NIPSA General Council Elections 2007

by stroppy Thu Feb 01, 2007 21:09

Time for a change alright ,time to start telling the truth. Scanning through the leaflet I came across some rather grandiose claims from TFC about the key role they have played in the recent past. One in particular made me laugh and that was the story of their role in the 'fight 'against Workplace 2010. TFC might like to explain how they could play a key role when they all ran a mile from sitting on the Central Whitley Committee that deals with WP 2010. The role of putting it up to the Management and making a laughing stock of the SIB frontman for WP 2010 was left to the 'right wing reactionaries' of Reclaim Your Union RYU.
The Socialist Party (or the Senior Managers Club) pledged that the most important thing for them this year was to destroy Reclaim Your Union/ Right Wing/ Bureaucracy .They dont seem to have mentioned that in the leaflet they prepared for TFC which is just as well because if RYU were put out of business there would be nobody to take on WP 2010. The class warriors of TFC prefer the easy option of sitting on the Editorial Committee and their sterling efforts have resulted in the same old shite being pumped out . So much for concentrating the resources of the Union on the issues that matter to the members.
While the Socialist Party talk the talk about left unity they have always shafted their erstwhile companions in any voting pact. It looks like history could be about to repeat itself. Some Branch 8 representatives seem to believe they have entered into a voting pact with TFC, part of this 'deal' was an agreement to stop personal attacks on NIPSA members. The ink wasnt even dry when the personal attacks started. A TFC spy spotted some internal Branch 8 correspondence which pointed out that the Socialist Party dominate TFC (although not numerically) and correctly identified that 'their first allegience is to the Socialist Party ,civil servants and NIPSA members come a poor second'. Cue SP members in TFC going on the warpath. Branch 8 are now 'chameleons who will continue to be just that' then 'I think we should be concerniing ourselves with those of us who have been loyal to TFC'. Suddenly the voting pact is starting to look shaky. Outraged from Tunbridge Wells then starts on P from Branch 8 suggesting he will 'play his own pipe and lead them off on a tangent if with our help they get in ahead of some of our own loyal TFC colleagues -Thats the most unpalatable thought to be honest electing P or one of his tailenders (shades of Crystal Alliance methinks) ahead of one of us when everything proves it wont last anyway'. The pact shatters, 'we simply cannot align to these people'. Oh dear poor Branch 8,looks like the Socialist Party have struck again.

by patrique - nipsa Fri Feb 02, 2007 01:21

The CSA is closing down, probably with the loss of 1,800 jobs. The Government produced a White Paper to declare this.

I went into the NIPSA website and found an article, "NIPSA's response to the White Paper. It begins with, "The Union gives a guarded WELCOME to this..............."

My first thought was "If that is the response it's time for a change". I then thought "That sounds familiar". One thing led to another.

And if you were ever at conference you should know that whilst I do indeed play many instruments, the pipes are not one of them.

by stroppy Fri Feb 02, 2007 08:09

Welcome back Patrique its that time of the year again. I am not sure NIPSA gave a limited welcome to job cuts but as I am not in CSA I will bow to your superior knowledge on the issue. I was just a bit puzzled as to why you thought TFC would do anything for your Branch . You had better hope a Central Whitley negotiating committee is'nt set up to fight management plans otherwise you will have to rely on the right wing to stick the boot in. The Socialist Party will no doubt urge a campaign and then walk off to their next campaign when the jobs are gone and they have gained some new members.
I am also puzzled as to why NIPSA published comments that were not to the liking of the Branch I would have thought that your committee would be giving a steer. It wouldnt happen with Reclaim Your Union. Take for instance the DVLNI cuts ,the agenda is being driven by the Branch and NIPSA HQ will not be welcoming anything about these cuts. Local politicians have already been pressed to resist the cuts and ensure job security and will be pursued relentlessly and when the time for protests come they wont need the SP to organise them.
If you want a copy of the document in which TFC give you and your Branch a kicking despite the non-aggression pact then post your contact details and it will be in the post. You might have noticed that despite differences of opionion RYU have not descended into verbal abuse against Branch 8 - unlike your new comrades in arms. Beware the Ides of June the SP only want you as Conference fodder.
It is noticeable that the usual SP contributors are absent so far. I suppose it takes a while for instructions to get through from the Antipodes.

by Steve Fri Feb 02, 2007 08:32

Eh it's not that unearthly when you gotta be in work for 8.

You have a gripe with the SP. I'm afraid youre alone with that one.

by Cowardly tom - Also sacked by ITGWU Fri Feb 02, 2007 20:11

I don't know anything about your union except that your have workers in hospitals.

