February 25, 2003
TONY THE TORY WATCH:
Labour 'Rebels' to Embarrass UK's Blair Over Iraq (Andrew Cawthorne, February 25, 2003, Reuters)British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday faces potentially the biggest rebellion yet from within his ruling Labour Party in a parliamentary debate over his pro-American hawkish stance on Iraq.Up to 100 of Labour's total 410 legislators (MPs) in the British parliament's lower chamber are backing an amendment -- for what is bound to be a fiery debate -- stating that "the case for military action against Iraq is yet unproven."
It is one of three "anti-war" amendments put forward by Labour "rebels" and opposition Liberal Democrats determined to embarrass Blair, who is staunchly backing U.S. leader George W. Bush's hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. [...]
Fortunately for Blair, while up to a quarter of his own party legislators are rebelling, the opposition Conservative Party -- which took Britain into conflict with Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War -- are backing him.
We continue toi believe that the next Tory Prime Minister of Britain will be Tony Blair. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 25, 2003 10:08 PM
Labour aren't stupid enough to sacrifice the one leader they have with any electoral credibility to appease the loony left.
And like I've said before, Blair's concern for social justice means he simply wouldn't feel comfortable at all in the Tories.
If he was ever kicked out he'd most likely retire anyway.
One should never underestimate people's capacity for stupidity.
Possible reasons to unseat Blair are:
1. He's very photogenic.
2. He speaks exceedingly well.
3. He's America's poodle (i.e., there are "principles" involved).
4. He will lead the nation to war (more principles).
5. Because of #4 and #5, he's out of touch with most of the English electorate, and his continuing to lead Labour will cause extraordinary political damage to the party for years to come (never mind that while this is the "popular" view, it might not be accurate).
6. The political ramifications of such an action being what they are, unseating Blair may be, for backbenchers, too intoxicating an opportunity to pass up.
All of these might be considered decent enough reasons to shaft Blair and cause Britain the most political damage she has suffered since 1938
(though she will indeed have made "friends" on the continent, and beyond).