RugbyRebels

Apparently the race for the top job between McClusky and Coyne is much closer than many thought it would be. Which makes his suspension from his post rather interesting timing.

Naturally the reasons for his suspension are close hold whilst an investigation is underway, but it does make you wonder what could be so important to take such action during the election campaign? Smells a bit odd.

Another example of the elites rigging the system.

And so McClusky wins. No major surprise and another fine demonstration in democracy.

Another blairite plot seen off.

Zhivago wrote:Another blairite plot seen off.

Plot in the sense of open campaign for a democratic position?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Another blairite plot seen off.

Plot in the sense of open campaign for a democratic position?

Plot in the sense of an orchestrated attempt by a faction of the party to undermine the leader by chiselling away at his support by any means possible. Perhaps it's not even secret enough to be regarded as a plot in the strictest sense, but that's just semantics.

Sandydragon wrote:Apparently the race for the top job between McClusky and Coyne is much closer than many thought it would be. Which makes his suspension from his post rather interesting timing.

Naturally the reasons for his suspension are close hold whilst an investigation is underway, but it does make you wonder what could be so important to take such action during the election campaign? Smells a bit odd.

The suspension was only from his leadership role in the Midlands, and had no affect on the outcome, as it was after votes were in. It's quite likely that it was due to the Coyne campaign breaking data protection laws.

The suspension looks all wrong to me. Still no official reason supplied. May be entirely within the rules but something doesnt sit right.

And nor does a turnout of 12%.

No one interested in the wellbeing of trade unions and their proper democratic functioning can be remotely content with that.

fivepointer wrote:The suspension looks all wrong to me. Still no official reason supplied. May be entirely within the rules but something doesnt sit right.

And nor does a turnout of 12%.

No one interested in the wellbeing of trade unions and their proper democratic functioning can be remotely content with that.

Turnout for union elections is routinely that low.
The suspension took place after the voting deadline, so as not to influence the votes. Obviously disciplinary procedures should be followed, and the suspension is only from his regional secretary position.

Zhivago wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The suspension looks all wrong to me. Still no official reason supplied. May be entirely within the rules but something doesnt sit right.

And nor does a turnout of 12%.

No one interested in the wellbeing of trade unions and their proper democratic functioning can be remotely content with that.

Turnout for union elections is routinely that low.
The suspension took place after the voting deadline, so as not to influence the votes. Obviously disciplinary procedures should be followed, and the suspension is only from his regional secretary position.

Allow me to quickly summarise your position.
The leadership challenge was a plot.
The 12% turnout and the unexplained suspension of the challenger are normal, nothing to see here.

Sounds pretty much like how every despot-run banana republic on the planet operates.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The suspension looks all wrong to me. Still no official reason supplied. May be entirely within the rules but something doesnt sit right.

And nor does a turnout of 12%.

No one interested in the wellbeing of trade unions and their proper democratic functioning can be remotely content with that.

Turnout for union elections is routinely that low.
The suspension took place after the voting deadline, so as not to influence the votes. Obviously disciplinary procedures should be followed, and the suspension is only from his regional secretary position.

Allow me to quickly summarise your position.
The leadership challenge was a plot.
The 12% turnout and the unexplained suspension of the challenger are normal, nothing to see here.

Sounds pretty much like how every despot-run banana republic on the planet operates.

The challenge was orchestrated by Progress. I regard that as an anti-Corbyn manoeuvre/plot.

Turnout last time was 15%, time before also 15%... ok so 12% is a bit lower, but that doesn't really say anything other than that in general there was a lack of interest in the leadership election among unite members.

The suspension has no effect on the contest, so I don't see why people are making banana republic judgements. Let's just wait and see what the disciplinary proceedings are all about. If it's about the data protection breaches, then that would of course make sense. Unless you're suggesting that people up high should be beyond reach of disciplinary protocols?

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Turnout for union elections is routinely that low.
The suspension took place after the voting deadline, so as not to influence the votes. Obviously disciplinary procedures should be followed, and the suspension is only from his regional secretary position.

Allow me to quickly summarise your position.
The leadership challenge was a plot.
The 12% turnout and the unexplained suspension of the challenger are normal, nothing to see here.

Sounds pretty much like how every despot-run banana republic on the planet operates.

The challenge was orchestrated by Progress. I regard that as an anti-Corbyn manoeuvre/plot.

Turnout last time was 15%, time before also 15%... ok so 12% is a bit lower, but that doesn't really say anything other than that in general there was a lack of interest in the leadership election among unite members.

The suspension has no effect on the contest, so I don't see why people are making banana republic judgements. Let's just wait and see what the disciplinary proceedings are all about. If it's about the data protection breaches, then that would of course make sense. Unless you're suggesting that people up high should be beyond reach of disciplinary protocols?

The only suggestion I have seen that the suspension is due to Data Protection breaches is here, from you, and you seem to be staking a lot on it.
As far as I am concerned, the suspension is unexplained.
It all looks rather Mugabe-esque from a distance.

Also, I don't see how it matters who organised the leadership challenge, if it is valid and legal. The very act of trying to make it seem sinister by describing it as a "plot" is fundamentally undemocratic.

It might be worth recalling that McCluskey called for this contest. He didnt have to. The decision to force an election was entirely his.

And a 12% turnout is a disgrace. I'm also aware that many members didnt receive their ballots. For those, like me, who value trade unions and think they are a force for good, that should be grounds for concern.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Allow me to quickly summarise your position.
The leadership challenge was a plot.
The 12% turnout and the unexplained suspension of the challenger are normal, nothing to see here.

Sounds pretty much like how every despot-run banana republic on the planet operates.

The challenge was orchestrated by Progress. I regard that as an anti-Corbyn manoeuvre/plot.

Turnout last time was 15%, time before also 15%... ok so 12% is a bit lower, but that doesn't really say anything other than that in general there was a lack of interest in the leadership election among unite members.

The suspension has no effect on the contest, so I don't see why people are making banana republic judgements. Let's just wait and see what the disciplinary proceedings are all about. If it's about the data protection breaches, then that would of course make sense. Unless you're suggesting that people up high should be beyond reach of disciplinary protocols?

The only suggestion I have seen that the suspension is due to Data Protection breaches is here, from you, and you seem to be staking a lot on it.
As far as I am concerned, the suspension is unexplained.
It all looks rather Mugabe-esque from a distance.

Also, I don't see how it matters who organised the leadership challenge, if it is valid and legal. The very act of trying to make it seem sinister by describing it as a "plot" is fundamentally undemocratic.

That's because you're not digging deeper than the narrative of the corporate press, which of course is where this whole nonsense about banana republic and such comes from. The data protection breaches of the Coyne team, and the reasons behind his suspension are not being fully reported. The media is deceitful, not in the lies it tells, but in the information it leaves out in order to decieve. People need to stop being so foolish and thinking that they are informing themselves when they read the news, they are simply willingly, and defenselessly subjecting themselves to propaganda.

Propaganda is ubiquitous, and that's simply a fact of our modern world. The key thing if one actually wants to get a more accurate picture of what's going on in the world, is of course to treat everything like you would a historical source... what is the provenance, what are the agendas, what are the biases... sure it's a lot more mental effort than just picking up a newspaper and absorbing its contents, but it's necessary unfortunately. It should be regarded as one's civic duty to ensure they are well informed.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The challenge was orchestrated by Progress. I regard that as an anti-Corbyn manoeuvre/plot.

Turnout last time was 15%, time before also 15%... ok so 12% is a bit lower, but that doesn't really say anything other than that in general there was a lack of interest in the leadership election among unite members.

The suspension has no effect on the contest, so I don't see why people are making banana republic judgements. Let's just wait and see what the disciplinary proceedings are all about. If it's about the data protection breaches, then that would of course make sense. Unless you're suggesting that people up high should be beyond reach of disciplinary protocols?

The only suggestion I have seen that the suspension is due to Data Protection breaches is here, from you, and you seem to be staking a lot on it.
As far as I am concerned, the suspension is unexplained.
It all looks rather Mugabe-esque from a distance.

Also, I don't see how it matters who organised the leadership challenge, if it is valid and legal. The very act of trying to make it seem sinister by describing it as a "plot" is fundamentally undemocratic.

That's because you're not digging deeper than the narrative of the corporate press, which of course is where this whole nonsense about banana republic and such comes from. The data protection breaches of the Coyne team, and the reasons behind his suspension are not being fully reported. The media is deceitful, not in the lies it tells, but in the information it leaves out in order to decieve. People need to stop being so foolish and thinking that they are informing themselves when they read the news, they are simply willingly, and defenselessly subjecting themselves to propaganda.

Propaganda is ubiquitous, and that's simply a fact of our modern world. The key thing if one actually wants to get a more accurate picture of what's going on in the world, is of course to treat everything like you would a historical source... what is the provenance, what are the agendas, what are the biases... sure it's a lot more mental effort than just picking up a newspaper and absorbing its contents, but it's necessary unfortunately. It should be regarded as one's civic duty to ensure they are well informed.

Give us some links then. Despite searching, you remain the only source I have seen for these allegations.
I'm not repeating media elevations about it looking 3rd world, I'm telling you what it looks like to me from YOUR reporting of it.
I reiterate:
1. Demonisation of a legal and valid leadership challenge as some kind of plot
2. Unsubstantiated allegations against the challenger.
3. A tiny turnout, which is "normalised" by your narrative

What does Unite actually do? The only thing I can remember in recent years was paying off the old boss with a half a million pounds on his leaving (Derek Simpson?), which is exactly the sort of thing one would would expect in a group which believes in equality providing some are more equal than others.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: The only suggestion I have seen that the suspension is due to Data Protection breaches is here, from you, and you seem to be staking a lot on it.
As far as I am concerned, the suspension is unexplained.
It all looks rather Mugabe-esque from a distance.

Also, I don't see how it matters who organised the leadership challenge, if it is valid and legal. The very act of trying to make it seem sinister by describing it as a "plot" is fundamentally undemocratic.

That's because you're not digging deeper than the narrative of the corporate press, which of course is where this whole nonsense about banana republic and such comes from. The data protection breaches of the Coyne team, and the reasons behind his suspension are not being fully reported. The media is deceitful, not in the lies it tells, but in the information it leaves out in order to decieve. People need to stop being so foolish and thinking that they are informing themselves when they read the news, they are simply willingly, and defenselessly subjecting themselves to propaganda.

Propaganda is ubiquitous, and that's simply a fact of our modern world. The key thing if one actually wants to get a more accurate picture of what's going on in the world, is of course to treat everything like you would a historical source... what is the provenance, what are the agendas, what are the biases... sure it's a lot more mental effort than just picking up a newspaper and absorbing its contents, but it's necessary unfortunately. It should be regarded as one's civic duty to ensure they are well informed.

Give us some links then. Despite searching, you remain the only source I have seen for these allegations.
I'm not repeating media elevations about it looking 3rd world, I'm telling you what it looks like to me from YOUR reporting of it.
I reiterate:
1. Demonisation of a legal and valid leadership challenge as some kind of plot
2. Unsubstantiated allegations against the challenger.
3. A tiny turnout, which is "normalised" by your narrative

1. Demonisation? You're hilarious... I just call a spade a spade.
2. Unsubstantiated allegations? Nonsense... what took place is undisputed, the only thing disputed is whether it constitutes breach of data protection.
3. I don't see what your point about turnout is... and if you want to keep with the banana republic narrative it doesn't make sense... don't they normally have a turnout of about 99.9%?

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
That's because you're not digging deeper than the narrative of the corporate press, which of course is where this whole nonsense about banana republic and such comes from. The data protection breaches of the Coyne team, and the reasons behind his suspension are not being fully reported. The media is deceitful, not in the lies it tells, but in the information it leaves out in order to decieve. People need to stop being so foolish and thinking that they are informing themselves when they read the news, they are simply willingly, and defenselessly subjecting themselves to propaganda.

Propaganda is ubiquitous, and that's simply a fact of our modern world. The key thing if one actually wants to get a more accurate picture of what's going on in the world, is of course to treat everything like you would a historical source... what is the provenance, what are the agendas, what are the biases... sure it's a lot more mental effort than just picking up a newspaper and absorbing its contents, but it's necessary unfortunately. It should be regarded as one's civic duty to ensure they are well informed.

Give us some links then. Despite searching, you remain the only source I have seen for these allegations.
I'm not repeating media elevations about it looking 3rd world, I'm telling you what it looks like to me from YOUR reporting of it.
I reiterate:
1. Demonisation of a legal and valid leadership challenge as some kind of plot
2. Unsubstantiated allegations against the challenger.
3. A tiny turnout, which is "normalised" by your narrative

1. Demonisation? You're hilarious... I just call a spade a spade.
2. Unsubstantiated allegations? Nonsense... what took place is undisputed, the only thing disputed is whether it constitutes breach of data protection.
3. I don't see what your point about turnout is... and if you want to keep with the banana republic narrative it doesn't make sense... don't they normally have a turnout of about 99.9%?

1. No you didn't, you chose an emotive term to describe a normal course of events. Describing that as "plot" smacks of Stalinism. What that says to me is that you are afraid of normal democratic process.
2. Well, substantiate them them. we're all waiting with baited breath for something more substantial than your allegations. Tell us what took place that is undisputed. As far as I can tell Unite have refused to disclose this, and your obfuscation makes it all the more suspicious.
3. My point was that you tried to very hard to make a 12% turnout seem normal, even though it appears established that the challenger camp knew that they required a reasonable turnout while McCluskey knew that he would benefit from as low a turnout as possible. Magically, the turnout was a record low.

If they have suspended Coyne for remarks about McCluskey then from the outside it's a bit odd as they were both rather rude about the other, about the reasons they other was standing and who was behind their platform. If they're going to suspend one they might as well suspend both

Digby wrote:If they have suspended Coyne for remarks about McCluskey then from the outside it's a bit odd as they were both rather rude about the other, about the reasons they other was standing and who was behind their platform. If they're going to suspend one they might as well suspend both

Unite have refused to reveal the reasons for suspension. Zhivago has attempted to imply that the reasons were breaches of Data Protection legislation but can only obfuscate rather that supply any actual evidence of this.Lies don't come more barefaced than this.

What it breaks down to is that it seems that Unite are still busy manufacturing the evidence by which they hope to rid themselves of a pretender and in a manner punitive enough to discourage anyone else.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:If they have suspended Coyne for remarks about McCluskey then from the outside it's a bit odd as they were both rather rude about the other, about the reasons they other was standing and who was behind their platform. If they're going to suspend one they might as well suspend both

Unite have refused to reveal the reasons for suspension. Zhivago has attempted to imply that the reasons were breaches of Data Protection legislation but can only obfuscate rather that supply any actual evidence of this.Lies don't come more barefaced than this.

What it breaks down to is that it seems that Unite are still busy manufacturing the evidence by which they hope to rid themselves of a pretender and in a manner punitive enough to discourage anyone else.

What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:If they have suspended Coyne for remarks about McCluskey then from the outside it's a bit odd as they were both rather rude about the other, about the reasons they other was standing and who was behind their platform. If they're going to suspend one they might as well suspend both

Unite have refused to reveal the reasons for suspension. Zhivago has attempted to imply that the reasons were breaches of Data Protection legislation but can only obfuscate rather that supply any actual evidence of this.Lies don't come more barefaced than this.

What it breaks down to is that it seems that Unite are still busy manufacturing the evidence by which they hope to rid themselves of a pretender and in a manner punitive enough to discourage anyone else.

What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.

If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Unite have refused to reveal the reasons for suspension. Zhivago has attempted to imply that the reasons were breaches of Data Protection legislation but can only obfuscate rather that supply any actual evidence of this.Lies don't come more barefaced than this.

What it breaks down to is that it seems that Unite are still busy manufacturing the evidence by which they hope to rid themselves of a pretender and in a manner punitive enough to discourage anyone else.

What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.

If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.

Coyne does have history of course, it's not that long back he was disciplined for speaking at a Labour event, and one can see why McCluskey might feel a Union man speaking at a Labour party event would be worrisome, and indeed by McCluskey would think a Union official speaking to a group at any major political party would be beyond the pale

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.

If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.

Coyne does have history of course, it's not that long back he was disciplined for speaking at a Labour event, and one can see why McCluskey might feel a Union man speaking at a Labour party event would be worrisome, and indeed by McCluskey would think a Union official speaking to a group at any major political party would be beyond the pale

No different than any other organisation disciplining staff who breach communications policy.

Stones of granite wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Unite have refused to reveal the reasons for suspension. Zhivago has attempted to imply that the reasons were breaches of Data Protection legislation but can only obfuscate rather that supply any actual evidence of this.Lies don't come more barefaced than this.

What it breaks down to is that it seems that Unite are still busy manufacturing the evidence by which they hope to rid themselves of a pretender and in a manner punitive enough to discourage anyone else.

What happened is that the Coyne campaign misused labour members' data for his campaign. Obviously they didn't give their consent for their private data to be used for this. Probably contrary to the law on data protection - hence the suspension for bringing the union into disrepute. Not rocket science.

If it's not rocket science, then you can surely provide links to where these allegations are spelled out in detail. All we have so far are these, deniable, allegations from you.

You're really incapable of doing your own research? Pathetic.

Here - I googled Coyne data protection.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/04/0 ... nal-radio/