Tony Blair May Soon Be Impeached

[shraby]

MPs organising the campaign to impeach Tony Blair believe they have enough support to force a highly damaging Commons investigation into the Prime Minister's pre-war conduct.
A renewed attempt to impeach Blair over claims he misled parlia ment in making his case for war against Iraq, will be made in the Commons within the next two weeks.

The impeachment process effectively stalled last year when just 23 MPs signed a Commons motion. But the scale of the government's defeat on its anti-terror legislation last week - where 49 Labour MPs rebelled - has galvanised the momentum for proceedings to be invoked.

Organisers say they are expecting 200 cross-party signatures, including those of former government ministers, to force the Commons to set up a Privy Council investigation that would examine in detail the case for impeachment against Blair.

The size of the Labour revolt, allied to unified opposition benches, is said to have changed the climate inside the Commons.

SNP leader, Alex Salmond, one of the key figures in the impeachment campaign, said he now believed that the cross-party attempt to bring the government to account over the Iraq war "would become more urgent than predicted problems associated with social legislation in England and Wales".

(more)

<http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/12/215628/90>

[KingFlorez]

1. Uh-oh

Somebody is in big trouble

[Kagemusha]

2. That doesn't sound right.

Don't they have like, votes of confidence in the government, the PM falls with the government? Impeaching him separately would be very... odd... even if technically possible...

[Robert Cooper]

33. A few details

You are correct, the PM and his/her party stand or fall on the results of non-coinfidence motions (and whenever they lose a vote on a money bill).

A party can chose to hold a leadership convention and replace the leader. It almost never happens to a sitting PM (I've never heard of it).

To my knowledge, short of a conviction for a crime, no sitting member of parliament can be removed.

From what I read, Paliament is not set to "impeach" Blair, but is trying to hold an investigation that would lead to a vote of non-confidence in the Blair government.

[mrfrapp]

48. Thatcher?

"A party can chose to hold a leadership convention and replace the leader. It almost never happens to a sitting PM (I've never heard of it)."

Margaret Thatcher was ousted as leader of the Tory party whilst she was Prime Minister.

[Robert Cooper]

58. Thanks for the reminder

It must have been jogging through my brain somewhere, because I was going to write "it never happens..."

It's still a very unusual practice in a parliamentary democracy. Usually PMs see the writing on the wall and resign, rather than be forced out.

[MarianJack]

73. I Loved What happened When Thatcher Was Tossed!

She came to the House of Commons for her final speech, the Tories gave her a RESOUNDING ovation, and when they finished and sat down, a Labour MP yelled "HYPOCRITES!"

[Inland]

65. Question:

What makes a vote a no-confidence vote? Is it a separate type of vote, or is it some piece of legislation that is so important everyone understands it as such, or is it a piece of ordinary legislation that Blair points to and says that he will call elections if it doesn't pass?

[EuroObserver]

71. Few votes could be more serious:

A 'motion of confidence' is presented to the House of Commons, which basically proposes: "this House has no confidence in the present Government". There is a debate and then a vote. If the majority vote agrees with the motion, an immediate General Election is the inevitable outcome.

[Inland]

79. Thanks. nt

[Robert Cooper]

75. Addendum to EuroObserver

In Canada we have a precedent that considers the defeat of government money bills to be matters of non-confidence. Defeat a budget and by precedent the government must call for an election. Britain might be different (they may consider other bills as matters of non-confidence).

Bear in mind that in some countries this is extremely difficult to do. Here in Canada we usually end up with a "majority government", where sufficient numbers of one party are elected to out-vote all other parties combined. However, right now and for the foreseeable future we have a "minority government", where the ruling party can only continue to rule for as long as it has support from other parties. Unlike Israel, our system does not encourage coalition governments with members of the cabinet coming from two or more parties.

Our governing party (Liberals) have been supported by the New Democrats. However, the NDP (New Democrats) have put the Liberals on notice that they will no longer be supported. There are no other likely alliances, so it is very likely we are heading for an election in the new year.

The Conservatives, Bush-league Bushies, are the next most-popular party, and the Liberals have been caught in a messy corruption scandal involving the previous PM. The Liberals have been ruling since we just about extinguished Conservatism in Canada since they passed the Free Trade Agreement (you may recall our Mulroney kissing up to your Reagan, that far back).

In Canada, one never really knows what to expect from an election.

A little bit more:
Canadian Liberal: Centrist Democrat
Canadian New Democrat: Leftist Democrat
Canadian Conservative: The Hydra's latest head, Freeperville-wannabes
Bloc Quebecois: proof we're a civilized people, secessionists representing Quebec's nationalistic aspirations

[Inland]

80. Thanks. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. They have used the procedrue, just not too often

the last PM to be impeached was in the 19th century

[EuroObserver]

72. Yes. 1806. Summary of legal history and opinion here:

(.pdf) http://www.impeachblair.org/downloads/Legal_Opinion_final_22.09.04.pdf

Impeach Blair campaign website: http://www.impeachblair.org/

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. This is going to be lovely for jr. The evidence will be interesting

[DearAbby]

5. Yes interesting indeed...pre-war intelligence and all...wonder how

much of a ripple will be felt here across the pond? Tidal wave? Tsunami?

[ClayZ]

22. Just as I read this, the wind started blowing,

and birds began coughing as they flew by. heh heh... argh!

[Art_from_Ark]

35. Did you happen to notice if any *pigs* were flying by?

[Demeter]

68. Don't Know About Pigs, But Hell Is Freezing Over As We Think

and about time, too. Global warming had to be good for something.

[merbex]

34. Tsunami aimed right at Washington

Now if we can just get the Corporate Media to report on it

[calimary]

24. True. The evidence will be MOST interesting, and relevant to this side

of the pond as well. In fact, it'll be most thoughtful of the Brits to do some of our advance work for us.

[HereSince1628]

37. Yes, the coalition of the yellowcake. Old KGB'ers are undoubtedly

pissed that years of their efforts failed while an ambition for war on the part of some wacked out hangers-on from the 1970 Team B'ers and the ineptness of the Italians at handling forgeries is poised to take down the dominant governments of the English speaking world.

[Dangerously Amused]

41. Thoughtful...

"...it'll be most thoughtful of the Brits to do some of our advance work for us."

Thoughtful, intelligent, moral, intellectually honest...

Leave it to the Brits to put us to shame showing us how democracy works by ousting their leader while our monster continues to run wild and wreak havoc. How is it they're able to make justice happen while we can't? Oh yeah... we have Diebold


.

[shadowknows69]

38. The spin from the * admin. should be hilarious

In a scary and pathetic way.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I wonder what would happen if/when it happens

if he'll spill the beans on Bush?

[LoKnLoD]

6. Not if he wants

to keep that job with Carlyle that he has been promised.

[Canuckistanian]

25. OMG, that's right...

He's in with the cabal, isn't he? Right up to his eyeballs, isn't he?

Oh, this should be good. The more he stonewalls, the uglier the mood is going to be in the UK.

To be dragged down with the anchor that Commander Bunnypants put around his neck is... delicious.

:evilgrin:





edited to add evil grin

[Dangerously Amused]

43. I'm never thrilled to demonstrate my ignorance, but...

he was promised a job with Carlyle? Really?

Holy sh!t!

How did I miss THAT?!?

[wryter2000]

47. Yup, that happened

I don't have a link, but it was pretty widely reported.

[Dangerously Amused]

77. Thanks. I'll have to poke around the internets a bit. /nt

[LoKnLoD]

56. The original article has been removed from

the London Mirror. But here is another link from PrisonPlanet

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/250805blairexpected.htm

[Dangerously Amused]

76. Thank you. /nt

[0007]

61. Wants to sit next to John Major at the big Carlyle Group meetings

and rub shoulders with Margaret.

[kansasblue]

7. It's different but the British model means that it's very important if....

you lose a MP vote like he just did. A bill that he sponsored failed in Parliament. That is a VERY BIG DEAL over there. Now he looks weak and the Parliament moves in for the kill. Blair may soon be out in the UK. In a way that's another government falling because of the war.

[AspenRose]

8. Which means Bunnypants going down in flames over here....

isn't far behind...

:bounce:

[GrumpyGreg]

9. Do they use the term "impeach" politically in the UK?

[shraby]

11. I have no idea, that was the heading at dailykos. n/t

[Liberty Belle]

15. Yes, check this: http://www.impeachblair.org/

[EuroObserver]

31. It appears to be an relatively archaic term in UK,

although a lot of Anglo-Saxon law and especially the so-called (unwritten) constitution (read precedent and custom) is quite ancient yet can still be applied.

The proposal seems to call for a Parliamentary Inquiry, which could probably vote to take further steps, such as a full parliamentary vote of no-confidence (possibly leading to a General Election) if BLiar doesn't resign first.

Before then, however, the Labour Party would most likely force him out, replacing him with a new leader (read George Brown) and therefore PM.

And... yes, criminal proceedings, including international criminal proceedings, are always a distinct possibility, even for a sitting PM...

I'm no expert though.

I myself certainly consider that BLiar's crimes are serious enough for such drastic measures. Also bear in mind that he has alienated some very powerful 'establishment' constituencies: from large sectors of his own party, through the civil service (administration) especially the Foreign Office, to the military including top military brass.

Although the establishment usually closes ranks in order to protect itself, BLiar does appear to have converted himself into quite an outsider, what with one thing and another.

Certainly, look for more interesting data (a la DSM) emerging...

[malaise]

36. No they don't

The truth is that if Blair and senior labour suspect that he'll lose a no confidence vote, he'll resign and let the cabinet appoint a new PM so that Labour can stay in power. I don't expect fundamental change from a Gordon Brown led Labour Party.

Does anyone here know who are the new emerging leaders among the social democrats in the party. Unless the social democrats in the party take over leadership and form an alliance with the libdems and greens, it will be same old same old. Like the Democratic party in the US, Labour has turned sharply to the right.

[mrfrapp]

51. Yes they do

Impeachment _is_ a term used in UK politics but hasn't been used since 1806 so it's a rare event. You're right however, the likely outcome is Blair resigning. Even Blair isn't so stubborn as to stay put if an impeachment or a no-confidence vote is on the immediate horizon.

"he'll resign and let the cabinet appoint a new PM so that Labour can stay in power"

The cabinet will not appoint a new PM. It has nothing to do with them. The Labour Party leader is elected by the party as a whole not just the cabinet. Individual members of the cabinet vote of course but they have no more influence than any other member of the party. Once the leader has been elected, the Queen will annoint the new leader as prime minister.

[Robert Cooper]

59. This was bound to occur

It's unusual for an out-going PM to rule right till the day of an election. They usually step down mid-term at some point to make way for the new leader who will take the party into the next general election.

Labour must feel that time is now, given Blair's poor performance over his terror laws.

The real question is whether his replacement will toe the line on Iraq or bow to public pressure. It has always struck me as odd to think of Labour as the "war party", so I'm going to go with bowing to public pressure. Still...given the number of members who supported Blair, it might not be so easy to retrace those steps.

Bush has to be worried. He lost Spain to regime change. Will he now lose Britain (and soon Italy) for the same reason?

We can only hope.

[malaise]

89. I agree that the Labour party itself will

elect a new leader but aren't the Cabinet members the most influential group in the party at this time.

[stillrockin]

10. This is great news.

I look forward to SOMEONE doing an investigation on the run-up to war.

[wryter2000]

49. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[TahitiNut]

12. Sounds like Labour wants to move left.

I'm betting that their agenda is to put Gordon Brown in as PM long enough in advance of the next election that they can maintain their majority and give Brown a running start.

On the other hand, it may be what I'm smoking. :smoke:

[julianer]

29. Either I'm smoking the same stuff

or you're right!

[EuroObserver]

32. Mental note:

Must sow some seeds come the spring.

[texpatriot2004]

13. Glad to hear it. nm

[slybacon9]

14. ka

BOOOOOM!!!

[Catamount]

16. If this really happens...

Will it have a ripple effect and pull shrub and Howard down too?

[Matilda]

26. I don't think it will have any effect on Howard, unfortunately.

Although he undoubtedly lied, Australia's Iraqi force is only a
token, and while a couple of soldiers have died, it's hardly
made a ripple. And all those people who voted him back in last
year don't seem to give a damn that they voted for a lying little
rodent anyway - as long as the economy continues to do well, he's
safe.


Edit: spelling

[ElkHunter]

17. I'd love to see it happen...

...the Labour party has won elections under Blair but lost it's soul under his direction and leadership.

[flyarm]

18. i believe it would be like canada ..a "vote of no confidence"..is what

its called..but i am not as sure about britian..but canadian equivelant to impeach is a "vote of no confidence" in parliment.

fly

[autorank]

19. Wales is persistent...waiting for this...time to make a move...LOL Tony

Yes Tony, you are not invincible. You may have a warm seat on the Carlyle Group board but it will be less decorous if you're humiliated in Parliament.

How would that look...Here is our representative, former Prime Minister Blair, the only PM to be impeached in several hundred years. Watch him rip the head off a chicken ... wait, that's the job of "The Geek." Get used to it Tony, you're going to become a side show.

[jillan]

20. Well dam - there goes Bsh's only friend.

Maybe they can hang out in jail together?!

[RagingInMiami]

21. At least liberal politicians in the UK have balls.

[Endangered Specie]

27. Doesn't hurt that they have had more seats now

than in the last 100 years. :)

[calimary]

23. Watch And Learn, ladies and gentlemen. Watch. And. Learn.

Might be a harbinger of things to come here, too. Another brick in the wall. IMPEACHMENT for tony blair was once considered unthinkable, too, or impossible because he had too many allies in the corridors of power at his back.

THINGS CHANGE, GUYS.

If tony b. goes down, why not georgie b. as well?

[upi402]

28. Churn dirt to find worms!

Will this bring light to the dark closets of the Whitehouse?

[BEYOND TREASON]

30. I hope they

have enough support to force an investigation.

[ProSense]

39. Buh-bye B-liar! n/t

[PATRICK]

40. Over here it would be deal time

finally forcing Blair to resign his leadership in exchange for letting him off the worst hook. Even Nixon still had to sweat out a pardon from Ford so it could still be a bad time after resignation were it not that the majority party is his own and would like to put all the responsibility on Blair's shoulders.

It will take a massive crowbar to get him out, but I hope he does not evade accountability to the full in the process.

[Festivito]

42. Gee, Bush arguments depended on British Intelligence.

...and now those arguments are in jeopardy.

Hmmm.

[EuroObserver]

53. Um, I think that since many years now Brit (international) intel

has come to depend on a hell of a lot of (mostly selected by US) US intel cherry-picked and stovepiped our way. Sorry, I mean their way <grin>. They need access to some of your more expensive technological assets so much.

That's not to say they don't try to do a little of their own thing on their own account from time to time, however - including especially some decent-quality humint where plausibly possible.

Also, I'd certainly expect there to be some more serious efforts being made to cooperate to a degree at the European level these days...

[Festivito]

82. Bush (having nothing to reveal himself) said the Brits had the intel.

I recall listening carefully to his long ghost-written logic. His point was that Brits had the intel, and that's why we needed to "liberate" Iraq, even if our people could not find the certitude in our own intel.

Now it is clear that the Brits did not and do not have that intel. That's why I made a sarcastic "Gee." BUSH HAD NOTHING. I'm more certain that Kelly was suicided and neo-cons had plans to plant WMDs, but failed.

I don't know intelligence interdependence between Britain, US, and Europe. Just that, as far as Iraq is concerned, Brits will move justly far quicker than US.

Careful of Spanish, it dominates other languages in ones own thinking. Mucha suerte. ¿Que es "humint?" ¿Government?
Ciao

[EuroObserver]

83. Humint = 'human intelligence'

ie. that obtained by communicating with people rather than machines :)

And, yes, you're right there Festivito: the Spanish language slips quite naturally, fluidly, through the mind...

Pero el inglés es más contundente, ¿no?

[Festivito]

98. "Human," just would not come to me. Thanks.

¿Más Contundente? I don't know. Not to underestimate the power of a still small clear fluid voice, all the contrivences in the world cannot quiet, and in ones last breath, ultimate friend or ultimate foe.

Goodly observations and effective revelations similar soul.

[Chicago1]

44. Gee so sooooooooooooooooooooooon????

Why we would of never put two and two together or seen this one coming.

Don't worry, the Bushies will give old Tony a job somewhere in their mafia..oh wait..they're all going to jail or sentenced to the death penalty.

I have a short memory! Silly me...

[haydukelives]

45. Tic-Toc

Do you hear that George?

[glitch]

63. I would love to see that start appearing on walls and freeway blogs

Tic-Toc

[lonestarnot]

46. Woooohoooo damn!

[wryter2000]

50. OMFG

My poor, old heart can't take much more. But, please don't stop...DON'TSTOPDON'TSTOPDON'TSTOP! :evilgrin:

Will George Galloway get to testify?

This is the death knell for the Chimperor. An honest to God investigation. The whole evil plot will come out, and there's nothing Frist and Hastert can do to prevent it.

:popcorn:

[aquart]

60. If it's as good as the David Kelly investigation, don't get so hopeful.

[DirtyDawg]

52. Paint 'em into a corner...

...bushco's latest 'talking point' response to the criticism of geedubya and the boys and girls having 'misled', 'cherry-picked', etc., etc., etc., us into this damn war is to claim with righteous indignation 'that to accuse the President of LYING to the American people about going into this war is simply outrageous and beyond reason'...

Well boys, the Democrats have been somewhat 'conservative' in their choice of words and, to my knowledge, I haven't heard any of the demo leadership actually using the 'L' word. Now that bushies handlers have made that the issue, and the more the evidence piles up - guarantee you the news from a Blair Impeachment trial will implicate geedubyabush up to his beady eyes - they, repigs will have nowhere to go...other than continued denials in which case they can forget about ever being re-elected to anything for the next 20 years...they will have painted themselves into that corner where they'll indeed have no choice but to jettison the SOB and his entire bunch sooner rather than later.

And if John McCain, the manipulating weasel, expects to be named to fill the top spot, I say nail his sorry-ass too. Don't know what our options are - holding special elections, or if we'll just have to go along with Senate approvals of their choices...hardly a desirable prospect...but I'm willing to give it a try. We can't do any worse.

[eppur_se_muova]

101. "…I haven't heard any of the demo leadership actually using the 'L' word."

A flash of guilty conscience there?

"Methinks thou doth protest too much…"

[reality based]

54. Keep in mind that British officials were very concerned about the

legality of this war. They are painfully aware that they can be sent to the Hague.

[WiseButAngrySara]

64. And the U.S. officials cannot? If not, how are these criminals protected?

n/t

[EuroObserver]

74. Protected by the US legal system, it seems.

(And threats of sending in the Marines, etc...).

Seriously, the US has signed or ratified few important international treaties (the latest being that on the International Criminal Court), and the Bush-Cheney gang is I believe on record as believing that the USA is for some reason the only country in the world to which International Law should never, ever, apply.

[WiseButAngrySara]

78. The I.C.C. I thought so. This amoral 'logic' will bite them in the

buttocks, I sincerely hope!

[tritsofme]

81. Federal law now requires the POTUS to use "any means necessary"

to recover any American nationals from the ICC.

[WiseButAngrySara]

84. Well, can POTUS save himself from the War Crimes he committed?

He should be tried in the Hague as a War Criminal! Has he completely immunized himself against such action?

[tritsofme]

85. Since we are not a party to the Rome Treaty

The ICC technically has no jurisdiction.

Also I'm not sure of the diplomatic immunity a sitting head of state might have.

[Independent_Liberal]

55. Excellent!

This is definitely a step in the right direction!

:)

[lovuian]

57. Oh Ya Blair is toast but this will weaken the Labour party

tremendously watch out for Kennedy and the Lib Dems

they will be coming on strong and may be the new prime minister when said and done!!!

[EuroObserver]

69. - Accidentally duped-

[EuroObserver]

70. As long as Kennedy and the Lib Dems

get themselves into a position (eg. in a coalition, for a start) to make electoral reform happen as promised - beginning with European-style proportional representation, which would usher in a much more nuanced, properly representative politics, they would get my (for now moral) support.

Actually, my own case is that I am completely disenfranchised where it most counts at present. Although resident in the EU (where national parliaments and ministers still wield the greatest power) I have no right to vote in national parliamentary election neither in the UK (my country of nationality) nor in Spain (my country of residence). I can only vote in local Spanish municipal elections where I live (like, the US county level) and in elections for the EU parliament (again, from my local Spanish constituency). But when there was a referendum recently in Spain on the proposed EU 'constitution', I had no vote. And yes, I have begun to campaign about this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. If you have been registered to vote in the UK anytime in the past 15 years

you should be able to vote in a British general election in the last constituency you were resident in (or if you turned 18 in the last 15 years after you moved to Spain).

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/n6w/index/your_rights/civil_rights/voting_procedures.htm#Overseas_voters

It doesn't say that only applies to non-EU countries, just "overseas". If you turned 18 in the UK, but never registered here, then you are out of luck (but in theory you should have registered by law, so you have yourself to blame). If you've been there over 15 years, isn't about time you thought of becoming a Spanish citizen?

[EuroObserver]

88. Yes, but I wasn't.

(No point voting in the places I was living in the UK). However, I was not aware of any legal obligation to register on any electoral roll in the UK.

--> The situation for EU residents should now be different anyway. Probably, the most just arrangement would be for one to have the right to vote at all levels, as a citizen of the EU, in the country of one's residence - since one participates in society there, receives social services there, pays one's taxes there...

(But this is a subject for different thread elsewhere...)

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Yes, you are meant to register by law

Though if you never got to see the registration form where you lived (if someone else filled it in without telling you, or threw it away) you'd probably have an excuse they might accept.

You are required by law to register to vote, even if you do not intend to vote. If you do not register or you give false information, you could be fined £1,000.

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/service/elections/electoralregistration/

Not only is it used for voting, it's also used for selecting juries from - which may be why they say everyone has to be registered.

I'd agree that it would seem reasonable to allow EU residents to vote in their country of residence (if they give up their vote back home, as they have to for EU parliament elections).

[Demeter]

66. WOW

Just wow. That will show the "moderate" GOPpers what to do, won't it? Not to mention the fraidy cats on the other side of the aisle.

[GreenArrow]

67. couldn't happen to a nicer guy

The sooner the better, good riddance to that simpering, sanctimonious, phoney prig.

[rocktivity]

87. Cue the Vonage theme, eh what!

This is WAY good news simply because it puts impeachment on the table!

:woohoo:
rocknation

[Kolesar]

91. A small victory for bush* -- he destroys the Labor party leader

T. S. Blair

[jmowreader]

92. It appears there's a difference between No Confidence and Impeachment

A Vote of No Confidence is used when they think their leader is a bad leader.

A Vote of Impeachment is used when they think he's a criminal.

