Some better electoral results - PCS
- Thread starter Nigel Irritable
- Start date
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Prince Rhyus said:Confused member and former branch activist trying to make sense of the internal politics of his trade union
Even more confused by the sectarianism in his union which he thought was there to stand up for members interests rather than using the union as a political platform
Prince Rhyus said:Even more confused by the sectarianism in his union which he thought was there to stand up for members interests rather than using the union as a political platform
I think that is precisely what the union is doing. Of course there are debates about tactics etc and there are those who put factional interests above all other considerations.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
I think the central premise of this debate risks being lost. The title is 'Some better electoral results - PCS' and clearly indicated that the poor showing of some socialists in the recent local elections was at least partially compensated by the election results in the PCS. The opening post referred to this being the electoral victory of Left Unity and their 'allies' PCS Democrats, over forces to their right and to the left.
My question is how is electoral victory for the PCS Democrats 'better'?
This electoral coalition include "mainstream Labour" supporters who oppose the tactics of the miners' strike and want a dialogue with Gordon Brown, and a LibDem council leader who has privatised services in his own council and shafted low paid staff (amongst others).
I still don't think we've had an answer other than 'the right wing are even worse'. [And if this is the sole answer, how many of those posters would for example vote LibDem to keep the Tories or even the BNP out on the grounds the 'right wing are even worse'? Nigel won't even bring himself to vote for decent Labour people like John McDonnell, but is happy to present this motley bunch as 'left', and their victory as 'better' than 'sectarians'. ]
Given that people look to what is happening in this union as a guide to what would happen if socialists won wider support, I feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
My question is how is electoral victory for the PCS Democrats 'better'?
This electoral coalition include "mainstream Labour" supporters who oppose the tactics of the miners' strike and want a dialogue with Gordon Brown, and a LibDem council leader who has privatised services in his own council and shafted low paid staff (amongst others).
I still don't think we've had an answer other than 'the right wing are even worse'. [And if this is the sole answer, how many of those posters would for example vote LibDem to keep the Tories or even the BNP out on the grounds the 'right wing are even worse'? Nigel won't even bring himself to vote for decent Labour people like John McDonnell, but is happy to present this motley bunch as 'left', and their victory as 'better' than 'sectarians'. ]
Given that people look to what is happening in this union as a guide to what would happen if socialists won wider support, I feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Sorry duplicate post - ignore.
Well the answer you have had several times is that the PCS Democrats are junior partners in an electoral alliance (that is not the be all and end all is it?) who have not opposed but supported strikes against New Labour. The victory for LU/the Democracy Alliance ensures that PCS will continue to lead the battle against New Labour. Sorry that bothers you. 
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Fanciful, in his indignation at being accurately described as a sectarian, manages to confuse the deal which Unison agreed with the deal which PCS agreed. The PCS deal was quite different and considerably better.
But even to get into that misses the point. In PCS we are talking about a union led by socialists of different stripes, making a decision in difficult circumstances based on what they thought was the best result achievable in that context. I think they were right, you may think that they wrong and it's something we can have a reasonable argument about. But if your starting point is to scream sell-out at those who disagree with you, rather than starting from the point of view that you are dealing with honestly mistaken comrades then do you really think you are ever going to get a response politer than "sectarian"?
Of course the above tip is irrelevant to you, I realise. Your aim in discussions like this is to expose the "centrists" not any real exchange of views.
No, Cr, you really wouldn't. You'd just find some other reason to complain. As for your substantive point:
1) The Socialist Party did openly say that it was against any kind of two tier pension arrangement.
2) But the issue is not as simple as whether or not we are against something. The issue is what it is possible to do about it.
A grouplet like Permanent Revolution, which has no significant influence in any union, workplace, community or struggle, has the luxury of irresponsibility. In any situation all you have to do is propose some escalation of struggle, some radical step, and then get ready to denounce whoever is actually leading that struggle, union or whatever for failing to carry out that step. Then you have proven to your own satisfaction at least, that yes, you are the most revolutionary group there is and, yes, everyone else is indeed a centrist.
