Pullinger V Ward:Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

[baldrick]

I think the DGS election may well depend on how 'modernisation anf flexibility' are interpreted, (negotiated?), and
implemented locally. Also how the pension scheme changes, and the outcome of the working groups on MTSF, attendance procedure changes etc go. They should all be clear to the membership by the time the election takes place.
If things are looking bad it could well be a 'Keggie moment' for Dave.

[BELIAL]

Well I would use the election to change everybody - just as a salutary lesson - you were voted in and now you are voted out, and for what it's worth after this deal negotiations are pretty useless when it all boils down to flexibility, local agreement and a %age pay rise forced on us by the government. In those circumstances we might as well elect a chimp.

I hope one stands, cos you just know the outcome. That would be some statement

[BELIAL]

Well nothing he's agreed has improved my lot

[ian1]

dave ward has sold us a pup with the paydeal and the whole agreement.royal mail are making a joke of the flexability guidelines sent out by ward .we've been told that it is compulsory that's it .if you dont do it you will be taken down conduct road.

[smokerjim]

What would be wrong with having a grass roots leader? After all, lack of connection with the membership must be a common complaint, isn't it? Surely you only need to be a union member to qualify - or do you need to be in HQ to have a hope?

[smokerjim]

What would be wrong with having a grass roots leader? After all, lack of connection with the membership must be a common complaint, isn't it? Surely you only need to be a union member to qualify - or do you need to be in HQ to have a hope?

I dont know but i think the rules are skewed towards a "known member" because you have to have X amount of support from branches before you can go forward to the ballet. In some ways that might not be a bad thing as having 120.000 people standing might not be too clever, but of course it allows the establishment to a degree to decide who stands and who does not with the use of these type of tools as well as HQ recomendations an outsider would find it very hard if not impossible to stand in many elections other than our local branches. If i am wrong i can think of about four or five members on RMC who could and would do a far better job than that lot in HQ.

I can sort of understand having a mechanism to retrict entry to a ballot.......but if you don't like the Govt, and want to try to change things, you don't need to be a member of a poltical party to become an MP, yet members of the CWU cannot do the same thing, even though they pay for the priviledge of voting for their leadership

How many members are in the average CWU Branch? Just wondering, because the amount of active people on here ( ie those with more than say 15 posts ) must surely be equal to a Branch's membership, ergo, it could be argued that if you need a branch to put someone forward for GS, DGS, etc, we could have a shout of putting an RMC member on the Ballot. What do you think? ( Even though I know HQ will find a legal reason to shoot that one down, if they haven't already. )

[The Wee Man]

Terry has thrown his name in very early in this election, and without hesitation. It seems to me, because of this action, that Terry is feeling the water, so to speak, and seeing what support is coming his way. Don't be surprised if he pulls his name out near the close of nominations, or near the ballot. As I have said, all will depend on the feedback of support. Sorry for being synical, but we are talking union stuff here.

[dvbuk55]

Terry has thrown his name in very early in this election, and without hesitation. It seems to me, because of this action, that Terry is feeling the water, so to speak, and seeing what support is coming his way. Don't be surprised if he pulls his name out near the close of nominations, or near the ballot. As I have said, all will depend on the feedback of support. Sorry for being synical, but we are talking union stuff here.

Are you suggesting there might be a bit of a deal whereby he puts his name forward to perhaps deter someone else and then withdraws so that Ward is elected unopposed? Well if that did happen we should perhaps declare that the election should be re-run with a suitable candidate.

[lovejoy]

Terry has thrown his name in very early in this election, and without hesitation. It seems to me, because of this action, that Terry is feeling the water, so to speak, and seeing what support is coming his way. Don't be surprised if he pulls his name out near the close of nominations, or near the ballot. As I have said, all will depend on the feedback of support. Sorry for being synical, but we are talking union stuff here.

Spot on

[lovejoy]

What would be wrong with having a grass roots leader? After all, lack of connection with the membership must be a common complaint, isn't it? Surely you only need to be a union member to qualify - or do you need to be in HQ to have a hope?

I dont know but i think the rules are skewed towards a "known member" because you have to have X amount of support from branches before you can go forward to the ballet. In some ways that might not be a bad thing as having 120.000 people standing might not be too clever, but of course it allows the establishment to a degree to decide who stands and who does not with the use of these type of tools as well as HQ recomendations an outsider would find it very hard if not impossible to stand in many elections other than our local branches. If i am wrong i can think of about four or five members on RMC who could and would do a far better job than that lot in HQ.

