Blair's Terror Bill Suffers Defeat By Kevin Sullivan and Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, November 9, 2005; 5:41 PM LONDON, Nov. 9 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered a major political defeat Wednesday when the House of Commons soundly rejected an anti-terrorism measure in what was widely seen as a referendum on Blair's leadership. The lower house of Parliament voted 322 to 291 against a proposal to allow suspects in terrorism cases to be held for up to 90 days without charge, up from the current 14 days. Blair called that provision crucial to national security, but critics likened it to the policies of apartheid-era South Africa. Legislators later approved an increase to 28 days, a clear rebuke to Blair, who staked enormous political capital on the issue. Blair had campaigned intensely for the 90-day provision, a key component of his new anti-terrorism bill, working privately to rally dubious Labor Party legislators and even recalling two top cabinet members, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, from overseas trips to be present for Wednesday's vote. But in the end, 49 members of Blair's party deserted him and handed him his first major loss in the House of Commons since he took office in 1997. The defeat comes at a crucial moment for Blair, who is facing increasing questions about his ability to govern effectively. After winning a third term in elections in May in which his previously overwhelming majority was reduced by 95 seats, Blair said he would step down before his current term finishes -- with Brown his most likely successor. In recent weeks, Blair has suffered the resignation of a key cabinet ally and a critical book by the former British ambassador to the United States. The Iraq war he has so strongly backed remains extremely unpopular, and he is losing support even among his own party, which reached a new low with Wednesday's vote. "He's no longer Teflon Tony -- he's mortal," said Peter Riddell, political columnist for the Times of London and author of several books on Blair and British politics. Riddell said the defeat was not fatal for Blair, but the "remarkable" defection of so many Labor legislators meant that Blair would have a hard time pushing through his ambitious domestic agenda, including reforms in education and health. "He's now at the mercy of Parliament," Riddell said. Conservative Party leader Michael Howard immediately called for Blair to resign, telling reporters that Blair should step down because "this has so diminished his authority." Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the result meant that Blair would be "increasingly seen as a lame duck and lack conviction, credibility and the persuasion that a prime minister needs." Ann Cryer, one of the Labor members of Parliament who voted against the measure, said she "hated" voting with the Conservative Party against Blair, but she believed that holding people without charge for 90 days was excessive. She said many Muslims live in her district in West Yorkshire, and they have strongly opposed the law because they felt it could be used unfairly against them. "I don't think Tony should stand down as a result of this," Cryer said. "I know he's angry and hurt, but it's a tough old game, politics." Blair was defiant in defeat Wednesday evening, saying in a BBC interview that "we were trying to do the right thing for the country. "What I can't understand," Blair said, "is how we can say, given the strength of the terrorist threat we face, that the civil liberties of a small number of terrorist suspects . . . come before the fundamental civil liberty of this country to protection from terrorism." "I think it was a wrong decision," Blair said. "I hope at a later date we don't rue it." During a heated exchange in Parliament earlier in the day, Blair had called it "the duty of every member of this house" to support the measure, part of a package of anti-terror legislation that also outlaws training in terrorist camps, fomenting acts of violence and glorifying terrorism. Blair introduced the bill following London's deadly subway and bus bombings in July. As he spoke, Conservatives shouted "police state" at Blair in a session that was testy even by the raucous standards of the House of Commons. Blair stood by his conviction that the 90-day period was necessary in an era when terrorists use increasingly complex and sophisticated methods, including encrypted computer communications. British police officials lobbied for the measure, which polls showed was also supported by a majority of the British public. But it was opposed by a wide range of civil libertarians who believed it sacrificed too much personal liberty in the name of security. Leaders of Britain's large Muslim community also had preached against the provision in mosques. Blair rejected concerns about erosion of civil liberties, saying that the proposal called for a judge to review all detentions every seven days. Many analysts believed that Blair's recent insistence on the 90 days was merely a high-stakes bargaining position to rally support, and that ultimately he would compromise rather than risk a humiliating defeat. But Blair ended that speculation Wednesday, declaring, "Sometimes it is better to lose and do the right thing than win and do the wrong thing." © 2005 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900389.html
