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.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland