State of the unions

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/parliament/20 ... nions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do union endorsements matter? Ed Miliband's team are naturally delighted that the GMB are backing his leadership campaign; Ed Balls is equally pleased to have the support of the CWU.

Of course, this does not mean all union members will back their executive's decision but Peter Hain has told me that these endorsements are not to be sniffed at. He got the backing of the GMB when he ran for the deputy leadership and "they delivered."

In other words the rank and file members tend to follow their general secretary's recommendations.

Now for some maths.

In the first round of the deputy leadership Peter Hain got 6.64% of the union vote, second only to Jon Cruddas with 9.09%.

Indeed, the union vote helped Cruddas into first place in the first round with 19.39% of the combined votes of unions, local parties and parliamentarians.

But the union vote became progressively less influential as the ballot progressed. By the third round, with Peter Hain and Hazel Blears knocked out, Cruddas still topped the union vote with an 11.01% share but was now in third place over all behind Harriet Harman and Alan Johnson.

And this is why: the CLP (constituency Labour Party) vote had become increasingly influential. In the third round Harriet Harman had the support of 8.61% of Parliamentarians and 10.15% share of CLP votes. Alan Johnson had 12.78% and 7.31% respectively.

In the final round, Harriet had 14.42% of Parliamentarians to Alan's 17.92% and 18.83% of CLP votes to Alan's 14.50. Their share of the union vote was almost the same on 16.18% and 17.15%.

From which you could conclude the CLP vote was the clincher. Which may explain why the David Miliband camp is not losing sleep over the fact Paul Kenny is not his number one fan.

[POSTMAN]

In other words the rank and file members tend to follow their general secretary's recommendations.

[lanesears]

sold out