-
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
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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?
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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?
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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?
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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?
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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/
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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 ???
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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 "".
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
"I have been around a long time and I have been picking up how Unite supporters are putting pressure on MPs especially new MPs to support one or other candidate, and telling people if possible let's keep some candidates below the 35 threshold.
"I have been well-behaved for five years. When David Miliband lost five years ago we were all taken into a darkened room, and told we were to accept the result and told not to criticise Ed Miliband. Well, I have been silent for five years, but we know the reality is had David been chosen in 2010, we would have won the general election. It was a fix by Unite's merry men in 2010 that stopped David, and we cannot have that again.
"The 2010 result, and the way it happened, means we need a different relationship with the trade unions. We don't want to break it, but we have to be realistic about the role of unions in society. They are smaller than they ever were and they are increasingly rare in the private sector. They do not provide troops on the ground or at general committees. The number of trades unionists that are active in the Labour party on the ground is tiny."
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by babyloncardiff wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 17:34
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.
None of the candidates inspire me
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 19:09
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
Anyone else wondering what the result may have been if labour voices like Sheerman weren't just silent but supportive? Did the other political parties have members as eager for failure?
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 19:09
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
The Labour party was formed by the unions, it has been funded by the unions for over 100 years. If people do not like that, they should **** off from the Labour party.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 20:47
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 19:09
"I have been around a long time and I have been picking up how Unite supporters are putting pressure on MPs especially new MPs to support one or other candidate, and telling people if possible let's keep some candidates below the 35 threshold.
You might have missed it Archie but many did #### off and it's why there is a tory government,I'm afraid your responses in this thread is typical union trait which, will ensure the Labour party will spend a long time in opposition, I,do rather a diluted labour party with zero union influence than a tory lot, the glory days have gone for unions, I welcome their existence, there is clearly a need, I note your point of the past history but everything moves on, not always for the better granted but the Labour party is requiring of modernisation to include better quality politicians who can deliver policies and not just answer by criticism of the tories.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Agree with what some of the other posters have said. In five years time there's a fair chance that the Tories will have torn themselves to pieces over Europe and that the electorate will have had a titfull of Thatcherite policies delivered by out of touch Old Etonians.
So it's important that Labour have broad appeal and are electable. Sure they can hog the middle ground on the economy but do something more radical in terms of election pledges. Like a manifesto commitment to introduce a form of PR, stick a penny on National insurance that's ring fenced to provide £30bn for the NHS over the next five years, legislate to make it easier for employees to become stakeholders in the companies they work for, move away from being Americas patsy when it comes to foreign affairs.
The leadership candidates are a poor bunch but going for anyone other than Burnham will set the party back years.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by heath/ccfc wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:13
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 20:47
"I have been around a long time and I have been picking up how Unite supporters are putting pressure on MPs especially new MPs to support one or other candidate, and telling people if possible let's keep some candidates below the 35 threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 19:09
"I have been well-behaved for five years. When David Miliband lost five years ago we were all taken into a darkened room, and told we were to accept the result and told not to criticise Ed Miliband. Well, I have been silent for five years, but we know the reality is had David been chosen in 2010, we would have won the general election. It was a fix by Unite's merry men in 2010 that stopped David, and we cannot have that again.
I accept that there are many people out there who would gladly vote for a party that is not the Conservative Party and has no connection to the trade unions. I have no problem with that, perhaps someone should form one.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie sherwood wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21
Agree with what some of the other posters have said. In five years time there's a fair chance that the Tories will have torn themselves to pieces over Europe and that the electorate will have had a titfull of Thatcherite policies delivered by out of touch Old Etonians.
Labour have got years of in-fighting, tearing themselves apart, fighting their union-paymasters and General navel gazing to do yet.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21
The seeds of defeat were sown on the announcement of Ed Miliband's leadership election victory when the cameras switched to the smirking faces of the Union barons who had just shown the Labour Party members and MPs who the real Dons were. Archie may like to see the Labour Party run like a Mafia family but instead of the views of a non-Labour voting Marxist it may be more instructive to listen to Labour MP Barry Sheerman on the trade unions relationship with the Labour Party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heath/ccfc wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:13
"I have been around a long time and I have been picking up how Unite supporters are putting pressure on MPs especially new MPs to support one or other candidate, and telling people if possible let's keep some candidates below the 35 threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 20:47
"I have been well-behaved for five years. When David Miliband lost five years ago we were all taken into a darkened room, and told we were to accept the result and told not to criticise Ed Miliband. Well, I have been silent for five years, but we know the reality is had David been chosen in 2010, we would have won the general election. It was a fix by Unite's merry men in 2010 that stopped David, and we cannot have that again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NECS wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 19:09
"The 2010 result, and the way it happened, means we need a different relationship with the trade unions. We don't want to break it, but we have to be realistic about the role of unions in society. They are smaller than they ever were and they are increasingly rare in the private sector. They do not provide troops on the ground or at general committees. The number of trades unionists that are active in the Labour party on the ground is tiny."
When I was back in the trade circa 1981 AUEW did you ever come across a union official who went by the name of Doug Guy, I was a bit of a millitent back then he was keen to get me more actively involved.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:27
Agree with what some of the other posters have said. In five years time there's a fair chance that the Tories will have torn themselves to pieces over Europe and that the electorate will have had a titfull of Thatcherite policies delivered by out of touch Old Etonians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie sherwood wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21
So it's important that Labour have broad appeal and are electable. Sure they can hog the middle ground on the economy but do something more radical in terms of election pledges. Like a manifesto commitment to introduce a form of PR, stick a penny on National insurance that's ring fenced to provide £30bn for the NHS over the next five years, legislate to make it easier for employees to become stakeholders in the companies they work for, move away from being Americas patsy when it comes to foreign affairs.
The main reason Labour won in 1997 was people were so pissed off with the tories. I am fairly confident, looking at what the tories have in mind for the next five years, they will also be pissing a lot of people off. Even the police are in discussion with the People's Assembly about joining in their next march.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:50
Agree with what some of the other posters have said. In five years time there's a fair chance that the Tories will have torn themselves to pieces over Europe and that the electorate will have had a titfull of Thatcherite policies delivered by out of touch Old Etonians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:27
So it's important that Labour have broad appeal and are electable. Sure they can hog the middle ground on the economy but do something more radical in terms of election pledges. Like a manifesto commitment to introduce a form of PR, stick a penny on National insurance that's ring fenced to provide £30bn for the NHS over the next five years, legislate to make it easier for employees to become stakeholders in the companies they work for, move away from being Americas patsy when it comes to foreign affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfie sherwood wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:21
The leadership candidates are a poor bunch but going for anyone other than Burnham will set the party back years.
No, nothing to do with Tony Blair was it.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by heath/ccfc wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 21:47
When I was back in the trade circa 1981 AUEW did you ever come across a union official who went by the name of Doug Guy, I was a bit of a millitent back then he was keen to get me more actively involved.
By the time i started to move in TUC circles the AUEW had been absorbed into AMICUS. I did mix with other unionists through other political activities, but i dont recall that name. So, i am afraid the answer is no.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibald leitch wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:30
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 .
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragbone Red wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:13
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.
Well well well what have we here? This is the man who always claims to be the sane, polite debater. The logic man. The kind socialist. The self appointed, evidence based philosopher. And then what? A little tug of the tail and what happens? His mask slips. Just like Mick The Thick he lets his guard down. And in a moment of madness we see the real Archie online. Foul language, tribal feelings and a nasty sting in the tail. There you have it - the real face of a Labour man.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 14:09
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 surge wrote on Mon, 18 May 2015 13:58
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.
That is about as surprising as George Osborne saying he hates those on benefits.
-
Re: Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection
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?
Perhaps it is like a scene from Liverpool docks. Perhaps the child has grown up and realised that his parents are a bunch of bullying, drunken layabouts. So the child decided to run away, learn a little about the wider world, take some responsibility and grow up.
