Prime minister's questions

Sketch
By Nick Assinder
Political Correspondent, BBC News website

Tony Blair was at his most persuasive, angry and dismissive of his critics when he delivered the inevitable defence of his proposal to detain terror suspects for 90 days.

Blair was passionate and angry about terror

In an extraordinarily heated question time he succeeded in raising the stakes even further, if that were possible.

If he cannot win over the Commons and, more importantly, his own backbenchers after a performance like that, it will speak volumes about his authority or lack of it.

He even appeared to accept the possibility that he would win the moral case, even if he lost the vote.

"Some times it is better to lose and do the right thing than win and do the wrong thing," he declared.

That may have been a bit of spin before a vote he is now relatively confident about.

But it still confirmed the reality of this issue that, whatever the prime minister may wish, it will be seen as a test of his leadership.

Party leaders

He addressed that head on as well, denying it was about his leadership but claiming it was about the leadership of the other party leaders and every MP.

Howard struggled to compete

They had simply to decide whether they stood with the police or not in the fight against terrorism. "And I know where I stand on it," he said.

He did not go so far as to echo George Bush after 11 September, when the US President suggested you were either with him or with the terrorists, but that message could be heard by those listening for it.

Both Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy struggled to compete against this level of passion and challenging rhetoric.

Calm suggestions that both their parties were united in the fight against terrorism, but wanted debate, or the consensus once promised by the prime minister, or that there may be more effective ways of doing it could only sound soft in the face of the prime minister's onslaught.

There was little room for any debate or consensus during these exchanges.

The prime minister probably hasn't delivered such a passionate and defiant case since he stood before MPs to convince them of the need to go to war on Saddam Hussein.

And that may be one of the problems. As a result of that episode he now has an uphill struggle convincing some of his own backbenchers to accept the arguments being put forward by the police and the security services through him.

And there were parallels with that performance before the war.

Just as then, the prime minister's personal belief appeared absolute. He went so far as to suggest anyone voting against the proposal was acting irresponsibly and playing dangerous games with the security of the country.

And it left the opponents almost engulfed by demands to wake up, recognise the threat, stop playing politics and do their duty.

It is a very high risk game but, as he said himself, if he loses it he will still claim he was right.