Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson says that party selections rarely leave clea

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited July 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson says that party selections rarely leave clean hands

Bismarck said “laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The same could certainly be said of parliamentary selections. The scrutiny of Labour’s Falkirk selection has generated a good deal of recent media coverage and much of this can be put down to the fascination of Unite, the largest trade union in the country.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    I mostly agree. In the end political party selections are a matter for the parties themselves - if the voters dont like who they select or how then they are free to vote for someone else. But it doesnt look good to have blatant rigging going unpunished. And Andrea's analysis shows just how ineffective Unite has really been in getting its favoured candidates selected.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Threads changing quicker than "tim's" briefing notes from Ed's bunker.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    At least Tory selection is only done by Constituency Assoc members with no votes given to external bodies. Hardest thing for a potential candidate is to get on the Candidate List and it certainly does get manipulated, often by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

    Labour selections are always entertaining. Who can forget Mr Harriet Harman, Jack Dromy (who just happened to be a Trade Union baron and the Labour Party Treasurer who didn't know about £18 million loans raised by Lord Cashpoint) winning one of his wife's all-female shortlists :)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sarah wooloston is a good advert for open primaries. I think that govt funding of parties is not such a good idea, but open primaries funded by the govt would be acceptable.

    We would then get away from stitch ups like Falkirk, or any number of others. It would reduce the power of the self replicating cotierie of SPADs that form the oligarcies of our two main parties.

    It was in the coalition agreement as I recall.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited July 2013

    At least Tory selection is only done by Constituency Assoc members with no votes given to external bodies.

    Only Labour party members vote in their selections.


    Labour selections are always entertaining. Who can forget Mr Harriet Harman, Jack Dromy (who just happened to be a Trade Union baron and the Labour Party Treasurer who didn't know about £18 million loans raised by Lord Cashpoint) winning one of his wife's all-female shortlists :)

    There should be a pbc sinbin for people repeating this after it has been debunked here umpteen times.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Sarah wooloston is a good advert for open primaries. I think that govt funding of parties is not such a good idea, but open primaries funded by the govt would be acceptable.

    We would then get away from stitch ups like Falkirk, or any number of others. It would reduce the power of the self replicating cotierie of SPADs that form the oligarcies of our two main parties.

    It was in the coalition agreement as I recall.

    How would you prevent abuse of the primary system? For example you could imagine labour supporters voting en masse for the most unpleasant Tory candidate on the list, in order to increase the chances for their candidate at the election.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    How have Labour managed to make a mountain out of their own molehill? Good timing!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    At least Tory selection is only done by Constituency Assoc members with no votes given to external bodies. Hardest thing for a potential candidate is to get on the Candidate List and it certainly does get manipulated, often by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

    Labour selections are always entertaining. Who can forget Mr Harriet Harman, Jack Dromy (who just happened to be a Trade Union baron and the Labour Party Treasurer who didn't know about £18 million loans raised by Lord Cashpoint) winning one of his wife's all-female shortlists :)

    My dear "Easterross" it's uncommonly decent of you to remind us all of the Dromy affair before "tim" managed to get round to it.

    He's awfully busy presently and these noble interventions from your good self always show PB in its best cross community light.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Henry G

    A nice attempt of apologetics but it is not persuasive. Yes Labour has a record of imposing rules and then breaking them when it suits its personal purpose (like Mr Harriet Harmon).

    However, when the major donor to a political party unapologetically and publically announces that the party that it has been supporting has MPs and candidates that are not supporting the believed basic ethos of that party (and adopts measures (invalid? or illegal?) to correct that imbalance) then it is valid that questions are asked.

    On Today this morning, Anna Eagle could only offer the defence for Labour's inaction/action that "we had to defend the rule book" and would not recognise the scenario that was put to her that Unite could withdraw its funding of Labour.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Financier said:

    Yes Labour has a record of imposing rules and then breaking them when it suits its personal purpose (like Mr Harriet Harmon).

    Are we going for a record? The number of times we can cite an example of how a selection wasnt fixed in a thread about how they are fixed?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Financier said:


    On Today this morning, Anna Eagle could only offer the defence for Labour's inaction/action that "we had to defend the rule book" and would not recognise the scenario that was put to her that Unite could withdraw its funding of Labour.

    Defending the rule book is more sensible than ignoring it. She is right to believe that Unite will not disaffiliate from Labour.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    "However, when the major donor to a political party unapologetically and publically announces that the party that it has been supporting has MPs and candidates that are not supporting the believed basic ethos of that party (and adopts measures (invalid? or illegal?) to correct that imbalance) then it is valid that questions are asked"

    Maybe it's just me, but I am not sure that makes any sense.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Nothing to see here, move along now.

    Mentioning Thatcher?! Good grief - that's desperate barrel scraping.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    rEd should be grateful - this takes the focus of his dithering on Europe and dithering on policy.

    Still this Kinnocking has been most fun.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Labour MP's doing a four day week ..shameful..and they want a pay rise
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    I trust that Labour's penchant for election rigging and abuse of postal voting doesn't extend beyond their internal affairs.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Neil said:

    Financier said:

    Yes Labour has a record of imposing rules and then breaking them when it suits its personal purpose (like Mr Harriet Harmon).

    Are we going for a record? The number of times we can cite an example of how a selection wasnt fixed in a thread about how they are fixed?
    Oh well if we're playing Record Breakers

    what about Jack Dromy being selected on an AWS ?

    you heard it first from Easter Ross McWhirter.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @Neil

    " Only Labour party members vote in their selections. "

    Well clearly if UNITE decides to make you a member of Labour without your consent or pays your dues for you - its not exactly cricket is it?

    Imagine if News Corp were caught paying Tory membership fees so they could rig an election for their preferred candidate. It's totally undemocratic.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Remember when Jack Dromey was selected from an all women shortlist ??
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome
    James Wharton on his EU referendum bill: "Ed Miliband isn't coming today because he's too weak to lead his party."
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    JackW said:

    My dear "Easterross" it's uncommonly decent of you to remind us all of the Dromy affair before "tim" managed to get round to it.

    He's awfully busy presently and these noble interventions from your good self always show PB in its best cross community light.



    Jack you fine chap, been very busy with all the DNA malarkey. Hoping to announce exciting evidence of 12th century inter-family nookie shortly with royal connections. Only downside is may make me a distant cousin of Mrs Dromy but at least does confirm Boris and Dave are cousins from a safe distance.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TGOHF said:

    Remember when Jack Dromey was selected from an all women shortlist ??

    You silly fellow, clearly it was part of the Labour party trans gender equality drive.

    Now Mr Jack Harman or is it the full monty - Ms Jack-Harriet Dormy-Har-Woman ??

  • JonCJonC Posts: 67
    Awkward for Miliband seeing as he owes his job to the twisted electoral college rules which meant the Brothers won it for him...

    But 95% of the public are entirely unaware of this story and 90% of the remaining 5% either don't give a monkey's or don't understand it.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    In all seriousness - what I can't get over re Falkirk is the cackhandedness of it.

    UNITE sends out documents describing its actions as *exemplary* as if that wasn't asking for it, but to allegedly make someone a Labour Party member without their consent?

    If you're going to fabricate support - wouldn't you make up people or at least divert their party mailing to an address so they'd never get them/know what was going on?

    It's bizarre. And paying someone else's membership fees? I'm sorry but its not quite like getting a record token is it.

    I've no idea if you can buy memberships for others as *gifts* from Labour or any other party - but it does strike me as something that is wide-open to abuse and shouldn't be allowed.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    So far we've had the "Dromy" (sic) AWS myth and "Anna" Eagle on the radio.
    Surely there's an IQ filter that can cope with these posters.

    tim if you change "myth" to "scandal" in that post, you can join our record attempt.
  • RandomRandom Posts: 107
    Neil said:

    Financier said:

    Yes Labour has a record of imposing rules and then breaking them when it suits its personal purpose (like Mr Harriet Harmon).

    Are we going for a record? The number of times we can cite an example of how a selection wasnt fixed in a thread about how they are fixed?
    IIRC the fix wasn't so much that Dromey won an AWS - that would have been a bit blatant even for Labour - but that a seat that according to the rules (enthusiastically championed by Mrs Dromey) should almost automatically have had an AWS shortlist was instead told to run an open selection after Dromey expressed an interest in the seat and while Unite was applying pressure to parachute him into a safe seat. Is this inaccurate?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Con 23% with Survation, prompting for UKIP must be making a huge difference now the voters have started to forget they exist.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013

    JackW said:

    My dear "Easterross" it's uncommonly decent of you to remind us all of the Dromy affair before "tim" managed to get round to it.

    He's awfully busy presently and these noble interventions from your good self always show PB in its best cross community light.

    "Jack you fine chap, been very busy with all the DNA malarkey. Hoping to announce exciting evidence of 12th century inter-family nookie shortly with royal connections. Only downside is may make me a distant cousin of Mrs Dromy but at least does confirm Boris and Dave are cousins from a safe distance."

    .....................................................................................

    It might be worse .... Cheshire farmers et al !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • MBoyMBoy Posts: 104
    This is an attempt to say all parties are like this, when they clearly aren't.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim

    I realise I wrote Dromy, my apologies to Mr Droney.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited July 2013

    tim said:

    So far we've had the "Dromy" (sic) AWS myth and "Anna" Eagle on the radio.
    Surely there's an IQ filter that can cope with these posters.

    tim if you change "myth" to "scandal" in that post, you can join our record attempt.
    The Idiot Mr Harman ;

    " The great majority of the womens (sic) who came into parliament were women ".


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWHwAp5Css


    Labour's inbreeding is producing a race of imbeciles.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,211
    @tim - Son, I'd take the day off if I were you. I really would.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Selection of candidates: who cares? Answer: only the potential candidates themselves and their backers.

    Len McCluskey's onslaught on Ed Miliband is far more significant than the Falkirk brouhaha itself.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I would suggest that all primaries take place similtaneously, but that the voter chooses which party primary that they want to vote in. So 4 ballot papers (or more if even more parties) but only one per voter.

    Open primaries are good for democracy, bad for party machines, because MPs like Sarah Woolaston owe little to the machine and can speak freely. She was good on QT last night. Dave should promote her not marginalise her.
    RobD said:

    Sarah wooloston is a good advert for open primaries. I think that govt funding of parties is not such a good idea, but open primaries funded by the govt would be acceptable.

    We would then get away from stitch ups like Falkirk, or any number of others. It would reduce the power of the self replicating cotierie of SPADs that form the oligarcies of our two main parties.

    It was in the coalition agreement as I recall.

    How would you prevent abuse of the primary system? For example you could imagine labour supporters voting en masse for the most unpleasant Tory candidate on the list, in order to increase the chances for their candidate at the election.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    tim said:

    So far we've had the "Dromy" (sic) AWS myth and "Anna" Eagle on the radio.
    Surely there's an IQ filter that can cope with these posters.

    tim if you change "myth" to "scandal" in that post, you can join our record attempt.
    The Idiot Mr Harman ;

    " The great majority of the women who came into parliament were women ".


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJWHwAp5Css


    Labour's inbreeding is producing a race of imbeciles.
    And we thought Labour were against all this family inheritance, blueblood, right breeding stuff ? Is it like the Rev Moon I wonder where the NEC decides who gets to marry whom ?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Is that a new Survation poll?

    If so, it looks horrible for Labour. Can things get any worse?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    antifrank said:

    Selection of candidates: who cares? Answer: only the potential candidates themselves and their backers.

    Len McCluskey's onslaught on Ed Miliband is far more significant than the Falkirk brouhaha itself.

    Could not agree more. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BOO 45 , Unite 36 ?

    Decent.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    RobD said:

    Sarah wooloston is a good advert for open primaries. I think that govt funding of parties is not such a good idea, but open primaries funded by the govt would be acceptable.

    We would then get away from stitch ups like Falkirk, or any number of others. It would reduce the power of the self replicating cotierie of SPADs that form the oligarcies of our two main parties.

    It was in the coalition agreement as I recall.

    How would you prevent abuse of the primary system? For example you could imagine labour supporters voting en masse for the most unpleasant Tory candidate on the list, in order to increase the chances for their candidate at the election.

    The Vietnam Oral History book that I keep plugging (Christian Appy) describes how Nixon's team enthusiastically worked to get the far-left McGovern chosen as his challenger. I don't think open selections work well at all for that sort of reason. But a consultative public vote before a selection could be interesting. If another party had obviously packed the meeting members could just roll their eyes and ignore it. As Henry observes, packing the nomination process by unions or anyone else doesn't really work either - a good candidate will make it to the final and then only members' votes count. Persuading people to join merely to support you is hard and can be counter-productive - I got my very Tory mum to do it in 1983, and cringed when she turned up at a branch meeting above a pub in an ocelot jacket, then refused to sit at the table as it would make 13 and she was superstitious (mind you, they then made her Branch Membership Secretary so maybe they were desperate enough not to care).

    Being a party member isn't that much fun most of the time. The right to choose your candidates is more interesting than everything else, since there's a chance that you can change the outcome, which isn't really usually the case for an individual voter in a GE, however much we shout "your vote could be decisive!" at them. If members give up the right to select, I'm not sure that many will bother at all.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    I would suggest that all primaries take place similtaneously, but that the voter chooses which party primary that they want to vote in. So 4 ballot papers (or more if even more parties) but only one per voter.

    Open primaries are good for democracy, bad for party machines, because MPs like Sarah Woolaston owe little to the machine and can speak freely. She was good on QT last night. Dave should promote her not marginalise her.

    RobD said:

    Sarah wooloston is a good advert for open primaries. I think that govt funding of parties is not such a good idea, but open primaries funded by the govt would be acceptable.

    We would then get away from stitch ups like Falkirk, or any number of others. It would reduce the power of the self replicating cotierie of SPADs that form the oligarcies of our two main parties.

    It was in the coalition agreement as I recall.

    How would you prevent abuse of the primary system? For example you could imagine labour supporters voting en masse for the most unpleasant Tory candidate on the list, in order to increase the chances for their candidate at the election.

    IIRC Ms Woolaston has said she doesn't want a job as it'd stop her from speaking her mind - so she's decided to marginalise herself. She does of course sit on a Select Committee.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    BOO 45 , Unite 36 ?

    Decent.

