tried to reassure waverers by promising that the new laws would expire unless MPs renewed them in a year's time.

Conservative leader Michael Howard warned that the detention plans could alienate ethnic minority communities.

Display:
Sensible decision...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 12:13:05 PM EST
Sorry, I missed you diary when I posted on the front page. As we're using the same BBC article, I suggest to continue the discussion on the front page...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 12:30:49 PM EST
The article notes that Labor usually has a 66 majority, which means that at least  48 Labor backbenchers rebelled.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 12:34:49 PM EST
has been defeated in the House of Commons. Good news. There are going to be an increase in the number of news stories about Blair's political mortality.

By all accounts David Davis, one of the Tory leadership challengers, gave a good account of himself this afternoon. David Davis is the Shadow Home Secretary ( Opposition Interior Minister ) so it is right he should be speaking.

Now, this will probably cause Gordon Brown, or certainly Brown's 'People' to put pressure on Blair to move the succession forward. They will want to see their man bedded in to the premiership before the new Tory leader can gather some momentum.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 12:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure this will translate to Blair stepping down sooner, though I'm sure the Brownites will begin to put more pressure on him.  I'm not sure David Davis will be able to keep pace with Brown or Blair.  (One thing I give Blair credit for, despite my absolute hatred of his friendship with Bush and his pursuit of issues like this bill, is his ability to speak well and think of his feet.)  Davis bordered on babbling in the recent Tory debate.

But, then again, Cameron doesn't appear to do so well when he's not following a script.  (We get it, Dave.  You want to go in a new direction, and you look like a Ken Doll.)

On a somewhat different issue:  What's the deal with Charles Kennedy?  Is he going to remain leader of the Lib-Dems since they gained a fair number of seats back in May?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 01:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's so nice to hear. Cheers me up no end.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 01:34:55 PM EST
Question: was it a free vote or were MPs expected to toe the party line?
by ClaudeB on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 03:20:02 PM EST
There is no legal requirement for party discipline in the UK, as MPs are elected for single-seat constituencies.

In European parliamentary systems with multi-seat constituencies and party lists, there is a stronger expectation (and, increasingly and undemocratically, statutory requirements) to toe the party line.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 03:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This was, however, a whip("-ped"?) vote, which makes it all the worse for Tony.  But there's really no reason for these MPs to follow Blair's direction, since he won't be there in a few years.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 03:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Strange, since Canada's Westminster-style parliamentary system traditions and usage insists on it, in most votes. Most votes are based on party lines, and enforced -- in the parties' caucuses -- by 'whips', MPs entitled by the party leader to discipline their colleagues (example: the whip will call the members for a vote at 4 p.m. and you must vote 'aye').

'Free votes' are the exception rather than the rule. In these cases discipline is relaxed, by order of the party leader.

by ClaudeB on Thu Nov 10th, 2005 at 01:35:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This was a "whipped vote", but I think in the case of Britain the "whipping" reflects the fact that the vote was important and very close.

I don't think anyone bats an eye if an MP votes against the party line on occasion as long as that does not affect the final result or the vote is not considered crucial to the party's agenda.

Even if Blair had won the vote the way he and the whips conducted it shows weakness, not strength.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 05:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no legal requiremennt - but it was a three line whip and as such would take courage to vote against. If an MP voted in defiance of the whip they could face barriers to the furtherance of their political career. In this instance I suspect there is safety in numbers and the 'rebels' have finely judged the moment to be one where Blair is losing power, IMO
by Boudicca (badgerval at hotmail dot com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 04:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A more pessimist view: 90 days detainment without charge was voted down, but 28 days then was accepted. THat's still stomping on civil rights. And if your strategy was to reduce rights by making extreme demands, and getting what you want as a "compromise", then Bliar actually WON.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 04:34:02 PM EST
I'm with DoDo, this is still terrible, as much as I'm happy to see Blair defeated.  This steps directly on the right to speedy arraignment upon a specific charge.  This takes law back 400 years.  Tony Blair as King Charles the First.
by Rolfyboy6 (rolmsted@hawaii.rr.com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 05:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to the Evening Standard this afternoon, the period of detention without charge was extended from 7 days to 14 days in 2003 using the exact same arguments that the police were now using to argue that 14 days was not enough and 90 were needed.

So, the allowed period of detention has been doubled twice in the last 2 1/2 years.

The bill—and also the "glorification of terrorism" anti-free-speech bill passed last week—could still be struck down by the House of Lords. In that case, they would be returned to the Commons. I don't know what would happen then.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 06:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the UK, the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords if it so chooses.
by observer393 on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 09:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the "glorification" law passed by 1 vote. After last week's vote, if the Lords vote it down the Commons might not feel like overruling the Lords. The 28-day detention was the compromise offered by Tories and LibDems after July, so that is more likely to remain in the books, unfortunatelyy.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Nov 12th, 2005 at 04:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
28 days are too long, I agree. It is amazing that 291 MPs actually favored 90-day detention without charge. It is a testimony to what kind of "leadership" Blair is exercising on his subordinates.

I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Wed Nov 9th, 2005 at 10:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the problem: they are not his subordinates even though everyone behaves as if they were.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 11th, 2005 at 05:08:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]