| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| US ready to fight ’without UK’ | ||
| 2003-03-11 | ||
| Edited for length. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq — with or without Britain. He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq. But Downing Street has expressed surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front. In fact, it was made clear that rather than scaling down the UK's involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening. In recent days military planners have been talking about Britain's "military contribution being greater than we thought".
Tony, you're going to have to cut your losses. The time for negotiations is over. Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, a long-standing critic of Mr Blair's stance, forecast moves would be made to call a special party conference to challenge Mr Blair's authority. But Labour Chairman John Reid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the prime minister enjoyed widespread support in his party and across the UK although he acknowledged Iraq was a "big test" for Mr Blair. According to the Guardian newspaper, security sources at the UN suggest the new deadline could be pushed back "a few days" beyond the March 17 deadline in the draft resolution. France and Russia have warned that they would veto any new UN resolution, while UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the legitimacy of any military action without a new UN mandate would be "seriously impaired".
| ||
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #18 Bulldog, We are not actually in disagreement about the practicalities of the situation. In practice he, as you noted he would have no choice but to resign - the Party can force him to resign it can't sack him. If he chooses not to jump the Party by itself can not push him. |
| Posted by: Russell 2003-03-12 14:51:28 |
| #17 Russel and Patrick, "The Prime Minister must also retain the support of his or her party's parliamentary delegation, and in a number of cases including that of Neville Chamberlain and Margaret Thatcher, a party will oust a Prime Minister who appears to be unpopular" from the link I posted above - a PM MUST retain the support of his/her party. Technically it's not necessary, but it's inconceivable Tony would stay on under these circumstances, so, practically, it's irrelevant. If the Labour party voted to remove Blair, or if there was a leadership contest he wasn't winning (a la Maggie), he would have no choice but to resign. I don't think that will happen, but if it did, he would go. I'd bet everything I own (which admittedly isn't much) on it... This isn't WWII. Blair couldn't justify defying his own party in such a way. Sorry (and I am!), but that's how it is. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-12 02:44:09 |
| #16 Still, the WaPo is sticking with the story that it hinges on how the UN vote goes. Perhaps Blair really is telling us that he won't go without a UN vote even if he could survive as PM. The fact is that the British public does not support immediate action, despite Blair's best efforts at leadership. We will know by the end of next week -- after Blair's decision and the reaction of the British electorate -- if the term 'English speaking peoples' still means somthing special. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-03-11 20:45:17 |
| #15 Russell, I don't think your last point was pedantic - it was central. Blair's situation is not like Thatcher's because Blair has the confidence of the house, due in part to support from the Conservatives. There are about 165 of them, and it seems unlikely that Blair would lose that many from his own party. In the circumstances, with war about to begin, the usual rules may not apply. What is necessary is toughness - if Blair has to create a new 'coalition of the willing' in Parliament from some Labour and some Conservative MPs then he'll do it, rather than roll over because part of his party is mad at him. And everything should change once the fighting starts, for several reasons: non-extremist MPs will want to support the troops; and the war will be over fast without the horrors the lefties are predicting. After that, MPs will all be remembering how strongly they personally supported the heroic Tony Blair. Churchill had his problems with Parliament, too, but he got the job done. So will Blair. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-03-11 20:40:46 |
| #14 I listened to the press conference and Rummy was just talking about contingencies. I'm really surprised by the reaction. Also, Condi Rice told Blair in a phone call back in Jan that GW would understand if he couldn't go thru with it. She said GW felt that Blair was too important in the 'long run', i.e. Iran and NKor to risk over Iraq when we don't really need them. Finally, the Labour Party chairman said this was just 'noise' from the Usual Suspects in the party. Remember, Labour was out of power for 20 years before Blair came into the picture - wanna bet they'll go back to the back bench for Clare Short...? |
| Posted by: Wes Meador 2003-03-11 20:13:33 |
| #13 Bulldog, In the case of Maggie the vote happened in the Party room, but was an accurate reflection of what would have happened in the Commons and so she resigned (i.e. she resigned before she was proven to have lost "the confidence of the House"). The Party Room could tell Blair to go, but if he chose not to tender his resignation to the Queen and retained "the confidence of the House" he could stay on as PM. I agree that the situation would be bizarre and unstable and he would be insane not to resign under the circumstances - but only the Commons can sack the PM (technically it is the Queen acting on the will of Commons) - the Party room can only "force" his resignation. Just being pedantic - in practice you are correct - but on the law there is a wider set of possibilities. |
| Posted by: Russell 2003-03-11 20:09:18 |
| #12 Rummie missed a good opportunity to keep quiet... again. |
| Posted by: tcc 2003-03-11 18:10:46 |
| #11 Looks like Rummy is backing off his earlier statement: "In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom." |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-03-11 17:59:10 |
| #10 ...Anyone who want's to know more about the details of the post of British PM, look here. Who's yawning at the back?! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-11 17:41:24 |
| #9 g wiz - You mean that would be a way of taking some heat off Tony? I don't think it would help him much. He'd be seen to be backing down, after all this time and personal investment. And he'd lose much of the support he enjoys from the Tories. He really can't go back now. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-11 17:34:54 |
| #8 Russell, the party does have the pwer to remove the PM if he/she loses the support of the party they represent - it doesn't have to go to a commons vote of confidence - take Maggie! That was an internal power putsch... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-11 17:25:18 |
| #7 This will pile pressure on Tony to support the US morally, if he must, but keep UK troops out of the action, which would please a lot of people here. Bulldog, I'm pretty sure that's the point. ;) |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-11 16:45:15 |
| #6 Bulldog, That is not quite right - Blair is PM while he has "the confidence of the House" - provided he can muster the votes in a no-confidence motion he can stay PM. It doesn't matter who the votes "belong" to - he can stay Labour PM with the help of Tory votes if that is what it takes. It doesn't matter what happens in the Party room - the only vote that would actually matters would have to take place in the Commons. It would be decidedly weird for a Labour PM to rule only at the pleasure of the Tories, but it is possible. |
| Posted by: Russell 2003-03-11 16:05:15 |
| #5 My point was simply that if we planned on having the Brits provide approximately 20% of the force, then we'd need to replace this contribution should we go it alone. I am not aware of anyway this could be done quickly. Instead, I suspect we'd go in with what we have which could be a lot riskier and at odds with the President's promise to apply overwhelming force should the need arise. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-03-11 15:57:36 |
| #4 ...Of course if Tony were challenged to a contest, or stepped down, most of his cabinet would throw their hats in the leadership ring. And no doubt some would change their tunes. But they'd have to do a 180 about face on Iraq, and come out looking like they had an ounce of integrity left. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-11 15:51:34 |
| #3 Yes, he would no longer be PM if ousted by his party. That's a job taken by the leader of the party with the majority of MPs (or the most, if no one party has a majority). Fact is, there's no one who could seriously challenge him at the moment because all the plausible potential leadership contenders (i.e. those who are still apparently sane and not outside of mental institutions only because the men in white coats have a sense of humour) are in his cabinet and supporting him, even 'old' labourites like the deputy PM, John Prescott, who's one of Tony's staunchest suporters. I can't see the rug being pulled, but he might walk if the party did show itself to be livid with him. If Rumsfeld's bluffing, he's chosen a dangerous tactic. This will pile pressure on Tony to support the US morally, if he must, but keep UK troops out of the action, which would please a lot of people here. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-03-11 15:47:32 |
| #2 I don't think this is a bluff. I think it's the best option the administraiton has right now. Without having to worry about Blair's problems we can get on with the business of ignoring the UN and liberating Iraq. |
| Posted by: g wiz 2003-03-11 15:42:05 |
| #1 Does anybody understand whether Blair automatically loses his PM job if he loses his job as head of the Labor party. It seems that this is the key question. We had thought he was safe after winning what amounted to a confidence vote 2 weeks ago. I guess this is not entirely the case, or Rummy would not be bluffing about contingency plans. And I do mean bluffing, because it appears the Brits were to have a significant role in any war. |
| Posted by: JAB 2003-03-11 15:36:17 |