if this election had taken place in Zimbabwe it would get lots of stick but because it happened in the UK it is considered fair game
No skin off my nose I am a tory and this is a good result for us but if I was a labour party loyalist I would be angry right now that we had a leader imposed on us through 2 unions arm twisting it's members, it is not a lot different to Mugabe's thugs intimidating people at the ballot box
Yeah, it's maybe a bit dodgy having promotional literature in with the ballot forms. But it's absolutely nothing like having thugs intimidate you at the ballot box. Is it, I mean, really?
To be honest, anyone who's going to change their vote depending on what bit of paper falls out of the envelope while they're getting their form probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
My union (a very large one) recommended Ed Miliband and there was a lot of literature promoting this candidate. As I'm not a Labour supporter both it and the voting form ended up in the bin.
It did strike me as a little off that the union should be telling members how to vote. It's even more surprising that unions send voting forms for a domestic Labour Party leadership election to ALL their members, a majority of whom are probably NOT Labour Party supporters.
The mischievous amongst us may then wish to vote for the least publicly appealing candidate like Abbott.
I am in the GMB and when you vote you have to tick a box that confirms you are not a member or supporter of any other party. Obviously you could be lying when you tick the box but nothing is stopping people from joining the Labour party for a year (or any other party) just so you can vote for the leader.
if this election had taken place in Zimbabwe it would get lots of stick but because it happened in the UK it is considered fair game
No skin off my nose I am a tory and this is a good result for us but if I was a labour party loyalist I would be angry right now that we had a leader imposed on us through 2 unions arm twisting it's members, it is not a lot different to Mugabe's thugs intimidating people at the ballot box even if there was no direct intimidation
Really? So do you think the same of newspapers like The Sun who were telling their readers to vote for Cameron in the last election?
I used to be in a large civil service union and it always amused me how the union managed to get the ' right' result at ballots.
The union would recommend industrial action, but would have to go through the correct procedure to ensure it was legal. Ballots would be held at the workplace and everyone was allowed 30 minutes to attend the meeting and vote. You would then have for and against speeches, the against speech usually done by a 'for' supporter to maintain the image of a fair ballot.
Union officials would be closely monitoring those attending the meeting, and calculating whether they were for or against. They knew for certain those who would be supporting the union's proposals but had to prevent a majority voting against.
If they thought there were too many 'antis' in the room someone would make a point of order and a discussion would start ( all pre-prepared). This would continue for much longer than the 30 minutes that staff were allowed to attend the meeting for. If someone complained and asked when the vote was going to take place , they would be told that a full discussion had to be made before the vote.
Gradually people would leave having not voted , until officials had enough people in the room 'onside' and then the vote would be taken.
Odd though they be everybody knew the election procedure for the candidates and all of the candidates appeared to follow them well - it was a long drawn-out affair but a good campaign and kudos to all of the candidates and their teams for conducting a good campaign.
Ed won - just by a wee samll margine but the rules say "50% + 1" is the winning margin needed - Ed got it
Bad luck to the other candidates - they tried and failed (better luck next time) - but they've all taken the results well
The rules are the rules so there's no point whinging about them after the event. It seems strange that if I was still working for the company I used to work for many moons ago that I (as a Tory voter) would have had the opportunity to vote for a Labour leader. Back in the day we joined the union, not so much because of any political allegiance but because it's what everyone did. I personally think the ballot should be for MP's and party members only to prevent devilish oiks like me from piddling in the pool.
Comments
Erm, it kind if is.
And here's why-
Yeah, it's maybe a bit dodgy having promotional literature in with the ballot forms. But it's absolutely nothing like having thugs intimidate you at the ballot box. Is it, I mean, really?
To be honest, anyone who's going to change their vote depending on what bit of paper falls out of the envelope while they're getting their form probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
The union would recommend industrial action, but would have to go through the correct procedure to ensure it was legal. Ballots would be held at the workplace and everyone was allowed 30 minutes to attend the meeting and vote. You would then have for and against speeches, the against speech usually done by a 'for' supporter to maintain the image of a fair ballot.
Union officials would be closely monitoring those attending the meeting, and calculating whether they were for or against. They knew for certain those who would be supporting the union's proposals but had to prevent a majority voting against.
If they thought there were too many 'antis' in the room someone would make a point of order and a discussion would start ( all pre-prepared). This would continue for much longer than the 30 minutes that staff were allowed to attend the meeting for. If someone complained and asked when the vote was going to take place , they would be told that a full discussion had to be made before the vote.
Gradually people would leave having not voted , until officials had enough people in the room 'onside' and then the vote would be taken.
Ed won - just by a wee samll margine but the rules say "50% + 1" is the winning margin needed - Ed got it
Bad luck to the other candidates - they tried and failed (better luck next time) - but they've all taken the results well
Time to move on
Members forgot to tick a box saying they supported Labour. Whoever supervised the election process has a few questions to answer.
Or maybe they weren't labour supporters, and were being honest .
I don't know why labour supporters are whining so much ...at least this time it was a labour man who won!
The rules are the rules so there's no point whinging about them after the event. It seems strange that if I was still working for the company I used to work for many moons ago that I (as a Tory voter) would have had the opportunity to vote for a Labour leader. Back in the day we joined the union, not so much because of any political allegiance but because it's what everyone did. I personally think the ballot should be for MP's and party members only to prevent devilish oiks like me from piddling in the pool.