    Slight flaw in that.
    Cameron will posture but vote In
    According to Survation at this rate of advance it will be PM Farage - which I would take. Lets be honest - anyone but rEd Kinnock as PM I would take.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited July 2013
    Nested quotes in which posters alternate between putting their response above or below the original post give me a headache. :p

    Perhaps should agree to follow the style of the first replier.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Brogan takes up the reactive not proactive theme

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100225011/a-question-of-labour-leadership/

    "Today illustrates how on policy – Europe – and organisation – Falkirk/Unite – Mr Miliband has until now allowed others to call the tune. "

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If Tom Watson is returning to the back benches - does that mean that he's also no longer Deputy Chair of Labour Party?

    If so, what's the election process to replace him?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Can everyone please give the whole "this Unite/Falkirk is a story" thing a rest.

    We can take our lead from the mighty and left wing airbrushing BBC on this one where the first five stories (including multi-media elements) are about the kitten in Derbyshire which got stuck in a can of coke.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    TOPPING said:

    Can everyone please give the whole "this Unite/Falkirk is a story" thing a rest.

    We can take our lead from the mighty and left wing airbrushing BBC on this one where the first five stories (including multi-media elements) are about the kitten in Derbyshire which got stuck in a can of coke.

    R5 have decided not to do the Unite story but discuss the merits of Margaret Thatcher Day...
  • Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    Not sure how this is going to pan out.
    Is there actually, perhaps unexpectedly, a way this could be turned into a win for Ed Milliband? With clever spin that could surely be doable (Although he hasn't got off to a good start).

    On the other hand, I don't know what is yet to come out, and what Tom Watson will do next.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Anna Eagle
    Dromy
    Woolaston

    This is supposed to be a politics site not a remedial class.

    Who elected you spelling monitor - 200 new posters who UNITE have signed up without their permission ?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Whatever one thinks of being a union member or Andrew Pierce who personally I can't stand > isn't this just a closed-shop by another name? I can't see why being a trade unionist is a requirement to standing for political office.

    "I can reveal that any candidate for either council or parliamentary elections must now be a member of a trade union.

    This astonishing condition is hidden in the small print of the party rulebook. As well as demanding that anyone who wants to be a candidate must ‘have continuous membership of the party for at least 12 months’, he or she must ‘also be a member of a trade union affiliated to the TUC or considered by the National Executive Committee (NEC) as a bona fide trade union and contribute to the political fund of that union’.

    Not surprisingly, this rule change was not publicly announced. For it shows that the Labour leadership is in the most powerful union grip since Harold Wilson’s government had its policy dictated to by union chiefs over beer and sandwiches in Downing Street in the 1970s.

    This amazing concession to the unions was part of Red Ed’s ‘Refounding Labour’ strategy which he pushed through the 2011 party conference...

    A Labour Party spokesman insisted there had been an ‘assumption’ that candidates should be trade union members for 15 years or more and claimed the only changes that had been made to the rules in recent years were ‘grammatical’. But the rule is already delivering dividends for Unite, which has succeeded with its preferred choice of candidates in nine parliamentary seats, with 11 others put on shortlists.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2356502/ANDREW-PIERCE-Revealed-How-unions-got-Red-Ed-headlock.html#ixzz2Y9mVbxV6

  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    edited July 2013
    On Topic:

    One of parliament's best MPs since the GE has been Dr Sarah Woolaston.

    Her method of selection is probably the reason why. An open primary where she was championed locally and therefore someone who feels more loyalty her constituents rather than the leadership. Often to the discomfort of Cameron.

    Unite funded MPs will be loyal to Unite.
    Party political pros and SPADS who become MPs wiil be loyal to their leaderships.
    Open primary MPs will be loyal to their constituents.

    You can see why party leadership's dislike open primaries.

    They want MPs who are safe, unthinkingly loyal and who kneel to party discipline.

    I can see both sides of the argument and understand why the unions - who pay the party huge sums - want their people in parliament. But it would be nice to see more mavericks and free-thinkers.

    EDIT - Sorry I didn't see Sarah Woolaston mentioned below, or that she was on QT last night. She must've been mind-channelling me!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    Anna Eagle
    Dromy
    Woolaston

    This is supposed to be a politics site not a remedial class.

    Have we told you the one about Blackbusters ? arf.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Those Cheshire rabbits are huge..
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited July 2013
    MBoy said:

    This is an attempt to say all parties are like this, when they clearly aren't.

    There are two factors here.

    1. Different factions within a party will attempt to ensure that their supporters are selected for promising seats to become MPs.

    This happens in all parties, and Conservative Eurosceptic groups have been particularly successful in ensuring that the PCP reflects their views.

    2. The degree to which rules are bent or broken in order to achieve #1. You have things like older MPs allegedly being offered Peerages in order to announce that they will not fight the election sufficiently close to the election that the hierarchy can parachute in one of their mates.

    This appears to be regarded as routine within the Labour party, but could fall within the definition of bribery, in my view.

    Then you have the situation of an organisation like Unite trying to, in their mind, correct the balance and possibly slipping in to fraud to do so.

