EdM does the bidding of his union masters shocker?

If New Labour are doing the ‘bidding’ of the unions this is a massive reversal of the last few decades.

No party is so tied to a special interest group as Labour to the trade unions.

So Ed M appears to be adopting a perfectly sensible position of recognising the historical links and balances reflected in the electoral college arrangements, whilst trying to address some of the obvious inconsistencies and anomalies. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that members should have one vote only, and presumably will chose to exercise it where its influence will be greatest.

We don’t have to keep trying to see everything about this debate in ‘Blairite’ vs ‘non-Blairite’ terms. As someone who is probably perceived as more of a ‘Blairite’ than not, I’m perfectly happy with Ed Ms position; I’d like to see the rules changed so that in the future the union leaderships cannot behave quite as undemocratically as I think they did this time; and most importantly, I’d like the unions to think a bit more about why the turnout of levy-payers was so low, and what that actually says about their own structures and engagement with their membership.

And with friends like these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/22/len-mccluskey-elected-unite-leader

No party is so tied to a special interest group as Labour to the trade unions.

Tories and rich businessmen?

The reverse question is whether it is the interests of trade unions to continue to blindly support the labour party, or whether they should be using their financial muscle to support union friendly candidates of any party in election.

7

Or indeed just using the funds for the interests of their members perhaps?

Sunny,

It may be worth noting that any rich businessman who funds the Conservatives has one vote in the leadership contest (providing they also take membership of the party).

The unions who fund Labour have a third of the electoral college.

Unless a third of the members of the Conservative party are those same rich businessmen (and unless you mean shop-keepers and small-town accountants, no chance), then there is something of a notable difference there.

Any other arguments will be based on equivalency – if rich businessmen (none fund Labour do they…) fund the Conservatives and get favours in return, the same can be said for unions and Labour for example.

The Leader by Roger McGough

I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I’m the leader
I’m the leader

OK what shall we do?

@Watchman

WTF? There isn’t a trade union block vote, workers who decide to become members of unions and then decide to pay the political levy have one vote.

The biggest favour Ed could do for the Blairites would be to peripheralise the unions.

The unions represent the one and only functional link between Labour’s structure with working class voters that, as Ed’s own election as leader proved, ensured that the marginalisation of the hideous Blairites.

If rich bookie, Stuart Wheeler, rag dealer, Phillip Green, and the gamblers of the City of London can determine the direction of the government of this country, then there can be little complaint if those who make a meagre living through honest toil express their concerns through the medium of their unions.

After all, the ballot box has proved of little use in bringing democracy to our country.

Hmm. The trolls are worried. Miliband must be on the right track.

Watchman – don’t think you understand how the electoral college system works. What Chris said @ #11

Roger McGough? Surely not. Richmal Crompton originated this joke. Bah humbug!