Comments on: Sun’s false claim Ed M’s in the pocket of the unions

By: Tim H

Tim H — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 09:04:34 +0000

“Other payments disclosed to the Electoral Commission show that David’s campaign, which is said to have raised over £450,000 since May, has taken a variety of donations, including from unions.”

A tad disingenuous as accounts go, this. An excellent bit of coverage in the Morning Star recently shed some light on who Miliband’s wealthy backers actually are – not a pretty picture:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/94241

and if his recent statements are anything to go by, he’s going to be welcoming them with open arms:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/13/labour-leadership-donations-miliband-burnham-balls

By: Liz McShane

Liz McShane — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:22:58 +0000

Aren’t DM’s volunteers paid whereas Ed’s are ‘real’ volunteers…?

By: Alys

Alys — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:38:30 +0000

Like many of the commenters here, I too don’t think Ed is in the pocket of the unions. But if you’re going to run a piece entitled ‘Sun’s *false* claim…” you surely have some duty to show that the claim in actually false, rather than going head first into an untreated mention of how many volunteers Ed Miliband has.

While I’m commenting on this, can I add that I agree with Ben Lyons, you imply that Ed has more volunteers than David, which doesn’t seem to be the case.

By: their_vodka

their_vodka — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:49:03 +0000

Sun's false claim Ed M's in the pocket of the unions by @clairee_french http://bit.ly/bpDrer It's a bit rich considering who backs #condems!

By: Joanne

Joanne — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:52:42 +0000

Hi Claire- excellent article.However- have just seen a blog on the Independent from JR which is disparaging about this piece.
I can only assume it’s got something to do with criticizing the “media” persae.I feel disppointed by that reaction as rate the Indie very highly.
I personally think you are spot on with this article, and LFF is a superb site.

By: Matthew Cain

Matthew Cain — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:41:55 +0000

This post doesn’t appear to be an analysis or a rebuttal. If there’s clear evidence that the Sun is wrong, wouldn’t it be better to say so rather than just characterise it as a ‘slur’?

Unfortunately for Ed, by having the support of unions which threaten to pull funding if he doesn’t win somewhat suggests that the Sun is more right than wrong. But I accept that’s not Ed’s fault.

By: Alex Ross

Alex Ross — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:00:58 +0000

I thought this article would refute the claim, rather than just say it’s a slur and leave it at that.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s in the pocket of the union, but rather the article just seems to be trying to make out Ed has more volunteers and small donations than David, which isn’t what the headline is remotely about.

By: Michael Brannigan

Michael Brannigan — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 18:04:37 +0000

Daniel Mayhew http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/08/poverty-equality-britain-incomes-poor Unemployment in 1979 was 1.07 million and increased at a ridiculous rates after Thatcher was elected. There may be an argument that it’s difficult to compare apples and oranges, but one thing is for sure this 30 year experiment hasn’t worked. Unemployment counting those ‘economically inactive’ is nearer to 9 million now. Fatalities at work are lower as an amount now than in 70’s but not if one looks at the difference in working practices and environments. There is very little heavy industry and construction is less labour intensive yet we still have somewhere in the region of 1.3 people dying per day in the UK compared with 2 in the 1970’s. ( http://www.hse.gov.uk)As for less of a generation gap, this statement I don’t understand. In general parents are older than their parents were when they became so. There are teenage parents and although a larger percentage than in the Seventies, again this is apples and oranges. The population is higher now and many teenage pregnancies were not reported as they are now. What I do believe is: that in general society is less societal and more individualistic
compounded with a greater degree of ‘me’ and not ‘we’ thinking. People, in general, feel they now have the right not to be offended, yet are more offensive in their ignorant consumption for the sake of self-satisfaction. As for needing Old Labour back, I feel what we actually need is a true Labour, a party that represents the majority. New labour was not that party and the Tories would never want to be. (They have rich friends to pander to) Ed is not the red under the bed. He’s more the blue from around the loo. As he stated himself on Channel 4 news, his second choice for Labour leader(the first being himself) was his brother David. Our David is as right as Tony Bliar and that’s just a little bit more right than Clegg and almost parallel with Cameron.

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:56:19 +0000

What is the point of labour if it doesn’t in some way consider the opinion of trades union members? The whole notion that it’s something to criticise is idiotic.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:16:23 +0000

The Sun piece was certainly reductive and unedifying; the reason Unite has spent so much is that that is has a large membership, hence the high cost of calling, texting, and mailing – there’s nothing particularly sinister in that. That said, this piece doesn’t make an argument that Ed M won’t be strongly influenced by unions, which is the Sun’s (hysterically articulated) contention. Simply citing the article, describing it as a slur, and pointing out that unions have been the single largest source of Ed M’s donations does not refute the contention that unions will seek special access to Ed M should he become leader, as they certainly will; whether they’ll get it is a separate (and potentially very interesting) article.