And another thing…

“…Now, it seems, that some loathesome, anti-democratic criminal has tried to pervert the course of democracy….”

Good grief Tom!

That’s no way to refer to the leader of your party!!!!!

I’m afraid that there’s still a vocal minority in our party which acts as though it thinks that “ordinary party members” who’ve “never attended a branch or constituency party meeting” aren’t real members.

It reminds me of the earnest young lady at my university who declared that only “thinking” students should be allowed to vote in Student Union elections. It was clear that, for her, “thinking” = “thinking exactly as I do”.

Tom, have you seen Susan Press’s blog on the subject of postal votes?

http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com/2009/04/stories-in-media.html

Susan lost out in the PPC selection at Calder Valley in Yorkshire to Cherie Booth’s step-mum precisely over the fact she got more votes at the selection meeting but fewer postal votes, and is not a happy bunny.

see, this is what makes me HATE labour, and you personally

i grew up in shotts, not THAT far from cathcart (think my bro might be one of your constituents tho) and shotts is very much monkey with a red rosette country.

but if you actually got everyone from your party being properly involved, then there might just be one or two more candidates standing that are more like you, ie worth thinking about voting for. rather than the dismal bunch that labour in scotland have a habit of putting up all too often.

Honestly Tom, what country do you think we are living in? Russia? Fiji? Zimbabwe?

It’s all very well you condemning this, but how can you continue to support it by voting with the Government? How can you?

In this week of all weeks, somebody has gone and done a Watergate break in, of breathtaking ineptitude and stupidity.

You could not write this stuff as fiction and get away with it. I am starting to rethink my original theory that Glenrothes was a cock-up. It seems that the level of activity associated with Labour’s contempt of democracy is so low, so mendacious and so criminal that we should now demand another look at the Glenrothes fiasco.

You mention John Smith. I paid my respects to him last time I was on Iona. Apparently, the grave shows signs of the earth being disturbed by some kind of spinning motion.

Wrinkled weasel:

I think you’re right – the question hanging over the result of the Glenrothes by-election just won’t go away, much to the chagrin Labour.

BTW Did you see the youtube video of the rat in Downing Street wandering around in front of No10?

Perhaps its Damian McBride after Gordy has practiced his ‘dark arts’ on him. ;o)

Voldermort anyone?

Euphemism

(And that’s pathetically all I have to add, because I agree with the sentiments in your post, though I do hope more will be done to counteract postal fraud before the next GE. Whatever the result, Lab, Con or Lib-Dem (snigger) let’s please remain a democracy)

Duly corrected. Thanks.

Will Charlie Wheelan be exposed as the man behind a rather unsavoury smear campaign of the local candidate.

Just how deeply does Wheelans’ finger’s run with the current No.10 setup?

Do the members of UNITE know what there money is being spent on?

Labourlist, Smear Campaigns and Charlie Wheelans’s abhorrent spin?

There’s something very rotten indeed here and it dates back to pre 1997, just ask Brian Wilson exMP

Ahh this takes me back to student politics when ‘respecting democracy’ meant ‘win at any cost’ and it was convenient to live by my old Grandfather’s Irish motto of ‘vote early, vote often’…

Seriously. Does anyone in Labour actually remember you’re not students and are supposed to be a serious and credible political party presently in charge of running the UK? No? Smears, McPoisons, Mahons and this rubbish does suggest otherwise.

I mean, really, if you can’t even respect your OWN democracy and the freedoms inherent within it, then why should any of us believe that you Labour people respect ours? If you’ll rig one ballot box, why not another, eh?

For a while now I have been (tediously) suggesting to Tom that he packs in Labour and goes somewhere decent.

What has caused me to stop and think was this:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3547826/what-a-broken-ballot-box-tells-us-about-the-labour-partys-future.thtml

in which James Forsyth says:

The fact that even with Labour still in government this contest has become so fractious suggests that after a heavy defeat Labour’s internal discipline might come close to total collapse.

