On 27 June, 09:33, MIG wrote:
On 26 June, 23:32, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-





wrote:
MIG wrote:
The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same
process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership
elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were
ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing
down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3
of
the electoral college.
Actually, a single issue which was sufficient to swing the whole
selection process was that the the eligibility of a union to
participate was decided at the last minute to be based on their having
paid their affiliation fee by a deadline before the date when one
particular large union had paid it (although it had paid by the time
of the election).

I can't recall this one getting much attention but doubtless it did. Had the
large union made a binding committment or some such?

(all this purely from memory, may research and check)

In the same way that local branches of the union could affiliate to
Constituency Labour Parties, the London Region of the union could
affiliate to the London Region of the Labour Party. *This affiliation
was deemed to be the basis for participating in the electoral college
for selecting the London Mayor candidate.

The timing of payment of the affiliation fee, for cash flow purposes,
had tended to be a bit flexible with regard to deadlines, but this
hadn't been a problem before, and affiliation was continuous in
reality.

Suddenly there was an opportunity for the Labour hierarchy to
retrospectively give the deadline a whole new meaning and rule out the
union's participation, and for the union hierarchy to scapegoat its
internal political opponents, blaming their supposed incompetence for
not paying on time (but well before the selection process).

The union couldn't (and wouldn't anyway) take Labour to court for the
stitchup, but it was possible for six individual members, including a
former Labour General Secretary, to take them to court. *They lost
against the establishment, but there ought to have been a lot of
publicity at the time. *There probably wasn't.

Sorry to follow up, but here is a Grauniad report, which I should have
looked up instead of relying on memory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...londonmayor.uk

It's rather matter of fact, basically saying that Labour can make
whatever rules it likes, and talking about "paying subscription on
time".

It could be spun in a different way, such as "Labour scraped around
looking for any rule it could invent that would rule out a large chunk
of Ken support".