Dr_Pangloss Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Chuka Umunna is nothing but a Tory clearing in the woods in disguise. Edited May 18, 2015 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I wonder who the unions want to win this one? As clearly they hated miliband Ed was their choice to begin with - they're the only reason he won. Burnham is probably their favourite now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) ...they're the only reason he won...Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. Edited May 18, 2015 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Chuka Umunna is nothing put a Tory clearing in the woods in disguise. I hear this alot why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I think/hope there is a split resulting in a well funded Lefty movement to stick it up the capitalist pig dogs, and a Blairite Labour party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I think/hope there is a split resulting in a well funded Lefty movement to stick it up the capitalist pig dogs, and a Blairite Labour party. You're not the only person thinking like that, apparently some unamed individuals from the old Shadow Cabinet have said Labour's biggest fear is the Unions de-affiliating and forming a party like Syriza in Greece. That would be unelectable and royally screw the left in England. They'll muddle through with one man one vote in the Unions. The man is Red Len and he'll vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Without electoral reform such a party would fail to make a difference. With PR it would be large enough to do so, especially when it comes to forming blocs for coalitions. I can't see reform happening any time soon, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I think/hope there is a split resulting in a well funded Lefty movement to stick it up the capitalist pig dogs, and a Blairite Labour party. So do I - would be hilarious watching it fall flat on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. It's fair to say he couldn't have won without a good showing in both the MP/MEP and members sections but it's also true to say he couldn't have won without the Unions backing ergo he's the Unions man ...which Murphy and Harmen and co have also made that clear with their recent comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. It's fair to say he couldn't have won without a good showing in both the MP/MEP and members sections but it's also true to say he couldn't have won without the Unions backing ergo he's the Unions man ...which Murphy and Harmen and co have also made that clear with their recent comments They may be true to an extent. But he looks the best person from the available candidates. Had Dan Jarvis stood, I think he would have romped it. Currently there are only 500 (yes 500 !) union members who are eligible to vote on the labour leader contest. The various unions are reported to being trying to sign up more affiliated members, but even so the eventual winner will be mostly voted by pary members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David. That's not right. More Unions backed Ed than backed David. More MEPs backed David than Ed and so on - that's snowy's point - Ed wouldn't and couldn't have won, (even if every Union vote went for him), without the other votes from MPs etc. to add on. Total Union votes add up to 1/3 rd of all votes. the other 2/3rds come (came) from MPs and MEPS and party members. I think they've slightly changed it, so the unions have even less say, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David. That's not right. More Unions backed Ed than backed David. More MEPs backed David than Ed and so on - that's snowy's point - Ed wouldn't and couldn't have won, (even if every Union vote went for him), without the other votes from MPs etc. to add on. Total Union votes add up to 1/3 rd of all votes. the other 2/3rds come (came) from MPs and MEPS and party members. I think they've slightly changed it, so the unions have even less say, now. 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. Yeah they have changed it but I doubt that'll stop the unions from trying to get as many people as possible signed up to vote. Edited May 19, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. Never said only the unions supported him, just that the unions are the reason he won. All of those groups you mentioned backed David. That's not right. More Unions backed Ed than backed David. More MEPs backed David than Ed and so on - that's snowy's point - Ed wouldn't and couldn't have won, (even if every Union vote went for him), without the other votes from MPs etc. to add on. Total Union votes add up to 1/3 rd of all votes. the other 2/3rds come (came) from MPs and MEPS and party members. I think they've slightly changed it, so the unions have even less say, now. 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. Yeah they have changed it but I doubt that'll stop the unions from trying to get as many people as possible signed up to vote. But each union member who wishes to vote - has to 'opt in' to be an affialite of the Labour party. By no means are all union members even labour voters, far from it in my experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Never said they were but that won't stop the unions from trying to get their preferred candidate (which is presumably Burnham) elected. That said I think unlike Ed, Burnham will probably get the most votes from all parts of the Labour Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Never said they were but that won't stop the unions from trying to get their preferred candidate (which is presumably Burnham) elected. That said I think unlike Ed, Burnham will probably get the most votes from all parts of the Labour Party. I don't follow:- With signficantly fewer voters via union membership in the leadership contest - how does the union get its preffered candidate ? Youve then even said that Burnham will probably get most votes from all sections of the labour party, the conclusion to be drawn is surley that without the votes of the rank and file Labour members the unions wouldn't get their preferred candidate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 ...they're the only reason he won... Apart from the MPs, MEPs and party members who voted for him. It's fair to say he couldn't have won without a good showing in both the MP/MEP and members sections but it's also true to say he couldn't have won without the Unions backing ergo he's the Unions man ...which Murphy and Harmen and co have also made that clear with their recent comments They may be true to an extent. But he looks the best person from the available candidates. Had Dan Jarvis stood, I think he would have romped it. Currently there are only 500 (yes 500 !) union members who are eligible to vote on the labour leader contest. The various unions are reported to being trying to sign up more affiliated members, but even so the eventual winner will be mostly voted by pary members. Last time around Ed got 119,405 union votes ( to David's 80,266) I know Ed killed the party but surely not to by 199 ,171 union members possibly the 500 comes from the vote being weighted and not carrying equal "power" ... 1 MP vote is equiv to 608 party member votes and /or 12,915 affiliates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) 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%. Edited May 19, 2015 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 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 when Harmen and Murphy are coming out saying the Unions shouldn't be allowed to pick the leader and when today senior labour figures are suggesting Unite are keeping modernisers off the ballot , it's safe to say that the Unions chose the leader of the labour party , we all know what Mantis is saying , we all know what Murphy and Harmen are saying ... being pedantic over words for internet points is rather like a blunt pencil ...pointless 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Do union members get a vote if they're not party members. I'm part of Unison, but not the labour party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts