Lagging Behind
According to a recent opinion poll only 22% of the voting public expects the Labour leader - Ed Miliband - to become Prime Minister.
Which means that Ed is lagging well behind his own party in the popularity stakes since Labour regularly hits around 35% in the opinion polls.
Which must also mean - strange as it seems - that lots of Labour voters can't really imagine their man picking up the keys to No. 10 Downing Street either.
And that really is worrying, as Labour needs another leadership election - about as much as it needs another hole in its head at the moment.
Because it would lay bare the completely undemocratic role of the trade unions in these contests - and turn Labour into a laughing stock.
So while the reforms that Ed Miliband has announced to Labour's relations with the trade unions are long overdue - the promised 'opting in' changes will apparently be put to a special Labour Party conference in the spring of 2014.
But if Ed Miliband loses the vote at this special conference, he will have to resign as leader of the Labour Party - which is unthinkable of course - because it would force another leadership contest under the crazy electoral college system.
My money's on Ed to win at the special Labour conference - quite simply because if Ed had to resign as Leader, Labour would look completely mad - and the party would be plunged into a terrible and, probably, fatal crisis.
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.
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.
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.