Please take some advice from a man who was too scared to do the right thing. I and the rest of the cowardly Toms hadn't the guts to stand up to dictators in our union and corruption prevailed.

We were not allowed to attend union meetings. Our union ITGWU deemed that one meeting a year was sufficent, this was the AGM.

All union members should insist they attend union meetings and they should VOTE in who they want to, to run the union, ON THEIR BEHALF.
Please don't make the same mistake as me and the Belfast Dockers.

STAND UP AND BE COUNTED

by Haddenfreude - NIPSA observer Fri Feb 02, 2007 21:09

Bonsoir Patrique

I am much taken by the TfC slogan One Union, One Struggle and the news of the pact with Branch 8 representing workers in the CSA. But didn't the controlling element of TfC ie. the Socialist Party, actually picket the CSA when it was first established to protest against its very existence?

by patrique - nipsa Fri Feb 02, 2007 22:22

I certainly hope so.

by Haddenfreude - NIPSA observer Fri Feb 02, 2007 23:52

Oh my Heavens! You "hope so"? Does that man that you wish yourself out of existence? Or is this a tacit admission that there are political parasites making mischief in the NIPSA general council elections?

by patrique - nipsa Sat Feb 03, 2007 00:42

You said they objected to its existence, and protested against that. Opening that is. They have certainly not welcomed the closing, and turned up to protest against the closing when we walked out.

If you stop being silly, allow for a 14 year time frame, you can see that there is no contradiction there. They are possibly not defending the child support system as it exists, but are trying to defend the jobs. Again no contradiction, because the system now exists. That is called being practical.

There was not one word from a politician about our closure. MLAs and MPs and union officials were screaming about Coleraine, but we were ignored, because the CSA is not a popular cause. It is not a vote winner, so I suspect all political parties are against the existence of the CSA. However they did not turn up to protest about the possible job losses. 1,800 jobs, if we were any other employees every politician in N.Ireland would be on the band wagon pretending to be outraged.

Some members of the socialist party turned up to support us. Nigel Dodds of the DUP met us. That's it so far. Look at the thread in this section "CSA TO CLOSE". 6 comments, 5 of them from me.

Do not talk to me about people supporting and fighting for the members.

by stroppy Sat Feb 03, 2007 01:07

Patrique I hope you get to bed earlier than last night as I am sure you will admit you really need your beauty sleep. I was interested in your comments about the CSA because it does seem to be the forgotten story.
The difference between CSA and DVLNI is publicity and possibly clear targets in terms of numbers of jobs and dates for the chop in the case of DVLNI. Has CSA got a closure date and have numbers of jobs to go been identified or is it just speculation at the minute?
You might try to get the Editorial Committee to run an article in NIPSA News telling the CSA story to drum up support instead of the load of shite that was in the last few editions.I think you will find that not everyone hates the CSA indeed my sources tell me that RYU were considering supporting a few of your Branch who spoke well at last years Conference until word of the unholy and possibly one sided alliance broke.

by patrique - nipsa Sat Feb 03, 2007 02:54

So an alliance consisting of six people justifies the loss of 1,800 jobs? Charming. Is this the RYU reacting to "what their members tell them" or just a whim. I am certain the constitution, 1.3 I think, says something about equality and respecting political opinion and all that.

by patrique - nipsa Sat Feb 03, 2007 02:58

Tell you what Dear Stroppy, before you do any more damage. You just go and vote as you please and I will do the same. We respect each other, that's enough.

by .......... Sat Feb 03, 2007 07:38

The CSA was designed to stigmatise single and absent parents, it shifted further financial hardship on to these parents and attacked the basic rights of children. It certainly was not designed to solve the problem of the poverty trap that many single parent families found them selves in. That was why the SP and many on the left opposed its introduction. The governments new ‘reforms’ appear to go further down that road

There is no contradiction in opposing the institution of the CSA in as much as it represents the governments rotten policy whilst supporting the rights of CSA workers when they are in struggle. In fact such a position applies to every government department in the North. As far as I am aware this is in line with NIPSA policy never mind the position of the SP

Support for workers in struggle should not be conditional on their views in a particular NIPSA election. CSA activists and SP members in NIPSA have given active support to each other during various disputes/campaigns without any alliance being in existence (SEELB protests, CSA protests). Similarly RYU members stood shoulder to shoulder with SP and CSA activists on picket lines, at demonstrations and on protest. Hopefully this fundamental level of trade union solidarity will continue to exist!

The real issue for debate in NIPSA and the wider trade union movement is; how do we effectively defeat the government or Assembly social/economic policy in the north and what alternative policy do we advocate?

by stroppy Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:41

..............has made some interesting points which confirm the need for NIPSA News to be used as a forum to explore the alternatives to the New Labour policy and opportunities to retain jobs locally. I for one would welcome the debate as an opportunity to engage in the type of fundamental TU solidarity outlined by .............
The difficulty with this as acknowledged by members of Branch 8 is that the Socialist Party cannot be part of any broad based campaign that they do not control and does not act according to the bible of comrade Hadden.
Patrique I did warn you about staying up too late and your rather testy remarks do not become you . I am not a member of RYU so I do not know their position on job cuts in the CSA but assume they are opposed to them. My understanding of their consideration given to voting for some Branch 8 members was based on the view that they were people who would be willing to listen to the debate and vote accordingly and not come to the table with outside political direction on every issue like Socialist Party members. Your suggestion that because Branch 8 members were not put on their slate means RYU support 1800 job cuts lacks credibility. That would be like me suggesting that because you did not put any RYU members on your slate you support job cuts in DVLNI. That I accept would be a misrepresentation of your views and convictions.
I have already taken the opportunity to use my vote, ignoring slates, you will no doubt also have exercised your democratic right to vote. The difference is that I am without encumbrance in electoral matters you on the other hand must have wondered as you marked the 'slate' - are they going to judas me .

by stroppy Sat Feb 03, 2007 13:33

This whole thing is absolutely pointless.
I mean carrying on a debate when I don't have the conviction in my own views to put my name on and be identified. Fair play to everyone who has taken the time to respond to me and has had the nerve to sign their own names.
Maybe one day I'll have something I feel is constructive and sensible enough to actually admit to saying.
This really does prove that indymedia just isn't the place to sort anything out.
I mean can you believe what you read on this?
I know for one I can't.

by Geoffrey O'Unison - Bolton Wanderers Sat Feb 03, 2007 16:07

There are some interesting comments on this doomed and desperate pact(it is hard to guess which faction is the most desperate,even to think of such a thing-probably the Uncivil Servants,by the shortest of short heads)on the 'nipsa,who runs the union' site.One commentator offers odds of 200-1 against any of Patreek's Poodles getting elected but says there are no takers(surprise,surprise-1000-1 would be a fairer price with "friends" like Hadden's clones).

by Ivan Denisovic - Siberia Working Mens Club Sat Feb 03, 2007 16:16

You'll get 1000-1 on any of the Poodles next week,maybe better in some of the DOE buildings and GNT.I was offered 1,500-1 on Old Sell-Out on Friday afternoon by a River House runner when word got around that he'd ratted on his own Branch nominees and been suckered by the Moonies.Needless to say I didn't take it but the guy claimed to have taken a fiver off some mug that morning.

by patrique - nipsa Sat Feb 03, 2007 18:10

Heartening to see not ONE dissenting voice from any of our 956 members. I suppose that comes from keeping them informed.

And thanks to those candidates/reps who were stabbed in the back, sold down the river, harshly jettisoned, and reacted by distributing the TFC/TFA leaflet. Much appreciated.

by Tom Cat - Speculation Servers Sat Feb 10, 2007 13:57

Beware cowboys.Some of the odds quoted above are way off the mark and unlikely to pay out.Spec.Servers is the only TrustMark endorsed syndicate with a consistent record of paying out on all General Council wagers.We currently offer(for 1 wk. only)the following bets:2-5 The Right,to retain overall majority;9-1 The Right to fill top ten places(evens minus C Gates and any one other);8-1 TFC to win overall majority;20-1 either or both female CSA candidates to get elected;45-1 any of the male CSA candidates;66-1 any male candidate to top the poll.Other prices on request.Our team of runners-Jimbo,Chimp,Bobo,Goat,Stomper, Tank Girl,Judy Teen,Chink,Babs,Benny, Choo-Choo,Diane, Cherie Bomb,Buffy and Squeak-will be visiting all public buildings not yet covered during the next week and will accept bets ONLY via currently accredited Branch agents.N.B.-The book will close at exactly 2.00pm on Friday 16 February 2007.Starting prices apply,we pay first past the post.

by .A. Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:30

If any of the bookies on this thread would like to put their money where their mouth is I would like to put a tenner on one of the CSA activists getting elected.

You never can tell how an election will pan out and this was not a particularly good one for the left but I would gladly risk £10.

Please post your contact details and the odds you are offering.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Feb 15, 2007 21:14

Just realised my election campaign was based on a false premise. I wanted the union to start a campaign actively opposing cuts in public expenditure and job losses. Then I remembered we passed Motion No 9 last year at conference, pledging to do just that. So doubtless in a few years those that are left will start the campaign, after we pass the motion a few more times, just like the Water Charges one.

Just as I expect a large push against Workplace 2010 in 2011.

I can see why many people would want "no change" in General Council, they are obviously doing a wonderful job.

by stroppy Thu Feb 15, 2007 23:11

Patrique it is too late to be electioneering the votes are cast and the results due out tomorrow. It shall be an interesting day. The trolling bookie unfortunately did'nt put up as even though I am not a betting person some of the odds were very attractive. Anyway all the best tomorrow and hopefully if you are elected you will not hide from Central Whitley negotiating committees like the Socialist Party.

by patrique - nipsa Fri Feb 16, 2007 18:05

Unfortunately these central whitley committees were reduced to a farce. The "left" were on the NICS pay one, the "Right" on workplace 2010. Having attended a high powered meeting the other day, in the discussion on 2010 it was casually said that the Design Centre is to be closed when the lease runs out in 2008. One of the management team was shocked as he works there and knew nothing. Unfortunately we do not seem to be doing much about it, except going to meetings.

And I fear that the "Right" are using 2010 to detract from lack of action on the waterfront, pun intended.

Let's have an ALL OUT day of action on MARCH 7th, including polling stations. Now there is a opportunity too good to miss.

by The Hooded Harbinger Of Hubris - Jackiey Budden Cumann(Bombay Branch) Sat Feb 17, 2007 13:59

Rumours abound about the delay in the General Council results,due to an unprecedented last minute glut of votes.Could this herald a repeat of the events of some years ago,when Time For Change got in on a landslide(and changed nothing,unless you count wasting more time and members money than their predessors)?Can the systemic electoral fraud allegedly perpetrated then,with two candidates in particular at the heart of it,be about to be repeated?Perhaps Mr. Thomas Cat Esquire can tell us why his Spec.Servers runners refused to take any bets from Thursday on,and why Billy 'Goat' McKechnie threw a punter out the door of the Morning Star when he tried to put a monkey on TFC(albeit at greatly reduced odds)?Could a steward's enquiry be in the offing,given disquiet in London and Belfast at the turn of events?Could evidence be produced this time that will leave at least two gentlemen in for a very nasty shock when they get their collars felt next week?Watch this space.........!

by patrique - nipsa Sat Feb 17, 2007 19:22

The above scurrilous accusations are wide of the mark,

As it is a NIPSA all members ballot, I worked out that at least 30,000 members would not vote. So I photocopied my ballot paper, 29,999 times, filled them in, and posted them all on Wednesday.

I suppose it was bound to look a bit suspicious? Maybe if I had photocopied 1,000 it would have tallied better with the usual poll, and would have been enough to elect all of my choices.

Still, I am a bit new to this ballot rigging lark.

by .A. Sun Feb 18, 2007 09:31

The reason for the delay in the result is nothing so exciting as ballot fraud or the over turn of the present majority.

Over the last few years NIPSA HQ has stopped the usual method of each individual candidate phoning in to get their result on the day the ballot closes, Friday instead they post the results on the internet on the following Monday

This saves HQ taking 60 calls from nervous candidates on a Friday afternoon, no one likes to be disturbed on a Friday afternoon

My own prediction (I am a TFC supporter) for the election is, little change, RYU increases their majority by a few seats

by patrique - nipsa Sun Feb 18, 2007 19:02

You mean it is too late to vote? When was the closing day?

by patrique - nipsa Mon Feb 19, 2007 16:27

Let's hope many of the contributers here do not have tipster columns in the papers, or on 0800.

The bookies have been wiped out on this one. TFC do well, one from Branch 8 elected, Carmel tops the poll, did the tipsters get anything right?

by sorry Mon Feb 19, 2007 16:36

the "one from Br 8" that was elected wasn't on the TFC slate so surely this could not be claimed as progress arising from the "alliance".

by patrique - nipsa Mon Feb 19, 2007 19:33

Dear Sorry, please do not try to suggest that I am as daft as you obviously are. Who ever heard of an honest politician? Wasn't on the alliance slate my rectum.

by stroppy Mon Feb 19, 2007 21:20

Hard luck Patrique just a bit short to celebrate with a cigar. If you had taken the advice of some of your Branch members and went into an alliance with RYU you would now be puffing away. You must have noticed that the golden circle of SP members gained considerably more votes than others in the 'alliance' indeed the circle left behind a few of their lesser lights to ensure election for themselves. Leaving aside the female bloc vote it seems some TFC members could'nt bring themselves to vote for Branch 8. I did query earlier when you were marking the 'slate' if you were worried about being judased. The evidence suggests some in TFC were happy to take your votes but not reciprocate.
Your old mate Pat Rabitte might well find himself in the same position because the Blueshirts,like the SP, always put themselves first.

by .A. Mon Feb 19, 2007 23:07

Stroppy

You make some interesting points. You say,

‘You must have noticed that the golden circle of SP members gained considerably more votes than others in the 'alliance'’

I would be interested to see the basis for this analysis.

