Sunday, September 8, 2013

Red Ed Moribund takes on the unions

THE MADNESS THAT IS LABOUR continues. Remember the shady dealings in Falkirk, where the UNITE union was accused of fraudulent behaviour by signing up some of its members without their knowledge to the Falkirk constituency Labour party in order to rig the selection process in favour of Karie Murphy, a friend of the UNITE boss Len McCluskey?
            
             When the story broke, Ed Moribund, the 'leader' of the Labour Party, ordered an inquiry, and the police were called in to investigate. On the back of the Falkirk business Ed set in motion a package of reforms meant to keep the unions at arm's length, including union members opting in to paying the party levy. The unions went spare, and the GMB union only this week reduced the amount they gave to the party by over £1 million.
            
             Now it has been announced that no rules were broken after vital testimony was withdrawn by key witnesses. Karie Murphy, who was suspended by the party, has been reinstated; but she has chosen not to stand as the Falkirk candidate for the sake party unity.

SO WHERE DOES this leave the pitiful Moribund? Well, his spokesperson has promised that the reforms will continue. As a 63-year-old, and a Labour voter from 1968 to 2005[1], I knew[2] what the unions were capable of. The leadership of the biggest unions throughout much of the 1960s and the 1970s had always been in the hands of the Left[3] who were determined to impose a Marxist society on Britain; and many Left-wing Labour party activists had shared loyalties, along with some of the members. Many were clandestine members of the  Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB), the Soviet's official representative in the UK[4].        
             
            The Labour party leadership has always been at war with their union brethren. Like Ed Moribund, Labour Party leaders have always had to court the unions in order to stand any chance of becoming leaders of the party - and have always faced the charge of betrayal once in government.
            
            The block vote determines the party leader even to this day (as David Miliband found to his cost); so the unions were always courted by potential leaders using socialist rhetoric and promises of policies that matched their rhetoric - all such promises of course were broken in order to remain a credible party of government serving the national interest.
            
             There was one leader however who steered the party away from the unions more so than any other. I believe Tony Blair has effectively destroyed this nation and its indigenous peoples, as well as the one great institution that Labour created - the NHS. He opened the floodgates to immigration incurring a population explosion that has put ever greater demand on the NHS, schools, housing, and welfare.
            
            But one thing he did that was good for the Labour party was to temporarily release the stranglehold the unions had on the Party. It was through the abandonment of the dystopian Clause IV[5] of the party constitution, that helped Labour to become a party of government once more.
            
            As far as the party he once governed was concerned; he did much good through this one simple act than he ever he did for his country. But Ed Moribund has, unfortunately, by making himself available to the unions when seeking to betray his brother over the party leadership, has now restored the unions to the limelight again.
           



[1] My disillusionment with Blair ended in this year, although I had stayed loyal to the party leaders rather than the party since Michael Foot's dark and abysmal 1983 challenge.
[2] As many Labour voters of my age knew
[3] One such leader, Jack Jones of the TGWU, has since been accused of working for the Soviet Union
[4] Apparently the Soviet embassy bought up much of the circulation of the Morning Star to help keep it solvent.
[5]'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service'.

No comments: