Bollitics The new leader of the Labour Party

[AVFCLaura]

[AVFCLaura]

PS. Mighty fine work Risso.

[Risso]

I can sniff a cut and paste job from 50 paces.

[Xann]

Sadiq Khan, then I might get to say the PM personally interceded in my dispute with HMRC.

Give it to Dennis Skinner.

You'd almost consider watching the Parliament Channel.

[VILLAFC2000]

If your name isn't D Wearing, then you really should quote stuff you've nicked from The Guardian website:

If you are D Wearing, then apologies.

weeeeeeey

[tonyh29]

Jon Cruddas was the bloke I was thinking of

Should have won the deputy leadership (even though he didn't want it!!) probably too modernising for the Lab party though ...

[mjmooney]

Jon Cruddas was the bloke I was thinking of

Should have won the deputy leadership (even though he didn't want it!!) probably too modernising for the Lab party though ...

Balls and Cruddas.

Fate sometimes isn't kind with names.

[Awol]

Aside from the lack of credible alternatives to (the dire) EM, labour have the problem of the unions. The Parliamentary Party voted for banana man last time but the union vote foisted the current idiot onto them. As long as the militant leaders of certain unions can decide the leadership election then labour will remain unelectable, but without them the PLP would be insolvent in about 10 mins. Catch 22.

[kidlewis]

who was the educational minister for Labour?

Andy Burnham?

Edit: He was shadow Education bod but was moved back to Health so perhaps not.

Yes that was the one. He seems a decent chap.

[blandy]

As long as the militant leaders of certain unions can decide the leadership election then labour will remain unelectable..

The Union leaders don't decide. They have no more say than I do as a union member. The Union members (who choose to pay the political levy) each have a vote. Those votes then get counted up. It's rather more democratic than you imply, Awol.

[LondonLax]

I can sniff a cut and paste job from 50 paces.

And to think, I was about to give him some credit for a well reasoned post.

Was it the lack of personal insults and any references to "Scamron" that gave him away?

[Awol]

As long as the militant leaders of certain unions can decide the leadership election then labour will remain unelectable..

The Union leaders don't decide. They have no more say than I do as a union member. The Union members (who choose to pay the political levy) each have a vote. Those votes then get counted up. It's rather more democratic than you imply, Awol.

In theory, yes. However this gives an interesting and slightly different perspective.

Decisive role of trade unions in Ed Miliband’s leadership victory

One year on from Ed Miliband’s victory as Labour party leader, new research from the University of Bristol published in the Palgrave Macmillan journal British Politics, explores the extent of trade union involvement in the electoral contest and how they determined the outcome of that electoral contest.

Professor Mark Wickham-Jones and Richard Jobson explain why urgent reform is needed to the electoral college to ensure the legitimacy of the future leadership elections.

Drawing on extensive interviews and party documents, they establish conclusively that:

Nominations for the leadership were coordinated and streamlined by the trade unions in order to maximise support for Ed Miliband’s candidacy. A senior party official commented: ‘They clearly have a major say, the union leadership, over who they nominate.’

Trade union nominations had a powerful impact on the distribution of votes. 49 per cent of voters followed their union’s recommendation.

Unions shaped campaigning by restricting the availability of their membership lists to their nominee. One campaign team member said it was like ‘running a national election campaign with someone deciding who to give the electoral register to … you can’t [campaign], you have no list, you can’t tell, you have no access.’

Considerable union resources – not factored into the spending limits for the contest - were mobilised behind Ed Miliband. One campaigner argued: ‘It does make a mockery of expense limits…union spending is not monitored or detailed.’

Some union ballots were distributed in partisan fashion, A senior figure within the party added: ‘The unions only behave that way because the Labour party allows them to…. I would not have let them do that….well, I would have ruled their vote out.’

Three trade unions (GMB, Unison and Unite) had 75 per cent of the votes in the third section of the electoral college that chooses the Labour leader. Each nominated and campaigned for Ed Miliband. GMB and Unite distributed ballots to his advantage. Wickham-Jones and Jobson argue that this turned Ed Miliband’s deficit in two other sections of the college into an extremely narrow victory – a margin of only 0.65 per cent.

Such was the manner of intervention by trade unions that the legitimacy of the electoral college is called into question. Wickham-Jones and Jobson argue that candidates did not have equal and open access to the electorate; the electorate was not fully informed; resources were not equalised; and ballots were not distributed in a neutral manner. They argue that the case for reform of the electoral college is unanswerable.

Most political commentators and scholars concluded that the introduction in 1993 of one member one vote (OMOV) fundamentally reduced the role of affiliates in Labour politics. In contrast Wickham-Jones and Jobson conclude that, having apparently been deprived of influence, trade union elites developed a strategy to re-establish their authority over the Labour Party. In effect, the block vote has been reinvented.

[drat01]

Hmm I wonder where that "article" is from exactly?

It's funny how the right wing have this total and irrational hatred of the Unions and then claim to want civil liberties and democracy (except when it doesn't suit their argument). As Pete rightly says Union leaders do NOT vote for a Labour leader, the Union vote is done as a result of members. The fact that Tory voters, Lib Dems, Communists, Fascists, UKIP members anyone can contribute, makes that a whole lot fairer than anything put forward by other parties, especially those bankrolled by off shore tax avoiders and the Hedge Fund fraternity.