    Unite are often being criticised for #1, in which all parties are alike, when what is going wrong with the selections is #2.

    I think we should worry if an MP owes their place in Parliament to corrupt practises. Government funding for open primaries might help [but determined people can always find a way to corrupt a process if they wish], but it raises a number of questions.

    Would the government fund an open primary to select a BNP candidate? If you set a threshold of only funding primaries for parties who saved their deposit at the last general election then the primary process would act to reinforce the status quo by providing free publicity for those parties that are already established in an area. Is that consistent with a fair election?

    STV would help, because people would be able to rank their preferred candidates for each party, and so in effect it combines the process of an open primary with that of the general election.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    tim said:

    Anna Eagle
    Dromy
    Woolaston

    This is supposed to be a politics site not a remedial class.

    Jeffrey Osborne . I thought Obama was meant to be the POTUS , not an ignoramus.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Fat_Steve said:

    Not sure how this is going to pan out.
    Is there actually, perhaps unexpectedly, a way this could be turned into a win for Ed Milliband? With clever spin that could surely be doable (Although he hasn't got off to a good start).

    On the other hand, I don't know what is yet to come out, and what Tom Watson will do next.

    As noted below the overwhelming majority of voters know and care little of who is selected for what constituency, or how. But what they may see is the bloke who supposedly pulls all Ed's strings talking very angrily about how Ed is not doing what he wants. Up to now, Len seems to be a pretty lonely voice. Could it be that he is somewhat isolated?

  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Don't forget the ballot box tampering at Labour HQ for Erith and Thamesmead.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Some big rabbits in Southam too apparently
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    I wouldn't mind the lack of rigour on all the names if the same people didnt also get elections horribly wrong

    Ironic coming from the Gove worshippers.
    Or proof that dropping the coursework leads to failing the final exam too, you decide.

    tim, chillax man,

    you sound so uptight, dude

    here's a link to Drenge help you get in the zone

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/24/new-band-drenge
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    I wouldn't mind the lack of rigour on all the names if the same people didnt also get elections horribly wrong

    Ironic coming from the Gove worshippers.
    Or proof that dropping the coursework leads to failing the final exam too, you decide.

    What about economic data - people suggesting triple dips when there wasn't even a double ? Or suggesting there hasn't been cuts when there has been ?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited July 2013
    Last result from last night

    North Tyneside - Riverside

    Wendy Lott (Lab) 1067 85.6%
    Barbara Stevens (Con) 179 14.4%
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Fat_Steve said:

    Not sure how this is going to pan out.
    Is there actually, perhaps unexpectedly, a way this could be turned into a win for Ed Milliband? With clever spin that could surely be doable (Although he hasn't got off to a good start).

    On the other hand, I don't know what is yet to come out, and what Tom Watson will do next.

    As noted below the overwhelming majority of voters know and care little of who is selected for what constituency, or how. But what they may see is the bloke who supposedly pulls all Ed's strings talking very angrily about how Ed is not doing what he wants. Up to now, Len seems to be a pretty lonely voice. Could it be that he is somewhat isolated?

    Exactly so.

    Internally it might matter a very great deal, externally people are bored or don't really care or notice but the overriding impression - where there is one - is nevertheless negative.

    Moreover although this seems a pretty egregious example, "Unions support Labour" is hardly a man bites dog moment. The story, as ever, is the attempted explanations/cover ups which seem not to add up and keep the story going and arouse peoples' suspicions.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @SouthamObserver

    " Up to now, Len seems to be a pretty lonely voice. Could it be that he is somewhat isolated? "

    LOL.

    Man in charge of Labour's largest donor by far is ISOLATED.

    Pull the other one.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2013
    Guido has a leaked Labour EU vote briefing - dunno if it was left in the toilets.

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/

    They want to appoint an "EU commissioner for growth" - deary deary me.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Plato said:

    Whatever one thinks of being a union member or Andrew Pierce who personally I can't stand > isn't this just a closed-shop by another name? I can't see why being a trade unionist is a requirement to standing for political office.

    "I can reveal that any candidate for either council or parliamentary elections must now be a member of a trade union.

    This astonishing condition is hidden in the small print of the party rulebook. As well as demanding that anyone who wants to be a candidate must ‘have continuous membership of the party for at least 12 months’, he or she must ‘also be a member of a trade union affiliated to the TUC or considered by the National Executive Committee (NEC) as a bona fide trade union and contribute to the political fund of that union’.

    Not surprisingly, this rule change was not publicly announced. For it shows that the Labour leadership is in the most powerful union grip since Harold Wilson’s government had its policy dictated to by union chiefs over beer and sandwiches in Downing Street in the 1970s.

    This amazing concession to the unions was part of Red Ed’s ‘Refounding Labour’ strategy which he pushed through the 2011 party conference...

    A Labour Party spokesman insisted there had been an ‘assumption’ that candidates should be trade union members for 15 years or more and claimed the only changes that had been made to the rules in recent years were ‘grammatical’. But the rule is already delivering dividends for Unite, which has succeeded with its preferred choice of candidates in nine parliamentary seats, with 11 others put on shortlists.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2356502/ANDREW-PIERCE-Revealed-How-unions-got-Red-Ed-headlock.html#ixzz2Y9mVbxV6

    The article is ill-informed (or ill-intentioned or both). The expectation has existed for as long as I've been a member (42 years), not just for candidates but for all members, but in the current rulebook it merely says that you must either be a union member or have a waiver from the NEC representative (e.g. if you've been a serving soldier you clearly aren't expected to have set up a soldiers' union). Nor do I see that it's undemocratic for parties to specify that you must be this or that if they want to - if voters don't like the outcome, they're free to vote for a different party.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Do we have any idea how many/which non-Tory MPs will vote in favour of the EU bill?

    We've had a handful of Labour MPs named, but is there a list Likely List anywhere?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TGOHF said:

    Guido has a leaked Labour EU vote briefing - dunno if it was left in the toilets.

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/

    They want to appoint an "EU commissioner for growth" - deary deary me.

    You'd better proof read it for spelling mistakes and grammar ;-)
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Guido has a leaked Labour EU vote briefing - dunno if it was left in the toilets.

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/

    They want to appoint an "EU commissioner for growth" - deary deary me.

    You'd better proof read it for spelling mistakes and grammar ;-)
    Apparently we should stay in the EU because lots of people from the Uk travel there every year.

    It's kindergarten stuff.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Ben Brogan has his 2p

    "Mr Miliband has until now allowed others to call the tune. David Cameron has herded Labour towards a potentially dangerous position on the EU referendum. No wonder Ian Austin and other politically savvy types are hinting at an amendment to James Wharton's Bill that would force a vote before 2015.

    In the same way Unite has taken advantage of Mr Miliband's hands-off attitude to internal matters, and his reliance on union finance, to advance its interests. The result is an insurgency, a Blairite reaction, and a mess. The Tories will milk Labour's neo-Militant tendency for all its worth. Labour MPs will keep a nervous eye on Tom Watson, whose resignation letter has everyone scratching their heads: is that pledge of loyalty worth the paper it's written on? Tony Blair might say not.

    Lynton Crosby has been saying for months that the public perceive Mr Miliband as weak. Empty opposition benches in the Commons this morning, confusion in the face of Unite's challenge, the overarching impression Labour and Mr Miliband give this Friday is indeed of weakness. He is fighting back, but both confrontations have been forced on him. He has chosen neither the battle nor the ground. A terrible place to start. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100225011/a-question-of-labour-leadership/
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Guido has a leaked Labour EU vote briefing - dunno if it was left in the toilets.

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/

    They want to appoint an "EU commissioner for growth" - deary deary me.

    You'd better proof read it for spelling mistakes and grammar ;-)
    Apparently we should stay in the EU because lots of people from the Uk travel there every year.

    It's kindergarten stuff.
    flicking through that they keep quoting Miliband for some reason, they haven't mentioned Len's view once. Misleading.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23159023

    One to cheer up Tim (who loves muslim immigrants) and anger others (who think those dastardly muslim immigrants are damaging the chances of home-grown players).

    I was actually surprised to see that there are 40 muslims playing in the Premier League.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    EU debate just starting - here's the attendance

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOZa9y1CUAAIrX3.jpg:large
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    Plato said:

    @SouthamObserver

    " Up to now, Len seems to be a pretty lonely voice. Could it be that he is somewhat isolated? "

    LOL.

    Man in charge of Labour's largest donor by far is ISOLATED.

    Pull the other one.

    No other Labour-affiliated union leader has backed him; Labour MPs - UNITE sponsored or otherwise - are not exactly lining up to support his stance. The silence is deafening.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @joeyjonessky
    magnificent labour turnout for wharton bill. definitely double figures.

    @GuidoFawkes
    So whips told Labour MPs to go home and enjoy the sunshine. Suspect that line won't hold.

    weak, weak, weak.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    @Nick

    I've in front of me the 2009 Rule Book. It already said

    B. Nominating criteria of members standing for
    public office
    1. In addition to fulfilling any statutory
    requirements for the relevant public
    office, persons wishing to stand as a
    Labour candidate must have continuous
    membership of the party of at least 12
    months. They should also be a member of
    a trade union affiliated to the TUC or
    considered by the NEC as a bona fide
    trade union and contribute to the
    political fund of that union. Any
    exceptions to these conditions must be
    approved by the NEC or by officer
    authorised by the NEC.

    It was already present in Rule Book 2008. And also 2007.

    So yes, Andrew Pierce, you didn't do your homework well. Go back to your desk and learn your salary writing some decent lines instead of making things up.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Dennis Skinner is a Tory today ;^)
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Guido has a leaked Labour EU vote briefing - dunno if it was left in the toilets.

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/

    They want to appoint an "EU commissioner for growth" - deary deary me.

    You'd better proof read it for spelling mistakes and grammar ;-)
    Apparently we should stay in the EU because lots of people from the Uk travel there every year.

    It's kindergarten stuff.
    For Labour's millionaire elite the EU represents an endless chianti and prosecco fuelled continental summer holiday. Fortunately it looks like there is a grass roots underground movement within Labour revolting against their overlords.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    tim said:

    @Southam

    If Len is writing Labour policy can we wait for him to get Labour to support Unites policy on Heathrow expansion before he gets stopped please.

    Len is writing Labour policy, but disagrees with it. That may make sense to some, but it puzzles me as a concept.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    @Nick

    I've in front of me the 2009 Rule Book. It already said

    B. Nominating criteria of members standing for
    public office
    1. In addition to fulfilling any statutory
    requirements for the relevant public
    office, persons wishing to stand as a
    Labour candidate must have continuous
    membership of the party of at least 12
    months. They should also be a member of
    a trade union affiliated to the TUC or
    considered by the NEC as a bona fide
    trade union and contribute to the
    political fund of that union. Any
    exceptions to these conditions must be
    approved by the NEC or by officer
    authorised by the NEC.

    It was already present in Rule Book 2008. And also 2007.

    So yes, Andrew Pierce, you didn't do your homework well. Go back to your desk and learn your salary writing some decent lines instead of making things up.

    I think Mr Pierce was saying that it had changed from *should* to *must* - therefore Labour's 'grammatical' reference. But an interesting one if correct.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    Fenster said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23159023

    I was actually surprised to see that there are 40 muslims playing in the Premier League.

    I expect nearly all of them are north African...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited July 2013
    Just as with Cam's "Unite" soundbite, anyone listening to the debate or even seeing the highlights (!) on the news will hear on the one hand "give the British public a say" (Cons position) and on the other "no" (Lab position).

    And the resonance will be that the Labour party is trying to deny them a say on an important national issue. That it happens to be Europe is irrelevant.

    Not a masterstroke by Len/Ed.
  • tim said:

    @Southam

    If Len is writing Labour policy can we wait for him to get Labour to support Unites policy on Heathrow expansion before he gets stopped please.

    Should that not be Unite's tim? Perhaps appointing yourself as the PB English language expert wasn't such a good idea.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I must say that the EU debate is rather good and sensible so far - worth having on in the background if you're interested.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited July 2013
    @Plato

    It becomes "must" in 2010 version.

    In addition to fulfilling any statutory
    requirements for the relevant public
    office, persons wishing to stand as a
    Labour candidate must have continuous
    membership of the party of at least 12
    months. They should also be a member of
    a trade union affiliated to the TUC or
    considered by the NEC as a bona fide
    trade union and contribute to the
    political fund of that union. Any
    exceptions to these conditions must be
    approved by the NEC or by officer
    authorised by the NEC
    http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Labour-Party-Rule-Book-2010.pdf

    So before Refounding Labour which was approved at Conference 2011.
    EDIT: Oh, I got confused. "Must" here is for 12 months membership. Union memberships still have the "should".

    And what would change in practice switching from should to must? I know must is more decisive than should. But if you leave the "exceptions" clause in the next line, it's not conclusive anyway.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    TOPPING said:

    Just as with Cam's "Unite" soundbite, anyone listening to the debate or even seeing the highlights (!) on the news will hear on the one hand "give the British public a say" (Cons position) and on the other "no" (Lab position).

    And the resonance will be that the Labour party is trying to deny them a say on an important national issue. That it happens to be Europe is irrelevant.

    Not a masterstroke by Len/Ed.

    “Only the Tories are voting to give you a say” pic.twitter.com/zAn8xT7SfB

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOZegOxCMAAliQ3.jpg:large
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Kate Hoey MP:

    "The majority of Labour voters want a referendum"

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    TGOHF said:
    Where are the Unite Party members ? Are they on strike ?

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    And Labour's briefing note has been leaked to Guido - who is doing this?! :^ )

    http://order-order.com/2013/07/05/read-leaked-labour-eu-vote-briefing/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I see the Budda-like qualities of EdM are having the pee royally extracted in the Chamber.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    TGOHF said:
    Where are the Unite Party members ? Are they on strike ?

    Internal investigations on candidate selection presumably.

    It all went bad when Jock Dreamy won an Old Woman's Shortlist.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Labour briefing note is rather good (much better than the notes for Prime Minister's Questions from the other day).

    It is, however, a bad sign that the Labour party has suddenly become very leaky. It implies that discipline is breaking down.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Philip Collins adds his 2p http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/philipcollins/article3808351.ece

    "There are two huge obstacles in the way of Mr Miliband becoming Prime Minister and they are dramatised together in the obscure shenanigans in Falkirk. The first is that he has not persuaded the electorate that he cuts it as a leader. The second is that he is not trusted with the public finances or thought to understand the need for fiscal discipline. If the evil ghosts of Tory central office were themselves drafting the script to show Labour at its worst they could do no better than to portray Mr Miliband losing control of his party to a public sector union that demands there be no more cuts.

