The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Does that mean you will do the same with the conservatives

That’s what I do.

Defy anybody to find something good they’ve done that I haven’t praised.

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

He  narrowly won his last election from a 12% turnout

He did, and there were [in order to avoid legal problems for the site] "shenanigans", which, er, may have co-incidentally "helped" him. 

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, if the members object, they should vote for somebody else.

They did.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't disagree, but then, that's really their lookout isn't it.

Of course. The thing (or one of them I object to) is the Union leader deciding who and how much to donate to, without consulting the members. It doesn't sit right with me. The Union is primarily there to represent the members - to protect jobs and working conditions and so on. It is not there to give a career opportunist undue influence over a single political party's direction, particularly if that direction is demonstrably against the interests of large numbers of its membership.

[darrenm]

Something good the Tories have done/doing: the Gear Change cycling and walking initiative with lots of money provided to councils and LAs is brilliant. 

Remains to be seen how well the LAs use the money but Manchester are doing well so far.

[HanoiVillan]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

They did.

His closest challenger in 2017 appears to have come up short by 5,524 votes from what I'm seeing.

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

The thing (or one of them I object to) is the Union leader deciding who and how much to donate to, without consulting the members. It doesn't sit right with me. The Union is primarily there to represent the members - to protect jobs and working conditions and so on. It is not there to give a career opportunist undue influence over a single political party's direction, particularly if that direction is demonstrably against the interests of large numbers of its membership.

If members feel that reducing the donations to Labour are 'demonstrably against the interests of the membership', then they should demonstrate it, and ride the anger to victory (there is a handily timed election next year!) in a leadership election.

I'm not unsympathetic to the point I think you're making. I can see an argument for balloting the members (though only those who pay the political levy) before making this decision. But I can also see the other side of the argument as well.

[Wainy316]

Bringing in the 'opt out' policy to organ donations was a decent thing the Tories did, I guess.

[The Fun Factory]

40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Have I got some bad news for you about first-past-the-post elections. That's arguably an even bigger mandate than our current government.

I don't disagree, but then, that's really their lookout isn't it.

 

Well yes but at least a general election usually has about 65%ish turnout, not 12%.  I am in favour of electoral reform, unfortunatel a watered down bland version was voted down in a referendum about 10 years ago, and I can't see the tories voting for Christmas on this again with a stonking majority.

[ml1dch]

The Magnitzky legislation was very good and very important.

Surprisingly the pet-project of Dominic Raab, to show that he is only mostly hopeless rather than completely hopeless. 

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Well yes but at least a general election usually has about 65%ish turnout, not 12%.  I am in favour of electoral reform, unfortunatel a watered down bland version was voted down in a referendum about 10 years ago, and I can't see the tories voting for Christmas on this again with a stonking majority.

To be honest, I'm not even really disagreeing with you, (from the outside looking in) it's a poor situation to be having 12% turnout in an election. I'm just not massively impressed by the argument that the leadership is suffering from some sort of democratic deficit, unless that argument is *also* accompanied by practical arguments to replace it or change that situation. That needs to come from Unite members; if they keep not voting in elections, then frankly you have to assume that they don't have a problem with what is done in their name.

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

erm... can you name any current "Good Stuff" from the Conservatives?

Sunak wears a nice suit and erm the world hasnt ended yet

[snowychap]

53 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Bringing in the 'opt out' policy to organ donations was a decent thing the Tories did, I guess.

That was terrible.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Wainy316 said:

Bringing in the 'opt out' policy to organ donations was a decent thing the Tories did, I guess.

Brought in several years earlier here, by the Labour administration.

Next?

[darrenm]

36 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That was terrible.

Why don't you like it?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

Why don't you like it?

Freedom of choice, assuming compliance as a default is always wrong

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

His closest challenger in 2017 appears to have come up short by 5,524 votes from what I'm seeing.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Well, Yes. However if you look into it [and I don't want to write anything libellous] like I said there were extreme shenanigans - the sort of thing that wouldn't be out of place in Russia, under Putin. 

Here's something on it 

Quote

The investigation into Coyne was led by Andrew Murray, Unite’s chief of staff who was seconded to the Corbyn campaign during the general election, it is understood.

Coyne was found guilty of using Labour party data and a call centre used by the party’s West Midlands mayoral candidate, Siôn Simon, to contact potential supporters.

During the campaign, McCluskey’s supporters were angered by Coyne’s claim that McCluskey had behaved like a 1970s “union baron”, throwing his weight around in Westminster, making and breaking political careers.

Following the Guardian disclosure that Unite gave a “loan” to McCluskey of £400,000 for a flat, Coyne promised to review payments made for the benefit of union officials.

The incumbent McCluskey, 66, defeated Coyne after a bitter month-long campaign that culminated in Coyne’s suspension from his union role 24 hours before the vote declaration.

McCluskey won 59,067 votes (45.4%), Coyne won 53,544 (41.5%) and grassroots candidate Ian Allinson took 17,143 (13.1%), on a turnout of just over 12%.

Coyne has asked Gerard Walker, the certification officer who oversees union elections, to investigate whether the leader of Unite and his staff manipulated the union’s procedures to win the poll.

Documents show that alleged rule breaches include allowing McCluskey to use databases while stopping Coyne from doing the same during the campaign to become general secretary; union employees actively seeking to prevent Coyne raising the question as to whether union resources were improperly used to assist with the purchase of a luxury flat; and repeated harassment of Coyne and his supporters by union employees.

Coyne said he was tried by a “kangaroo court” and despaired that he was tried by Murray, a former Communist party member.

“I am deeply disappointed but not surprised at my dismissal. When you are in a kangaroo court, you are rarely surprised by the outcome. I have held the post for 16 years and no complaint was raised during the hearing about how I carried out that role.

“However, during the disciplinary process I was informed that union rules require a regional secretary to be ‘the general secretary’s representative in the region’. It was implied that because of the way I criticised Len McCluskey during the campaign I could not fulfil that role any longer,” he said.

Coyne said: “The disciplinary hearing was nothing more than a show trial and the irony is not lost on me that Mr McCluskey’s chief of staff, Andrew Murray – a self-confessed admirer of Joseph Stalin – was the investigator and decision-maker on the charge I was dismissed for.

“It is beyond parody that I, as a 30-year member of the Labour party, should be accused of harming Unite-Labour relations by Mr Murray, a member of the Communist party for 40 years.”

Funny how the same cadre of dodgy characters keep cropping up. The bit about "manipulation of procedures" is something I know happened.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, Yes. However if you look into it [and I don't want to write anything libellous] like I said there were extreme shenanigans - the sort of thing that wouldn't be out of place in Russia, under Putin. 

Here's something on it 

Funny how the same cadre of dodgy characters keep cropping up. The bit about "manipulation of procedures" is something I know happened.

I'm not a member of the union, and so I can't speak to it. All I do know is that all 10 complaints brought by Coyne were rejected by the certification officer:

Len McCluskey complaints dismissed by union watchdog

'The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has been cleared of breaching union rules during his narrow re-election over Gerard Coyne last year.

Coyne submitted a number of complaints accusing McCluskey and his staff of manipulating union procedures to their advantage, but the trade union watchdog has dismissed the claims.

“None of the complaints succeed and they are therefore all dismissed,” the certification officer ruled on Friday. “I have not, therefore, had to consider remedies.” It follows a ruling in May that the vote for the most senior position in the union would not be subject to a rerun.

[...]

The watchdog criticised aspects of Coyne’s campaign which it found included misleading information in some of the literature.

[...]

Although the certification officer threw out Coyne’s complaints, it said: “The calling of an election a year earlier than anticipated by Gerard Coyne undoubtedly put him at a disadvantage as compared with Len McCluskey, who had a long-established track record in the post and a substantial and developed support network.”

It is understood Coyne will not appeal against the decision. In a statement after the ruling he expressed his disappointment and thanked everyone who had given him their support and voted for him.'

from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/06/len-mccluskey-complaints-dismissed-by-union-watchdog

Now, maybe you feel that the watchdog itself is corrupt or something, and as I say, I can't speak to it. But that's what the ruling was.

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

To be honest, I'm not even really disagreeing with you, (from the outside looking in) it's a poor situation to be having 12% turnout in an election. I'm just not massively impressed by the argument that the leadership is suffering from some sort of democratic deficit, unless that argument is *also* accompanied by practical arguments to replace it or change that situation. That needs to come from Unite members; if they keep not voting in elections, then frankly you have to assume that they don't have a problem with what is done in their name.

What I would deduce from that is that the vast majority of Unite members are not really interested in the political machinations  of the union and are more interested in having a organisation to protect and improve their jobs. There is a argument of why trade unions still affiliate with one particular party and should just lobby at all of them but I am not a union member and basically I have nothing more to say on the matter.

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Freedom of choice, assuming compliance as a default is always wrong

I think if it was anything other than saving lives I'd agree. But it's a huge shame that people in need of organs die because lots of other people who die never confirmed their organs could be used, when the vast majority wouldn't care either way.

To me, the equivalent would be what the state do with your body when they have no other way of determining your wishes. If you were to die without any next of kin then would the state bury you? cremate you? Who makes that choice?

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think if it was anything other than saving lives I'd agree. But it's a huge shame that people in need of organs die because lots of other people who die never confirmed their organs could be used, when the vast majority wouldn't care either way.

To me, the equivalent would be what the state do with your body when they have no other way of determining your wishes. If you were to die without any next of kin then would the state bury you? cremate you? Who makes that choice?

You're essentially ok with the state harvesting of organs? As you're current thoughts really are only one short step away from that