Welcome back to grimmer upnorth. I lost the vote tonight but two-thirds of the people who turned out tonight voted for me. 35 votes to 22. A huge swathe of postal votes did not. I wish Stephenie Booth the best in her fight to retain Calder Valley.. But let's be clear. The current process in the Labour Party is wrong. I lost because I had very little time to defeat the machine. I won the populat vote with the people who were there to make a considered decision based on what I said and what I stood for. No doubt some will say I have sour grapes. I do not.I'm going to bed safe in the knowledge that the comrades in Hebden Bridge did their very best to see a socialist candidate standing up for them. We didn't win. But I think we won the argument. I'll get back to day job covering the General Election in Manchester 2010.And at least my house will be rather more pristine than it has for the last four months.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
What We Stand For
Followers
Political News
LRC - THE LABOUR LEFT
About Me
- susan press
- hebden bridge, west yorkshire, United Kingdom
- Vice-Chair LRC, Labour councillor Hebden Royd Town Council,Chair, Calderdale NUJ
Have your say
LEFT LINKS
- A Very Public Sociologist
- A World To Win
- Action Without Theory
- Anglonoelnatter
- Bickerstaffe Record
- Blairwatch
- Bloggers4Labour
- Bob Piper
- Cambridge Universities Labour Blog
- Campaign For Labour Party democracy
- Charlie Marks
- Charlie Pottins
- Chartist
- Citizen Andreas
- CND
- Convention Of The Left
- Councillor Tim
- Dave Osler
- Don Paskini
- Fair Deal Phil
- Grassroots Labour
- Greater Manchester Fabians
- Hands Off Venezuela
- Harry Barnes ( retired Campaign Group MP)
- Hebden Bridge Web
- http://cllrtim.blogspot.com
- Ian's Red Log
- Jim Jay
- Labour Against The War
- Labour Briefing
- Labour Home
- Labour Left Forum
- Labour of Love
- Labour Party
- Local news on Hebweb
- Mary Honeyball MEP
- Merseymike
- MIke Baldock
- Mike's Little Red Page
- Morning Star
- New Statesman
- Paul Smith blog
- Permament Revolution
- Peter Kenyon
- Public Sector Not Private Profit
- RED PEPPER
- Rupa Huq
- Salford Solidarity
- Save The Labour Party
- Shiraz Socialist
- Socialist Appeal
- Socialist Unity
- SPENNYPOST
- Splintered Sunrise
- Stroppyblog
- TRIBUNE
- UNKNOWN CONSCIENCE2
- Unrepentant Communist
- Victor Noir
- Your Friend In The North
ADS
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
30 comments:
Well done for standing up to be counted, several times, Susan. Take a break.
Postal votes, then. I note well Labour MP Tom Harris is dead against them.
Praise the Lord, you have been saved, Susan! I feared for you had you been forced to enter that den of iniquity in Westminster. They would have eaten you up and spat you out in bubbles.
Dear Susan
Could you let us have the full result including the breakdown between postal votes and selection meeting.
PV farming is only going to be tamed by evidence of breaches of the Rule which I posted on you blog earlier this week being documented.
Happy to discuss off line.
Peter
Dear Susan
you are right, but you still have friends that believe that you will make it one day, because you are a great socialist.
Your friend
John Wiseman
Bad luck Susan
Have a good rest over the Easter weekend.
JohnBM
The New Labour machine may well have won the selection, but they will have a much more difficult time convincing the electorate especially as the economy is still crashing and unemployment could be 3m by then. New Labour's neo liberalism has almost destroyed the movement's base. Personanly I hope S.Booth gets smashed in 2010!
Commiserations Susan
But, as in other various selections in the past couple of years where the right has won only narrowly, there are reasons to be encouraged and reassured by the decent instincts of normal Party members. Keep the faith.
I agree with you about postal votes. A similar thing happened in Nottingham South where Christine Shawcroft lost on pvs. She had most of the GC behind her but didn't have the time to butter up the old dears due to having to work.
Perhaps the full membership could vote and then the GC - ie the folks who will do most of the actual work, could make the final selection from the top two in the members' vote. This is not thought out, just a quick idea to kick about.
Anyway, comiserations on the result in Calder Valley. Onwards!
I'm also sorry to hear this. Take care. Our day will come!
Yes, bad luck Susan. We do need to find a way to deal with this though, and one that doesn't sound like sour grapes, or a denial of democracy (because, of course, the problem is the actually very undemocratic nature of the current system).
Of course, one approach would be to go for an out-and-out one member one vote approach, with CVs and statements sent out to all party members in the CLP (encourage them to go to hustings too, but separate out the processes). I can't see the party going for that, because it's more expensive. In which case, the rules of postal voting need to be seriously toughened up.