This case definitely falls on the "criminal" side of it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. Several differences

'No confidence' is against the government - it causes a general election. It's also been done fairly recently - it ended a minority Labour government in 1979.

Impeachment is, as you say, for criminal or "breaking fundamental rules of government"-type things. I think the last attempt, which didn't get very far, was against the Foreign Secretary about 1850 for signing a secret treaty with another country.

[jmowreader]

99. In a parliamentary system, "against the government"...

and "against the leader" are basically the same thing.

Over there you don't really vote for prime minister. You vote for the Labour, Liberal, Pot or whatever party. Let's say the Pot Party is running Ashleigh Roachclip. What they're really saying is that, if the Pot Party gets the majority in the House of Commons, they'll install Ashleigh Roachclip as PM.

This is totally different from the US system, because we have separation of powers.

Anyway, if they do impeach Tony Blair the repercussions against Bush could be devastating.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Not quite - if the problem is purely with the party leader

then the leader would resign, the party would appoint a new leader, and they would carry on as the government. That's what happened with Thatcher, for instance (though that wasn't illegal behaviour, just bloody stupid policies that she insisted on). In the case of this potential impeachment, I accept that any criticism of Blair's conduct is almost certain to apply as well to other government ministers, such as the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, and so there would be a case for saying the whole lot ought to go, and a new election held.

[StellaBlue]

93. To illuminate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeach_Blair_campaign

Impeach Blair campaign

On August 26, 2004, a cross-party group of British MPs announced their intention to seek to impeach the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair for high crimes and misdemeanours.

Recently calls have also been made to impeach the US President, George W. Bush and alleged evidence of the collusion between the two leaders has surfaced.

Unlike in the US (where President Clinton was impeached for his sexual conduct), the UK impeachment attempt first had to establish that impeachment was even viable in modern politics. Although the motion was tabled and therefore accepted as in order, many authorities considered that nevertheless the procedure had in practice fallen into disuse. As in the US, the chances of actually getting the impeachment heard are very slim; given the nature of the United Kingdom as a Parliamentary democracy, the chances of actually impeaching an incumbent Prime Minister with a majority in the House of Commons are vanishingly small.

(snip)

The power to impeach a British Prime Minister last used in 1806 and the current campaign has little chance of actual success and many labour MPs have accused it of being a publicity stunt. However the campaign is as much about galvanising public opinion against Blair as it is about actually achieving Impeachment. To this end as well as asking members of the public to ask their Mps to support the campaign, a public petition has been launched.

(snip)

There is much more in the article, too. When I was still in the UK, as of June, this was not something that seemed viable at all, realistically. I hope it is, but I think it's mostly a newly-empowered media going more openly for Blair on the Iraq issue since his defeat on the terror bill. As opposed to them going after his wife for being ugly or uppity or shopping too much. Or going after him for being the 'King of Spin'. When I was there, I never heard much at all about this 'impeachment' thing in the British MSM. In fact, most of the stuff I saw about it was in posts here on DU! haha

[occuserpens]

94. Nope, his impeachment is a delusion

[StellaBlue]

95. And poor, silly Tony

He is subject to that pesky ICC.

[evermind]

97. Inquiry - possibly. Impeachment - doubtful.

I think the diarist is confusing support for an inquiry from the impeachment campaign with support for impeachment from those wanting an inquiry.

Check this Times article from a week ago

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1859669,00.html

There is cross-party support for an inquiry into Blair's deceptions prior to the war (unlike the Butler inquiry, etc., it should have the ability to compel testimony, and have a realistic brief - i.e. it's hostile to Blairco.)

It's still unlikely the conservative opposition would get behind an impeachment process, though. They see it as outmoded, and are probably scared of it being applied to their own future leaders (heck, if every conservative prime minister who lied to parliament got impeached, they'd run out of prime ministers pretty quickly!)

An inquiry taking evidence under oath, with substantial "subpoena power", and aimed at the Blair inner circle would still be a great thing, though. Let's hope it happens!