[Closed] So Ed versus Len?

Storm in a teacup being blown out of proportion by the right wing media who are towing the tory party line that working people shouldn't be able to fund the party set up to represent them through their trade union. IMO obviously.

Brief summary from the Mash

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/the-labour-falkirk-controversy-explained-2013070474801

How naughty have Unite been .....

I suspect not naughty at all. Unless of course encouraging their members to join the Labour Party is considered naughty.

[quote=ernie_lynch said]How naughty have Unite been .....
I suspect not naughty at all. Unless of course encouraging their members to join the Labour Party is considered naughty.

Encouraged or signed up without their knowledge ?

A union rep made a comment today about this that stuck in my head.
(In Scotland) The Snp are the more socialist party than the Labour party who are supposed to be socialist..
He also thought what Unite were doing was quite acceptable.
I think its a bit suss that despite the fact that Unite have asked for an independant report be published the Labour high uppers have flat out refused to do so.
Can see things going sour between the two pretty quickly..

Encouraged or signed up without their knowledge ?

Well I've already answered that by stating that I suspect Unite have not been "naughty" at all.
Signing them up without their knowledge would clearly be very naughty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23192888

According to an internal Labour report, Unite members were being signed up to the local party without their knowledge in a bid to rig the contest.

I know what the Party hierarchy claims. I also know that New Labour politicians are manipulative liars.

Its hard to see how Ed can criticise Unite the union for attempting to undemocratically rig selection of candidates, when its exactly the same election rigging that got him his job over his brother!

Well as they've sent their "evidence" to the old bill then will be interesting to see if it backfires.

I'm not sure they had much choice, a Tory MP had asked the police to investigate, and Unite had threatened legal action.

But if NL are indeed manipulative liars would they risk calling in the police? Ed is hardly doing this below the radar and considering Unites role in his election it all seems somewhat interesting?

If it is fraud that is the main issue (?) then how is this the RW press causing mischief?

I suspect they have some "evidence" which amounts to nothing. A dodgy dossier no doubt. The truth will eventually come out. It's a question of wait and see.

EDIT : With regards to "would they risk calling in the police?" it was a Tory MP who did that.

I see thanks! The BBC report seems unclear on what labour asking the police to investigate means.

I believe it was Tory MP Henry Smith who wrote to the Chief Constable of Scotland asking him to investigate.

EDIT :

[i]Crawley MP Henry Smith told Sir Stephen that Unite may have committed fraud by making a false instrument, in the form of an application form signing up members to the Labour Party without their knowledge. And he said the separate offence of "uttering" may have been committed by tendering forged documents with an intention to defraud.

"I am deeply concerned that a serious offence may have been committed in this instance," wrote Mr Smith. "I would be very grateful if you could investigate this as a matter of urgency, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the democratic process in Scotland."[/i]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/labour-hand-report-police-over-2028206

what ernie says

Its hard to see how Ed can criticise Unite the union for attempting to undemocratically rig selection of candidates, when its exactly the same election rigging that got him his job over his brother!

Individual members of the unions can choose to affiliate to the labour party or choose not to affiliate to the labour party so any one who is a member of labour has freely chosen to do so and votes for the leader.
As far as I am aware legally no union is allowed to enrol all members into the labour party the member must choose to do so.

Everyone who voted was a labour party member
It would be more reasonable, given the collegiate system used, to ask why MPS votes are worth more than ordinary members votes which are worth more than union affiliated votes*. Of course no one will mention how unfair that is as it does not serve the right wing agenda
It is in not one person one vote and the imbalance does not favour the unions. I wonder how many people realise this fact

* each section represent 33% of the vote the MPs have the fewest number of members, the party members are next and the affiliated members last

It's a nothing really, what has happened is done all the time to get the "best candidate".

I mean what could possibly be suspicious about a UNITE member being selected as candidate, who also happens to be the secretary of the party election boss and former flat mate of the leader of the union. To me that's a coincidence. Those who claim to have become party members without their knowledge should be honoured to have free membership.