But now look at it from another point of view of a genuinely socialist union leadership, trying to get the best results for the membership in a difficult situation. It doesn't have to be this one. Imagine some other difficult situation.
Sometimes launching a campaign for strike action or for escalation can be counterproductive from the point of view of rebuilding a fighting union, if the circumstances are wrong. Say for instance if it was very likely that a vote couldn't be won, and even if it could that the union would be going into a fight evenly split against an employer looking to divide and conquer. Posturing isn't enough. If the left is at all serious about rebuilding the union movement we have to look at what's achievable in any given situation as well as what we might like.
But even to get into that misses the point. In PCS we are talking about a union led by socialists of different stripes, making a decision in difficult circumstances based on what they thought was the best result achievable in that context. I think they were right, you may think that they wrong and it's something we can have a reasonable argument about. But if your starting point is to scream sell-out at those who disagree with you, rather than starting from the point of view that you are dealing with honestly mistaken comrades then do you really think you are ever going to get a response politer than "sectarian"?
Of course the above tip is irrelevant to you, I realise. Your aim in discussions like this is to expose the "centrists" not any real exchange of views.
Cockneyrebel said:
No, Cr, you really wouldn't. You'd just find some other reason to complain. As for your substantive point:
1) The Socialist Party did openly say that it was against any kind of two tier pension arrangement.
2) But the issue is not as simple as whether or not we are against something. The issue is what it is possible to do about it.
A grouplet like Permanent Revolution, which has no significant influence in any union, workplace, community or struggle, has the luxury of irresponsibility. In any situation all you have to do is propose some escalation of struggle, some radical step, and then get ready to denounce whoever is actually leading that struggle, union or whatever for failing to carry out that step. Then you have proven to your own satisfaction at least, that yes, you are the most revolutionary group there is and, yes, everyone else is indeed a centrist.
But now look at it from another point of view of a genuinely socialist union leadership, trying to get the best results for the membership in a difficult situation. It doesn't have to be this one. Imagine some other difficult situation.
Sometimes launching a campaign for strike action or for escalation can be counterproductive from the point of view of rebuilding a fighting union, if the circumstances are wrong. Say for instance if it was very likely that a vote couldn't be won, and even if it could that the union would be going into a fight evenly split against an employer looking to divide and conquer. Posturing isn't enough. If the left is at all serious about rebuilding the union movement we have to look at what's achievable in any given situation as well as what we might like.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It never ceases to amaze me how thin skinned our Permanent Revolution brethren are.
You would think that a Spartoid group, which spends most of its time trying to "expose" other left wing groups and which regards it as perfectly normal to start a discussion within the socialist movement by claiming that everyone else is a sell out, would be accustomed to being described as sectarians. You'd also think that a worldwide association of perhaps 35 communists would be well used to being described as a grouplet.
You would think that a Spartoid group, which spends most of its time trying to "expose" other left wing groups and which regards it as perfectly normal to start a discussion within the socialist movement by claiming that everyone else is a sell out, would be accustomed to being described as sectarians. You'd also think that a worldwide association of perhaps 35 communists would be well used to being described as a grouplet.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
The term "fringes of the Labour movement" appears to be missing from the pick-a-phrase machine these days.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Groucho said:Well the answer you have had several times is that the PCS Democrats are junior partners in an electoral alliance (that is not the be all and end all is it?) who have not opposed but supported strikes against New Labour. The victory for LU/the Democracy Alliance ensures that PCS will continue to lead the battle against New Labour. Sorry that bothers you.
I'm just pleased I don't live in Bristol and have to suffer my social services being privatised by your LibDem friend in the 'Democracy Alliance'. Sorry if that doesn't bother you.
cockneyrebel
New Member
Not totally suprising given how few members we have!
Nigel once again you throw around the usual petty remarks (and many people in the SP, like dennisr, aren't like that).
Have you even read what I said above? I actually said I disagree with you and that was the starting point (and said I wouldn't call the SP sell outs), but never mind.
What a great starting point for debate. Stomp your feet and say I don't believe you......
