CWU general secretary Billy Hayes defeated by deputy

[TrueBlueTerrier]

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes defeated by deputy in ballot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32342648" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A trade union official has failed to win re-election as general secretary after losing to his deputy in a ballot of members.

Billy Hayes has been leader of the Communication Workers Union (CWU) since 2001 and a senior figure in the link between unions and the Labour Party.

He was beaten by Dave Ward, the deputy general secretary (postal) since 2003, in a ballot of 200,000 CWU members.

Mr Ward will take over as general secretary on 1 June.

He said: "It's a great privilege to be elected general secretary of the CWU by our members.


Dave Ward said he would "continue the fight against austerity"

"In this role I will stand up for workers and aim to raise the profile of the union within our industries, the media and public life.

"I will continue the fight against austerity and ensure that protection and enhancement of jobs, pay and terms and conditions is at the heart of everything CWU does."

The union represents workers in companies including Royal Mail, the Post Office, BT, 02, EE, Capita, Parcelforce and Santander.

Mr Hayes, 61, had been critical of Labour leader Ed Miliband's pledge to reform the party's relationship with the unions.

Speaking in 2013, he said the move would be "moving more and more ordinary people away from politics".

[dvbuk55]

Well done Dave Ward a resounding 10% of the 200,000 membership voted you in not really I'm surprised it wasn't even less but I predicted a low vote because there's nobody remotely interested.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well done Dave Ward a resounding 10% of the 200,000 membership voted you in not really I'm surprised it wasn't even less but I predicted a low vote because there's nobody remotely interested.

Am I a nobody.

[dvbuk55]

Well done Dave Ward a resounding 10% of the 200,000 membership voted you in not really I'm surprised it wasn't even less but I predicted a low vote because there's nobody remotely interested.

Am I a nobody.

Obviously, of course you probably think great changes are afoot and that the union will now have a rekindled interest in the affairs of the members

[TrueBlueTerrier]

No I don't think they'll be great changes and for me its a different face but the same old story. But I am interested in the leadership of the Union and in elections in general. Perhaps your choice of words should have been

there's not many remotely interested.

It would be more accurate and less dismissive of people who don't hold the same views as you.

[dvbuk55]

No I don't think they'll be great changes and for me its a different face but the same old story. But I am interested in the leadership of the Union and in elections in general. Perhaps your choice of words should have been

there's not many remotely interested.

It would be more accurate and less dismissive of people who don't hold the same views as you.

You're right of course still at least 160,000 have the same view

[Surreypostie]

No I don't think they'll be great changes and for me its a different face but the same old story. But I am interested in the leadership of the Union and in elections in general. Perhaps your choice of words should have been

there's not many remotely interested.

It would be more accurate and less dismissive of people who don't hold the same views as you.

You're right of course still at least 160,000 have the same view

159,999 I just forgot with the other election currently thrilling me.

[dvbuk55]

No I don't think they'll be great changes and for me its a different face but the same old story. But I am interested in the leadership of the Union and in elections in general. Perhaps your choice of words should have been

there's not many remotely interested.

It would be more accurate and less dismissive of people who don't hold the same views as you.

You're right of course still at least 160,000 have the same view

159,999 I just forgot with the other election currently thrilling me.

Naturally Sp, because the election on May 7th is going to have a much larger impact on your working life than the leadership election ever would.

[motherhubbard]

Here is a question:
Ward made a lot of Hayes being a "liaison officer" for the Labour Party and how if a Labour politician didn't support us, we wouldn't support them.
But what if a Tory politician supports the CWU position (against closures of rural Post Offices for example) could they then expect CWU financial support?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Here is a question:
Ward made a lot of Hayes being a "liaison officer" for the Labour Party and how if a Labour politician didn't support us, we wouldn't support them.
But what if a Tory politician supports the CWU position (against closures of rural Post Offices for example) could they then expect CWU financial support?

In my opinion, no as it would be a single issue not a campaign issue. Its not impossible that we would finance a Conservative, but they would have to go against Party Policy on many subjects (tax, living wage, privatisation, etc) and I can't see that happening on a regular basis.

[fishtank]

But what if a Tory politician supports the CWU position (against closures of rural Post Offices for example) could they then expect CWU financial support?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31491221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not even Tory and they had a hissy fit.

[dvbuk55]

Here is a question:
Ward made a lot of Hayes being a "liaison officer" for the Labour Party and how if a Labour politician didn't support us, we wouldn't support them.
But what if a Tory politician supports the CWU position (against closures of rural Post Offices for example) could they then expect CWU financial support?

Of course not the CWU is affiliated to Labour and support Labour MPs do you seriously think that DW is going to make any difference to the unions stance?