Labour to vote on pull-out from Iraq

[fishface]

The attempts by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to focus his party's annual conference on domestic issues received a setback yesterday when delegates backed moves to force a vote on a troop pull-out from Iraq.

With the Labour conference in Brighton overshadowed by the fate of the British hostage Ken Bigley, Mr Blair had hoped to avoid a damaging debate on the war during what is expected to be the last annual conference before the general election.

But anti-war delegates pushed through a motion that will mean the party will debate a troop withdrawal on Thursday, the final day of the conference and the date of a crucial by-election.

Mr Blair has ruled out a move to pull out troops as "surrender to the terrorists". The debate is likely to prove an embarrassing defeat for the party leadership, although any conference vote will not be binding on the Government.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/27/1096137172738.html?oneclick=true

[existentialist]

1. British vote on troop withdrawal

Good Post! Thank-you.

[Carla in Ca]

2. Last week it was reported a portion was being recalled.

Does this now mean ALL the troops? Would it happen incrementally? This has to be devestating to the morale of OUR troops just knowing it might happen. Good God.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. This won't actually change anything

the key phrase is "any conference vote will not be binding on the Government". Blair long ago gave up any pretence of paying attention to the votes of his party and the trade unions.

The only way they could affect things is with a vote to through him out as leader of the party; and they daren't do that. Some, though they disagree with him on Iraq, agree with him on enough other subjects they that still want to keep him; and some more are too afraid of being painted as treacherous, which would affect their own elections in unions and constituencies.

[Zorra]

3. Pulling out of Iraq may save the Labour Party.

But it won't save Phony Tony. Labour should dump him ASAP and run someone respectable in his place.

[struggle4progress]

4. Hey, Tony! Mene mene tekel upharsin! eom

[Nihil]

6. Doesn't actually mean much

The party can vote for withdrawal but Blair has already said he'll
ignore them ... "votes" at a conference like this have no binding,
no power and nothing but a few press reports will result from it.
(Note: Might not even get the press reports if there are other
"distractions" going on ... like the Greek airplanes taking "emergency"
landings due to anonymous bomb threats phoned through to newspapers).

I suppose the real benefit is that the anti-war protesters can see
that their efforts *are* being recognised and that the only thing
that keeps the murder going is Blair's pig-ignorant support for Bush.

Nihil

[Tripmann]

7. Hmm,

The British media will report the result of a defeat and it will be another small nail in Blairs coffin. Don't forget stories such as this do make the news this side of the water warts and all. Whereas stateside it will probably be reported as 'Blair treated unfairly by ungrateful party' or something similar.

Tripmann

[gbarford]

8. It seems as though the vote is not going to happen now

Blair and his cronies seem to have arm-twisted the delegate who was going to second the motion, and it seems that under the rules, no one else can second it in his place, which means that the Chair cannot accept it.

The delegate in question seems to have been given a prominent speaking slot in the wider debate on Foreign Affairs in exchange for him refusing to second the motion. What a wimp.