Left Unity/PCS Democrats win PCS NEC agaion

[cockneyrebel]

I have to say it's been a pleasure working with other far leftists and independent lefts after my experience in Lewisham.

Of course there are sometimes sharp disagreements but there is also a genuine bond between people. And at least now there are decent trade unionists to go to the pub with!

I really think we can build both a socialist caucus (which will probably be dominated by independent lefts at first), continue to make the branch more militant and win campaigns. I'm also really hopefully about the "Public services, not private profit" campaign or whatever we're gonna call it. I think we can involve tenants, leaseholders, residents, other trade unions and representatives from various community organisations and I really hope we can move towards standing "candidates of struggle".

A great comment on our egroup from one of the independent lefts:

In the interest of building a comprehensive fight against this council and giving the government one in the eye we need to invite community leaders, trade union leaders from all unions. We may even think about putting up our own candidates at council bye elections. Campain against Labour and let them know it. Don’t support Reed and co in there race to become MP’s. Mobilise the youth of the borough. Have an attendance at all council and sub meetings. Attend tenants meetings.

If we are going to take this fight seriously get legal advice on a rent strike. Council Tax strike. Start a welfare fund and social events to raise money for strike action.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Have to agree with glen, what a ridiculous and sectarian thing to say.

I didn't reply to Glenquagmire throwing his dummy out of the pram over that remark, because it was clearly something of an exit strategy from this argument for him. He has no reasonable defence to make of the UUL or of the Labour Party, so taking a few words out of context and throwing a tantrum was about the best he could do.

The remark I made about New Labour was clearly not meant as an argument that Labour lefts or the UUL agree with all of Blair or Brown's policies. To be clear, they don't. It was an argument that ultimately their loyalty to Brown's Thatcherite party trumps their "leftism".

That is, no matter what the other issues are, no matter whether it is popular with the members or in the members interests, they will continue to support Unison member's money being given to the party that is leading the charge against their pay and conditions. They want at all costs to avoid damaging the electoral ambitions of the New Labour Party. They want at all costs to prevent the development of independent working class political representation. Their political "strategy" (in so far as they have a strategy other than sittting bewildered in Labour and slowly decomposing) puts them in conflict with the interests of the working class and the interests of Unison members in particular.

And a large section of the membership understands that, which is why Jon Rogers, respected activist though he is, got a fraction of Roger Bannister's vote when he stood against in what was ultimately a sectarian stunt. He did however succeed in damaging Bannister's vote by splitting the left.

 

[glenquagmire]

How's that New Workers Party coming along?

I'll respond sensibly to posters who merit it. You're just a cartoon ultra-left troll, I think. Nobody could possibly be that thick in real life.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I think there is a difference between saying they don't want the Labour link broken (and personally I would love to see the fund democratised personally) and saying:

It was an argument that ultimately their loyalty to Brown's Thatcherite party trumps their "leftism".

The remark I made about New Labour was clearly not meant as an argument that Labour lefts or the UUL agree with all of Blair or Brown's policies.

I doubt they agree with any of them to be honest.

They want at all costs to avoid damaging the electoral ambitions of the New Labour Party.

Again I don't think this is true. I've heard Labour Lefts saying they support far left candidates and candidates of struggle against new labour candidates.

Anyway I think this debate is about done and I've learnt some more about the UUL and have probably shifted my views.

Most members who have left sympathies want to see an end to the squabbling between the SWP and SP (whoevers fault it is) and the end to the practice of the left keep putting up canidates against each other and letting the right wing off the hook. This is even more important given the witchhunts going on. However I won't hold my breath.

Why isn't a joint conference called where candidates can be elected? If JB has a lot more support from members than JR then they can turn up and vote for him.

 

[dennisr]

How's that New Workers Party coming along?

I suppose the immediate repost to that is how is the old 'workers party' coming along?

 

[glenquagmire]

Marginally better. We've still got a dozen or so socialist MPs.

Anyway, CR obviously has more patience than me so I will shut up. No offence meant to the more sane members of the Socialist Party.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Saw this on google which shows the real problems in UNISON:

only 16.6% of Unison’s 1,476,488 members bothered to cast their ballot. A staggering 83.4% of members did not vote! Factoring this into the figures, we arrive at a rather different picture of the actual support for each candidate: the overwhelming 75% victory for Prentis shrivels to a mere 12.5% of those entitled to vote, while comrade Bannister’s “good result” comes in at 2.8% and comrade Rogers gets a ‘disappointing’ 1.24%.

Not only this, but in objectively ‘better’ conditions the combined left vote was down on Bannister’s result of 31% on an almost identical turnout last time.

 

[dennisr]

Marginally better. We've still got a dozen or so socialist MPs.

Glenn - Well, we could argue over that side point all day - but there does not seem much point in it. I don't think it is about patience. I don't think you have shown that much yourself. I had to take your earlier views on the candidate you were defending as read - only to find out that the reality of that candidate seems somewhat different.

You raised the original critisisms so, regardless of your views of the SP, you should either defend your original arguements re Dave thingy - or admit this is just another example of a union official who seems to talk 'left' while acting 'right'?

And if they are acting 'right' what is your solution to this problem?

 

[glenquagmire]

I don't think it is about patience. I don't think you have shown that much yourself.

That's what I said. I don't have much patience.

I had to take your earlier views on the candidate you were defending as read - only to find out that the reality of that candidate seems somewhat different.

You raised the original critisisms so, regardless of your views of the SP, you should either defend your original arguements re Dave thingy - or admit this is just another example of a union official who seems to talk 'left' while acting 'right'?

And if they are acting 'right' what is your solution to this problem?

Have you read the rest of the comments on Jon Rogers' blog?

 

[dennisr]

That's what I said. I don't have much patience.

True enough you did, but you expect it of the other posters mate?

Have you read the rest of the comments on Jon Rogers' blog?

I did - i really was not impressed.

It came down to the usual somewhat trite accusations of 'its all very well you being so rightous' (which was not what the list of failings of this so called left candidate showed and is doubly ironic given GK was replying to an unwarrented initial public post put up by Jon) to:

"What our members require from those of us who claim to be leftwingers is that we find ways to work together. This can only be done by making compromises with which we will sometimes be uncomfortable."

ie 'you have to compromise' - not in the sense of getting the best deal but in the sense of 'stand down and vote for this person to let us down because he claims to be a leftie'.

The thing is should 'we work together' with someone because they claim to be a left winger or becasue they put what they say into practice?

As for Jon's defense of the other fella's failings - strikes me like an apology for a low level bureaucrat

the thing is I actually know GK well - personally - I trust him to put what he says into practice - he has done already again and again.

The worst thing about this is behind Jon's defense of Dave is the UL trying to impose 'we are the United left' on an SP unwilling to accept this if it includes such 'talk left, act right' fellow travellers.

Luckily this election seems to be the exception and - elsewhere - in the health sector for example - the various factions seem to have managed to work out not standing against each other. I get the impression (actually I know some of the history only too well) that in london the SWP/UL have a particularly strong willingness to stitch up and isolate the SP historically so there is less chance of a sensible division of elections.

ps and CRs post above and point is a good one - how the hell do we motive members to take back control of their union if the elections are for folk who don't sound any more 'for the members' than those in the recent local elections? - no wonder there is apathy - 'whats the point' is a valid question for members to ask

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Marginally better. We've still got a dozen or so socialist MPs.

Getting less with each passing year of course and with no ability to replace them as they retire or sell out. And on the ground, the Labour left which was once a movement of tens of thousands can now muster a couple of hundred to the conferences of its last remaining institutions, the Campaign Group and the LRC. The kind of numbers that a moderate sized far left sect would regard as a poor showing. The Labour left's attempt to set up a youth organisation was even more embarrassing, mobilising less people than the youth fronts of even the runts of the Trot litter.

The remaining elected representatives are a legacy issue. They have no power and no strategy and are by and large completely demoralised. They are like driftwood left on the shore by a tide that is now long gone. In so far as the decaying corpse of the Labour left has any political function within the union movement, it is to act as the left face of the right wing bureaucrats maneuvers to keep members cash flowing into New Labour. Individual Labour leftists do of course play a good role on some workplace issues, but nothing they couldn't do more usefully outside of New Labour.

Anyway, CR obviously has more patience than me so I will shut up.

Bye then.

 

[glenquagmire]

It came down to the usual somewhat trite accusations of 'its all very well you being so rightous' (which was not what the list of failings of this so called left candidate showed and is doubly ironic given GK was replying to an unwarrented initial public post put up by Jon) to:

"What our members require from those of us who claim to be leftwingers is that we find ways to work together. This can only be done by making compromises with which we will sometimes be uncomfortable."

ie 'you have to compromise' - not in the sense of getting the best deal but in the sense of 'stand down and vote for this person to let us down because he claims to be a leftie'.

The thing is should 'we work together' with someone because they claim to be a left winger or becasue they put what they say into practice?

As for Jon's defense of the other fella's failings - strikes me like an apology for a low level bureaucrat

the thing is I actually know GK well - personally - I trust him to put what he says into practice - he has done already again and again.

The worst thing about this is behind Jon's defense of Dave is the UL trying to impose 'we are the United left' on an SP unwilling to accept this if it includes such 'talk left, act right' fellow travellers.

Luckily this election seems to be the exception and - elsewhere - in the health sector for example - the various factions seem to have managed to work out not standing against each other. I get the impression (actually I know some of the history only too well) that in london the SWP/UL have a particularly strong willingness to stitch up and isolate the SP historically so there is less chance of a sensible division of elections.

ps and CRs post above and point is a good one - how the hell do we motive members to take back control of their union if the elections are for folk who don't sound any more 'for the members' than those in the recent local elections? - no wonder there is apathy - 'whats the point' is a valid question for members to ask

I did not read it that way.

On some of those issues I would agree with GK over DE.

The key points are:

- why split the vote over what are relatively small issues compared to the problems facing the left in UNISON, given that DE will easily outpoll GK. It's like a RB v JR in reverse.

- why stand for election against DE given that GK is already a full member of that body?

Happy to continue this thread, even though we're not getting anywhere, but will have to ignore the lunatic in the corner.

 

[Macullam]

Things are changing however. This years UNISON Health conference succesfully stopped the right wing recommending the 3 year pay deal stitch up in the members ballot which starts next week. Branches are now able to make their own recommendations and campaign against the deal. The result will show what support the left can deliver amongst the wider health membership.

This was more to do with the service group executive not being able to make a recomendation on the pay proposal ( a very positive development) the vote was 19-19. The conference narrowly voted in favour of the motion on pay calling for a ballott of all members, The leadership recognised the narrow margin and have allowed branches to make a recomendation and campaign to reject the 3 year pay deal. We will expect a barrage of propaganda and lies from the leadership to ensure this rotten deal is accepted and new Labour is off the hook as far as the NHS pay is concerned, I think there will be an increased turnout in the ballot and the result could be close.

 

[Wildboar]

Things are changing however. This years UNISON Health conference succesfully stopped the right wing recommending the 3 year pay deal stitch up in the members ballot which starts next week. Branches are now able to make their own recommendations and campaign against the deal. The result will show what support the left can deliver amongst the wider health membership.

This was more to do with the service group executive not being able to make a recomendation on the pay proposal ( a very positive development) the vote was 19-19. The conference narrowly voted in favour of the motion on pay calling for a ballott of all members, The leadership recognised the narrow margin and have allowed branches to make a recomendation and campaign to reject the 3 year pay deal. We will expect a barrage of propaganda and lies from the leadership to ensure this rotten deal is accepted and new Labour is off the hook as far as the NHS pay is concerned, I think there will be an increased turnout in the ballot and the result could be close.

The service Group Executive was split 19-19 that is true but it was also under tremendous pressure from the rank and file delegates to reject the deal. When delegates arrived on the Sunday the SGE had not made its
mind up and was meeting again on the Monday . There was then intense lobbying of SGE members by delegates arguing fo rejection and the full timers who were pressurising delegates to accept the deal. What became clear is that a recommendation to accept would never have been passed by conference hence the ballot with no recommendation.

The propaganda overstating the deal has stared but there is also plenty of vote no stuff circulating as well. I agree it could be close but I am more optimistic this year that we may defeat them.

 

[malcolj]

The propaganda overstating the deal has stared but there is also plenty of vote no stuff circulating as well. I agree it could be close but I am more optimistic this year that ewe may defeat them.[/QUOTE]

I assume you are on the health activists list. there are some great leaflets and even a powerpoint presentation thats easily adapted for any branch to use.

 

[Wildboar]

I assume you are on the health activists list. there are some great leaflets and even a powerpoint presentation thats easily adapted for any branch to use.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Ive used some of the stuff on activists for a leaflet which we are sending to our members.

The 'case studies' the head office have sent out this week are very poor quality. I cant see anyone being convinced by them. Th anti deal leaflets are better quality we just need to make sure enough members see them.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I've read more of the comments on Jon's blog and think that the political defence is weak in areas and politically GK seems like the better candidate. However I'd still have a couple of questions for the SP.

It appears that Glen already has a vote on this body so why did he decide to stand so late in the day against the UUL candidate. From a tactical point of view it doesn't seem to make sense, what is there to gain out of it? Also if the SP think that the bloke's politics are bad enough that Glenn Kelly should stand against him, why did Glenn Kelly encourage him to stand for the chair of the very same body? This doesn't seem to make sense.

On a wider point people have made the point that JB has more connection with the membership with JR. This may be true, I don't know 100%, but actually the general point is that sadly neither candidate has got fuck all connection with the membership as this quote shows:

while comrade Bannister’s “good result” comes in at 2.8% and comrade Rogers gets a ‘disappointing’ 1.24%.

Less than 5% of the membership of UNISON voted for either of them. Again this doesn't mean doom and gloom but it does mean the inter-left squabbling is even more of ashame when there is a big task to rebuild the union and the left in the union.

Have to say though that I really can't believe the SWPs attitude on the witch-hunt issue in terms of refusing a joint meeting.

Also what is wrong with this suggestion that I made:

Why isn't a joint conference called where candidates can be elected? If JB has a lot more support from members than JR then they can turn up and vote for him.

 

[dennisr]

The key points are:
- why split the vote over what are relatively small issues compared to the problems facing the left in UNISON, given that DE will easily outpoll GK. It's like a RB v JR in reverse.
- why stand for election against DE given that GK is already a full member of that body?

I don't think they are the key points though. They were the two points Jon kept banging on about in his thread.

The first point is already answered in my mind - if DE is not actually going to stand and fight for members despite his talk of 'being on the left' - it would be a mistake to put him back in a position where he can continue to not fight for those members! (and a mistake to be seen by members as supporting DE / reinforcing illusions in him be a 'left') - I would argue the key point being made is what DEs actual record is - and its not good for him, more importantly its no good for his members.

The second point - I must honestly say - i don't have a clear answer for (beyond a repeat of what I said above). I have already asked GK for his reasoning on this though and will respond when I get an answer. All I can assume is that the tactical circumstances have changed or DE has recently acted in such a way as to make any hope he would be a reasonable compromise candidate in the eyes of the SP has changed. These are just suggestions - I'll wait until i get GKs answer and come back to you both on it.

 

[cockneyrebel]

The first point is already answered in my mind - if DE is not actually going to stand and fight for members despite his talk of 'being on the left' - it would be a mistake to put him back in a position where he can continue to not fight for those members! (and a mistake to be seen by members as supporting DE / reinforcing illusions in him be a 'left') - I would argue the key point being made is what DEs actual record is - and its not good for him, more importantly its no good for his members.

But the SP and SWP do this in the PCS with people with far, far worse records than DE (like the lib dem bloke), so why the difference here?

The second point - I must honestly say - i don't have a clear answer for (beyond a repeat of what I said above). I have already asked GK for his reasoning on this though and will respond when I get an answer. All I can assume is that the tactical circumstances have changed or DE has recently acted in such a way as to make any hope he would be a reasonable compromise candidate in the eyes of the SP has changed. These are just suggestions - I'll wait until i get GKs answer and come back to you both on it.

Fair enough but it does seem a bit bizarre that GK was recently asking him to go for the position of chair but is now standing against him on a body he already has a vote on. If something new has happened fair enough, but at the moment it doesn't seem to make sense.

