Falkirk Labour party update - news you won't hear about on the pro-Labour BBC

As if the revelations in the Sunday Times about the Falkirk selection process were not enough, apparently

Investigators saw evidence of:
Forgery
Coercion
Trickery
Manipulation'

The Mail now reports:

'The whistleblower at the centre of Labour’s vote-rigging scandal last night sensationally rejected claims by Unite that she had withdrawn her story.

Lorraine Kane triggered a major probe into alleged electoral corruption when she revealed her family had been signed up to the Labour Party without their consent. It happened as Unite activists were waging a bitter battle to seize control of the safe Labour seat of Falkirk, where she lives.
This led to claims that she and others had been signed up as Labour members without their agreement in a bid by the union to manipulate the candidates’ selection. They allegedly hoped to flood the seat with members who they thought could be persuaded to back Unite’s choice to be the party’s prospective MP.

The investigation into Mrs Kane’s case was dropped suddenly in September, after Unite officials produced documents stating that she had withdrawn her claims.

But, speaking for the first time, Mrs Kane, 61, told the Mail: ‘I did not change the testimony. I did not change anything. I did not withdraw anything.’ She is now demanding to know whether the evidence she gave was tampered with by Unite.

I want all the emails to see what’s what,’ she said. ‘I haven’t seen them. This has been going on for months. I don’t know what the emails are saying. I want to see everything so I know what was said and if anything was changed from what I said.’

Her statement is entirely at odds with public claims made by the union. Only today Unite leader Len McCluskey said: ‘The evidence from the families has been withdrawn’, adding that Unite had ‘no case to answer.’

Mrs Kane’s bombshell claims appear to undermine the grounds on which Labour leader Ed Miliband closed his investigation into the vote-rigging allegations.'

Somehow I doubt that the BBC will cover this story in any depth as their interest in political stories is governed largely by their desire to advance the cause of certain political parties at the expense of others.

The Guardian / BBC / Labour nexus and angles of attack on the Conservatives

The Guardian  has a big lead story about Conservative party funding claiming that:

'the amount coming from the City has more than doubled in percentage terms, and now accounts for more than half the Tories' funding. It rose from 24.7% of donations in 2005 to 50.8% in 2010.'

The BBC  report this story under the banner headline 'More than half of Conservative donors 'from the City' and start the report thus:

'More than half of donations to the Conservative Party last year came from the City of London, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Firms and individuals donated £11.4m in 2010, the bureau said, bringing the total from the City since David Cameron became leader to more than £42m.'

'the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.', sounds impressive. However Guido explains why the journalism may be a little suspect:

'Yuba Bessaoud is one of the hacks behind the piece, Guido can vouch that he is a great guy for a night out, but he isn’t a financial journalist, he is a Labour Party loyalist, who by his own admission doesn’t know the difference between inflation and interest rates.'

and that the story is not true:

'According to the BIJ “The biggest individual City backer of the Tories is David Rowland, who has contributed £4.013m in just two years.” Anyone who has read even only the business pages of the Guardian will tell you that David Rowland is a property developer, not a City financier.

...

Subtract Rowland from the BIJ’s own dubious numbers and all of sudden the reality behind the headline “City Bankrolled Tory Election Campaign“ becomes less exciting, with their own self-selected top ten of remaining City donors giving the Tories a mere 9% of their funds. Even then it is the case that the individuals gave their money out of their own pockets'

Of course this Guardian/BBC story has legs as Twitterers such as David Schneider repeat the claim. I have pointed out the truth to David Schneider and await his climb-down.

In the meantime it is odd that the BBC are so concerned to report that the Conservative party is allegedly financed by bankers but never points out that the Trade Unionists being interviewed on its programmes are the largest funders of the Labour party; the UNITE union alone provides a larger proportion of the Labour party's funds than bankers do to the Conservative party.

A suggestion for David Cameron

At the first PMQs could he refer to Ed Miliband as the Leader of the Labour Party (sponsored and chosen by UNITE)?

Red Ed Miliband

The excellent David Vance at A Tangled Web has two posts yesterday pointing out that Ed Miliband is a left wing socialist, was elected by courtesy of the Trade unions (especially UNITE) and will be an electoral disaster. I agree with the first two points but as for the third I refer you to my post from yesterday.

Regardless of this, the BBC will get themselves behind Ed Miliband and try to ensure that his past as Gordon Brown's Treasury advisor in the 1990s, his Cabinet role in the the 2000s and his role in writing Labour's 2010 general election manifesto are all forgotten.

The BBC want a proper socialist Labour leader and in Ed Miliband they believe they have one so expect him to get a very easy ride, starting with his interview on the Andrew Marr show this morning at 9 o'clock.



Thanks to A Tangled Web for the graphic.

Really, is that what it is about?

The BBC have a helpful 'Q&A: What's the BA dispute about?' piece but I didn't get far into it before I found an error. The BBC claim:

'What is at the heart of the dispute?

In November, BA reduced the number of cabin crew on long haul flights from 15 to 14 and introduced a two-year pay freeze from 2010.'

Near the end of the piece you do find this line 'The airline has said flights from London City Airport will not be affected, and long-haul flights to and from Gatwick will also operate..'


So why is Gatwick not affected but Heathrow is? The BBC don't seem interested in pursuing this question, might that be because long haul flights from Gatwick already operate with one less crew-member, something that I was discussing with BA cabin crew before the cancelled Christmas flights. Now why are the BBC so shy of reporting this information?

Fact-checking UNITE

Flying With Fish fact-checks UNITE's statement and the claims made within, here are a few extracts:

'- Unite The Union release: Only nine crew turned up for work today out of 1,100.

- BA Strike Fact: Without even having to verify the number of British Airways cabin crew who reported for duty, Unite The Union is releasing conflicting information. In a public statement Unite is stating only 9 BA cabin crew members reported for work, however in a Text Message sent to all BA cabin crew members of Unite, the union stated this “only 26 crew reported for duty today.“ Was it 9 members or 26 members?

...

- BA Strike Fact: There is no evidence of any British Airways aircraft having broken an emergency exit door. Unite has refused to reply to enquiries citing this incident or the flight it occurred on. If indeed this occurred, I’d like Unite The Union to please state what flight this occurred on.

- Unite The Union release: Only nine Heathrow flights have gone with passengers.

- BA Strike Fact: Unite the Union claims only nine flight departed with passengers, but goes on to only list seven flights … including Amsterdam, Dubai, Entebee, Frankfurt, Miami, Paris, and Prague. Again, without having to do much investigation, in the process of researching the passenger experience during the BA Strike I have heard from 11 people who flew with British Airways yesterday … none of which flew on the seven flights above. I heard from passengers who flew with BA to Madrid, New York (x3 on 2 separate flights), Boston, Newark, Munich, Milan, San Francisco, Zurich and Glasgow. Given that Unite states that BA 207, a 747-400 operating between London Heathrow and Miami, flew with passengers, a minimum crew for that flight alone exceeds 9 crew…, which leads to again questioning Unite’s statement, that only 9 crew turned up for work. Further more, volunteer crews are not operating on 747 aircraft, further evidence that Unite is unable to keep its facts straight … even within its own press release.'

Do read the whole piece and compare it with the BBC's acceptance of UNITE's claims.

What about UNITE?

On Monday Harriet Harman spoke about 'Lobbying and Paid Advocacy' and this was part of what she said:

"From 1 October last year, the Government now publish, for the first time, on a quarterly basis, details of Ministers' meetings with outside interest groups. It is therefore fully transparent which organisations a Minister has met and what the meeting was about."

Are the meetings between Gordon Brown (a Minister) and Charlie Whelan (a representative of an outside interest group - UNITE) reported in this way? If not, why not?

"If any of you go into work tomorrow, your life won't be worth living,''

Allegedy the fraternal greetings from one (or more) union member(s) to others in the BA Cabin Crew strike. The Telegraph has more details, including these claims:

''There was this constant air of menace. At one stage a message was posted on the BA cabin crew internet forum that ''named and shamed'' the pilots who had volunteered to retrain so that they could work as cabin crew during a strike.

Several were warned to be careful of the food cabin crew served when they returned to work. A lot of them were totally freaked out by that. This is a highly unionised business.

If you don't do as the union says you are ostracised. And that isn't easy in a job that so depends on team work – on-board and off the plane.

"Being abroad, sometimes for several days if you are waiting to work on a return flight, you are cooped up with your colleagues. '

Those big brave union bullies -

'Inside Heathrow, she says, menace and unease are everywhere. When BA suggests a new service Unite generally instructs its members to ignore it.

"Ridiculous things,'' Suzy says. "We were asked to distribute hot towels on short haul. Unite said no. We got on board and everyone was in a state. "

Oh such shocking news - The Telegraph finally pick up on the Union Modernisation Fund and the Union Learning Fund

The Telegraph report the simply shocking news that (my emphasis):

'Unite, and the two unions that formed it, received the public money under two little-known funds to improve management and training for its members.

It has been the biggest beneficiary of one of the schemes, the Union Modernisation Fund, and received a sixth of all the money given out under the Union Learning Fund.
The figures have led to fresh claims that Britain’s biggest union has taken over the Labour Party after donating almost £30million over the past decade and employing a key adviser to Gordon Brown as its political director.

...

Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, said: “This really looks like money laundering - taxpayers' money is being funnelled into Unite then put straight back into Labour's coffers.

