Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

Can I just say that this was pretty much my first thought too?

Current Mood: discontentdisgusted but unsurprised

That article kind of overstates the point. Blair wasn't going to loose his job over Israel/Lebanon. Sure if 150 MPs try to recall Parliment, that would be irritating for Blair. But it was unlikely Straw would have agreed to the recall. And even if he had, there was no way Blair was going to choose to resign (or be forced into a leadership challenge).

All that would have happened would have been a bit of a debate. Blair would have said he's already spending all his time in diplomatic efforts to get a peace, as are large chunks of the Cabinet. Everyone would go home. If it really came to a vote, the Tories have already said they want Blair to continue doing what he's doing in diplomacy and see how it turns out. So even with large backbench revolts, Blair couldn't be defeated (much like at the start of Iraq).

Of course The Scotsman is going to see the resignation of a Scottish MP as being hugely significant and important. No-one else noticed.

Having said that, I do think Blair made sure the current situation developed into the chaos it did just to stress to everyone "look, there's still lots of terrorism and we're still doing our job defending you".