Article

2003-03-18 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by James Joyner 2003-03-18 11:35 am|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Built under the UN umbrella?? Does she read the WSJ??

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-18 11:56:48|| 2003-03-18 11:56:48|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 12:14:33|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 13:25:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 14:28:35|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 14:37:49|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 15:07:43|| Front Page Top

#7 This just in:

Commons backed Blair 412-149

Posted by growler 2003-03-18 16:58:39|| 2003-03-18 16:58:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 16:59:23|| Front Page Top

#9 and labour 139 Labour MPs voted against (same URL as above)

Posted by growler 2003-03-18 17:00:30|| 2003-03-18 17:00:30|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 17:02:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2003-03-18 17:29:35|| Front Page Top

08:24 liberalhawk
08:21 liberalhawk
07:37 Anonymous
06:36 raptor
03:41 Ptah
02:23 Anonymous
02:21 Anonymous
02:14 Anonymous
02:01 Anonymous
01:59 Anonymous
01:55 Anonymous
01:49 Jim
01:48 Anonymous
01:28 Govy
01:19 Christopher Johnson
00:25 JDB
23:58 JDB
23:40 anon
23:37 Anonymous
23:28 anon
23:26 anon
23:19 grumpy old man
23:05 Anonymous
22:57 Steve White