War rebels challenge Blair Frantic efforts to win support for vote in Commons
Michael White, Patrick Wintour and Julian Borger in Washington Wednesday February 26, 2003 The Guardian
Tony Blair tonight faces the most dangerous challenge to his authority during his six-year premiership as opponents of his "rush to war" policy on Iraq organise frantically to muster the Commons votes that may slow his momentum.
Last night backbench critics in all parties claimed to have at least 160 MPs prepared to vote against the government or abstain after today's debate, despite Mr Blair's plea yesterday for them to unite behind the declared will of the UN.
If more than 67 Labour MPs vote against the government tonight it will be the largest revolt of the Blair era. That number voted against disability cuts in May 1999, 20 more than the lone parents' benefit revolt of December 1997.
More than 70 of Labour's 412 MPs are signed-up rebels.
Loyalists believe Mr Blair's powerful Commons statement yesterday dismissing Franco-German calls for weapons inspectors to be given months more - "The issue is not time, the issue is will," he said - will dampen the revolt and buy him room to manoeuvre.
But anti-war MPs were canvassing hard last night and passed the 115-signature mark for the key amendment tabled by Labour's Chris Smith and his fellow ex-cabinet minister, the Tory Douglas Hogg. It argues that "the case for military action [is] as yet unproven".
Former Tory cabinet ministers Kenneth Clarke and John Gummer have also signed it, although the Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, last night signalled help for the government in its troubles. Tory MPs will be told to vote against rebel amendments and with Mr Blair.
The alternative Liberal Democrat amendment, which Labour rebels will back if the Speaker, Michael Martin, picks it, is backed by 47 of Charles Kennedy's 53-strong team, and argues that diplomatic channels have not yet been exhausted. Labour MPs privately tell Mr Martin that their simple amendment best reflects the anxious public mood.
The whips are promising waverers they will get another chance to vote on military action, and so should back Mr Blair's pro-UN pitch today.
But tonight's result, and a possible further vote in the next fortnight, has been complicated by the fact that the crisis coincides with the reselection of Labour MPs.
At least one, Bridget Prentice, faces a challenge from anti-war party members in Lewisham East, who are demanding she rethink her position or face deselection. Others face explicit constituency pressure to oppose the war.
To keep the bulk of his jittery party behind him - voters and activists as well as MPs and ministers - Mr Blair knows he must get a second UN resolution which comes at least as close to authorising military action as this week's draft from the US, Britain and Spain.
Mr Blair and his cabinet allies remain confident this will happen. They believe that even France will swing behind military action if Saddam Hussein's duplicity in evading disarmament is confirmed by UN teams early next month.
"Resolution 1441 called for full, unconditional and immediate compliance, not 10%, not 20%, not even 50%, but 100% compliance. Anything less will not do," he told MPs yesterday. But the prime minister admit ted that, if he disarms, the Iraqi dictator can remain in power.
Mr Blair's exposed position was underlined when US officials briefed reporters yesterday that Washington had gone back to the UN security council for a second resolution principally as a favour to Mr Blair.
But their studied nonchalance glosses over US public unease: a significant majority would prefer to put off war if that gives a better chance of convincing the security council. And even US hawks do not want to foot the bill for postwar reconstruction in Iraq.
"I think you know that for a number of our closest allies it was an important step to take," said Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser. "And so, while we still don't believe that it was necessary - all the authorisation necessary was in 1441 and previous resolutions - it seemed a wise thing to do."
One US official revealed that the Bush administration con sidered abandoning its pursuit of a new resolution on February 14, when 12 of the 15 security council members spoke out against military action. But the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, urged the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to keep up the effort to orchestrate a security council majority.
London also won the argument over softer wording of the draft resolution, despite US wishes for a harsher document, including a more explicit threat of military action. Such strident wording would not win the requisite nine votes, British diplomats said.
In the Commons yesterday the atmosphere was civil despite high feelings on both sides, which saw Tory MPs boo the Lib Dem leader but praise Mr Blair's statesmanship.