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

[Mantis]

 

Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David.

You said - and have repeated in this post - that the unions are the reason Ed Miliband won the contest which is incorrect.

He couldn't have won the leadership election without the votes he received from the affiliated societies and trades unions electoral college nor could he have won the leadership without the votes he received from the MP/MEP electoral college or the labour party membership electoral college. Then again Miliband D (were he to have had a majority of the votes) could not have won in that case without the votes he received in the affiliated societies and trades unions electoral college (or the MP/MEP electoral college, or the party membership electoral college).

The reason Ed Miliband won is because he got 50.65% of the vote in the Labour leadership election (after all rounds had been completed in their alternative vote system).

The reason, therefore, is that the (slim) majority of all of the votes that made up the election were in his favour over the other candidate, his brother, i.e. 50.65% v 49.35%.

 

 

This is extreme nitpicking over semantics here. Are you honestly telling me that when you saw my post you thought that I thought that Ed could've won without the votes he got from non-union members? You really don't need to be pointing out all the above there because it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't need to be stated.

 

I'll rephrase what I said then: It was only because of the unions that Ed was able to beat David despite the latter having more votes from MPs/MEPs and regular party members.

 

Hope that clears up this bizarre confusion from some.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mantis

[blandy]

 

And nor was it my point that Ed only had the backing of the unions and literally nobody else - would've thought that was blatantly obvious.

 

 

Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David.

 

...they're the only reason he won...

 

 

 

Snowy's ansered well, just above - but in simple terms, it's the "only" that I was commenting on - they're not the "only" reason he won.

and had the Unions not sent out the ballot papers along with their recommendation for Ed he would have in all likelihood lost , had they not been ringing around members telling them to vote for Ed , he would have in all likelihood lost , had McClusky not waged a "Stop David" campaign .. Ed would have lost

 

and interestingly thanks to Ed's changes the Unions can now influence upto 50% of the vote rather than the old 33% in the next election  ... but no doubt people will still argue they unions didn't elect Burnham  when he gets the job

I'm in Unite, and was eligible to vote. No one phoned me. There was a letter in with some bumpf that said the Union leadership felt Ed was best choice, because he's most represent the needs and wishes of its members. I couldn't give hoot what McLuskey thinks. My vote went for who I thought was best.

 

Not sure about the 50% thing at all. I've not seen that anywhere.

I think I don't get a vote any more, but am not sure. No one's contacted me to say I do or don't.

 

Ultimately now, people who are members, MPs, or actively affliiated to Labour all get a vote. i.e. people who support the party get a vote. Seems fair enough.

 

Do union members get a vote if they're not party members. I'm part of Unison, but not the labour party. 

Dunno. I'm in the same situation.

[Mantis]

In a way they are - since Ed got less votes than David from both MPs and members it was only because of the unions affiliates backing him more that meant he was able to secure the leadership.

[Condimentalist]

The sad reality is that the behaviour of union leadership actually contributes quite significantly to keeping the Tories in power and thus ensuring the subjugation of their members.

No more so is this true than in the Miliband run off - we'd have a Labour government currently were it not for their interference.

[snowychap]

This is extreme nitpicking over semantics here.

No, it isn't - it's an attempt to address a silly (and annoyingly oft repeated) partisan comment that, through this infuriating repetition, has become one of those factoid things.

As blandy has pointed out to you, you said they were the 'only' reason he won and then went on to say that they were 'the' reason he won.

They were a reason he won just as the votes of the MPs/MEPs and the labour party members were a reason (as was the relative strength of Ed Miliband versus his brother as an alternative candidate for other first choices, i.e. beyond Miliband D's core support, that is those who voted for Miliband D as first choice, he was relatively weakly supported in each of the three electoral colleges in comparison to his brother*).

*

In the MP/MEP college, D gained 29 votes and E 38;

In the members' college, D gained 10,909 and E 18,012;

In the Union/affiliated socialist thingamabobs, D gained 22,077 and E 31,820.

I think all of those figures are correct - apologies if the Shropshire Lad has played havoc with my mental 'rithmetic.

[Mantis]

 

This is extreme nitpicking over semantics here.

No, it isn't - it's an attempt to address a silly (and annoyingly oft repeated) partisan comment that, through this infuriating repetition, has become one of those factoid things.

As blandy has pointed out to you, you said they were the 'only' reason he won and then went on to say that they were 'the' reason he won.

