[Independent] When Tony Blair lost his authority

[M.G.G. Pillai]

The Independent, London


House of Commons, 4:56PM: The moment Tony Blair lost his authority

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Published: 10 November 2005


Tony Blair's personal authority was badly dented last night when he
suffered a humiliating defeat over his plan to allow the police to
detain suspected terrorists for up to 90 days without charge.

Mr Blair's first Commons defeat since coming to power in 1997 was
heavier than expected and provoked speculation at Westminster about
how long he could remain Prime Minister. Some allies admitted
privately his tenure could be shortened if Labour backbenchers
inflict further defeats in the next few months over his planned
reforms on education, health and incapacity benefit.

After staking his authority on the police's request for greater
detention powers - which came after the London bombings in July - Mr
Blair sat grim-faced and shaking his head in the Commons as it was
announced that the 90-day detention plan had been rejected by 322
votes to 291. A total of 49 Labour backbenchers joined the Tories and
Liberal Democrats to reject the proposal.

The MPs then added to Mr Blair's embarrassment by voting in favour of
a 28-day detention limit - up from the present 14 days but well short
of the 60-day fallback position favoured by the Government.

In a round of television interviews last night, an unrepentant Mr
Blair denied the setback would force him to stand down earlier than
planned. However, some cabinet ministers believe the blow to his
authority will increase the pressure on him to name a date for his
handover of power to Gordon Brown, the overwhelming favourite to
succeed him.

Mr Brown's allies are growing frustrated at the damage they believe
is being done to Mr Brown's inheritance by Mr Blair's reluctance to
name the day. Senior ministers may now swing behind Mr Brown in
pressing Mr Blair to outline his departure timetable for the sake of
party unity. "He has got to name a date," said one Brownite MP.

Mr Blair hinted at a possible timetable when he addressed Labour MPs
on Monday, saying he needed 18 months to see through his package of
reforms. That could mean stepping down in the spring of 2007, perhaps
on his 10th anniversary as Prime Minister in May.

However, some Labour MPs predicted he might be forced out next year
unless he watered down "Thatcherite" policies to inject more market
forces into public services.

Mr Blair acknowledged the defeat would be interpreted as a clear sign
that his authority had been gravely weakened. "People will say that.
That is not the issue for me. The issue is doing the right thing to
protect this country," he said. "I have no doubt where the country is
on this. The country will think Parliament has behaved in a deeply
irresponsible way today."

He insisted terrorism laws were "completely different" to the
domestic reforms that were the Government's central programme.

Downing Street claimed the vote on the 90-day limit was not an issue
of confidence because the plan was originally proposed by the police
rather than the Government. Although Mr Blair's official spokesman
said the Government accepted the MPs' decision on a 28-day limit, he
said the question of a longer limit was bound to return in future
because of the new terrorist threat facing the country.

Mr Blair will try to send a "business as usual" message when he
chairs the Cabinet's weekly meeting today. Some ministers believe he
may seek to restore his authority by carrying out a wider than
necessary cabinet reshuffle when he fills the vacancy left by the
resignation of his ally David Blunkett last week.

Bookmakers cut their odds on the Prime Minister quitting next year
and Michael Howard, the Tory leader, called on to him to consider
going now. Mr Howard said: "Mr Blair's authority has been diminished
almost to vanishing point. This vote shows he is no longer able to
carry his own party with him. He must now consider his position."

During angry exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair
prepared the ground for a defeat by saying: "Sometimes it is better
to lose and do the right thing than to win and do the wrong thing."
He rounded on a Tory gibe that he was in danger of creating a police
state. "We are not living in a police state, but we are living in a
country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism," he said.
"Terrorism that wants to destroy our way of life."

There was a clear sign that the Bill was in deep trouble when Gordon
Brown was called back for the vote from Israel as soon as he landed
in Tel Aviv and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, interrupted a
visit to Moscow.

On a day of high tension, Labour whips warned repeatedly that the
Government was "30 votes short" on the 90-day proposal. But some
potential rebels saw that as arm-twisting, and a Home Office source
admitted after the result: "It's really bad. We were expecting it to
be much closer than it was."

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, said the Government had been
rocked. "It's a loss for the police, it's a loss for the country,
it's a loss for counter-terrorism, it's a loss for the Government,
it's a loss for all of us," he said. Another minister said: "There is
a core of serial offenders who are doing all they can to undermine
the Prime Minister. They can have an impact when our majority is 66."

Pat McFadden, a former Blair aide, insisted: "This is not about the
Prime Minister's share price. This is a judgement on how we combat
terrorism."

But Frank Dobson, the former health secretary, who voted against the
Government, said: "After the general election, Tony Blair said he
would listen. He now needs to start listening as the opposition on
his plans for health and education is much bigger than on this."

Another rebel, Clare Short, the former international development
secretary, said: "Forty-nine Labour MPs had enough backbone to stand
up for what was right."

Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, said: "The Government is
going to face a winter of discontent."

90-DAY DETENTION

For: 291

Against: 322

The other battlefields

HEALTH - the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, will publish a White
Paper in December on NHS reform, to increase patient choice in those
parts of the NHS used most often, such as GP surgeries and home
visits. Labour MPs fear that thousands of the NHS's non-hospital
staff could become employed by outside organisations, including
private firms.

SCHOOLS - the Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, published a White
Paper two weeks ago to increase parental choice, giving schools more
power to govern themselves and changing admission procedures. The
Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, has already objected that the
proposals undermine local education authorities.

WELFARE - David Blunkett was due to publish a White Paper last month
on reducing the cost of disability benefits by helping claimants
return to work. Critics fear that it will cause real hardship. Mr
Blunkett's successor as Work and Pensions Secretary, John Hutton, is
also committed to welfare reform, but he may not have sufficient
authority to push it through the Commons.

DAVID WINNICK, LABOUR

VOTED AGAINST 90-DAY DETENTION

"I reject that the carrying of my amendment is in any way aimed at
the Government or the Prime Minister. Monday's parliamentary party
meeting showed that he has support from the majority of Labour MPs."

PETER KILFOYLE, LABOUR

VOTED AGAINST

"The storm clouds are gathering over Tony Blair. He has lost much of
the party. For him to bounce back now would require such fundamental
changes to his approach that it's impossible for me to predict it."

ANN CRYER, LABOUR

VOTED AGAINST

"I don't think this harms the future of the PM. My guess is he will
lick his wounds and bounce back. But I could be wrong. I think he has
made up his mind on when to go, but maybe he will feel so fed up he
decides to go."

GEOFFREY ROBINSON, LABOUR

ABSTAINED

"It will make Tony Blair a bit more careful now. It was a serious
warning shot. He will have to take Parliament more seriously and take
the Parliamentary Labour Party more seriously."

IAN GIBSON, LABOUR

VOTED AGAINST

"Blair looked shaken, but I have this feeling he will just rise again
and carry on as before. He will be prepared to see how backbenchers
behave on the issues coming up such as health, education and benefit."

MARK FISHER, LABOUR

AGAINST

"Blair's future depends on how he reacts to this. There is no reason
why he shouldn't go at a time of his own choosing. But if he ignores
this, then calls for him to go sooner rather than later will crescendo."

PAUL FLYNN

AGAINST

"This vote has left him wounded and he can only get health and
education legislation through with Tory votes. Now would be a good
time to set out the road map to his departure from Downing Street."

MICHAEL HOWARD, CONSERVATIVE

AGAINST

"Parliament did its job of testing arguments put forward by the Prime
Minister and found them to be inadequate and poorly argued. This
devastating defeat is a searing indictment on his judgement."

CHARLES KENNEDY, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

AGAINST

"This is a good day for parliamentary democracy. It was the Prime
Minister who chose to make this issue into one of confidence and it's
a bad day for his authority. This is now a chastened prime minister."

PAUL FARRELLY, LABOUR

FOR

"The signal this evening's vote gives on health and education is that
we are facing meltdown in the way the Government is trying to force
through divisive policies. I hope they take note."

PAT MCFADDEN, LABOUR

FOR

"This is not about the Prime Minister's share price. This is a
judgement on how we combat terrorism."

DR IAN PAISLEY, DUP

AGAINST

"Blair's authority has gone. He should have a 60-odd majority, he has
lost that. He has not done well. In no way could you put any sugar on
that cake. Indeed it isn't even a cake. It is a crust."


© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.