Posted on 11/09/2005 7:11:00 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
BRITISH newspapers agreed today that Prime Minister Tony Blair's first-ever defeat in Parliament was a major watershed in his administration.
Thanks to 49 rebel Labour MPs, the House of Commons voted down a proposal - championed by Blair in the wake of the deadly London bombings in July - to give police the power to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge. Both The Times and The Daily Mail splashed Blair's setback on their front pages with the identical headline: "Beginning of the end?"
"Mr Blair has looked invincible for the past eight years. But after yesterday, he no longer walks on water," said The Times in an editorial. "From today he must at least prove that he can walk the line."
The liberal Guardian said that while Blair's position is not untenable, yesterday's events meant it was "more fragile than ever before".
"It marks a new era in this government's history... Mr Blair needs to listen to Parliament's voice. He will be in serious trouble if he decides ... that (defeat) is always the better course."
The Daily Mail, consistently the most anti-Blair of the mass readership newspapers, said: "Tony Blair is today more seriously wounded than he has ever been."
It predicted that the "question of trust" will dominate the remainder of Blair's time in office, and added: "Labour MPs are no longer in thrall to their leader. He has lost their confidence. He never had their affection."
"The debacle may not mean the end of Tony Blair. Not Yet. But with (chancellor of the exchequer) Gordon Brown waiting impatiently in the wings, it is almost certainly the beginning of the end of Blair's ability to achieve anything."
The conservative Daily Telegraph recalled how the Commons has been derided in the past "for its poodle-like nature" - and that yesterday, "the poodle roared".
"The real news yesterday was that Tony Blair has, finally, lost the power to get his agenda into law.... The drubbing the Prime Minister has received from MPs should be chastening."
In The Sun, the best-selling popular newspaper, political editor Trevor Kavanagh said Blair's opponents "have tasted blood and won't stop snapping at his heels now."
"It was not just the defeat itself ... but the scale of the mutiny that has turned him into a real lame duck."
The Twits had best wise up before their cars are all set ablaze by their "citizens".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1865729,00.html
I am not a big fan of Tony Blair's domestic policies, but why didn't the Tories vote with Blair on this one?
Blair asked them to be able to hold suspected terrorists for 90 days and they turned him down. Those poor stupid bastards didnt hurt Blair, they condemned themselves.
In the words of a better man than any of these Brit members of the House of Commons, "Forgive them Lord , they know not what they do."
Quite possibly, but hopefully not for just Tony Blair, but also his party. It's either that, or Jolly Olde itself.
Unfortunately the party of Thatcher has adopted the Democratic strategy book from the states.
If it's bad for Britain it's good for the Tories.
A sad exercise in lust for power.
I believe the bill that passed allows holding people for 26 days (it's now 14 days). The police suggested 26 days was better for them.
Quite. This is more old-fashioned politics than inviting Armageddon through death-wish. We still have an anti-terrorism Bill passed by Parliament with most of its provisions intact, with a significant increase in the permissible detention period, and with the overwhelming support of Parliament. There may well be dhimmitude about, but this is not evidence of it.
because it involved locking up innocent people for 3 months. Thankfully the Tories still have some principles
Because they opposed the violation of civil liberties that would be involved in locking someone up for three months without them even knowing the charges they face.
So what will Londoners think when Muslims blow up the tube again or maybe Parliament? Maybe they can turn St. Paul's Cathedral into a mosque, that might buy them some time.
Well, that is a legitimate reason I suppose. But I do not know how one can defend our PATRIOT ACT and condemn this bill, unless we are just going to support whatever the "conservatives" of each country do. I support our PATRIOT ACT and I support this bill for Britain. Will someone please explain to me the difference between the British bill and our policy? I may just not know that fundamental differences exist, and if that is the case I may be wrong. But let's not oppose Blair's bill because he isn't a Tory.
"Mr Blair has looked invincible for the past eight years. But after yesterday, he no longer walks on water," said The Times in an editorial.Wasn't that a Chameleons UK album, "Tony Blair Walked on Water...La La La La La-La La-La La"?
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.