But as said, more importantly, why not have a joint conference and just elect people on an agreed platform and pick the people who get the most votes? If candidates then do things that are against agreed lines then just "disown" them and pick new candidates next time. As there don't seem to be any "lands in the sand" and JRs and RBs platforms were all but identical I don't see why this can't be done.

 

[dennisr]

Again this doesn't mean doom and gloom but it does mean the inter-left squabbling is even more of ashame when there is a big task to rebuild the union and the left in the union.

Luckily - this example seems to be more of an exception than a rule (given the clarification of other posters comments)

part of the problem goes back to the UL creating illusions in folk who do not act 'left' claiming other genuine left candidates should stand down for that 'left'. I hate to have to repeat this divisive point again, but - this goes back to the role of the SWP again in UL. We cannot get around that block if we are to rebuild a genuine 'left' in the union rather than destroy any confidence in that left as a result of demanding votes for another bureaucrat

 

[dennisr]

Fair enough but it does seem a bit bizarre that GK was recently asking him to go for the position of chair but is now standing against him on a body he already has a vote on. If something new has happened fair enough, but at the moment it doesn't seem to make sense.

I think it is likely to be a minor and non-point - but the only thing Jon seems to have been able to defend his mistaken support for the UL and DE with. I think that also comes from Jon's assumption as to the 'left' credentials of DE - which GK does not believe DE has as a result of DEs history. Jon therefore sees the body as a 'left' body and wants both people on that body - whereas - i am assuming here - GK sees DE as acting as a right winger on that body and therefore weakening that body. The point Jon is making looks like a bit of a smokescreen hiding or ignoring more fundamental issues to me.

You have raised it three times now. Maybe you should look at the actual key points regarding DE in a bit more detail. What role would DE be able to play if re-elected or what role has already played on that committee.? You should know better than me as a member of the same union. You are also a member of a revolutionary group so I find it more stranger than I usually would that you are getting hung up on this minor aspect of the differences between the two candidates? You, I assume, must know more about the nature of the body than I would - could you clarify what this is and that would help me to provide possible answers to your question.

But as said, more importantly, why not have a joint conference and just elect people on an agreed platform and pick the people who get the most votes? If candidates then do things that are against agreed lines then just "disown" them and pick new candidates next time. As there don't seem to be any "lands in the sand" and JRs and RBs platforms were all but identical I don't see why this can't be done.

Yes you keep saying this - but it takes two parties to agree to. Given the recent behaviour of the UL - the stitching up of the SP by the SWP (including cutting out of established SP candidates who already had the majority base and splitting the left vote as a result) and the demands to vote for people only nominally on the left. How realistic do you think your call is in this sector??

Ask AT

 

[dennisr]

But the SP and SWP do this in the PCS with people with far, far worse records than DE (like the lib dem bloke), so why the difference here?

Oh CR, you cannot help yourself can you.

Earlier on the thread i pointed out Jon's call for a 'compromise' which is not really a 'compromise' at all. i get the impression that DE on whatever that committee is has already proven a step back in the effectiveness of that committee in being able to further the aims of its members.

i have no problem with making compromises to assist the overall forward movement of any movement. it is not a position of 'principle' it is one of tactics

In the PCS the tactical results of a very different compromise in very different circumstances has been to the advantage of the left. In fact the left is (again....) the leadership of that union as a result and has been able to achieve a lot more than it otherwise could for and alongside its members.

You don't half know how to test someone's patience CR. This should be ABCs for someone claiming the tradition you claim - but clearly it is not so I have had to point the whole obvious point out to you again. You are, kind of making a pointless point here? and not for the first time CR. Sometimes (when feeling cynical) I wonder if your reasoning is one of - 'ha, ha lets expose these 'reformists' of the SP'. When feeling more genurous i simply wonder why you are missing the point of why you and me interviene in our respective unions as 'left wingers' entirely. It is one of those non-points you make that is a good example of what i said much earlier on the thread about you being capable of being just as irritating and niggardly as those you were pointing the finger at. At least you don't say 'what about the redundancy notices and the taxis...' but to try and make the non-point you are trying to is only a few steps removed from that. You have obvious differences with the SP but it would be a big mistake to assume the political approach of the SP is not constantly informed by a very clear approach to what we see as the interests of wider membership of the unions rather than 'sectarian' concerns (ie the idea of 'trying to get one over the SWP in unison' or not having the bottle' to call for fantasy all out strikes in the PCS etc etc). It is a serious approach to re-building a left current in the TUs (as opposed to jumping into bed with anyone who flutters their eyelids and says 'I am a left come over and unite with me' with a husky voice') - thats where the level of respect, examples of successful leadership at local levels (in the case of unison) and national levels (in the case of the pcs) and even electoral success within the unions comes from. It is the membership of the unions (just as in wider society) that will decide (and test) the 'superiority' or 'inferiority' of our respective political viewpoints and approaches.