No my point is that the SP didn't argue and fight for a no against the deal on the basis that it will create a two tier work force/union. If the SP had done that and the members had voted no I'd say fair enough, but you didn't even try. And what makes it even worse is you used the same logic to support someone to the right of Serwotka and that showed you were totally in the wrong, yet in your arrogance you can't even conceive that you might have got it wrong again.
Indeed I think your literature after the deal down played what a divisive deal it was and tried to portray the deal as a partial victory rather than a partial defeat.
Well the employer did divide, through a two tier deal. How can you know it would be very close before the vote has even be had especially when you got the Serwotka call so wrong? Also if a yes vote had been won (even by a small majority) this would create more struggle in and of itself in terms of links with other unions given those kind of cuts were going on across the board.
But as said you don't seem interested in constructive debate but just throwing around silly remarks, not a lot of point really.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I have a great deal of sympathy for this position, and (from my conversatons with PCS members) would agree that there was virtually no chance of winning a ballot at that point to esacalate action to defend new joiners.Nigel Irritable said:
However, this is the first time (afaik) that Nigel has actually admitted that the strike action was not a complete and utter total victory! That was my big gripe with the PCS exec line after the last strike, the claim that it was a complete win, when, as Nigel now admits, it wasn't. It was that lie that left the UL open to the claim of sellout, and why the split got a fairly decent vote - just under half that of the UL, on a pathetic turnout it has to be said.
cockneyrebel
New Member
But this is the point. Should the left only argue what they think will be possible at that moment in time or openly say what they think is needed to win the dispute in the long run. If the SP had fought for more action and the members had rejected it then fair enough. But to present what happened as a partial victory, when in reality it created a two tier workforce/union, was, in my view, totally wrong.
Exactly. If the SP had fought for action to defend new members and lost the ballot then they would stand in a much better light now. It was obvious to any socialist that creating a two tier workforce was a defeat.
Also out of the total votes cast what was the breakdown for the different factions? What total did each one get?
If the SC got half of what the UL got I don't think that's a bad result at all.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
Prince Rhyus said:Even more confused by the sectarianism in his union which he thought was there to stand up for members interests rather than using the union as a political platform
If I were you, I would try and ignore all the national politics of the union, and focus on the local issues. The national political situation in PCS only becomes an issue for local reps if it means they are unable to get the support they need or want to deal with local concerns.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
belboid said:
What 'anti-labourism'?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
cockneyrebel said:
Dennisr is a more patient man than I am. Although his relative willingness to respond to Spartoid drivel in an amicable way may simply be a result of having wasted less time on the squealing of internet sectarians in the past.
There are groups on the left, PR amongst them, which are dedicated only to "exposing" the "failures" of the larger groups. I'm simply not interested in engaging with that kind of shit anymore, because I'm well aware that if it wasn't this issue it would be the next one. The shrill accusations of "sell out", the constant yapping about how they are more revolutionary, these aren't character flaws in individual members of say the IBT. It's part of their strategy. It is in fact basic to the worldview. And just as they can choose to post endlessly about how nobody else has done whatever as all real revolutionaries would, I can choose not to be very polite about it.
That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to read anything members of such groups post - when you aren't comparing and contrasting the one true revolutionary road with everyone else, you are an interesting contributor for instance. It doesn't even mean that I'm unwilling to read the material produced by these groups themselves. The Sparts put out some excellent historical articles. I picked up a copy of PR and actually enjoyed some parts of it. I'm just not willing to pretend that the views of these groups on the approaches taken by organisations which are actually involved in struggles are based on honest evaluation rather than sectarian pointscoring any more.
cockneyrebel said:
Yes I have. I wasn't responding to you. That passage was explicitly addressed to fanciful.
cockneyrebel said:
I'm a bit baffled by your ability to read a response and then ignore it to repeat your first point, I must say. Doesn't it get awfully tedious after a while?
I pointed out to you that sometimes launching a campaign for what would objectively and ideally be the best possible response can in fact be counterproductive. You didn't deny that, or even refer to it. Instead you just repeated that the Socialist Party didn't even do something it thought would be counterproductive, as if you were making some incisive point.
belboid said:
What? When have I ever presented the PCS pensions deal as anything other than the best that could be got in difficult circumstances?
Are you confusing me with someone else?
cockneyrebel
New Member
If you have that much disdain for people's posts then I'd say don't respond rather than wasting your time responding. You seem like an angry man
But this simply isn't true. For instance I have a very constructive and amicable relationship with your two councillors in Lewisham and we're currently doing joint work. Again they're a far cry from your childish outbursts.
Also PR members are doing united front work all around the country including leading asylum campaigns in the north and helping to building things like the RMT initiative and stuff like Defend Council Housing and the Save NHS campaign. Indeed I recently put someone who works for a hospital which has had closures in contact with one of your comrades. All this doesn't fit in with your nice little boxes of course, but never mind, as long as you can have a nice little rant. Calm down dear as the commercial goes.
Simple answer then, don't. As with Uberdog your zealot like rants just make you and your organisation look bad, you're better off remaining silent. I really hope you're not like this in real life.
Again read my posts. You say it's a response to fanciful but you're bile seems to extent equally to me.
Can you point out where I have done that out of interest? Indeed I've been quite open that PR is tiny and certainly doesn't have all the answers.
If you think what I post is about point scoring you're wrong, but if that's what you think then fair enough.
Yes "awfully" tedious old boy.
But you seem to ignore what I say. First of all I said that the SP saying vote for a candiate to the right of Serwotka has already shown that the SP does get it wrong about what is possible, at least have the grace to admit that and that might possibly mean that you could get it wrong again.
Why is it counterproductive to launch a campaign for what is needed to stop a defeat (a two tier workforce)? If you win the majority of members over the is a solid base to go from (even if a small majority), especially when other unions were facing the same struggle. If the members vote no then the SP would look better for not having said that two tier workforce/union is a partial victory. Instead the left is associated with saying that a two tier workforce is a partial victory. Indeed the SP literature I read certainly didn't give an impression that what happened was a negative thing.
Soul On Ice
Well-Known Member
Nigel Irritable said:
Interesting point Nigel, not least that I could see myself, as an FTO, saying something very similar over the numerous disputes I've been involved in. I might say something like:
"....we are talking about a union led by trade unionists of different stripes, making a decision in difficult circumstances based on what they thought was the best result achievable in that context. I think they were right, you may think that they wrong and it's something we can have a reasonable argument about. But if your starting point is to scream sell-out at those who disagree with you, rather than starting from the point of view that you are dealing with honestly mistaken comrades then do you really think you are ever going to get a response politer than "trotsykite wrecker"?"
Will you be applying your own rationale as applied to the left when you speak about FTOs from your own and other unions. Or is it only ultra left trade unionists who are "making a decision in difficult circumstances based on what they thought was the best result achievable in that context."
Nigel Irritable said:
I could also imagine myself saying almost exactly the same about any of the plethora of ultra left "grouplets" I've come across. Except of course I would never be called "centrist" but "right wing" (such an apt term for someone who believes in the right or workers to organise and the need to invest in public services)
Nigel Irritable said:
Bloody hell - you sound like an FTO again!! Are you really a member of a far left organiser or a "right wing" infiltrator. I guess my comments don't help strengthen your arguments with the other comrades on this thread
but you might want to reflect no what you've said and see how it might apply to other who take a more "establishment" position than you.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Soul On Ice said:
The fact that a bureaucrat might say something sometimes doesn't, shocking as this may seem, mean that it is always wrong. Union bureaucrats also breathe, shit and eat, all things I've been known to do from time to time. Just because union bureaucrats can misuse similar arguments doesn't mean that such arguments are in and of themselves unacceptable to socialists. For that matter, even bureaucrats have been right on particular issues from time to time - stopped clocks and all that.
Everyone justifies their particular approach. The self interested sub-reformists who run most of our unions don't wake up in the morning, twiddle their moustaches, cackle to themselves and declare "today I will screw over the working class in favour of a false 'partnership' with the employers". They use practical justifications even to themselves. The question isn't whether someone tries to justify their approach on the basis of difficult circumstances. Yhe question is whether that justification holds water.
By the way, I'm well aware that there are honestly mistaken, well meaning people, who are part of the trade union bureaucracy. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a bureaucracy, with it's own material interests, seperate to those of the members.
Soul On Ice
Well-Known Member
Nigel Irritable said:
A bit of a staggeringly arrogant position to take, don't you think? You can use the argument that sometimes that "sometimes launching a campaign for strike action or for escalation can be counter productive from the point of view of rebuilding a fighting union" but if I were to use such an argument cos I'm a bureaucrat I would "misuse" it. No wonder most union members I come across are turned off by the hard left.
Nigel Irritable said:
Glad to see that there is at least one person on the hard left who acknowledge FTOs don't wake up in the morning with the aim of selling folk down the river. As to FTOs using "practical justifications" for their actions. You could well say that of everyone, including hard left activists. I might argue that they some might have a noble but misguided belief that what they are doing is right.
Nigel Irritable said:
By the way, I'm well aware that there are honestly mistaken, well meaning people, who are part of the trade union hard left. But that doesn't change the fact that they are political activists, with their own material and political interests, separate to those of the members
Silly sniping aside, my point in my original post was just that now that you are under attack from your hard left comrades, using (and believing) arguments that some FTOs might use, you might want to reflect upon how you deal with "the establishment" in the future. Disagree, by all means. But calling an FTO a sell out when they have a genuinely held belief in a position (as you appear to have) is as counter productive as when that claim has been made against you.
'By the way, I'm well aware that there are honestly mistaken, well meaning people, who are part of the trade union bureaucracy. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a bureaucracy, with it's own material interests, seperate to those of the members' (quote from Nigel Irritable)
At the risk of sounding like a soft left reformist who is naive (partly true...) can anyone enlighten me on precisely how does the trade union bureacracies material interests differ from its members. Furthermore where does the demarcation between union activists and the 'bureaucracy' begin and end? For example there are Socialist Party members on the PCS NEC. What does that make them ? bureaucrats or not?
At the risk of sounding like a soft left reformist who is naive (partly true...) can anyone enlighten me on precisely how does the trade union bureacracies material interests differ from its members. Furthermore where does the demarcation between union activists and the 'bureaucracy' begin and end? For example there are Socialist Party members on the PCS NEC. What does that make them ? bureaucrats or not?
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Soul On Ice said:
I'm already willing to evaluate arguments used by bureaucrats on their merits. As I said above, rare though it is, they have been known to be right occasionally. And it is easy, from opposition, to automatically demand some more radical step, regardless of whether that step is realistically possible and then claim a sell out when that step isn't taken. But it has to be said, that occasions where I think there's any merit to the arguments of the bureaucracy are few and far between.
That's because their entire outlook, their vision of what is even possible, tends to be alien to mine. There's nothing like a few years of being a union bureaucrat to reconcile someone to routinism, partnership and not rocking the boat. They will often genuinely hold a position that a particular action is futile and counterproductive because they, quite genuinely, think that about pretty much any real struggle. I do not believe that. My different assessment of tactical possibilities in the PCS compared to someone like Cr is a tactical disagreement. We are in underlying agreement that the working class and the union movement does have the power to take on the state, that workers and employers are not "partners" and so on. That's not something which can be said about the average trade union bureaucrat.[/QUOTE]
In reply to Timbo - I think being on the PCS NEC does not of itself make one a bureaucrat. However, a FTO in PCS is by their nature alienated from members by their nature of their work and their salaries.
Why is that a lot of FTOs are against being elected annually by members? I and a lot of activists in PCS have to be elected - why not FTOs.
Union bureaucracies will have a dual position - they will fight for members but at the same time have their own pressures and dynamic in the union machine.
The current PCS dispute can go a number of ways. I like others hope for success but realistic to know that in a dispute, one does not always win everything we started out to win. In the current dispute - a major loss will not only damage PCS but the wider trade union movement.
I have seen enough of glorious defeats - I will take an ugly win any time.
Why is that a lot of FTOs are against being elected annually by members? I and a lot of activists in PCS have to be elected - why not FTOs.
Union bureaucracies will have a dual position - they will fight for members but at the same time have their own pressures and dynamic in the union machine.
The current PCS dispute can go a number of ways. I like others hope for success but realistic to know that in a dispute, one does not always win everything we started out to win. In the current dispute - a major loss will not only damage PCS but the wider trade union movement.
I have seen enough of glorious defeats - I will take an ugly win any time.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
The position is not as optimistic for Nigel as his first post makes it appear.
Apparently both the Left Unity/Democratic Alliance and right wing slates lost over 10% of their votes to the Independent Left slate. I've been sent the following analysis (LU is Left Unity/Democratic Alliance, 4TM is the right wing slate(s?), IL is the left wing slate - 2007 only). Sorry the columns don't line up ...
President
Faction 2006 2007
LU 56% 44.5%
4TM 44% 35.5%
IL 20%
Organiser
Faction 2006 2007
LU 54% 44.3%
4TM 46% 34.5%
IL 21%
Treasurer
Faction 2006 2007
LU 53% 37.4%
4TM 47% 43.5%
IL 19%
Vice Presidents
Faction 2006 2007
LU 58-47% 48-36%
4TM 49.6-46% 36.5%-33%
IL 24.5-21.7%
Assistant Secretaries
Faction 2006 2007
LU 57-49% 45-38%
4TM 47.7-43% 36.4%-28%
IL 26-18.3%
Journal Editor
Faction 2007
LU 67%
IL 33%
GEC
Faction 2006 2007
LU 56-41.5% 49-33%
4TM 43.7-31% 37-27%
IL 33.5-15%
Apparently both the Left Unity/Democratic Alliance and right wing slates lost over 10% of their votes to the Independent Left slate. I've been sent the following analysis (LU is Left Unity/Democratic Alliance, 4TM is the right wing slate(s?), IL is the left wing slate - 2007 only). Sorry the columns don't line up ...
President
Faction 2006 2007
LU 56% 44.5%
4TM 44% 35.5%
IL 20%
Organiser
Faction 2006 2007
LU 54% 44.3%
4TM 46% 34.5%
IL 21%
Treasurer
Faction 2006 2007
LU 53% 37.4%
4TM 47% 43.5%
IL 19%
Vice Presidents
Faction 2006 2007
LU 58-47% 48-36%
4TM 49.6-46% 36.5%-33%
IL 24.5-21.7%
Assistant Secretaries
Faction 2006 2007
LU 57-49% 45-38%
4TM 47.7-43% 36.4%-28%
IL 26-18.3%
Journal Editor
Faction 2007
LU 67%
IL 33%
GEC
Faction 2006 2007
LU 56-41.5% 49-33%
4TM 43.7-31% 37-27%
IL 33.5-15%
Fisher_Gate said:
It really isn't. They are positioned to the right of LU. The AWL/CPGB who form part of this alliance were critical of the leadership from a left position before the national dispute but have reorientated themselves to the right since the dispute started. Others in the alliance have consistantly been to the right (of the left). Whether you see it as 'left' or not though it is unprincipled. The fact is they failed to knock LU candidates off in favour of the right-wing which clearly was their intention.
disownedspirit
New Member
Nigel Irritable said:
a very well said and correct post as far as im concerned
Fisher_Gate said:
GODRICH, Janice Department for Work and Pensions
14,347 ELECTED. Left Unity
WILDE, Jake HM Revenue & Custom. 4theMembers
9,599
CURRIE, Stuart Department for Work and Pensions. Moderate
5,838
HULME, Christine Department for Work and Pensions. Independent Left.
3,158
One of the IL's more sensible candidates, CH. If the right-wing hadn't been split then the IL may have ensured the election of a right-wing President. Not just a right-wing President but a complete idiot to boot.
Second point is - that is NOT 20% for the IL.
Fisher_Gate said:
Hold on, you are looking at a different set of results. The thread is about the election of National Exec. You have posted a Group Exec election - is that DWP? If so cool! The LU did better than expected. The threat of right-wingers taking seats in the DWP was much greater because there has been some discontent with the LU (flawed) strategy in the DWP dispute. The IL were quite hopeful of getting a fair few 4TM's elected by standing in the DWP.
Similar threads
