Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unite has grown too big for its own good
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unite has grown too big for its own good
The extraordinary row that has blown up over the selection for Labour’s nomination in Falkirk at the next General Election is a natural and inevitable consequence of the empire building within the union sector. There is nothing inherently wrong with unions seeking to influence Labour party selections.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
The birth, growth, heyday, over-expansion, decay and collapse of organisations is one of the strongest defining patterns in the span of human history. Nothing lasts forever.
Is this right? Why not change it to: "There is nothing inherently wrong with Sainsbury's / Tesco's / Alliance Boots / JCB / Laing / RSPCA seeking to influence Labour party selections."
If Unions can do it, so should private companies and organisations.
This whole situation is a mess and reform is needed.
Who can fault the Roman Empire for longevity FFS? .
I'm hoping the story below is not true, but it looks like it's spot on:
@patcondell
Union fascist threatens career of #Ukip candidate’s wife if he stands for election.
http://nopenothope.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hnhs-unison-funders-threaten-ukip.html … #hopenothate
The best current 'No' price is 2/9 (Bet365 and Stan James). I'm banking on that being significantly longer come next summer.
“@georgeeaton: Watson and McCluskey tried to get Douglas Alexander deselected http://bit.ly/17SXS0c ”
"Ed didn't choose this battle. But you can be absolutely certain that, now it has started, Ed will win." > Can't. Breathe. For. Laughing.
Dear Ed, forget Buddha. Remember Yoda. Do or not do. Explore there is not.
Join the political and paramilitary wings and then no complaints about agendas or pretence that it represents all voters.
Once its goal is achieved, Scottish independence, the organisation will lose its energy and focus and decline and peter out.
A comparison might be Oxfam for example. They would like nothing more than for world poverty to cease to exist. And of course it will one day. And then we will have no Oxfam either. However, their time frame is looking like being vastly longer than the SNP's.
However, I still get communications, both postal and email, addressed to me as a member.
This story which you claimed a couple of days ago to be "overblown" seems to be gathering speed at a considerable rate. Ed seems to be trying to put out a forest fire with a watering can.
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-british-are-coming-and-theyve-brought-newspapers/277486/
In its endless efforts to deceive the general public the Scottish Labour Party tries to pretend that 7000 members of various social clubs (mostly in Ayrshire, Lothian and Fife) are "members" of the Labour Party.
http://caledonianmercury.com/2010/09/29/the-scottish-labour-party-and-its-mysterious-expanding-membership/0010959
I used to get "member" mailings from the RSPB for years after I left the organisation. That's another bunch of chancers by the way.
I don't think anyone has but if the police get involved it could get very messy.
I see you dont have anything major against the formalising of the Unite-Labour merger.
It's almost as if you're not sure yourself.
Besides, it is the wrong statement. There is a battle going on for Labour's soul and future direction. That is why Unite wants as many MPs who owe them a favour as possible, so they will dance to Unite's tune in the future. Unite will be happy if Ed travels with them, if not then he will be seen as the enemy.
That is a problem for both the Labour party and more generally democracy.
That may be a step too far right now, but it's encouraging that such things are now being contemplated. The unions will always have a vital role to play in Labour, but the party needs to be much broader. Cut the formal links and it will encourage more people to get involved, as well as more donations. That will lead to a wider talent pool and more creative thinking about how to address this country's deep-seated, long-standing challenges, as well as the ones that have emerged since the crash.
Labour is currently too in hoc to its history. It is too 20th century. It's time to change.
But tell me this: if Ed is dancing to Len's tune, why are they currently engaged in a very public dispute and why has Len been so vociferous in attacking Labour policy? Unions have always had sponsored MPs. How many of those currently sponsored by Unite have come out in favour of what Len is saying? And during the last Labour government how did union-sponsored MPs act to repeal the Tory union laws that the union leaders hate so much?
But you are blaming the lack of action on the Tories. Two questions:
1) Did the Lib Dems propose this at all during this coalition, and would they have supported it?
2) Would it have been a wise battle for the coalition to take on?
Then there are all the problems relating to party funding ...
I've just found this wonderful old description of the (now defunct) Scottish Conservative Club on Princes Street in Edinburgh:
"... Its country connections are very widespread, and the influence of the club is, so far as Scotland is concerned, national rather than local. Edinburgh has been for years out of harmony with Conservative principles: "advanced Liberals" hold possession, but we are told that the Conservative party, by means of the club, are working hard to recover lost ground...."
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/clubs/18.html
The unions offer a solution for Labour up to a point, and for historical reasons a natural one. But the decline of partisan identification has led to union leaders being challenged by members asking what they're getting for their money - "Sometimes you'll get a Labour government which we hope will do good things" is seen as inadequate. McCluskey's recent election opponent accused him of being all too willing to cough up without the party becoming more helpful on policy in return. So the temptation to seek value is strong, and I think the main need now is a code of conduct that defines the limits of that - advice and criticism, why not, overt pressure and manipulation no.
It's not, by the way, primarily about selection of MPs because unless there is a mass membership drive as was tried in Falkirk, unions can only influence nominations, which rarely affect the outcome. Members are told that branches X, Y, Z and unions A, B, C nominated Jane while others nominated Joe, but will generally think so-what (as with the names of 10 upright citzens who are listed at polling stations as nominating you in General Elections) and go by their personal impressions of the candidates. It's only really useful to have a union nomination if you have zero nominations from the voting members in branches - but if so you're losing anyway because they're the only ones who decide the selection. IIRC David Herdson and I both supported Obama over Romney, but that's probably not why he won.
Personally, I think that NOM is too short, but things are going so badly for all 3 of the big English parties that it is very hard to spot a winner in there. However, somebody is likely to get a MAJ, if only because the contingent of LD MPs is likely to be halved, or worse.
As for your substantive point: when this story started accelerating a few days ago, someone on here claimed that it was essentially a non-story, and it was the usual Labour <-> union argument that happens at this stage of every parliament, to both their advantages.
Now that appears to be incorrect, but it is easy to see how it may have started as that sort of thing and got out of hand when people realised that possible illegality had occurred.
I personally don't believe that, but it is an arguable point.
And then there are the wider questions about influence. Some people tried to make something out of the fact the PM travelled on a foreign trip with JCB's MD a few months ago, when the MD is a Conservative funder. Magnify that by several orders of magnitude and you have the current Labour <-> union situation.
People on the left ask why individuals fund the Conservatives if they do not get any influence. The same question should be asked of the unions: what do they get by funding the Labour party and even sponsoring individual MPs?
LINK PLEASE
What the unions get by funding Labour is a hearing; the chance to make a case. And given the way all our parties are funded, all significant donors to all parties have a right to expect that. I would wish it otherwise, but we are where we are where we are. The key is transparency. None of the parties are up to scratch here - we just don't know what happens behind closed doors. However, we do know which Labour MPs are sponsored by which unions and we can judge their actions against that.
Sounds a bit odd considering plod will be responsible for security there.
A link that substantiates exactly what you say please
While the Tory Party looks and smells like a slowly rotting vegetable and the Lib Dems resemble a pricked and discarded balloon, the Labour Party gives every indication of being a loudly ticking time bomb.
There simply must be some great opportunities out there for punters. But where?
Unfortunately, due to internal politics within UNITE, we lost our excellent original organising rep., who was then replaced with someone who was more interested in his upcoming retirement and his holiday home in Portugal. Several times, some at major points, he disappeared for weeks on end.
We could get no response from Unite except to go through our rep..
The last meeting I was at with the union rep, there were two of us plus him. Then there was just him. Nearly all the people who signed up to the union had handed their membership cards back (torn them up) within a year in disgust.
Again, that does not necessarily follow. This problem in Falkirk has been known and suspected for some time, and it has only just exploded because certain individuals within the party have complained. This semi-scandal (which has yet to become a full scandal) was not one chosen by either Len or Ed. Now it has broken, sides are having to be taken.
It would be a brave Labour MP who takes the union's side on this now the story has broken, especially as illegality is possible.
As for the funding: you get a great deal more influence if you have MPs who are directly linked to you. That must change.
The Falkirk CLP was actually suspended in May. McCluskey has been strongly criticising Labour policy for much longer.
I'm going to plump for Len to win in 19 sets.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2357085/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Scandal-exposes-Milibands-weakness.html
@Tim
"The contrast between Cameron sitting on that evidence and Milibands behaviour this week is stark."
ROFL. Oh dear - I'd hoped the PB blackout would've given you the chance to catch up on some much needed shut-eye.
When the lie that was Plebgate broke, whatever Cameron did would be open to criticism. If he had released the CCTV tapes, then people would be saying that he released them as a political issue, that he was picking an argument with the police, that he was besmirching the good name of the police officers.
Indeed, ISTR that some on here who argued (as I did) that the story stank early on were asked how we dare say the police were lying.
Cameron was in an impossible situation, where any action would lead him open to criticism. It's a shame that Tim does not direct his ire against the people who have besmirched the police's good name Unfortunately, that is the police and the Police Federation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/24/plebgate-police-federation-andrew-mitchell
Do you have any evidence that the Police Federation lied about anything?
How do you think an enquiry took place and the Falkirk CLP got suspended if nothing had been done?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/labour-unions-issue-weakness-editorial
Looks like this particular line has got legs if the Guardian is in on the game.
Worth a read if you are a punter who has backed LAB in the UK GE markets, or has backed 'No' (which is the same thing as LAB) in the IndyRef markets.
It's about *relative* size not absolute size.
It's not healthy for a political party to be dependent on any one individual. For instance, UKIP is too dependent on its Treasurer (Stuart Wheeler?) while the Tories were too dependent on Ashcroft. While both are good men, it's not good to be reliant on any one source of money
* No doubt due to your inbred hatred of Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The provinces of Beowulf curse your stupidity...!
Cameron handled the shitestorm well. Not perfectly with hindsight, but well.
The two situations are so different that no comparison can be made. For one thing, the lie Cameron had to deal with was thrust onto him by external parties, and there was nothing he could do to forestall them. The problem Ed is having to deal with is largely internal to the party he runs, and the potential problems have been obvious for years.
Edit: And there is another point. The situation was rapidly changing, with the Police Federation piling pressure on and even lying about meetings with Mitchell. Releasing the evidence early may have allowed the liars to change their story to fit the CCTV evidence. Releasing it later meant that they had already set out their position.
By accident or design, delaying the release of the CCTV gave them enough rope to hang themselves.
Ed acted in Falkirk out of weakness. He was beaten to the punch by the Tories and is struggling to catch up
Ed is almost as weak as your spin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/05/ed-miliband-unite-falkirk-selection
"Miliband's cautious response has left him vulnerable to Tory attacks that he has been slow to confront Unite. Officials acknowledged on Friday that Miliband knew about the allegations about irregularities in the Falkirk selection as far back as 17 May – the date when the selection process was suspended.
But it took until Friday for the party to consult the procurator fiscal to ask how to proceed. Party officials say it took so long because it was only in the last 48 hours that a solicitor used by the party was consulted."
Which does rather beg the question why.
It's a pretty thin argument that actually starts by branding opposing views as ignorant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/03/plebgate-investigators-arrest-police
Investigations are continuing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jul/05/ed-miliband-trade-unions
Some samples:
"Couldn't agree more, just get the [MODERATED] out of the way Milliband and take your Tory party with you. If you can't face Cameron down you should just resign/retire, you are a total disgrace, unions and workers need to form a real opposition to the neoliberal agenda. The Tories say jump, you say, "how high", your father must be spinning in his grave."
"Well then if they want to break with the unions and the labourers of this nation these SpAd tits had better probably change the name of the party to something else, maybe The NeoLiberal Party?
