Reports of Parliamentary revolt against Blair are exaggerated

Because you don't understand their system.

 

Translation: Alex, for the love of God, learning about anything before posting an opinion about it.

 

Heal thyself physcian...

Only 80 members of the Labor party voted against the resolution. He actually increased his support among his labor party backers since the last resolution demanding Saddam disarm or "else". Three weeks ago, nearly 130 members of Labor voted against the Prime Minister's position.

So, in point of fact, the original poster was accurate.

But never let the "facts" get in the way of a personal attack....especially if you disagree with the position being taken....

 

Only 80? That's got to be a relief for Tony.

Anytime Alex is correct it's because he got lucky.

 

Oh really?

And just to gild the lily

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2860135.stm

Eh, but what does the BBC know about it?

IIRC, it was 122.

heh heh heh

PS...I'm disappointed, SoFla, that the lack of a link didn't cause your bulls*** detector to redline.

 

Uh, nevermind, I see you fixed it.

 

Sorry, I've been really busy at work today. Even Johnny Bench let a few passed balls go by in his career

 

I just wanna say, hey, USA, did you at least wipe off that "80" after you pulled it out of your ass? Or did you just plop it up there with the little pieces of s*** still hanging off?

 

He at least understands that Conservative votes count.

In any case, here's an interesting bit of news:

"In the last few weeks, the public has been largely opposed to war, but the telephone poll on Tuesday suggested opinion was changing.

Fifty per cent of respondents said it was right to attack Iraq, while 42 per cent thought it was wrong and eight per cent said they did not know.


Asked 'Do you trust Tony Blair decisions on war from now on' 55 per cent said Yes, 45 per cent said No and one per cent Don't Know."



http://www.itv.com/news/342583.html

 

I'm actually relieved. It's a real time-saver knowing I don't have to pay attention to USAliar.

 

Just because he made a mistake doesn't mean you should call him a liar.

 

How about if he constantly makes "mistakes"?

He got his number from somewhere. It's up to him to prove that is wasn't his ass.

 

That didn't sound like a mistake to me.

 

Superdave...

Help me out here:

80 is less the 122 right?

Around 130 would encompass the number 122, right?


Tell me I was wrong....

 

OK, I'm gonna play this one straight.

USA, you said there were 80. The BBC said there were 139. They further said there were more than last vote.

Where did you get the 80 from?

 

I'm bumping this because I want USA to respond.

 

80 members that voted against the resolution were LABOR PARTY members...

The last resolution, approx 122-130 of members of Labor voted against the resolution (that figure may be off, but I beleive it to be close)

Therefore, my original point, and that of the original poster is accurate...

Less Labor Party members revolted then 3 weeks ago. Just making a statement of fact, not rendering an opinion.

 

Are you some kind of r...OK, let me dodge the TOS violation.

I'm still waiting for your source.

 

bump

 

Please cite a source for your 80 members voting against the resolution.

Are you saying the BBC is lying?

 

THE FACTS

The reason for this confusion is that there were TWO votes on TWO occaisons, ie FOUR votes in total.

On the first occaison (in February), there were two votes. The first was on a rebel amendment, claiming that the case for war was unproven. 199 MPs voted for this. 122 of these were Labour MPs.

The second vote was on the Government motion, requesting support. This was won more easily as the amendment had already been defeated. 124 MPs voted against the Government. 59 of these were Labour MPs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2799377.stm

On the second occaison (on Tuesday), there wer also two votes. The first was on the rebel amendment. 217 MPs voted for this. 139 of these were Labour MPs.

The second vote was on the Government motion. This was won more easily, but 149 MPs in total voted against it. About 80 of these were Labour MPs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862325.stm

This indicates that the rebellion INCREASED by approximately 20 Labour MPs between the two votes, comparing on a like-with-like basis.

NB Alex is wrong to compare the level of support for war between the Commons and Congress. This is because there are much stronger disciplines put on the representatives to vote for the Government line in the Commons.

For instance, if a Government minister or aide wishes to vote against the Government's stated policy, they have to resign. 3 ministers and several aides have resigned; many with doubts have stayed in their positions and voted with the Government.

 

Re: THE FACTS

How many Republicans voted against Bush I or Bush II's wars? Very few. I can assure you that not all of them were in favor of war, especially this one.

As a practical matter, the President's party in Congress almost always supports him. Even Nixon was able keep maintain a majority of Republicans during the Watergate scandal.

We could actually test this by looking at all the votes over the years. I'm willing to bet that the numbers will be pretty much the same.

 

I wasn't comparing the results between US and UK.

I was comparing the systems - and there is no doubt that it is easier for the British Government to get its supporters to vote for it, than for a US Government.

Heck, the British Government isn't even legally obliged to hold a vote before going to war. (royal perogative)

 

What is it about pro-war American commentators on British politics and reading comprehension?