Why Tony Blair must resign.

[T_i_B]

Interesting article from Yesterday's Spectator calling for Blair to leave office. The article was written before Campbell's resignation and it does particularly single out Campbell but nonetheless it is still highly relevant.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-08-30&id=3448

Tony Blair should relinquish his premiership. It is not simply that he has lost the trust of the voters, his own party activists and increasingly large sections of the parliamentary Labour party, and is regarded with luminous contempt by such dispossessed ministers as Robin Cook, Clare Short, Peter Kilfoyle and Glenda Jackson. It is that he can no longer do his job properly, and that the protective cabal around him has shrunk with such rapidity that he has nowhere to turn for succour and support.

And the things which have brought about this situation — culminating the Hutton inquiry — were not rare examples of a lapse in judgment, which we might be inclined to forgive, if not forget, but are instead emblematic of the long-term traits of this regime: lying, dissembling, and the orchestrated smearing and vilifying of people who have objected to the lying and dissembling.

And that ludicrous 45-minute claim: it was plucked from the main body of the dossier (where it shouldn’t have been, anyway) and included in Tony Blair’s frontispiece. Its position there must have been a deliberate attempt to mislead. The decision to defame Dr Kelly after his death came from No. 10. Do you believe for a second that the duty press spokesman, Tom Kelly, made up, himself, the suggestion that Dr Kelly was a Walter Mitty figure? Portraying the scientist thus was part of a quite deliberate strategy to place in the public mind the idea that Dr Kelly was a borderline nutter who had misled Gilligan and everybody else. Where do you suppose that came from? And do you think for a moment that the Prime Minister — who, as the Hutton inquiry has learnt, took an intense, consuming interest in the row — didn’t know that such a strategy had been adopted?

Mr Blair memorably announced, on the eve of the Good Friday Agreement, that he could feel the hand of history upon his shoulder. Yeah, well, the hand’s come back again, Tone. And this time it’s pointing out of the door.

[JackSwift]

1. Blair won't voluntarily resign

he'll take down the whole government first.

[T_i_B]

2. In which case

The Labour party must wake up from their coma and ditch Blair before it is too late.

I know that they have invested very heavily in the electoral pull of Blair but the poll numbers are nosediving and it is time to ditch Blair before he leads them onto the rocks. Under Blair "new" labour has become a party about power at any cost with no underlying purpose and no soul. It it time for the Labour party to rediscover why the Labour Party exists in the forst place.

[lanlady]

3. I read in the Guardian

that the Tories are perceived as the party of slime, Labour is the party of spin. And that the Blairites are vowing that with Campbell gone, they'll stop spinning and start leveling with the British public, honestly, I really mean it, cross my heart and hope to die stick a needle in my eye.

[dudeness]

11. TiB..what is the vibe in the UK ?

I will be asking my wife the same question later today (she has been in England visiting family)..I have maintained throughout this debacle that, if the Labour Party retains any tradition it will bump Blair for misleading the people and the party..are the number of dissident MPs growing?..is their an alternate leadership team?..once these two factores are in place then it may be bye bye Blair.

[T_i_B]

14. Trust is at an all time low.

That is the best way I can put it. The left is totally disgusted by Blair, the right is trying to wash its hands of the whole Iraq debacle and it is difficult to find people who have not been turned off Blair.

However, even though people are leaving the labour party at an alarming rate I don't think that "new" labour has got what it takes to stand up to Blair. It is virtually impossible for the grass roots party to stand up to the leadership in any meaningful way and in any case, too many people in "new" labour have invested too much in Tony Blair. However desirable a change of direction is, "new" labour does not seem capable of reforming itself.

[lanlady]

4. great paragraph:

Did the Prime Minister ask his chief of communications to do something only to find that his chief of communications had gone ahead and done exactly the reverse? And remained in office? With the full support of his boss? Is that the sort of relationship you would expect to exist between the Prime Minister and someone who is, in effect, his press officer? Aren’t they meant to do as they’re told, press officers? The phrase ‘wag the dog’ is beginning to take on a degree of resonance here, I think. Except that in Downing Street it is no longer possible to discern who is the dog and who the tail.