It's clear the rules on postal votes have to be tightened up. At the end of the day, the people who actually do the work at election time are the activists. And in Calder Valley I got the activists vote. So what do the activists do when they don't get the candidate of their choice? Become less active.....because they see little point in participating.
Postal votes should be granted to those who really need them. But to hold a hustings where the vote has been already been wrapped up beforehand by post ( as I knew before I even did my bit) is frankly an undemocratic farce.
GIVEN that at no stage before there are final hustings can candidates formally address an audience or speak at meetings. Yes, they can go round and have cups of tea with people but that's hardly the same thing, is it.
To give you the comparative figures , in Calder Valley 90 people voted by post. 57 were at the meeting.
In Keighley, 29 people voted by post and 80 were at the meeting. I think the latter figure is roughly where we should be at if people are to make an informed, fair decision. Both for the sake of candidates and the CLPs
I agree it is absurd to have more postal votes than voters in the meeting (nearly double!) It makes a mockery of the rules on it.
I am so sorry that you lost. Having been through three selections and having lost all three (albeit the last one by two votes), I think this time round it's not for me and have of late been reflecting that maybe it is a positive thing. One of my now friends (past opponents) has said the she now thinks the "politics didn't like her". Be clear that a lot of people want you for who you are and your perspective on life the world and everything and will be prepared to fight for your voice to be heard.
Aren't we missing something here? It's not that long since another Left Candidate competed in Calder Valley under the same voting system. The result. Janet Osthuysen won.
Dave Draycott
Hard luck Susan! No doubt after most of these New Labour wonks get tossed out on their ear at the next election, you'll be back for yet another selection battle.
Dave - I don't think the issue is that the voting system is biased against left-wing candidates, it just isn't fair and can be easily manipulated.
But if we're going to make it a left-right thing - perhaps people would have found it harder to look around for tabloid crap to get Susan deselected, so had to get their hit in early? To have nearly double the postal votes compared with the votes on the day suggests a concerted 'Stop Press' campaign to me. (Sorry if that's not how you see it Susan, but that's the impression from outside).
Dave, I'm getting increasingly bored with your hostile comments.
As you may not know, and perhaps you should, if I had not stood there would not have been another contender as the post was not advertised.
As you also know, Janet supported me wholeheartedly in extrenely difficult circumstances for which I'm very grateful.
I was seriously up against it and I'm glad to say I have had nothing but support from comtades who appreciated the left actually standing. And may I say that the vast majority of those who did vote for me were NOT particularly hard left.They just wanted a fair contest. Many. understandably, had had enough.And did not vote.The number of postal votes last time round was nearer 60 than 90. Do the sums.
And tell me that's fair.
No doubt you have much to offer the party as we move in to opposition, Susan. We must all stand together.
Nonetheless, I am surprised that you think party members who pay their dues should not be able to express their view in the most convenient manner possible.
I don't live in your constituency. I would not have attended the meeting - no doubt I would have had something better to do with my precious time - and I would not have voted for you. No doubt I would find time to give during the election.
But you would like party members to be disenfranchised? This seems rather unfair, and tends to dissuade people from paying their membership fees, if the only way they can have a say is to turn up to some meeting in the teeth of mildewed leftist disapproval?
I offer you my commiserations, but we must all think about the best for the Party, n'est ce-pas? Things are going to be quite tough, and I can't help but think that carping is uncomradely.
Sincerely,
etc.
I'm sorry you didn't win, but lets be honest - there's not too much chance of Labour holding the seat in any case. It does tend to go to the winner of the election and at the moment thats not going to be Labour. The Tories will win quite comfortably.
I'd abolish postal votes altogether for something like this - too open to abuse.
Wait until Cameron has failed to make any difference and perhaps we might even have a Labour party worth voting for....
Ben,
Your comments are unfair.
The people who made the effort to come to the Calder valley selection were not, as you rather nastily put it, "mildewed". They were Party members who really cared who was PPC, the ones who do the work, and mostly ones also who had previously voted for Janet . I went back to see people several times to persuade them to turn up - and I was really appreciative of those who did. We all have "precious time" but if you don't think , as a Labour Party mmeber, it's important to take an active role in the choosing of a candidate then it is you who are disenfranchising yourself.
As others have said, the postal votes system is open to all kinds of manipulation and PVs should tbe preserve of those who genuinely can't get there. Not those who can't be bothered.
The only alternative I can think of is a genuine OMOV ballot - with formal hustings of all candidates.
I think it is odd to cast this as an argument amount 'disenfranchising' anybody. We choose the PPC very rarely, if it matters to us enough to want to arrange a postal vote, it should matter enough to want to hear what all the candidates have to say and take the chance to challenge them. Of course, if there genuine reasons why you can't get to the selection then the local party should provide you with a postal vote. The only alternative is for everyone to vote by an OMOV postal vote. This half-way house is clearly open to abuse. It's for others to discuss whether it was abused in recent selections; the point is surely that outside influences can have a vast impact on the result of a selection. Imagine for a moment if it were the other way round but the national organisers of some 'Trot' group had gone around the CLP collecting 80 or 90 votes for their preferred candidate, trumping the votes of the 'moderates' present on the day? In democratic terms, what's the difference?
