Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection

Just think people have had enough of the Unions controlling Labour elections and MP choices , I am sure if the party elects another well endorsed union MP we might as well say goodnight Irene .

This narrow minded pursuit of Union backed candidates in my opinion is not a true democratic choice or procedure , its a controlling mechanism and not very progressive politics.

I know the voting for a leader has been changed by Mililband to a one person vote however this underlying threat of funding removal or backing in my opinion is not a free choice procedure .

Perhaps the time has come to see another way to find the Labour party or even a new party that brakes that tie with eh likes of Unite

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:13

Just think people have had enough of the Unions controlling Labour elections and MP choices , I am sure if the party elects another well endorsed union MP we might as well say goodnight Irene .

---

Alternatively, if there are MPs out there that do not like being members of a party that was set up by the trade union movement and has relied on trade union funding from the word go, perhaps it is THEM that should **** of and find another party. Many of Labour's MPs would fit in quite nicely with the tory party anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

---

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

Some interesting views above.

I agree wholeheartedly that, at a time when workers were exploited, forced into low-paid, dangerous jobs without any benefits, there was an absolute need for unions to defend their rights. These days, with the minimum wage, H&S legislation etc there is perhaps less need for them, but there IS still a need.

Archie is also correct that the labour party has its roots in the trade union movement, but that said, it is a valid question to ask if those unions should hold such clout over one of the main political parties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

---

---

you also seem very defensive for someone who doesn't think much of the labour party

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:37

Some interesting views above.

---

Many marriages end in divorce, it's time for the Unions and Labour to decree nisi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:38

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

---

---

---

I am not defending the Labour Party, i am defending the right of trade unions to have a say in the party they created and have funded for over 100 years. The reason i dont vote labour is because it pays no attention to the people that created it or the people it was created for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath/ccfc wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:41

Some interesting views above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:37

I agree wholeheartedly that, at a time when workers were exploited, forced into low-paid, dangerous jobs without any benefits, there was an absolute need for unions to defend their rights. These days, with the minimum wage, H&S legislation etc there is perhaps less need for them, but there IS still a need.

---

---

Not a case of marriage, the trade unions concived and gave birth to the labour party and brought it up, it has now turned into a wayward and ungrateful child and those wayward and ungrateful members of the party should be thrown out on the streets and sent to find another sucker to sponge off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:46

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:38

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with today's inane witterings but rest assured I work for a living and I've just as good an idea of what is happening in the UK as you do.

---

---

---

---

can I also ask how you know what the majority of workers t's and c's are? You have said that people need trade unions - are you making that claim for just the half a dozen people you work with or for all 31m workers of the uk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:49

Some interesting views above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heath/ccfc wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:41

I agree wholeheartedly that, at a time when workers were exploited, forced into low-paid, dangerous jobs without any benefits, there was an absolute need for unions to defend their rights. These days, with the minimum wage, H&S legislation etc there is perhaps less need for them, but there IS still a need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:37

Archie is also correct that the labour party has its roots in the trade union movement, but that said, it is a valid question to ask if those unions should hold such clout over one of the main political parties?

---

---

---

Do you think children should be free to leave home and find alternative forms of finance rather than sponging off their parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:38

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

---

---

---

It might be the case that if you drew up a general list or concrete examples of the work unions do and ask whether the general public saw the value then you'd get a lot more positive response than if you asked whether they saw value in the unions. Lets be honest, who on earth would want to join Len McCluskey's union whether unions do great work or not?

Surge

Unions do good work, it's not just about strikes. However my discussion point is whether workers today see the benefit of being in a union and whether they want to have subs deducted from their pay.

In recent times we have had major public service strikes and pretty much every time the government has managed to implement it's reforms to pay and conditions. possible new members are going to see this lack of result in the news rather than the ancillary work unions do for their members and form an opinion based on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surge wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:58

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:38

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with today's inane witterings but rest assured I work for a living and I've just as good an idea of what is happening in the UK as you do.

---

---

---

---

http://www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:57

Just my opinion - when the labour party was set up the needs of the working man were far greater than they are today. The unions were strong in number and voice and compared to today less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of being in a union. Workers are now enfranchised and can vote for change rather than rely on withdrawal of labour to achieve better working conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:46

a split could be a good idea - a trade union focused party that could focus on the needs on the 20% of workers and a labour party that focuses on the needs of the other 80% o workers With policies being set accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:38

I am not sure whether i evny your coton wool world or dispair at your detachment from the reality of working conditions of millions of people in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:33

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with today's inane witterings but rest assured I work for a living and I've just as good an idea of what is happening in the UK as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:22

My point stands, less than 1 in 5 workers see the benefit of trade unions and as such the labour party has to factor that in when it decides whether it wants to be the party of the working man or the party of the trade unions.

---

---

---

---

---

But no - you seem to think that we live in some sort of utopia with a benevolent governmnet and employers shaking everyones hand on the way into work asking them if they need a back rub and a cup of tea.

Labour has a big choice to make IMO.

Should they embrace where they have come from, which includes the unions and left leaning policies? Or do theyforget that and try and embrace middle England, thus further alienating their core vote?

Personally I think they should take the former route. Embrace the unions and the good things that they do, as well as more left leaning policies such as nationalising the Rail companies. They need to promote the positive side of the unions, not be embarassed the link. After all the tories are funded by Hedge Funds, bankers and big business which ultimately has a massive say over the way this country is run.

In addition, if Labour abondon their traditional support, then they will be competing more or less directly with the tory vote, and this will only go one way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 16:12

Labour has a big choice to make IMO.

---

Of course the other thing they could do is spend months arguing about unions or no unions, Blair or no Blair, tell left wing learners that they should only vote labour etc. and allow the Tories to steal the march again.

I nearly started a thread saying the same a couple of days ago. The unions are doing their best to pull labour away from voters and give the tories a 3rd term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neilw65 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 16:12

Labour has a big choice to make IMO.

---

We are not in the 70's workers rights are not the problem they once were. Poverty is not the problem it once was. Even the poor are well off these days. The left has had its day for timebeing, and hopefully forever, as I wouldn't want to see a time like the 70's again. A prosperous future means a swing to the right.

Instead of getting caught up in a debate about lurching to the left or moving to the centre Labour have to appeal to both. Whoever gets elected as their new leader needs to campaign on a ticket of prosperity and social justice. The Tories are facing an EU referendum that could potentially rip them apart and are intent on introducing billions of pounds worth of cuts which is not exactly going to make them popular. So, if Labour get their shit sorted early, they have a great opportunity to clean up at the next election.

Think the debate has drifted a bit , my point was about how a free and democratic election should take place, and how Unions are effecting who should be the best candidate by thrusting their own political agenda, and not allowing the labour party to find a true democratic elected leader.

We know the unions don't like centralist candidates such as David Miliband ,therefore the process of election becomes a worrying self centered control mechanism for a party that desperately needs the help of its supporters including the unions to modernism and beat the Tories , it will not happen under this current procedure.

I think Unite and other unions are just adding power to the Tory party arguments, and the Tories must be belly laughing at the situation, surly that does help the decent grassroots union paying members ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:13

Think the debate has drifted a bit , my point was about how a free and democratic election should take place, and how Unions are effecting who should be the best candidate by thrusting their own political agenda, and not allowing the labour party to find a true democratic elected leader.

---

ETA - i know that it is in the interests of working people to se the back of the Tories, but lets not forget Labour were not exactly our friend when Bliar was in number ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:40

Think the debate has drifted a bit , my point was about how a free and democratic election should take place, and how Unions are effecting who should be the best candidate by thrusting their own political agenda, and not allowing the labour party to find a true democratic elected leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:13

We know the unions don't like centralist candidates such as David Miliband ,therefore the process of election becomes a worrying self centered control mechanism for a party that desperately needs the help of its supporters including the unions to modernism and beat the Tories , it will not happen under this current procedure.

---

---

Blair was voted in democratically " by the people "".

If Labour could manage securing an electable leader and a set of centre-left, people-orientated policies they would quite possibly be a cert in 5 years when the country may very well have had enough of Dave/Boris, George & co.
But they wont.

And, on the other hand why should the direction and policy of any party be dictated by popularity alone?
Why would anybody vote for a party that bends in the wind solely to gain power for the sake of being in power - then what?

The whole system is patently rather ridiculous.
At any given time the majority of us are putting up with something we didn't want, nor vote for.

I think a split might not be a bad idea. Shake the tree a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:47

Think the debate has drifted a bit , my point was about how a free and democratic election should take place, and how Unions are effecting who should be the best candidate by thrusting their own political agenda, and not allowing the labour party to find a true democratic elected leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:40

We know the unions don't like centralist candidates such as David Miliband ,therefore the process of election becomes a worrying self centered control mechanism for a party that desperately needs the help of its supporters including the unions to modernism and beat the Tories , it will not happen under this current procedure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 18:13

I think Unite and other unions are just adding power to the Tory party arguments, and the Tories must be belly laughing at the situation, surly that does help the decent grassroots union paying members ???

---

---

---

With Labour, UNITE are trying to restore some sort of democracy in that the millions of members that pay into the party should have some sort of say in policy - which at the moment they do not. Unlike the tories they have a motion based conference, which should dictate policy, but Labour have a history of ignoring those democratic decisions the leadership does not like in recent years.