[salin]

5. tell me a little bit about the spectator

what is their journalistic reputation and what tends to be their slant? All may be true in what they say - but it is helpful to also try to see what the agenda (if any) is behind the piece.

[AP]

6. Right wing, extremely...

RENDER UNTO THE POPE...
The EU is a means of extending Vatican sovereignty
over Britain

LEAVE IT TO AMERICA
The last thing Iraq needs is greater UN involvement

DON’T VOTE FOR US
An argument against the introduction of elected peers

WHERE'S THE KING?
Find the gap at the Holbein exhibition in The Hague

THE LEADER
Sir Wilfred Thesiger, a true conservative

POLITICS
Some things never change: the Euro-enthusiasts are still
avoiding serious debate

ANCIENT AND MODERN
A classicist draws on ancient wisdom to illuminate
contemporary follies
------------

and that's just one issue...

[T_i_B]

7. Thing is...

...The article was written by Rod Liddle, who was on the Guardian's books last I saw writing a weekly columm in the G2 section. As I am sure you are aware the Grauniad is a liberal paper. Liddle also used to be editor of the Today programme and has being very vocal indeed in defence of the BBC.

It's not quite that black and white, although the Spectator does have a bit of a rep for right wing idiocy, as can be seen in the inane droolings of their US colummist Mark Steyn.

As to the article, it is hardly the usual right wing gumph. The article is very much attacking Blair for taking us into an unjustifiable war on the basis of lies and spin, which is what us progressives have been saying for over a year now.

[T_i_B]

8. A resignation is worth a thousand smiles

Terry Jones gets stuck in. Here he is offering some reasons why Tony Blair should resign. :-)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1032756,00.html

You might consider resigning because you lied about your part in outing Dr Kelly. I don't suppose you remember, but on the plane from Shanghai to Hong Kong, 21 July 2003, you told reporters that you "emphatically" did not authorise the leak. Hard to know quite how you "don't do something" emphatically but that's what you said. To the Hutton inquiry, however, you admitted overall "responsibility" for the decision to announce that a government official had admitted talking to the BBC's Andrew Gilligan. Now you might say that was not "authorising the leak" - but then from what I understand Hitler never gave orders to build the extermination camps - it's just his subordinates knew it was what he'd want. Same with Henry II and the murder of Thomas Becket I suppose.

You could also resign on the grounds of incapability. After all, anybody who actually thought that Iraq was an imminent threat to the UK obviously hasn't got much grasp on reality. Was Iraq about to bomb London? Did Saddam Hussein have designs on occupying Gibraltar, or perhaps East Cheam? Wasn't he rather preoccupied with keeping himself in power in his own country? But then I suppose you've got more sympathy for the Iraqi dictator's position nowadays.

Or why not resign on the grounds of mismanagement? I mean, you have tolerated unbelievable incompetence in your Intelligence Agencies. Sir John Scarlett told the Hutton inquiry that he knew of not a single intelligence officer who had any doubts about the September dossier. Well, we now know that at least one of his officers, Dr. Kelly, had such grave doubts that he told the press about them. If Sir John Scarlett doesn't know what's going on in his own department he can't be much of a spymaster can he?

In fact, while you're at it, you might also consider resigning on the grounds of your own ineptitude. After all, your policies regarding Iraq have resulted in the exact opposite of what you claimed they would do. You said that by bombing Iraq you were going to bring Iraqis a better way of life. Yet your policies have actually resulted in the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure. They have meant millions of Iraqis have had to endure the summer without proper supplies of water and without electricity. They have brought chaos and lawlessness and misery to the country.

[AP]

12. Is that former Python, and occassional BBC-commissionee Terry Jones?

???

[T_i_B]

13. Yes

He writes the occasional columm for the UK Observer.

[MasonJar]

9. The Guardian Article

The Guardian article quoted above is right on. It actually applies to our boy as much if not more. How can we get that in the paper? or in his mailbox? I cannot wait for the Guardian in the US.

[Martin Eden]

10. Shrub should rescue his poodle

He can make a forceful and eloquent speech in front of Parliament, like when Tony spoke before Congress in support of Bush and the war.

Dubya could start by saying that we had to intervene because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, and that the WMD have already been found. That should put the contoversy to rest.