Blair stays silent when asked if he would resign

[Czar]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=1&u=/afp/20030719/ts_afp/iraq_weapons_britain_030719124035

HAKONE, Japan (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) dramatically refused to say whether he might quit over the death of a former UN arms inspector at the center of allegations that Downing Street misused intelligence and exaggerated the threat of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Iraq (news - web sites


Caught out at the start of an East Asia tour by the worst crisis in his six years in power, a visibly exhausted Blair said nothing when asked, point-blank, at a press conference if he had "blood on his hands" and might resign.


Instead, he stared silently out across the room full of journalists and TV cameras for several tense seconds and then with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at his side, left the room.


Minutes before, Blair reiterated the stance he took earlier Saturday on the startling death of David Kelly, 59, a Ministry of Defense consultant on biological weapons and former UN arms inspector in Iraq -- that an independent judicial inquiry must be allowed to run its course and find out the truth.

 

[Balt]

Sorry, but his resignation is not even in the realm of possibilities. He is the sole reason that the Labour Party is where it is in the UK today (with a very solid majority). There may be some repercussions from this whole Iraq mess, but the fact is there is no one in the Labour Party who has enough clout to be his successor. Of course the case may be different whenever the government decides to call for elections (though he has a significant amount of time before he will want/have to do that).

 

[Lonyo]

It's 2 years until we have to have another election I believe.

I wonder what might happen in the next 2 months.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

The British Parliament can call elections whenever it wants?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Labour will not call a no confidence vote without a viable replacement for Blair. Iain Duncan Smith is arguably the most visible UK pol aside from Blair but he would have to distance the UK Neocons from Bush Neocons to have a fighting chance for the Conservatives to overtake Labour . . . with or without Blair.

 

[sandorski]

Sort of. I don't know what the time limit is in Britain, but in Canada the Prime Minister has 5 years in which to call an election.

 

[Balt]

I believe it is 5 years in the UK as well, and yes with a few exceptions the ruling party can call for elections whenever it wants. If he felt like he had a lot of support from the electorate, he could call them now if he wanted to (though I think obviously he is not considering it at this point).

IDS just isn't that remarkable, IMO. Granted he became leader of the Conservatives at a bad time, but he just seems to consistently get his ass handed to him every Wednesday. The Conservatives are going to have a long, hard struggle of getting back into power I think.

He also made a huge mistake calling for the three line whip (IIRC) on the gay adoption vote last fall. He undermined himself within his own party.

 

[Lonyo]

It's at least every 5 years, and I think after 3 or something they can call an election, if they wish.

And Blair and his party are not on the greatest of terms at the moment all the time, with lots of rebellions over what seems like most votes in the commons.

IDS does seem to have something going with the trust thing though, because it rings true, and he doesn;t get his ass handed to him, but he doesn;t manage to do as much as he should be able to given Blairs position.

Maybe we'll see a turnaround come September.