Labour was FOUNDED by unions! Not by Uni educated prats who have never held a job in their lives outside politics! If Labour wants to finalize the lurch to the right and become the party of unregulated free market and to hell with the worker that Balir took it in then good riddance! Time for the working class to form another party to fill the vacuum they have left these 12 long years."
"Traitor traitor traitor to the working class!-fucking wankers the lot of them!"
"Anonymous 'sources', a drunken thug, and Grant Shapps think Labour should cuts its links to the unions. Well, that's a reasonable cross section."
"Miliblands isn't just a tosser. He's not even clever. Copies his brothers attempts to copy tony blairs mannerisms badly. Laughs at rebuttles so as to give himself time to think. Attempts statesmanship like a new contestant on the X factor. Can't come up with any new ideas. Starts every sentence with and look,.....let me tel you.........while I think of something...... He's becoming comical.....!"
Ya cannae change the laws of physics, Captain!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3809772.ece
Yvette ?
Just over an hour to P3.
Don't forget that Sven found the Channel-Four investigation hilarious. He just "loved" seeing the Tories "humiliate" themselves on such "nothingness".
No doubt Sven will try to hide such facts from the good-people of Broxtowe (should he stand again in 2015); how embarrassing would it be if he was seen to condone behaviour MODERATED No doubt he will have to extend his support to the more conservative [sic] elements of the Asian community to steal the seat from the good Doctor single-mother*....
* North-of-Watford. Ergo: a place of little interest....
Edited-to-add: We had an edit clash. I assume that the events highlighted by the following link are non-gratis regarding Sven's potential 2015 campaign (and effects thereof)...?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23170959
Give Murdoch some cash before you look even more foolish.
Laters!
His first point is that it has been party policy for a very long time to positively encourage union members to join the Labour party as members. This encouragement went to the stage of paying the first year's membership. There was video footage linked to yesterday of Ed specifically endorsing the scheme.
His second point was that Labour is not exactly full up of members. Like most political parties its membership is dying on its feet. I did like Henry's point yesterday that this was briefly reversed by those looking for votes for reselection battles. If these people are eligible for membership (which they clearly are) I really don't see what the problem is in encouraging people to join to influence a selection. It seems an entirely sensible thing to do.
His third point is, as he put it, this is "our" party. Historically he is clearly correct. Ed's suggestion that the link to the Unions be broken is the change. It is a change driven by public perception and the domination of Labour by the middle class elite of which Ed is a member. i think it is worth asking what Labour is for if it is not there to support the working class and the disadvantaged of society. It's purpose cannot simply be to provide jobs and opportunities for the likes of Miliband.
Of course, if someone has gone too far in completing forms without peoples' consent and knowledge that is clearly wrong but I think Ed has made a major mistake in seeking to involve the police in this. As Len said every Labour leader seems to think they need a clause 4 moment and Ed thinks this is his. Well, we will see.
What this row shows is that Labour has lost its original purpose. Its' new purpose is apparently to promote the metropolitan, guardian reading, middle class who like to spend too much of other peoples' money on themselves and to create a dependency culture that can get them elected. No wonder the Unions want to have more MPs that are a bit more like them. No wonder this elite does not like it.
....... Labour look like winners only because of the unpopularity of the Tories and the tactical ineptness of Clegg and the Dems. In the extremely unlikely event that they have a renaissance or the even more unlikely event that their concubines do then Labour are in difficulties.
This could remove even that possibility. An opportunity for Ed to not only show decisive leadership but also to show the Labour values of standing up for the oppressed against the vested interests of Maclusky and the juggernaught Union he runs. An irresistible combination.
....... Ed as the Marlon Brando character Terry in 'On The Waterfront'.
"Anonymous 'sources', a drunken thug, and Grant Shapps think Labour should cuts its links to the unions. Well, that's a reasonable cross section."
LOL
Edited-to-add: I am only talking about acting abilities. No other inference should be made or assumed....