Bloodfest Labour Leader Eleection

[Dr Tim Muff]

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.

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'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.

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.

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

If you are aware of the conditions people have to put up with in the work place, then you would not be stating that there is no need for trade unions. Simple as that.

The fact that there are less people in unions now than before is because of the break up of industry and the growth of SMEs were trade union organisation is nye on impossible. It has nothing to do with the actual need for a trade union.

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.

Remarkable.

[Anne O'Rack]

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

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

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.

100 years on after everyone else has progressed you still want them run by the unions. A rowdy crowd whose time has come and gone. A rowdy crowd who base their politics on the times of the "land owning class versus the serfs". They seem to think we are still in the age where the rich owned all the land, there is no middle class, and everyone else is either an apron-wearing female serving tea and sucking off the Lord of Downton Abbey or males slogging away in the fields harvesting wheat grain or dying in the coalfields at the age of 47. They are stuck in a timewarp.

[Elysium]

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.

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'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.

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.

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

If you are aware of the conditions people have to put up with in the work place, then you would not be stating that there is no need for trade unions. Simple as that.

The fact that there are less people in unions now than before is because of the break up of industry and the growth of SMEs were trade union organisation is nye on impossible. It has nothing to do with the actual need for a trade union.

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.

before we go any further can you explain what you mean when you say 'growth of the sme market'?

Now that's what I would call remarkable.

[Dr Tim Muff]

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.

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'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.

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.

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

If you are aware of the conditions people have to put up with in the work place, then you would not be stating that there is no need for trade unions. Simple as that.

The fact that there are less people in unions now than before is because of the break up of industry and the growth of SMEs were trade union organisation is nye on impossible. It has nothing to do with the actual need for a trade union.

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.

before we go any further can you explain what you mean when you say 'growth of the sme market'?

If you did your research then you will know the uk has always had a huge sme market and the large/global corporates form a much smaller part of our economy than you think.

And fair play - you have continued to make my point very well

[archibald leitch]

That was 1915. The tories used to be financed by the aristocracy and judges. Guess what? They moved on. The Liberals were financed by men of heavy industry. Guess what? They moved on. In Plaid Cymru we used to sympathize with the Nazis. Guess what? We moved on. See the pattern archie? The only one that haven't progressed are Labour.

UNITE are in some ways agreeing with you. Time for the trade unions to move on - and take their money with them. Or are you suggesting they should leave the party but still pour millions of pounds into it?

[Elysium]

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.

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'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.

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.

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

If you are aware of the conditions people have to put up with in the work place, then you would not be stating that there is no need for trade unions. Simple as that.

The fact that there are less people in unions now than before is because of the break up of industry and the growth of SMEs were trade union organisation is nye on impossible. It has nothing to do with the actual need for a trade union.

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.

before we go any further can you explain what you mean when you say 'growth of the sme market'?

If you did your research then you will know the uk has always had a huge sme market and the large/global corporates form a much smaller part of our economy than you think.

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?

Timothy, son, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

[archibald leitch]

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.

Well - sort of. I want no part of a Labour Party that pays no attention to the trade unions, so i do not pay into the affiliated fund, my subs go nowhere near the labour party. In a small way, like Len is threatening, but i did it decades ago.

[alfie sherwood]

The continued demonising of the trade unions is still a bit bizarre. It's as if people believe that we're back in the 1970's and unified trade union revolt is going to bring the country to a standstill at any moment.

I look on unions as fundamentally just trying to do their best by normal working people up and down the country. Are there bad union leaders? Very likely. Are there plenty of good union leaders? Absolutely.

I think trade unions perform an important function and are, on the whole, a force for good. it's testament to those involved in running them and their many members, that they have managed to survive despite Thatcher's attempts to totally emasculate them.

As for the unions continued links to the Labour Party, I think it's generally a positive thing and an important link back to the formative years of the Labour movement.