They were a reason he won just as the votes of the MPs/MEPs and the labour party members were a reason (as was the relative strength of Ed Miliband versus his brother as an alternative candidate for other first choices, i.e. beyond Miliband D's core support, that is those who voted for Miliband D as first choice, he was relatively weakly supported in each of the three electoral colleges in comparison to his brother*).

*

In the MP/MEP college, D gained 29 votes and E 38;

In the members' college, D gained 10,909 and E 18,012;

In the Union/affiliated socialist thingamabobs, D gained 22,077 and E 31,820.

I think all of those figures are correct - apologies if the Shropshire Lad has played havoc with my mental 'rithmetic.

 

How is it partisan? Even many Labour supporters would agree with my statement. It's also a statement of fact. While you may disagree with the wording of it, the overall point can't be disputed - David got more votes from MPs and members and the only way Ed was able to secure the leadership was because he got more votes from the union affiliates. If I'd known the exact wording of my post was going to be picked at so meticulously I would've made it even clearer from the beginning (not that it actually needed to be).

 

Isn't it kind of obvious that Ed would fare better in other preference votes given that David was ahead for first preference votes? I've never tried to argue that David was overwhelmingly backed by MPs and members, just that in all of the rounds he was their choice whereas Ed only managed to secure a plurality from the union members.

[snowychap]

How is it partisan? Even many Labour supporters would agree with my statement.

'Even'?

Would they? Would they be Miliband D supporters?

Would you like to list them so that we can test your claim?

It is partisan because it has been a partisan theme ever since the Labour leadership election. It has been one of the mainstays of the Tory party leader's spoutings at PMQs, for example. It has been one of the repeated themes of any Tory (or more widely anti-labour) commentary on Miliband E's election since it happened.

As a result of that repetition, it has rolled on and on and become, as I suggested earlier, a 'factoid'.

It's also a statement of fact.

No, it **** isn't. Your 'statement of fact' that they're the only reason he won is bollocks. It's Boris Johnson on the job level of bollocks.

While you may disagree with the wording of it, the overall point can't be disputed - David got more votes from MPs and members and the only way Ed was able to secure the leadership was because he got more votes from the union affiliates.

It's not disagreeing with the wording of it - your point is facile if it even makes it as a point. You are trying to bend and twist and turn a breakdown of votes in electoral colleges in order to say a particular, partisan (and party political) point.

It is nonsense.

And this is a real point: I'm not a labour voter or a union member or an Ed Miliband supporter. I just want people to stop coming up with the kind of shite that we keep on seeing when we're talking about politics which is either partisan, not based on fact or both.

Isn't it kind of obvious that Ed would fare better in other preference votes given that David was ahead for first preference votes?

No, not at all. In fact your assumption would appear rather daft.

If there are four people up for election, say, and there are 100 votes, and the initial result is as follows:

A: 35 votes

B: 29 votes

C: 20 votes

D: 16 votes

The process is that D's second prefs get divided up. Why would B 'obviously' fare better than A amongst D's second preferences (unless that was their choice)?

[Mantis]

'Even'?

Would they? Would they be Miliband D supporters?

Would you like to list them so that we can test your claim?

It is partisan because it has been a partisan theme ever since the Labour leadership election. It has been one of the mainstays of the Tory party leader's spoutings at PMQs, for example. It has been one of the repeated themes of any Tory (or more widely anti-labour) commentary on Miliband E's election since it happened.

As a result of that repetition, it has rolled on and on and become, as I suggested earlier, a 'factoid'.

All the Labour members I've spoken too have acknowledged the role the unions played in getting Ed leader. Some supported David but others didn't.

 

You make it sound as if the only reason it's seen as a fact is because it's been repeated by the government over the past 5 years except that as soon the leadership election was over in 2010 the role of the unions was heavily highlighted. Why? Because as I keep on saying, David got a plurality of MP and member votes whereas Ed only managed to get a plurality of union/affiliate votes. If the unions had not had such a large (one third) proportion of the vote then Ed would not have been leader.

 

No, it **** isn't. Your 'statement of fact' that they're the only reason he won is bollocks. It's Boris Johnson on the job level of bollocks.

It isn't though - see above. At this point you only seem to be disputing the wording/semantics rather than the actual point.

 

It's not disagreeing with the wording of it - your point is facile if it even makes it as a point. You are trying to bend and twist and turn a breakdown of votes in electoral colleges in order to say a particular, partisan (and party political) point.

