This is an interesting suggestion. Progress have a lot of money, thus influence, and are seen as an entryist group into Labour. I thought the GMB motion was right in expressing concerns about how much money should be held by such groupings.

Balls is, as far as I know, the highest placed Co-operative Party MP. I often ask myself how this actually benefits the Co-op movement? He certainly doesn’t impress me.

Interesting.

I’m not sure Labour’s problem is being pro-austerity or anti-austerity. I think there problem is more that they can’t make up their mind which they are so it’s hard to trust them as a voter, and it also suggests they don’t have much confidence in their own “policies” or much real idea of what they want to actually do. It weakens their credibility.

A lot of voters actually feel like “well at least Osborne has a plan – he must know what he’s doing.” It is increasingly obvious that he doesn’t. But unless Labour have a plan, and have confidence in it, a lot of voters will trust confidence and arrogance, even it is actually entirely misplaced, over what appears like confusion, dithering, uncertainty etc. No-one wants uncertainty at a time like this!

Depressing but true.

I agree with @1. Ed Balls seems to have been as useful for the Cooperative party as Tony Blair was for Socialism.

I’ve been arguing that Labour needs a little bit more time to come up with some kind of narrative and alternative. I’m not going to keep arguing for much longer to be honest, there are loads of credible, historically sound alternatives to the gradual economic suicide we seem to be in, yet Labour seem to be terrified of stating anything that might conflict with both what the press consensus is and what Neoliberal ideology dictates. It’s like they want to do something but are scared to, which is not particularly what you want out of the opposition.

I also think Labour could do with finding ways to encourage participation in Unions outside of the public sector, as the view is that their only concern is defending their little corner rather than helping improve conditions for working people regardless of where they work. And to be honest, I’ve not seen much reason to doubt that view. If they can increase intake, my view is that the Unions will have much more credibility rather than seeming to be outlandish fiefdoms of the angry left.

I don’t agree with you on this, Sunny. You are absolutely right that they’re annoyed with Balls. But Balls did what he did because he was pitching for Progress-camp backing when they were attacking daily at the turn of the year and EdM was floundering. The unions know that. They (and it’s as strongly felt at the grassroots as it is by the leadership) haven’t forgiven Progress for the unions having got so little from New Labour in government, and they are determined to end the situation where both Eds continuously feel the need to make gestures towards Progress.

And the Left feels the same way. Give us a level playing field for debate which is not distorted by one wealthy businessman.

Jon: they are determined to end the situation where both Eds continuously feel the need to make gestures towards Progress.

I made that point too. There was no need for open war with Progress while the Labour leadership were ignoring them. But when Ed B gave that speech, then it kicked off. So to a large extent, the anger is with Ed B for listening to them. That Progress are on the right of the party is hardly news…

Luke Bozier joining the Tory party tells you all you need to know about the poorly named “Progress”.

Getting rid of Balls would help Labour’s electoral prospects, but not for the reasons the Unions seem to think.

I think you should keep in mind the terms of the original GMB motion : Progress runs a slick party -within-a-party on the basis of £2.8 million pounds funding from Lord Sainsbury. In addition Progress has take a few quid from the pro-dictator European Azerbaijan society and lobbyists Bell Pottinger. They use this cash to run a tight, right wing lobby within Labour. The GMB aren’t objecting the the politics of Progress as such , but rather the fact they are a highly funded group within Labour using these funds to run a secretive lobbying group. Anyone who has been to Labour conference knows the slick operation they run. At the same time, how Progress elects their officers and decide their policies is, AFAIK , secretive

Labour is a toxic brand, a mirror image of the Tories: its time to cast the net wider and bring in the Greens, the only truly visionary party left standing.

The Progress Party are behaving very strangely.
They email Labour Party members with a filtered list of their own preferred candidates, instead of a full list of candidates for the NEC elections.
They have millions donated by big business like Sainsbury.
They send emails to fully paid up Labour party members asking them for membership fees.
This is not inclusive behaviour, and I have full proof of all of it, being at the receiving end of it.
I believe that Progress are trying to force their agenda. Why else would they do the above. It seems little better than the behaviour of the Militant Tendency.

Ed Balls was actually starting off well by saying that the government should tax bankers bonuses and promised some structural changes for the future such as a national investment bank. Could it be that he is just trying to keep the peace by appeasing Progress – they are very powerful and have the power to cause more trouble than militant.
I think that it would be better for the unions to try and win the intellectual argument rather than get into an argument about Progress. It is possible to make the right irrelevant if you can keep making them look foolish. Thomas I Palley has just written a book called from “Financial Crisis to Stagnation” – Cambridge University Press. It describes the flawed neoliberal model of the past thirty years and why if we do not give it up, we face a great stagnation. Let Labour stop arguing about the foolish undemocratic behaviour of Progress and start whipping the neoliberals with facts, evidence and analysis.

Silly games I have been in the Union for a long time even before it became the GMB, Progress may well become a problem I do think it’s a party within a party, and I think it plans to get as many MP’s as it can to dictate the way in which labour will go, but hell that’s been going on for years.

What we need is to get something like Labour list to do the same for the left or even this site. It takes money that is for sure and it could be millions, I do not know to many lefties who have a few millions to give away.

I just think to day we have more important things to worry about like jobs, pensions and living.

The obsession with how Progress operates is a sideshow, as Sunny says, it’s not like the unions themselves are a paragon of transparency and accountability.

It’s an ideological battle, and there’s no harm in admitting that.