blandy Posted December 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 17, 2011 Who on earth's asking us really to believe that the average Labour voter considered Ed to be a better bet than David? No-one. Do I get a prize? The average labour voter doesn't get a say in the leader of the Labour party any more than the average tory voter gets a say in the leader of the tory party, or the likewise for any other party. Labour splits it's leadership votes a third to MPs/MEPs, a third to Members and a third to Union members paying to the party. If the MPs had been less divided (140 v 122 in the final round) , or the party members less divided (18% v 15%) the Union vote (also fairly close, but in the opposite way, wouldn't have mattered. From a field of 5 candidates, less than 1 in 7 of the MPs picked DM as their first choice leader. It's not like an overwhelming vote for DM was traduced by the Union members votes. It was a close contest. The Union 33.3% was split about 14% Ed, 9% David and 2, 3 and 4% to the other 3 candidates. After the elimination rounds left the field down to just 2 candidates, it was 19.9% v 13.4%. Because the contest was close, that 6% difference was key. In the Tory leadership election, in the first round, David Davis got more votes than Cameron, but not enough to win outright. It seems to be the way of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 How on Earth did he not win a majority. Simple. He welched on a EU referendum promise. To the Tory posters, yes Lisbon had already been ratified, but Parliament is sovereign and he could have held the referendum and used the result as as the basis of renogtiation of our membership. When Cameron said he wouldn't do so (because he IS a Europhile) his lead fell off a cliff. If Labour want power again the answer is simple: promise a referendum on EU membership within six months of taking office and if they don't deliver they commit to holding another election at that point. They'd win a landslide, despite the popular view on the chattering left that the UK population actually favour the EU. They don't, wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 17, 2011 Is there a majority want to leave the EU, Awol? And if there is, why don't the UKIP get more votes, if it's so important? I get the feeling that most people are either mildly against, mildly in favour, completely unarsed about the whole EUro stuff - there's definitely no move to go further, and maybe a desire to be slightly less "involved" - as you say "favouring" at first glance, but I genuinely don't think that there's a mood afoot for any leaving of it, even if it were a realistic possibility, which it isn't. The Right Wing press, some tories, and UKIP and some labour are quite "anti Europe", but no one else really gives a hoot about all this "Leave the EU stuff", do they? Most people want their jobs saving, bankers sorting out, and the country not to be in such a mess. Europe comes way down the list. I think Labour and a labour leader are wary of all the noise made by the tory right - they know it makes the tories look a bit frothy mouthed, but also know they have a few of their own divisions, so as it's no big deal to most people, they leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 17, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 17, 2011 I find myself very much in agreement with you there Pete, people are protesting about many things but Europe just isn't one of them. On the whole I think people as you say are about happy with where we are but don't want to see us go further, the fact UKIP don't enjoy wider support as you say kind of supports that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Who on earth's asking us really to believe that the average Labour voter considered Ed to be a better bet than David? No-one. Do I get a prize? The average labour voter doesn't get a say in the leader of the Labour party any more than the average tory voter gets a say in the leader of the tory party, or the likewise for any other party. Labour splits it's leadership votes a third to MPs/MEPs, a third to Members and a third to Union members paying to the party. If the MPs had been less divided (140 v 122 in the final round) , or the party members less divided (18% v 15%) the Union vote (also fairly close, but in the opposite way, wouldn't have mattered. From a field of 5 candidates, less than 1 in 7 of the MPs picked DM as their first choice leader. It's not like an overwhelming vote for DM was traduced by the Union members votes. It was a close contest. The Union 33.3% was split about 14% Ed, 9% David and 2, 3 and 4% to the other 3 candidates. After the elimination rounds left the field down to just 2 candidates, it was 19.9% v 13.4%. Because the contest was close, that 6% difference was key. In the Tory leadership election, in the first round, David Davis got more votes than Cameron, but not enough to win outright. It seems to be the way of these things. Good explanation of the process. Must say I don't quite follow the hysteria about someone getting a good vote in the trade union part of the system. It's there, it's open, it's fully disclosed. A bit different from the influence hedge funds wield over the Tory party. But there seems to be a fair bit of hand flapping and shrieking "Look, the union members voted for him, that must be, er, bad in some undefined way..