peterms Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 You put it as though they ought to be impartial. at leadership election time then yes I guess I am saying that ... surely the fairest way would have been to donate an equal amount to all the candidates (well maybe less to Balls as he clearly can't count and wouldn't have noticed :winkold:) The point and purpose of the union is to represent the interests of its members. It's not about being "fair" to LP leadership contenders, in any respect. If there are two contenders, one of whom supports the policies of the union and one of whom doesn't, how on earth would it be in the slightest bit sensible to give support to the one who doesn't? I would say instead that they have a clear duty to their members to assess the stances of the various candidates and form a judgement on which will be most similar to the union's stance, and recommend that person to the members. I've no idea how they work in that regard ... was it a ballot amongst members on who they should back or did a few of the top dogs in unite make that decision on behalf of it's members and then cough up the £100k ? I don't imagine they took a ballot. Their responsibility, as I see it (and I'm not a member) is to make an assessment of the candidates' positions and make a recommendation to the members based on why the recommended candidate would better reflect the interests of members. What else should they do? Let the press tell members who to vote for? Pretend that the very brief statements from candidates fully and properly reflect all the important points that bear on matters of interest to the union and that's all members need to know? Sounds like a cop-out to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 The point and purpose of the union is to represent the interests of its members If you gave your local charity collector £10 for Children in need and he went and spent it on Cigarettes I'd imagine you'd be a bit hacked off , wouldn't you ? so how do Unite (or whoever) know that their members didn't want to back Burnham or someone else if they didn't ask ? The point and purpose of the union is to represent the interests of its members I always assumed it was to make it's leaders wealthy but interesting concept , I could see how that might work recommended candidate would better reflect the interests of members.... What else should they do? but instead someone (or many ??) who (could potentially) stand to gain personally gets to chose who the members are going to back .... hardly democracy is it ? Let the press tell members who to vote for? kind of a silly argument and not one anyone has suggested ... I'd imagine the Union could easily include literature on each candidate along with a state your preference form in with their next strike ballot paper but maybe at the next General election to save the country from the expense and the hassle of having to walk down to a voting booth we should just let one or two people decide who should be PM and just tell everyone what they have decided ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 If you gave your local charity collector £10 for Children in need and he went and spent it on Cigarettes I'd imagine you'd be a bit hacked off , wouldn't you ? so how do Unite (or whoever) know that their members didn't want to back Burnham or someone else if they didn't ask ? Odd comparison. It's a political levy. It was spent on political activity. Why compare it to fraud? If the membership mostly voted for Burnham and the leadership spent all the money supporting someone else, they would have something of a credibility problem, and might struggle to get re-elected. Because you see they are elected, unlike the people I and others have been comparing them to in terms of tory party backers. but instead someone (or many ??) who (could potentially) stand to gain personally gets to chose who the members are going to back .... hardly democracy is it ? I don't follow the point. Who gains what personally, and how? Do you think the members just do what the leadership tells them? I would imagine they take it into account, or some do, in making up their own minds, like the rest of us do when someone lobbies for support. Isn't that what you do? Let the press tell members who to vote for? kind of a silly argument and not one anyone has suggested ... I'd imagine the Union could easily include literature on each candidate along with a state your preference form in with their next strike ballot paper Are you really, really not aware that the media seek to create views and impressions of political figures? Do you think that a union should be content to leave it there, so that there is no other available view, and more importantly, no judgement on which policies or people will best reflect the interests of members? Are you aware that many groups like Age UK, Oxfam and loads of others try to find out what political candidates' views are on issues of concern to them, sometimes seeking to extract specific pledges (eg supporting the provision of free bus passes for pensioners), and making their members aware of this so they can bear it in mind when voting? Do you think that's illegitimate as well, or is it just unions that you object to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 22, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 22, 2011 With UNITE , I think the way it worked was that in the Labour leadership election, we all (the members) got a form in the post from the Electoral Reform Society with all the candidates on, and we picked in order of choice and posted them in in a pre paid envelope. In terms of who the Union funded, I think the Union leadership committee had a vote and overwhelmingly agreed to give him some dosh. I think EM, whatever his personality and photogenic perception is, is genuinely more aligned to the Unions philosophy than say DM. As PMS says, if us lot, the members, think they shouldn't have, we would take it into consideration in the Union elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 With UNITE , I think the way it worked was that in the Labour leadership election, we all (the members) got a form in the post from the Electoral Reform Society with all the candidates on, and we picked in order of choice and posted them in in a pre paid envelope. cool , that answers my question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It might be overstating the case to say that this was the last despairing cry of a failed politician - but it is beginning to look like that. To put it bluntly, Miliband lacks the charm, the killer instinct, the imagination and indeed the presence of a leader. David Cameron wipes the floor with him at pretty well every session of Prime Minister's questions in the Commons. But far worse than that, his own colleagues are openly criticising what they regard as his mediocre performance. Even his brother David, whom he defeated at the leadership election, has described the situation for Labour as 'frustrating'. The simple truth is that Labour picked the wrong man to lead them. And the critical voices from his own colleagues are getting louder and more menacing as each day passes. A sad spectacle, maybe, but a situation for which only the party and the unions which voted him in must take the blame. It will take far more than a relaunch to save this man. Full unbiased :-) article here maybe it should be when we talk about and not who (for now ) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 It might be overstating the case to say that this was the last despairing cry of a failed politician - but it is beginning to look like that. To put it bluntly, Miliband lacks the charm, the killer instinct, the imagination and indeed the presence of a leader. David Cameron wipes the floor with him at pretty well every session of Prime Minister's questions in the Commons. But far worse than that, his own colleagues are openly criticising what they