Blair to take on unions over Iraq (IN THE LINE OF FIRE ALERT)

BBC News ^ | September 10, 2002 | BBC News

[MadIvan]

Tony Blair will face down union hostility over war with Iraq with a TUC speech calling Saddam Hussein an "international outlaw."

The unions haven't had anyone with brains dictating their ideas on foreign policy since Ernest Bevin, who was a ferocious anti-Communist - Ivan

Mr Blair will repeat his insistence that doing nothing about the Iraqi leader is no longer an option.

Mr Blair will, in effect, challenge the United Nations to agree decisive action against Iraq.

It is set to be his most difficult appearance at the union conference since he became prime minister.

If the unions are giving you grief, you know you're doing right - Ivan

Mr Blair will tell doubting union members the Iraqi dictator is determined to build a nuclear arsenal which would threaten the globe.

The prime minister will see Monday's TUC call for any action to be taken only with the UN's authority as support for his position.

World's worst

But he will go further, suggesting the UK and the US must be ready to use military action even if the UN fails to properly tackle the issue.

The prime minister is under attack on a number of fronts at the conference, but the issue of a possible war with Saddam Hussein is dominating proceedings.

He will tell delegates that the Iraqi leader presides over the world's worst regime, which is brutal, dictatorial and has a wretched human rights record.

Saddam represents a threat to his neighbours, the region and the stability of the whole world, Mr Blair believes.

He will say: "There is evidence he has chemical and biological weapons and evidence, too, that he is continuing his efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

"We cannot stand by and do nothing. We should do everything we can to stop him using the weapons he has got and the weapons he wants."

Calling for a recall

Labour MP Graham Allen is due to meet parliamentary authorities on Tuesday to see if he can convene an unofficial gathering of MPs in the Commons to debate Iraq.

The Nottingham North MP, who is unlikely to gain permission, said while the affair would be a "Heath Robinson recall", it would give colleagues a chance to discuss an issue of "national importance".

Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said he would not be attending the meeting, but added: "This is a very ingenious method he has chosen to try to bring pressure to bear on the government."

Labour MP Alice Mahon says Mr Blair and Mr Bush have to produce more evidence than the "suppositions" in a dossier published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies on Monday.

Interesting that all of the less than stellar Labour MPs are trying to make big names for themselves on this issue - Ivan

"There was nothing in the dossier yesterday that has not been in the public domain before that is evidence," she said.

"It is a desperate attempt to up the propaganda to support President Bush's speech on Thursday."

'Unstable dictator'

But Mr Blair will promise to act carefully and only after proper deliberation and consultation.

He will argue that ultimately the Iraqi leader must be dealt with as he has shown himself to be an unstable dictator capable of using weapons of mass destruction.

The Labour leader will also take on his union critics on domestic issues, particularly on reform of the public services.

He will ignore some of the more bitter attacks that have been levelled at him since the conference's start.

Aides said he believed those attacks harmed the people making them more than they harmed him.

They did not name the likes of Derek Simpson - who has refused to meet the prime minister - or Mick Rix and Bob Crow but it was clear who they had in mind.

Derek Simpson also swore to give Blair a "migrane" - in other words, a typical union prat - Ivan

Unions' agenda

Many union activists are still angry at the government's plans for the public services and the introduction of private firms into health and education.

There is the prospect of industrial action to protect pension rights in the wake of the crisis sparked by employers abandoning final salary schemes.

And rows over the euro and repeal of Tory anti-union laws will also feature high on the unions' agenda.

But Mr Blair is expected to give little ground over many of the key demands.

On the increasingly powerful demands for new rights for unions, the prime minister is ready to underline the advances that union members have already made under New Labour.

He will emphasise the creation of a sound economy with low interest rates and unemployment and the introduction of the minimum wage.

But he is also expected to tell left-wing leaders, led by Derek Simpson of Amicus, that there will be no return to the strike-ridden days of the 1970s.

Once again, Mr Blair is expected to repeat his message that there is no option but to reform the public services.

And he will remind the conference of the huge amounts of money being poured into services like the NHS and education.

Members will be particularly sensitive to the language he uses during this section of his speech and will not want to hear themselves branded "wreckers".

[MadIvan]

Blair is showing some rare courage here. What he must have seen from MI6 must be truly terrifying. Or, he just realises that this is the right thing to do.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

So when do you think that it will become clear how the matter of the control of Labor, and who is going down or out, will resolve itself?

[MadIvan]

So when do you think that it will become clear how the matter of the control of Labor, and who is going down or out, will resolve itself?

Labour has always been chaotic - that's why they've historically lost so many elections.

If Blair is successful in the war, I doubt anyone can touch him. He will have raised the nation's prestige so much that he will be difficult to unseat or remove. If the war is unsuccessful, then he'll be out.

Most people do not belong to unions anymore. Most people do have to live with the consequences of the unions - for example, I am NOT pleased that there will likely be a London Underground strike in the near future. Frankly, given what grief and inconvenience they cause me, I despise them. I am not alone in this feeling, I think.

Regards, Ivan

[JohnHuang2]

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...Blair is showing some rare courage here. What he must have seen from MI6 must be truly terrifying. Or, he just realises that this is the right thing to do....

...or, he wants to be the NWO's PC Plod. You gotta admit that fits the profile, Ivan.

[MadIvan]

...or, he wants to be the NWO's PC Plod. You gotta admit that fits the profile, Ivan.

That would suggest also that President Bush fits that profile as well. Surely not?

Regards, Ivan

[Tribune7]

Almost enough to make me want to move to UK & vote Labor.

Well, maybe not. But go Tony!

[MadIvan]

Well, maybe not. But go Tony!

I'll never vote Labour, ever. Tone is the best out of a bad lot.

Regards, Ivan

[Miss Marple]

I have tried and tried to explain this to Byron, but I have come to the conclusion that he has too much invested in his belief that there is no justification for war with Iraq. I don't know why this is, but it is so.

I fully expect when the case is laid out on Thursday, it will still not be enough, even though the FRENCH are starting to come around and Blair is willing to risk his political future to stand up to the unions.

We have a few Americans who are also in this same mind set, albeit they are 3rd Party people or democrats in disguise. They have invested so much of their intellectual capital in proving that President Bush was the wrong choice (preferring Keyes, Buchanan, Gore, or Nader) that they absolutely refuse to believe that the man is doing the right thing. Every step the President takes is critiqued and carped about. The good things are ignored, the compromises necessary in a free government (not all of which I necessarily approve) are viewed as betrayal.

It is an interesting thing to watch. It is also interesting that as more and more evidence appears, the evidence is even more stridently discounted. I don't quite know why, but there you have it.

[MadIvan]

It is an interesting thing to watch. It is also interesting that as more and more evidence appears, the evidence is even more stridently discounted.

This is reminding me, unpleasantly, of what happened when it was time to remove Weird Bill. No matter how much evidence piled up, or how far or hard they were pushed back, none of it was ever enough for the Clintonistas to actually get them to say that he should go.

Regards, Ivan

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..they have invested so much of their intellectual capital in proving that President Bush was the wrong choice (preferring Keyes, Buchanan, Gore, or Nader) that they absolutely refuse to believe that the man is doing the right thing. Every step the President takes is critiqued and carped about. The good things are ignored, the compromises necessary in a free government (not all of which I necessarily approve) are viewed as betrayal...

Hey hey hey hey HEY!!!

Don't rope me in with that bunch. President Bush has done some good things and he's a damn sight better than the alternative. Of course you have to compromise and cut deals to get your agenda moving in politics, I'm well experienced in that reality. But this Iraq thing breaks Byron's First Rule of Politics : don't mess with something that's going well. He's got the public's support and he handled himself well after 911, so why risk going a bridge too far? Especially when there's so much to be done at home. Miss M, you're wrong in thinking I've got too much capital invested in this to admit I'm wrong. If the President comes out with some solid evidence of Iraqi skullduggery I'll be on board pronto and apologising to you right away. Regards, By.

[Miss Marple]

Byron, this is not a POLITICAL decision. Domestic policy is subordinate to survival, which is what we are involved in here.

I understand the worries about increasing government, and of course there is concern about the economy.

BUT, the West cannot ignore these threats. The aluminum tubes the Vice President talked about are specially tooled for precision...not something you need for irrigation or general factory type stuff. As a matter of fact, the UN agreement he signed prohibits him buying anything except food and medicine, anyway, but especially those things which are useful in weapons manufacture, and these aluminum pipes are needed for the enrichment of uranium.

Your concern is misplaced. The American people are not eager to go to war; we ARE eager to survive, and have our children grow up in a world in which terrorism is a rare and ineffective occurrence.

You may think this is a bridge too far, but the President is charged with protecting the people of the United States, a charge he takes quite seriously. Things are going well now in public opinion, that is true. But to stop and say "well, that's it, then" is neither politically wise nor courageous.

Iraq as named one of the Axis of Evil countries in JANUARY. They have been on the radar screen for some time. There is an abundance of evidence that they have been attempting to get parts for nuclear weapons. There is evidence that they have Al Qaeda residing there with their approval. I imagine that there is more evidence that we will see, as well as some we will never see.

So, I will be interested in your reaction after the President speaks to the UN. Apparently Mr. Howard is in agreement with the President. Do you find him to be easily misled?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[okie01]

"But this Iraq thing breaks Byron's First Rule of Politics : don't mess with something that's going well. He's got the public's support and he handled himself well after 911, so why risk going a bridge too far?"

You might be advised to view "this Iraq thing" as outside of politics.

Instead, the issue is one of self-defense.

Ascribing a political motive to Bush's actions regarding Iraq is, I believe, a total misunderstanding of the situation.

[okie01]

"Byron, this is not a POLITICAL decision. Domestic policy is subordinate to survival..."

Should've read your reply to Byron before I posted my own...

[justshe]

MadIvan...not only do I appreciate the *PINGS* to your threads, I also appreciate your comments withing the columns. MOST interesting and informative.

[sonsofliberty2000]

Or a better way of putting it... something a democrat would do.