Is it?

Is it now?

How many good guys are there in Labour?

Are there enough, important and powerful individuals to make a clean sweep? Is Tom right to stay put and fight to save the integrity of the party he loves?

Or should he do an Alice, and leave?

I think of Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Tony Wright, Ruth Kelly and a few others who could become more than a diminishing rump of sanity. They are sidelined, but are they powerless? I don’t know. It looks to me as though power in Labour is currently vested in the few, not the many.

Is there a realistic prospect of a civil war that will clean out the rot?

I really want to know.

Nice to see the labour party hereditary principle is alive and kicking.

Happy days down Woolwich way…

Meanwhile, the Latest ICM poll:

Con 43 – Lab 26 – LD 21

Cons +1
Lab -5

Fair comment chap.

@Madasafish, the figures are now on politicalbetting.com.

Given that ICM is the only accurate pollster historically, these are truly dreadful figures for Labour.

I have no wish to gloat or wish for a massive Tory majority; a weak opposition is poor for proper parliamentary scrutiny, as has happened during Labour’s term, but Labour should be deeply worried by these figures.

Tom just what is happening to labour its time you MPs came off the fence and rocked the boat and SORT IT OUT.

You just cannot drift on like this and let the party with your current leader self destruct. Are you all frightened of him. You need to get together and dump the people that are causing all this.

Misunderstanding the point as always, Tom!

Not a soul objects to courting ordinary party members. What one objects to is straight-forward rule-breaking. The rules say that postal votes in internal selections are for those who can’t attend the hustings (not for those who choose not to) and that the arrangements for them are a matter for the local organisation and nominees should play no part in them. It says it quite clearly on the code of conduct for both candidates and procedures secretaries. I know; I’ve been both.

You may disagree with the system. You may wish for there to be an OMOV postal ballot – there’s a perfectly respectable case to be made for one. But those aren’t the rules; while we have the rules we do have, it is unfair if some candidates in a selection chooses to breach them. The defence that the other canditates could have broken the rules too is no defence.

I’ve no idea who broke into the ballot box and tore up the postal votes. Neither have you. I don’t know if it was someone who didn’t like the likely result or someone who wanted to destroy evidence of irregularities before a likely investigation. Neither do you.

So let’s stick with the facts rather than stoke up the sectarianism. Things have gone wrong with selections. I support OMOV for selections too, although I like the participatory model we have today, where it involves engagement at a hustings. However, if the majority opinion in the party is that we should have an OMOV postal ballot, fair enough, but that requires new rules (not least on independent scrutiny of ballots and caps on spending).

What astounds me is that (unless I’ve completely misunderstood) someone broke into the box and quite literally tore up the postal ballots that had been received.

Presumably, having had one set of results at the hustings, this person felt that by voiding all of the postal votes they could ensure the result would stand uncontested.

How monumentally stupid must this person be to think that tampering with a sealed ballot box and ripping up votes would ensure a specific outcome, rather than simply voiding the election?

“Allegations have been made (and I know who the alligators are — boom, boom!) that one of the candidates is using “underhand” means by (shock! horror!) approaching ordinary party members (as opposed to activists) and encouraging them to apply for a postal votes. ”

Given the depths that the Number 10 operation has sunk to, there are many people worried about the corrupt use of postal votes by Labour. Tom, I know you are a straight up guy; sadly, your bosses are clearly morally challenged to a very high degree.

Can we have UN election monitors?

There’s a simple solution to this Tom:

http://commonendeavour.org/2009/04/19/erith-thamesmead-the-solution/

Doing this will not only settle the problem – it will identify who had the most to gain by ripping up ballots as well.

I can only imagine the scene at the Electoral Commission offices;

EC Officer 1 – “We’re looking for someone with anti-democratic tendencies and a history of avoiding free and fair elections”.

EC Office 2 – “Come along Mister Brown. The jig is up”.