Newsflash: Ed Balls gets CWU backing

[smokerjim]

Right, so the Labour Party ( which under the leadership of white, middle aged, middle class men has woefully failed the working class and trades union movement over the last 13 years ) have a leadership election, and our union ( without consultation with us AFAIK ) ignore the single, female, black, middle class ( no one's perfect ) left wing candidate, and announce that "more of the same is what the Labour Party needs"

[baldrick]

The CWU are the first union to back Ed,

So who would of made this decision?

I'm guessing that it is the CWU NEC. But As I understand it they can only make a recommendation to
the members to vote for him. I think there is supposed be a ballot of CWU political levy paying
members on who we want to be leader of the Labour Party, if we're bothered - which I'm not really.

[POSTMAN]

15 July 2010
LTB 624/10 - LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION

No. 624/10
Ref GS 14.0
Date: 15/07/10



To all Branches)

To: The Branch Secretary

Dear Colleague

LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP ELECTION

Following the resignation of the Leader of the Labour Party, the process commenced to elect a new Leader.

At our Annual Conference in June, it will be recalled that the NEC placed a motion before conference. The motion, together with a motion submitted from a Branch, were both carried unanimously. Following on from the carriage of the motions, the General Secretary wrote to all members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to encourage all MPs to nominate all the candidates who had declared. As matters progressed, the CWU call was echoed by others. A copy of our position was outlined in LTBs 471/10 and 478/10. In the event, and as a result of our activity a number of candidates encouraged some of their supporters to nominate other candidates to ensure an open field.

Following the nominations, all the candidates contacted the General Secretary to arrange a meeting. Steps were then put in place to arrange a hustings involving all the candidates. This hustings took place on Wednesday July 14th. The event was a credit to the CWU's ability to organise and take in the views of all the candidates.

As in previous such circumstances, Branches have been allowed to make their own recommendation during the period of the election. It has also been accepted previously, that given the importance of the issue, that should Officers decide they want to support a particular candidate in a personal capacity, this should also be allowed

It is clear from the various sources of information that there are a number of competing factors as to who the CWU could nominate and support. No elections are simply determined by a ‘tick box' approach to policy and what has to be borne in mind at times is collective responsibility. This is particularly so in the case of people who have been Members of the Cabinet and have been bound by collective responsibility. The issues of credibility and leadership skills, also must be taken into account.

Taking all the factors into account the CWU National Executive Council decided to recommend:

Nominate : Rt Hon Ed Balls MP

Second Preference : Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP

Third Preference : Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP

Any enquiries on this LTB should be addressed to the General Secretary quoting the reference GS 14.0.

Yours sincerely

W HAYES
General Secretary

[pickaname]

Another reason to leave the CWU.

No vision and no sense of reality.

This would have been an ideal time to severe ties with the Labour Party, but no, they decide to support a clone/robot/automaton/puppet.

More of the same? Yea - more woeful decisions and no consultation.

[andy2007]

No. In my opinion, it's time to get the affiliation with Labour (you'd be hard pressed to find a more inappropriate name for that lot!), and instead use the Political Fund to provide support for any MPs who're willing to back us (the Union) up, and protect RM. Regardless of which Party they're members of.

[guvenor]

do we not get to vote on it so we can nominate mr balls then our wonderful leadership can fu-- it up and elect someone else
might work to our advantage there

[belle smith]

do we not get to vote

We did for the deputy leadership a few years back.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

do we not get to vote on it so we can nominate mr balls then our wonderful leadership can fu-- it up and elect someone else
might work to our advantage there

Yes the Labour Leadership vote is as far as I know 1 Person 1 Vote, The recent backing of the CWU for Mr Balls is only a recommendation to its members nothing else.

[baldrick]

do we not get to vote

We did for the deputy leadership a few years back.

I think we do get to vote in September.

[fishtank]

Labour leadership contenders round on Mandelson over 'offensive' memoirs
Milibands and Burnham call for peer to quit politics after 'destructive and self-destructive' account of party in-fighting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ndemnation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three of the Labour leadership contenders have attacked Lord Mandelson over his account of bitter feuding during the Blair-Brown years.