[surge]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

[NECS]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

Absolutely surge and zero hour contracts are an issue. Unfortunately the 2/3rds you mention represent 2% of the country's working population and the other 98% didn't give a monkey's (you can say they should have cared but the fact is they didn't). Yet Labour banged on about them for two weeks of the campaign. Douglas Alexander was the worst strategist since George Armstrong Custer. The whole strategy of the party was to get 35% of the vote and hope the other parties' votes split kindly for them. It was a minimalist theory which was the football equivalent of hanging on to a 1-0 lead and it proved a complete failure.

[Dr Tim Muff]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

It's not a big point, but is worth mentioning, IMO, that the ONS figures show that 1.8 million people (Aug 2014) were in contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours. The smaller figure (and they are both estimates) reflects those who "recognise the term" - whatever that means. It is significant, though,because ONS statistics regarding satisfaction with the hours etc. are based on the smaller number (586,000) rather than those who are not guaranteed a minimum number of hours of work (1.8 million). I suspect the latter figure is what most of us have in mind when we talk about "zero hours contracts".

[Elwood Blues]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

Absolutely surge and zero hour contracts are an issue. Unfortunately the 2/3rds you mention represent 2% of the country's working population and the other 98% didn't give a monkey's (you can say they should have cared but the fact is they didn't). Yet Labour banged on about them for two weeks of the campaign. Douglas Alexander was the worst strategist since George Armstrong Custer. The whole strategy of the party was to get 35% of the vote and hope the other parties' votes split kindly for them. It was a minimalist theory which was the football equivalent of hanging on to a 1-0 lead and it proved a complete failure.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guarant eed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/index.html

[NECS]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

Absolutely surge and zero hour contracts are an issue. Unfortunately the 2/3rds you mention represent 2% of the country's working population and the other 98% didn't give a monkey's (you can say they should have cared but the fact is they didn't). Yet Labour banged on about them for two weeks of the campaign. Douglas Alexander was the worst strategist since George Armstrong Custer. The whole strategy of the party was to get 35% of the vote and hope the other parties' votes split kindly for them. It was a minimalist theory which was the football equivalent of hanging on to a 1-0 lead and it proved a complete failure.

There was no vision offered in 2015 and the result was inevitable.

[Dr Tim Muff]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

Absolutely surge and zero hour contracts are an issue. Unfortunately the 2/3rds you mention represent 2% of the country's working population and the other 98% didn't give a monkey's (you can say they should have cared but the fact is they didn't). Yet Labour banged on about them for two weeks of the campaign. Douglas Alexander was the worst strategist since George Armstrong Custer. The whole strategy of the party was to get 35% of the vote and hope the other parties' votes split kindly for them. It was a minimalist theory which was the football equivalent of hanging on to a 1-0 lead and it proved a complete failure.

I seriously question this "2% of the population" claim with regard zero hours contracts.

Early days.

[Dr Tim Muff]

Zero hour contracts force people live day to day. If you're not in need of work then they can be positive but they're so exploitative of those who are desperate.

I care more about the 1/3rd who aren't happy than the 2/3rds that are.

Absolutely surge and zero hour contracts are an issue. Unfortunately the 2/3rds you mention represent 2% of the country's working population and the other 98% didn't give a monkey's (you can say they should have cared but the fact is they didn't). Yet Labour banged on about them for two weeks of the campaign. Douglas Alexander was the worst strategist since George Armstrong Custer. The whole strategy of the party was to get 35% of the vote and hope the other parties' votes split kindly for them. It was a minimalist theory which was the football equivalent of hanging on to a 1-0 lead and it proved a complete failure.

I seriously question this "2% of the population" claim with regard zero hours contracts.

I was simply making a *small* point ("It's not a big point, but is worth mentioning") about the use of "2%"- not to have a dig, but because it is cropping up a lot, and is likely to be misleading IMO.

[Feedback]

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.

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'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.

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.

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

If you are aware of the conditions people have to put up with in the work place, then you would not be stating that there is no need for trade unions. Simple as that.

The fact that there are less people in unions now than before is because of the break up of industry and the growth of SMEs were trade union organisation is nye on impossible. It has nothing to do with the actual need for a trade union.

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.

before we go any further can you explain what you mean when you say 'growth of the sme market'?

another excellent contribution from Lloyd Christmas