Blair defeat MPs: Heroes or villains?

By Brian Wheeler
BBC News politics reporter

For some, the defeat of Tony Blair over the detention of terror suspects was a triumph for parliamentary democracy.

A rare example of MPs doing precisely what they were elected to do - holding the government to account and making laws based on careful consideration of the arguments rather than blind party loyalty.

But others have accused Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour rebels of gambling with the nation's security to indulge their conscience or to score cheap political points.

So were the MPs who defeated Tony Blair heroes or villains?

WHY THEY WERE HEROES

It was hard for some Labour backbenchers - so often derided as "lobby fodder" unquestioningly supporting every proposal the government comes up with - to disguise their glee on Wednesday.

A quarter of them - including 12 former ministers - had voted against the government.

Not the biggest rebellion in the history of Tony Blair's administration - he faced bigger opposition in his own ranks on the Iraq war and university top-up fees to name just two - but enough, with the government's reduced majority, to inflict a defeat.

If we listened to public opinion, we would bring back hanging tomorrow Diane Abbott, Labour MP

This, surely, is what parliamentary democracy is meant to be about?

MPs scrutinising proposed laws, weighing up the advice of experts and coming to a reasoned conclusion, without fear or favour.

The result was a "renaissance" for parliament, said Labour rebel Paul Flynn.

Former minister Clare Short said she was "proud" of parliament.

MPs were not there to do the bidding of the police, the security services, the prime minister - or even public opinion, said Diane Abbott.

"If we listened to public opinion, we would bring back hanging tomorrow," she told Newsnight.

"We are Parliament. We cannot sub-contract our responsibility on criminal justice policy to the police. We can listen to their advice but at the end of the day MPs have to decide and we have decided. It's what we are there for."

But it was not just Labour's rebel backbenchers who were enjoying the moment.

Today's house of commons is frequently decried for its poodle-like nature - but yesterday [Wednesday] the poodle roared Daily Telegraph

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy called the result "a good day for parliamentary democracy".

The press, for the most part, were in agreement.

"Today's house of commons is frequently decried for its poodle-like nature. But yesterday [Wednesday] the poodle roared," thundered the Daily Telegraph in an editorial.

The Independent said the debate "showed Parliament at its best", adding "Parliament - to the great credit of the MPs who yesterday [Wednesday] followed their conscience - is coming back into its own".

The Guardian called it "a good day for parliamentary democracy".

Only The Times, among the broadsheets, attempted to introduce a note of realism, saying: "Political romantics yearn for the days of the primacy of the Commons but, in truth, when votes are close the motives of all sides can become grubby."

WHY THEY WERE VILLAINS

Those who voted with the government argued it was all about the issue. Parliament could flex its muscles all it liked but if it meant the nation's security was compromised then it was nothing more than empty posturing or political opportunism.

The Sun newspaper, on its Thursday front page, summed up its feelings about MPs who voted against the government in one word: "Traitors".

It said MPs had "betrayed" the public, the majority of whom according to opinion polls backed Mr Blair, and "humiliated" Tony Blair.

"Their act of treachery is a betrayal of the war on terrorism," the paper said in its editorial.

The reality is we have denied the police and security services the tools they say they need to keep the country safe Shahid Malik, Labour MP

"When we needed MPs the most they deserted us," it concluded.

Labour's Shahid Malik, who voted with the government, said it was Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs who should be examining their consciences.

"The reality is we have denied the police and security services the tools they say they need to keep the country safe. I don't consider this a defeat, because I think we stood by our principles and did the right thing."

Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who said he had wanted to reach a consensus on the detention limit, said he thought many of the Labour MPs who voted against it were following their conscience, based on long-held concerns over civil liberties.

There is a worrying gap between parts of Parliament and the reality of the terrorist threat and public opinion Tony Blair

He thought they were wrong, but, he suggested, they were entitled to their view.

On Thursday, Tony Blair told the Cabinet he believed some MPs were seriously out of step with public opinion on the issue.

He told ministers there was a "worrying gap between parts of Parliament and the reality of the terrorist threat and public opinion".

Throughout the debate Mr Blair insisted it was not about his own personal authority.

The public, the police, the security services had all wanted 90 day detention - who were MPs to ignore this expert advice?

"Let's send out a signal from this house that when it comes to defeating terrorism we are going to give the police the powers they need," Mr Blair said at prime minister's questions on Wednesday.

But it was all to no avail - and Mr Blair was left trying to occupy the moral high ground, saying it was better to lose and be right, than to win and be wrong.