David and Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham told the Times that Mandelson's memoirs, The Third Man, had damaged the party and that it was time for the peer to leave the political stage.

Former foreign secretary David Miliband, who is believed to be Mandelson's preferred candidate for the party leadership, said the book was "destructive and self-destructive".

He added that the memoirs of the former cabinet minister and one of the architects of New Labour should have come "after retirement, not before".

Ed Miliband, the former climate change secretary, said Mandelson was "his own worst spin doctor" and had "offended just about everyone". "I think this is sad and damaging to Peter, not just to the Labour Party," he said.

He also suggested it was time for Mandelson to move on. "It's time for a new generation," he added.

Former health secretary Andy Burnham was more forthright in his call for the peer to quit. He said: "Peter loves the spotlight but it's time to leave the stage."

Mandelson, the former business secretary, insisted that he had painted a flattering picture of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

But his revelations about their dysfunctional relationship have sparked considerable political fallout and cast a shadow over the Labour leadership contest.

Mandelson denied reports that Blair was livid after being quoted in the book as describing his former chancellor and successor as "mad, bad, dangerous and beyond redemption".

The former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the peer had become a caricature of himself and questioned whether he was more interested in creating a sensation than a historical record of the party's last 13 years in office.

Has the CWU backed the wrong horse?
How does the saying go?....... “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

[Martin Walsh]

Another reason to leave the CWU.

No vision and no sense of reality.

This would have been an ideal time to severe ties with the Labour Party, but no, they decide to support a clone/robot/automaton/puppet.

More of the same? Yea - more woeful decisions and no consultation.

As someone who moved Emergency motion E6 which stated members should be balloted on whether the union should fund the labour party I do think that leaving the Labour party now in oppostion makes little sense.

The cuts this con lib government are due to make will be the effect our members in a far bigger way then 2010 National agreement ever did. Equally we need to oppose privitsation as this will damage our pensions as well.

With regards to Ed Balls well the CWU held a hustings meeting where all the candidates were allowed to put over their views , every Branch in the UK were invited and their was a show of hands in which the majority supported Ed Balls , the NEC on Wednesday decided to recommend ED Balls to the members.

Remember only Labour party members and politcal levy paying members will have a vote.

[belle smith]

As someone who moved Emergency motion E6 which stated members should be balloted on whether the union should fund the labour party I do think that leaving the Labour party now in oppostion makes little sense.

The cuts this con lib government are due to make will be the effect our members in a far bigger way then 2010 National agreement ever did. Equally we need to oppose privitsation as this will damage our pensions as well.

Damage our pensions?
how so??
Please explain??

I'm growing increasingly tierd of our union, putting public ownership of RM above all other considerations. like our T&C and our pensions.

[DirtyHarry]

Last time I looked, our pensions had already been damaged under the previous Labour government.
Truth is, whether it be Labour or the ConDems, further damage to our pensions was always on the cards, and with the CWU fighting our corner, as surefire a certainty as death and taxes.

[Martin Walsh]

Belle smith there will be announcement within the next couple of weeks by the trustees who will confirm twofold one the new record pension deficit and the second that a potential deal has been reached to pay the deficit over a longer time period ( over 38 years )

The pension regulator will then make an announcement and then the Government will announce their plans which includes taking over our pension assets including the 24 billion pounds of investments.

What do you think they will do to them ? invest in our future.

At the same time BT are being taken through the courts whereby it is being argued that the crown guarantee which they got when their company was privatised is illegal and should mean that they only recieve their protection up to when they were privatised.

Yes Labour betrayed us when they allowed Royal Mail to get rid of the final salary scheme but lot worse is set to come. Now as someone who attended the two Northampton national briefings when pensions was being discussed I can tell you apart from London there were not many branch"s in the uk jumping up and down at the prospect of fighting on it.

[POSTMAN]

Lost cause,what did Labour do for us when they 1st got back in? With us i mean union members around the country.
ConDems are in they will screw us,Labour then get back in,then what,the same o same o.

All pointless,either way we wil get nothing.