“It's a real racket, with taxpayers' money being round-tripped into Gordon Brown's re-election fund. We must have much greater transparency on what unions are receiving from the Labour Government in return for their backhanders.”

...

Since 1998, Unite, Amicus and the TGWU have received £17,396,498 under the Union Learning Fund, 17 per cent of the total money handed out by the Government.

...

details of where the money goes are not published while annual evaluation reports ceased several years ago.

An analysis commissioned by the Government but carried out by York Consulting in 2006 found there was no framework “against which the employment/economic impact can be measured” and that “unions do not collate monitoring data in a form which is consistent and which is accurate and reliable”.

It stated: “Although the evaluation has tried to generate ‘evidence’ from unions of the impact of the ULF particularly on their strategic development, it is difficult to substantiate the majority of claims from unions against other sources.

“Unions, are to a large extent, dependent upon external funding. ULF has been a major part of that funding. Therefore, statement demonstrating a positive impact, could typically be expected. In addition, employers can only offer a first hand estimate of the value and impact of ULF on their workforce. There has been no attempt currently to develop quantifiable impact analysis indicators.”

Unite has been given £382,469 under the Union Modernisation Fund since 2006. This is higher than the amount received by any other union including Unison (£345,832), which represents public sector workers; Usdaw (£291,075), the shop workers’ body; and the GMB (£257,476).

The Union Modernisation Fund is administered by Lord Mandelson’s Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. In total, it has given out more than £7m since it was set up in 2006.'

Is anyone shocked at this news?

Is it 'money laundering'?

The Telegraph reports on UNITE and its receipt of monies from 'two little-known funds to improve management and training for its members.

It has been the biggest beneficiary of one of the schemes, the Union Modernisation Fund, and received a sixth of all the money given out under the Union Learning Fund.'

...

'Francis Maude, the Shadow Cabinet Office Minister, said: “This really looks like money laundering - taxpayers' money is being funnelled into Unite then put straight back into Labour's coffers.

“It's a real racket, with taxpayers' money being round-tripped into Gordon Brown's re-election fund. We must have much greater transparency on what unions are receiving from the Labour Government in return for their backhanders.” '


The Conservatives are fighting back at Labour's slurs about Lord Ashcroft but so long as the BBC push the Lord Ashcroft story and ignore the UNITE funding story, the Conservatives might as well be pissing into the wind. Time to take the attack to the BBC, have the Conservative leadership got the balls?

David Cameron's tactics for PMQs 17 March 2010

So how will David Cameron tackle the great dissembler at PMQs today? He could go on Army underfunding again, maybe drawing attention to the subtle way that Gordon Brown has changed his stock answer from never refusing an army request to never refusing an "urgent operational requirements" request. Alternatively he could attack on the economy pointing out that despite Gordon Brown's claims that everyone agreed with him on how to manage the 'recovery' the EU Commission have declared that the UK is not on course to cut its deficit in line with EU rules by the 2015 deadline. Or David Cameron might attack over the UNITE unions ownership of Labour; half the cabinet!

So much choice but which line of attack will Gordon Brown find most irritating and hard to answer? Last week Gordon Brown showed a willingness to be less than straight about army funding and maybe that subject is getting so involved that the general public just can't follow it. The European Commission report looks a promising point but Gordon Brown will doubtless see that as a way of first attacking the Conservatives for being "wrong, wrong, wrong" again, even though it is his predictions that have been shown to be faulty time and time again (I may return to this subject later in the week) and second of calling the Tories 'anti-European'. So maybe the UNITE/Labour angle would be most profitable, after all Gordon Brown will no doubt bring up Lord Ashcroft again, so why not get in there first? The Sun's front page could give David Cameron some popular ammunition and its presence on the newsstands today does mean that David Cameron could could attack on a point that is fresh in the public consciousness.

Soon after 12:00 we will know...

Is the BA cabin staff strike really a Brown/Balls v Mandelson/Adonis dispute?

Events, dear boy, events has a fascinating analysis of the BA cabin staff strike that goes beyond the usual UNITE angle to decide that: "There is little doubt that Gordon Brown is using Unite to ensure Ed Balls becomes his successor". Do take a read, there's more detail there than in any of the BBC reporting.

The BA Strike, UNITE, Charlie Whelan, Gordon Brown and a theory

Is it not possible that the BA strike is being talked up so that Gordon Brown can 'solve' the strike problem just in time to ensure that the weekend news bulletins are not full of upset Easter holiday makers but instead can concentrate on the bravery of Gordon Brown taking on Unite even though they fund the Labour party? Maybe I am suspicious but I just cannot see Charlie Whelan and Gordon Brown not discussing this idea whilst they compare who (in the words of The Sun) is the real "foul mouthed Rottweiler".