Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Blair Makes Deal With Unions To Keep Soliders Dying In Iraq
Tony Blair avoided an embarrassing defeat today when over 80% of Labour conference delegates rejected a motion calling for the early withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.
Speaking in the debate, the GMB union's Yvonne Ritchie said: "My union opposed the invasion, and we remain opposed. However, we cannot rewrite history ... the consequences of us leaving would be to plunge Iraq into civil war."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2004/story/0,14991,1316281,00.html
Bono joked that Brown and Blair were the Lennon and McCartney of the Labour party, "the John and Paul of the global development stage".
"The point is, Lennon and McCartney changed my interior world - Blair and Brown can change the real world," he said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=vn20040930035616994C932501
rime Minister Tony Blair today avoided a damaging defeat at the Labour conference over pulling British troops out of Iraq.
Delegates voted by 86% to 14% to reject a motion calling on Mr Blair to set an early date for withdrawing the troops.
In a card vote they instead endorsed a statement by Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, recognising British forces would stay as long as the Iraqi government wanted them to.
Although the move will be a relief to the Labour leadership, the unions – who sided with it – said it effectively meant the Government was now signed up to a timetable to end the British presence in Iraq.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3566623
Yet, as yesterday's manoeuverings to prevent a conference vote on Iraq showed, there is no real appetite in the party for humiliating Blair further on this issue, and certainly not for ditching him. The reason, and the big unspoken story of this conference, is the power of the trade unions. They may no longer dominate the television coverage, with their block votes and their smoke-filled rooms, but four union leaders are now more influential at the Labour party conference than ever before.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1316101,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2004/story/0,14991,1316281,00.html
Bono joked that Brown and Blair were the Lennon and McCartney of the Labour party, "the John and Paul of the global development stage".
"The point is, Lennon and McCartney changed my interior world - Blair and Brown can change the real world," he said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=vn20040930035616994C932501
rime Minister Tony Blair today avoided a damaging defeat at the Labour conference over pulling British troops out of Iraq.
Delegates voted by 86% to 14% to reject a motion calling on Mr Blair to set an early date for withdrawing the troops.
In a card vote they instead endorsed a statement by Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, recognising British forces would stay as long as the Iraqi government wanted them to.
Although the move will be a relief to the Labour leadership, the unions – who sided with it – said it effectively meant the Government was now signed up to a timetable to end the British presence in Iraq.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3566623
Yet, as yesterday's manoeuverings to prevent a conference vote on Iraq showed, there is no real appetite in the party for humiliating Blair further on this issue, and certainly not for ditching him. The reason, and the big unspoken story of this conference, is the power of the trade unions. They may no longer dominate the television coverage, with their block votes and their smoke-filled rooms, but four union leaders are now more influential at the Labour party conference than ever before.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1316101,00.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The debate and vote on Iraq held on the last day of the Labour conference should finally disabuse any one of the belief that the party—or its supposedly “left” representatives—offers any means of fighting for the elementary demands and aspirations of working people.
The last 12 months have thoroughly exposed the government’s case for war against Iraq, and how it misled the British people into a criminal act of neo-colonial aggression that continues to claim the lives of innocent men, women and children.
On the day the Labour conference conducted its debate—one forced on it by a number of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs)—a series of bombings in Baghdad killed more than 41 people, 34 of them children.
The September 30 bombings were claimed by an Islamic opposition group, but they were only one of many bloody incidents throughout the country. The BBC reports in that one day:
* A US soldier killed by a rocket fired at a US base near Baghdad,
* A senior policeman shot dead in the northern city of Mosul,
* Also in the north, the Kirkuk mayor’s chief bodyguard shot dead,
* Four people killed in a car bombing in Talafar that also injured about 16 others,
* At least four children among six or seven people killed in Falluja after US forces allegedly fired on their car, and
* At least three civilians killed in a US air strike on Falluja overnight.
The media, as usual, focuses on the barbaric actions of the fundamentalist groups and ignores the painful truth that it is the brutality of the occupation forces that is claiming most lives and fuelling resistance.
That same evening, the US began a ferocious assault on the town of Samarra, a predominantly Sunni Muslim city, north of Baghdad. Using warplanes and armoured vehicles, US forces claimed to have killed 94 “insurgents,” but local sources say many civilians have been killed and wounded.
The contrast between the extent of US and British atrocities and the mealy-mouthed response of what passes for opposition within the Labour Party could not be starker. With most of the population opposed to war and many in support of a troop withdrawal; with the Liberal Democrats seeking to make political capital out of falling support for the government; and even Conservative Party leader Michael Howard openly accusing Blair of lying about Iraq, the cowed, impotent and unprincipled character of the prime minister’s nominal opponents within the Labour Party was laid bare.
Barely a peep was heard from delegates regarding the prime minister’s lies over weapons of mass destruction, or the falsification of intelligence dossiers to support a predetermined agenda agreed between Blair and President George W. Bush to go to war.
In truth, the vote at conference had been won by the leadership even before it was held.
The debate on Britain’s role in Iraq had only just scraped onto the agenda as the fifth and final contemporary motion. Just 7,000 of more than 3 million block votes had endorsed the proposal to place Iraq onto the agenda at conference.
In the end, the opposition motion was composited from those submitted by 13 CLPs and did not even call for an immediate withdrawal of British troops, urging only an “early pull-out.”
If this was not enough, the party leadership had been in urgent talks before conference began to secure the backing of the four biggest trade unions—Transport & General Workers Union, General Municipal Boilermakers Union, Unison and Amicus—for a counter-resolution saying troops should remain in Iraq as long as required.
Due to the union block vote, where each general secretary wields a mandate equal to the size of his union’s membership, the government would have carried the day no matter what happened in the conference hall.
As it turned out, however, this safeguard was unnecessary. In a debate bookended by contributions from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, one opponent of the Iraq war after another lined up to defend the occupation. They echoed Prime Minister Tony Blair’s claim during his conference address that whatever one thought about the original reasons for war, all must be united in supporting the birth of “democracy” in Iraq and against the growth of “global terrorism.”
National Executive Council member Shahid Malik said he had previously opposed the war before continuing, “But we did go to war and now is not the time to desert the people of Iraq. They would not forgive us.”
Yvonne Ritchie of the GMB had also opposed the war but argued, “The consequences of leaving prematurely will be to plunge Iraq into civil war. We have an obligation to put right the wrong a Labour government created.”
To cap it all, a mover of one of the 13 composited motions, one Clair Wilcox from Streatham CLP, withdrew her motion in favour of a call for unity. “We have to move forward together: conference, party and government. It shouldn’t be this conference that sets a timetable for withdrawal. We want the Iraqi people to set the agenda,” she proclaimed.
As well as the born-again defenders of colonialism, the party leadership wheeled out some of its stooges from within the pro-US interim Iraqi administration to make an appeal on behalf of “ordinary” Iraqis.
Read More
http://wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/blab-o02.shtml
The last 12 months have thoroughly exposed the government’s case for war against Iraq, and how it misled the British people into a criminal act of neo-colonial aggression that continues to claim the lives of innocent men, women and children.
On the day the Labour conference conducted its debate—one forced on it by a number of Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs)—a series of bombings in Baghdad killed more than 41 people, 34 of them children.
The September 30 bombings were claimed by an Islamic opposition group, but they were only one of many bloody incidents throughout the country. The BBC reports in that one day:
* A US soldier killed by a rocket fired at a US base near Baghdad,
* A senior policeman shot dead in the northern city of Mosul,
* Also in the north, the Kirkuk mayor’s chief bodyguard shot dead,
* Four people killed in a car bombing in Talafar that also injured about 16 others,
* At least four children among six or seven people killed in Falluja after US forces allegedly fired on their car, and
* At least three civilians killed in a US air strike on Falluja overnight.
The media, as usual, focuses on the barbaric actions of the fundamentalist groups and ignores the painful truth that it is the brutality of the occupation forces that is claiming most lives and fuelling resistance.
That same evening, the US began a ferocious assault on the town of Samarra, a predominantly Sunni Muslim city, north of Baghdad. Using warplanes and armoured vehicles, US forces claimed to have killed 94 “insurgents,” but local sources say many civilians have been killed and wounded.
The contrast between the extent of US and British atrocities and the mealy-mouthed response of what passes for opposition within the Labour Party could not be starker. With most of the population opposed to war and many in support of a troop withdrawal; with the Liberal Democrats seeking to make political capital out of falling support for the government; and even Conservative Party leader Michael Howard openly accusing Blair of lying about Iraq, the cowed, impotent and unprincipled character of the prime minister’s nominal opponents within the Labour Party was laid bare.
Barely a peep was heard from delegates regarding the prime minister’s lies over weapons of mass destruction, or the falsification of intelligence dossiers to support a predetermined agenda agreed between Blair and President George W. Bush to go to war.
In truth, the vote at conference had been won by the leadership even before it was held.
The debate on Britain’s role in Iraq had only just scraped onto the agenda as the fifth and final contemporary motion. Just 7,000 of more than 3 million block votes had endorsed the proposal to place Iraq onto the agenda at conference.
In the end, the opposition motion was composited from those submitted by 13 CLPs and did not even call for an immediate withdrawal of British troops, urging only an “early pull-out.”
If this was not enough, the party leadership had been in urgent talks before conference began to secure the backing of the four biggest trade unions—Transport & General Workers Union, General Municipal Boilermakers Union, Unison and Amicus—for a counter-resolution saying troops should remain in Iraq as long as required.
Due to the union block vote, where each general secretary wields a mandate equal to the size of his union’s membership, the government would have carried the day no matter what happened in the conference hall.
As it turned out, however, this safeguard was unnecessary. In a debate bookended by contributions from Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, one opponent of the Iraq war after another lined up to defend the occupation. They echoed Prime Minister Tony Blair’s claim during his conference address that whatever one thought about the original reasons for war, all must be united in supporting the birth of “democracy” in Iraq and against the growth of “global terrorism.”
National Executive Council member Shahid Malik said he had previously opposed the war before continuing, “But we did go to war and now is not the time to desert the people of Iraq. They would not forgive us.”
Yvonne Ritchie of the GMB had also opposed the war but argued, “The consequences of leaving prematurely will be to plunge Iraq into civil war. We have an obligation to put right the wrong a Labour government created.”
To cap it all, a mover of one of the 13 composited motions, one Clair Wilcox from Streatham CLP, withdrew her motion in favour of a call for unity. “We have to move forward together: conference, party and government. It shouldn’t be this conference that sets a timetable for withdrawal. We want the Iraqi people to set the agenda,” she proclaimed.
As well as the born-again defenders of colonialism, the party leadership wheeled out some of its stooges from within the pro-US interim Iraqi administration to make an appeal on behalf of “ordinary” Iraqis.
Read More
http://wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/blab-o02.shtml
omment: Liam Fay: Backing of Bono may be Blair's albatross
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seemed almost touchingly chuffed by the tributes they received from Bono at the British Labour party conference last week. Beaming like groupies who’d just blagged backstage passes, the prime minister and his chancellor appeared especially gratified by the U2 frontman’s ludicrous characterisation of them as a political version of John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
The Fab Two were evidently convinced that the imprimatur of this rock star is a rare privilege that can only enhance their credibility among a disenchanted electorate.
Even though Bono was referring to Blair and Brown’s work on global development, his speech was quickly interpreted, and spun, as a broader expression of support. On television, senior Labour figures — including John Prescott, the party’s deputy leader — were giddy with excitement about this sprinkling of showbiz stardust.
Much of Britain’s media seemed equally impressed. Commentators argued over whether Blair should be seen as Lennon and Brown as McCartney, or vice versa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1290999,00.html
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown seemed almost touchingly chuffed by the tributes they received from Bono at the British Labour party conference last week. Beaming like groupies who’d just blagged backstage passes, the prime minister and his chancellor appeared especially gratified by the U2 frontman’s ludicrous characterisation of them as a political version of John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
The Fab Two were evidently convinced that the imprimatur of this rock star is a rare privilege that can only enhance their credibility among a disenchanted electorate.
Even though Bono was referring to Blair and Brown’s work on global development, his speech was quickly interpreted, and spun, as a broader expression of support. On television, senior Labour figures — including John Prescott, the party’s deputy leader — were giddy with excitement about this sprinkling of showbiz stardust.
Much of Britain’s media seemed equally impressed. Commentators argued over whether Blair should be seen as Lennon and Brown as McCartney, or vice versa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1290999,00.html
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network