UNITE, the union we love to hate, represents the honest views of the down trodden working man, does it not? Er, maybe.

Up in Falkirk, Scotland, one of Labour’s supposed bastions of strength, there is a remarkable row brewing as UNITE struggle to replace their previous place-man in parliament, Eric Joyce. Joyce was an amenable alcoholic; ‘was’ being the operative word. Unfortunately, he grew out of control, unseemly wrestling with other MPs, various policemen, and an under age constituency worker meant that he had to go.

UNITE don’t appear to believe that their new MP should reflect the views of any old rank and file down trodden working men, rather that they should select suitably down trodden working men whose views can be safely said to reflect UNITE’s view of how their parliamentary place man should be voting. To that end, the allegation is that they have been kindly paying the union membership fees, or altering the date on which they joined, for members who might have been excluded from selection process in order to get the result they desire.

UNITE, of course, do not subscribe to the ‘New-Labour’ or ‘Blairite’ policies which were responsible for the only time Labour have managed to win an election in the last 40 years…the fact that the only time they managed to appeal to the electorate was when they moved away from their hard Left Fabian policies cuts no ice with them. It is the principle that counts, they say. The market for wick trimmers has collapsed and our members should be recompensed for having their living ruined; electricity has blighted their woe-begotten lives. With this mindset, it seems perfectly reasonable that they should use those union funds, acquired by automatic deduction from workers wages, and left over from paying golden handshakes to departing officials,  to ‘buy’ new members amenable to UNITE’s determinedly backward looking policies. The fact that less than 14% of the ‘automatically enrolled’ members had sufficient interest in their membership to vote for their new leader may have something to do with their desire not to rely on the views of the ordinary down trodden working man.

Over here in France, we have the Front National as front-runner of the ‘hard’ right. The British press are fond of comparing  it to the BNP. It’s racist, jew hating, ‘despicable’ is it not? Er, maybe.

Like UNITE, the Front National has a new leader. Marine Le Pen. Daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen. Under his tutelage, the Front National had a formidable reputation, that everybody was quite sure they understood and didn’t approve of. However, unlike UNITE, Marine, the new leader, rather than manipulating events to ensure that the Front National adhered to its defence of the wick trimmers’ interests, adopted a new and novel approach. They listened to what the ordinary down trodden workers were saying.

It seemed that these potential voters didn’t believe that the Holocaust was a ‘minor historical detail’, they considered it the ‘pinnacle of human barbarism’. Very well, said Marine, in future that is what we, as your potential representatives, will believe too. The workers weren’t impressed with the voice of Germany telling them how to live their lives and imposing austerity on them in order to save the Euro – OK, said Marine, we’ll fight to return to the Franc. (Most of the French have never left the Franc mentally – every supermarket ticket is printed in Francs as well as Euros for those who feel strongly about this).

The vast majority of the French are ordinary workers, not rich capitalists. Rather than align her party with the traditional support for Capitalism and Capitalists bosses that the Right epitomises, Marine argued that the French welfare model of 35 hour weeks, and minimum wages was right, true and fair. Neither did she support the present habit of sending her potential voters’ sons and daughters off to lose their life in far-flung dusty towns because it suited the Americans or other ‘world powers’.

We have had a by-election in Villeneuve-Sur-Lot, our local town and a Socialist stronghold, created by the resignation of Jerome Cahuzac, the MP who was the Minister for the Economy until it was discovered that he had an off-shore bank account that he had neglected to pay tax on.  Stephen Bousquet-Cassagne stood as a candidate for the new ‘voter driven’ policies of the Front National.

He got 46% of the vote. It is the equivalent to the BNP getting 46% of the vote in Falkirk. Unthinkable.

But then, strange things happen when you shrug off the views and reputations of the past, and actually listen to what the voters want. Something Tony Blair discovered a long time ago, but Labour seem to have forgotten. And Cameron.

sackcloth and
ashes July 4, 2013 at 21:58

Like UNITE, the Front National has a new leader. Marine Le Pen. Daughter of
Jean-Marie Le Pen. Under his tutelage, the Front National had a formidable
reputation, that everybody was quite sure they understood and didn’t approve
of. However, unlike UNITE, Marine, the new leader, rather than manipulating
events to ensure that the Front National adhered to its defence of the wick
trimmers’ interests, adopted a new and novel approach. They listened to what
the ordinary down trodden workers were saying’.

Pardon me for raining on the parade here, but I think we need to bear in
mind a point about the FN’s apparent ‘evolution’.

There is an established tradition for extreme right parties to seek to
broaden their support base by toning down the hate-talk and modifying the
bovver-boy image, replacing brownshirts for frock coats and bomber jackets for
suits. The NSDAP did this in the early 1930s so that Hitler could woo big
business and present a better image as a potential chancellor to the German
electorate. Nick Griffin tried to do the same with the BNP during the last
decade.

This doesn’t mean that the fascists have stopped being fascists. It just
means that they’re trying to rebrand themselves.

Is Marine Le Pen genuinely trying to turn the FN into a mainstream right
wing party? And even if she is, will she carry the old guard of ‘beur’ and
‘Juif’ haters with her?

Chris
Barratt July 3, 2013 at 18:41

I worked as a Local Government Officer for 12 years from the mid-90′s
before I was forced out for commencing a degree in my spare time (“A conflict
of interests” I kid ye not) and I was a member of Unison.
The absurdity of
a union putting ballots out to strike over crap pay awards year-in year-out
and yet encouraging their entire membership to ‘Vote Labour’ was not lost on
me. How could they challenge the very same people they (and indeed we, their
membersip) were permanently canvassing for?
It came as no surprise to find
when I did need the Union to protect me the employment legislation had been
eroded to the extent that I might as well have just allowed them to bully me
out of my job and not fought them for 18 long months/

suspicious July 3, 2013 at 14:21

I wouldn’t be surprised if the establishment totally ban elections soon, or
perhaps ban voting. They are already trying it in a subversive, secretive
manner by making sure that LibLabCon candidates have more or less the same
views and are all singing from the same hymn sheet! That is a hymn sheet not
shared by the populace ie the voter, only the establishment. So in order to
make sure that the establishment gets it’s own way, with the voter only voting
for what they the establishment thinks is good for them, they will eventually
have to resort to extreme measures. Like bringing about a dictatorship, no
voting allowed…

Ted Treen July 3, 2013 at 13:58

Someone with a Westminster pass and several barrels of gunpowder?

corevalue July 3, 2013 at 10:23

Voting in a represntative democracy?

Surely, that’s just your endorsement of a representative (not “delegate”,
according to Roy
Hattersley), selected by someone else who has an agenda
you don’t know about, to nod through
policies generated by an inner cabal
of powerful people. Usually against your own best interests.

miss mildred
July 3, 2013 at 10:00

For more elections than I can remember I have arrived in the polling booth
not quite sure who to vote for. I’ve tried Liberal. Also Green. Never Labour.
It mainly turns round how annoyed I am with the Cons for being constantly
caught doing something a bit naughty. Like accepting hospitality of one kind
or ‘tother then denying it. Banged up for it too!. As for Labour, that boring
list. Good for us after the war. Under Attlee. Not a good looking man, but
good for us at that time….compare and contrast with Blair. Then Wilson,
intelligent, but always in fear of ‘plots’. ‘The pound in your pocket’ and all
that financial debacle. Finally gave up when not coping mentally. Various
others, who were too boring to recall properly. Then 1997, pension snatching,
gold selling, and the big dole out of MONEY….a great favourite with the
electorate……one massive bribe for years on end! I was a debt/benefits adviser
from 1995 to 2009, after I retired. Experts who gave us in service training
always expressed unease at benefits dependency. Profligate bank lending.
Making bankruptcy easier etc. When the imminent crash was nigh, I had been
warning about it for at least a year. That’s what politicians can do for us
all….duck kennels, moat clearing included. Again The Cons making greedy toff
numpties of themselves to a band playing. Now who will I vote for next time
around?.

