Union chief's 'resign' hint to Blair

[Barrett808]

A senior union leader came close to telling the Prime Minister to resign as the Government was condemned by union activists over the "illegal war" in Iraq.

The TUC Congress continued its assault against Government policies with a number of fresh criticisms ranging from the armed conflict in Iraq to the spread of foundation hospitals in the UK.

Tony Woodley, newly elected leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, said that if he was the prime minister he would consider his position because of the war in Iraq.

Confusion also continued over a speech delivered by Mr Blair to union leaders at a private dinner which sparked accusations that he remained wedded to a culture of spin.

The 800 delegates at the Brighton conference delivered two stinging attacks against the Government by condemning its support for the war and pledging continued opposition to foundation hospitals.

(more)

http://ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/page.cfm?objectid=13393237&method=full

[xchrom]

1. blair may not resign

but his problems have become entrenched, his legacy shot to hell, and by not allowing labour to replace him, he may have screwed his party in the next election cycle.
good job tony.

[T_i_B]

2. I'll hint a bit more strongly

RESIGN NOW TONY BLAIR YOU LYING BASTARD

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.

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.

Or you could resign because of unsuitability for the post. I mean at any moment you could be charged as a war criminal - certainly by any definition that the UN has to offer. You personally authorized the dropping of bombs on another country when your own nation was under no threat of attack from that country. You've also been responsible for the killing of somewhere in the region of 40,000 Iraqi civilians and soldiers (mostly wretched conscripts). Personally I don't like being governed by a man with blood on his hands or who may one day have to go and answer questions in the Hague.