LONDON, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- Momentum is gathering behind calls for the early departure of British Prime Minister Tony Blair after his first ever parliamentary defeat this week diminished his chances of implementing his ambitious public reform agenda.
Blair's inability to force through his controversial anti-terror proposals, despite heavy lobbying of parliamentarians and the unusual move of recalling Cabinet ministers from overseas visits to vote, has widely been seen as a blow to his authority.
Some 49 Labor rebels joined forces with opposition parties Wednesday to defeat a government plan for police powers to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days. They later approved an amendment -- tabled by Labor's David Winnick -- to reduce the proposed period to 28 days; still an extension from the present limit of 14 days but a considerable reduction on what the prime minister insisted was vital for national security.
Blair turned the vote into an issue of confidence, so was shocked when he learned he had been defeated by 31 votes. Not only was the scale of the defeat significant, but the fact it was the first time the Labor government lost a parliamentary vote since taking power in 1997.
He responded defiantly Thursday, insisting it was members of Parliament who were out of touch with public opinion and the reality of the terrorist threat facing the country. His commitment to pressing ahead with far-reaching reforms in health and education was undiminished, he said.
But former health secretary Frank Dobson predicted many MPs who voted with the government on the Terrorism Bill would oppose his contentious plans for public services.
The deepest clash between Blair and his MPs is likely to come on the education white paper published in October, which lays out plans to give parents more choice in their children's schooling and schools more freedom from local authority control.
The draft legislation is unlikely to be published until next spring; however the proposals have already met with a hostile reception from not only the so-called "usual suspects" but many Blair loyalists. The prime minister's neo-Thatcherite rhetoric on competition and choice alarms many moderate Labor MPs who believe in equality in education and improving quality across the board.
Graham Stringer, a usually staunch loyalist, was quoted in the Financial Times Friday as saying there was "as close as you can get to zero support" for the white paper.
There is also considerable anger at plans to privatize parts of the National Health Service and to cut the 2.7 million people on long term incapacity benefit.
Critics of the prime minister suggest it is not MPs who are out of touch with reality but Blair himself. Blair acknowledges his relationship with many in the Labor Party has been fraught with difficulties since he became leader. His vision of a "New Labor," which dominates the center ground, is sharply at odds with the philosophy of "Old Labor" traditionalists who still adhere to the party's founding principles of socialism and workers' power.
But the prime minister appears not to have come to terms with the political reality of his much diminished parliamentary majority. In his past two terms, he has commanded such a majority that he could afford considerable opposition from within his own party and still bulldoze his legislation through Parliament. But since the May general election -- when Labor's majority was slashed from 167 to 66 -- he must take a far more consensual approach to ruling than he is used to.
In the run-up to this week's defeat, there were many moments at which Blair could have reached a compromise that would have satisfied many Labor MPs uncomfortable at voting against the government.
However, after ministers announced they would come forward with such a compromise, Blair at the last moment refused to back down from his 90 day proposal. This, critics say, was a massive misjudgment on his part.
Conservative Leader Michael Howard said the defeat showed Blair's authority had reached "vanishing point," and called for him to quit as prime minister.
"It's a very important issue. It's a very serious issue and what today has shown is that he no longer has the authority to carry his party on important issues of this kind," he said.
Liberal Democrat Leader Charles Kennedy said he hoped Blair would "learn the lesson from this" and realize he had to rule in a more consultative and consensual style.
"He'll be increasingly seen as a lame duck and lack conviction, credibility and the persuasion that a prime minister needs to take people with him," he said.
Speculation over Blair's departure date has been rampant ever since he declared last year that he would not lead the Labor Party into a fourth general election. He insisted he would like to serve a full third term; however his anointed successor, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, has suggested he would like to take over at 10 Downing Street by this time next year.
Blair has said more than once he will step down when he can no longer achieve his political ambitions. If he is cannot garner sufficient support from his party on his educational and health reforms, that moment will have arrived. Thus those with a penchant for political gambling would be wise to put their money on spring 2006, when the education proposals are due to be considered by Parliament. A defeat on these reforms -- which he views as key to his political legacy -- would all but guarantee his resignation.
