Left Unity/PCS Democrats win PCS NEC agaion

[dennisr]

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.

I raised this point in reply to your initial comment - it was raised in that context. Numerically it is the largest in terms of elected positions in unions. Not enough within itself but the obvious counter to your argument about 'irrelevance'

You could argue that the labour party is the largest - I would disagree. There are a few labour lefts and plenty of labour rights. They have no united position and plenty cannot be considered 'left'

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.

But that the nub of the problem. The result is being effectively silenced. The UL is not a united left but your view is we should simply shut up when cut out by what is a stitch up. Its not really an 'option' is it?- its a bit like the arguement 'new labour is better than the BNP - vote for them'

To expand on that point: Its the same arguements used against the SP in the past in the PCS - that we were 'splitters', that we should form unholy alliences = not on the basis of commonly agreed programme but electoral alliances without principle, becasue the 'other' side was even worse. Now, we carefully worked in a united front manner with many not on the 'hard left' in the past and still do (CR was overjoyed to be able to point out a mistaken view on our part about what was possible at a certain point. Missing the point that we were able to adjust and move on). BUT we did not do this on the basis of any opportunist electoral 'unity' but genuine common programmes agreed between the various individuals and parties involved). The result is a left leadership of that trade union

 

[cockneyrebel]

but if you mean numerically it is the dominant force on the left then you are plain wrong.

I agree with this. To be honest outside the PCS and NUT the far left as an organised force is extremely weak, and even in the NUT the broad leftism leaves a lot to be desired in my view.

But the fact is that it's relatively easy now to get high profile positions because most unions are now gutted of any real rank and file structure and turn outs at elections are so low. Indeed how else could you explain a membership voting for a revolutionary socialist leadership on one hand but that leadership on the other saying that the membership isn't confident enough to fight against a two tier pension deal? There are two reasons. Obviously the first is that the revolutionary socialists were elected on a left reformist platform, not a revolutionary one. But I'd say the other reason is also that most of the membership is still detached from the leadership and as dennisr has pointed out re-building after years of decimation from the right will take a bit of time.

 

[cockneyrebel]

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

I did take in the original context but I still thought your statement was OTT. Fair enough about being an organised grouping, but to be honest, as said in most unions the far left as an organised grouping is at best a fringe. So I guess you could be right in a sense but on the other hand it's a small pool we're all swimming in!!

Why is it rubbish to say that the far left is irrelevant in most unions and in most of the working class? It is! That doesnt mean that the far left doesn't have influence in this or that place, but I'm talking about the overall picture. However I don't see how that means we should give up, not at all, it just means it's gonna be a hard slog. But on a day to day level I do my best to build up my branch and the left in UNISON and to be honest I'm quite heartened by progress we've made at a local level.

And the PCS is a good example of where the far left is relevant. Why are you being so tetchy, I'm not trying to do down what the SP have achieved.

 

[dennisr]

But the fact is that it's relatively easy now to get high profile positions because most unions are now gutted of any real rank and file structure and turn outs at elections are so low.

A Question - So how come PR and the SWP have not managed this? (or are you going to say I am being arrogant again?)

 

[cockneyrebel]

CR was overjoyed to be able to point out a mistaken view on our part about what was possible at a certain point. Missing the point that we were able to adjust and move on

Not overjoyed at all, I was just saying we can all get things wrong.

I still think that in UNISON the SP could take a different line on the LP in terms of not putting a break with Labour as a line in the sand.

 

[dennisr]

Why are you being so tetchy, I'm not trying to do down what the SP have achieved.

I'm not. its just a case of pointing out the obvious to those taking up those lecturing us from the sidelines

3 of the last 5 nhs disputes have been led, in effect, by members of the SP. The SP was in that position because of that hard work being carried out by its members.

There is a certain cynicism, I feel, in your lecturing

 

[cockneyrebel]

I'm not lecturing anyone, and I certainly don't feel cynical. I don't think it's cynical to look at where we're at (even if that's not that great at present) and see how things can improve. As said I'm very heartened by what we've done in our branch recently. And the work we're doing certainly isn't doing stuff from the sidelines. Indeed I would bet we're one of the most active branches in the country, how many other UNISON branches do public stalls, build public meetings and make links with the local community?