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 18, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 18, 2011 ...Must say I don't quite follow the hysteria about someone getting a good vote in the trade union part of the system. It's there, it's open, it's fully disclosed. A bit different from the influence hedge funds wield over the Tory party. But there seems to be a fair bit of hand flapping and shrieking "Look, the union members voted for him, that must be, er, bad in some undefined way..." I'm pretty sure the "hysteria" is because people think something different happens, to what actually happens. I think people believe that a small number of Union leaders have a kind of casting vote, which of course is untrue. I think people believe this because the Tories and the likes of the Daily Mail try and propagate this myth that Labour is under the control of the Unions. They do so as a kind of instinctive counter to the rather less transparent relationship, as you say, between big business backers of the tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I don't quite follow the hysteria Hysteria :shock: I think in a thread about the next leader of the labour party the Unions are bound to come up , more so when the discussion has also been about if the Unions did or didn't deliver the last leader though it is also noted that the left side of Villa talk somehow managed to bring hedge funds in on many posts ... hysteria possibly ? :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I don't quite follow the hysteria Hysteria :shock: I think in a thread about the next leader of the labour party the Unions are bound to come up , more so when the discussion has also been about if the Unions did or didn't deliver the last leader though it is also noted that the left side of Villa talk somehow managed to bring hedge funds in on many posts ... hysteria possibly ? :winkold: Hysteria in the discussion more generally, in the wider world. You haven't noticed? Though on reflection, hysteria would be a better description of something spontaneous and individual. This is co-ordinated and manufactured. So probably not the best term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 New Leader, that would infer they're being led at the moment - debateable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Hysteria in the discussion more generally, in the wider world. You haven't noticed? you mean there is another world going on outside of Villatalk :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 yeah theres ebay and porn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Who on earth's asking us really to believe that the average Labour voter considered Ed to be a better bet than David? No-one. Do I get a prize? The average labour voter doesn't get a say in the leader of the Labour party any more than the average tory voter gets a say in the leader of the tory party, or the likewise for any other party. Labour splits it's leadership votes a third to MPs/MEPs, a third to Members and a third to Union members paying to the party. If the MPs had been less divided (140 v 122 in the final round) , or the party members less divided (18% v 15%) the Union vote (also fairly close, but in the opposite way, wouldn't have mattered. From a field of 5 candidates, less than 1 in 7 of the MPs picked DM as their first choice leader. It's not like an overwhelming vote for DM was traduced by the Union members votes. It was a close contest. The Union 33.3% was split about 14% Ed, 9% David and 2, 3 and 4% to the other 3 candidates. After the elimination rounds left the field down to just 2 candidates, it was 19.9% v 13.4%. Because the contest was close, that 6% difference was key. In the Tory leadership election, in the first round, David Davis got more votes than Cameron, but not enough to win outright. It seems to be the way of these things. So to sum up, Ed got in because of the unions, exactly as I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 20, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 20, 2011 In part, of course he got in because of the votes of Union members. But without the votes of party members and MPs as well, he wouldn't have got in. The union members got a third of the total voting power. Of the total 100% voting, the Union vote was worth 6.5% more for EM than DM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It's like saying if you win a match 4-3, you won because of two of the goals and not because of the other two. It makes no sense. The vote is counted across all three electoral segments, and all three count, and (barring a very improbable occurrence) candidates won't do exactly as well in all three. The bigger concern should be the weight given to MPs' votes, especially if you know anything about how MPs got selected for/imposed on/parachuted into safe seats over the last 15 years to bolster the dominant Blairite clique. That's where the fixing actually took place, but I don't suppose that's much of a concern to those who hyperventilate about the unions having a vote in the leadership