I can sort of understand having a mechanism to retrict entry to a ballot.......but if you don't like the Govt, and want to try to change things, you don't need to be a member of a poltical party to become an MP, yet members of the CWU cannot do the same thing, even though they pay for the priviledge of voting for their leadership

How many members are in the average CWU Branch? Just wondering, because the amount of active people on here ( ie those with more than say 15 posts ) must surely be equal to a Branch's membership, ergo, it could be argued that if you need a branch to put someone forward for GS, DGS, etc, we could have a shout of putting an RMC member on the Ballot. What do you think? ( Even though I know HQ will find a legal reason to shoot that one down, if they haven't already. )

Fantastic idea except for one thing ( And you can call me a cynic here if you like.) RM would love to know the real name and face behind some of the good posters on here and within 24 hours they would not have a job and as is the nature of the beast another thing you can bet on is that Billy Dave and the nine strike breakers would not lift or allow the CWU to lift a finger to save anyone brave enough to stand against them when they got into trouble, and to be a success for the rank and file they would not only have to be real smart but critical of HQ, Billy and Dave. Billy or Dave never could or would allow that. Our only hope is to get someone already in the system to start playing the game for us instead of Mr Brown and New Liebour and or the two SH*TS.

We all have our own opinions mate but to label the 9 PEC members who voted yes as strike breakers is a disgrace! Some of these people have travelled all over the Uk to get people out and stood shoulder to shoulder with our members on picket lines. We elected them, they voted, 64% of CWU members backed them!! Just think its a bit much to link them with strike breakers!

[mitzi]

i suppose the clever money should be on dave ward for GS.

[lovejoy]

What would be wrong with having a grass roots leader? After all, lack of connection with the membership must be a common complaint, isn't it? Surely you only need to be a union member to qualify - or do you need to be in HQ to have a hope?

I dont know but i think the rules are skewed towards a "known member" because you have to have X amount of support from branches before you can go forward to the ballet. In some ways that might not be a bad thing as having 120.000 people standing might not be too clever, but of course it allows the establishment to a degree to decide who stands and who does not with the use of these type of tools as well as HQ recomendations an outsider would find it very hard if not impossible to stand in many elections other than our local branches. If i am wrong i can think of about four or five members on RMC who could and would do a far better job than that lot in HQ.

I can sort of understand having a mechanism to retrict entry to a ballot.......but if you don't like the Govt, and want to try to change things, you don't need to be a member of a poltical party to become an MP, yet members of the CWU cannot do the same thing, even though they pay for the priviledge of voting for their leadership

How many members are in the average CWU Branch? Just wondering, because the amount of active people on here ( ie those with more than say 15 posts ) must surely be equal to a Branch's membership, ergo, it could be argued that if you need a branch to put someone forward for GS, DGS, etc, we could have a shout of putting an RMC member on the Ballot. What do you think? ( Even though I know HQ will find a legal reason to shoot that one down, if they haven't already. )

Fantastic idea except for one thing ( And you can call me a cynic here if you like.) RM would love to know the real name and face behind some of the good posters on here and within 24 hours they would not have a job and as is the nature of the beast another thing you can bet on is that Billy Dave and the nine strike breakers would not lift or allow the CWU to lift a finger to save anyone brave enough to stand against them when they got into trouble, and to be a success for the rank and file they would not only have to be real smart but critical of HQ, Billy and Dave. Billy or Dave never could or would allow that. Our only hope is to get someone already in the system to start playing the game for us instead of Mr Brown and New Liebour and or the two SH*TS.

We all have our own opinions mate but to label the 9 PEC members who voted yes as strike breakers is a disgrace! Some of these people have travelled all over the Uk to get people out and stood shoulder to shoulder with our members on picket lines. We elected them, they voted, 64% of CWU members backed them!! Just think its a bit much to link them with strike breakers!

Anyone who worked for RM during the strike is a scab in my book and BILLY DAVE AND THE NINE PEC BY VOTING FOR THAT CROC OF SH*T AND PUTTING IT UP AS A GOOD DEAL WERE WORKING FOR RM AND NOT THE MEMBERSHIP SO THEY ARE strike breakers!

Grow up mate

[vigilante]

i spoke to dave ward yesterday and was very impressed by him.
he spoke to me for ages and had an answer for every question i asked.
stick with ward.

[BELIAL]

i spoke to dave ward yesterday and was very impressed by him.
he spoke to me for ages and had an answer for every question i asked.
stick with ward.

Tony Blair was apparently a very accomplished speaker, never lost for an answer; Thatcher too in her day could captivate an audience: I've read that even Pol Pot in full flow was a mesmeric speaker.
Think I'll be judging Mr Ward on his deeds and their consequences for the conditions of the membership

Nearly forgot, what did you ask and what were his replies?

[vigilante]

i spoke to dave ward yesterday and was very impressed by him.
he spoke to me for ages and had an answer for every question i asked.
stick with ward.

Tony Blair was apparently a very accomplished speaker, never lost for an answer; Thatcher too in her day could captivate an audience: I've read that even Pol Pot in full flow was a mesmeric speaker.
Think I'll be judging Mr Ward on his deeds and their consequences for the conditions of the membership

Nearly forgot, what did you ask and what were his replies?

I asked him various questions-i can't remember all but basically about the agreement at local level to which he advised me that we are now in the position that rm have to negotiate with reps and members instead of imposition.
Not to go in to dom's with a 'we ain't having it attitude' but to listen to what they say about a subject and go away to ask members for their imput and then
try and negotiate a better way of working.

I understand about good speakers and spin but i found him of good character and not a bullsh-tter