John Leach wins RMT president
John Leach has won the election to be National President of the RMT for the next three years. AWL thought he was the best candidate in this election, and we are delighted to say that he romped home.
The members voted for a representative who would fight the employers rather than cosy up to them.
Here are the scores on the doors:
Jimmy Corbett 843
Trevor Jordan 933
Ray Knight 3651
John Leach 5649
Michele Rodgers 2035
Jimmy Corbett eliminated
Trevor Jordan 1092 (+90)
Ray Knight 3874 (+223)
John Leach 5781 (+132)
Michele Rodgers 2226 (+191)
Trevor Jordan eliminated
Ray Knight 4134 (+260)
John Leach 6028 (+247)
Michele Rodgers 2648 (+422)
Michele Rodgers eliminated
Ray Knight 5141 (+1007)
John Leach 6865 (+837)
Readers who followed an argument on another site during the election campaign might note that the election did in fact turn out to be between John Leach and Ray Knight, and that the majority of Michele's transfers went to Ray, the right-wing candidate.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Election of RMT President
Although I followed with interest the various contributions regarding the candidates in the election, I declined to make any comment. This was mainly because, given my position within the union, I did not think it appropriate to show bias for any individual candidate. As an individual member however, I gave my full suppport to Michelle Rodgers. I supported Michelle because she has been a comrade of mine for many years. It was never my intention to "go public" by voicing my support through forums such as this one. However, when I saw the insulting comments levelled at Michelle following your publishing of the election result, I felt I had to respond. What is apparent from your remarks is your complete lack of knowledge regarding Michelle's politics. To imply that she was a candidate who would "cosy up to the bosses" is an insult to a person who has spent her railway career fighting the boss class. You also imply that the fact that Michelle had the termerity to stand for President, was to assist a right wing candidate. I hesitate to dignify your stupid remarks with a response, but the reason Michelle stood for the position was because many people believed she was the best candidate for the job. Not to assist, or undermine, any other candidate. Michelle took the news of her defeat with a dignity you would do well to emulate. Given that she had to contend with opposition from the whole union apparatus, Michelle deserves better than what you are giving her. I am proud to be associated with Michelle and believe the campaign to get her elected in three years time should start now.
Paranoia?
I think you're being a bit over-sensitive ... to the extent that you are reading things that actually aren't there. The final paragraph of this report consists of two observations on the maths of the election result - simple, factual observations. They are not even really "comments", let alone insulting ones.
And the reference to "cosying up to the bosses" was not actually aimed at any of the opposition candidates. It was meant simply as it was written - that members voting for John Leach wanted a President who would fight the bosses not cosy up to them. It is a comment about John, not about the other candidates.
And where on earth is there any implication whatsoever that Michelle stood in order to assist the right wing candidate? In your imagination only, I think.
Methinks you protest too much.
John Leach wins RMT President
Paranoia -is that the charge?
It appears that John Mac's measured and accurate comments have met with the stock-in-trade gratuitous response associated with your contributor Janine.
She attempts to deny the import of comments which clearly imply that candidates for the RMT Presidency, other than John Leach (whom we are told "romped home"), would cosy up to employers rather than fight them. Michelle Rodgers, one of the candidates, is further singled out for special mention with the absurd inference that Michelle's candidacy would assist a right wing candidate.
I supported and voted for Michelle Rodgers as an able and worthy candidate and hoped that she would become our first woman President. This was not to be and I respect and accept the democracy within our organisation.
Triumphalism,innuendo and unfounded comment are an unseemly mix and I only write to let your members know that there are members in the RMT who understand this simple,factual observation.
j. milligan
President's election
John, implication like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it can neither be proved or disproved so in this case we are left with the words on the page. Janine has twice denied the implication you attach to her phrase, “The members voted for a representative who would fight the employers rather than cosy up to them.” These responses are written words plain for everybody to see and judge unlike the implications and innuendo floating around in the minds of you and John Mac.
Now let’s consider the second statement, “and that the majority of Michele's transfers went to Ray, the right-wing candidate.” Significantly, for me, this fact shows that nationally Michele did not clearly define herself as a candidate of the left. This is not a comment on Michele’s politics but on her campaign. If you follow the other thread which gives this offending statement context you will see why I think Janine mentions it. In a post there by “Tubeworker” it is pointed out that Michele’s politics as presented on election material and in discussion were vague. In fact although "Wezzywest" promises us in the same thread that Micheles politics will out on the presidential candidates address her address contained no mention of politics whatsoever. I think this omission and lack of clarity allowed Michelle to pick up votes from people who would not have voted for her if they had been presented with her political views. Again to avoid confusion, this is not about Michele’s politics but how she presented them to the electorate.
RMT PRESIDENT
I dont think JohnMac is being over-sensitive, in fact i agree with what he has to say. To imply that Michelle would cosy up to the bosses is a disgrace. Also your childish final quote appears again just to try and wind somebody up. I hope our new President is not as childish as his partner.
I'm finding this discussion quite odd
Wezzywest, I'll have to repeat what I wrote in my comment above. There is no implication that Michelle would cosy up to the bosses. There is a comment that John Leach wouldn't. Surely you can appreciate the difference?
After all, you say that Michelle wouldn't cosy up to the bosses (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), but does that mean that I can accuse you of suggesting that John Leach does? Of course not!
And my final comment isn't childish. It's a saying (I think it's a paraphrase of a quote in Hamlet) - one that suggests that over-reacting is not necessarily the best way of getting your point across.
I feel that I also have to point out that there were no comments on this website about Michelle Rodgers at all until you posted a comment on the earlier discussion. You quite reasonably put the case for Michelle and asked for justification as to why Workers' Liberty supported John Leach instead. Some people replied. You made critical comments about John (I think one phrase was "career trade unionist"). That's all fine. That's discussion.
There is no need for anyone to be outraged that another union member might hold a different view or support a different candidate. I'm sure that none of us would want to imply that it's OK for some people to criticise other union members but not OK for others.
I and other Workers' Liberty railworkers believed that John Leach was the best candidate in this election. In three years' time, Michelle Rodgers might be the best candidate.