Exactly what ninfan said! It's a bit rich moaning about it it now.

The only winner here is call me Dave. 2 bald blokes fighting over a comb. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic. Another 5 years for the Tories to finish off the welfare state anyone? Be my guest. Signed on behalf of the utterly useless pointless waste of space Ed Milliband on behalf of the even more useless pointless labour party

We really are ****ed!!!

Junkyard, you chose to gloss over the fact that anyone who is both an affiliated union member and a labour party member in their own right (like for example the recent Falkirk party members, whose membership was paid for by the union) therefore gets two votes in the party leadership election (well, roughly 1.5 votes after taking into account the weighting)

Is that definitely true ?
Do you have a source?

If it is I offer no defence of it

Presumably then MP's who, if this is true, are also members of labour and get two votes with the first one being worth way more ?

Can they get three if they are also a union affiliate?

It is a poor system anyway but I dont think the unions have undue power
For example 4 MPs would have been enough for his brother to have won or about 15,000 union votes- still that is not as useful when portraying ed as the Union man

It is not a great system but the bias is towards MP's not the union

It should indeed be one person one vote and it is not

Is ed ****ed then?
That right wing bastion, the BBC is towing the line......

Presumably then MP's who, if this is true, are also members of labour and get two votes with the first one being worth way more ?

Yes, MPs and MEPs each have at least two votes.

And as the votes of MPs and MEPs account for a third of the electoral college vote, exactly the same as the proportion of votes the affiliate organisations get. It means that MPs and MEPs have [i]considerably[/i] more clout than anyone else in leadership elections.

IE, less than 300 MPs and MEPs last election had the same proportion of votes in the electoral college as more than two million affiliated members.

EDIT : In the previous leadership change, ie when Gordon Brown was selected as leader, MPs stitched up the result by ensuring that there was no election at all - they refused to nominate in sufficient numbers anyone other than Gordon Brown.

Alan Johnson claims he had three separate votes in the leadership election:

(MP, Labour member, Union member)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9235865.stm

Worth remembering that the GMB members leadership ballot forms were mailed out in an envelope saying "vote ed miliband" in clear breach of the rule which prohibited them from putting preferred candidate literature in the same communication.

Watching 'red Ed' who rigged his election win protest against them rigging an election win is priceless - again:if its implications weren't so tragic for the rest of us!

Dave's obviously recently procured a magic lamp. Here's a revolutionary idea. Why doesn't the Labour Party take its head out of its own arse and have a look at what's happening in the country, as opposed to what's happening in the Labour Party! The SNP Will probably win the ****ing seat anyway. If they weren't going to before, they will now! Morons!!

Watching 'red Ed' who rigged his election win protest against them rigging an election win is priceless

He did not rig it at all- it is a flawed system by which he was elected

as i said 4 MPs was enough to swing it for his brother would you be frothing as much then as you are about the votes of circa 200,000 affiliated members "rigging it"

It is not a great system but the weighting is not with the affiliates

cheers for link ninfan I offer no defence for it is indefensible

.....in clear breach of the rule

I'm fairly sure that trade unions cannot legally be in breach of their own rules.

I'm also fairly sure that the hard right in New Labour do not miss a trick.

BTW I have never heard of a rule which prohibits a trade union from making recommendations to their members on how to vote.It would be a very strange rule indeed. Trade unions are not suppose to be neutral - that's the whole point of them.

I'm frothing because the Labour Party, which lest we forget, is meant to be representing the interests of the working classes, or just anyone who isn't rich has now become a joke! And one that isn't even remotely funny!

It was hollowed out from the inside by Blair, and now seems to think that the antidote to that is a return to the 1970''s! It's pathetic! And that's being kind!

you think the unions are not made up of ordinary working class folk?

Pretty sure Unites plan is to counter exactly what you object to - I dont think there methods will be successful as folk will react as you do. Nonetheless the aim is to get ordinary working folk in parliament to represent ordinary working folk.
It is easy to spin it as undemocratic etc and I do think that is a reasonable point tbh- FWIW the central executive committee still produces a list and if they are not on that list they need to approve any candidate so [ I assume] they could still stop them

how was/is the beer garden ?

Ernie they can recommend but not with the ballot papers IIRC

Seems like Unite aren't the only ones at it..

In a twist yesterday it was reported that senior Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy is also linked to one of the Falkirk candidates who is also suspected of illegally recruiting party members in the Falkirk area. Gregory Poynton, whose wife is a member of Mr Murphy's Shadow Defence team, is alleged to have paid the membership fees of several new recruits using a £130 personal cheque.

Ernie they can recommend but not with the ballot papers IIRC

Well obviously not on the ballot papers, but there is no reason why the recommendation shouldn't be mailed out with the ballot papers.

Besides, the Electoral Reform Society usually oversees trade union ballots and their job is to carefully scrutinise everything and to guarantee that no rules have been breached, are we saying they haven't done their job properly ?

I would doubt that - someone would be going to court if this was true.

JY - the fact is that If Unite want to get their representatives elected then they should try and do it through maybe trying to appeal to the electorate rather than resorting to behind the scenes stitch up.

The fact that they've resorted to the tactics of the 70's says everything about their idealogical bankruptcy, which mirrors that of the rest of the Labour Party! It's utterly depressing!

The Tories are driven by their idealogical agenda. The Labour Party sits sucking its thumb, then turns on itself about trivia!

I wished I'd seen any if them attacking the Tories with the passion they've turned on each other. Too much to ask, obviously.

Under Labour Party rules, trade unions are allowed to make recommendations to their members, but are barred from doing this in the same communication that contains the ballot paper. During the election, it emerged that both the GMB and Unite had included both an envelope containing the ballot paper, and promotional material for Ed Miliband, their favoured candidate, in the same envelope, attracting criticism that they had breached the spirit of the rules

Wiki though and the reference is a Guardian article and an Independent one- ie i dont know how true it is that they did it but it seems they are not meant to - I guess like you cannot campaign at the polling station l

Binners you are a labour party person [ in spirit if not actually] attacking the labour party for attacking the labour party

That said do I approve of their methods?
Well not if they are illegal- are they?

If Unite want to get their representatives elected then they should try and do it through maybe trying to appeal to the electorate rather than resorting to behind the scenes stitch up.

What ???? 😕

Joining an organisation to have a voice and influence it is perfectly legitimate and highly democratic - it's nothing to do with a "stitch up" ffs.

Indeed the Labour Party has recently had a major campaign to do exactly that - encourage trade unionists to join the party.

Personally I think any trade unionist joining the Labour Party to have a voice and influence it is wasting their time - there is no democracy in the Labour Party and an autocratic leader personally decides everything which is of any importance. After taking their money of course.

Under Labour Party rules

Sorry, I thought we were talking under GMB rules.

I guess anything is possible under Labour Party rules. Gordon Brown was selected as Labour Leader without an election, under Labour Party rules.

Apparently it was a deal he struck with Tony Blair in some posh restaurant somewhere in a trendy part of London.

Not that the hard right in the Labour Party would be responsible for any sort of 'behind the scenes stitch up' of course.

Indeed that was within the rules and a stitch up

I dont disagree re the role of the unions but it does not look good or is presented in a certain way by the press to discredit the link and to overate the role

....is presented in a certain way by the press to discredit the link and to overate the role

Unless your name is Ed Miliband I reckon should not let the press dictate your opinions.

It is perfectly legitimate for a trade union to encourage its members to join the Labour Party.

Even if some people will obligingly repeat the mantra they are fed and call it "a stitch up"

USDAW puts the case very well here :

http://www.usdaw.org.uk/adviceresources/resources/political/havemoreofasay-jointhe.aspx

[img] [/img]

Funny ^^^
I quite like this explanation

Hopefully the weekends press will shed some more light. But I am struggling to reconcile the idea that there are no breaches of either rules or even law (fraud) with a party leader claiming that the evidence that has been uncovered is "so serious that He wanted the police to investigate." Put this together with Watson's resignation and it smells fishier than Pittenween harbour. Maybe more news tomorrow will help.

