| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Labour plotters take first steps to oust Blair |
| 2003-03-12 |
| Edited for length. Labour opponents of war with Iraq took the first steps last night towards launching a leadership challenge if Tony Blair commits British troops to American-led military action without the explicit authority of the United Nations. Left-wing MPs will call on the party's ruling National Executive Committee to hold a "special conference" that could trigger a leadership contest if the Prime Minister defies growing pressure in the party not to ignore a UN veto on the use of force. The anti-war sentiment in the Labour Party took a dangerous turn when MPs began talking openly of the possibility of moves to replace Mr Blair. At present they represent a small but vocal minority and there is no sign yet of widespread support for challenging the Prime Minister. But the readiness of rebels to question his future on the eve of a possible war represented the most serious threat to his authority since he became Prime Minister six years ago. Mr Blair, who looked washed out and exhausted at a Number 10 news conference, yesterday summoned senior ministers and officials to Downing Street to plan the next stage of the government's efforts to bolster support at home and abroad for military action. The group, comprising Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, will form the core of a War Cabinet. Lord Goldsmith's role will be crucial because he will advise on the legal status of military action if Mr Blair has to act without UN authority. Mr Blair will face the Commons at noon today for the first Question Time session since Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, issued a dramatic threat to resign from the Cabinet if he takes Britain to war without fresh UN backing. Miss Short's intervention appeared to have encouraged Labour rebels to break cover and exposed the vulnerability of Mr Blair's position, with nearly half the party's backbenchers opposed to his stance. Tam Dalyell, Yesterday Hilton Dawson, Labour MP for Lancaster and Wyre, became the first backbencher to call publicly on Mr Blair to consider stepping down. He said there was "no case for war without the UN" at this stage and insisted rushing in to military action would be a "colossal mistake". While praising Mr Blair, saying he would go down as a "great Prime Minister", he said he should "consider his position" if he insisted on pursuing a military solution. Lord Healey, the former Labour Chancellor, said Mr Blair was in real danger: "It is quite possible to get a conference called at which he could be replaced." John Reid, the Labour chairman, described talk of moves to replace Mr Blair as the work of a few "usual suspects". They would be heavily outnumbered on the National Executive Committee which would have to approve any special conference by a majority vote. But Mr Reid confirmed that Labour dissidents were plotting against Mr Blair. "There are a small number of people who, given the choice between getting Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair to lose their job always seem to choose Tony Blair." Yesterday Mr Blair also met union leaders, most of whom are strongly opposed to war without a second resolution, at Downing Street to discuss Iraq. Their members' votes will be crucial in determining whether the party holds a leadership contest, and its eventual result if one were to take place. |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #10 Just goes to show about family,we may fight on occasion(1776/1812),but stick together in the long run. I thank God for the British and thier since of right and wrong. It is good to have you standing by or side,cousin. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-03-13 06:32:33 |
| #9 Bulldog-- "we're in it for the long haul too", so true, so true. Glad to have you by our side. I fear the world will spend the next couple of decades living the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". God help us all. And "God save the Queen!" |
| Posted by: Rifle308 2003-03-12 20:22:21 |
| #8 Liberhawk - I haven't read any polls gauging public support for war with a UNSC "moral majority", they seem to have asked about "UN approval" - pretty vague, but I suppose you'd have to assume that meant full UNSC sanction with no vetoes. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say a lot depends on how Tony handles the situation and who and how many MPs speak out against him. New Labour wouldn't for a coalition with the Tories, which is a shame because they have a lot in common (far more than either would like to admit). Tony can rely on the Tories support here, but a division of the Labour party is very, very unlikely. A few left wingers (the Tam Dalyells, Clare Shorts etc.) could conceivably break away the become "Decrepit Labour", or join the Lib Dems perhaps... Tony's support has actually increased in the Commons in the last couple of days. I think the war mentality has set in already (war with the French, that is) - there's a lot of sympathy for Tony because of the French obstinacy at the UN. And, appreciate the good will guys - we're in it for the long haul too. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-12 16:56:44 |
| #7 Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.com/, editing buttons at the bottom still don't work on my Mac, Fred) has a different take on this today: he notes that the protesting MPs are so far left that they really aren't a threat to Tony, and that as long as Tony controls the National Executive Committee, he's fine. And he does. Andy also notes how little influence Claire Short has. Incidentially, the residents of the island of Montserrat are very unhappy with the current British governor, who they feel is ignoring them (they have an active volcano on the island and the governor insists that they move out of the way). They're so angry that they're comparing him to their previous governor who set an all time low for relations with the islanders. Who is that? -- -- Claire Short. So she's consistent! |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-03-12 16:11:03 |
| #6 I second liberalhawk's sentiment: Blair has done his best and proved himself a true ally. The way the British feel is consistent with years of liberal-speak and liberal-press. Isn't it ironic that the people Blair supported up until this time have created a mindset in the public that has come back to haunt him at a time he needs it the least... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-03-12 15:15:34 |
| #5 Damn straight, liberalhawk. Blair's leaving it all on the field as we say over here. I, for one, am grateful. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-03-12 14:55:30 |
| #4 a note to bulldog and other brits here WE are grateful for support of Blair and strong minded Brits - if the left pulls out rug now we will not hold it against Blair and Britain. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-12 14:44:22 |
| #3 bulldog - we have seen poll data on UK suport for war iwth UN (75%) and without (25%) do you have any sense of support if moral majority (9 yes vote but France vetoes, or France and Russia veto0 ??? Also - any possibility of "new Labor" under Blair breaking from Labor (like Soc dems did) and perhaps making coalition with Tories?? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-03-12 14:42:43 |
| #2 Perhaps he Blair should: (i) tell George W. Bush to go on without the UK (ii) Call a national election (iii) Inform the people that the Labor backbenchers have cost England its honor and switch parties to the Tories in time for the election. (iv) Sit back and watch the sparks fly. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-03-12 12:14:31 |
| #1 Saw him on Fox this AM doing his speech, with Jack straw seated behind him - he looked pretty good, and slightly pissed off. It appeared he was on his game |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-12 08:18:55 |