    It is all very well for Mr Miliband to say, as he often has, that he is not the sort of leader who wishes to pick a fight with his party. He seems, though, not to have realised that his party, or at least that section of it that gave him his victory over his brother, is picking a fight with him. This is not an arcane internal dispute. It is a toxic story for Labour and Mr Miliband has to stamp on it at once. Focus groups now talk about the Labour Party as if new Labour were a mirage. The image they offer of Labour is the pre-Blair default setting of an assembly of losers.

    ...Mr Watson should never have been close to the Shadow Cabinet in the first place. He is too divisive a figure, too closely associated with Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, with whom he once shared a flat. Whenever a dog barked in the night of Labour politics, one thought always occurred: Mr Watson, I presume."
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    @Plato

    It becomes "must" in 2010 version.

    In addition to fulfilling any statutory
    requirements for the relevant public
    office, persons wishing to stand as a
    Labour candidate must have continuous
    membership of the party of at least 12
    months. They should also be a member of
    a trade union affiliated to the TUC or
    considered by the NEC as a bona fide
    trade union and contribute to the
    political fund of that union. Any
    exceptions to these conditions must be
    approved by the NEC or by officer
    authorised by the NEC
    http://www.leftfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Labour-Party-Rule-Book-2010.pdf

    So before Refounding Labour which was approved at Conference 2011.

    And what would change in practice switching from should to must? I know must is more decisive than should. But if you leave the "exceptions" clause in the next line, it's not conclusive anyway.

    Curious one. "Must" implies that there is no scope for any exception to be considered whereas "should", especially in the context of an exceptions process being listed, implies that it's expected but not necessary. The use of the two different words within the same clause does indicate that the conditions have different standing. However, there are only two conditions and the clause states "exceptions to these conditions" i.e. exceptions can apply to both (given that conditions is in the plural). So it's as you say, not conclusive. The only reasonable interpretation is that either or both conditions can be waived but reasons acceptable to waive the union membership requirement are not as strict as for the 12-month membership rule.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Wee Dougie gets the short straw.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    tim said:

    Carry on banging on about Europe and immigrants

    @MSmithsonPB: UKIP was in 2nd place ahead of CON in Survation ITV/Mirror poll before reallocation of don't knows
    See http://t.co/TwErrJs3KV

    Problem here is obvious, half the Tories fall for this xenophobic crap.

    Some of the detail on the NHS is interesting.

    For example, there's a wafer-thin majority in favour of paying more National Insurance to improve the NHS: 40.4% - 39.9%.

    However, when you look at the Midlands - traditionally regarded as being swing vote territory where the marginals are - then there are large majorities opposed to paying more NI for the NHS. In the West Midlands by 46% - 35% and in the East Midlands by 49% - 34%.

    It would be great if one of the polling companies would start producing data tables that split out those living in major cities, say >250,000, and those in rural areas, say a population <10,000, from those in between, the <a href="http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/17/where-the-next-election-will-be-decided/">METTHs that were identified by Blair Freebairn here in 2007.

    I'm pretty sure that it is the Ashcroft polls that ask people whether they live in an urban area, defined as >10,000, or three further options [village, hamlet, isolated dwelling], but that still lumps the METTHs in with the larger conurbations.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Paywall

    "The leak of the Unite strategy document from January 2012 has given their game away. Unite’s plan is to counter-attack its own party, to make it more class-bound, more expressly left-wing.

    ...The specious Unite defence of its conduct is that it wishes to see more working-class people in Parliament. In truth, Unite operates an ideological test as well as a class identity test. I doubt today’s equivalent of Ernest Bevin would pass the ideological examination. There would be no place for Alan Milburn or Alan Johnson, working-class men who don’t think in the straight line required.

    The truth is that those who wield power without intelligence do not want free-thinking original working-class people, of whom I am sure there are plenty who do need to be brought through the system. They want people who will understand that trade union sponsorship comes at the price of complete loyalty. Above even the desire to defend every perk and privilege of the public sector or to install an aimless form of class politics, what they most want is to be in charge. Like most control freaks, what they do with the power is by no means the whole point. It’s not enough for them to tell Labour what to do. They want to be there, in control..."
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Ross Hawkins
    @rosschawkins
    Tom Watson on BBC WM: there was clearly a problem with some of my colleagues around the shadow cabinet table and obviously I do accept that
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited July 2013
    Oh no, I got confused. The "must" is for the 12 months membership requirements in 2010.
    So are there now 2 "musts" instead of one "must" and one "should"?

    Thanks David for the subtle English grammar reasoning.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Wee Dougie refuses to say whether Labour will repeal the referendum bill.
This discussion has been closed.