Unfortunately I only have the list of successful candidates from last year and this year to compare but by my calculations, although all elected left candidates showed an improvement in votes, SP members in general did markedly less well in gaining votes than their non SP comrades. Of course in many cases the difference in votes is so small as to be negligible.

As I say I have only limited information and I wouldn’t doubt that you have the information directly to hand so I stand to be corrected, I would be interested in seeing your analysis!

I fully concur with your view that any behind the scenes double dealing with voting lists is awful!

Oh btw have you had an opportunity to analyses the results for the right wing? Any strange inexplicable change in votes there?

by stroppy Tue Feb 20, 2007 00:20

I only have this years figures so have not done any comparison with last years figures. The female bloc vote does distort matters however leaving that aside those in the SP who are in a leadership role have done significantly better than their lesser lights, most other TFC males and all Branch 8 candidates. This suggests a hierarchy of voting to ensure the position of senior SP figures which affected some of their junior members , some TFC candidates but most particularly Branch 8 candidates. It would also suggest that Branch 8 have been shafted again as the only member of the Branch elected did not appear on the TFC slate. The clear evidence that TFC did not transfer to Branch 8 is no doubt explained by the documented attacks on Branch 8 and one candidate in particular by TFC members.
The RYU figures are equally distorted by the female vote however the grouping of votes suggests that there was no similar hierarchy of voting within that group I am however happy to stand corrected if last years figures show significant differences in voting patterns.
Statistics are of course just that but the results do show that Branch 8 would have been better entering into an alliance with RYU.
Good night and good luck with the number crunching.

by patrique - nipsa Tue Feb 20, 2007 01:38

Political analysis of the results. Some 38,000 members DID NOT VOTE. That says a lot for those in power, and at least I now know why my aspiration to have a Branch development officer appointed is constantly twarted. The first rule of democracy is to ensure that you disillusion enough people to ensure they will not vote, get your handful of supporters to vote, and you can be in power forever. Remember it was Mrs Thatcher who devised this method of voting.

Looking at the branch 8 result, it would appear that 20% of the voters are from the CSA, and looking at the overall result, there must be a lot of women who vote.

Nice to see women using their vote to empower themselves, but voting for women simply because they are women is sexist is the extreme. My highly educated feminist daughter pointed this out to her mother (my wife) when she was proposing to do the same thing. Imagine if I was to propose voting for men, simply because they were men? Suffice to say if Myra Hindley was in NIPSA she would be on General Council.

Stroppy, unfortunately you seem to be privy to the lies which surround me in NIPSA. There was not a single member in Branch 8 who objected to the alliance. Not one. Branch 8 never do well in elections, the person elected was not on the slate because she is female, and was likely to get elected anyway. Political analysis before the event is useful. As for other three who were not on the slate, one other was female and omitted for reasons already stated, and of the other two, one was at a recent TFC meeting, and the other one was distributing the "alliance" literature. ALL Branch 8 candidates are committed to Branch 8 ideals, as anyone defaming me at General Council after June will quickly discover, as they will get an opportunity to meet our colleagues in the court service.

As for an alliance with RYU, please. I am politically astute enough to realise that it could possible deliver more votes, but we do have our ideals, which is why we will never be successful in elections. If I wanted to get rid of all ideals, I could have been the leader of the SDLP for the last 25 years. Whilst I admire, if not support, some RYU activists, there are others who have done next to nothing for years. Some 500 jobs went in education last year, the CSA is snookered, RPA will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, the water campaign is a shambles, and what are we doing?

And I would expect the Socialist party to vote for socialist party candidates, they will probably do the same thing on March 7th. If truth be told, last year 1,400 would have got a person elected. My own vote is well up, and I am deemed to be unelectable, and all of the Branch 8 candidates polled well. The "alliance" did well, 12 people elected, that includes our member not on the slate, so overall it was very good, given the doom forecast on this site. Branch 8 have no complaints, apart from the fact that the leadership does nothing to arouse 38,000 people from their slumbers.