 

[cockneyrebel]

part of the problem goes back to the UL creating illusions in folk who do not act 'left' claiming other genuine left candidates should stand down for that 'left'. I hate to have to repeat this divisive point again, but - this goes back to the role of the SWP again in UL. We cannot get around that block if we are to rebuild a genuine 'left' in the union rather than destroy any confidence in that left as a result of demanding votes for another bureaucrat

My points aren't aimed at the SP, but just a general suggestion. If this can't be done, fair enough, but whoever stops that happening, in my view, is being sectarian. I understand the SPs cautiousness if what you say is correct about being screwed over and in that case maybe the SWP should make an olive branch first. Unfortunately their attitude to the witchhunts doesn't help this at all.

On the point about DE I still don't understand. You say:

I think that also comes from Jon's assumption as to the 'left' credentials of DE - which GK does not believe DE has as a result of DEs history. Jon therefore sees the body as a 'left' body and wants both people on that body - whereas - i am assuming here - GK sees DE as acting as a right winger on that body and therefore weakening that body.

But if this is true then why did GK recently ask him to stand for chair on the very same body? I can't get my head around that point. Maybe GK can clear up if something has happened in the here and now, but most of things (if not all) his comments on Jon's blog would have been the case when he asked him to be chair.

You, I assume, must know more about the nature of the body than I would - could you clarify what this is and that would help me to provide possible answers to your question.

Sadly my knowledge of the regional and national bodies isn't good enough. To be honest I find the way UNISON functions extremely hard to grasp as it seems do all the people in my branch as well.

I get your point about compromises taking different shapes and being a tactic and not a principle and that it could be a different situation in the PCS than in UNISON, that's why I asked what the difference was.

I can assure you that I don't make points just to "expose reformists" etc and if you think my political knowledge isn't good enough and I don't know the ABCs then there is not a lot I can do about that! Will try and read some more. But I hope to think the day to day work I do and the relationship I have with others in my branch and the steps forward we are making show that I do have some idea about "why you and me interviene in our respective unions as 'left wingers".

You have obvious differences with the SP but it would be a big mistake to assume the political approach of the SP is not constantly informed by a very clear approach to what we see as the interests of wider membership of the unions rather than 'sectarian' concerns

To be honest when far left groups make decisions that I think are sectarian I very much doubt they think they are consciously doing that and have no doubt that they think what they're doing is in the best interests of the members. It's not the same as decisions made by bureaucrats (of whatever nature - Prentis right wingers or stalinists in other places) who do things for material self interest. So no I don't think the SP do things do be deliberately sectarian and I've never said otherwise.

It is the membership of the unions (just as in wider society) that will decide (and test) the 'superiority' or 'inferiority' of our respective political viewpoints and approaches.

I agree.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Went to an interesting branch mandating meeting this week. I had to ask whether I had turned up to the right PCS meeting - i.e. Public and Commercial Services Union meeting or the Party for Communistic Socialism - Unity meeting.

After the discussion and debate about affiliating to the hands of the people of nobigmacistan or something like that, I had to shoot off for another meeting which meant we didn't get to discuss the more important "branch" issues of effective management and training and development.

There is still a spat going on between people in the BEC about who accused whom of being unsocialistic/untradeunionistic and who was/wasn't acting in the spirit of trade union fraternityism that has been a feature of the labour movement for the past 200 years and all that.

They all had a good barney by the sounds of things but didn't seem to get anywhere in terms of dealing with the concerns of staff. Oh well...