Bill Kenny July 2, 2013 at 15:18

Dear Ms Racoon
Whilst I generally enjoy your take on things on this
occasion I think you may be demonstrating a thumbless grip on reality. Firstly
what makes the Front National ‘right wing’? As far as I have noted like Sinn
Fein, Scottish Nationalists and the BNP, they are all collectivist big
government ‘one right order’ tax and spend parties who who want to organise
your life for you. Free Trade, free markets, autonomous order, individual
rights over collective rights etc make up little or no part of their
programmes. ‘Right wing nationalists’ is a BBC mantra best avoided. As is a
somewhat sneering dismissal of ‘Capitalism and Capitalist Bosses’, if someone
like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Richard Branson et al bring a product to the
market. Many people seem willing to exchange the utility of the pieces of
paper in their wallet or purse for these goods and services. What’s more this
is done willingly, nobody is forced to make that exchange and if enough people
think they will benefit from such products Messrs Jobs, Gates and Branson
become rich – ‘capitalist bosses’ to use your term. Who then go on to offer
employment and pay the wages and salaries of thousands of people round the
world as well as funding the statist quo that rules in so many of those
countries.

Ted Treen July 2, 2013 at 15:38

The difference between left & right wing has nowt to do with personal
liberty – it’s more than anything else, over the question of who controls
industry and utilities. Left wing support state control, right wing support
the private sector.

The BNP are in agreement over state control of industry and utilities, so
that by itself makes them left-wing. Severely authoritarian, xenophobic and
nationalistic, perhaps but there have been many others of that ilk:- The
Soviet Union, Mao’s People’s Republic of China to name but two…

Bill Kenny
July 3, 2013 at 11:11

Dear Mr Treen
I am sorry to have to disagree with you but the
difference between Right and Left is everywhere and every time to do with
personal liberty. An individual is either sovereign or they are not. The
issue is not about which political party controls one part of industry or
another as most sane people realise that governments can’t run any part of
industry. Socialism and Nationalism being two sides of the same coin; Le
Pen, Gerry Adams, Alex Salmond and whoever runs the BNP are in a political
battle with other parties on the left. FN vs PSF/PCF, Sinn Fein vs SDP,
SNP vs Labour, BNP vs New Labour Each side of the coin seeks the victory
of collectivism over individual sovereignty hence ‘right wing
nationalists’ is nothing less than lazy journalism.

Ted Treen
July 3, 2013 at 13:50

With all due respect Sir, I still hold that the difference regarding
personal liberty is one between Authoritarian and Libertarian.

Just as the Third Reich was Authoritarian and Right, so was Stalin’s
USSR Authoritarian and Left.

It is a sad comment on our times that when asked to give an example
of a Libertarian regime, I can’t think offhand of any immediately, but
(in theory at least) it is possible to be both Libertarian and Left, and
Libertarian and Right.

Fat Steve July 4, 2013 at 10:26

@ Bill Kenny — ‘a thumbless grip on reality’ —gosh prose worthy of our
usually peerless Anna who gave such phrases as ‘Man Flu’ for David Milliband
and ‘the Horse Meat Eating Classes’ for the feckless residuum. I would read
this blog for the use of language alone.

davidb July 2, 2013 at 08:00

So 14% of members elected the Union Leadership? And the other 86%? Ah, they
couldn’t be bothered to return their postal ballots. Too much effort to stick
an envelope in a mail box. The burgers of Falkirk have universal suffrage. If
they decide they do not want to vote for a union placeman, they are free to
vote for another candidate. We have a skewed system of democracy, but after a
fashion, we do get to choose. I think you will find that well below 100
percent of the registered voters will turn out on the day. You cannot complain
about the outcome if you don’t join in the ballot.

And besides, even if the union foists its candidate on the “electorate”, is
that any better or worse than the party leadership foisting its pliable
candidate on the same electorate? The peoples party are real good at getting
the children of its politburo into “safe” seats. So rather than criticise
Unison for abusing a flawed system, maybe its a case of pot kettle black
here.

That democracy is a dangerous thing. Sometimes people even get what they
vote for. Its lucky we have a strong party system to make sure that doesn’t
happen.

Ted Treen July 2, 2013 at 13:02

“That democracy is a dangerous thing.”

How would we know? It’s something that’s never actually been tried in
Britain…

suspicious
July 3, 2013 at 14:12

*applause*

Moor Larkin July 4, 2013 at 11:05

@ And besides, even if the union foists its candidate on the
“electorate”, is that any better or worse than the party leadership
foisting its pliable candidate on the same electorate? @

Or indeed the union foisting its pliable party leadership on the
electorate………..

TOTAL MPs Party Unions RESULT
David Miliband 49.35 17.81 18.14
13.40 ELIMINATED
Ed Miliband 50.65 15.52 15.20 19.93 WINNER

Moor Larkin July 4, 2013 at 17:42

How timely Tom has proved to be!

……….. it’s not the unattributed shadow cabinet briefings around the
mess in Falkirk that has convinced me that the arrangement has run its
course (though they don’t help). ………….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10160150/Tom-Watson-MP-resignation-letter-in-full.html

Moor
Larkin July 1, 2013 at 23:51

Overseas aid just seems designed to combat the “nasty party” label. Today’s
politics do seem to take place in a slightly parallel universe of newspaper
headlines and TV interviews and politicians seem to have to pay more attention
to satisfying the media-types than they ever do about what the average voter
might say; indeed we witnessed the horrors of what happens when a modern top
politician and a voter actually meet, in the “Brown Bigot” scandal…

It just struck me that the “unemployed vote” is likely to go Labour’s way
too. All the more reason for the Tories to get the country back to work, if it
can… I’m
better off than for years simply because of the raising of the tax threshold –
a Liberal policy. I did vote for that nice Mr. Clegg last time, primarilty
because of that one policy. The media never talk about it at all – probably
because they all earn over £50k a year….

charlotte July 2, 2013 at 21:06

It seems shocking that the only reason to give overseas aid is to be
viewed as philanthropic globally, when the people of the home nation go
without. That’s despicable, I think. I remember when Brown was horrible to
the woman voter and he was left looking like a bully, the poor woman looked
like she wanted to fall into a hole, but I think it back fired on Brown. Is
that the one you were writing about?. I suppose his attitude was ‘move on’
though. I’m a bit wary of things that are too extreme and even more so as I
get older; I don’t really like too far left or right. As for the media; they
use terms such as ‘nanny state’ when it’s really becoming a soft
dictatorship, if that’s possible. I’m just amazed how many people suck up
the info from the media. I think the vote from the unemployed will go to
labour in the hope that benefits will be returned but I doubt that the
labour party will change the fiscal policies much because the piggy bank’s
empty. I’m better off because of the tax threshold especially as an
employer, but it is tough on a daily basis running my business. I often
wonder if I’m only in business still because of my imaginative style or
because the clients enjoy my eccentric behaviour. Maybe I should vote for
the Raving Loonies!!!!

charlotte July 1, 2013 at 20:43

I can well remember how awful the 70′s were. There seemed to be strike
after strike; we had our electricity rationed, the dead weren’t laid to rest
and our household rubbish was left uncollected. The main body of the unions
seemed to have a genuine gripe but the union leaders were so militant that
they just wouldn’t compromise. I can also remember the miners on strike having
no wages, that was perhaps the early 80′s. I think it was because Scargill
called the strike illegally; without a ballot of the men. I thought it was
terrible that these men and their families suffered so very much and wondered
why the union didn’t pay them their wages as they had paid their dues every
week. It was all such a mess and invariably Margaret Thatcher took all of the
blame while Arthur Scargill was regarded a hero. I read recently that Scargill
was taking his own union to court to force them to pay his rent, something
like that, I just got sick of reading the whole report. As for the labour
party back then. I think it was probably run by the very far left such as,
Michael Foot and Tony Benn, but in fairness to both men they were honourable
and never tried to disguise their core political leanings. The labour party
would never upset the union leadership because they depended heavily on them
for votes. Who do New Labour rely upon now for their vote as the union seem to
have very little power.

Moor
Larkin July 1, 2013 at 22:31

@ Who do New Labour rely upon now for their vote as the union seem to
have very little power. @

People who work for “the government”, who generally also happen to be the
most unionised. Various calculations were made at the time of the last
election about what percentage of the employment was reliant on government
spending. Estimates seemed to range from 40% to 75% depending on how the
calculations were made – ie. those who directly worked for the State or by
extension those whose work contracts directly relied upon the State’s
activities. If your job relied on the largesse of “the State” who would you
vote for? The Tories who will promise to implement “savage cuts” or Labour
who will promise to borrow more, to boost or maintain their Spending.

The only surprise is that there were still enough turkeys voting for Xmas
to have denied Labour another term of office. Maybe the British are not so
bird-brained as they might be painted…

charlotte
July 1, 2013 at 23:17

Thank you Moor. Yes, I suppose if a paper clip company earns most of
its money from supplying a Government office it’s a no brainer who they
will vote for. My problem is that I never know who to believe, i.e. the
spenders or the savage cut merchants. I’m the ‘turkey’ who runs around
without a head! In the end I just think ‘stuff it’ we just have to do what
we can and muddle along as best as we can. I’m lucky, just now to be able
to support myself but I was concerned at the cuts made last week in
benefits by Mr Osborne in that there would be a longer waiting time before
giving out unemployment payments. Is there enough work out there that pays
a decent wage to support a family? I thought that if people pay their N I
and tax then they should get a payment immediately, it used to be for 9
months if the contribution had been satisfied and after that a social
security payment was made if a person was still not working. The media are
quick to expose so called benefit scroungers but the majority of people
out of work must be struggling terribly and suffering the most awful
penury because they can’t find a job that will fully support them, In the
same breath Mr Osborne announced that Overseas payments were increased for
development. Is this a good thing? People are saying to me that cutting
costs here and increasing payments overseas is wrong, but I thought there
must be a reason for it, but I don’t know what that reason might be.
Perhaps it’s pure philanthropy or perhaps if overseas countries are helped
they might buy goods from the UK. I would like your opinion.

carol42 July 1, 2013 at 20:09

I wonder why these very few union members who vote chose such unattractive
leaders, they are enough to put anyone off. It just looks like the members
don’t care who represents them.

Curmudgeon July 1, 2013 at 20:01

If all politicicans do is listen to the electorate, then we are doomed. The
mob is very, very stupid. Do you really want MPs just to support policies
based on their vote gathering appeal, the lowest common denominator. One of
the problems with this is I can no longer tell the difference between any of
the major parties. Where have all the conviction politicians gone?

Wigner’s Friend
July 2, 2013 at 12:42

They were all convinced of their infallibility and those that were found
out have been, or will be, convicted.

binao July 1, 2013 at 18:43

Keeping the left alive will always be easier than trying to resurrect other
dinosaurs from fossils because there is an element of idealism which appeals
to the young and there is envy. Easy to exploit.
On our own patch there
will no doubt be strenuous efforts to discredit Mr Farage and his happy band,
and it won’t be difficult, but in my bit of West Sussex I suspect the
wrinklies have it and they do have a habit of voting. Increasingly not as
programmed.
I don’t think we necessarily believe our hopes can be
delivered, we just don’t want the present and future on offer from the
increasingly identical and utterly uninspiring political elites. The pity is
that the young have only the recent past to base their expectations on. Their
timeframe is too small. Luckily they don’t vote too much.
Shame about the
unions. I always believed in their noble purpose.

ZeroTolerance
July 1, 2013 at 17:48

Tis ever extreme folly for anyone hopeful for Democracy to ever ignore the
raw, undemocratic power of true ‘Monarch’ Fraud Market Murdoch on three
continents.

In July 1995, he flew his new pawn, Tony Blair, with Cherie, 1st-class to
NewsCorp’s Hayman Island, Australian retreat, where the UK PM
in-waiting/aspiring war criminal spoke about, “the need for a new moral
purpose in politics”. Which included the lifting of government regulations on
the media. Murdoch shook his hand warmly. The next day the SUN commented: “Mr
Blair has vision, he has purpose and he speaks our language on morality and
family life.” The two are devout Christians, after all.

Monarch Murdoch’s subtext was clear, NuLab was to be Olde Tory, “Stay Right
and stay in for a while, stray Left, and you’re right out for another 18
years!”

Since those far off days, Murdoch’s true face and that of his vastly
overpaid, unelected power brokers and breakers backing sub-prime Wall Street
and all that followed, have been exposed as ‘criminal’ in the UK Parliament
and High Court; yet nothing changes.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/murdoch-a-cultural-chernobyl
johnpilger.com/articles/welcome-to-the-w…-s-first-murdochracy

Moor
Larkin July 4, 2013 at 09:40

@zerotolerance

Are you Tom?…..
http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/04/rupert-murdoch-secret-tapes-mps-call-for-police-to-investigate-3868433/?ITO=news-sitemap
“‘Police
should investigate @rupertmurdoch suggestion that there is more evidence of
illegality that News Int didn’t hand over’ and added ‘or for that matter
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’.”

charlotte July 1, 2013 at 15:37

Surely union subs can only be taken from the workers who have chosen to
join? I had it that compulsory membership to a union along with ‘the closed
shop’ was abolished during the Thatcher administration. Was I mistaken????

Anna
Raccoon July 1, 2013 at 18:00

The union subs are not obligatory – but if you join the union the
‘political contribution’ has to be opted out of, assuming you are aware that
it is hidden ‘in’ your sub in the first place…..

charlotte
July 1, 2013 at 18:35

Thank you Anna. A timely reminder: Always read the small printer the
rule book.

Smithy July 1, 2013 at 20:34

It may also be worth mentioning that although we can indeed choose
whether or not to join the Union we have no choice in which Union we may
join. I have the choice of being represented by a wannabe Commissar who
makes Wedgwood Benn seem moderate or not being represented at all and
relying on the good nature of my employer. It’s the sort of Democracy that
sometimes seems awfully like the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Jeremy
Poynton July 1, 2013 at 21:08

My father used to say that the two greatest threats to the country
were China and Wedgewood Benn.

Jabba the Cat July 3, 2013 at 22:17

Your father was right…

Edward. July 1, 2013 at 13:37

Allez les Front National!

Listening to voters? Now there’s a thing.

Whatever next? Politicians, the executive obeying the wishes of the
ordinary man and woman?

Pah! Its the stuff of nonsense, our political elite would not stand for
that.

Demetrius July 1,
2013 at 13:13

Down on the Embankment yesterday listening to a brass band (American of
course) for a while it was interesting to watch all the people go by. Then
wandered up by the The Coal Hole on the Strand. All the voting and the
politics seemed very far away and distant even if I could hear Big Ben
plainly. None of it seems to have much to do with any of the realities.

Wigner’s Friend
July 1, 2013 at 12:58

“every supermarket ticket is printed in Francs as well as Euros for those
who feel strongly about this”

How do they calculate the exchange rate?

ivan July 1, 2013 at 22:21

No problem, it is the rate at which the conversion was set at the
changeover, although what the rate would be if they ever changed back is an
unknown.

Moor Larkin July 1, 2013 at 22:33

It’s a few years ago, but I recall seeing “ptas” displayed in Spain, on
their price labels too, in the shop windows.

Moor
Larkin July 1, 2013 at 12:09

Most democracies seem to be very evenly split these days. No single “party”
in Britain ever seems to gain a clear popular majority, and the USA is always
pretty much split down the middle in terms of numbers too. And I don’t think
46% equates to any sort of overwhelming mandate either. It’s just a “first
past the post” *win*.

Those eyebrows of his are pretty impressive though, and will become more so
as he gets older.

belinus July 1,
2013 at 13:31

There is a very good reason for this position, or more correctly two
reasons :
The Constitution Unit
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/09/tavistock-2012-constitution-unit/

The Institute for Government
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/09/british-politics-operating-parameters-hung-parliament-2015/

And they are using this strategy
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/09/profile-julius-gould/

Moor Larkin July 1, 2013 at 23:16

@belinus
I can see all that suggests how “powers” might be taking
advantage of the democratic dilemma of no clear mandate for significant
change in any direction, but it doesn’t explain why the electorates are
choosing to vote the way they do, something they always end up doing. The
current coalition is the first post-war government to actually represent
in excess of 50% of the votes cast at an election. Every other government
we have had since the war has effectively been a minority government in
terms of the popular vote.

belinus July
2, 2013 at 17:36

You say 50% of the vote but what percentage of the population
actually voted, was it not only 34% with the majority being Muslim,s and
immigrants?
You see through mass immigration the corporate empire is
able to prevent the Brits expressing lawful rebellion by not taking part
in the game (not voting) until the realm is brought back as the
overlord.

Very easy to manipulate the immigrants via Freemasonry and Vatican
II, masonry controls the Muslims as Vatican II controls the Polish and
other Eastern Europeans…

belinus July 2, 2013 at 17:41

and through the equally masonic evangelical movements, so too the
African’s.