Looks like there’s blood in the water and the sharks have picked it up. Can’t be long now before Bliar’s MPs start biting chunks out of him, leading to a feeding frenzy, ripping him to shreds. Brown and buddies must surely now be positioning for the imminent carnage?
BBC Web Site. 10 November 2005
Blair defeated over terror laws
Tony Blair says his authority is intact despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat as prime minister.
He said he hoped MPs do not rue the day they rejected his call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.
MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling, but later backed a proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days.
Conservative leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair should resign.
Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy warned Mr Blair could become a lame duck leader.
Following the defeat MPs backed by 323 to 290 votes a Labour backbench MP's proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days, from the current 14 days.
And, while the prime minister is a fighter and - until now - a survivor, the fact he has already announced he will quit before the next election may make that pressure for him to go soon irresistible.
The defeat came after Mr Blair stunned Westminster MPs by suddenly abandoning plans to seek a cross-party consensus and instead launching a ferocious campaign in support of the 90 day option.
On that he appeared to be ignoring the advice of many in his party, including Home Secretary Charles Clarke who had throughout been suggesting he was open to a compromise and only changed tune at the last moment.
Chief police officers, who originally proposed the detention period, lobbied MPs for their case and ministers and Blair loyalists did everything to win over dissenters.
Mr Blair attempted to shave off some Tory backbench votes by suggesting they were in the "wrong place" on the issue and had gone soft on terror.
There has been a suggestion that Mr Blair knew he was already facing serious revolts over his so-called "legacy" welfare reforms and decided to pick a knockdown fight on this issue instead, believing he had the support of the public.
It is also possible he hoped the black and white nature of the issue - in which he effectively suggested MPs were either with him and the police or against them - would concentrate minds.
And, had he won, he would have felt strengthened in his other reforms and his rebels weakened.
In the event there appeared to be a backlash at his tactics and rhetoric and what many saw as the attempt to paint them as soft on terror.
And at the end of the day, the prime minister failed. Not by a bit but comprehensively. His other reforms will now also face serious trouble.