Which brings me nicely to business. Elections are all well and good but action is what we need. On 7th March the election is on, an ideal day to be outside picketing polling stations, complete with banners outlining our grievances from Workplace 2010, RPA, water, and all the rest. Let's hope that EVERYONE from the new council is with us. The RYU election flyer proclaims to be against privatisation, and water charges. Well here is a chance to prove it. I have to advertise this action here, because there is no chance of the leadership organising something.

Congratulations to ALL who were elected. We are now hitting the streets, join us if you care.

by .A. Tue Feb 20, 2007 08:36

While taking on board the political points made by Patrique and recognising that the important issue in any election is the programme set out by the various candidates it remains necessary to clarify the issue of behind the scene back handed voting. If such a thing was happening then those responsible should be roundly condemned

Stroopy has made some serious accusations that the left ‘Alliance’ shafted each other in the election he/she states “You must have noticed that the golden circle of SP members gained considerably more votes than others in the 'alliance'” this is followed by a second statement “I only have this years figures so have not done any comparison with last years figures”. Clearly Stroppy very quickly proves that he/she had no basis for his/her initial accusations

To honestly make such an accusation you have to be able to back it up with facts. Fortunately voting figures tend to allow you to prove or disprove such things

By my calculations the increase in votes for elected lefts was as follows.

From highest to lowest increase, highest 255 (non SP), 232 (non SP), 189 (non SP), 179 (SP), 153 (non SP), 104 (SP), lowest 95 (SP). There where four other candidates elected this year who where not elected last year so I have no comparison figure

The quota required to be elected went up from 1565 last year to 1580 this year. Seven left candidates missed the quota by 68 votes (including a CSA activist)

Based on these figures not only did the ‘Alliance’ hold up but the SP has absolutely no charge to answer. I hope you would agree Stroopy?

On the right wing results, again information is limited because there are only full figures available for those who where elected this year and last. Over all the figures show a significant reduction in votes, 8 candidates show a drop in votes (largest drop - 245), 3 candidates show an increase in votes (largest increase +166) and two where elected this year but not last so there are no comparison figures. In my view some of the right candidates who saw the largest drop in votes would also be considered their strongest candidates

There is always a women’s vote factor in these elections but the evidence that it was particularly decisive in this one does not hold up rather all evidence points to the key factor was a left/right vote

As I have said before I do not have the full figures for last year so I stand to be corrected but I would again challenge Stroopy to present some facts to back up his/her accusations

by amanda allaway Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:42

Please Patrique - don't use the old excuse of the female bloc thwarting the efforts of some poor men from getting on council - do you forget that the union is nearly 70% female - just because the vote is low is there any reason to think that the gender of members that vote is any different to their representation across the whole union?. Its not that long ago NIPSA had reserve seats for women despite the gender balance of the union - the election result has 14 women on a council of 25 - still only 56% - so still under-representing women. You have also now stated that the BR 8 female elected wasn't on your slate because she was female and would get elected anyway - so much for campaigning on the baisis of your "ideals" - I'm sure she will be delighted that you suggest the reason for her election is down to her gender as you do appear to be suggesting that the women that have been elected have only been elected by a) other women and b) simply because they are women - now that is sexist - in the extreme and all the more shocking coming from you.

by patrique - nipsa Tue Feb 20, 2007 13:03

I am well used to people not reading other posts before attacking them, but it is all the more shocking that in this instance it is my old buddy Amanda.
I gave a political analysis of the vote. I did not decry that women were being elected instead of men, I did not suggest that ALL the women were elected simply on those grounds, and I welcomed women empowering themselves through a vote. What I did say was that voting for women simply because of their sex was sexist, just as voting for men simply because they were men would also be sexist. I spoke to twenty female voters, all from the PO side, and ALL of them stated that they would be voting for all of the women. As a minor "Gallup poll" that is pretty conclusive. The reference to the SDLP should have given you a clue. I was nearly elected on a sectarian vote to Antrim Council in 1993, standing as an anti-sectarian candidate. After many voters had voted SDLP, mine was the most "Catholic" name on the ballot sheet, so I received their second preference. Norn Ireland is renowned for this type of voting, based purely on perceived religious persuasion, and voting purely on ones sex is every bit as bad. Just as poor Machiavelli has always been associated with a system which he never advocated, he merely wrote "The Prince" to illustrate the failings of political systems, and to curry favour with The Medici clan, I am to be condemned as a sexist for illustrating the sexism within our union. I fully realised that my comments could be twisted by "Machiavellian" commentators, but my IDEALS demand that I fight against sexism when I come across it.
I am indepted to Amanda for producing statistics to prove my point.

