Labour and Unite: how The Times misled its readers

Of the 14 Labour constituency parties placed under "special measures", just one, Falkirk West, was due to concerns over activity by Unite.

As the row over Unite's alleged manipulation of the Labour selection process in Falkirk intensifies (Jim Murphy, one of the shadow cabinet ministers criticised by Len McCluskey in my recent interview with him, declared earlier that the union had "well and truly over-stepped the mark"), today's Times front page reports that "Labour has seized control of 14 of its constituency parties as a result of attempts to manipulate selections and exert unfair influence." The tense and accompanying headline ("Labour forced to step in as union takes over key seats") suggest that, in addition to Falkirk, Ed Miliband has been forced to place other seats under "special measures" due to illegitimate union activity. 

But as a Labour source told me earlier, that's not the case at all. Twelve of the 14 seats were placed under special measures before 2005 and in just one instance (Falkirk West) was this due to concerns over Unite. As the Times finally concedes on p.4 (after eight paragraphs), "Falkirk is the only constituency on the list, which has never previously been made public, connected to union malpractice". 

Unite has made no secret of its (entirely reasonable) desire to see its members selected as Labour candidates. As McCluskey told me, "Because we’re having some success, suddenly these people are crying foul. Well I’m delighted to read it. I’m delighted when Blair and everyone else intervenes because it demonstrates that we are having an impact and an influence and we’ll continue to do so."

The allegations surrounding Falkirk certainly deserve to be taken seriously (as they have been) but it's important not to suggest that union campaigning is, by definition, illegitimate, a distinction the Times's report entirely failed to make. 

And here, courtesy of Labour List, are the 14 CLPS currently under special measures. 

  • Bethnal Green and Bow
  • Poplar and Limehouse
  • Brentford & Isleworth
  • Ealing Southall
  • Falkirk West
  • Feltham & Heston
  • Oldham East and Saddleworth
  • Oldham West and Royton
  • Birmingham Hall Green
  • Birmingham Hodge Hill
  • Birmingham Ladywood
  • Birmingham Perry Barr
  • Warley
  • Slough

 

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey addresses delegates at the TUC's annual congress. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Stephen Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising space makes him almost as bad as Trump

The physicist's inistence on mankind's expansion risks making him a handmaiden of inequality.

“Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves,” Stephen Hawking has warned. And he’s not just talking about surviving the UK's recent run of record breaking heat. If humanity doesn’t start sending people to Mars soon, then in a few hundred years he says we can all expect to be kaput; there just isn’t enough space for us all.

The theoretical physicist gave his address to the glittering Starmus Festival of science and arts in Norway. According to the BBC, he argued that climate change and the depletion of natural resources help make space travel essential. With this in mind, he would like to see a mission to Mars by 2025 and a new lunar base within 30 years.

He even took a swipe at Donald Trump: “I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, unlike Donald Trump, who may just have taken the most serious, and wrong, decision on climate change this world has seen.”

Yet there are striking similarities between Hawking's statement and the President's bombast. For one thing there was the context in which it was made - an address to a festival dripping with conspicuous consumption, where 18 carat gold OMEGA watches were dished out as prizes.

More importantly there's the inescapable reality that space colonisation is an inherently elitist affair: under Trump you may be able to pay your way out of earthly catastrophe, while for Elon Musk, brawn could be a deciding advantage, given he wants his early settlers on Mars to be able to dredge up buried ice.

Whichever way you divide it up, it is unlikely that everyone will be able to RightMove their way to a less crowded galaxy. Hell, most people can’t even make it to Starmus itself (€800  for a full price ticket), where the line-up of speakers is overwhelmingly white and male.

So while this obsession with space travel has a certain nobility, it also risks elevating earthly inequalities to an interplanetary scale.

And although Hawking is right to call out Trump on climate change, the concern that space travel diverts money from saving earth's ecosystems still stands. 

In a context where the American government is upping NASA’s budget for manned space flights at the same time as it cuts funds for critical work observing the changes on earth, it is imperative that the wider science community stands up against this worrying trend.

Hawking's enthusiasm for colonising the solar system risks playing into the hands of the those who share the President destructive views on the climate, at the expense of the planet underneath us.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496