Opinion - News Analysis   

Can Blair learn to listen?

Vidya Ram

With his authoritarian style, the British Prime Minister views compromise as a sign of weakness rather than of a leader who listens to his party and the electorate. Is he becoming a lame duck?

IT MAY have taken eight years but last Wednesday it finally happened: the Blair Government suffered its first major defeat in Parliament since it took office. Members of Parliament voted, by a majority of 31, to reject government proposals to increase the number of days that terrorist suspects could be detained without trial from 14 days to 90 days.

The implications of the defeat on this crucial part of the Government's controversial anti-terrorism bill should not be underestimated. It strikes a blow at a beleaguered Prime Minister Blair — already under pressure following a reduced majority in the May general election, and his announcement that he will not stand for another term in office. The spectre of Iraq also continues to haunt him, with fresh allegations from Britain's former ambassador in Washington that the British Prime Minister failed to stand up to George Bush on crucial issues to do with the war. In the very week of the vote David Blunkett, one of Mr. Blair's key allies within the Cabinet, resigned following a controversy surrounding his involvement in a DNA testing company.

At one level, the defeat calls into question Mr. Blair's judgment and decision-making prowess — till now extolled by many in Westminster. For, in many ways, the defeat should have come as no surprise. Rebellions against government proposals are nothing new to the Labour backbenches in the House of Commons. And while, until now, the rebels have always been defeated — notably during the vote on going to war in Iraq and on the introduction of university top up fees — the Government's victory was gained only through substantial effort, particularly by party whips. It should therefore have been fairly clear to the Government that this controversial piece of legislation, which has outraged many across the political spectrum, would not face a smooth ride through Parliament.

Indeed the legislation has, since its introduction, been vociferously opposed by civil liberty groups, concerned about what effectively amounted to a six-month prison sentence, as well as from those concerned about community relations and the "significant chill factor" it could have in Britain's Muslim community. Within Parliament, unlike on previous occasions, many Labour backbenchers, Liberal Democrats, and Conservative MPs were united in their opposition to the proposals. Mr. Blair's predicament was not helped by the Government's decision to use (as it later emerged) senior members of the policy force to lobby MPs shortly before the vote.

It was also clear that had the Government chosen to accept a compromise of, say, 40 days' detention, it may well have got the legislation through. Indeed there are indications that members of the Cabinet, as well as party whips, were urging the Prime Minister to do just this even the morning of the vote. Yet he chose not to, declaring in Parliament shortly before the vote that it is "sometimes better to lose and do the right thing." The attitude may well bring a shudder to the spine of many on the Left, reminded of Margaret Thatcher and her infamous phrase — "the lady is not for turning."

However, while Thatcheresque posturing may have secured parliamentary victories for the Conservatives in the 1980s and for Mr. Blair until a few years ago, it failed the Government abysmally last week. Sixty one Labour MPs, tired of not being listened to or engaged in dialogue, defied the party's three line whip and either abstained or voted against the Government. The message to the Prime Minister from the backbenches was clear: with a slashed Commons majority, victories are no longer assured, and the Government can no longer ignore the parliamentary Labour party.

Yet once again, at least on the surface, Mr. Blair appears particularly adept at ignoring what should be the blindingly obvious. Shortly after the defeat and for all the concern within his own party, he declared that he would press ahead with his plans to introduce radical reforms to the education and welfare systems and to the National Health Service.

There are even some indications that the Government will try to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny by tagging some of the reforms on to existing legislation.

However, such moves are likely to anger further rather than subdue Labour rebels who are emboldened by the symbolism of the victory and know that Mr. Blair cannot afford to disregard the parliamentary Labour party.

Crucially, the MPs know that the reforms, which include plans for privatisation, are viewed by the Prime Minister as core to his "mission" and that defeat on these issues would spell disaster for him and possibly for the New Labour agenda.

Beyond Parliament, public tolerance with Mr. Blair's authoritarian style is wearing thin. Government initiatives to get people involved in the decision-making process — dubbed the "Big Conversation" — have failed to convince, particularly when public opinion has been ignored on issues such as Iraq.

Significantly, while there was some public support for extending the detention period for terror suspects, a recent survey for The Guardian (on November 12) found that the majority of people feel that Tony Blair should not have tried to push through the controversial clause and should have chosen to compromise instead. Respondents to the same poll felt that he should be willing to compromise on other legislation, including the new reforms.

Compromise does not appear to be an option that the Prime Minister is very willing to take: he views it as a sign of weakness rather than of a leader who listens to his party and to the electorate.

However, the combination of mounting pressure from Labour and the Opposition parties and an increasingly hostile public, may leave Mr. Blair little choice in the matter: further defeats will only serve to reinforce the view in some circles that he is a "lame duck" Prime Minister and hasten calls for him to step down.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A shocking failure of security
A hard test at Hong Kong
Calamity mitigation on the back burner
Can Blair learn to listen?
Putin reshuffles top officials
Arafat as `obstacle' exposed as a myth
Testing times
Security failure
Strange condition
India and SAARC
Noble gesture
Fitting tribute
Neglected issue
We cannot accept globalisation at the cost of our self-reliance: Buddhadeb

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu