Left Unity/PCS Democrats win PCS NEC agaion

[cockneyrebel]

My problem with the IL/SC sectarians is that they have no chance whatsoever of achieving anything useful by standing in these elections against LU. The only thing they could hope to achieve would be to put more right wingers on the executive. As it happens, they are so disorganised, incompetent and unpopular that they can't even get enough votes to manage that, but if they did manage to take a few thousand more votes from LU, that's what would happen.

I have to say that UNISON isn't exactly a great example on this where the United Left and SP stood seperate candidates on almost identical platforms, which totally split the left vote and made sure Prentice won with ease.

Also didn't the SP support Serwotka when he first stood, but the canidadate to his right?

I think your posts about the IL are needlessly insulting.

 

[Groucho]

Well that's the difference, the ANL didn't do that over Murphy. They had a idiotic demo outside the office with that shite Rahul Patel/ANL demo telling staff she wasn't a human being and ignoring the local CPSA and SCPS branches and going over their heads demanding management sack her . However the CPSA DID use the tactics we'd probably both support in relation to Skeggs

Rahul Patel is not only a mate of mine but he is a fucking good union activist.

 

[Groucho]

I have to say that UNISON isn't exactly a great example on this where the United Left and SP stood seperate candidates on almost identical platforms, which totally split the left vote and made sure Prentice won with ease.

Also didn't the SP support Serwotka when he first stood, but the canidadate to his right?

I think your posts about the IL are needlessly insulting.

Well, I agree that the UNited Left and SP 'Broad Left' or whatever need to unite. That requires a pragmatic approach to LP lefts/McDonnelites that it seems the SP in UNISON can't stomach.
It does mean, of course, the kind of compromise that IL in PCS are firmly against.
Can't win the argument in LU then split and form a smaller group is a bit of an oddball tactic. Clearly it has not increased their ability to influence the union membership. The IL anyway include untra-lefts who are genuine but impatient and quite right-wing leftists who are ust demoralised. The only thing they agree on is hatred of the SP.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Rahul Patel is not only a mate of mine but he is a fucking good union activist.

He's spoke at our UNISON AGM. Was a good speaker. Have to say he is a sectarian at times though.

I think he's left UNISON now, has got a job as a college lecturer hasn't he?

 

[cockneyrebel]

It does mean, of course, the kind of compromise that IL in PCS are firmly against.

That's my point though, the SP won't compromise in UNISON on the LP question so we have two left candidates who are almost identical on what they're standing on other than on the LP question.

Also the votes for IL in the PCS look fairly respectable to me. 17% (if my maths are right!) is as good as the left candidates in UNISON, if not better. Would you or NI describe the UNISON left votes in the terms that you have described the IL results, I doubt it.

 

[Groucho]

That's my point though, the SP won't compromise in UNISON on the LP question so we have two left candidates who are almost identical on what they're standing on other than on the LP question.

Also the votes for IL in the PCS look fairly respectable to me. 17% (if my maths are right!) is as good as the left candidates in UNISON, if not better. Would you or NI describe the UNISON left votes in the terms that you have described the IL results, I doubt it.

The left votes in UNISON are fuckin dire. The fact is that most UNISON members would be up for a more strident approach from their union than they have got. Of course there is a significant anti-left witchhunnt in UNISON as well.
The two left groups have to come together and that is that.

 

[Fedayn]

Rahul Patel is not only a mate of mine but he is a fucking good union activist.

Well that's as maybe, however it's not a personal attack, but his behaviour that day was a disaster and did nothing to help the local branch. In fact it made some staff more sympathetic to Murphy thus it was counter-productive.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Anybody new elected? Any rising stars or is it same old?

Also, how do we increase turnout?

 

[Fedayn]

Anybody new elected? Any rising stars or is it same old?

Also, how do we increase turnout?

Well there's Hayley Brown the young female 4TheMembers, ie right-wing, NEC member. Dunno about 'rising star' though. Danny Williamson old LU stalwart is off the NEC, nice fella and a decent activist imho, sad loss. Even if he is a Freddie Boswell lookeylikey!!

Imho a return to workplace/point of production ballots is the only way of massively increasing the turnout.

As Groucho and Zeppo will no doubt agree what PFL will make of young Miss Brown might make a few toes curl.

 

[Groucho]

Well there's Hayley Brown the young female 4TheMembers, ie right-wing, NEC member. Dunno about 'rising star' though. Danny Williamson old LU stalwart is off the NEC, nice fella and a decent activist imho, sad loss. Even if he is a Freddie Boswell lookeylikey!!

Imho a return to workplace/point of production ballots is the only way of massively increasing the turnout.

As Groucho and Zeppo will no doubt agree what PFL will make of young Miss Brown might make a few toes curl.

Zeppo reads PFL I think. I never go there.

Adam Khalif is new on the NEC. Good sort. Works in London, lives in Thurrock like me. He is part of the CSC contingent along with Hector.

 

[Fedayn]

Zeppo reads PFL I think. I never go there.

Adam Khalif is new on the NEC. Good sort. Works in London, lives in Thurrock like me. He is part of the CSC contingent along with Hector.

PFL is, imho, required reading.... Certainly lightens the mood!!

Indeed he is, but, as i'm sure you'll agree he's a bit old to be a 'rising star'. Hector is a top fella indeed.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The left votes in UNISON are fuckin dire. The fact is that most UNISON members would be up for a more strident approach from their union than they have got. Of course there is a significant anti-left witchhunnt in UNISON as well.
The two left groups have to come together and that is that.

That's not how Socialist Worker described them! (but I agree with you).

However I don't think 17% is a terrible result. It's certainly far better than the Left List got with 0.96%!!!

As for UNISON, I doubt the two groups will be getting together anytime soon sadly.

 

[Groucho]

PFL is, imho, required reading.... Certainly lightens the mood!!

Indeed he is, but, as i'm sure you'll agree he's a bit old to be a 'rising star'. Hector is a top fella indeed.

yeh, he's even older than me.

Although PFL is more accurate than Weekly Worker, it is not as funny. I am a shy sort of guy and try not to be noticed, or at least I try to avoid the kind of being noticed that would get me mentioned in PFL. I have been mentioned three times but not significantly.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

PFL?

 

[Groucho]

PFL?

Never you mind

 

[Fedayn]

PFL?

PFLCPSA Popular Front for the Liberation of Civil and Public Service Association. A sort of gossip/wind-up sheet, now website aswell, within the civil service fore-runner union CPSA. It's published daily at PCS conference

http://www.pflcpsa.com/

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I have to say that UNISON isn't exactly a great example on this where the United Left and SP stood seperate candidates on almost identical platforms, which totally split the left vote and made sure Prentice won with ease.

You would have to talk about that to the people in UL who insist on standing a much weaker candidate against Roger Bannister, because they can't stomach voting for someone who is opposed to the Labour link. The Socialist Party has no problem with working with Labour lefts but we aren't going to abandon our opposition to the unions funding New Labour in order to appease what is a smallish layer of ageing people.

The problem with abstract calls for "unity" in these circumstances, or worse still calls for the Socialist Party to fall in behind the Labourites, is that the reality of the situation is ignored. The members consistently give a higher vote to a left GS candidate who opposes the Labour link than they do to a left candidate who supports it. If the rump Labour left in Unison were capable of putting the interests of the union members, the union left or the working class ahead of their loyalty to Brown's party, they would support Bannister. They aren't, but that's their problem rather than ours.

Unity is important, but not for it's own sake. You have unity for a reason. And in the Socialist Party's view, breaking Unison from its funding of New Labour and its leadership's automatic kowtowing to the electoral interests of that party are basic goals that the left need to have.

Also didn't the SP support Serwotka when he first stood, but the canidadate to his right?

This is something of a non sequitur. It's also a bit misleading.

The Socialist Party supported Serwotka in his first GS election, voted for him and worked to build his vote. However, they were indeed opposed to him standing earlier in the process, when it seemed likely that the incumbent ultra-right winger would be standing again and the SP feared that the anti-right vote would be split (you have to remember that the right in PCS were an order of magnitude worse than the right in any other major union). The nomination procedure surprised everyone however when the incumbent failed to get enough branch nominations. At that point the race was between a left candidate and a centrist, and the SP supported the leftist.

I think your posts about the IL are needlessly insulting.

Needlessly? Only because they didn't actually succeed in putting the most right wing union grouping in Britain back in charge of the PCS. If they weren't as incompetent, I'd say a lot worse about their approach.

The IL is, as Groucho says, a mixture of genuine ultra-lefts (ie well meaning fools) and cynical types who loathe the SP and the United Left but aren't actually all that left wing themselves. I have zero respect for that kind of lash up. If they had got a few thousand more votes, putting the right back in control, that respect would have gone into minus figures. Why precisely should I be pleasant about this kind of foolishness? The ironic thing is that the ultra-left elements could actually be of some use within Left Unity, further marginalising the centrist elements, but instead they prefer to run what amounts to a wrecking operation.

 

[Macullam]

I have to say that UNISON isn't exactly a great example on this where the United Left and SP stood seperate candidates on almost identical platforms, which totally split the left vote and made sure Prentice won with ease.

So you think Roger Banister stood on the same platform as labour party member Jon Rogers. I cant remember the figures but it was the decision by the SWP,Lp disunited left that split the vote. Previously the SWP had stood its onw candidate prior to them joining the broad left such as it was at that time. The SP left the UL in part due to the SWP openly supporting right wing candidates against SP members, This has occurred across a number of Unions including the NUT recently where Linda Taffe the sitting NEC member was blocked from gaining a nomination by the SWP manoevering.

 

[dennisr]

Previously the SWP had stood its onw candidate prior to them joining the broad left such as it was at that time. The SP left the UL in part due to the SWP openly supporting right wing candidates against SP members, This has occurred across a number of Unions including the NUT recently where Linda Taffe the sitting NEC member was blocked from gaining a nomination by the SWP manoevering.

Exactly and then they talk of the 'need for unity' on this thread - its stinks of hypocrisy

 

[glenquagmire]

You would have to talk about that to the people in UL who insist on standing a much weaker candidate against Roger Bannister, because they can't stomach voting for someone who is opposed to the Labour link. The Socialist Party has no problem with working with Labour lefts but we aren't going to abandon our opposition to the unions funding New Labour in order to appease what is a smallish layer of ageing people.

The problem with abstract calls for "unity" in these circumstances, or worse still calls for the Socialist Party to fall in behind the Labourites, is that the reality of the situation is ignored. The members consistently give a higher vote to a left GS candidate who opposes the Labour link than they do to a left candidate who supports it. If the rump Labour left in Unison were capable of putting the interests of the union members, the union left or the working class ahead of their loyalty to Brown's party, they would support Bannister. They aren't, but that's their problem rather than ours.

It's not just Roger Bannister. The idiotic decision by the SP to run against Dave Eggmore in London (a 'rump' Labour Left but supported by other elements in the UL) looks almost certain to let the right in. Exactly what you castigated the IL in PCS for doing. A wrecking operation, in fact. Nothing more.

Let's see if members "give a higher vote to a left GS candidate who opposes the Labour link than they do to a left candidate who supports it" in this situation, eh?

Unity is important, but not for it's own sake. You have unity for a reason. And in the Socialist Party's view, breaking Unison from its funding of New Labour and its leadership's automatic kowtowing to the electoral interests of that party are basic goals that the left need to have.

And that's why you're fucking irrelevant to almost everyone in the country.

 

[dennisr]

And that's why you're fucking irrelevant to almost everyone in the country.

So glen - your view is that 'relevant' parties should be supporting the funding of the very party that is screwing unison members by the unison leadership? They should be supporting those union leaders that - worse than rolling over - conciously work as new labour's stooges and policemen within the trade union ranks.

And here was me thinking that it was presisely because of the labour parties willingness to join with all the other main ('relevant'?) parties in attacking working conditions, the health service, schools, job security, pensions etc etc etc that was one of the major causes of the growth of the hard right vote? How irrelevant my views must be...

The irrelevent SP is in effect the left in the trade union movement - it has more elected representatives than the rest of the left put together. As you will see from the PCS elections thread - it has been re-elected again and again for its role in acting as trade union representatives should - in supporting and defending their members not stabbing them in the back

The example of the unison vote you mention in your post is a classic - engineered by organisations who then talk of 'unity' - 'unity' in what sense though? 'united' in bending over the furthest to be screwed the most?

 

[glenquagmire]

No, the rather petulant sentence from me was specifically in response to the suggestion that "breaking Unison from its funding of New Labour ... [is a] basic goal that the left need to have".

Instead of working in unity with people who don't see that as a pre-condition (the majority), the SP would rather ensure a rightwing candidate is elected than agree that there are other, more pressing questions for the membership, than the nature of the union's relationship with the Labour Party.

The irrelevent SP is in effect the left in the trade union movement - it has more elected representatives than the rest of the left put together.

Please list all the unions controlled by the SP other than the PCS.

I would probably vote for SP slate if I was in the PCS, but if I stood in an election in my union the SP would not back me. Why? Not for any reason of disagreement over policies, over tactics or militancy when dealing with employers or government ministers, but because I think that, at the moment, it is in the union members' interest to remain in the Labour Party trying to fight for socialist policies rather than reducing the union to complete political irrelevance by leaving. That is the definition of sectarian.

If you're referring to the Dave Eggmore, incumbent Labour Left in UNISON who has been a consistent champion of socialist policies and sticking up for members, as "bending over the furthest to be screwed" then you are purely a fucking idiot and I don't see any point in continuing this exchange. Ultra-leftism has never found a purer devotee. If I have misunderstood that point then apologies and please clarify.

 

[cockneyrebel]

You would have to talk about that to the people in UL who insist on standing a much weaker candidate against Roger Bannister, because they can't stomach voting for someone who is opposed to the Labour link. The Socialist Party has no problem with working with Labour lefts but we aren't going to abandon our opposition to the unions funding New Labour in order to appease what is a smallish layer of ageing people.

But this is the point. You say this, the SWP say you're being sectarian and probably both camps have points. Personally I wouldn't say the UL had a much weaker candidate and both candidates got an extremely bad result in the election. Worse than the IL in the PCS I think. And because that happened it meant Prentice (one of the most right wing union leaders who is witch hunting both sides of the left divide) was left laughing.

Actually other than the Labour Link issue both camps were standing on extremely similar manifestos.

The Socialist Party supported Serwotka in his first GS election, voted for him and worked to build his vote. However, they were indeed opposed to him standing earlier in the process, when it seemed likely that the incumbent ultra-right winger would be standing again and the SP feared that the anti-right vote would be split (you have to remember that the right in PCS were an order of magnitude worse than the right in any other major union). The nomination procedure surprised everyone however when the incumbent failed to get enough branch nominations. At that point the race was between a left candidate and a centrist, and the SP supported the leftist.

My point was that the SP, surprised or otherwise, called (or read) that sitation wrongly so you should keep it in mind that you could get things wrong again. I think the SP should have supported MS earlier in the process.

Needlessly? Only because they didn't actually succeed in putting the most right wing union grouping in Britain back in charge of the PCS. If they weren't as incompetent, I'd say a lot worse about their approach.

But it's not like the IL aren't doing things for genuine reasons and I have a lot of sympathy around stuff like their positions on the pensions dispute, where I think the SP got things very wrong. Now you might disagree with this, fair enough, but to start calling them well meaning fools etc doesn't get anyone, anywhere. Especially when you complain about people not being constructive enough in their criticisms of the SP.

If I started calling the SP in UNISON sectarian well meaning fools who let one of the most right wing leaderships off the hook I'm sure you wouldn't think that would be the best way to debate things.

Also you've got to ask why so many people did vote for the IL (they did get a fair whack of the vote), what they're saying must have some kind of resonance in the membership.

So you think Roger Banister stood on the same platform as labour party member Jon Rogers. I cant remember the figures but it was the decision by the SWP,Lp disunited left that split the vote. Previously the SWP had stood its onw candidate prior to them joining the broad left such as it was at that time. The SP left the UL in part due to the SWP openly supporting right wing candidates against SP members, This has occurred across a number of Unions including the NUT recently where Linda Taffe the sitting NEC member was blocked from gaining a nomination by the SWP manoevering.

I've heard the SP blaming the SWP and the SWP blaming the SP etc etc but to most UNISON members it just makes the left look like a joke. Both the United Left and the SPs Broad Left (is that what it's called?) are shells of organisations that do very little active work other than what the SWP and SP are doing themselves. And yeah I think JR and RB had very similar platforms, there was hardly any difference between them.

Also think the point about Dave Eggmore is a good one.

So glen - your view is that 'relevant' parties should be supporting the funding of the very party that is screwing unison members by the unison leadership? They should be supporting those union leaders that - worse than rolling over - conciously work as new labour's stooges and policemen within the trade union ranks.

I support democraticising the fund, not a straight break from Labour approach which can lead to apolitical results like in the FBU.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The irrelevent SP is in effect the left in the trade union movement

I think that's a slightly arrogant statement. Left activists up and down the country fight within all the different trade unions. And the fact is that in most unions the far left as an organised force has almost zero influence.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Instead of working in unity with people who don't see that as a pre-condition (the majority), the SP would rather ensure a rightwing candidate is elected than agree that there are other, more pressing questions for the membership, than the nature of the union's relationship with the Labour Party.

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. I can't see why the SP has to make this issue a line in the sand. Indeed in my branch I've put out the idea of forming a socialist caucus and the SP member there said he'd only support it if it took a stance of breaking from Labour. I was gob smacked and said to him can't you just agree to disagree with this, fight on this issue yourself and unite on all the other issues so we can get some kind of left caucus off the ground.

 

[glenquagmire]

In my (Labour stronghold) area, one of the contributing factors to the fact that we have a right-wing Labour council is the fact that the local UNISON branches are led by the SP and therefore refuse to engage with the local LP to push for socialist councillors and policies in the party which is in permanent control of the town hall.

 

[dennisr]

No, the rather petulant sentence from me was specifically in response to the suggestion that "breaking Unison from its funding of New Labour ... [is a] basic goal that the left need to have".

The comment is not a 'refusal to work' with the labour left - simply pointing out the opportunism of the SWP. if they are on the left - this should be a basic goal - they seem more interested in 'unity' based on dropping basic socialist positions. Weird after decades of refusing to work with what was a genuinely united unison left. That united left fell apart after the SWPs late arrival and somewhat forked tongue conversion to 'unity' of the left. Not a new story that one though

Please list all the unions controlled by the SP other than the PCS.

The SP does not even 'control' the PCS. It works in a genuinely united fashion with the rest of the left. But so what? - What has that got to do with the price of fish? - my point was that you said we were irrelevant - I am arguing less irrelevant than a 'labour left' that sells us down the river and less irrelevant than the rest of the 'hard left'. In fact, in a position where they are able to influence - and they do.

I

would probably vote for SP slate if I was in the PCS, but if I stood in an election in my union the SP would not back me. Why? Not for any reason of disagreement over policies, over tactics or militancy when dealing with employers or government ministers, but because I think that, at the moment, it is in the union members' interest to remain in the Labour Party trying to fight for socialist policies rather than reducing the union to complete political irrelevance by leaving. That is the definition of sectarian.

if it was true you would have a point - but its a misreading on your part

If you're referring to the Dave Eggmore, incumbent Labour Left in UNISON who has been a consistent champion of socialist policies and sticking up for members, as "bending over the furthest to be screwed" then you are purely a fucking idiot and I don't see any point in continuing this exchange. Ultra-leftism has never found a purer devotee. If I have misunderstood that point then apologies and please clarify.

Thank you for your apology. I don't know the detail of this election. I do know that a long-established united left (one that had managed to built a strong electoral base in the union) was destroyed - not by the SP but by those I mentioned above. Those who now talk of 'unity' - who, only recently, were carving out long-standing activists from the left slate in unison simply because they were members of the SP - also people with consistent and solid roles in disputes and politics on the excuse of some misguided 'unity' with labour activists. The SWP has used the lie of 'unity' to push other genuine lefts out, instead preferring to use a very dishonest and opportunistic version of 'unity' where principles are covered up, hidden and dropped. Prior to this they spend years standing against the otherwise united left. Its a bit like the role played by the SWP in the Socialist Alliances - years outside than joining then the organisation is destroyed within two years. Of course, the SAs were not anywhere near as important or influential as the then united left in unison.

The SP does not like the fact that they have to go back to standing on their own - they are stuck with it by the divisive machinations of others who are being genuinely 'sectarian' (putting their organisations sectional interests over the interests of union members as a whole).

 

[glenquagmire]

The SP does not even 'control' the PCS. It works in a genuinely united fashion with the rest of the left. But so what? - What has that got to do with the price of fish? - my point was that you said we were irrelevant - I am arguing less irrelevant than a 'labour left' that sells us down the river and less irrelevant than the rest of the 'hard left'. In fact, in a position where they are able to influence - and they do.

You said the SP is the left in the trade union movement. If you mean it takes a more left-wing position than other groups, you might be right (don't want to bother arguing that point) but if you mean numerically it is the dominant force on the left then you are plain wrong.

Thank you for your apology. I don't know the detail of this election. I do know that a long-established united left (one that had managed to built a strong electoral base in the union) was destroyed - not by the SP but by those I mentioned above. Those who now talk of 'unity' - who, only recently, were carving out long-standing activists from the left slate in unison simply because they were members of the SP - also people with consistent and solid roles in disputes and politics. The SWP has used the lie of 'unity' to push other genuine lefts out, instead preferring to use a very dishonest and opportunistic version of 'unity' where principles are covered up, hidden and dropped. Prior to this they spend years standing against the otherwise united left. Its a bit like the role played by the SWP in the Socialist Alliances - years outside than joining then the organisation is destroyed within two years. Of course, the SAs were not anywhere near as important or influential as the then united left in unison.

The SP does not like the fact that they have to go back to standing on their own - they are stuck with it by the divisive machinations of others who are being genuinely 'sectarian' (putting their organisations sectional interests over the interests of union members as a whole).

I have no truck with defending the SWP's strategies in UNISON or elsewhere. In this particular instance, in a straight fight between a Labour Left backed by the UL and a rightwinger, the SP decided to enter the fray with its own left candidate who will get a small number of votes and probably left the Blairite in. The SP had the option of not running a candidate - even though they are no longer in the UL - but decided to put party interests before the interests of members.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The comment is not a 'refusal to work' with the labour left - simply pointing out the opportunism of the SWP. if they are on the left - this should be a basic goal - they seem more interested in 'unity' based on dropping basic socialist positions.

I agree with some of the criticisms of the SWP, but I'm sure they also think they're doing the right thing and don't think "lets wreck the left of UNISON". That's why I think it's more useful to avoid the kind of tone that NI uses. It's not like we're talking about careerists making a buck for themselves like Prentice.

But actually the SP do refuse to work with the Labour Left in practice because you say you'll only have a joint candiate if they agree with the demand that UNISON breaks from Labour. Something they're hardly gonna agree to!! Also I'd question whether that one point is a basic socialist position. Indeed I'm against the SP position of a straight break.

As said the SP member in my member didn't want to set up a socialist caucus unless it agreed to the demand to break from Labour. I think this is wrong and if he sticks to that will mean we can't get a caucus off the ground that could unite on so many other issues that socialists can agree with.

 

[dennisr]

I think that's a slightly arrogant statement. Left activists up and down the country fight within all the different trade unions. And the fact is that in most unions the far left as an organised force has almost zero influence.

As usual cockney - you don't take up the original comment that it was in reply to but you jump in with the 'arrogant' crap which is a misreading (if i was being generous to you) of the sentiment of what was actually being said. I did not question the role of plenty of other lefts - but as an organised grouping - that can be pointed to as such - my comment stands and is still not arrogant

As you keep repeating this rubbish about the irrelevance 'far left' like a mantra on various boards - maybe you should consider a more practical question - "why do I bother?"

Your organisation may be irrelevant - don't project that onto everybody else

This thread is about the re-election of a PCS leadership that has already pushed much further than was conceived possible a few years ago. The SP have lpayed a key role in that turnaround