It is nonsense.

How am I bending or twisting anything? And how is it a party political point when it's not just Tories that acknowledge the role the unions played in getting Ed elected? It's not like I'm trying to make out that David was the overwhelming choice of MPs and members and Ed the overwhelming choice of unions. It was pretty close of course, I'm just pointing out that it was the union's which helped swing the election Ed's way. If anything I think it would be partisan to try and deny this.

 

And this is a real point: I'm not a labour voter or a union member or an Ed Miliband supporter. I just want people to stop coming up with the kind of shite that we keep on seeing when we're talking about politics which is either partisan, not based on fact or both.

Good job the point I've been making is none of those things.

 

No, not at all. In fact your assumption would appear rather daft.

If there are four people up for election, say, and there are 100 votes, and the initial result is as follows:

A: 35 votes

B: 29 votes

C: 20 votes

D: 16 votes

The process is that D's second prefs get divided up. Why would B 'obviously' fare better than A amongst D's second preferences (unless that was their choice)?

The election wasn't anywhere near that close - Balls, Burnham and Abbott were never even close to the two Milibands so no it's hardly "daft" to assume that Ed would fare better in other preference votes. Even in the first round the top 2 candidates took almost three quarters of the vote.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mantis

[tonyh29]

Union Influence Made Ed Miliband's Leadership Victory 'Illegitimate'

Ed Miliband's reliance on trade union support to secure him the Labour leadership calls into question the legitimacy of his victory, a new report has claimed.

The leader of the Labour Party is chosen by an electoral college split equally three ways between Labour MPs and MEPs, party members and members of affiliated trade unions.

Three trade unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) had 75 per cent of the votes in the union section and each nominated and campaigned for Ed Miliband.

The report from the University of Bristol argues this meant the candidates did not have "equal and open access to the electorate" as the unions distributed ballots in a "partisan fashion".

Ed Miliband narrowly beat his brother David to the leadership in 2010. While David secured more votes from parliamentarians and party members, Ed had more support from the unions. In the end he won by a margin of only 0.65 per cent.

The report claims the unions unfairly "shaped campaigning" by restricting the availability of their membership lists to their nominee.

It notes that 49 per cent of voters followed their union’s recommendation when choosing who to vote for.

"The electorate was not fully informed; resources were not equalised; and ballots were not distributed in a neutral manner," it concludes.

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/957613

[Mantis]

Ah yes, the bastion of Toryism that is Bristol University...

 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Mantis

[snowychap]

All the Labour members I've spoken too have acknowledged the role the unions played in getting Ed leader. Some supported David but others didn't.

Really? None of those to whom I've spoken have said that.

Well, there's a **** impasse, isn't there?

You make it sound as if the only reason it's seen as a fact is because it's been repeated by the government over the past 5 years except that as soon the leadership election was over in 2010 the role of the unions was heavily highlighted. Why? Because as I keep on saying, David got a plurality of MP and member votes whereas Ed only managed to get a plurality of union/affiliate votes. If the unions had not had such a large (one third) proportion of the vote then Ed would not have been leader.

No, what I have said is that it isn't fact (that 'the unions were the reason Ed was elected'). It has, however been repeated over and over again by the Tory leader, by Tory minions, by Tory supporters and by others often as a result (build your own groupings) and then it has been said and then 'supported' by the plurality stuff that you go on to speak about.

If the unions had not had such a large (one third) proportion of the vote then Ed would not have been leader. betrays the partisanship of your stance.

Why would the union membership and affiliate socialist societies votes (that amounted to 199,675 votes) and by their electoral college system amounted to 1/3 of the overall electorate be deemed 'such a large proportion of the votes' when 262 votes of individual MPs and MEPS also accounted for 1/3 of the overall electorate (and party members numbering 122,706 accounted for the same)?

No, it **** isn't. Your 'statement of fact' that they're the only reason he won is bollocks. It's Boris Johnson on the job level of bollocks.

It isn't though - see above. At this point you only seem to be disputing the wording/semantics rather than the actual point.

That's not about 'semantics' (at least in the way that you'd erroneously like to try and push this) - it's about the meaning of what you're actually saying rather than just a debate about the meaning of the particular words.

Again, your 'statement of fact' is cock.

It's not disagreeing with the wording of it - your point is facile if it even makes it as a point. You are trying to bend and twist and turn a breakdown of votes in electoral colleges in order to say a particular, partisan (and party political) point.

It is nonsense.

How am I bending or twisting anything? And how is it a party political point when it's not just Tories that acknowledge the role the unions played in getting Ed elected? It's not like I'm trying to make out that David was the overwhelming choice of MPs and members and Ed the overwhelming choice of unions. It was pretty close of course, I'm just pointing out that it was the union's which helped swing the election Ed's way. If anything I think it would be partisan to try and deny this.

You were repeating, before, your party's claim about the Unions having been the only reason Milband was elected whereas, when pushed, you acknowledge here that the Unions helped 'swing' the election in his favour rather like the MPs and MEPs for example.

And this is a real point: I'm not a labour voter or a union member or an Ed Miliband supporter. I just want people to stop coming up with the kind of shite that we keep on seeing when we're talking about politics which is either partisan, not based on fact or both.

Good job the point I've been making is none of those things.

Rubbish. See above and below.

No, not at all. In fact your assumption would appear rather daft.

If there are four people up for election, say, and there are 100 votes, and the initial result is as follows:

A: 35 votes

B: 29 votes

C: 20 votes

D: 16 votes

The process is that D's second prefs get divided up. Why would B 'obviously' fare better than A amongst D's second preferences (unless that was their choice)?

The election wasn't anywhere near that close - Balls, Burnham and Abbott were never even close to the two Milibands so no it's hardly "daft" to assume that Ed would fare better in other preference votes. Even in the first round the top 2 candidates took almost three quarters of the vote.

That isn't the point at all. The preference votes don't just have the options of the first two - they have the options of anyone who hasn't been binned. It is therefore either daft or bizarre to make the claim that it's sensible to believe that the leader of the first round will necessarily suffer in subsequent rounds.

[snowychap]

Ah yes, the bastion of Toryism that is Bristol University...

 

I'll take a punt you've never been anywhere near Bristol (unless it's changed in the last decade).

[Mantis]

 

All the Labour members I've spoken too have acknowledged the role the unions played in getting Ed leader. Some supported David but others didn't.

Really? None of those to whom I've spoken have said that.

Well, there's a **** impasse, isn't there?

Would they be Ed supporters?

 

Not that I tried to claim all Labour supporters acknowledged the role the unions played, I was just disputing this ludicrous notion that only Tories think the unions helped get Ed elected.

 

No, what I have said is that it isn't fact (that 'the unions were the reason Ed was elected'). It has, however been repeated over and over again by the Tory leader, by Tory minions, by Tory supporters and by others often as a result (build your own groupings) and then it has been said and then 'supported' by the plurality stuff that you go on to speak about.

If the unions had not had such a large (one third) proportion of the vote then Ed would not have been leader. betrays the partisanship of your stance.

Why would the union membership and affiliate socialist societies votes (that amounted to 199,675 votes) and by their electoral college system amounted to 1/3 of the overall electorate be deemed 'such a large proportion of the votes' when 262 votes of individual MPs and MEPS also accounted for 1/3 of the overall electorate (and party members numbering 122,706 accounted for the same)?

Just because the unions support of Ed has been used by the Tories doesn't mean anyone pointing out the facts is automatically making a Tory/partisan argument. Let's not forget that pretty much everything is used by all parties for political gain.

 

Seems a little odd to me that the union affiliates got just as much of a say as actual Labour members. If I were a Labour member I would've been pissed off that the candidate with the plurality of votes from both MPs and members didn't get elected leader. I'm not a Labour member or supporter so I guess it really isn't my place to say but clearly even many in the Labour party itself felt the unions had too much influence hence the recent changes to the way the leadership elections are contested.

 

That's not about 'semantics' (at least in the way that you'd erroneously like to try and push this) - it's about the meaning of what you're actually saying rather than just a debate about the meaning of the particular words.

Again, your 'statement of fact' is cock.

The meaning of what I'm saying is that the unions were decisive in swinging the vote Ed's way - that is a fact as I've already demonstrated.

 

You were repeating, before, your party's claim about the Unions having been the only reason Milband was elected whereas, when pushed, you acknowledge here that the Unions helped 'swing' the election in his favour rather like the MPs and MEPs for example.

Yes because I didn't think anybody would go to such lengths to nitpick.

 

That isn't the point at all. The preference votes don't just have the options of the first two - they have the options of anyone who hasn't been binned. It is therefore either daft or bizarre to make the claim that it's sensible to believe that the leader of the first round will necessarily suffer in subsequent rounds.

I'm aware how the preference votes worked but again, the other 3 candidates barely got a quarter of votes between them. With David getting the most votes overall in every round except the final round it does make sense that Ed fared better with other preference votes.

 

 

Ah yes, the bastion of Toryism that is Bristol University...

 

I'll take a punt you've never been anywhere near Bristol (unless it's changed in the last decade).

 

It was sarcasm. Surely that was obvious?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mantis

[MakemineVanilla]

I am not sure swapping one Miliband for another would have made any difference to the result of the election.

 

I think the Blair/Brown legacy was the main factor.

 

Blair promised the Scots their own parliament back in '97 which sowed the seeds of nationalism which bore fruit in the SNP's virtual clean sweep and Labour's annihilation.

 

Blair's mitigated free-market capitalism created the inequality and increased the number of people needing hand-outs - which is the UK reality.

 

Blair's foreign policy of backing American wars has placed the country in a dystopian state of constant war and terrorist alerts: he ordered British troops into battle more than any PM in history (5 times).

 

In an attempt to win a third term Blair/Brown started throwing money around which led to government spending almost doubling between 2001 and 2014. 

 

They increased the economy's dependency on the financial sector and increased household debt to income ratio to 170% by 2007.

 

Voter perception of Labour's fiscal irresponsibility arise from these facts.

 

Labour became the party of multiplying competing social justice issues which complicated their message and confused voters.

 

It is impossible to see how swapping Ed for David could have possibly eradicated the negative effect of the Blair/Brown legacy.

 

Obsession with the failings of their leader just avoids facing up to the problems Labour actually created for themselves.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Yes, I don't think union influence had any major bearing on the election result. I don't see the point in fussing over it, unless you subscribe to the Tory line that unions are evil and their leaders are commies out to inconvenience your daily commute. Big bad Len, two letters short of Lenin. Coincidence? I think not.

 

It seems that what done it for Labour wasn't so much their failure to pander to the middle class, but the abandoning of their traditional voters to appeal to the Waitrose crowd. A good number of those traditional voters either turned to UKIP or didn't bother voting at all. Talking about fiscal responsibility may please a floating voter in Surrey, but it is far from the politics of change that many want. If Labour want to do well they need to win that crowd back and inspire people to get out and vote.

[Mantis]

I would absolutely love it if Labour went proper left-wing and got back to their "traditional voters" because not only would they get smashed at the next election even worse than they did this year, it would finally put to bed this idea that Labour only loses elections because it's not left-wing enough.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Mantis

[coda]

I was surprised when the election post-mortem suggested Labour had lost a considerable amount of votes to the ukips. These voters wouldn't be won back by Labour moving left.

[Jon]

 this idea that Labour only loses elections because it's not left-wing enough.

well, that just plainly isn't the case. Thatch moved the goalposts, sadly, and so Labour had to adapt to that, or risk dying out. The uber left wing 1983 campaign was a bit if a disaster, and 1997 was slightly better as they moved further right. 1992 again an improvement, as again they moved further right. They then become full on Tory lite in 1997, and won massively. They then won 2 more elections on the Tory Lite ticket.

 

Red Ed took them a little (not much) further to the left, and they lost (though that IMO was more to do with the incompetence of Red Ed and his team, and his lack of personal appeal)

 

Seems to me that not enough of the voting public want a left wing guvmint. They want a right wing or centre-ist guvmint with a heart. Sadly, IMO, this Tory party lacks the latter.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Jon

[tonyh29]

I think the Guardian summed it up best

For  the past two elections Labour has stuck with leaders it knew the public thought were useless. It allowed itself to be led by men who were acceptable to Unite and what’s left of the rest of the trade union movement, rather than the public, and did not even try to throw them out when they could see the voters weren’t listening to them.

 

If unite elect Burnham  *  then we can look forward to Prime Minister Johnson  in 2020

 

 

 

 

 

* though of course we all know from reading this thread that the Unions don't elect the leader

[tonyh29]

 

 

Red Ed took them a little (not much) further to the left, and they lost (though that IMO was more to do with the incompetence of Red Ed and his team, and his lack of personal appeal)

 

Seems to me that not enough of the voting public want a left wing guvmint.