Thanks for the replies.

So Rupert Murdoch's Times Newspaper has an opinion on the matter cranberry ?

And wait for it...... it's not a positive one !

Well who would have thought it eh ?

Still, it must come as a huge relief to them that after seeing Labour lead in pretty much all the opinion polls for the last 2 years, that they can now so confidently and easily predict its doom.

Hopefully the weekends press will shed some more light

insight from mad Eric here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/05/unite-falkirk-irresponsible-labour

I think a violent alcoholic who appears to have a serious chip on his shoulder, and left/was thrown out of, both the army and the Labour Party, in disgrace, is probably the not the best person to pass judgement on Unite.

Eric Joyce passing judgement? Maybe they could get Neil Hamilton to write an article on the morality of present Tory fundraising?

Right wing labour will use this to take more politics out of the influence of normal every day people.

Is it not just another inevitable step in (new) labours transformation into another mainstream centre right party

theres very little difference between any of the major parties

Ed Milliband. Tony Blair without the charisma to pull it off. How many months before he develops the wild staring eye? Why any of the unions should carry on funding the Labour Party is completely beyond me. When was the last time they got anything back?

I suspect they have some "evidence" which amounts to nothing. A dodgy dossier no doubt. The truth will eventually come out. It's a question of wait and see.

[url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/no-criminal-probe-into-labours-falkirk-candidate-selection-process-8731728.html ]No criminal probe into Labour's Falkirk candidate selection process[/url]

[i][b]....police said today there was not enough evidence to support a criminal investigation. A spokesman said: “Following a comprehensive review of all material submitted, Police Scotland has concluded there are insufficient grounds to support a criminal investigation at this time.”[/i][/b]

So despite the rantings of right-wing extremists who seized control of the Labour Party under Tony Blair, and the Tory press who obligingly egged them on, the police could find no compelling evidence that Unite was guilty of the allegations made against them.

But of course the truth won't make the headlines in the same way that the misinformation clearly did.
So all in all a worthwhile exercise for those with an anti-trade union agenda.

And another triumph for misinformation over truth.

full quote please

“Following a comprehensive review of all material submitted, Police Scotland has concluded there are insufficient grounds to support a criminal investigation at this time. However, should further information come to light this will be looked into.”

also information commissioner starting to dig
http://order-order.com/2013/07/25/information-commissioner-confirms-unite-falkirk-fraud-investigation/
and the Trade Union Certification Officer is now free to investigate
http://order-order.com/2013/07/25/certification-officer-now-free-to-investigate-unite/

there is still along way to go with this one

full quote please

🙄 I provided a link to the whole article. You just chose to quote a different sentence to me.

But your sentence provides exactly the same information as mine, ie, that the police have concluded there are insufficient grounds to support a criminal investigation.

Your quote simply makes the added point that there was [b][i]"a comprehensive review of all material submitted"[/i][/b] which is of course excellent news.

It also makes the point that [i][b]"should further information come to light this will be looked into"[/b][/i] which again is excellent news - if no criminal investigation is launched in the future we can safely assume that this is due to a lack of any credible new evidence.

there is still along way to go with this one

Not unless the right-wing hierarchy in the Labour Party can come up with some convincing evidence which they can provide to the police.

BTW big and daft, as a shameless Tory who enthusiastically ingests everything the Daily Mail feeds them, you must be absolutely gutted that the police found no evidence of wrongdoing by Unite, eh ?

Lets just wait and see what the Labour hierarchy can dig up/come up with first eh?
As someone said previously Labour's attempts to "sort" this out will prob mean another 5 more years of Tory-led government.. I really hope we vote Yes next year.. cant see any other way that we'll have an actual NHS if we dont.
Edit.. B and D- looked at your first link and although it does indicate that the ICO's enforcement team is looking into the matter it seems to talk mostly about Ed/Labour's refusal to make public their own internal report.. reckon that might be whats being investigated?

