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.

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.