As a procedures secretary in a past selection the rules were clear regarding postal voting in particular:
(c)Postal votes shall only be granted to those who are unable to attend a hustings meeting - not to those who choose not to attend. Postal votes will be granted for those who cannot attend due to a medical condition, cannot make reasonable travel arrangements, are away on holiday, have work commitments or caring responsibilities or any other appropriate reason for non-attendance at the hustings as agreed by the NEC designate representative. They will not be made available to those choosing to undertake other engagements unless they are candidates for selection in this process.
and
(e) No shortlisted nominee or any person acting on behalf of a nominee should benefit from interference in the process of applications for, or the issue and return of, postal votes. Any evidence of such interference may lead to the disqualification of the nominee concerned.
So, I find it rather disconcerting - to say the list - that there was such a significant number of postal votes to sway the ultimate result in Hebdon Bridge's case.
Postal voting is also an issue in the already infamous current Erith and Thamesmead selection process. Have a look at yesterday's Tribune article by Chris McLaughlin at
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2009/04/10/erith-selection-row-grows-with-call-for-postal-votes-inquiry/
Given the party's guidelines outlined above, how likely is it that over 1/3 of the CLP membership are in the specific circumstances?
As someone who isn't a member of any political party but lives in Hebden Bridge and is reading your blog out of local interest, I must say I'm disappointed by it and on the strength of it would have been influenced against voting for you anyway.
I don't see anything in your posts of relevance to Calderdale or its economic and social problems. Its priority seems to be Labour Party in-fighting, which can only strengthen the growing perception of a party not fit to govern. You're a journalist, and you complain on one of your posts of not being able to afford proper PR. Does it not occur to you that your blog is probably your best platform for reaching the electorate and giving them reasons to vote for you? Apparently not.
Anyway, there is some consolation. Your blog may be a missed opportunity, but Steph Booth's is a complete disaster area - large slabs of it in French, much of the rest wittering on about computers, iPhones and software. Dreadful.
Graham, I'm sorry you don't like the blog. It was never intended to be an election platform or about Calderdale It does concentrate on Labour Party issues as that's why it was set up in the first place. ie for Party members and supporters. But of course i care about Calderdale
If you had been at the hustings on Thursday you would have heard me speak in depth about the impact of the current crisis, the fact that 21 per cent more people are claiming benefits now than they were some months ago, that Calderdale College and Tod and Calder High need money they have been promised from the Government, and of course the lack of affordable and social housing in the Valley.
I've spent six years on the Town Council and the last 12 months as Mayor. I think most people think I've done a reasonable job.
Had I been selected as PPC, I would of course had a new blog/website as this one would not have been appropriate.If I stand again as a local election candidate, I will sort that out
I have never complained about not being able to afford a PR company.I'm quite happy to write my own stuff.
I just don't think people should be elected on the basis of their ability to employ others to tell them what to say. Or what not to.That is sadly increasingly the case at all political levels.
Duncan, don't want to be a spoilsport here. I was just pointing out the elephant in the room. Also the whole 'left - right thing' was heavily implied. BtW I think there are two elephants in the room. Stephanie's posting above is the most useful in this whole discussion as it gives the rules. One valid reason for not being at the hustings is that you were on holiday. Could be a 'few' people might say they were on their 'hols 'the night before the Easter Holidays. Which I believe is when the hustings took place. Just don't see much point in setting off down the yellow brick road on this one.
Dave Draycott
The fact the hustings were held the night before Easter deterred many from the hustings -no doubt about it. And, yes, it could be used as a reason for not attending. But the rules also state that no-one should interfere in the postal votes process.....
Maybe, Dave - but isn't it odd that the same thing is happening in Erith and Thamesmead? Maybe if twenty - even thirty or forty - people had arranged postal votes because of the Easter holidays, it might be one thing. But 90? And for the vast majority of that 90 to vote contrary to the way the vast majority of people at the hustings voted? Seems a few too many coincidences to me.
S Press said; 'I went back to see people several times to persuade them to turn up'
I didn't see you, perhaps if you wish to win Calder Valley you should occasionally venture out of Hebden. Incidentally, I was visited by Steph Booth, who campaigned across Calder (including Hebden).
Should a constituency be created comprising solely of Hebden, S Press may win, but given your 0-2 record, I wouldn't bet on it.
[I wonder if this will pass the censorship?]
Another anonymous. I would have far more respect for people if they actually said who they were. Calder Branch supported my candidature - but I'm sure people will do as much as they can to keep the Tories out.
Post a Comment