And to be honest I think you are being tetchy, the tone in your messages, like NIs, is overly aggro in my view. If you don't think so, fair enough.

And once again, I'm not doing down what the SP have done, well done on the HNS stuff! I just have political disagreements with you on certain things, doesn't mean I don't think you're not putting in hard work.

 

[dennisr]

Not overjoyed at all, I was just saying we can all get things wrong.

I still think that in UNISON the SP could take a different line on the LP in terms of not putting a break with Labour as a line in the sand.

Given the decades long battles between left and right in UNISON - in which the break with labour was a definate benchmark (and the more recent meanderings of the SWP towards opportunist electoral alliances and stitching up of long-established SP candidates). it is still seen as a key issue for differenciating ourselves from certain other 'lefts' by long-term SP activists in UNISON - as is our definition of the term 'unity' and 'united left'. I have to accept that view as being a correct one from those activists on the inside for want of a better analysis. As i would go with your view in your branch.

 

[cockneyrebel]

A Question - So how come PR and the SWP have not managed this? (or are you going to say I am being arrogant again?)

To be honest I didn't think this was a point of contention, NI was agreeing on this point a little while back.

As it happens until the last election PR (and before that when we were in Workers Power) had a member on the UCL NEC. Now considering we are an organisation of 30 odd people (and before that 60 people) it shows that even a tiny organisation can get people on leadership positions.

The SWP has people on the PCS NEC, has the CWU president, has various positions in the NUT and, I believe, leadership positions on a few other unions. Obvoiusly they don't have the position of the SP in the PCS.

To get to that position the SP would have had to have put in a lot of hard work, but my point is that in many unions it is far, far easier to get into leadership positions than it used to be and those positions are now more removed from the membership than they used to be and it will take a while to change that, although progress is being made in a union like the PCS.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Given the decades long battles between left and right in UNISON - in which the break with labour was a definate benchmark (and the more recent meanderings of the SWP towards opportunist electoral alliances and stitching up of long-established SP candidates). it is still seen as a key issue for differenciating ourselves from certain other 'lefts' by long-term SP activists in UNISON - as is our definition of the term 'unity' and 'united left'. I have to accept that view as being a correct one from those activists on the inside for want of a better analysis. As i would go with your view in your branch.

I dont' think the break with Labour should be made a line in the sand and prevent unity, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think it's ashame both nationally and on a branch level though and holds us back.

But I agree with criticisms about the SWP and the United Left is now pretty much an empty shell.

 

[glenquagmire]

But that the nub of the problem. The result is being effectively silenced. The UL is not a united left but your view is we should simply shut up when cut out by what is a stitch up. Its not really an 'option' is it?- its a bit like the arguement 'new labour is better than the BNP - vote for them'

To expand on that point: Its the same arguements used against the SP in the past in the PCS - that we were 'splitters', that we should form unholy alliences = not on the basis of commonly agreed programme but electoral alliances without principle, becasue the 'other' side was even worse. Now, we carefully worked in a united front manner with many not on the 'hard left' in the past and still do (CR was overjoyed to be able to point out a mistaken view on our part about what was possible at a certain point. Missing the point that we were able to adjust and move on). BUT we did not do this on the basis of any opportunist electoral 'unity' but genuine common programmes agreed between the various individuals and parties involved). The result is a left leadership of that trade union

My view is not that you should shut up.

My view is that you should look at the candidates running, see that one of them holds socialist politics and an excellent track record and the other doesn't, and give your support to the left candidate. Rather than running your own candidate because of some historic falling out with another far-left sect and letting in the rightwinger. Do you HAVE to have an SP candidate in every election? Even when they have no chance of winning and will just split the vote?

As long as you make the break with the LP a "line in the sand" you will have no traction with the majority of UNISON members and your electoral strategy will be successful in delivering even more positions for the right wing.

 

[dennisr]

My view is not that you should shut up.

My view is that you should look at the candidates running, see that one of them holds socialist politics and an excellent track record and the other doesn't, and give your support to the left candidate. Rather than running your own candidate because of some historic falling out with another far-left sect and letting in the rightwinger. Do you HAVE to have an SP candidate in every election? Even when they have no chance of winning and will just split the vote?

As long as you make the break with the LP a "line in the sand" you will have no traction with the majority of UNISON members and your electoral strategy will be successful in delivering even more positions for the right wing.

Yep, I accept your view on that. I don't know that much about the details of the election or the candidates so have to go on the advice of those activists who are arguing for standing seperately. The problem with 'historic falling outs' (a fair point) is that the UL candidate is standing for them right now.

'breaking with labour' has not stopped plenty of SP being elected by their members - especially where it is labour councils trying to force through cuts and job losses. As I said above though - I don't think it is a 'line in the sand' in all situations though - in unison there are specific circumstances for the issue being raised. The present leadership of that union, busy stitching up its own membership, in cahoots with NL is pretty much central to that. The Unison leadership have played a particularly pernicious role in derailing the attempts at building a public sector fightback against NL cuts - and I imagine the arguement would be that we cannot get around that blockage by trying to form electoral alliances with folk who are not prepared to take on NL at a local and national level. The local NL government are the biggest employer of Unison members

 

[dennisr]

But I agree with criticisms about the SWP and the United Left is now pretty much an empty shell.

Do you think it is an empty shell we should stand asside for?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Do you think it is an empty shell we should stand asside for?

Well to be honest the SP isn't in any greater a position of strength in UNISON than the empty shell of the UL. And as glenquagmire has pointed out by not doing so we've ended up with the situation in London that we have now, where good socialist activists (who are in the LP) are standing.

and I imagine the arguement would be that we cannot get around that blockage by trying to form electoral alliances with folk who are not prepared to take on NL at a local and national level.

I don't agree that Labour Left activists won't take on New Labour, that's simply not true. The Labour Lefts in my branch are fighting against the New Labour council in their attacks. But we have the position where we can't form a socialist caucus with the SP activist because the caucus would have to have the position of a break from Labour.

The Labour Left will take on NL, they just won't agree to your demand that they sign up to the position of break form Labour. I think that the SP have got it wrong on this, but we both know the arguments and will have to agree to disagree.

 

[dennisr]

The Labour Lefts in my branch are fighting against the New Labour council in their attacks. But we have the position where we can't form a socialist caucus with the SP activist because the caucus would have to have the position of a break from Labour.

A slightly seperate question - are these labour lefts opposing the present witch hunt?

 

[cockneyrebel]

A slightly seperate question - are these labour lefts opposing the present witch hunt?

They certainly are in my branch, very strongly in the case of Jon Rogers. And wasn't the fifth member of the "three monkeys" leaflet a Labour Left? And although charges were dropped against him he is still supporting the other four?

 

[glenquagmire]

What CR has said already really.

To say that Labour Lefts are not prepared to take on NL locally or nationally is nonsense. Indeed, locally we'd have a lot more success in my area if the SP-led UNISON branch would engage with the Lefts in the LP to take on the NL council.

And yes, those of our number who I know in UNISON are supporting those currently being witch-hunted. Our members been on the end of it enough times too.

Final word on the subject: it is a real shame that the UL in UNISON is falling apart. I don't know enough about it, not being a member, to know whether it was the SWP or SP's fault. But in an important election between a clearly principled left winger standing on behalf of the UL (and who is not in the SWP) and a Blairite, I and many others who have little knowledge of or interest in the history of the fallings out will wonder why the SP is running their own left candidate and splitting the vote. Especially so if the result is the likely bad one.

 

[dennisr]

Final word on the subject: it is a real shame that the UL in UNISON is falling apart. I don't know enough about it, not being a member, to know whether it was the SWP or SP's fault. But in an important election between a clearly principled left winger standing on behalf of the UL (and who is not in the SWP) and a Blairite, I and many others who have little knowledge of or interest in the history of the fallings out will wonder why the SP is running their own left candidate and splitting the vote. Especially so if the result is the likely bad one.

Unfortunately the UL candidate is the UL candidate and standing on the UL programme. We were getting results, Roger Bannister managed to get 30% in the election before Jon Rogers split the left vote with the SWP s support... RB was an established left candidate. I don't remember everybody else being accused of sectarians, splitting the vote at the time? - mush worse has happened since then

On the question of the political fund - I have checked to confirm whether this is some sort of principle (as both CR and you have repeated on a number of occasions). I don't really know how I can convince you folk that your view of our view is NOT what you seem to think it is... This confirmed my original point on the political fund questions:

(from another site - discussion between UL supporter and Roger Ban supporter - an SP member - in last NEC elections - this is a reply from the SP member):

"On the political fund ballot: We are for a 'critical yes' vote. It's a tactical question however - and on tactics flexibility is key. Voting 'no' - as the quickest way to break from Labour, could potentially have been an option. A 'vote no - but then campaign for a new political fund not tied to Labour' type of campaign was a tactical consideration. I'm not saying I support that stance - I don't, but it's an interesting tactical question to consider. I would argue that the fight to break the link between the unions and the Labour Party is the key battleground in fighting for independent working class representation. On the UUL: How many members does the UUL have? What areas of the country is it organised in? What percentage on UNISON members have even heard of the UUL? Why doesn't the UUL, at the very least, give critical support to Roger Bannister? Isn't the UUL being sectarian by standing against the established left candidate who has stood twice before?"

 

[dennisr]

And on UL: (I don't know how true this is or isn't - its an internal view from someone who obviously has little time for them:

"The decision of the UUL/SWP to stand Jon Rogers against the established left candidate was a disgraceful one. Daniel - you are missing the point about the UUL. It's not that it is a flawed but real broad left, it's that it isn't a broad left at all. It doesn't exist in any real sense. It has one functioning branch and one other semi-functioning branch. It has no penetration amongst Unison members. Its activists consist of the SWP and a handful of Labour "lefts". There is nothing to 'fight' for. You might as well tell us to join Globalise Resistance and 'fight' for it to be a useful organisation. Nothing of use or interest is going to come from the UUL, so frankly there is no point wasting time or energy on it."

 

[cockneyrebel]

Jon Rogers is actually my branch secretary and I don't think he is a sectarian, whatever the flaws in his politics. He is also probably at least as well known in UNISON as Roger Bannister. So how have we got to the stance where there are two camps? So are you saying the SP would back a candidate that didn't have the break from Labour stance? And are you saying that you think it's ok to stand against the UUL candidate in London just because he is a UUL candidate?

Also my direct branch experience is that the SP member (who is a cracking bloke by the way!) refused to form a socialist caucus if we didn't have the break from Labour line.

If the SP isn't putting it as a line in the sand then what is stopping the two groups coming together? I know you say about the SWP but you work with them in alliances in other unions.

 

[cockneyrebel]

It has one functioning branch and one other semi-functioning branch. It has no penetration amongst Unison members. Its activists consist of the SWP and a handful of Labour "lefts".

There could well be some truth in this, but I doubt the SPs support is any better or in any more in-depth.

The UUL is the SWP, the Labour Left and I believe the other small left groups (such as PR, AWL, CPGB etc) and small layer of independents. This might not amount to much but the SP grouping is just the SP.

 

[dennisr]

Jon Rogers is actually my branch secretary and I don't think he is a sectarian, whatever the flaws in his politics. He is also probably at least as well known in UNISON as Roger Bannister. So how have we got to the stance where there are two camps? So are you saying the SP would back a candidate that didn't have the break from Labour stance? And are you saying that you think it's ok to stand against the UUL candidate in London just because he is a UUL candidate?

Also my direct branch experience is that the SP member (who is a cracking bloke by the way!) refused to form a socialist caucus if we didn't have the break from Labour line.

If the SP isn't putting it as a line in the sand then what is stopping the two groups coming together? I know you say about the SWP but you work with them in alliances in other unions.

Did I say "Jon Rogers is a sectarian"? No

Did the SWP use Jon - set him up on their usual 'unity' LU ticket to cut across a well established candidate who had already built the vote up to 30% at the last election? Yes

Would we work with or even call for a vote for the type of individual you mentioned if this was a step forward for a united left in the union? Of course

Re your own branch: I imagine the fella's reasoning goes a little bit further than 'because we don't break form the labour line'. I am not in your branch or your union - so I can only take your word

You keep trying to tell the SP what the SP thinks CR. it has taken me three attempts to cut across the idea of a 'line in the sand' reasoning alone. This makes reasoned debate on actual political differences harder to get around to

What would the SP gain from being part of what is according to the quote above a moribund organisation where we would simply be dictated to by SWP votes rather than a genuine united left?? And - again to repeat the point - there was a genuine united left organisation - then the SWP clambered on board and now you have seperate left candidates. That is not a decision taken lightly by the SP - at the same time they cannot roll over because some fool is giving the SWP cover (or visa versa - I am never sure of the real relationship in these situations...). We see this situation as a step backwards just as you do.

Your point about the SP working with others in other unions speaks volumes - are we therefore 'sectarian' and 'standing again the SWP backed candidate in Unison for some ultra-left sectarian reason'? are our members in Unison particularly sectarian in some way - and not being called to account by the SP members outside of the union? our willingness to work with other activists surely speaks for itself

 

[dennisr]

There could well be some truth in this, but I doubt the SPs support is any better or in any more in-depth.

The UUL is the SWP, the Labour Left and I believe the other small left groups (such as PR, AWL, CPGB etc) and small layer of independents. This might not amount to much but the SP grouping is just the SP.

The difference being we are not pretending any different. Unlike.... (I feel I am going around in circles here...)

 

[glenquagmire]

Why would you be dictated to by the SWP in the UL? Are they numerically bigger than you?

Can you state why the SP is running against Dave Eggmore, who is undoubtedly higher-profile and with a much better chance of winning than your candidate, if it's not because of his membership of the Labour Party? What is the difference between that and UL running Jon Rogers against Roger Bannister (assuming Bannister is higher profile and stood a better chance of winning)?

 

[cockneyrebel]

My point about Jon Rogers is that he's part of the UUL and not a sectarian, so he shouldn't be not supported just because he is part of the UUL, same goes for the London candidate. And if you agree with this I can't see why in the London elections there isn't one candidate.

Re your own branch: I imagine the fella's reasoning goes a little bit further than 'because we don't break form the labour line'.

Not as far as I know. He just said that he thought the break from Labour stance is a line in the sand. Fair enough, but I disagree. Hopefully though I think this view might be changing a bit so we can look into getting some kind of left caucus off the ground.

So if the SP doesn't have a line in the sand about the break from Labour, I can't see why there is a split. Is it just that the SWP are hard to work with, if so that applies to every union and you're in alliances with them in other unions (well the PCS anyway, although you are the majority there). Or does it just come down to saying JB is better than RJ? I really don't get now why there is a split.

You say why join the UUL, but why not? At least it contains other left forces: the Labour Left, independent lefts, small left groups and the SWP. As said JBs platform was near identical to RJs, so why not stand down and support RJ when he is supported by bigger left forces and some independents? If there was a political difference I could understand but if you're saying the Labour Party question isn't a line in the sand then there doesn't appear to be one. We could form one organisation and vote for who we want as the candidate as we agree on the politics. If the SWP has a majority block vote then so be it.

To be honest these debates are kind of pointless! You aren't gonna come out against the SPs reasoning and I doubt I'm gonna change my mind on this. Indeed when has anyone ever come out on here who is a member of a left group and said they think that their group is wrong on something?

But either way Prentice is laughing.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

You say why join the UUL, but why not?

Because the UUL isn't a functioning organisation and serves no purpose whatsoever. It's a lash up between the SWP and a small layer of ageing Labour lefts, which doesn't have working structures and is unknown to the vast majority of Unison members. How would wasting energy dealing with such crap help us get a socialist, fighting, message across within the union?

The answer is that it wouldn't.

The Socialist Party is of the view that we are better off bringing our arguments directly to the membership, including our views on the Labour Party. Our record in General Secretary elections shows that these views are rather more popular with the membership than the pro-New Labour views of the UUL. What's more, we think that a more useful union left can be built through working with the huge swathes of members who aren't currently involved with union politics, and who generally are very hostile to NL, than can be built by endless negotiations and bickering with SWP hacks and a layer of Labour lefts that is dying off.

