[Closed] So Ed versus Len?

Storm in a teacup being blown out of proportion by the right wing media who are towing the tory party line that working people shouldn't be able to fund the party set up to represent them through their trade union. IMO obviously.

Brief summary from the Mash

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-labour-falkirk-controversy-explained-2013070474801

How naughty have Unite been .....

I suspect not naughty at all. Unless of course encouraging their members to join the Labour Party is considered naughty.

[quote=ernie_lynch said]How naughty have Unite been .....
I suspect not naughty at all. Unless of course encouraging their members to join the Labour Party is considered naughty.

Encouraged or signed up without their knowledge ?

A union rep made a comment today about this that stuck in my head.
(In Scotland) The Snp are the more socialist party than the Labour party who are supposed to be socialist..
He also thought what Unite were doing was quite acceptable.
I think its a bit suss that despite the fact that Unite have asked for an independant report be published the Labour high uppers have flat out refused to do so.
Can see things going sour between the two pretty quickly..

Encouraged or signed up without their knowledge ?

Well I've already answered that by stating that I suspect Unite have not been "naughty" at all.
Signing them up without their knowledge would clearly be very naughty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23192888

According to an internal Labour report, Unite members were being signed up to the local party without their knowledge in a bid to rig the contest.

I know what the Party hierarchy claims. I also know that New Labour politicians are manipulative liars.

Its hard to see how Ed can criticise Unite the union for attempting to undemocratically rig selection of candidates, when its exactly the same election rigging that got him his job over his brother!

Well as they've sent their "evidence" to the old bill then will be interesting to see if it backfires.

I'm not sure they had much choice, a Tory MP had asked the police to investigate, and Unite had threatened legal action.

But if NL are indeed manipulative liars would they risk calling in the police? Ed is hardly doing this below the radar and considering Unites role in his election it all seems somewhat interesting?

If it is fraud that is the main issue (?) then how is this the RW press causing mischief?

I suspect they have some "evidence" which amounts to nothing. A dodgy dossier no doubt. The truth will eventually come out. It's a question of wait and see.

EDIT : With regards to "would they risk calling in the police?" it was a Tory MP who did that.

I see thanks! The BBC report seems unclear on what labour asking the police to investigate means.

I believe it was Tory MP Henry Smith who wrote to the Chief Constable of Scotland asking him to investigate.

EDIT :

[i]Crawley MP Henry Smith told Sir Stephen that Unite may have committed fraud by making a false instrument, in the form of an application form signing up members to the Labour Party without their knowledge. And he said the separate offence of "uttering" may have been committed by tendering forged documents with an intention to defraud.

"I am deeply concerned that a serious offence may have been committed in this instance," wrote Mr Smith. "I would be very grateful if you could investigate this as a matter of urgency, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the democratic process in Scotland."[/i]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-hand-report-police-over-2028206

what ernie says

Its hard to see how Ed can criticise Unite the union for attempting to undemocratically rig selection of candidates, when its exactly the same election rigging that got him his job over his brother!

Individual members of the unions can choose to affiliate to the labour party or choose not to affiliate to the labour party so any one who is a member of labour has freely chosen to do so and votes for the leader.
As far as I am aware legally no union is allowed to enrol all members into the labour party the member must choose to do so.

Everyone who voted was a labour party member
It would be more reasonable, given the collegiate system used, to ask why MPS votes are worth more than ordinary members votes which are worth more than union affiliated votes*. Of course no one will mention how unfair that is as it does not serve the right wing agenda
It is in not one person one vote and the imbalance does not favour the unions. I wonder how many people realise this fact

* each section represent 33% of the vote the MPs have the fewest number of members, the party members are next and the affiliated members last

It's a nothing really, what has happened is done all the time to get the "best candidate".

I mean what could possibly be suspicious about a UNITE member being selected as candidate, who also happens to be the secretary of the party election boss and former flat mate of the leader of the union. To me that's a coincidence. Those who claim to have become party members without their knowledge should be honoured to have free membership.

Exactly what ninfan said! It's a bit rich moaning about it it now.

The only winner here is call me Dave. 2 bald blokes fighting over a comb. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic. Another 5 years for the Tories to finish off the welfare state anyone? Be my guest. Signed on behalf of the utterly useless pointless waste of space Ed Milliband on behalf of the even more useless pointless labour party

We really are ****ed!!!