regard as his mediocre performance. Even his brother David, whom he defeated at the leadership election, has described the situation for Labour as 'frustrating'. The simple truth is that Labour picked the wrong man to lead them. And the critical voices from his own colleagues are getting louder and more menacing as each day passes. A sad spectacle, maybe, but a situation for which only the party and the unions which voted him in must take the blame. It will take far more than a relaunch to save this man. Full unbiased :-) article here maybe it should be when we talk about and not who (for now ) ? Astonishing. I was so certain before I clicked the link that it would be by the appalling Dan Hodges, or Hedges, or Wedges, or whatever he is. Well, that's me with egg on face. Apart from the sentence claiming that Cameron wipes the floor with him (Cameron would struggle to wipe the floor with his own arse, like an oversized Labrador with worms), the general tenor of the article was right. Milipede is in fact floating without direction. A good habit in a flotation tank, less so in the leader of what still purports to be a political party. Though actually a flotation tank might be a better place to form policy than with the idiot screeches of Liam Byrne and his moronic acolytes drowning out any rational thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Seems Len McCluskey isn't happy now either as the head of Labours biggest donor i'd imagine his voice carries a lot of weight in the party Still , I've no doubt it's more Tory spin What with racists ,Nazis, in fighting and dissent and a weak indecisive leader it sure isn't a good time for the Labour party right about now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 17, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 17, 2012 I agree. I think he's useless and unelectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2012 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2012 What with racists ,Nazis, in fighting and dissent and a weak indecisive leader it sure isn't a good time for the Labour party right about now There's a fair part of that assessment which could also apply to the Tories - they've had their own issues with idiots, they have the foaming little Englanders demanding the party does what they want, not what the manifesto or more sane majority of their MPs think is best, and they've already done numerous U-turns and reversed decisions and a leadr who doesn't bother himself with little things like details. This isn't meant as a "Yes but" post, Millipede is fairly useless as a potential PM, more an example that so much is about current image as reflected by the media, and sometimes campaigned for or manipulated by opponents. It's guaranteeed that once the media wakes up from their current fixations and moves on to the next one, Cameron will get it in the neck for many of the same reasons. Truth is there are no decent leaders around at the moment for any of the 3 main parties. The SNP bloke is clever and the Green leader is good. Labour's problem is it's not clear what they stand for at all. It's been the case for a long time, but they need to sort out who they are and what they mean, and get someone capable, who reflects that identity to lead them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There's a fair part of that assessment which could also apply to the Tories - spoilsport ..let me have my fun :winkold: Truth is there are no decent leaders around at the moment for any of the 3 main parties. it is a bit like that isn't it ? but do you see anyone in any of the parties that looks future leader material ? to some extent the leader still has to pander to the party so any idealism is soon removed ... When Cameron goes I reckon it will be between Osborne and Boris to replace him ..frightening as that may seem ... Boris believes it is his destiny I'm sure of it and Osborne , well if he gets lucky with the economy (I still think by default the next boom after this bust will fall on his lap ) then he will see himself as next leader / PM though I'm not sure the public would vote for Osborne tbh Labour's problem is it's not clear what they stand for at all. It's been the case for a long time, but they need to sort out who they are and what they mean, and get someone capable, who reflects that identity to lead them. I'm not sure they have that person in the party at the moment ? David M it seems would have been popular with the public at large (if not the unions :winkold:) but having been defeated first time out , can he really be a credible leader , Ed has suffered many brother jibes in the house , David would as well and those sound bites do hit home for the average voter with his 15 second attention span Ed Balls is raising his profile the most of late , I still reckon he fancies a shot at it ... but he would make labour unelectable in most peoples eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 In terms of who the Union funded, I think the Union leadership committee had a vote and overwhelmingly agreed to give him some dosh. I think EM, whatever his personality and photogenic perception is, is genuinely more aligned to the Unions philosophy than say DM. It seems even the unions may disagree with that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Ed Milliband's attack on the IOM and other crown dependencies hasn't gone down at all well either. He's perceived as looking for a scapegoat as a way to distract attention from his own abject performance as Labour leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Labour's problem is it's not clear what they stand for at all. It's been the case for a long time, but they need to sort out who they are and what they mean, and get someone capable, who reflects that identity to lead them. Labour's problem is that it's clear what they stand for, but the parliamentary party (most of them) would rather not push that particular line. It's not the road to directorships, speaking tours, invitations to Davos and the other trinkets that beguile them. McCluskey's article is excellent. A sparse, cogent explanation of the real issues. Miliband must have inherited enough of his father's intelligence to understand the strategic mistake he is making, if he thinks about it. The government will be resisted, and it would be better for the labour party to be part of that resistance than be collaborators. If the Opposition will not oppose, then opposition will come from outside parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Is Len related to Andy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 maybe David is looking for a new way to finance his next election bid ? David Miliband, the former Labour Foreign Secretary, has taken up an advisory role with a private equity company based in Pakistan. Milliband has joined Indus Basin Holdings, which has invested in various agricultural businesses. of course , In his party conference speech last year, Ed Miliband attacked private equity firms as “predators”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2012 It's going to be Yvette Balls eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 i think they should avoid another miliband personally. the only guy that i think would make a good leader for labour is jack straw but dont think he is interested. think ed balls will be next labour leader if its not david Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 It's going to be Yvette Balls eventually. Not so sure, I think Chuka Umunna once polished would stand a good shot, when prepared he's very very impressive (treasury select committee), when not he can be a liability (Question Time), I think with time that'd be ironed out though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAFC2000 Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 David Milliband - make a comback and win the next GE. What a story that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts