When no-one understands you/Blair walks the plank

Yesterday the parliamentary labour party handed Blair a warning.Go to war without the UN and you are on your own.Yet the US media does not seem to understand the import of this vote.This was the biggest rebellion of government backbenchers in over a hundred years.Queen Victoria was on the throne the last time Britain saw it's like.
The US media is concentrating on the victory but the victory was never in doubt.This vote should be seen as a stern warning by Labour backbenchers to the Prime Minister.The Government have promised another vote.If Mr Blair has no UN resolution and continues to back Bush the Government will need Opposition Conservative MP's to carry the day.This would be a disaster for the Government who could expect Cabinet resignations,Labour Backbenchers resigning the whip or even crossing the house to the Liberal Democrats,even a leadership challenge is not unthinkable.The May local,Scotish,and Welsh elections could find that support around the country has been decimated by the unwillingness of the British Prime Minister to listen to his own people.What is obvious,though,is that Blair no longer controls his own political destiny he is completely in the hands of President Bush.That a Labour Prime Minister from a Geordie constituancy should put his faith in a Texas Republican President who shows no apreciation or understanding of this dillema is beyond belief.Like many in this country I am continually amazed by the untimely comments coming from the American Administration each one damages Blair even more than the last.The next month or two should be interesting.It's a bit like watching a train crash in slow motion.Is Blair Committing Political Suicide or Is Bush Pulling The Trigger????????

Britsh Veiw
Reeling from a huge backbench rebellion over Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair is flying to Madrid for talks with his Spanish counterpart, and key ally, Jose Maria Aznar

www.channel4.com...

US Veiw
LONDON, Feb. 26 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair weathered the biggest revolt of his term from within the ruling Labor Party and won a parliamentary endorsement tonight for his pro-American position on the Iraq crisis.

www.washingtonpost.com...

I watched that on Cspan. Blair/Straw took a beating. In the end he got the support though!?

I'll say that you brits are great fun to watch
more entertaining than our Senate or House, especially with Jim Traficant gone.

Whilst people may think Bush stupid, Blair certainly is not. Surely if Tony is backing Bush to the hilt, he must have a damn good reason. I can only assume that the intelligence he is privy to is conclusive and demands action.
Just my opinion.

This was only an opening skirmish where only the really pissed off and unambitious voted against the Government.
To give you an idea how bad it is there are around 170 backbench MP's (without a government job) 120 voted against the government.MP's in government only voted with Blair because a)They would lose their job.b)This vote gave no mandate for military action.c)They have been promised another vote in which to vote against military action.

It will get a lot worse for Blair and he knows it.

I just wish they'd share some of it with the rest of the world, so they could understand the need as we do... I think they will share it, but only at the last minute (to avoid leaks) and then the UN will agree (at least that's my hope)

Originally posted by John bull 1
This was only an opening skirmish where only the really pissed off and unambitious voted against the Government.
To give you an idea how bad it is there are around 170 backbench MP's (without a government job) 120 voted against the government.MP's in government only voted with Blair because a)They would lose their job.b)This vote gave no mandate for military action.c)They have been promised another vote in which to vote against military action.

The obvious question is why does he persist in this course of action ?
Ther must be something driving his convictions.

Opinion is polarised in Britain as it is all around the world very few people can be convinced to change their mind one way or the other.I have no doubt Blair believes he is right but I do not think that should be taken as circumstantial evidence that he has access to a cache of secret evidence otherwise why are the Germans,French,Belgians,Russians,Chinese,Mexicans convinced or are they not worth convincing.I would of thought the Germans were trustworthy and most Americans would of said so before this all happened.

I think Blair believes it is in Britains interest to back America.He is convinced of that,not the necessity of attacking Iraq.This policy isolates us from the heart of the EU forget Rumsfelds old/new Europe (he really did show his ignorance by saying that)By making this choice one or the other he has made a long term policy entrenchment that he was not entitled to make without debate.

I'm sure we'll get Mexico - they're starting to shift towards supporting the US. They are holding out for a payoff like Turkey, me thinks. And if they don't it could be their demise - the US is too important to them.

I know of one presidential hopeful that wants to cancel NAFTA.

I saw somewhere last night that Mexico already changed it's mind and will support the us partly because of all the complaints it had received at their embassy in the US..unless I dreamed it.

and if you were just dreaming, does anyone really think Mexico wouldn't go along with us gringos? it would be political suicide.

I have a lot of respect for Blair as an individual and have always seen him as a somewhat earnest man who tries to always do what is best for my country even if being human he hasn't always got it quite right.

Watching the stance he is taking now in the face of public opinion is actually starting to force me to reconsider my own stance on this conflict. When a leader such as Blair begins to stand in opposition to a hefty percentage of his own supporters and a vocal public, then I feel that just maybe the guy knows what he is doing - remember Blair is no Thatcher.

Arc, I don't see the logic in the argument that because he is in a stuborn minority he is right.

He is not enlightened pocessing the wisdom of Soloman he is 1 man telling 80% of his countrymen and women that he,above the archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope,morally knows what is right for the UK.

He has become Presidential with his majority.He needs to learn again,if need be the hard way,exactly what parliamentary democracy is all about.

I don't claim he has that amount of wisdom and enlightenment, and I have always held the Archbishop of Canterbury in far higher regard - particularly since Rowan Williams took over that post.

He has however always struck me (perhaps most mistakenly - time will tell) as a reasonably fair prime minister and this current behaviour in the face of public opinion seems somewhat out of character. My impression has been of a man who is trying to both support the US stance whilst acting as a moderating force on them.

At this rate though he will learn a hard lesson from the democracy and that is the way it should be. Or our votes are totally without value.

Can anyone answer me this? A while back there was a rumour flying around that the odds on Blair stepping down were pretty high. I never found evidence for this - did anyone else encounter this rumour?

First,I agree with you,Rowan Williams appears to be an exceptional choice for Archbishop of Canterbury.I already have more respect for him than any in my lifetime.

I also agree with you when you say he(Blair) appears to be fair minded.Yet since the last election he has reneged on manifesto promises such as the house of Lords reform,Tax increases,Fox hunting.Fox hunting may not be important in the world wide scheme of things but,as you know,the vast majority in this country find it abhorant.BUT because of him there is still no ban despite a majority voting for him to ban fox hunting.This is not democracy.

Finally,Blair and Brown discussed the leadership of the Labour Party soon after John Smith's death.It was agreed that Blair would be PM and Brown would be Chancellor and in Blair's second term Brown would take over as PM.Perhaps Blair doesn't care about his long term because Brown will be PM soon.