JUNKIE EDITOR FOR EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
( “Blair’s Balloon Busted”)
Prime Minister Tony Blair, clearly one of the most intelligent and vigorous heads of government on our planet, is suffering a massive political rebellion within his own party. One hundred and twenty-two Labour MPs voted against the war motion. They defied Blair's strongest ever appeal in the form of a three line whip requiring subordination and acquiescence to him on the issue of war on Iraq. This rebellion is being reported as the largest backbench revolt in over a century.
Blair is emerging from the rubble as a haggard and shaken shell of his former gallant and commanding self. He has told party loyalists and close aides that he is prepared for political defeat on the issue of war with Iraq. His position on the war issue has been confusing to his supporters from 9/11, for he represents the centre left in Britain, which is deeply disillusioned with both conservatism and Conservatives. Blair's natural constituency would have been the peace movement, the antiwar demonstrators and the likes of CND, Stop the war and the Muslim Council of Great Britain.
By following in the footsteps ordained by the deeply conservative US, Blair has lost credibility with a large proportion of his core constituency, and that is never good for any politician. There are grumblings throughout the palace of Westminster about his leadership. Certain elements in the press that have been supportive of him in the past have begun to criticize him harshly. This is the beginning of the end of his premiership. He had so much to offer Britain, and he delivered a portion of his promised agenda, but his foreign policy has been absolutely poisonous to his core of political support.
The British parliamentary system allows party members to replace their leadership whenever they choose. Blair still has a majority of support for the party leadership, but there will be carpings about his lack of moral authority which might even crescendo into a fully blown leadership challenge. Leadership challenges - even losing ones - always weaken the party leader in power. Margaret Thatcher was challenged by a no-hoper, who got only about 30 votes against her, but it was the beginning of her end. She was gone one year later.
While Blair is safe in the near term, a real threat to his mid-term leadership could be forming. Much will depend on the course of events vis a vis the war - which lies at the core of his difficulties. Any Labour MP can stand for party leader against Tony Blair, and if there are any moves in this direction, it will be major news.
The news media is heavily controlled in the US, where yesterday's vote will likely be reported as a victory for Blair. It was not. It was the opposite. He has been forced to debate and vote on war against his wishes. The massive size of public discontent with his war policy forced his hand. He has no war powers act to give him carte blanche to wage war. Due to the parliament's attitude, there will now be other votes. For instance, if the UN were to adopt a second resolution, Blair is committed to a return to parliament for approval. A surprising development was the statement by a top-Tory, Kenneth Clarke, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer under John Major. Clarke's stance against the war suggests that he senses the public mood, which is swinging away from his old foe, Iain Duncan Smith, the current Tory party leader. Thus, there could be a leadership challenge amongst the Conservatives, as well. If British political support were to fall away from the war, it would transform public opinion in the US. Stay tuned.
MATTHEW SLOTKIN (on TW’s War)
In brief, I don't question the ruthlessness of Saddam. Rather, the
timing of any US-led incursion is particularly problematic. After 18-19 UN
resolutions thus far ignored by
Iraq, dating back a decade plus, the U.S. and the
West has lost its credibility. Credibility will not be so easily restored if we
go charging in now, absent a real causus
belli.
I regret
Clinton didn't act on his watch,
amid Monica-gate. Bill's diminished standing with the military (from day one,
justly or not), weakened his political position in the wake of the 1994
Republican electoral landslide (i.e., so-called "revolution."
TW’s
saber-rattling, (i.e., we're gonna kick their butts, send Saddam runnin'), is
unsettling. His manner vis-a-vis the imminent war difficult to reconcile with
his proclaimed devout Christian beliefs. I don't know, nor do I question, the
sincerity of his piety; rather, I find TW’s glee in having it both ways a bit
unseemly, playing the frat boy rallying the brothers (read: the armed forces)
off for a panty raid and turning about to invoke G-d in virtually all public
proclamations. I read
somewhere, too, that
NO ONE amid the upper echelons of the Bush Administration has voiced ANY
discernible hesitation, apprehension, real and honest discussion
of any and all consequences on a human level (as opposed to prattling on about
100k troops here and $25 billion in aid to Turkey and . . . .) is mind-boggling
and
seems a recipe for disaster.
I'm eager
to see Saddam go---to be sure. But, boy, I fear for what follows . . .
JUNKIE EDITOR FOR NC DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND POLITICAL NEWS
(on John Edwards taking positions contrary to trial lawyers.)
In Friday's edition of the News and Observer, it was reported that Senator Edwards has spoke out in favor of several steps to limit the filing of frivolous malpractice claims. According to this article Edwards has come out in favor of the law that requires lawyers to produce a medical expert who will testify on their behalf before filing a claim. As the article points out, North Carolina already has this law. The significance of Edwards position is that even though he was a trial attorney, his position is contrary to the position of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers who oppose the law. In fact, a panel of Democratic judges on the Court of Appeals ruled that the law Edwards now supports is unconstitutional. The links below provides an analysis of that decision. – Court of Appeals Decision Analysis & Court of Appeal Decision Analysis II
The decision was later overturned by the North Carolina Supreme Court on other grounds so the law remains in effect in North Carolina. One of the co-signers of the decision declaring the law unconstitutional was Linda McGee who will be the only Court of Appeals Judge up for re-election next year at the same time that Edwards in running for president.(McGee was also one of the 3 judges that voted to deny Terence Garner a new trial.) Some of you may know that I hear prisoner tort cases [against the State of North Carolina which includes medical malpractice cases] on occasion for the state of North Carolina. I can tell you that this rule prevents prisoners from pursuing frivolous malpractice claims.