Democracy and Bubs
I've listened to quite a bit of this year's Labour party conference - sad I know - but it's mildly entertaining and a good excuse for putting off all those household chores.
What's struck me is that just about every trade union delegate - that I've heard anyway - is trying to turn the last general election on its head.
By saying that no one speaks for the people - except the trade unions of course - and the Labour party sometimes - at least when it does the unions' bidding and agrees not to meddle in 'their' affairs.
But the truth is that Britain's union bosses (the Bubs) the trade unions don't even speak for a majority their members - on many issues - never mind the great British public.
Here's a post I wrote for the blog site back in June 2010 - at which point Labour's 3-way electoral college had not been used since 2007.
Trade Union Democracy
The last time Labour's 'electoral college' was wheeled out was in 2007 - for the ballot over the deputy leadership of the party - which Harriet Harman won.
How many people do you think voted in the trade union section of the ballot - which is worth one third of the total vote?
256,000 - is the answer - or only 8% of those entitled to vote, according to press reports.
But only 215,000 of these votes were valid - due to union members not ticking the box that required people to confirm their support for Labour - so the participation rate falls to an even less impressive 7%.
Well that's hardly surprising - given that trade union members are no different to anyone else in their voting habits.
The majority don't even support the Labour party - and many are blissfully unaware that they are actually paying a political levy - in their weekly or monthly union contributions.
When you first join a trade union - the political affiliation business is glossed over and not explained properly - with most people just signing up in double quick time.
For long standing members, opting out of the political fund is a deliberately difficult and time consuming process - so hardly anyone bothers.
The low turnout in such ballots raises a number of issues about trade union democracy, for example:
1.How can a tiny minority of 7% speak for 100% of the members?
2.Why do the trade unions waste their members money these ridiculous ballots - which must cost at least £2 million a throw?
3.Why not just restrict the ballot to individual members of the Labour party - because the rank and file are clearly voting with their feet?
Yet the 2011 Labour leadership contest to elect Ed Miliband went exactly the same way - with less than 10% of union members casting 100% of the votes.
Now only a fool would pretend that the trade unions' role inside the Labour party is representative or democratic - and that is what Ed Miliband's project to 'refound Labour' was supposed to be all about.
But as another Labour conference draws to a close - the unions are more influential inside Labour than they have been for a very long time - even under Gordon Brown.
And - since you ask - that's the reason why the unions threw their weight and their votes - behind Ed Miliband.
What's struck me is that just about every trade union delegate - that I've heard anyway - is trying to turn the last general election on its head.
By saying that no one speaks for the people - except the trade unions of course - and the Labour party sometimes - at least when it does the unions' bidding and agrees not to meddle in 'their' affairs.
But the truth is that Britain's union bosses (the Bubs) the trade unions don't even speak for a majority their members - on many issues - never mind the great British public.
Here's a post I wrote for the blog site back in June 2010 - at which point Labour's 3-way electoral college had not been used since 2007.
Trade Union Democracy
The last time Labour's 'electoral college' was wheeled out was in 2007 - for the ballot over the deputy leadership of the party - which Harriet Harman won.
How many people do you think voted in the trade union section of the ballot - which is worth one third of the total vote?
256,000 - is the answer - or only 8% of those entitled to vote, according to press reports.
But only 215,000 of these votes were valid - due to union members not ticking the box that required people to confirm their support for Labour - so the participation rate falls to an even less impressive 7%.
Well that's hardly surprising - given that trade union members are no different to anyone else in their voting habits.
The majority don't even support the Labour party - and many are blissfully unaware that they are actually paying a political levy - in their weekly or monthly union contributions.
When you first join a trade union - the political affiliation business is glossed over and not explained properly - with most people just signing up in double quick time.
For long standing members, opting out of the political fund is a deliberately difficult and time consuming process - so hardly anyone bothers.
The low turnout in such ballots raises a number of issues about trade union democracy, for example:
1.How can a tiny minority of 7% speak for 100% of the members?
2.Why do the trade unions waste their members money these ridiculous ballots - which must cost at least £2 million a throw?
3.Why not just restrict the ballot to individual members of the Labour party - because the rank and file are clearly voting with their feet?
Yet the 2011 Labour leadership contest to elect Ed Miliband went exactly the same way - with less than 10% of union members casting 100% of the votes.
Now only a fool would pretend that the trade unions' role inside the Labour party is representative or democratic - and that is what Ed Miliband's project to 'refound Labour' was supposed to be all about.
But as another Labour conference draws to a close - the unions are more influential inside Labour than they have been for a very long time - even under Gordon Brown.
And - since you ask - that's the reason why the unions threw their weight and their votes - behind Ed Miliband.