As for women being elected "simply because they are women" in my experience in NIPSA it has happened on numerous occasions. I am aware of women who had to be told what General Council actually was after their election. Yet again I leave myself open to twisters of the truth, but facts are facts. As for not putting our females on the slate, on the grounds that they would probably be elected anyway, those are not my ideals, but the ideals followed by many women in the union. The female voters did not make a liar out of me. I was merely proving a point, which should have silenced any doubters as to my theory about the voting patterns.

Much more important however, how about a protest on March 7th?

by Court watcher Tue Feb 20, 2007 13:06

Amanda, i would watch out Patrique suggests that anyone that defames him will end up in court, so hold back on calling him sexist till its proven....

oh he already proved that with his comments about women being elected.

by M Tue Feb 20, 2007 14:23

I'll not pretend to be neutral here, I am on the left of the Union. So having read all the GC election literature I am heartened that ALL the candidates are basically fighting the same things. I have a rough idea the way TFC/TFA would see the way forward and would broadly agree with them. I am interested to see how RYU are going to live up to their election pledges without following a similar or even identical path. Unless of course some of the great minds in RYU have a "Super strategy" that no one else has thought of to fight the cuts/privatisation/water charges/workplace 2010/RPA etc ect. As in all things in life the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so let's see a general council actually doing something this year.
Finally my one piece of analysis of these threads, Stroppy, you're an idiot.

by patrique - nipsa Tue Feb 20, 2007 14:25

dear Courtwatcher, a simple lesson.

1: For CSGE I am voting men only, they might all be pillocks but they are men. Is that sexist?

2: On 7th March I am voting protestants only, they might be pillocks but they are protestants. Is that sectarian?

3: For the USA elections I am advocating voting for whites only, they may be pillocks, but they are white. Is that racist?

Now try and answer those questions, I will allow you 14 days so that you can seek help, and then come back and try this question.

1: In general council I am voting women only, they may be pillocks, but they are women. Is that sexist?

I will allow you another 14 days for that.

by Democracy? Tue Feb 20, 2007 16:17

Patrique

Rather than condemning women for voting for each other, isn't it just possible that the antics of Branch 8 reps at conference etc put people off placing that little cross against your names?

by patrique - nipsa Tue Feb 20, 2007 20:52

ANTICS? ANTICS? Like pointing out in 2003 that we still have performance related pay in the NICS, to be told we were being pedantic. In 2007 the union are still allegedly trying to rid us off this evil.

ANTICS? Like objecting to motions being passed without a vote, like pointing out that no-one in Standing Orders appears to have read a constitution in years.

ANTICS? Like having nine delegates who can all TALK and ThINK for themselves, at the same time.

ANTICS. LIKE BEING INTERESTED?

The biggest problem is clearly the education system. I knew things were bad, but not as bad as this.

Incidently my wife works for Social Services, and after some 30 years as a NIPSA member, wants to know if she can join another union. Can anyone help? And she is a dyed in the wool moderate, but accuses the leadership of "pretending" to be trade unionists.

And you can't accuse her of ANTICS?

P.S. May I apologise to one and all, but I have one major weakness and that is that I detest stupidity. I should be more forgiving I know, it is the fault of the system and not the individual, but sometimes it is difficult.

by stroppy Tue Feb 20, 2007 20:58

Oh dear M how hurtful you are with your amateur psychometrics.

A I am not clear what you are seeking to prove by comparing individuals votes between this year and last. The facts on this years vote show clearly a hierarchy with senior SP members on top, lesser SP and TFC in the middle and Branch 8 at the bottom. Somebody did'nt do too well out of the 'alliance' .

Patrique you are losing the run of yourself. You did vote for men in the General Council election the only problem is that they did not return the compliment. The offer to produce the document in which a marked reluctance by TFC to align with Branch 8 was expressed is still open. Unless of course old Niccolo was at his work and the anti-Branch 8 rant is a fake.

by patrique - nipsa Tue Feb 20, 2007 21:55

Stroppy, I am fully aware that many in the Socialist Party and TFC may not like me. I am fully aware that Branch 8 usually fail in elections, probably due to antics. I am aware that some eejit tried to stir up trouble with fake documents, and actually succeeded in being a big help.

I couldn't care if all nineteen TFC candidates had been elected, and we all got the famous Norweigan "nil votes".

Up to 8,000 jobs or more could be lost over the next couple of years. You have to try something. And I think it is working.

by .A. Tue Feb 20, 2007 23:15

Stroppy

You state

“A I am not clear what you are seeking to prove by comparing individuals votes between this year and last. The facts on this years vote show clearly a hierarchy with senior SP members on top, lesser SP and TFC in the middle and Branch 8 at the bottom. Somebody did'nt do too well out of the 'alliance' .”