election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It doesn't bother me that EM got in, because I don't think Labour deserves to run the country for the foreseeable future after the disastrous reins of Blair and Brown. I thought you lot would be more upset, seeing that they appear (thanks in no small part to the unions) to have picked possibly the worst possible person, thus guaranteeing that they won't be reelected any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I thought you lot would be more upset ....thus guaranteeing that they won't be reelected any time soon. tbh I always assumed Labour knew they are in for 1 possibly 2 terms in opposition and the Unions have given David M a let off ..had he been leader he wouldn't have survivd a GE defeat .. so this way Ed becomes the patsy and Dave rides to the rescue ... but the million $ (of union money :winkold:) question is does somebody else need to take a fall as well before David rides in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 It doesn't bother me that EM got in, because I don't think Labour deserves to run the country for the foreseeable future after the disastrous reins of Blair and Brown. I thought you lot would be more upset, seeing that they appear (thanks in no small part to the unions) to have picked possibly the worst possible person, thus guaranteeing that they won't be reelected any time soon. LOL. Yes because Gideon is doing so well with the economy today inst he..? - Growth down to 0.9% when it was predicted to be 2.1%. - 2.7 million unemployed. - Record youth unemployment. - University Fees increase - Riots. - Inflation. - Failed deficit reduction plan one year into the fith Oh but all this is Labours fault, they got us in to this mess. Even though the Tories committed to their spending budget till 2009. The Economy was Labours faults not the Global recession. Now the Tories are in power its the global recession and Euro Zone which are now causing the bad times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 :-) @ the comments from the Tory supporters here. As said before they try and raise this thing of Unions being bad and evil when there are so many laws imposed on them in order that they can help preserve workers rights. Funny how they are not so much up in arms with eradication of those rights by their Tory party, I suppose for some living outside of the UK means that they don't suffer when those rights are eroded. Funny also how this massive interest from Tory supporters, as said following initiatives from Tory HQ, into who runs the Labour party. That obviously shows a massive worry in the woeful, inept and some would say corrupt performance from their men in number 10? Tony tries to deflect (as normal) about the funding and obvious influence of the hedge fund sector - and again interesting how none of the anti-Labour VT'ers defend this. Why is that exactly? The finance world is still acknowledged by most as being the root cause of the world problems, the massive tax evasion / avoidance monies that fund the Tory party, that is acceptable how exactly? For me I would prefer people who represent in general the rights of the man in the street having a say in political parties than those who do their very best to avoid paying their dues. As said on many times, the political structure of the UK is now corrupt in many ways. From those in the HOC / HOL through to those playing fancy politics in local Gvmt / councils. Funding and support is a massive problem, gerrymandering (as this Gvmt are actively involved with) is a massive problem. Pop idol politics being more important than actually understanding and wanting to know what your local MP will say and do is a major problem. The downright lies that many in all level of politics find it so easy to engage in is a major problem. But the bottom line is that all the criteria I put out for political support from me still means that I can never support anything like the Tory party. Their values are for me are every I detest, e.g. attacks on the NHS, the emphasis on support for the South East of the UK, support for Xenaphobic policies and actions, a willingness to oppress workers rights among many other things. As said I have been very unfortunate to see this type of Tory Gvmt before under that evil witch Thatcher, what I am seeing now is possibly a more right wing, oppressive, nasty and vindictive version of that, something I hopes my family would never have to suffer again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I dont know this. If you are a union member, and a member of the labour party, could you have 2 votes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I dont know this. If you are a union member, and a member of the labour party, could you have 2 votes? You can have several votes, because affiliated societies count as well. But no-one's vote counts as much as MPs' votes - a few hundred people casting one third of the vote. If someone is an MP, a member of a trade union and two societies (and obviously a party member as well) they could have five votes. But if you did a bar chart of the impact of each of those votes, their vote as an MP would dwarf the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts