Tony Blair....has he totally lost the plot?

[ianess]

Has our esteemed Prime Minister, who was recently re-elected with the smallest proportion of votes ever, now taken upon himself Presidential powers?
He seems to be becoming more and more extreme in his views, the most obvious being the way he wants to introduce up to 90 days detention for suspects while the police find the evidence to bring charges. This smacks of "police state" tactics where innocence rather than guilt has to be proved.
This man seems to be even more dangerous and extreme than his good friend David Blunkett.....plus the fact that there is no need to prove that he really does have weapons of mass destruction.
Who or what is next on his hit list, and how can he be stopped?

[Dom Tuk]

The only person who can stop him is Gordon Brown

But what a gormless wet blanket he looks like. Everytime i look at him i despair. He had umpteen opportunities to challenge the PM and show his mettle. Yet he sits there, glum faced, hoping that he will be the next PM (as if the electorate has no choice in the matter). Please PM go and spoil it all so that Gordon Brown will not become the heir apparent as he so thinks he is.

[jake-the-peg]

Gordon's "on a promise" would you rock the boat in his position?

Blair should have stood down after no WMD's were found - he's past his sell by date.

What with Margaret Thatchers third term and Tony's I'm beginning to wonder if our American cousins don't have a good point about restricting the number of terms a head of state can serve.

[Chessman]

Got to agree wholeheartedly with Dom Tuks post. But to carry on with my own thoughts on this. Tony Blair, who has been cutailing the powers of MPs since he got in, has two main items on his agenda, and doesn't care how he does it, (1), to destroy and break up England, and (2), to become, if he can, president of a United States of Europe. I know that seems an extreme view, but before anyone starts slating me, go back to when he first got power, and then follow his career through to now, and look at what he's done.

Gordon Brown, the worst Chancellor this country has ever had, (I have posted my views on him in an earlier thread), and I doubt if he'll improve as P.M.

[loudickson71]

What do you propose as an alternative to 90 day detention? If it was you that was charged with keeping the UK secure, what would you do?

[january_bug]

If you've got that much of a problem, do what some of the French are doing.

[january_bug]

Lou - obviosuly that wasn't aimed at you! *blushes*

[surfer mike]

Lou thats totally right, time and time again you hear these prophets of wisdom and professional againsters, telling is what they are against and how evil blair is but almost never give us any alternative solution on any issues, other than kick out blair and labour...power without the responsibility...i'm just surprised blair has not been blamed for the riots in france..yet!.

[january_bug]

Compared with say, Mugabe, I still think we have a reasonably sane PM.

Strange how it appears that some people want scallies strung up for TWOKing, but want alleged terrorists to roam free. Interesting perspective (i.e., NO perspective) such people must have on life.

[jake-the-peg]

I think I pointed out in another thread that in the last 4 years 900 odd people have been detained under the prevention of terrorism act and there have been less than 30 convictions.

That's got to be one of the worst conversion rates on record - and they want to make it stronger!?!

These sort of laws are designed to reassure a frightened cowering population hiding behind the sofa.

They wouldn't have stopped 9/11 or July the 7th or Madrid and we didn't need to throw away habeas corpus in the eighties when IRA bombs were going off.

What happened to backbones in the last 20 years? Sometimes you can't rely on armies or the police to protect your freedoms you have to do it yourself.

When I think of the men women and children who fought protested, died, got shipped to Australia, shot at Peterloo to win fundamental freedoms like the right not to be arrested and held for 3 months without charge and then think that this generation is going to throw that all away after 50 people were killed in a bomb on a bus!

Its just shamefull

Sorry - sore point - rant over

[Oneeyedvic]

so lou - how would you feel if you were held for 90 days for no reason?

No course it couldn't happen - like the 80 year old at the labour party conference who was held on terrorist charges.

And of course we should beleive the police need more power - after all its not as if they shoot innocent people who they suspect of being terrorists is it?

In Spain, police can hold terrorist suspects for up to 4 years - hardly stopped the Madrid bombing did it? And would 90 days have stopped the London bombings. Somehow I doubt it.

One thing though. If I were Muslim and held on bogus charges for 90 days, I suspect that if the 'wrong' influences were given to me, I may indeed want to hurt the government, by way of bombing etc.

Think how you would feel if you were picked up and despite your protests, you were kept in isolated prison for 90 days. Bet you would be well chuffed that the 'UK is secure'.

And surfer mike - an alternative is not needed - we have current legislation - Blair is the one seeking an alternative which his party is not fully supporting.

[january_bug]

Can I just check, is this thread now just anti-Blair and anti-government generally, or is it a debate on the merits of the option of detaining alleged terrorists for more than 90 days?

[qapmoc]

But if the only criteria is death count then terrorism is pretty low on the list compared to - UK road deaths last year 3500, injuries 300000, UK smoking related deaths last year 106000, UK Alcohol related deaths last year 6600

All the stuff about terror is being hyped up and used on both sides of the atlantic (in fact probably worse in the USA) to frighten people so that they will allow political/legal changes to take place for the benefit political parties which would never be agreed otherwise.

[Oneeyedvic]

sorry J-bug - am curious as to why you think this has turned into a anti Blair / governement thread. Of course politics are going to be mentioned as there is a political agenda behind the legislation.

The question itself refers in a derogative way to politicians and the governement. I don't understand why you bother answering quetions on a thread that mentions politics and then moan about other people expressing their views on politics.

[ianess]

It never was my intention to be derogatory about politics or politicians but I am seriously concerned about the way this particular government seems to be led by a dictator who has a vast arsenal of weaponry to call upon, and who wants to change existing laws on a whim rather than enforce existing legislation. I was equally concerned when the Conservatives were in power and commanded an overall majority in Parliament without having a majority of the popular vote.
If there is evidence of a crime being committed or only in the planning stage surely the alleged criminals can and should be charged with something, even just breach of the peace, at the time of their arrest. It is abhorrent that anyone who until proven guilty should have to serve the equivalent of a 6 month sentence [with 50% reduction for good behaviour]. All without actually being charged with any offence. That is not the way any part of the legal system in this country is meant to work.
Prime Minister Blair should remember that the police and Armed Forces are under the control of Parliament and it could be a very dangerous thing if the roles were reversed.
I worry for this country and for the future if we are supposed to believe all that we hear and accept it without question.

[january_bug]

Vic - because I don't think everyone IS expression THEIR views on politics. I think they're regurgitating views preached in the tabloids.

I am interested in other people's views on politics, but I am simply BORED of entering interesting threads to see SO MANY posts talk about the point, and then somehow tag an anti-Blair line on the end.

We really should have a separate "Anti-Blair" section for people just to get it all off their chests.

My own answer to the question, as I said, it this.... wait to vote in the next general election. If you can't wait that long, if it really is SOOOOO bad, then leave. If you're somewhere in between, at least do something ACTIVE to change the situation.

[surfer mike]

jan bug...Just sit back and laugh like i do at the comparisons with dictators and despots that have been made and will continue to be made in thread after thread after thread...not saying that the guy is bombproof he has made plenty of mistakes, like every politician and prime minister in history.. but the obsession of some on here to blame him for everything beggars belief... the 90 day detention for suspects is described as police state by his critics the same critics who will be on his back if another 7/7 occurs..the same critics who made more fuss on here when one innocent brazilian was shot than when dozens of innocent people were murdered on that day in london.. the same critics who said beforehand that there was no threat of terrorism it was just blair scaremongering to increase his power...when blair goes and he will soon.. i look forward to endless anti brown threads...i see he's already been described as the worst chancellor in history...that in itself is hilarious...

[january_bug]

surfer mike - what's your tipple? Cos whatever it is - I'm buying!

:-)

[Oneeyedvic]

So, just for the record here, I am assuming Surfer mike that you believe that the police should be able to arrest soemone and hold them for up to 90 days without charge.

And I say someone as oppoosed to a terror suspect as to the best of my knowledge, the police didn't seriously consider the 80 year old at the labour party conference a terrorist.

Incidentally - do you think the 90 day detention would have stopped the London bombings?

j-bug - Whilst I have put on record previously that I did not vote for Labour, how exactly do you suggest that I be active? How about a nice peaceful protest: http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/index.htm - oh no - they have made that illegal too.

To quote Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn�t speak up,
because I wasn�t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn�t speak up,
because I wasn�t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn�t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me

[bernardo]

To answer the original question: He can only be stopped if the backbench MPs grow a bit of backbone and stand up to Blair's tyranny in defence of civil liberties. The solution is in their hands, and when the election comes it will be in the hands of the voters. Unfortunately there is little prospect of ordinary MPs being independent enough.

[january_bug]

No they didn't - that guy is still protesting as far as I am aware. Active - as in, something more than just mindless whinging. To be honest, if more people thought it through at all, that would bring me great pleasure. Even writing to an MP is a start. It might not always do much good, but it's better than nothing. Still, at least I can assume that everyone here voted in every election since they were 18 (or 21 depending on their age of course).

ianness - I apologise that this is well off topic, but I didn't want to ignore vic. I'm not sure of the answer to the first part of your question, but "how can he be stopped?" - well, from our point of view - through voting. If enough people could persuade their local MP to vote against the Terrorism Bill, then there would be a backbench rebellion, which in turn would defeat Blair and possibly lead to a vote of no confidence which could in turn remove Blair and we'd move on to Brown. Assuming you want to remove him too - the best suggestion I have, is that if people feel THAT strongly and can definitely identify with one political party more than any other, they may consider joining that party and becoming an active campaigner on that party's behalf.

Obviously there is unlikely to be a backbench rebellion as bernardo said. I feel this is also partly due to the knowledge that Blair could fall at any minute and Brown isn't really going to pick rebels to enter his cabinet, so they're towing the line in hope of promotion.