Junkyard, you chose to gloss over the fact that anyone who is both an affiliated union member and a labour party member in their own right (like for example the recent Falkirk party members, whose membership was paid for by the union) therefore gets two votes in the party leadership election (well, roughly 1.5 votes after taking into account the weighting)

Is that definitely true ?
Do you have a source?

If it is I offer no defence of it

Presumably then MP's who, if this is true, are also members of labour and get two votes with the first one being worth way more ?

Can they get three if they are also a union affiliate?

It is a poor system anyway but I dont think the unions have undue power
For example 4 MPs would have been enough for his brother to have won or about 15,000 union votes- still that is not as useful when portraying ed as the Union man

It is not a great system but the bias is towards MP's not the union

It should indeed be one person one vote and it is not

Is ed ****ed then?
That right wing bastion, the BBC is towing the line......

Presumably then MP's who, if this is true, are also members of labour and get two votes with the first one being worth way more ?

Yes, MPs and MEPs each have at least two votes.

And as the votes of MPs and MEPs account for a third of the electoral college vote, exactly the same as the proportion of votes the affiliate organisations get. It means that MPs and MEPs have [i]considerably[/i] more clout than anyone else in leadership elections.

IE, less than 300 MPs and MEPs last election had the same proportion of votes in the electoral college as more than two million affiliated members.

EDIT : In the previous leadership change, ie when Gordon Brown was selected as leader, MPs stitched up the result by ensuring that there was no election at all - they refused to nominate in sufficient numbers anyone other than Gordon Brown.

Alan Johnson claims he had three separate votes in the leadership election:

(MP, Labour member, Union member)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9235865.stm

Worth remembering that the GMB members leadership ballot forms were mailed out in an envelope saying "vote ed miliband" in clear breach of the rule which prohibited them from putting preferred candidate literature in the same communication.

Watching 'red Ed' who rigged his election win protest against them rigging an election win is priceless - again:if its implications weren't so tragic for the rest of us!

Dave's obviously recently procured a magic lamp. Here's a revolutionary idea. Why doesn't the Labour Party take its head out of its own arse and have a look at what's happening in the country, as opposed to what's happening in the Labour Party! The SNP Will probably win the ****ing seat anyway. If they weren't going to before, they will now! Morons!!

Watching 'red Ed' who rigged his election win protest against them rigging an election win is priceless

He did not rig it at all- it is a flawed system by which he was elected

as i said 4 MPs was enough to swing it for his brother would you be frothing as much then as you are about the votes of circa 200,000 affiliated members "rigging it"

It is not a great system but the weighting is not with the affiliates

cheers for link ninfan I offer no defence for it is indefensible

.....in clear breach of the rule

I'm fairly sure that trade unions cannot legally be in breach of their own rules.

I'm also fairly sure that the hard right in New Labour do not miss a trick.

BTW I have never heard of a rule which prohibits a trade union from making recommendations to their members on how to vote.It would be a very strange rule indeed. Trade unions are not suppose to be neutral - that's the whole point of them.

I'm frothing because the Labour Party, which lest we forget, is meant to be representing the interests of the working classes, or just anyone who isn't rich has now become a joke! And one that isn't even remotely funny!

It was hollowed out from the inside by Blair, and now seems to think that the antidote to that is a return to the 1970''s! It's pathetic! And that's being kind!

you think the unions are not made up of ordinary working class folk?

Pretty sure Unites plan is to counter exactly what you object to - I dont think there methods will be successful as folk will react as you do. Nonetheless the aim is to get ordinary working folk in parliament to represent ordinary working folk.
It is easy to spin it as undemocratic etc and I do think that is a reasonable point tbh- FWIW the central executive committee still produces a list and if they are not on that list they need to approve any candidate so [ I assume] they could still stop them

how was/is the beer garden ?

Ernie they can recommend but not with the ballot papers IIRC

Seems like Unite aren't the only ones at it..

In a twist yesterday it was reported that senior Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy is also linked to one of the Falkirk candidates who is also suspected of illegally recruiting party members in the Falkirk area. Gregory Poynton, whose wife is a member of Mr Murphy's Shadow Defence team, is alleged to have paid the membership fees of several new recruits using a £130 personal cheque.

Ernie they can recommend but not with the ballot papers IIRC

Well obviously not on the ballot papers, but there is no reason why the recommendation shouldn't be mailed out with the ballot papers.

Besides, the Electoral Reform Society usually oversees trade union ballots and their job is to carefully scrutinise everything and to guarantee that no rules have been breached, are we saying they haven't done their job properly ?

I would doubt that - someone would be going to court if this was true.

JY - the fact is that If Unite want to get their representatives elected then they should try and do it through maybe trying to appeal to the electorate rather than resorting to behind the scenes stitch up.

The fact that they've resorted to the tactics of the 70's says everything about their idealogical bankruptcy, which mirrors that of the rest of the Labour Party! It's utterly depressing!

The Tories are driven by their idealogical agenda. The Labour Party sits sucking its thumb, then turns on itself about trivia!

I wished I'd seen any if them attacking the Tories with the passion they've turned on each other. Too much to ask, obviously.

Under Labour Party rules, trade unions are allowed to make recommendations to their members, but are barred from doing this in the same communication that contains the ballot paper. During the election, it emerged that both the GMB and Unite had included both an envelope containing the ballot paper, and promotional material for Ed Miliband, their favoured candidate, in the same envelope, attracting criticism that they had breached the spirit of the rules

Wiki though and the reference is a Guardian article and an Independent one- ie i dont know how true it is that they did it but it seems they are not meant to - I guess like you cannot campaign at the polling station l

Binners you are a labour party person [ in spirit if not actually] attacking the labour party for attacking the labour party

That said do I approve of their methods?
Well not if they are illegal- are they?

If Unite want to get their representatives elected then they should try and do it through maybe trying to appeal to the electorate rather than resorting to behind the scenes stitch up.

What ???? 😕

Joining an organisation to have a voice and influence it is perfectly legitimate and highly democratic - it's nothing to do with a "stitch up" ffs.

Indeed the Labour Party has recently had a major campaign to do exactly that - encourage trade unionists to join the party.

Personally I think any trade unionist joining the Labour Party to have a voice and influence it is wasting their time - there is no democracy in the Labour Party and an autocratic leader personally decides everything which is of any importance. After taking their money of course.

Under Labour Party rules

Sorry, I thought we were talking under GMB rules.

I guess anything is possible under Labour Party rules. Gordon Brown was selected as Labour Leader without an election, under Labour Party rules.

Apparently it was a deal he struck with Tony Blair in some posh restaurant somewhere in a trendy part of London.

Not that the hard right in the Labour Party would be responsible for any sort of 'behind the scenes stitch up' of course.

Indeed that was within the rules and a stitch up

I dont disagree re the role of the unions but it does not look good or is presented in a certain way by the press to discredit the link and to overate the role

....is presented in a certain way by the press to discredit the link and to overate the role

Unless your name is Ed Miliband I reckon should not let the press dictate your opinions.

It is perfectly legitimate for a trade union to encourage its members to join the Labour Party.

Even if some people will obligingly repeat the mantra they are fed and call it "a stitch up"

USDAW puts the case very well here :

http://www.usdaw.org.uk/adviceresources/resources/political/havemoreofasay-jointhe.aspx

[img] [/img]

Funny ^^^
I quite like this explanation

Hopefully the weekends press will shed some more light. But I am struggling to reconcile the idea that there are no breaches of either rules or even law (fraud) with a party leader claiming that the evidence that has been uncovered is "so serious that He wanted the police to investigate." Put this together with Watson's resignation and it smells fishier than Pittenween harbour. Maybe more news tomorrow will help.

Thanks for the replies.

So Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspaper has an opinion on the matter cranberry ?

And wait for it...... it's not a positive one !

Well who would have thought it eh ?

Still, it must come as a huge relief to them that after seeing Labour lead in pretty much all the opinion polls for the last 2 years, that they can now so confidently and easily predict its doom.

Hopefully the weekends press will shed some more light

insight from mad Eric here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/unite-falkirk-irresponsible-labour

I think a violent alcoholic who appears to have a serious chip on his shoulder, and left/was thrown out of, both the army and the Labour Party, in disgrace, is probably the not the best person to pass judgement on Unite.

Eric Joyce passing judgement? Maybe they could get Neil Hamilton to write an article on the morality of present Tory fundraising?

Right wing labour will use this to take more politics out of the influence of normal every day people.