Bliar loses 90 days vote

**sasguru** · 9 November 2005, 17:05

Still some principled politicians left then - that cheers me up.
No doubt the scared namby-pamby tree-huggers (e.g. Chico) who want Big Brother to protect them will come along crying soon

**Lucifer Box** · 9 November 2005, 17:06

Just you wait and see. Standard Blair tactics means it'll be back in a 75 day version and then all the usual dullards will breathe a sigh of relief and vote it in saying, "at least it's not 90 days".

**sunnysan** · 9 November 2005, 17:11

Blair

He is a clever barst@rd.

An attck with significant casualties in the UK is extremley likely and he will be able to turn around, regardless of whether the new terror laws would have actually prevented the attacks and say I told you so......

**AlfredJPruffock** · 9 November 2005, 17:14

Originally posted by sunnysan

He is a clever barst@rd.

An attck with significant casualties in the UK is extremley likely and he will be able to turn around, regardless of whether the new terror laws would have actually prevented the attacks and say I told you so......

Im sure MI6 are already on the job ...but great news as Blairs position weakens daily.

**Lucifer Box** · 9 November 2005, 17:14

Exactly. 90 day detention without charge would not have prevented either the 7th July attacks or the attempted ones on 21st July. Betting is it wouldn't have prevented the next one either.

Won't stop TB and the usual demagogues making political capital out of it though.

**Lucifer Box** · 9 November 2005, 17:16

Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock

Im sure MI6 are already on the job ...but great news as Blairs poisition weakens daily.

I'm not so sure that a weakened and possibly prematurely departing Blair is a good thing. Okay, it's better the devil you know but can you imagine where we would be now if GB had been PM for the last 8 years? In addition, I think it important that GB is still at the Treasury when the economy implodes.

**Mordac** · 9 November 2005, 17:22

>but can you imagine where we would be now if GB had been PM for the last 8 years?

Still celebrating a Conservative win at the last election

**AtW** · 9 November 2005, 17:40

Originally posted by Lucifer Box

I think it important that GB is still at the Treasury when the economy implodes.

It probably won't be important if he is at the Treasure or the PM, probably best if he is PM because this would stain him in history books.

**mcquiggd** · 9 November 2005, 19:44

I think he will still be tainted anyway AtW... the true state of the economy will become apparent when a number of possible events occur, perhaps in one of many combinations as they are mostly inter-related... major job losess (which cannot be hidden), housing market falls, interest rate rises, yet more taxes, balance of payment deficit, strikes by public sector workers, public demonstrations against tax on pensions, fuel tax protests... etc, etc

All of the above are just round the corner. If several combine, Sweaty Gordon will lose weight quicker than Norman Lamont when he spoils his pants. His reputation and career will be over... the newspapers will turn on Nu Labour just as quickly as they turned on the Conservatives when they scented a government about to be voted out, and there is plenty of ammunition to be used... if John Major feels comfortable enough to attack Nu Labour sleaze on morning TV (having himself had an affair with Edwina Currie), you know that the current government is in real trouble.

The missing piece in the jigsaw is a credible opposition party.

Bliar loses 90 days vote