Stroppy I apologise for my lack of clarity hopefully the following will help to make the point.

I have presented evidence based on a comparison between 2006 and 2007 votes that proves your original accusation that “SP members gained considerably more votes than other in the Alliance” is entirely false. You subsequently admitted that “I only have this years figures so have not done any comparison with last years figures” I think that this can be taken as an admission that there was absolutely no basis for the original accusation. In fact you admit that you did not even posses the information necessary to make a comparison.

So that you do not remain confused about this point let me be clear, your original accusation was a complete and utter falsehood!

Now you add another twist to see if you can get yourself back on track. Changing from an objective claim that the “SP members gained considerably more votes” to a purely subjective claim that “The facts on this years vote show clearly a hierarchy with senior SP members on top, lesser SP and TFC in the middle and Branch 8 at the bottom”

Presumably you are now hoping by this switch in argument to guide your audience away from your original claim. In attempting to do so you must have assumed that indymedia readers have short memories or that they only read the last few posts on a thread!

This latest accusation you make must either be based on a belief in miracles or a hugely exaggerated view of the power of the SP. You are claiming that in an open electoral contest with, 50 candidates standing, 43,000 ballot papers issued to members across Northern Ireland, members having the opportunity to vote for as many as 25 candidates or as few as one and an entirely independent scrutiniser based in London over seeing the election that the SP have been capable of arranging votes with such minute accuracy as to ensure that “this years vote show clearly a hierarchy with senior SP members on top, lesser SP and TFC in the middle and Branch 8 at the bottom” all this was supposedly achieved while the votes for non SP candidates in the left group rose faster than those of SP candidates, an incredibly fine balancing act indeed.
Wouldn’t you have thought that with this degree of SP control they may have gone a little further and organised an extra 100 votes thereby giving the left a majority!

Frankly this accusation is based on an irrational hatred fuelled fantasy. How on earth could the SP manage this unless they have secretly taken over the office of the Electoral Reform Services and their secret agents are sitting, pens poised, waiting to scrap the genuine ballot papers and fill in new ones? I really would be intrigued to know how you think this minor miracle was achieved.

One final point

The accusations you make about the SP and the Alliance are very serious. If they are proven then there must be a serious discussion about them but if they are false then I would suggest that it would be slightly more honourable to have the decency to admit your mistake and withdraw them rather than continue piling one bizarre accusation on top of another.

by amanda allaway Tue Feb 20, 2007 23:17

And I did read the previous posts. I was simply reponding to what you said - ie: that the woman that got elected from branch 8 was not on the slate because she would get elected anyway - then you said "Nice to see women using their vote to empower themselves, but voting for women simply because they are women is sexist is the extreme" - that was not dressed up as any sort of "political analysis" - you have not drawn any sort of line between where you feel it was ok for women to "empower themselves" but reached the point when it was sexism - are the top five women ok because they "merit" that vote - does that mean all the women below that are only there because they are women and "would get elected anyway" - or is it the top 10 women or the top 12 - can you tell me - because I don't know who voted for who - do you - really?.

And back to my statistics which you found so helpful - not my forte I have to admit but here's a simple analysis - if 70% of the membership is female and that is representative of those voting (any reason to suggest it isn't?) then around 4000 women voted - but the top vote was only 2300, next two around 2000 - if women just vote for women and no other reason, then why was the vote not 4000? Clealry there must have been another reason why those votes were cast in the way they were - what could it be - the woman who topped the poll was on one slate - I was on the other - the woman with the second highest vote was running as an "independent" - could that be a reason - surely then thats "politics" not "gender"?

by amanda allaway Tue Feb 20, 2007 23:22

:)

by patrique - nipsa Wed Feb 21, 2007 00:39

The lady who was number 2 is usually to be found on the "Uncivil Servant" slate.

by M Wed Feb 21, 2007 09:23

That is quite a grand way of describing my Stating the obvious. I note you didn't venture any ideas as to the main point of my comment. Because I really am looking forward to hearing RYU's strategy. After all the "leading role" they took in last years education cuts protest showed that they recognise what problems are facing this Union and can list them on an election sheet. Now for the slightly more difficult matter of actually doing something about them.

by patrique - nipsa Wed Feb 21, 2007 09:34

At the end of the day, with all due deference and the greatest respect, the bulk of General Council, female and male, have difficulty understanding the sentence "The CSA is to close". Political analysis may therefore be a step too far.

by Plain John Smith - Anti-Cliche League Sat Mar 10, 2007 13:03

What about during the day?