Blair revolt deepens

[cal04]

TONY BLAIR is facing a growing revolt from Labour backbenchers over his reforms of the public services and plans to force through tough anti-terrorism measures. Previously loyal MPs have joined rebels in threatening to defeat his plans to take schools out of local authority control and to increase the private sector’s role in the NHS.

Of the 61 backbenchers who responded to a Sunday Times survey, only 11 actively supported the proposed changes in education, 25 were opposed and 16 had doubts. On the NHS reforms, 21 were against and 10 had doubts. On Blair’s proposals to increase to 90 days the time police can hold terror suspects without charge, 20 were opposed and one had doubts. Graham Stringer, the MP for Manchester, Blackley, is among those who have so far been loyal on contentious issues but are now prepared to voice their opposition publicly, with Blair’s majority down to 66.

“Tony Blair’s authority has diminished for a whole series of factors,” he said. “The education paper is almost universally unpopular, and not just among backbenchers. It’s as close as you can get to zero support. What’s being trailed on the health white paper I suspect will face universal opposition. I am opposed.”

Referring to the government’s near defeat last week on a key vote on the terrorism bill, he added: “Getting a majority of one doesn’t leave you with a lot of confidence.”
The threatened rebellions came as:

rest of the article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1859430,00.html

[malaise]

1. Bliar is history

Fugg him too. Hope he's taken away in chains to the Hague.

[Zynx]

2. Blair will have to resign if that keeps up.

A politically ineffective PM really has no choice but to resign.

[BlueIris]

5. Isn't this like, the third time his own party has tried to toss him?

I used to like Tony Blair. In 1998.

[ballaratocker]

3. With Blair going soon....

hopefully we can start to see an end to the counterproductive 'Third Way' policies that have emboldened the Tories/Wingnuts.
However, what is Gordon Brown's positions on the issues that matter?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Gordon Brown keeps very quiet on justice issues

we hope that his Labour roots, which are deep, will mean he isn't such an authoritarian. He also doesn't bang on about 'choice' in healthcare and education, which is Blair's favourite way of introducing the private sector into those areas. He says little about Iraq. But he does, of course, vote with Blair on all these issues.

However, Brown is an enthusiastic pusher of the Private Finance Initiative, which is where public infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads, even the London Underground) is built, maintained, and owned by private companies, and leased to the government. The 'justification' for this is "the private sector is always more efficient than the public" (they literally say that - when an estimate is made for what it would cost for, say, a council to build a school, they add a percentage onto it, before a comparison is made with the tender from a private firm. They have no evidence for this 'adjustment' - it's purely ideological). The private sector also has to pay higher interest rates than the government, of course - so the cost is usually more, plus there's a profit margin for the firms involved - and they get the assets at the end of their designed life. The only reason for PFI is that it makes the government's borrowing figures look better.

So, Gordon Brown doesn't have the authoritarian nuttiness of Blair, but is just as keen on privatisation of public infrastructure. Imagine Alan Greenspan becoming President.

[necso]

8. Certainly, Labour must have

some hungry back-bencher, an actual Labourite, who isn't too big of an *******.

Not that it's any of my business.

[necso]

4. In case the reader hasn't

already caught onto it, these terror laws (those already enacted, being enacted and planned to be enacted, throughout the "west") are mostly about screening the activities of, and giving yet more power to, the already powerful (who direct law enforcement, intelligence, etc, activities). These laws further encroach on the rights of ordinary citizens -- and enable the label of "terrorist" (with dire attendant consequences), or the threat of being so labeled, to be used as a weapon against any who would dissent. (On this side of the pond, the label "terrorist" has already been wildly thrown about by the fascists.)

And over time, one can only expect what is labeled "terrorist" (and accepted as such) to expand.

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies (etc) need competence, if not professional excellence -- and to be divorced from ideological, political, and like considerations -- not given more powers to be abused in (and by) their incompetence and pursuit of personal/political/ideological (etc) agendas.

What's most distressing about all this ("globalisation", privatisation, the growth of state power, etc ) is that, in many cases, the "right" is getting the "left" to do the (public) heavy lifting. And when the consequences of all this foolishness become clear, the "left" will have a hard time avoiding at least some of the blame... if not all of it.

[natrat]

7. seeing that scumbag for what he is