Labour conference postscript

From something called Gallery News (not online as far as I know, and I think for MPs and staff in the House of Commons), comes this news:

Unions' support for a government-backed motion on Iraq has triggered warnings of a backlash from delegates.

Pat Healey, who put forward a rebel motion calling for a phased and [e]arly withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, said bosses could face criticism for their contradiction of official union policy.

"Some of the trade union delegates here are going to have to answer to their members when they get back to their branches because several of them already have a policy on setting a date for the early withdrawal for British troops," Ms Healey said.

"The reason they have actually gone along with the NEC statement is not really sound.

"They seem to have been swayed by a particular Iraqi trade unionist..."

Unison delegate Dorothy Macedo is quoted as saying that:

The speech to conference by an Iraqi-Kurdish exile was 'a bit of emotional manipulation'.

On the other hand, TGWU deputy secretary Jack Dromey says:

"We listened to the voice of the Iraqi trade union movement, 200,000 strong and rapidly growing. Ultimately we stayed true to our policy, which is that we want British disengagement from Iraq. In terms of how we disengage, we listen to the voice of working people in Iraq. If our brothers and sisters at the sharp end [who] are trying to do their best in desperately difficult circumstances say to us, 'let us decide', it is absolutely wrong for us here in Brighton to determine the future for trade unionists in the frontline in Baghdad."

This is Dromey speaking for solidarity, and Healey and Macedo speaking the same language of denial as much (most?) of the anti-war movement has done since turning its back on the people of Iraq. (Hat tip: AJ/GK.)