Posted on 03/16/2003 7:44:55 PM PST by areafiftyone
Labour rebels claimed yesterday that up to 160 backbenchers will vote against Tony Blair if Britain launches an attack without a fresh UN security council resolution.
Amid a growing belief that Robin Cook is planning to resign from the cabinet, a leading rebel predicted that the 122 Labour MPs who voted against the government last month would be joined by a further 40. MPs are expected to vote on Iraq, possibly as early as tomorrow, after the failure of Britain to secure a second resolution.
Tony Lloyd, a former Foreign Office minister, told Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I would think certainly the ballpark [is] another 30 or 40 people. I would be surprised if there are not some resignations [from the government]."
His prediction came as Charles Kennedy, speaking to the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Torquay, accused Mr Blair of betraying his Labour party legacy by appearing to abandon the UN route in his preparations for war.
As the prime minister flew to the Azores for his emergency summit, the Lib Dem leader attacked him for attending a "council of despair" at which the participants had abandoned all hope of a peaceful outcome.
A rebellion by as many as 160 Labour MPs would inflict severe damage on the prime minister, who would have lost the confidence of more than half of his backbenchers over Iraq. But he would still command a majority of the 410 frontbench and backbench Labour MPs.
Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, is understood to have told the prime minister she can secure a majority of the parliamentary party. This means he would not face the humiliation of having to rely on the Tories to secure a majority to supportmilitary action.
The scale of Labour opposition was underlined yesterday by a BBC poll. In a survey of 264 backbenchers for BBC1's Politics Show, to which 129 replied, 95 MPs said they were against a war without a second resolution.
But some rebels are reluctant to predict how many MPs will defy a three-line whip because they believe the atmosphere in the parliamentary party has swung in the prime minister's favour in the past week. An attempt by hard-left MPs in the Bennite Campaign group to challenge Mr Blair's leadership upset some of last month's rebels, who do not want the party to return to the civil war of the 1980s.
The outburst by the international development secretary, Clare Short, in which she accused the prime minister of acting in a reckless manner, was another factor in the prime minister's favour.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, one of seven cabinet ministers to hit the airwaves yesterday, said talks with party members and the public in his constituency of Blackburn had convinced him that opinion had shifted towards the government compared with similar talks two weeks ago.
Mr Kennedy's attack on the prime minister came as Iain Duncan Smith made clear that he would support any military attack on Iraq. Speaking to the Tory spring conference in Harrogate, he said: "Britain's security is at stake. That's why I've backed those who are ready to take on that tyrant Saddam Hussein."
Prime Minister's Questions
He will not lose a vote of confidence
because the Conservatives will support him.
However, he can be replaced as party leader at any time.
That is what happened to Margaret Thatcher.
Prime Minister's put a "whip" on votes in the House of Commons. Crossing over a three line whip is serious in British politics.
An one-line whip means please vote with us.
A two-line whip means this is serious, we need you to vote with us.
A three-line whip means this a critical, you must vote with us, crossing this vote will destroy your chances at any future leadership position and we might find someone else to run under our party label next election.
Well put. Here's another excruciating example:
so 200 out of 660 members of Parliament will vote against Blair. 460-200 is a big victory, but watch CNN and the lib press call it a defeat.
Is there some particular reason you don't think that a seasoned 'politician' such as Mr. Blair is consummately aware of that? Perhaps This Time, Mr. Blair isn't 'playing politics' at all, and his allegiance is to his NATION's security, and not to some whiner party. Why else do you think he would suspend himself out on a limb, while not taking a step backward, for all this time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.