| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| ’Back me or I quit’ |
| 2003-03-18 |
| The Prime Minister told a hushed Commons this afternoon that his Government now faced a "stark choice" — to stand down the thousands of troops now hours away from war, or to hold firm to the course they have set. And he declared "I believe we must hold firm." He went on to paint a graphic picture of the consequences of retreat, the United Nations reduced to "a talking shop"; Saddam Hussein triumphant; other tyrants encouraged — and the Iraqi people condemned to continued oppression. And he demanded bluntly: "Who will celebrate and who will weep if we take our troops back from the Gulf now?" He went on: "If we do act, we should do so with a clear conscience and a strong heart. Our fault has not been impatience. The truth is that our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and even years ago. Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating." And he said that to retreat now, he believed, "would put at hazard all that we hold dearest ... tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment they need our determination, that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a cause." With the Tories officially backing him there was no real doubt that Mr Blair would gain the paper majority he needs in the vote at 10 tonight. But the fear at Downing Street was that the Labour revolt — 121 strong last time — could rise beyond the 200 mark, forcing the Prime Minister to rely on Conservative votes. That, some at Westminster believed, would amount to a virtual "No" and make his position impossible. The hours leading up to the debate saw two more ministers resign, John Denham from the Home Office and Lord Hunt from the Health Department, following Robin Cook's departure from the Cabinet yesterday, and the resignation of four Parliamentary Private Secretaries, ministerial aides. But International Development Secretary Clare Short, after a night of doubt, announced that contrary to her earlier threat she would stay on, and there was growing hope in the Blair camp that the resignations would be a trickle rather than a flood. Ms Short announced that it would be "cowardly" to step down from the Cabinet because there is work to be done to aid and rebuild Iraq after the war. But she coupled her promise with stinging criticism of the way the Prime Minister had handled the crisis, after having earlier condemned his policy as " reckless", in a fresh attack that looks likely to leave a legacy of bitterness. Lord Hunt, had rung the BBC to declare that he could not accept Britain's involvement in a war without UN authority. John Denham, a middle-ranking minister had previously been one of Mr Blair's most reliable supporters. Ms Short's decision, however, limited the damage in the Cabinet and, at a packed meeting of Labour backbenchers, the mood also appeared to be turning Mr Blair's way. The Prime Minister used the private meeting at the Commons to deliver a passionate appeal to his MPs to rally round. His 18-minute speech won long and loud applause and afterwards even some of his critics described it as "very persuasive". Of the 20 MPs who spoke, 15 backed the Government line and those who spoke against were said to have been "subdued". Everything, however, depended on the result of the vote following this afternoon's Commons debate, a test on which Mr Blair's leadership could yet stand or fall. Senior ministers, the party whips and Mr Blair himself, in a series of meetings, were doing their utmost to woo the doubters and, where possible, win over the rebels. But even some of the Prime Minister's closest aides said, as the debate got under way, that they were unable to predict the result, with much hanging on Mr Blair's performance in the Commons and the effectiveness of the rebel arguments. Lord Hunt's move caught Downing Street on the hop — and triggered a furious and extraordinary put-down from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Told of the resignation on the BBC's Today programme he claimed not to know who his former Government colleague was and said he would have to look his name up. The insult, in the fevered atmosphere at Westminster with many still undecided as to which way they will vote tonight, was instantly seen as a serious misjudgment, likely to harden the resolve of the rebels. Ms Short acknowledged that she had laid herself open to attack after stating categorically only days ago that she would quit. "I know I will be heavily criticised for my decision and many people will feel I have let them down," she said. "But I am doing what I think is right in the circumstances which we are now in. I remain very critical of the way the Iraq crisis has been handled. I think the UK could have exerted more leverage and the approach to the Security Council should have been more respectful and less dominated by US timelines ... but we are where we are, and we must decide how we can best take things forward." She pointed to two key factors which had swayed her: the clear view of the Government's law officer, the Attorney General, that military action would be legal under international law and the pledge from President Bush that Iraq, after conflict, would be rebuilt under the UN umbrella. She went on: "There are, of course, grave risks in military action, but I am confident that targeting will be as careful as possible and that our military will take very seriously their humanitarian duties under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I believe the real test we are about to face is our commitment to care for the people of Iraq and to mobilise the will of the international community to help them rebuild their country. The second test will be the full implementation of the roadmap to Palestinian statehood. This is, I think, how history will judge us." Party managers were hoping those arguments would persuade other waverers. |
| Posted by:James Joyner |
| #11 What I'd like to see is what the figures on the _previous_ vote were, that is, the first one a couple of weeks ago. I may be misremembering but I think the Government had a bigger margin of victory on the motion authorizing war this time around. |
| Posted by: Joe 2003-03-18 17:29:35 |
| #10 2 different votes, that's why the discrepancy - growler's right on the vote supporting, the 396-217 was opposing a vote against the war |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-18 17:02:47 |
| #9 and labour 139 Labour MPs voted against (same URL as above) |
| Posted by: growler 2003-03-18 17:00:30 |
| #8 he won: 396-217 but it was slightly less than bulldog thought, good guessing though! Frank |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-03-18 16:59:23 |
| #7 This just in: Commons backed Blair 412-149 |
| Posted by: growler 2003-03-18 16:58:39 |
| #6 wow! Thanks Bulldog - I appreciate your very clear explanation! I'm glad he's likely to survive! |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-18 15:07:43 |
| #5 OK, Labour party actually have 410 MPs, so 205 would be half. Any abstentions would be considered by critics and impartial observers to be de facto "no"s. I still think he'll see 150 or less... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-18 14:37:49 |
| #4 Hi Becky, Putting my neck out, I'd say the Labour revolt will be about 150, or less. Can't see it being worse. I think 164 is the critical number - half the Labour MPs in parliament, so more than that figure would be a "virtual no" from his own party, a vote of no confidence if you like. Obviously if this happened he couldn't claim to represent the Labour party, the party which won the outright majority at the last election, and so his position as Prime Minister would be untenable - he'd be compelled to resign (hence his "back me or sack me" threat. If he quits, he quits his post as PM, and he'd be demoted to the status of an ordinary backbench MP, out of gevernment and on the decision-making sidelines. I'm sure the Tory party would be more than happy to accept him if he wanted to "cross the floor". It's happened before, although I think only Churchill has done it twice (Tory-Liberal-Tory) There was a poll on TV this evening which I caught out of the corner of my eye which I think suggested 49% of Brits support Tony's war stance now, with 40-something percent against. I'll post that news when and if I find it online. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-18 14:28:35 |
| #3 With the Tories officially backing him there was no real doubt that Mr Blair would gain the paper majority he needs in the vote at 10 tonight. But the was that the Labour revolt - 121 strong last time - could rise beyond the 200 mark, forcing the Prime Minister to rely on Conservative votes. That, some at Westminster believed, would amount to a virtual "No" and make his position impossible. What exactly is a "virtual no"? Who are these "some people in Westminister" that believe this and what are the reasons they think this? And exactly what position would be made impossible; his position on the war? His position on future issues? or his position as PM? And if he quits...does that mean he just quits his party or does it mean he's unemployed? Can he switch a la Jeffords and become a Tory? That would be a kick. Sigh, I just don't understand. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-18 13:25:59 |
| #2 "[Retreat would] tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment they need our determination, that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a cause." I love how this man speaks! He is such an impressive speaker. I do wish President Bush had half his ability to speak as eloquently. Another one of my favorites shortly after 9/11: "If they [terrorists] could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must." |
| Posted by: Dar Steckelberg 2003-03-18 12:14:33 |
| #1 Built under the UN umbrella?? Does she read the WSJ?? |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-18 11:56:48 |