UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown & Johnson

grayee Thu May 31, 2007 at 01:31:22 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

UNISON Labour Link National Committee have unanimously made an supporting nomination for Gordon Brown as Leader. Alan Johnson was nominated as Deputy Leader (Peter Hain to have 2nd preference).

This is a recommendation (all levy payers will have a postal vote)

Will post some thoughts later.






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown & Johnson | 57 comments (57 topical)

Scumbags (#1)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:04:11 PM GMT

What an absolute disgrace.
UNISON members are suffering more than members of any other union at the hands of Brown's programme of privatisation, job cuts and pay freezes.
So what does this bureaucratically controlled LabourLink do? Comes out in support of someone who is shafting their members - and pledges support for an uber-Blairite candidate like Johnson who has unswerving support for marketisation of public services.
All this will do is increase the desire of UNISON members to disaffiliate from the party. What total, utter madness.
Furthermore, I think UNISON members have a right to hear more about the role that their Gen Sec has played behind the scenes vis a vis the Labour leadership question - as well as the tactics he's used against members of his own union...


Re: Scumbags (#2)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:13:46 PM GMT

Are you a Unison member?


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#4)

by Wiseman on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:15:20 PM GMT

Glass McDonnell was a unison member and so jonesy is right to be upset and be betrayed twice


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#5)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:16:35 PM GMT

You think Unison should back the candidate who is a member of theirs?


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#8)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:31:43 PM GMT

Not only is John a UNISON member - he also consistently backs UNISON policies, unlike most UNISON MPs. UNISON policies include opposition to privatisation of public services, an end to pay freezes, opposition to ID cards, the immediate restoration of the pensions-earnings link, and an end to the war in Iraq.
Brown opposes all of these. That's why UNISON Scotland LabourLink voted unanimously to nominate John McDonnell.
Supporting a candidate who is shafting public sector workers just shows that UNISON policies (as decided by its members) are nothing more than writing on paper for the Prentis mob.
But as I say, I think UNISON members have the right to know exactly what Prentis has been up to over the past few months.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#9)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:32:12 PM GMT

My partner is a UNISON member/shop steward and he will be absolutely furious.Prentis is a disgrace.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#3)

by Wiseman on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM GMT

Dear Jonesy I will get back on this one. I see nw unison link officer then. Wiseman


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#7)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:30:39 PM GMT

Seconded.Turkeys voting for Christmas.Unbelievable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#35)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:58:26 PM GMT

Thirded. Seems like a dire lack of imagination. Do they really think Johnson's right-wing agenda has much to offer their members? A real shame.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#36)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:00:22 PM GMT

Just to clarify: I think UNISON are sensible to support Brown but I can't understand their deputy leadership choice


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#38)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:06:02 PM GMT

Sensible Comrade - in practice, what evidence is there for any political differences between Gordon Brown and Alan Johnson?


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#40)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:28:11 PM GMT

Not many, but I think we have to accept that Gordon Brown is our leader and that there's no point in trying to undermine him before he's even inherited the PM role. I know I disagree with Brown on many issues but ultimately I accept that he's the leader we have and our priority must be to unified in order to beat the tory scum! But at the same time I realise that it will be necessary to balance out Brown's New Labourness with a candidate that will put some energy back into Labour and thus I am supporting Jon Cruddas for deputy


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#41)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:58:29 PM GMT

Sensible, as you've pointed out, he's "inherited" the role of leader. No-one elected him. We're supposed to be a democratic party - we shouldn't run the leadership like a monarchy! Given that Brown lacks a democratic mandate and party members and trade unionists have been denied the right to vote for or against him - it's difficult to unite around him!


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#42)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:36:14 PM GMT

Jonesy, but we have to be realistic. Brown has been the assumed successor for a decade and was clearly going to emerge as the next leader of the party. Fine, in many respects it would have been very healthy for the party to have a lively debate, but we may as well accept that circumstances dictated that that was not to be. Gordon Brown will be our next Labour Leader and Prime Minister and I see nothing to gain from bitching about him.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#44)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:43:09 PM GMT

Who's bitching about him? The point is he is not "our "Leader and believe me he will suffer for that.He doesn't have a mandate, he will be ridiculed at every turn by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. Am I wringing my hands in anguish. ? No. He's brought it all on himself.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#46)

by Sensible Comrade on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:06:31 AM GMT

Well, I didn't accuse anyone of bitching about him, but Grim if anyone is guilty then it is probably you! We just have to accept what has happened and move on. These were unusual circumstances for a leadership election and it was inevitable that any opposition to Brown was going to have a hard time of it. Now let's try to keep positive and support the party because there is nothing the Tories would like more than a divided Labour Party. Time to move on.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#47)

by grimupnorth on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:12:33 AM GMT

Move on to where?More inequality?Moremoney for the rich? Don't you get it? If Brown doesn't listen, we get a Tory Govt next time.And that sure as hell will be nothing to do with the Left.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#27)

by grayee on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:32:49 PM GMT

Hi Jonesythered Please note that the decision was taken by the democratically elected lay representatives of UNISON Labour Link from across the country and all service groups (I think also the self organised groups?). The elected London region representatives (for one) widely consulted Labour Link members on this decision. I think you have to face facts, that despite what you think this about decision, it actually reflects what ordinary UNISON Labour Party supporters think and want.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#31)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:06:23 PM GMT

UNISON Labpour Link in Scotland supported John McDonnell. And nobody else. I bet they're well chuffed with this one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Scumbags (#33)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:19:17 PM GMT

LabourLink is notoriously bureaucratically controlled and manipulated. Furthermore you have to be a full Labour party member to be a LabourLink rep - thereby excluding those members who are affiliated to the party through the union.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#6)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:17:31 PM GMT

Can I say, as a Unison member, that I'm delighted.


Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#10)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:35:09 PM GMT

Can I say as a PCS member that this is a total betrayal in the attempt to get a united Trade Union front against Brown's massive job cuts program, imposed 1.9% pay deals and devastating service cuts.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#12)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:48:41 PM GMT

Can I say as a Labour party member that this is a total victory in the attempt to get a united front against the Conservatives and their planned public sector spending cuts.

I'm not sure what you guys think Unison pointlessly opposing the next Prime Minister would achieve in practical terms.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#13)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:53:17 PM GMT

And what do you think that endorsing him (when he doesn't need any endorsement - he has actually 'won' you know) and all that he stands for achieves when the whole purpose of the current Trade Union campaign is to oppose his imposed 1.9% pay 'rise' (actually a cut in real terms) massive job cuts, and publice service destruction?


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#17)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:28:16 PM GMT

It's not about what endorsing him brings - it's about what opposing him brings. He's the next Labour Prime Minister for God's sake!

You might want Unison to forsake any influence it might have with him by chucking their dolly out of the pram and throwing a tantrum - but, as a Unison member and someone who works in the public sector, I sure as hell don't.

They've got to work with him for at least the next two years. Unison are level-headed enough to realise that they'll get more by being in the tent, pissing out, than on the outside, pissing in.

But then, I suppose, in your opinion, ideological purity is more important than actually making the best of a situation for their members?


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#20)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:45:27 PM GMT

"It's not about what endorsing him brings - it's about what opposing him brings. ... They've got to work with him for at least the next two years. Unison are level-headed enough to realise that they'll get more by being in the tent, pissing out, than on the outside, pissing in. " So what are you saying - that unless people endorse him, Brown won't work with them? That you've got to be 'part of his tent-club' before he'll listen to you? That sounds pretty undmocratic and Stalinist to me - surely it can't be so?!!!? "But then, I suppose, in your opinion, ideological purity is more important than actually making the best of a situation for their members?" Intellectual purity is hardly something I could be accused of if you knew anything about me, so try not to spout off in total ignorance... I actually think that by endorsing and sucking up to the person implementing cuts in pay, jobs and services Unison are sending a clear message on behalf of their members - it says 'We don't care what you do to our members as long as we can stand next to you as you piss out of your tent on them.'


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#21)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:46:42 PM GMT

erm, sorry - I put lots of page breaks in that, but they've vanished... along with Unison's credibilty I guess :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#22)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 04:28:19 PM GMT

"So what are you saying - that unless people endorse him, Brown won't work with them?"

If you read my post again, you'll realise I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that Brown will probably be keener to help them if they don't pointlessly oppose him.

They're there to get the best deal for their members - nominating Brown is the best thing to do in that regard. I'm sorry you don't see that.

Sometimes the best course of action is to work with those you disagree with rather than oppose them. Especially if there's a greater enemy out there - like a resurgent Tory party.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#23)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:07:38 PM GMT

By simply not endorsing him, would Unison be 'opposing' him? No. They would simply be not exercising a pointless endorsement. One really does wonder about a situation when people feel they have to endorse an unopposed candidate purely for the sake of it.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#24)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:18:55 PM GMT

I agree, 'not endorsing' is not the same as 'opposing'

However, in your post (#10) you weren't simply advocating the idea that Unison should refuse to endorse Brown - you were proposing that they join with other Trade Unions to be actively against Brown. I think that would be the wrong approach.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#28)

by grayee on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:45:57 PM GMT

Glass House I think your arguments actually reflect what is happening in the real world - keep it up! What some people forget is that we also have to have a leadership team that will actually win the next general election and defeat the Tories.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#30)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:54:09 PM GMT

To win the next election we have to get back those who have deserted us since 1997. Remember - more people voted for Labour in 1987 and 1992 than did in 2007 - we have won the last two general elections on miserable vote numbers laregly because the Tories were a state. If they present a cohesive opposition next time they will inspire more of their voters out. In that case the numbers we got in 2001 and 2005 will be inadequate. We need to get all those people who feel betrayed by New Labour out to vote again - and we won't do that with more of the same - we need to incorporate some of the true values of Labour again.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#48)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:31:04 AM GMT

By your logic, the Tories moving away from the positions espoused by their base will actually LOWER their ability to get their vote out. And make them do worse.

But then, your logic is hideously flawed.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#51)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 10:57:50 AM GMT

If you're just going to come up with a comment like 'your logic is hideously flawed' it is purely facile unless you bother to explain how my logic is 'hideously flawed'... I would appreciate your reasoning for that assessment.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#53)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:26:50 AM GMT

You say that the reason Labour's vote has gone since 1992 is because New Labour has adopted positions which are opposed by the base and that, for this reason, the base has refused to vote for them.

This cannot be reconciled by the fact that the Tory party is garnering MORE votes since abondoning positions which appeal to it's base.

The idea that each party has a set 'base' and that elections are decided, not by people switching votes from one party to another, but by how much a party appeals to its base to turn out is flawed.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#55)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:09:05 PM GMT

Thanks, I disagree with your arguement, but at least I now know where you're coming from. I would suggest there are 3 main elements that make up a party's General Election vote: a) The base vote which will vote for the party come what may whenever there is an election. b) The element that will usually vote for the party, as long as it represents enough of what they beleive in, but wouldn't vote for another main party c) That portion of the floating voter that prefers your party to the other parties. In 1997 Labour got a and b out en masse plus a large amount of c, whilst the Tories got their a and b out but very little of c in 2001 Labour got a out but lost some of B whilst retaning more c than the Tories who simply got their a out some of their b and not much c in 2005 Labour held onto a but lost most of b and most of c. Luckily the Tories still only got their a out and most of their b but still not much c in 2010 If the Tories get their a out, hold onto most of their b and get more of the c, Labour must get out not only their a and a high level of c but vitally they must increase their b. So it is a matter of competing for the c vote whilst ensuiring they bring back the b vote which has been largely lost. I would argue there is a higher degree of b vote to be reclaimed than there is c vote to lose.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#56)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 12:28:44 PM GMT

However, there is a trade off between 'B' and 'C' - the more you appeal to your base, the less you appeal to floaters at the centre.

There is also an arguement to be made that 'C 'votes are worth double - because, while a 'B' is just one more vote for you, a 'C' is one more vote for you AND one less vote for your opponent.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#57)

by fluffymike on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:19:02 AM GMT

Yes, I would generally agree with both of those points, though there are some ways to appeal to B without putting C off - the minimum wage is an example of a policy that did just that, and I think we need more policies like that.

But I think our main difference is simply over whether Labour is more likly to win in 2010 through holding C votes or reclaiming B votes. I don't feel we can do it without reclaiming a lot of B votes, and they will require some true Labour policies to return. We can do that without 'scaring off' C voters if the policies are well implemented and presented. Which is another thing we need to improve on - but that's another whole thread!


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#29)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 06:49:47 PM GMT

Ah - sorry, I didn't mean oppose him in this election (well, not now there isn't one!) I was refering to the ongoing industrial dispute that PCS have been spearheading for a while now, and which is getting increasing support from other Unions especially those in the public sector. It's because of that solidarity that's needed amongst the Unions against such low pay deals and job cuts that makes their explicit support so bemusing...


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#49)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:40:02 AM GMT

Ok then, if you "didn't mean oppose him in this election", that suggests that you see that the issue of how Unison approaches this the Leadership election process as a different subject to Unison's post-election fight for (as you see it) their members (the issues around 1.9% etc.).

In that case, as you seem to admit that the two issues are seperate (unlike before, when you seemed to see them as the same thing - post #10 and 13), I'll ask again... What is the downside of endorsing Brown?


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#52)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:02:50 AM GMT

Are you really not understanding what I'm saying, or simply pretending not to in order to provoke a response? Given that UNISON are (presumably) going to continue to oppose Brown over his job cuts, 1.9% pay settlements etc, it is ridiculous to actively brown-nose up to him in a non-existent leadership coronation. Better to have simply ignored the farce of the leadership campaign and nominate noone, but focus instead on what to do in the DL campaign - and on their continuing industrial campaign.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#54)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:36:35 AM GMT

But it's not about 'opposing' the 1.9% - it's about Unison negotiating to get that figure up as high as they can.

The negotiation will go better if Unison prove that they are willing to work with the new PM from the off - and endorsing him is a way of doing this

I'm sorry, but it's not rocket science. The Labour Link people aren't stupid people set around a table looking at an agenda that say 1. Minutes of Previous meeting 2. How can we best Brownnose Brown (just for the sake of it) 3. How can we best screw our members!

These are serious Trade Unionists who are doing what they think is best for their members. They've decided that good relations with the next PM are vital is they are to win concessions and have clearly decided that an endorsement is a completely free, win-win way of doing this.

The worst that can happen is that they don't win additional concessions from Brown by nominating him and a few anti-Brown types are upset. The best that can happen is that nominating Brown will, without spending any money or giving away anything, give them a bit more weight at the negotiating table. They can't lose, they can only win.

How can you not see that?


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#11)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:46:39 PM GMT

Are you guys pissed off about them nominating Johnson or nominating Brown?


Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#14)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:53:22 PM GMT

Given Brown and Johnson support and implement policies which are diametrically opposed to those of UNISON members - both of them!

Is it that difficult to understand why it's ludicrous for a union to nominate two candidates who opposes them on virtually every single policy?!


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#15)

by fluffymike on Thu May 31, 2007 at 02:54:34 PM GMT

For me, it's Brown. What anyone does in terms of the DL is not of particular relevance imho as the role doesn't really carry any importance.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#16)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:25:38 PM GMT

It's not the personalities, it's the policies. This is absolutely indefensible.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#18)

by Glass House on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:30:24 PM GMT

I refer you to my post (#17)


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#19)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 03:42:36 PM GMT

Brown is a demagogue who couldn't care less where they are urinating, be it inside or outside the tent.And he will urinate over all of them and the thousands of UNISON members too


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#37)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:02:35 PM GMT

Come off it grim, Brown has helped to deliver a massive rise in public sector employment and in pay rates. Let's keep things in perspective and remember how much a Labour government delivers for us.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#39)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 08:20:42 PM GMT

Like a society more unequal than it was 10 years ago?


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#43)

by Sensible Comrade on Thu May 31, 2007 at 10:40:26 PM GMT

If you don't think that this government has made great moves towards equality (through the minimum wage, through the target of eradicating child poverty, through the huge investment in public sector wages) then I don't see why you're still in the Labour Party. I will argue strongly that the government has not been radical enough and that the gap between rich and poor is still too great but nothing gets on my tits more than people who can't see the importance and benefits of labour government.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#45)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 11:51:10 PM GMT

In 2005/6 12.7 million people in the UK (21 per cent) were officially poor compared with 13 per cent in 1979. Some 3.8 million children were living in households classified as poor,while 2 million pensioners remain below the poverty line. There are now 90,000 homeless households, more than double the total when New Labour came to power. In 1996, the richest 5 per cent of the population owned 49 per cent of wealth, in 2003 58 per cent.What were you saying about New Labour????


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown (#50)

by Glass House on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 09:48:21 AM GMT

We can all bugger about with the figures.

GuN - you know as well as I do that you get radically different figures depending on how you measure inequality.

Comparing top 5% vs bottom 5%, top 10% vs bottom 10%, top 20% vs bottom 20%, statistical models of wealth distribution and statistic levels of poverty all give completely different pictures of the state of equality in the UK - people just cherrypick the one that fits with their agenda.

If you can't see that this government has attacked wealth inequality HARD through the minimum wage and tax credits and attack other forms in inequality through massive investment in Health and Education and maternity and paternity leave reform then you're really far gone.


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON endorse Brown (#25)

by jkitleft on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:37:47 PM GMT

To be fare, it doesn't really matter, because there is no leadership contest, so the concept of betraying McD is a hypothetical question.


Re: UNISON endorse Brown (#26)

by jkitleft on Thu May 31, 2007 at 05:38:20 PM GMT

my spelling today, 'fair'


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON endorse Brown (#32)

by grimupnorth on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:08:34 PM GMT

It is not about "betraying McD" it is about betraying their members


[ Parent ]

Re: UNISON endorse Brown (#34)

by jonesythered on Thu May 31, 2007 at 07:20:32 PM GMT

Exactly - by nominating people who are implementing policies which are actually harming their members' interests.

It's not that controversial a statement, really!


[ Parent ]

UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown & Johnson | 57 comments (57 topical)