Tony Blair gambled spectacularly and has lost spectacularly. He told his MPs it was their duty to follow his lead and they have defied him. A prime minister who emerged badly battered from the general election campaign is now in deep trouble. As was the case with the war in Iraq, he allowed hubris to get the better of him. But this time - for the first time since Labour came to power in 1997 - his MPs have rebelled in sufficient numbers to make him, and those around him, wonder if he has what it takes to carry on.

It did not have to be this way. Two days before the dramatic vote on 9 November, Blair personally countermanded his Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, who had accepted the need to compromise on plans to allow incarceration without charge for 90 days. It says something about the state of British politics if the New Statesman, and much of the liberal media, is grateful to a Conservative leader - a one-time home secretary with something of the night about him - for putting the case for civil liberties.

Greater appreciation goes to the surprisingly large group of Labour backbenchers for ignoring the arm-twisting to demonstrate finally that they have been sent to Westminster not as voting fodder but as sentient individuals charged, often at some discomfort, with upholding fundamental freedoms. Ranged against in this unseemly debate were Labour loyalists, the police . . . and the Sun's page 3 girl, Krystle, 23, from Manchester, who on the morning of the vote begs readers to "lend their weight to this vital campaign".

Instead of learning the lessons of May 2005, as he had vowed to do, Blair has picked as many fights as he can with the Labour Party and liberal opinion. Iraq, rather than deterring him from such a course, seems to have put steel in his spine. More battles will ensue on education, welfare and health, but the prospect of successive defeats now looms large. On this occasion, the Prime Minister declined to link the anti-terrorism legislation with a formal vote of confidence in his leadership. But one more reverse in the coming weeks or months and he will have to go.

As Blair has preached, but rarely practised, terrorism is too big an issue to play games. It was therefore disreputable of Jack Straw, on his rushed return from Moscow, to accuse the Conservatives of the "politics of posture", and for the Prime Minister to tell Labour MPs, "You're better than them [the Tories]. When the pressure is on, we hold firm." To what end? To outflank an opposition party that, for a fleeting moment, is on the right side of the argument, even if seemingly on the wrong side of public opinion? Labour MPs saw through Blair's bragging. On difficult matters of law, opinion polls are the last resort of the political scoundrel. Even Margaret Thatcher realised during several parliamentary votes on capital punishment that the mob should not hold sway.

The terrible attacks in London on 7 July were followed by a period of cross-party agreement about reconciling any emergency measures with the twin requirements of civil liberties and community cohesion. With his Home Secretary apparently unawares, Blair broke that consensus with a ten-point plan that was the precursor to this bill. The most pernicious of the government's tactics has been its use of the police for propaganda purposes. The views of officers deserve to be heard, but not followed blindly. They turned up the volume, but they did not make a compelling case.

In the long term it would be dangerous if our law enforcement agencies were to become lobbyists for what are essentially political decisions. We have been here before. Our security services were compromised when they allowed themselves to become part of the proselytising for war against Iraq. Taken to its logical conclusion, this approach would leave it to our generals, police chiefs and spooks to dictate policy on who we should lock up and who we should invade.

Those who seek to safeguard our human rights are not apologists for terrorism. Anyone who was in any doubt about the threat facing the UK will have been disabused by the events of 7/7. What matters is how to combat that threat. That requires calm and rigorous decision-making, not the shallow bluster for which this Prime Minister has become renowned, and on which he has finally been found out.

Catch them when they're young

The biggest social problems of our time - exclusion, inequality, underachievement and antisocial behaviour - are best tackled, ministers believe, as early as possible in a person's life.

So it will come as little surprise that the government has announced a new strategy for toddlers. The "early years foundation stage" for the fives and under will have the same force as the national curriculum, no doubt providing copious opportunities for a new generation of inspectors to measure standards and set targets.

For the 0-8 month group, Ofnap will assess diaper movements; the 8-18 monthers will be looked after by Ofcrawl; tantrum-minded 18-24 month toddlers will be afforded Ofscream, while ministers are minded to monitor progress of "walkers, talkers and pretenders" of 24 to 36 months through Ofsmartass.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website