Union Democracy
Democracy is a very simple concept which has been with us ever since the time of the ancient Greeks - although many battles have been fought down the years to establish exactly who has the right to vote.
Trade union democracy is something else - a strange 'hotch potch' of rules that make no sense except for the fact they they give power and influence to a very small handful of union bosses - over potentially important decisions like who should be the next Labour leader.
In the same way that the Westminster Parliament needs to get rid of its undemocratic First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system - the Labour Party has a credibility problem over the role of the trade unions.
One Member One Vote (OMOV) is the only way to run an organisation which claims to operate on democratic principles - and anything short of OMOV is simply a way of saying that some people's votes are worth more than others.
Which means, of course, that important leadership and other selection contests are wide open to manipulation.
Life's Little Ironies (6 November 2012)
Life is full of little ironies, so I'm told.
Yet I had this confirmed to me at the weekend as I read the papers at the weekend - in particular the article from David Miliband and Dave Prentis in the Guardian - declaring their great support for the 'Living Wage'.
Because David Miliband is the Labour MP for South Shields of course - the former Foreign Secretary who won the support of a majority of individual Labour members (and Labour MPs) in the party's last leadership election - which took place in 2010.
While Dave Prentis is the general secretary of Unison - whose trade union votes (along with those of GMB and Unite) ensured the Labour leadership crown went not to David Miliband - but to his younger brother, Ed.
And the rest is history - except for the fact that people should understand history and how the Labour Party got itself into a position where the ordinary members voted for one person as their Leader - yet ended up with a rather different outcome.
All is explained in the following posts from the blog site archive in September 2010.
6% = 70% = 90% (26 September 2010)
The Labour party's electoral college makes about as much sense - as one of the Mad Hatter's tea parties.
But to be fair it has done what it was designed to do - which is to give union leaders undue influence over key party decisions - by galvanising a small handful of union activists to vote in a particular way or, as in this case, for a particular candidate.
Democracy it ain't - instead it's all about machine-like, Tammany Hall politics - also known as vested interests and raw power.
Consider for a moment the voting figures which decided who would be the next Labour leader - and potentially, at least, the country's next Prime Minister.
199,671 trade unions votes were cast in the trade union section of the electoral college - 80,266 for David Miliband and 119,405 for Ed Miliband.
Before the ballot took place the unions were boasting that around 3,500,000 trade unions members would be invited to vote - in a veritable orgy of union democracy.
Yet the turnout of around 6% means that ordinary union members voted with their feet - apart from a tiny number of union activists - who have no claim to represent the views of the wider membership.
The voting figures also confirm that Labour's electoral college is to democracy - what Alice in Wonderland is to quantum mechanics.
Because the Miliband of brothers received the votes of 122,806 individual Labour party members - 66,814 for David Miliband and 55,992 votes for Ed Miliband.
Before the ballot - Labour claimed 170,000 members would be entitled to vote - so the turnout of party members is respectable - at just over 70%.
MPs voted in even greater numbers, as you would expect, and cast 262 votes in total - David Miliband receiving 140 and his brother Ed receiving 122 - so the turnout amongst MPs was well over 90%.
Yet all three sections of the electoral college get the same weighted vote - i.e. 1/3rd, 1/3rd and 1/3rd.
So the end result is that some votes are much more equal than others.
In Labour's electoral college reality is turned on its head - much like Alice in Wonderland - with the incredible effect that somehow or other - 6% = 70% = 90%.
Whatever this is it's not democracy - more trade union members voted (199,671) than the entire Labour party membership (122,806) - which just about says it all.
Maybe these people were Tory, Lib Dem or SNP supporters - seeking to influence the outcome - who knows?
But what we do know is that the new Labour leader was not elected by his own party members - which is a sad day and a bad day - for anyone with a passing interest in democracy.
Unions Pick Labour Leader (25 September 2010)
Hot off the press comes the latest news from Manchester - the trade unions have effectively picked the new Labour leader, Ed Miliband.
Ed won the contest by 50.65% to 49.35% of the total votes cast in the electoral college - a close result as predicted.
Yet he won only by significantly out-polling his brother David in the trade union section - where most of the voters are not even Labour party members.
David Miliband received the most votes in the MPs section - and also amongst individual party members.
But his undoing came about because union bosses ran a concerted campaign against him - the big public sector unions - GMB, Unite and Unison - working in concert to deliver for their man.
So Labour's worst nightmare has indeed come true - see previous post dated 22 September 2010.
A close run contest is one thing - but the differential turn out in different sections of the electoral college - means that the trade unions have overturned the will of MPs and individual party members.
In effect, democracy has lost out - and will continue to do so until Labour's electoral college is replaced - by one member one vote.
