Last year the Labour leader Ed Miliband vowed to end his party’s “machine politics” – a grubby, discredited means of political advancement that is often most prevalent among left-wing elites in search of self advancement. Specifically, he pledged to curtail “a politics that was closed, a politics of the machine, a politics that is rightly hated.” And, for once it seems, I am in whole hearted agreement with the Labour leader.

Machine politics underlines all that is wrong about politics. It suggests naked personal ambition, sleazy back-room deals and low level political skullduggery. Therefore, it is refreshing that the Labour leader, having vowed to end such practices last summer, has achieved at least part of his aim by reforming the party’s process for electing a new leader.

Yet it would appear that his campaign to rid his party of machine politics has not reached every corner of the Labour movement. Indeed, we needn’t look far to see potent examples of it. Leeds Labour Students proudly boast on social media of a description by the BBC that they are ‘the Labour machine.’ Indeed, you needn’t scroll far through their twitter photos to see the hashtag #TheLabourMachineRollsOn cropping up. Clearly, they haven’t received Ed’s memo and remain defiant exponents of the political machine.

By this stage you might be wondering whether this even matters. After all, it’s hardly on a par with Crimea if Leeds Labour is causing embarrassment for their national party. Yet this week we saw the latest example of how Leeds Labour Students, by far the most influential political group on campus, not only boast about machine politics, but actively practice it. Their traditional list of Lead LUU endorsements was released detailing who the society would encourage its members to vote for. It is a move not dissimilar the way the trade unions used to buy influence in Labour leadership elections – and an unfortunate example of the kind of grubby dealings Ed Miliband has been trying so hard to combat.

Of course, such endorsements are nothing new and, in fairness, are not exclusive to Leeds Labour Students. However, judging by past results, they have quite an impact on the leadership race. Of the current six exec members, four were helped to victory by the lobbying of Leeds Labour, whilst the same is also true of the current LS Editor; a fact that raises serious concerns about the paper’s editorial independence. Whilst there is nothing wrong with having Labour supporters on the Exec, it surely cannot be fair that the failure to land the society’s endorsement more often than not results in a failed campaign. Furthermore, the controversy provoked by Exec member Mark Sewards in 2012, who used his position as a student leader to encourage students to vote Labour, shows that the ‘Labour machine’ often jumps at the chance to extend its influence into the Exec.

Last year questions were raised about the legitimacy of slate candidates after the entry into the race of the far-left ‘Red Slate’. In the end, there was little action taken, owing largely to the movement’s slim electoral prospects. If Leeds Labour won’t listen to me, won’t they at least listen to Ed Miliband and drop their dubious tactics?

James Hanson