The Tory party HQ are on the offensive against Miliband. That in itself proves that he is obviously upsetting them. There is a lot of mis-information, stupid comments (like the frankly ridiculous comment from cameron re brothers) that they hope will stick. The Tory party, despite their lies are very much into profile politics.

[peterms]

... those bankrolled by off shore tax avoiders and the Hedge Fund fraternity...

I can't think what you mean.

[Awol]

Hmm I wonder where that "article" is from exactly?

Trying following the link, it will take you to the hotbed of conservatism otherwise known as Bristol University.

The Tory party HQ are on the offensive against Miliband. That in itself proves that he is obviously upsetting them.

EM is the best thing to happen to the Tories since, well, Gordon Brown. Their greatest fear is that Labour might replace him before the next GE.

(like the frankly ridiculous comment from cameron re brothers)

Come on, it was funny.

[tonyh29]

As Pete rightly says Union leaders do NOT vote for a Labour leader, the Union vote is done as a result of members.

Ed Miliband won the biggest number of affiliate/union first preference votes

David Miliband won the highest percentage of Constituency Labour Party first preference votes

The Tory party HQ are on the offensive against Miliband. That in itself proves that he is obviously upsetting them.

hope VT has a good supply of these as i think it may come close to running out by the time this thread is over

there are Many people , from Labour MP's to labour voters out there who have all been commenting on how poor a job Ed has been doing .... even his gag writer has just quit (Ms Hazarika's departure follows criticism of Mr Miliband from some of his own MPs and complaints about his lacklustre performances in the Common) , even the Guardian (guess they will seen be on the Sky axis of evil list ?) are saying Ed has failed

but it's a democracy you can sate you think Ed is doing a great job for our amusement if you like

(like the frankly ridiculous comment from Cameron re brothers)

I can see that one being a Youtube hit for years , probably go down as the point where labour finally realised that Ed was doomed ....

though i like this one much better from Cameron "He [Miliband] has completely united his party. Every single one of them has asked Santa for the same thing: a new leader for Christmas.”

[blandy]

...Most political commentators and scholars concluded that the introduction in 1993 of one member one vote (OMOV) fundamentally reduced the role of affiliates in Labour politics. In contrast Wickham-Jones and Jobson conclude that, having apparently been deprived of influence, trade union elites developed a strategy to re-establish their authority over the Labour Party. In effect, the block vote has been reinvented.

They're obviously going against majority opinion, but I'm sure that Union leaders would like to be able to sway their memberships (in some cases at least). My experience is that I felt no swaying from Unite. I think they recommended EM as their preferred choice, but the papers all came via the electoral reform society, all complied with the law, and I voted for someone else. I personally don't feel the theory put forward by the Bristol Uni people represents my experience, or that of my colleagues at work.

[drat01]

Ed Miliband won the biggest number of affiliate/union first preference votes

Tony - are you actually reading the posts now or making them up? AWOL tried to imply that Union leaders were responsible for the Labour leader and Pete rightly pointed out that the Union vote was as a result of votes from within the Unions. So go on admit it, you have (again) got it completely wrong.

funny how you, and others would rather look at personality rather than policy, says a lot about Tory ideals I suppose. As Peter Hain commented the other day there is a concerted effort from Tory HQ to try and deflect from questioning of Cameron and the cabinet, I wonder why this thread has appeared?

As for Cameron's so called joke, it was crass and awful, and showed more about him as a person and a totally and utterly incompetent PM. I wonder if he will ever actually answer a point in PMQ other than those that are pre-arranged from his own back benchers?

[kidlewis]

of Cameron and the cabinet, I wonder why this thread has appeared?

As for Cameron's so called joke, it was crass and awful, and showed more about him as a person and a totally and utterly incompetent PM. I wonder if he will ever actually answer a point in PMQ other than those that are pre-arranged from his own back benchers?

He had exactly the same for about 2 years when he was shadow leader.

and the joke was pretty good, although jokes shouldn't really be used in the house too often.

Ed seems to enjoy using them though.

[tonyh29]

funny how you, and others would rather look at personality rather than policy,

i think you need to check back to the economic thread where your very good self brought up personalities (i even sent you a "H" for it :-) )

As for Cameron's so called joke, it was crass and awful, and showed more about him as a person

tbf it shows more that absolutely anything Cameron says is wrong in your eyes , rather than anything about Cameron

AWOL tried to imply that Union leaders were responsible for the Labour leader and Pete rightly pointed out that the Union vote was as a result of votes from within the Unions. So go on admit it, you have (again) got it completely wrong.

poor effort , the Unions WERE /ARE responsible for Ed being leader of the labour party so AWOl (and myself) are correct

Pete stated a fair point that Unite didn't unfairly try and sway him but end of the day 49 per cent of voters did follow their union’s recommendation when choosing who to vote for....David was clearly ahead in terms of support from the party establishment and from members of the Labour party.... so removing those from the equation , that leaves you with ...... the Unions

... simples