Defending the Indefensible
Here's an incredible editorial from the Sunday Mail, the sister newspaper of the Daily Record which I took to task recently for its coverage of events at Grangemouth - see post dated 1 November 2013: 'Over A Barrel'.
Now I don't know if the editor of the Sunday Mail has been reading the A4ES blog site, but what a difference a couple of weeks makes - if the following comment is anything to go by. "It has been awful to see that kind of rubbish laid bare in Falkirk and the donkeys leading Unite have no one to blame but themselves.
They blundered into town like drunken bulls trying to buy china before careering into a dispute at Grangemouth where there could only be one winner. And it wasn’t their members."
I think it would be churlish not to welcome the Sunday Mail's belated support - because this has nothing to do with attacking honest trade unionism where people behave with integrity.
No, this is fight about standards of behaviour, duplicity and political dishonesty - the evidence of which people can see with their own eyes.
So I tip my hat to the Sunday Mail - welcome on board.
Mail Opinion: Ed Miliband should be making amends for the Falkirk debacle instead of trying to defend the indefensible
THE Labour leader did not do himself any favours when he flew into Scotland last week and came out swinging over the Unite vote-rigging scandal.
Ed Miliband Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire
ED Miliband landed in Scotland on Thursday for a flying visit.
The Labour leader is fortunate his flight made it through when the sky was so full of his party’s chickens coming home to roost.
Unite’s blatant bid to hijack the selection of a candidate in Falkirk was damaging enough.
If Miliband is not very careful about what he does next, the suggestion that he is now involved in damage-limitation at best, a cover-up at worst, will inflict even more.
After he landed in Glasgow, Miliband came out swinging over Falkirk.
To be frank, he’d have been better staying in his corner with a towel over his head.
Miliband insisted his party’s inquiry into dirty tricks in the constituency was so full and thorough that it did not need to be reopened or the findings made public.
And, in any case, Miliband continued, it is perfectly acceptable for members to be signed up to the party without being told.
Really? So, let’s say, a guy in a pub is approached by, let’s say, the chairman of the local party and agrees to sign up himself, his wife, his children, their children, and their little dog too, that’s perfectly acceptable?
When their fees are allegedly paid in cash, against the rules, and, reportedly, only after the personal intervention of the party’s campaign chief, who later resigns? That’s still perfectly acceptable?
It isn’t, frankly, and if a Labour official can claim, “I’m not saying it’s the best Christmas gift in the world but, as a matter of fact, it’s within the rules,” then the rules are junk.
Of course, in some parts of Scotland, such as the west of Scotland, Labour have gone about their business like this for generations.
The unexpected arrival of a Christmas card from the leader of the day was often the only way many members found out they had been signed up.
It has been awful to see that kind of rubbish laid bare in Falkirk and the donkeys leading Unite have no one to blame but themselves.
They blundered into town like drunken bulls trying to buy china before careering into a dispute at Grangemouth where there could only be one winner. And it wasn’t their members.
They have, of course, got a point when they bluster about the ranks of the reactionary right-wing taking the chance to put the boot in. But did they really have to make it so easy?
This union’s cash-crammed envelopes, back-door deals and hubris have undoubtedly harmed Miliband’s chances of taking Labour back into power.
Maybe, as the Labour leader and Unite boss Len McCluskey must desperately hope, the Falkirk debacle will quietly fade away. It might but they might be whistling in the dark.
They need to stop defending the indefensible and start putting things right in Falkirk. In their union. And in their party.
ED Miliband landed in Scotland on Thursday for a flying visit.
The Labour leader is fortunate his flight made it through when the sky was so full of his party’s chickens coming home to roost.
Unite’s blatant bid to hijack the selection of a candidate in Falkirk was damaging enough.
If Miliband is not very careful about what he does next, the suggestion that he is now involved in damage-limitation at best, a cover-up at worst, will inflict even more.
After he landed in Glasgow, Miliband came out swinging over Falkirk.
To be frank, he’d have been better staying in his corner with a towel over his head.
Miliband insisted his party’s inquiry into dirty tricks in the constituency was so full and thorough that it did not need to be reopened or the findings made public.
And, in any case, Miliband continued, it is perfectly acceptable for members to be signed up to the party without being told.
Really? So, let’s say, a guy in a pub is approached by, let’s say, the chairman of the local party and agrees to sign up himself, his wife, his children, their children, and their little dog too, that’s perfectly acceptable?
When their fees are allegedly paid in cash, against the rules, and, reportedly, only after the personal intervention of the party’s campaign chief, who later resigns? That’s still perfectly acceptable?
It isn’t, frankly, and if a Labour official can claim, “I’m not saying it’s the best Christmas gift in the world but, as a matter of fact, it’s within the rules,” then the rules are junk.
Of course, in some parts of Scotland, such as the west of Scotland, Labour have gone about their business like this for generations.
The unexpected arrival of a Christmas card from the leader of the day was often the only way many members found out they had been signed up.
It has been awful to see that kind of rubbish laid bare in Falkirk and the donkeys leading Unite have no one to blame but themselves.
They blundered into town like drunken bulls trying to buy china before careering into a dispute at Grangemouth where there could only be one winner. And it wasn’t their members.
They have, of course, got a point when they bluster about the ranks of the reactionary right-wing taking the chance to put the boot in. But did they really have to make it so easy?
This union’s cash-crammed envelopes, back-door deals and hubris have undoubtedly harmed Miliband’s chances of taking Labour back into power.
Maybe, as the Labour leader and Unite boss Len McCluskey must desperately hope, the Falkirk debacle will quietly fade away. It might but they might be whistling in the dark.
They need to stop defending the indefensible and start putting things right in Falkirk. In their union. And in their party.
Over A Barrel (1 November 2013)
I had a good laugh at this 'leader comment' piece which appeared in the Daily Record recently - a newspaper which has enjoyed a long and often slavish tradition of supporting the Labour Party.
So the tone of the article comes as no surprise although the newspaper's horror at the use of 'sign or die' letters would be welcome elsewhere - for example in South Lanarkshire where the Labour-run Council has been employing exactly the same tactics of late.
In Grangemouth, the Daily Record seems to have been acting as something of a cheerleader for Unite and Labour politicians who were egging the union on - unwisely as things turned out, of course.
I heard the veteran Labour MP Jack Straw compare Unite's tactics to the Grand Old Duke of York on the TV the other day, a phrase I used to describe the union's behaviour only last week - so maybe Labour is not completely 'brain dead' after all.
But I ask myself why a Labour supporting newspaper is so keen on throwing its weight behind a Labour supporting trade union in an ill-judged fight with a private company - yet is prepared to turn a blind eye to other workers being 'held over a barrel' by a Labour-run council just down the road.
Record View: Grangemouth on road to crisis as bosses play a dangerous game
RECORD View discusses the ongoing dispute at Grangemouth refinery and why Scotland does not appreciate being held over a barrel.
So the tone of the article comes as no surprise although the newspaper's horror at the use of 'sign or die' letters would be welcome elsewhere - for example in South Lanarkshire where the Labour-run Council has been employing exactly the same tactics of late.
In Grangemouth, the Daily Record seems to have been acting as something of a cheerleader for Unite and Labour politicians who were egging the union on - unwisely as things turned out, of course.
I heard the veteran Labour MP Jack Straw compare Unite's tactics to the Grand Old Duke of York on the TV the other day, a phrase I used to describe the union's behaviour only last week - so maybe Labour is not completely 'brain dead' after all.
But I ask myself why a Labour supporting newspaper is so keen on throwing its weight behind a Labour supporting trade union in an ill-judged fight with a private company - yet is prepared to turn a blind eye to other workers being 'held over a barrel' by a Labour-run council just down the road.
Record View: Grangemouth on road to crisis as bosses play a dangerous game
RECORD View discusses the ongoing dispute at Grangemouth refinery and why Scotland does not appreciate being held over a barrel.
Oil boss Ratcliffe - ED Jones/AFP/Getty Images
OWNERS of the Grangemouth refinery have embarked on a dangerous game of brinkmanship.
They are treating the workforce, Scotland’s politicians and the North Sea oil industry as mere bargaining chips in a game of subsidy-stripping the plant’s assets.
Ineos stand accused of manufacturing a dispute with the trade union Unite to trigger a stand-off that could have far-reaching consequences for Scotland.
It is not melodramatic to say that what is happening at the industrial complex is heading to a crisis.
In 2008, there was a 48-hour strike at Grangemouth with the plant put on a hot standby so that it could be started up again quickly.
That lost £50 million a day and 70 North Sea platforms had to go offline.
Now, having walked out of talks that were heading towards settlement, Ineos have started a cold shutdown at Grangemouth.
The signal from the owners is that they are preparing to close down and lock out the workforce. They have sent a “sign or die” letter to workers telling them to accept closures, redundancies, reduced wages and pensions as part of a survival plan.
They want, quite plainly, to end trade union negotiation at Grangemouth.
At stake are not just 2000-plus jobs but also the huge contribution the plant makes to the Scottish economy and the North Sea oil and gas fields. The loss of Grangemouth would be a severe strategic blow to Scotland.
Behind the dispute and the self-destructive shutdown is a crude attempt by Ineos to strong-arm the Scottish and UK governments into massive bailouts for what they claim is a loss-making business at the plant.
Expert analysis of the figures for unions contradict assertions of multi-million-pound losses at Grangemouth each month.
Admirably, politicians in Westminster and Holyrood yesterday showed signs of putting party differences aside to resolve the dispute.
The company must think they are awfully clever getting everyone to line up to their plans and hand over the cash to keep them in Scotland with a diminished workforce.
There is nothing smart about a crude industrial blackmail, for that is what the company’s behaviour amounts to.
Smart leaders persuade people to go where they don’t want to, smart managements keep their employees on board during change, smart companies do not try to strong-arm democratic politicians.
If they are not more circumspect in their industrial and political relationships, Ineos will reap what they sow at Grangemouth and find themselves in a quagmire of their own making.
No one in Scotland appreciates being held over a barrel.
OWNERS of the Grangemouth refinery have embarked on a dangerous game of brinkmanship.
They are treating the workforce, Scotland’s politicians and the North Sea oil industry as mere bargaining chips in a game of subsidy-stripping the plant’s assets.
Ineos stand accused of manufacturing a dispute with the trade union Unite to trigger a stand-off that could have far-reaching consequences for Scotland.
It is not melodramatic to say that what is happening at the industrial complex is heading to a crisis.
In 2008, there was a 48-hour strike at Grangemouth with the plant put on a hot standby so that it could be started up again quickly.
That lost £50 million a day and 70 North Sea platforms had to go offline.
Now, having walked out of talks that were heading towards settlement, Ineos have started a cold shutdown at Grangemouth.
The signal from the owners is that they are preparing to close down and lock out the workforce. They have sent a “sign or die” letter to workers telling them to accept closures, redundancies, reduced wages and pensions as part of a survival plan.
They want, quite plainly, to end trade union negotiation at Grangemouth.
At stake are not just 2000-plus jobs but also the huge contribution the plant makes to the Scottish economy and the North Sea oil and gas fields. The loss of Grangemouth would be a severe strategic blow to Scotland.
Behind the dispute and the self-destructive shutdown is a crude attempt by Ineos to strong-arm the Scottish and UK governments into massive bailouts for what they claim is a loss-making business at the plant.
Expert analysis of the figures for unions contradict assertions of multi-million-pound losses at Grangemouth each month.
Admirably, politicians in Westminster and Holyrood yesterday showed signs of putting party differences aside to resolve the dispute.
The company must think they are awfully clever getting everyone to line up to their plans and hand over the cash to keep them in Scotland with a diminished workforce.
There is nothing smart about a crude industrial blackmail, for that is what the company’s behaviour amounts to.
Smart leaders persuade people to go where they don’t want to, smart managements keep their employees on board during change, smart companies do not try to strong-arm democratic politicians.
If they are not more circumspect in their industrial and political relationships, Ineos will reap what they sow at Grangemouth and find themselves in a quagmire of their own making.
No one in Scotland appreciates being held over a barrel.
