IS Tony Blair Going To resign? Should He Resign After Dr Kelly's Suicide?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

i can't think of anything like this since 1963 or so, when stephen ward took an overdose during the profumo case, which was an idiotic sex-and-drugs scandal: ie the specific context was nothing like so serious

weird as this may sound, blair is a chink in the bush armour, i think — i'm not sure if i can explain why i feel this though

If theres a FULL judicial inquiry into the whole Iraq war then Blair will have to step aside to prevent the tories getting in. If there isnt a full judicial inquiry then perhaps the media will further stick the boot in. They clearly (with bizarrely the exception of The Sun) seem to have come out against the government.

Nothing shall happen as yet , i'm sure the government will hope Alistair Campbell resigning (its bound to happen) and Geoff Hoon resigning will be enough. The problem for Blair is that he may have lost the trust of the country.
I just wonder if Blair will then forget about his 'special relationship' with Bush and blame the usa for it all. Will Bush even back up Blair? Mark my words, this is going to run and run for a very long time. Can the Labour Government under Blair survive intense scrutiny?

the sun is pro-blair still bcz the murdoch newsgroup is so militantly anti the bbc, possibly?

the question of whether bush is required to back blair or not is exactly why blair may be a chink in bush's armour, actually: i think after blair's lauded speech to congress this week that he HAS to, except if blair is going to go down anyway, bush has to wash his hands instead => either way, there's blowback

As for the Sun/Murdoch comment I hadnt thought of that but its a very valid point. Wasnt the Fox News channel condemned for being all gung ho and pro war? Lord help us if any news channel here ever became like that.

America has its freedom of speech in the constitution, we have the BBC. We must defend it.

I think Bush will drop Blair if he becomes a liability. They already blamed intelligence report mistakes on the UK in congress.

I'm just awaiting what will happen next.

(ie people can fight and die in far-off countries and that can very clearly be set on one side as a "tragic but inevitable consequence of hard choices", but this — though in absolute human terms no worse than any civilian death in a war — is so completely not the kind of consequence most politicians would have an internal distancing mantra for...)

(and if he DOES find a way to cope, how will the spectacle of the coping strike the watching voters.... ?)

(I was going to say 'MAJOR play ho ho thanks bartender')

Will it strengthen the clamour for the truth about Iraq in the us presidential elections or are the public firmly behind the war due to sept 11? The public here were against it on the whole. Some then changed their minds but now feel lied to. How is Blair going to cope with that?

(i don't mean that it's not important in an abstract sense, i mean that i think events are now turning round a wider set of things, including the govt's obsession with information control generally, which has always been unpopular and unattractive, and its out-of-control ability to start fights on new and unnecessary fronts... it has just for example lost itself the full and undivided loyalty of every anonymous middle-ranking govt-related civil servant; there will be pro forma loyalty still in ordinary workaday circs, but nothing above and beyond the call of unthreatening duty... )

he ain't going nowhere
-- James Blount (littlejohnnyjewe...), July 19th, 2003.

I agree with matt BUT there is going to be an inquiry and if someone does get the blame, or if something is found that sticks to Blair then it is a possibility. It is reasonable to guess that nothing will be found.

Also it is a reasonable guess to say that someone will get the blame and that person will prob resign.

except now blair using words like "shameful" has a built-in backfire mechanism (the comeback is: "shameful compared to what?", and anyone can use it) — i think there's a whole tranche of blairish discourse which has just been rendered actively catastrophic, but the use of it is just basic to who he believes he is

this event has given *any* group which decides to stand against him, over whatever political issue, a point of moral outrage they can share with any other group, quite above ordinary party politics

the thing abt campbell's actual on-camera anger is that it validates everyone else's: he took everyone's gloves off => yes everyone may swallow hard and just put them back on again, ESPECIALLY in the face of a "massive governmental shrug"

one of the judgments this govt has continually made is that this or that "enemy" group — farmers, rural lobby, truckers, medical profession, teachers, trade unionists, police, rogue backbenchers, tories, anti-war movement, pensioners, journalists, intelligence services, legal profession — are each of them small enough to fuck over w/o consequence, and cannot/will not combine => this will go on being true until it stops being true obv, but with each battle, most of them conducted with a respectless contempt for the stupidity of the foe, the core of undefined "middle england" voters that nu-labour claims to be "for", against these "special interest groups" is smaller and that much more vaguely (and negatively) defined ("none of the above")

re thatcher: before the falklands war the extremes of recession had driven tory popularity down to election-losing levels EVEN WITH MICHAEL FOOT HEADING THE OPPOSITION: a bolt of jingoism turned this round totally (inc. i guess a goodly portion of "wartime spirit" for older voters — "we know to suffer now bcz it's worth it in the end")

so yes the economy but not in a simple sense, i don't think

re thatcher also: remember when she was caused to go — she couldn't imagine having to do so, right up until the hour she was actually leaving (the brilliant spooky photo of her actually in shadow in the car, flashlight glinting off her tear-filled eyes)

she was impregnable right up until the moment she wasn't: it was like a strange dream unfolding

the thing abt campbell's actual on-camera anger is that it validates everyone else's: he took everyone's gloves off => yes everyone may swallow hard and just put them back on again, [insert: BUT WILL THEY REALLY?] ESPECIALLY in the face of a "massive governmental shrug"

i think matt is right that blair may somehow wriggle through even this, but there is a price to pay, and i think it may be even higher than the one the tories are still paying — what i don't even faintly know is how that price will manifest

< / buffy theory of everything >

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

bah i chickened out yesterday and did not say in time that i wondered if the reason kelly killed himself wz bcz some element of his inquiry evidence wz untrue, and he could not bear the (private) shame

Cant see Gordon Brown ever getting in. Our tabloids and broadsheets are always complaining about scots MP's voting on english matters when they have their own parliament, so imagine the outcry if we had a scottish prime minister. Also look at how the broadsheets (and daily mail) treated the speaker purely because he was a working class scot.

tories in continued disarray = more leeway to experiment safely with alternatives (unless you really actually also believe that blair is the ONLY reason labour has been winning)

anyway, every argument that the party will never ever dare is another excuse for them not to dare, as far as i'm concerned: its's our job to make them confiednt to dare, not talk them out of it, otherwise the gutlessness ends up being ours not theirs ("the govt we deserve" etc etc)

um, are you basically saying that the press basically decide who's gonna be PM (just bcz the press won't satnd for brown doesn't mean he won't get in)? It' surely a combination of factors.

Of course, if he DOES step down, all bets are off.

Blair isnt scottish. He just went to a public school up their.

also the tory party is actually the party of the union, so it has to offload EVEN MORE of its history to take such a line publicly (not so say it won't, but its constant jettisoning of its ruling principles remains a high-risk strategy)

the weird thing is, in all the discussion of brown as next PM i've ever read, i've never once seen the "midlothian question" (zzz) invoked

i think the bottom line is, how deeply public anger connects with enough of the political classes feeling a genuine sense of shame at the pass things have come to: historically, parties have split forever over less

Is the BBC going to be given the blame? Will Campbell & Hoon survive too?
WIll the media back the BBC to stop any government coming down hard on the media at large or will they perhaps blame the BBC in the hope it becomes discredited and loses its independent status?

being attacked by the news of the world is neither here nor there: even it's avid readers don't regard it as a spotless guardian of journalistic values => any paper which attacks it on these grounds is making a rod for its own back next time round (journalists and editors are a special interest group also, and many will be more clannish on this issue than their employers might wish them to be)

being "discredited" by peter mandelson = a get-out-of-jail-free card, surely? (haha unless j.archer steps up to the mike)

the govt can maybe attack him as having not told the truth at the enquiry, of course, but not w/o looking rubbish themselves: they introduced the whistleblowers' charter after all

Perhaps the government spin machine is going to try to focus away from the suicide and turn it into a battle against the BBC.

He's irretrievably damaged but will soldier on. I don't think the electorate's hostility to the Tories is now as strong as other posters imply - I suspect they have been substantially forgiven but are regarded as unelectable because they don't have the chaps. So Blair will probably win the next election, but his majority will be small and most of his party and much of the country, not just on the right, will loathe him. I don't think he will be able to govern effectively - the right will be rejoicing this weekend, not least because this episode effectively wrecks any prospect of the UK joining the Euro. Blair was the only chance and he will no longer be able to impose his will on an issue so big and so controversial.

I see a similarity with Major's last administration, narrow triumph at the General Election followed by an ineffectual staggering from crisis to crisis. Early replacement of Blair will be Labour's only hope of avoiding wipe-out at the election following.

"We wait for the inquiry in terms of what happened leading up to Dr Kelly's death, but I believe that we do not wait to consider the whole way in which the BBC runs its affairs, runs its journalism and is governed.

"I think there are much, much wider questions which have been highlighted by this tragic episode."
"

Here is some of the reaction to the BBC announcement:

Prime Minister, Tony Blair: "I am pleased that the BBC has made this announcement. Whatever the differences, no one wanted this tragedy to happen.

"I know that everyone, including the BBC, have been shocked by it. The independent Hutton Inquiry has been set up, it will establish the facts.

"In the meantime our attitude should be one of respect and restraint, no recrimination, with the Kelly family uppermost in our minds at this time."

MP Gerald Kaufman, chairman of the culture, media and sport committee: "The way the BBC have conducted themselves throughout raises the need for consideration of the governance of the BBC and the way the BBC deals with news.

"We wait for the inquiry in terms of what happened leading up to Dr Kelly's death, but I believe that we do not wait to consider the whole way in which the BBC runs its affairs, runs its journalism and is governed.

"I think there are much, much wider questions which have been highlighted by this tragic episode."

Peter Mandelson, a key ally of Mr Blair: "This statement is a difficult one for the BBC to have made and is welcome as far as it goes.

"It begs a whole series of questions and I am mystified why the BBC has not gone all the way in accepting the original facts of the story were wrong.

"I expect it is only a matter of time and in the meantime I think the Government should not do or say more vis-a-vis the BBC and leave it to Lord Justice Hutton."

Dr Kelly's local MP, Robert Jackson: "If they (the BBC) had made this statement while Dr Kelly was alive, I believe he would still be alive and I think the chairman of the BBC board of governors should resign over this matter.

"I believe Gavyn Davies knew Dr Kelly's name and he clearly misled his governors in telling them that this was a senior intelligence source."

MP Eric Illsley, a Labour member of the foreign affairs committee: "I think the BBC has got to look at itself long and hard now after Andrew Gilligan's latest evidence to the foreign affairs committee last Thursday."

Mr Illsley said the allegation that Mr Campbell inserted the 45-minute claim into the Iraq dossier now appeared to have been "fabricated".

He added: "It is my view, and I think it is the view of other members of my committee, that this is made up."

Investigative journalist and friend of Dr Kelly, Tom Mangold: "Does the BBC believe these allegations (against the Government)to be true? Does the BBC still believe these allegations were true?"

He added: "Where is the supporting evidence? It did not come from Kelly, where did it come from?"

Rod Liddle, former editor of the BBC's Today programme: "You do not name your source. It's an absolutely fundamental tenant. Who would trust any journalist if he caved in to pressure from the Government to root out their source?

"I'm not sure even now that it was a great idea to name him now. It merely leaves Dr Kelly more open to attack or to questions about what he actually did say to Andrew Gilligan.

"These are things he can't answer for himself any more, which is sad. The whole affair stinks.

"There's no doubt in my mind that Alastair Campbell should go. I can't see any way that he can continue. People don't trust him."

They're saying the BBC's entire current structure is under threat. The whole public funding and public service remit is under threat.
They now say its been proved that Alistair Campbell is innocent and will be exonerated.
Some senior resignations at the BBC is expected.

The BBC seem to be carrying the can for it all.
However the Ministry Of Defence faces severe questions too and resignations are expected there. Geoff Hoon maybe.

Tomorrow's headlines are going to be once-in-a-generation: I might buy all the papers!!

The "fact" at the centre of all this is the still frankly idiotic "ready for launch in 45 minutes": if you believe — as Kelly may well have — that this entered the story as the result of a misconception, or of someone hearing what they deseperately wanted to hear, then it's not actually that hard to imagine a siuation where Kelly speculated abt how the misconception arose and Gilligan somewhat heard what HE wanted to hear, which is that the idea originated with Campbell or whoever.

Has it been established where "45 minutes" did come from or what Kelly thought of it?

As for tomorrows papers I fully expect The Sun to back Blair and launch an attack against the BBC(its in Murdochs interest) But quite what the other papers will do I have no idea. The tory leaning papers will surely attack Blair , but the BBC is no friend of theirs.

Political life has surely changed forever.

My feeling is that Blair will survive the current scandal (but Hoon and Campbell probably won't), but come conference their will be a stalking horse challenge to his leadership and he'll go soon afterwards. With Brown or Blunkett in a straight scrap for the leadership.

Thats why we need a FULL judicial inquiry.

Television
Dr Kelly was 'hung out to dry' by MOD, says friend

Lisa O'Carroll
Sunday July 20, 2003

The head of the press office at the Ministry of Defence today admitted she confirmed Dr Kelly's identity to friendly journalists fuelling fresh concerns over the manner in which the scientist was thrust into the spotlight despite his expectation that he would remain anonymous.

Pam Teare, director of news at the MoD and a veteran Whitehall spin doctor, said she had given his name to one national newspaper but only after his name was put to her.

"I did not brief, nor did the Ministry of Defence, brief anyone in terms of giving them pointers.

"The information about him was in our statement and we were asked what sort of job he did and we said that he's been a former UNSCOM inspector. But we also made it clear that we were not going to release the name, but if the name was put to us, we'd confirm it," Ms Teare told the Mail on Sunday.

Dr Kelly never suspected his name was going to be made public, according to one friend today, and was given little or no practical support by the MoD in the last week.

Two weeks ago the MoD revealed that an unnamed man had come forward which it believed was the "mole" behind Andrew Gilligan's disputed Today programme report about the Iraq intelligence dossier.

But his name was only revealed in a confidential letter written by Geoff Hoon to the BBC a day later.

Today amid recriminations and calls for heads to roll both at the BBC and at the head of the Labour party, a journalist who knew Dr Kelly for many years said Dr Kelly had been "hung out to dry" by the ministry of defence.

The Sunday Times's Nicholas Rufford said Dr Kelly sent a note to his line managers on June 30th informing them that he had spoken to Gilligan shortly before the Today report. "He believed the matter could be resolved quietly," wrote Rufford.

However his name soon made it up the food chain to Kevin Tebbit, the permanent secretary of the department and then on to defence secretary Geoff Hoon who then took charge of the matter.

A chain of events that followed would inevitably lead to his identification. The MoD's statement on Tuesday July 8th, that a civil servant had come forward, had set hares running, said Rufford, because any journalist who had dealings with Dr Kelly in the past would have known it was him, particularly after the briefing by No 10.

The following day Geoff Hoon wrote to BBC chairman Gavyn Davies naming Dr Kelly and asking him to confirm or deny he was Gilligan's source.

The briefing from Downing Street said that the suspected mole "did not work for the MoD ... but was a technical expert who had worked for a variety of departments, including the MoD, with whom he was currently working. His salary was paid by another department."

Rufford wrote today: "For journalists familiar with Kelly it was not difficult to confirm his identity by a process of elimination. When they rang the MoD and suggested he was a mole, the department confirmed it. It was highly unusual; normally the department would not comment on such an official.

"None of this would have happened, said one senior government official, without the instigation or approval of [Alastair] Campbell. Kelly had been hung out to dry."

Rufford went on to say he had been in contact with Dr Kelly that night and learned that the MoD had not given him any practical support or advice on how to cope with the fact that he was going to be thrust into the spotlight and identified on the front pages of at least three papers - the Guardian, the Times and the Financial Times.

"I think they expect me to deal with it myself," Dr Kelly told Rufford.

Yesterday Mr Hoon said the MoD went to great lengths to protect Dr Kelly's anonymity.

"It was explained to him that despite our best efforts to preserve his anonymity in the early period, he would inevitably face some qustions to his identity once journalists began to investigate the story. So he was warned of the risks that his name would come out," he said.

A friend of his was on the radio saying they joked about the 45 minutes thing - I think he thought it was ridiculous.

I'll be interested in what the view of ILXors tomorrow when they have seen all the papers and have returned to work to post on ILE...i mean do their work.

Theres also an editorial there.

Sun Front Page Headline

The Relentless hounding of the BBC has led to tragic consequences. Dr Kelly must have been under some severe pressure from his employers, the MOD, to have gone to such extremes. I only hope that the enquiry will be far reaching, detailed and won't report back in august, when its results might be lost but it must report before the party conferences if it's going to have any affect.

Of course Murdoch's papers and Sky are going to go after the BBC. The Charter's up for renewal in 2006 the Murdoch would love Labour to castrate the BBC, ehich must NOT happen. For better or worse the BBC is the most independent mass market new organisation in Britain if not the world and it was not only right but necessary for it to question the governments every move in the disgraceful way that they went to war in Iraq.

Labour supporters will find it very hard to vote for blair again if he brushes this issue aside and then emasculates the BBC.

One issue here is that the principle of quoting sources but having the right to not name them is a principle governments loathe, and that surely lies behind the "now see what's happened" vehemence a bit.

My feeling at the weekend was that this won't be the thing that will bring down Blair, but that in retrospect it will be seen as the turning point after which Blair's long-term survival became impossible (like Thatcher not going directly because of the poll tax riots, Major not going directly because of Black Wednesday) - one of those defining events which absolutely crystallises the weaknesses of an administration.

However I severly doubt that Blair would resign. I just dont think that the electorate actually care about this! Yes the government lied! yes its serious! but does anyone who actually votes give a shit? the answer to that is totally up for grabs. The media want people to think its serious and appalling blah blah blah but i don't think that this view represents popular opinion. I mean, has there actually been a poll conducted about this yet?*

*not that polls really mean shit either...

Another big question in all this is whether the BBC really is whiter than white in all this as Ed claims. I'm not sure. David Aaronovitch in an unusually sensible moment pointed out in the Observer yesterday that Gilligan's original Today piece appeared several days AFTER the meeting with Kelly/the source*, coinciding with Blair's visit to Iraq. So did Gilligan, to use the parlance of our time, sex up the story?

And more importantly, what is the supposedly impartial BBC doing attacking the government, especially on the basis of one source? Likewise, it shouldn't REALLY be attacking the Tories or anti-war protestors or anyone else, so standards across the board should be maintained.

*Do you believe the BBC in saying that Kelly WAS the main source or are they using his death as a convenient opportunity to protect the real source?

Likewise, if Kelly was saying one thing to the government and the complete opposite to the BBC, was HE really that trustworthy?

So many ifs.

Hoon was very stupid to have gone to the British Grand Prix yesterday.

Mark S is right upthread in saying that there is less to stick to Blair than anyone else in this affair, BUT his reputation is heavily tarnished nonetheless.

Who believes that Blair knowingly lied about WMDs before the war? Or was he duped? This is another key question that, if we knew the answer, would clarify everything.

WHo is to blame for the suicide? (Though I like the conspiracy theory 'suicide' stuff too - its all A Very British Coup if MI5 did him in to bring down the gov). Ultimately only Kelly is responsible for his own suicide - and any conclusion that does not acknowledge this will undermine any judicial review.

I think Blair's line on Iraq was always the moral case and he believed or went along with anything that allowed him to proceed with what I increasingly think he thunk was a Holy War.

The key thing is that they are now saying he was the only source.

the bbc is in a rotten position bcz to defend itself it HAS to speak ill of the dead: eg saying kelly was not entirely frank at the enquiry (rod liddle's point in the guardian is interesting — that it shd have CONTINUED to guard kelly's confidentiality even NOW — though realistically i think the corp wd be in no-win territory whatever it did: sun and sky knives are out and flashing...)

gilligan says he believes he "interpreted" kelly's evidence correctly: ok you can call that "sexing up" if you like, but you can also call it "drawing informed implications" (gilligan seems to be regarded as a bit of a flake and a buffoon within the journalists' community, if private eye last week is anything to go by)

gilligan only named campbell in the daily mail: what is their line on this?

the underlying story was and remains true: there was a sharp divide between the intelligence professionals and the politicians as to the meaning of the intelligence at issue, and the intelligence professionals resented having their professional expertise overridden by media-directed wishful thinking — an exactly similar split emerged in the US...

Haven't the BBC come out and said Kelly was the main source because the family have asked them too. It does not mean of course that he was the main source - but as Nick implies it might be a good way of keeping the other (more main?) sources under wraps.

also how high are its journalistic standards when it continues to publish unedited pieces by peter preston (who is like the company's overall editor-publisher) => anyway it was as usual a totally tangled ramble of unreadable fence-sitting WHICH DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS THIS ISSUE!!

(he wrote abt it more clearly elsewhere — linkeed up page — where presumably a decent copy editor worked out the intended content and rewrote accordingly)

It is weird how I don't have problem relying on the BBC for news on this story. Though I do avoid the Today programme.

What no-one has been doing is showing the physical difficulty of actually launching any weapons in 45 minutes, and exactly what this would mean if they did (ie what kind of weapons, and what kind of defence would we have against them). I could fire a bow'n'arrow but it ain't going to get very far is it.

But the same source said the same story to two different journalists independently of each other. Surely they both couldn't have misinterpreted his story in the same way?

I think they should wheel Peter Snow out to demonstrate this by science.

I think they should wheel Peter Snow out to demonstrate this by science and Lego.

"In essence what he said was not that biological and chemical weapons could be deployed, i.e. fired within 45 minutes. That's nonsense - and Dave Kelly and I laughed about it," Mr Mangold said. "What the agent said was that the Iraqis had created a Command, Control and Communications system (C3) that would enable Saddam ... to communicate with regional military commanders within 45 minutes, authorising the use of WMD. And this is not the same things as deployment."

the fact that campbell was all attack dog abt "declining journalistic standards" etc is another bullshit line: these procedures aren't a MORAL ABSOLUTE, they're a workable practical safeguard for the org itself... anyone who starts policing this safeguard on their behalf, particularly with all kinds of malice in their agenda, shd be watched very carefully indeed, bcz pretty much by definition it's smoke and mirrors

the bbc say their guidliness are (something like): "only base a story on one unnamed source in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances"

Would this be an exceptional circumstance?

Campbell and Hoon could lose their jobs (prob hoon bcz he's replaceable) but only if the enquiry points the finger at them. That's what it will come down to.

Campbell talking about "declining journalistic standards" is laughable - from a press secretary's P.O.V. anything that doesn't take the press releases as gospel is against their profession. Press Secs see themselves as the benevolent god, making the gnarly life of a journalist so much easier (spoon fed reports thank you very much). The big problem with this story is that it seemed so ridiculous (th 45 minutes) that they probably did not look hard enough to gather loads and loads of sources. It already looked like a lie.

'Tis a pity Gilligan's Island was never shown in the UK. There are acres of headlines to be used in that one. I only ever played the pinball.

This is going to be a newspaper-changing experience for me. God knows I don't buy The Times because I agree with its politics, but the Beeb bashing has got so disgracefully out of hand that I feel I must do what little I can, ie withhold my 45p. I'll miss the crossword and some decent columnists. The Guardian is unbearable for obvious reasons so I suppose it'll be The Independent.

I think comments above about the power of the Beeb are misleading. The government and the anti-Beeb media can all say "the BBC has behaved disgracefully in this" EVEN IF IT ISN'T TRUE. The BBC is required to be "impartial" can't make the case that the government has behaved disgracefully EVEN IF IT IS TRUE. Other institutions that might have come to the aid of the Beeb (eg the Tories) won't, for obvious reasons. The only hope is that pro-Beeb public opinion manifests itself so powerfully that the various vested interests conclude they'll damage themselves more than the Beeb in pursuing their vendettas. I'm not optimistic.

To be honest, second choice would now be the Sunday Telegraph.

i don't buy a newspaper at all if i can help it, i hate them all

Stalking horse = Clare Short? Yes doubtless she has a mountain of shattered credibility to clamber back up, but is angry and betrayed enough to want to try, maybe? (Robin Cook is unelectable I suspect, not least bcz he talks so fast and incomprehensibly...)

I am interested in his definition of a 'sexy fashion shoot'.

a) it's vulgar and repulsive

b) it's meaningless; if an expert is asked 'was the dossier sexed up?' he can only respond by trying to translate it into meaningful terms; so the accusation that a dossier was or was not sexed up can never be proved or disproved

c) it's glib, a sure sign of the appalling way people follow herds and jump on bandwagons, the nervous vulgar conformism of some of the media

This is perhaps one respect in which the affair is 'tragic' - a word whose particular complexities may or may not be worth exploring in this case.

What was weird was how it seemed to take the media themselves about three weeks of constantly parroting it before they seemed to notice that it was ridiculous and start ed getting self-conscious about it.

The big issue is the terrible crime of the attack on Iraq. Recent events do not alter that, though they may or may not distract some people from it.

Possible argument: only X is ever responsible for X's suicide.

Apparent flaw with that argument: X acts in a conditioned situation, full of 'determinations', limits, pressures and incentives. That's true.

But that situation is potentially very big. Where does one draw the line and say, responsibility cannot extend beyond this point?

For instance: Dr Kelly would perhaps not have killed himself if the decision to attack Iraq had not been made. Does that mean that whoever decided to attack Iraq is responsible for Dr Kelly's suicide? Who made that decision anyway?

I feel sympathy for Dr Kelly - albeit in a stupid way, as one who'd never heard of him days ago and had little in common with him. I feel, perhaps, sentimental pity. But possibly such emotions should not obscure the fact that a suicide is by definition always responsible for his or her own suicide. It goes with the territory, it goes with the going.

What's important is that someone centrally involved in all this was affected by what happened strongly enough to take his own life. It just sobers everyone up a bit as well as making them all more intrigued.

"it sobers everyone up" ?

And why now, with this story? There are plenty of stories involving accusations of sensationalism. Who used it first in this context? The media or the government?

"why now with this story?" i actually wonder whether this story would have had the crackle it had if that phrase HADN'T been used early on: its novelty and vulgarity were exactly the goad to drive the govt to counter-attack => everything that followed

(which wd make it effective crusading journalism, whatever yr taste for the phrase itself: a jab to produce an out-of-control counter-punch)

this whole story is an object lesson in why you SHOULDN'T just depend on a single unnamed source, of course

Not sure, it is possible (find stats please) but I still think the 45 minutes thing is almost irrelevant (and so too the GIlligan thing) when in the end Blair felt he wanted to go to war for the moral case and just wanted anything that looked like it my sway parliment. Nothing sways it more than a big dossier - though obv padding said dossier with a half inched outdated PhD thesis and leading language is not going to look so good in the end.

HAs the PhD student sued for copyright btw.

I must say I don't remember anything about the 45 minute thing until this BBC story blew up, but it's possible I had turned off listening to Blair's blather by then. I certainly don't remember anyone going "45 minutes!? Blimey that's convinced me. We must wipe out this menace".

also i'm not convinced that the current dynamic of international law DOES call this invasion into question: intervention in the name of human rights vs legalistic respect for the inviolability of national sovereignty etc (the latter is the primary basis for the illegality of this invasion, but the two principles are at loggerheads)

cf the attempts at arraigning pinochet (the logic being, if pinochet shd be considered culpable and punishable by the international community, where does this leave saddam?)

(what i'm saying here is, even if it were possible to create a situation where the legality — rather than the "higher morality" — could be made the central topic, this is still a highly contentious and politicised argument: if blair wz found to be CLEARLY in breach of legality, then the corollary wd be the collapse of the human rights courts of the hague and the potential for international trial of war crims like pinochet...)

(this is a v.v.tangled subject: international human rights law = one of the key points of difference between blair admin and bush admin...)

my mum (who knows about these things) says blair will be gone in six months and gordon will be in charge and have a lovely little baby and everything comes to him who waits etc.

Morality is as subjective as what currently counts as international law. If the question then boils down to Kelly commiting suicde for being placed in an impossible moral position (lying to the select committee/lying for the government) then this again causes much hand wringing from Blair who will find it harder to justify his moral line. But I am assuming that Blair's morality is consista which the last six years of governement has not been seen to necessarily be the case. (Nor should iot be - show me a man who is unequivocally consistent with their morality and I will show you a cyberman wot will take over world cos the only consitent morality is NO MORALITY).

westerns are the primary mass-cultural territory for argts abt the status of law beyond the frontier: how honest men must act when local (corrupt) power controls or distorts law

one of the interesting reasons for mass-cult unease here w.us and uk govt action is that they are breaking so many rules of mainstream hollywood closure

Blair: "I wanted to go to war to stop the human rights abuses in Iraq but they said no-one would go for it. See I am a decent man, and whilst my advisors worked with the best of intentions*, I fear the obfuscations they provided have made my government, my moral fine upstanding principle based administration** appear to tainted by half truths and "
Campbell:" What the Prime Minister means to say is the BBC is rub.
Blair: "Alistair - you're fired."

*Where the best of intentions is wanting to going to war. Cf 5-6am 24 season 2.
** Red rose tinted glasses.

I was initially beguilled by this idea, but the more I think about it the less it makes sense. Perhaps it is more that people are used to life != fiction so the way this one approached classical narrative the less they trusted all involved.

Sorry to bang on about 24 but interested with what we all though would happen after 9/11 (instant reprisal) is the plot in 24, wheras was not the plot in reality. (Instead plot has been insidious removal of rights and witchunt mentality to tin and copperpot dictators).

24 = nothing but the brief shining moment when everyone thought keifer sutherland was not as bad as he always had been before

(cf phonebooth for proof that the moment has passed)

The US - I guess - are hoping for a Clint style leaving the town to its own devices (noticing on the way out that they have already reverted to petty type and have started killing each other). The UK (Blair) model is much more Magnificent Seven. Reality might require a Gunfight At The OK Corral model - Blair in Doc Holiday mode - Bush as Wyatt Earp.

I think all Phone Booth told us about Keifer Sutherland was that growly voice is funny after ten minutes and Joel Schumacher is still rubbish. (It should have been impossible to fuck it up - Schumacher proves the possible).

Where Unforgiven or True Grit come in I don't know - but I get the feeling Blair is all for Support Your Local Gunfighter. (Actually Bush as Boozy Lee Marvin in Cat Ballou - though the Falklands = Cat Ballou).

also i think this interpret-the-current-state-of-things via westerns discussion needs its own thread

Fair enough.

Have we actually talked about how Brown has been handling this. There have been a number of sly anti-Campbell remarks in the house on other matters.

I voted for these bastards. Twice. I always thought Aneurin Bevann's description of the Tories as "lower than vermin" simple, accurate, factual observation. Now it can be applied just as accurately to his own party.

Short's recent comments have not been tiptoeing. She is on the antiwarpath. Cook is of course another matter.

I like cowboys, or: I like westerns - as I have often said. I have perhaps also often said that 'Bush = cowboy' is a woeful comment. One reason for that is that it tarnishes a genre I like. Another is that Bush wants to be called a cowboy, so it plays into his hands. I tried to make a further distinction between 'the code of the western' and Bushco actions when the attack was beginning.

I think it would be more helpful to talk of Bush admin in terms of eg: espionage or horror movies.

But god... that "Bush is a cowboy" thing is fucking awful both for the way the French punctuate it ("cow-boy," come OOOOOOOON y'all, is that some kind of bizarre revenge for "trompe l'oeil"?) and that it's just WRONG; cowboys um at least in the Westerns the epithet-slingers refer to ACTUALLY TOOK WORK (er, sorta cuz you know they had to make a living, cough cough) AND RISK UPON THEMSELVES. He's more like Henry V -- see

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/07/18/wkd.henryv.ap/

of all places, though Brian Nemtusak saw the resemblance many moons ago.

I'm scared.

(Can anyone give me a bead on just how frightened I should be?)

What I'm missing (except from Jackson) is damn-the-short-term consequences anger motivated by genuine moral indignation, and by an awareness that even in pragmatic terms the government is going down a road that can only be bad for the country and the Labour party. I think that in any generation of the pre-Blair Labour party we'd have had those in spades.

i don't think her (yes very clumsy and damaging) shifts of position were cynical or careerist at all: i think she was manoeuvred into a position where she had to choose between principles* and chose (it seemed at the time) badly, not least because she placed too much trust in blair on exactly the topics now at issue... the thing about "perceived to be..." is that it is exactly the thing which may shift most during a political sea-change (if that's what just happened)

(*as in, "should i really simply walk away and consign the whole area of international aid to some toady worse even than [insert name of ultra-blairite nobody here]?")

who were the labour rebels over rhodesia and vietnam? (genuine question, i'm racking my brains and coming up with no one, but this is failing memory)

She must have know within hours of changing her mind that she had made a very bad mistake. Her power as a conscience/gadfly in the administration always entirely depended on her implied capacity to resign on a point of principle. Once she wasted that she was finished. Even some right-wing commentators showed, I think, fairly genuine sympathy for her predicament, but the verdicts were brutal and pretty much unanimous across the political spectrum. She had been suckered by Blair, was now a busted flush, and would be quietly got rid of at at time to suit unless she jumped first. How could she have missed an outcome that was SO quickly obvious to everyone else? I can't see any other explanation except that her judgement was completely eroded by wishful thinking.

Whatever its faults, the Labour party used to be full of heavyweight awkward squad members, with a sense of something mattering beyond their own careers, who would have screamed blue murder at this. Now the best we can get is poor, too-nutty-to-count Glenda telling it like it is while Cook and Short tiptoe round the issue for fear of damaging their career resurrection prospects.

Arf, tis the usual way of things. Labour's honeymoon period has been over long since; now they have disintegrated into the lowest of the low: a typical politician. They are getting older, and know that once they leave Parliament, there are few (if any) other options.

Sorry to say, I think Blair is clapped out: his verve for life is what drew people to vote him in, in the first place. Now, he is just speaking by rote. Resigning may be the best option.

haha surely this 45 minutes thing is thus actually in reality the best arguement that iraq posed absolutely no threat whatsoever
even if we do believe they have these weapons,it would take 45 for sadaam to communicate with those in charge of them

->they don't even have phones!!

"BBC audience figures in the United States are rising,but BBC news correspondents are more aggressive and contrarian in their interviewing techniques than their American counterparts"

jesus,have they never seen fox?

i don't think this is the case at all,at least in america one of the factors in the run up to the war was that surveys showed a huge proportion (i heard 90%+ although i can't remember where) of the us populace believed their own lives were in direct danger from sadaam,and i know i saw blair on tv with crocodile tears in his eyes saying that one of the issues was his personal fear for the safety of his people should sadaam be allowed to continue

this was one of the main points leading to the war,i think,since obviously someone went to the trouble of convincing everyone that sadaam was a threat to western lives despite the fact that in the real world even kuwait weren't afraid of him

i mean,i'm not sure myself,but it seems odd that someone about to kill themselves would bother,even taking into account the fact that someone who could kill them within a few hours would be probably be acting oddly

also the lack of a suicide note
am i just being paranoid?
is no one else considering this?

I can't quite fathom that a full 90% of Americans thought Saddam was a direct threat.. What is fascinating to me lately, from a vantage point in the US, is the very warm reception Tony Blair had when he spoke before Congress - astonishing in itself because it's hard to imagine the Republicans applauding anyone on the left - and the generally extremely favorable view of him here.
I'm actually toning that down a lot, maybe it's even better to say it's hard to overstate the amount of admiration/affection for Blair in the media here, and probably felt by most Americans as well. I kind of feel that way myself despite having been strongly against the war.
I speculate that Blair made a risky but potentially brilliant move by taking the side of the US in favor of the war with Iraq - the influence of what was called 'old Europe' on the current administration is much diminished..

jesus,have they never seen fox

In think the difference is that the BBC is contrarian and aggressive with both sides, even when they've been interviewing BBC people over the last few days. Fox i suspect gives some people an easier ride. Any sign of Bias in the BBC would be seen as against it's charter and would cause an enormous stink. Anyother TV news outlet showing bias would be hauled up in front of the ITC. In the UK

Robin, it's somebody who challenges for the leadership of the party who has no chance of winning, but by doing so can gauge the chances of a more serious contender. If George Galloway for example put himself up for election and about a third of the PLP voted for him he obviously wouldn't win but it would show huge amount of disillusionment with Blair so Brown or somebody may then decide to have a go.

Couple of thoughts what is the mechanism in the Labour party for challenging the leader? If he were to go in the coming months it would be a leadership which lasted less than the unlamented John Major, quite incredible this is even being discussed when you think back to May 97 with his record busting majority.

I suspect idea of stalking horse not relevant - it was something that had relevance because specific rules in Tory party at particular time. Those rules have been changed so poss no longer even a Tory party issue.

I suspect substantial majority of party only tolerates Blair because he's regarded as huge electoral asset. That means situation could flip very very quickly if it became apparent that wasn't the case. But practical difficulties of challenge mean best hope for deposing Blair is he's somehow shamed into resigning.

Labour leaders are offed by cabals, of MPs, Union Leaders and NEC members.

CLeverly of course with the exception of Brown, Blair has sidelined (or corrupted) most of the respected party members to be replaced by realtively faceless Balirites (who may not be actually faceless but are certainly not given a lot of opportunity to opine for themselves). Brown could, but it would be the biggest risk of his political career, and would probably only have a 20% chance of success depending on who wants to put the boot in.

So who would we favour to push Blair if he does not (and he will not because he doesn't think he has done anything wrong) resign. Would we favour anyone - ie would they not be worse than Blair. A handy list of the cabinet and the odds might be nice.

Irrelevent to current scenario when rules have changed. Blair'd be more vulnerable if it was still up to MPs, if only because much easier to organise. Even though, prob nothing less than a series of polls showing Blair was big enough liability to lose the election would result in action. They prob still think they'll get re-elected whereas get-rid-of-Bambi upheaval wd be gift to Tories and Tory media making party look shambolic, raising spectre of "old labour extremism" & calling into question party's fitness to govern.

Golden scenario would be Blair resigning on pretext of spending time with Cherie and kids and anointing Brown but it's not going to happen. I don't believe he's a psychopath but I think he's every bit as nutty as Thatcher, and no more likely to loosen his grip on power of his own free will.

also, N. is your dad a bennite tied to a tree?

(= new thread for discussion of campbell/spin/breaking news)

this can remain the Bigger Picture thread (maybe, if you like)

"I don't think the dossier was sexed up; it was put into tabloidese..."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1865980,00.html

it's a 'howe moment', inna 18th brumaire stylee.