Why Labour does not deserve support

High court judge forbids BA strike, based on Thatcher-era[1] laws designed to fuck up the unions:

The airline won on a technical point, arguing that Unite failed to carry out its statutory duties by making sure that everyone balloted was told the result.

When balloting for strikes, unions should give those who took part a detailed breakdown of the result, as required by section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The union’s barrister, John Hendy QC, said the airline had not been able to find even one employee who did not know the result of the ballot, which voted overwhelmingly for strike action.

Labour had thirteen years to withdraw or weaken these laws, but never did, despite the fact it was the unions that kept the party going at various times. This was perhaps New Labour’s greatest betrayal of the working classes, taking away most of its rights of self defence.

[1] Technically, Major-era…

Why Labour? Why now?

Justin asks what has changed in Labour that you should rejoin it:

Can New Labour remodel itself as ‘progressive’ (whatever that means these days) even if it wanted to? This is what puzzled me about the people who crashed the New Labour website the other night in their stampede to rejoin the party. Nothing has changed just because Gordon Brown has shuffled off to spend more time with his sulk. Does a Miliband or a Balls have the emotional intelligence to notice and care about this stuff, let alone point it out?

The rush to (re)join Labour is proof of two things: visceral hatred of Tories in government and the ongoing failure to establish a proper leftwing alternative to Labour. It’s true that all the bad authoritarian, warmongering impulses of New Labour still exist, but I think people felt they had no choice. It is a reasonable assumption to think that bad as New Labour was, the Tories will be worse and with the Liberals in bed with them, the only place left is Labour…

Labour was awful when it came to civil rights, authoritarian and downright evil in places (War on Iraq, treatment of refugees), but for better or worse is still seen as slightly less evil than the Tories — the memories of what they did to the working classes the last time they were in power still remain.Labour quite frankly is the lesser of two evils, despised on what they did in the past thirteen years but few people have any illusions the Tories would’ve behaved better, which why now Labour has been punished people instinctively flow back towards it.

This may be a blessing in disguise, if an organised left can be established in the party to take it back from the Blairites/Brownies, but it will take years. Tony and Gordon’s acolytes are too firmly entrenched, hold all the positions of power in the party to be quickly gotten rid off. The next election will be crucial: if New Labour is still in power in the party and win the election, they will never be removed.

You can compare it with the Democratic Party in the US: after Bush stole the elections in 2000, and especially after 2002/03 when there was a huge antiwar movement with no real political home, there was a chance to move the Democrats to the left, but the centrists won the powerstruggle, sidelined the activists and just waited until the Republicans became unpoplar enough to lose the election.

A leftward turn is needed for Labour, but it can only be forced upon the party. Those who joined out of disappointment with the Lib-Dems need to be politcally active in the party to do so. Now’s the chance to win the party back.

QotD: the uselessness of Nick Robinson

D-Squared on the uselessness of Robinson and other supposed insiders in covering the coalition negotiations:

The fact that Labour and the LibDems were involved in negotiations all weekend seems to have come as a total surprise to political journalists. Shouldn’t this be the occasion for some serious carpetings by their editors? People like Nick Robinson, Adam Boulton and Andrew Rawnsley don’t cover stories and they don’t have specialist analytical skills. Their entire value-add is meant to be that they are “in the loop” and connected to all the big important players. If something as important as this can be happening without them knowing about it, that’s actually very embarrassing.

It should come as no great surprise that Robinson et all, for all their supposed connections, missed this story. The point about their connections is that they only ever are used to leak approved stories, usually semi-anonymously, with Robinson as conduit rather than active investigator, to influence whatever debate is taking place at a given moment. The value of a Robinson for politicians lies in the way in which they can make their positions clear without making them official, while to the news media the value lies in getting easily digestable news chunks with little risk of offending their news sources.

But if Robinson only reports what he gets given and is too polite to dig around on his own, the fact that he and others like him didn’t hear anything about these negotiations until they were made official is significant. It makes it likely that there were no rebels on either the Labour or the Lib-Dem side willing to leak this story in order to sabotage proceedings…

As an aside, the naivity with which the whole post-election negotiations are reported is charming if infuriating. There are plenty of European countries with experience of this sort of thing, why oh why can’t BBC or Sky News learn from their experiences what roughly to expect? Why pretend that the Liberal Democrats negotiating with both Labour and the Tories at the same time is shocking or wrong, when it’s perfectly normal to do so?

