Curbs on freedom in Britain a response to PM inquiry of Blair?

[Blackhatjack]

It would seem that when PMs get set to delve into Blair's misdeeds, they get the same terror threat coincidences there as we do here.

Could this be about keeping Blair in power, and helping Bush counter falling poll numbers with a Nov election coming up --two birds with one stone?

Where is the evidence to back up this latest plot? Arrests of individuals is not evidence of guilt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. Blair is leaving next year regardless. n/t

[Blackhatjack]

2. That is Blair's statement, however members of Parliment are onto him

They are presently considering coming back into session during their traditional August recess to consider the Middle East Crisis, but also to look into Blair's role of acting with Bush to promote Israel's operation in Lebanon.

Several PMs have raised the possibility in the past that Blair should leave now. The only reason Blair made this statement that he intends to leave his office in the next year is his own party made him do it, or they were going to take him out involuntarily right now.

Bush and Blair have lots to hide, and the timing of these terrorist plots is awfully coincidental.

By the way, how many "terrorists" has the US convicted in a court of law other than Moussaui?
You need evidence in a court of law to support a conviction.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. And they will take him out involuntarily next year...

...if he does not go. Every day he is in office hurts Labour and helps the resurgent Conservatives. The only reason he hasn't been ousted yet is that the leadership struggle would be worse for Labour than letting him stay. At some point soon, that will no longer be the case, and if Tony doesn't go, he'll get kicked.

And as for the terrorism angle, I see no indication that it's changed feelings towards Blair and his government in the slightest. The dissatisfaction with Blair goes far beyond terrorism and the war in Iraq.

[Blackhatjack]

4. I with you re: Blair going, however terrorism figures prominently there...

The Brits are plenty steamed at Blair and his complicity with Bush in attacking Iraq. However, Blair does not have a hold on Parliment there like Bush does on Congress here, and the power to investigate is very dangerous to him.

Terrorism plots figure prominently in Blair's ability to hold onto power in face of Parliment inquiry.

I have said all along that the greatest danger to Bush might come from a Parliment investigation of the prewar evidence leading up to the Iraq war. The Downing Street Memo is just the beginning.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. A few clarifications on the terms being used

It is Blair who, as Prime Minister (ie 'PM'), decides if Parliament is recalled. If Parliament is recalled, there will be a debate. Many Members of Parliament ('MPs') are asking for this recall, so they can debate the Israel/Lebanon situation, and how Blair handled it. The debate will not have any force, but it may make clear how much support Blair still has, both among his own MPs and from the opposition MPs.

There is no 'inquiry' proposed at all. Iraq, although many MPs didn't like the way Blair invaded it, and many also don't like his current policy in it, has nothing at all to do with the potential recall. There is no attempt to look at prewar evidence about Iraq.

If Blair ignores the pressure for a recall and debate, he would be still more unpopular with many of his own MPs. When they meet for their party conference in September, this unpopularity might have become strong enough for someone to try standing against him as party leader. Alternatively, when Parliament comes back on schedule in October, they might try an alliance with opposition MPs to get rid of Blair and his entire government, by winning a vote of no confidence. That would mean a new general election - in which case those Labour MPs would risk losing their jobs, as well as Blair and his government. If Blair wanted to 'do the right thing' for the Labour party, he would make sure it never got that far, either by changing his policy to be close to typical Labour MPs, or by resigning as leader. However, it's not at all certain that Blair does care about the Labour party. so it's possible he would call Labour MPs bluff, not change his policies at all, and dare them to have a vote of no confidence.

Blair must judge, from his (selfish) point of view, how to keep enough of his Labour MPs happy so that they don't try to replace him as party leader, and also keep enough unwilling to risk getting a new election called.