I saw a pie chart the other day that shows where the Tory money comes from. Majority from banks (no sh*t, Sherlock!) then a large quantity from private health companies.

Well blow me over with a feather! Fancy that. And we're privatising it at the same time, what a coincidence!

Problem is that politics in this country is turning into the US-model, corrupt to the core.

Also- what AdamW said.. im sure the Tory candidate selection process is completely above board.. board-room level perhaps?

BTW big and daft, as a shameless Tory who enthusiastically ingests everything [b]the Daily Mail[/b] feeds them, you must be absolutely gutted that the police found no evidence of wrongdoing by Unite, eh ?

I don't read the Daily Mail, I leave that to Unite members http://order-order.com/2013/07/23/unite-behind-right-wing-press/

You will also note they didn't say "no" evidence, just "insufficient grounds" for a criminal investigation. My understanding is that the fraud charges were quite hard to proceed with, the other agencies have more relevant powers

Based on your posts on some issues you vote UKIP ernie 😉

Lets just wait and see what the Labour hierarchy can dig up/come up with first eh?

😕 They already did that 2 weeks ago. As my link says : [b][i]"Labour had handed documents to police"[/i][/b]

And let's be absolutely clear, the Labour hierarchy and the right-wing press didn't suggest that there [i]might[/i] have been any wrongdoing by Unite, they claimed that they was indisputable evidence of this.

As the OP said 2 weeks ago :

[b][i]a party leader claiming that the evidence that has been uncovered is "so serious that He wanted the police to investigate."[/i][/b]

However now following a comprehensive review of all material submitted, the police have stated that it doesn't even warrant an investigation.

Any other sources at all? I'd get pulled up by my lecturers if I only quoted from one source all the time..
Edit- Ernie, I was being sarcastic.. I doubt they will do it but if the ICO ever gets them to make public the Labour report it might be quite interesting/damaging..

You will also note they didn't say "no" evidence, just "insufficient grounds" for a criminal investigation.

So you are basing your accusation of guilt on the basis of insufficient evidence ?? Well done 🙂

I repeat, the accusations made by Miliband, his cronies, and the Tory press which dictates their policies,
was that Unite's guilt was indisputable.

This was clearly quite false.

There are 14 local labour groups in "special measures" at the moment - Ed's biggest problem is that his party appear to be supported by corrupt members and are busy running something akin to rotten boroughs.

http://labourlist.org/2013/07/the-kafkaesque-farce-of-the-labour-party-special-measures-revisited/

What ernie said

Lets just wait and see what the Labour hierarchy can dig up/come up with first eh?

Yes they should be more proficient than the police at finding evidence and investigating criminal allegations 😕

There are 14 local labour groups in "special measures" at the moment

Once they had consolidated their power the first thing the right-wingers who has seized power in the Labour Party did was to systematically purge the party of all its democratic processes, "changing the structures" was Tony Blair called it.

This received no real coverage in the media, but it did create the grotesque stalinist party that we now have in which one man alone makes all the important decisions and decides all the policies.

The only remnant which still survives from the days when the Labour Party was a democratic organisation is the selection process for MPs.

For the right-wing control freaks who have the party in their total grip this is an anathema - the very thought that ordinary party members should have any sort of meaningful democratic input into the party fills them with horror. As a consequence they use the slightest excuse to place a local party under "special measures".

It's not "corrupt members" that is the problem, but a totally corrupt self-serving right-wing leadership.

EDIT : Ironically if the sitting MP for Falkirk had resigned and forced a byelection, which he should have done, then this problem wouldn't have occurred as under party rules ordinary members can't be trusted to choose the candidate in a byelection, and the leadership steps in and handpicks the candidate.

So do we take it that our (apparent) next PM was just completely wrong to describe events as an "utter, utter disgrace" and to call for the police to investigate (and by implication believing that there was a case). Or was his judgment correct and the police merely incapable of sorting this out? Funny old business when our next leader seemed to be so categorical against his main backers. Was it just all a lot of posturing then? It will be interesting to see how long they keep the suspensions on Murphy and Deans now. And why would Watson feel the need to go...all very strange. Lovely world politics!!!!

Ed will have to be careful now because the Tories joker (better than expected economic recovery) may just well be peeping its head above the parapet, albeit mainly statistical smokes and mirrors at the moment!!!

Funny old business when our next leader seemed to be so categorical against his main backers.

The entire New Labour project relied completely on the premise that the overwhelming majority of traditional Labour voters and supporters would back them no matter what, as there simply wasn't anywhere else for them to go.

Their only concern therefore was to satisfy Daily Mail readers and Sun editorial writers.

It is a strategy which has in the past worked extremely well, at least for the self-serving careerists it was designed to serve.

Funny old business when our next leader seemed to be so categorical against his main backers

TBH the world of political party funding is a murky business and keeping this story tops stops us discussing why the Tories objection to a cap on donations- would harm the fact a number of wealthy donors give shit loads

How they are funding, perhaps like MP expenses, is not great and no party will look all that great so lets just paint the unions as the baddies and ignore the Tory funding stream
An open and honest debate without political favour would be useful but I wont be seeing it on STW or in the real world

Trade union political funds are the cleanest and most transparent money in British politics.

Indeed they are

It will be a long wait for a list of all donors to all parties

TBH this is the thing that's made me lose any last of hope for the current labour party... Not because of the allegations, but because of the response. Ed on the run from the word go.

What can possibly make labour, faced with "Ya boo you get loads of money from unions", say "Oh yes, sorry about that" instead of looking them straight in the eye and saying "* off, you get 51% of your money from the City, bankers and hedge funds, you're the last people in the world that can criticise us you bought-and-paid for *"

IMO, The overall issue with political funding is a related BUT seperate issue (that also needs debate). But that should not detract from what seems to be happening here. My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that EM owes his position as Labour leader (and next PM.) to Unite and Unison, hence my choice of the words, "main backers." More evidence of their closeness includes the reaction of McClusky who described his 2011 speech as the "best by a Labour leader since the days of John Smith." Furthermore, on this specific issue where our next leader has chosen to pick a fight if not a battle, McClusky is saying that the status quo was indefensible.

So forget the red tops and the rest of the mischievous media, the two main players here (hence my OP) are at the centre of this debate and willing driving it. Especiially Milliband. He is not diverting attention into the wider issu of overall funding - it is him, that chose to go directly for the Unite jugular....."utter, utter disgrace" Is not mincing words....accepting resignations, suspending members, calling in the police, internal investigations are all significant actions. So the unanswered question, remains why? Why such force and determination to make this a big issue? What else is there that would make you do this when these guys were/are (?) your main backers (but happy to be corrected on this point). Surely to go this far is not mere political posturing to divert attention from recent trends in the polls? No one would take that sort of political gamble would they.

Keeps the poltical hacks happy for another day today!

City, bankers and hedge funds

Northwind you forgot private 'bob-a-job' healthcare/infrastructure/criminal 'justice' multinationals. 👿

I am all for greater transparency about where parties' money comes from: (surely this would be embarrassing to both cheeks of this political arse we have pooping on us at the moment,) if only for the comedy value of Cameron losing his nerve before Milliband and trying like a piss-wet 4th-rate Berlusconi to bluff his way out of it.

So the unanswered question, remains why? Why such force and determination to make this a big issue? What else is there that would make you do this when these guys were/are (?) your main backers (but happy to be corrected on this point). Surely to go this far is not mere political posturing to divert attention from recent trends in the polls? No one would take that sort of political gamble would they.

I've already answered that question : The entire New Labour project relied completely on the premise that the overwhelming majority of traditional Labour voters and supporters would back them no matter what as there simply wasn't anywhere else for them to go.

Their only concern therefore was to satisfy Daily Mail readers and Sun editorial writers.

When Tony Blair was Labour Leader he regularly and very publicly criticised trade unions. The majority of trade unionists nevertheless felt they had no choice but to back him, and the right-wing press absolutely loved his tough on trade unions posturing, pouring great praise on him. It was a win win situation.

Their only concern therefore was to satisfy Daily Mail readers and Sun editorial writers.

Is that because they are two two most popular newspapers read by Unite members?

I have been a member of a union for 22 years and have never been balloted on the continuance of the political fund, something which is a statutory requirement every 10 years. I have also never been given the opportunity to vote for branch rep either, union democracy is manipulated to suit those already in charge

ernie_lynch - Member
Trade union political funds are the cleanest and most transparent money in British politics.

I agree, Unite openly declare the use of funds to get Unite sponsored candidates selected by CLP's and then elected to parliament

I have been a member of a union for 22 years

and have never been balloted on the continuance of the political fund*, something which is a statutory requirement every 10 years.

I have also never been given the opportunity to vote for branch rep either

Has anyone stood against them?
Why dont you then?

, union democracy is manipulated to suit those already in charge

Which do you think is the most transparent about its election and policies - a Union or a political party or a business person funding one ?

Its pointless no political party has "clean funds"

This desire to portray the democratic unions as undemocratic whilst one rich millionaire gives millions to gain personal influence [ despite not actually living here or paying tax in some cases] and this does not get commented on. It's a right wing distortion to stop us asking the real questions about the party in power

This is terrible everyone just jumping in a rut of their own political colour as if any party is clean. We nnedd to clean it all up and whether you like it or not the money form the trade unions is transparent, open and clean. Much of the anonymous funding does not reach this standard but we dont need to worry about that eh

* FWIW a political fund may or may not pay to the labour party - unison for example has two one pays to the labour and one does not
The one which does not campaigns on issues that represent the members needs/interests such as say pension rights, sick pay employment rights etc

I assume you are trying to suggest every political fund gives money to the labour party?
Name the union could you please

Source please - I dont believe it is a legal requirement and if it was I am sure someone right wing - know anyone? - would have kicked up a serious fuss by now about the anti democratic union.

It is a legal requirement, and one which would be scrutinized by the government Certification Officer. It was Thatcher who introduced this and it spectacularly backfired on her as even trade unions who had previously no political funds voted in favour - not what she excepted.

I can well believe that Big and Daft hasn't voted on the issue though, he is after all by his own admission apparently daft 🙂 It is quite impossible for our extremely regulated trade unions to break the law and not end up in court with the threat of their funds being sequestrated.

We don't in the UK have free trade unions that do as they please - they are very tightly controlled by the government.

Likewise the election of shop stewards and branch officials, if Big and Daft hasn't voted in 22 years it's more likely to be because he got confused, went to the wrong room, missed the meeting, or some other daft excuse.

Trade unions are without any doubt whatsoever among the most democratic institutions in our society. Which is precisely why right-wingers need to repeat the Big Lie with such stubborn determination.

So the truth has finally come out :

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-23993368 ]Unite cleared over Labour vote-rigging row[/url]

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-clears-unite-union-members-2256885?tabPane=Comments ]Labour CLEARS Unite union and its members of trying to fix Falkirk selection battle[/url]

[b][i]The party has decided no organisation or individual broke its rules after evidence of wrongdoing was withdrawn.

Two union officials at the centre of the row have been reinstated.[/i][/b]

Unsurprisingly the truth isn't getting the same level of prominence as the nonsense and misinformation spouted by the blairite clones who despise inner-party democracy got.

It was all so utterly predictable.

Big and Daft hasn't voted on the issue though, he is after all by his own admission apparently daft

by that measure you support violent regime change in other countries, summary execution without trial and de facto support for the death penalty with or without due process

and of course every internal investigation by a political party is rigorous and with complete integrity

Unsurprisingly the truth isn't getting the same level of prominence as the nonsense and misinformation spouted by the blairite clones who despise inner-party democracy got.

anyway I'm going for public office, I can even get training and funding!
http://www.gmb.org.uk/about/gmb-and-politics/gmb-labour-candidates-programme