Poll Fraud 2010 – Let The Vote Rigging Begin!

Black box

Never mind, Gordon, even when the election looks well and truly lost, there’s always voting fraud…

Is this story the reason why we’ve spent the last 24 hrs hearing smears about poor Gillian Duffy from the Labour-leaning media, rather than reports on Labour’s latest attempt to skew the popular vote?

Labour’s new media tsar Kerry McCarthy today admitted inappropriately revealing a sample of postal votes on Twitter one week before the general election.

‘Inappropriately’, Guardian? Surely you mean illegally? Already with the minimising language… it’s no surprise either that the Guardian’s been pushing the Duffy story to the detriment of all others. Classic diversionary propaganda.

But now the Twitter leak story is out the Guardian is reporting it as though a Labour candidate and senior Prime Ministerial aide’s committal of voting fraud were mere youthful high jinks:

The parliamentary candidate for Bristol East said she was “kicking herself” after posting the results of some 300 votes to her 5,700 followers.

Sure. Like she didn’t know exactly what she was doing. Someone should be kicking her.

What’s more likely is that, if by some unexpected miracle (like, say, election security being breached, enabling Labour to more effectively target election resources) Gordon Brown is able to turn the Titanic away from the iceberg as a result, that McCarthy’ll be rewarded with a sinecure on the Table-Leg Enumeration Agency or some such quango.

After all, it wouldn’t be the first time Labour’s committed election fraud with postal votes, would it?

The 2005 election, and specifically Birmingham 2005, was described by election observers as the dirtiest UK election ever, and that was down to Labour:

Vote-riggers exploited weaknesses in the postal voting system to steal thousands of ballot papers and mark them for Labour, helping the party to take first place in elections to Birmingham City Council.

They believed that their cheating would be hidden for ever in the secrecy of the strong boxes where counted votes are stored, never suspecting that a judge would take the rare step of smashing the seals and tracing the ballots back to the voters. Election corruption has been so rare in the past 100 years that lawyers have struggled to find examples since the late 19th century, when Britain was adjusting to the novelty of universal male suffrage.

The elections last June were the dirtiest since the general election of 1895, when Sir Tankerville Chamberlayne, the Conservative candidate for Southampton, notoriously travelled by cart from pub to pub, waving and throwing sovereigns at the crowds. His election was later ruled invalid.

The Birmingham vote- riggers were more cunning than the flamboyant Sir Tankerville. They coldly exploited communities where many cannot speak English or write their names. They forced what the judge called “dishonest or frightened” postmen into handing over sacks of postal ballots. They seem to have infiltrated the mail service: several voters gave evidence that their ballot papers were altered to support Labour after they put them in the post.

So we don’t know if the postal vote results McCarthy tweeted can be trusted in the first place, given that Labour’s 2010 postal vote fraud effort was well already well underway before she brought Twitter into the equation:

McCarthy’s post, which has now been deleted, said: “First PVs opened in east Bristol, our sample: UKIP **; TUSC**; BNP ** Lib Dem **; Tory **; Labour **. £gameON!”

‘Game on’? How old is she? Certainly past the age of criminal responsibility, and let’s not forget, what she’s committed is a crime, not some silly, girlish error she can simper her way out of. The law is very clear:

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said candidates who see the front of a ballot paper “must maintain the secrecy of voting”.

The guidelines state: “Anyone attending a postal vote opening session must be provided with a copy of the relevant secrecy requirements.

“They should be reminded of these requirements and of the penalty, on summary conviction, either of a fine of £5,000, or six months’ imprisonment in England and Wales, or one year’s imprisonment in Scotland.”

McCarthy said she had attended a “training exercise” in which staff verified personal identifiers on the postal votes. She said: “I was pretty silly to do it; it was just thoughtless, I was being over-exuberant.

Over-exuberant, my ass.

6 months in jail, eh? That ought to curb her exuberance, you’d think. But I doubt she’ll get it, especially if the miracle happens and the titanic turns. Table legs ahoy!

UPDATE

Maybe she will get the 6 months – her actions have definitely been reported to the police.