Whether Jon Rogers is a sectarian or a very nice man who was being used by SWP sectarians isn't really relevant. The stunt of standing him against Bannister, and more generally the UL's widespread attempts to cut across Socialist Party candidates, cannot be defended. The Labour lefts do it because they hate the Socialist Party more than they hate the Labour right - their first objective at all times is to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise New Labour's funding. At least that's a political reason, even if it is a reactionary political reasons. The SWP do it because within Unison they have long nursed a desire to push the SP aside and establish themselves as the dominant force on the left, going right back to the pre-Rogers days when they used to stand whatever fool they could scrape up on their own. I have no objection to working with Labour lefts or with the SWP, but there has to be some purpose to doing so. Given their current behaviour in Unison, there is no purpose.

 

[dennisr]

Why would you be dictated to by the SWP in the UL? Are they numerically bigger than you?

Can you state why the SP is running against Dave Eggmore, who is undoubtedly higher-profile and with a much better chance of winning than your candidate, if it's not because of his membership of the Labour Party? What is the difference between that and UL running Jon Rogers against Roger Bannister (assuming Bannister is higher profile and stood a better chance of winning)?

A good point about running JR against RB - and the reason I made mine - difference being that RB actually had a chance....

There was one other difference - the imposition of JB was the end result of the SWPs (then...) newly-found 'unity left' ticket. The end result - left lost, the UL is now moribund. We have to rebuild the left in the union - and that cannot come from the SWPs approach or method. The desperation of some smaller groups for some fantasy 'unity' (of all the wee old left groups) without any agreed principles in common or accountability results in them hanging around the coat tails of the SWP, being used.

Numerically, they probably are yes - not in terms of elected positions though, or role in major disputes - they have a lot of local gov/council employee members (post university education...?). But - if we were talking about a genuine united front - then the relative sizes would not be important. The problem is this is not a united front - it would be the SWP stitching things up. After years of experience as an organisation who has been turned over on a number of occasions - I think I can say that quite safely.

As I have said (three times now...) I do not know the details - I do not know Dave or what he really represents (other than your impressions) and therefore I would defer to the opinion clearly held by SP activists in the union

 

[glenquagmire]

the pro-New Labour views of the UUL

After four pages of reasonable debate with people I agree and disagree with, I then come across this piece of prize, stupendous idiocy and wonder why anyone would ever take anything a lefty says seriously ever again if this is the level of argument.

Unbelievable. What a fucking drooling cretin. I give up. If the debating strategy of the SP on here (not dennis, I should add though) is to baffle other people with unmitigated stupidity then it's worked.

 

[dennisr]

The Socialist Party is of the view that we are better off bringing our arguments directly to the membership

Thats the nail on the head re our differences CR - no really interested in a 'united left' of the 'left' but a 'united left' of union members.

it is applying your endlessly repeated 'revelation' about the 'state of the left' (sometimes an overstated one...) to real politics.

As clearly and plainly outlined by NI - the membership are to the 'left' of the presently existing "United left" on matters of the political fund

 

[dennisr]

After four pages of reasonable debate with people I agree and disagree with, I then come across this piece of prize, stupendous idiocy and wonder why anyone would ever take anything a lefty says seriously ever again if this is the level of argument.

Unbelievable. What a fucking drooling cretin. I give up. If the debating strategy of the SP on here (not dennis, I should add though) is to baffle other people with unmitigated stupidity then it's worked.

Glen - I don't think you sound any more reasonable than you are claiming NI is. Taking three or four words out of context of the whole post does not help that.

Your dislike of the SWP is probably part of the reason for you have slightly more sympathy with my views - and yep, i've been banging on about them.

In practice NI is clearing the flim-flam and getting to the heart of the question 'how to we build a real left that can win the union?'

The SWP and this fella you talk about seem to be 'useful' for each other at the moment - but is that the building of a genuine left unity in unison? and how long will that last? You only have to look at the actual role of such lash-ups in other recent situations - Respect, other union elections. In practice we have seen more 'action' - united action - by working members from the decent lefts on the ground (and the SP has been able to play a key role in that) than in internal electoral lash-ups. You have to admit that surely?The SP is just honestly asking what 'unity' is there with 'UL'? - how do the membership gain?