UNITE left meeting

[Urbanblues]

Is this really relevant? But for what its worth Ill say this.

I reckon the majority of United Left supporters at Manchester were from the TGWU side. I cant be sure of what percentage. (do you agree UrbanBlues?)

I know Fairclough as I was in his region for a short while.He is on the right of the union!!

I would find it difficult to accept the TGWU left supporting someone like him.

It was an AUG decision.

There were around 70 UL supporters from the London and Eastern Region. Of these I'd say 45 were ex T&G. I understand the NW split was similar and there were around 100 from the home region.

I'd say the ex-T&G formed the majority of the supporters on Saturday.

 

[Urbanblues]

Fishergate, the running of the UL hustings on Saturday was anything but perfect; but the question of ‘exclusions’ has been taken out of all proportion to what occurred.

By 12.20 there were around may have been twelve people in total who couldn’t be accounted for; and, were not allowed entry.

Prior to the hustings the L&E UL had met to discuss, amongst other things, how we were going to deal with admissions on the day. We had a long debate over how to distinguish UL supporters from people who just wanted to turn up on the day to add weight to a candidates vote.

The T&G Broad Left never had these problems. People turned up to our meetings and participated, or not. However, when we began talks with the Gazette, they warned us of the tricks played at their National meetings in Preston; and so, with the full support of the Gazette we decided safeguards needed to be put in place.

The five or so people who were not on my database list were totally unknown to me. I had no idea if I was turning away Hicks, Williams or McCluskey supporters. Indeed, they could have been neutrals.

As far as I was aware none of them had attended a UL meeting in the past year; I’d not seen them at T&G Broad Left meetings ever; and, I didn’t recognise them from the Gazette meetings I’d attended.

So, who were these Left Comrades that never attended Regional Left meetings of either the BL or AUG; but, could schlep all the way to Manchester from the South in order to attend a hustings.

The biggest concerns I have are that there are still those who wish to carry on corrupt practices we thought we’d eliminated. I suppose old habits die hard.

 

[Urbanblues]

Thanks. I think that given it was a tactical disaster by a self-styled leftwing in one of the major components of the union who subsequently lost all credibility, then yes it is relevant.

It seems difficult for anyone in either wing of the union to be sure about what happened in the other half including the various predecessor unions, so the exclusion policy seems somewhat zealous.

Does the report on the Permanent Revolution website by someone who was excluded at the time of the meeting, but later had it confirmed that they should have been a bona fide attendee, not give you any cause for concern?

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2819

“Once Upon a Time in a land far away; a land so fantastic and full of fantastical things there lived a fantasist who sat and fanaticised all day long. Day in day he dreamed up delusions the one more dastardly than the one before.

“Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it infamy!” he could be heard muttering as he searched the events pages of Left publications seeking out meetings he could be excluded from; conferences where he wasn’t welcomed; and, caucuses of nameless organisations that man and time had tired of...”

Just read the PR piece. Have they opened the gates into the realms of fantasy this weekend? And, we wonder why nobody takes us on the Left seriously. Jesus Christ, some of people are caricatures; I don’t think even the right wing press could do as good a job.

 

[nightbreed]

The point about the AUG is that they "bussed" in Blairites but kept everyone else out.

No they didnt!!!

You really dont understand the point.

The meeting was a closed meeting of UL supporters, not an open meeting. If say the SWP decided they wanted to swamp the meeting by getting 100 students to join Unite the week before and support who the SWP CC instructed them to, they wouldnt have been able to do so. The same I understand couldnt have been said about the old AUG. At one recent meeting in Preston the editorial board who were on the hard left were kicked out with the support of a load of people from Jack Straws Labour Party. They were not bonefide members of the AUG. You though obviously find that behaviour acceptable.

 

[bi0boy]

This is what they do with my £9.99?

 

[nightbreed]

This is what they do with my £9.99?

They? who?

You pay your subs to the union. Not United left.

Small point but I think its an important detail.

 

[Silver_Fox]

I think it is unfortunate that you choose to denegrate the PCS as a small union and say "funny things happen" in small unions. Actually it has over 320,000 members so it's not that small at all (as oppossed to ASLEF with 18,500 members). The fact is that the PCS is one of the most militant unions in the country and one of the only unions in the country actually gaining members.

But by the logic of you and UB you wouldn't have supported him.

Where did I say that someone should be tied to the SWP, SP or RESPECT. However I do think that someone with socialist politics would better represent the union. I don't think someone with the politics of Woodley falls into the category and they will fail the memebership once again. I can't work out why a broad left would back such a candidate.

 

[belboid]

Arguments about whether or not to support Rob Williams are all but irrelevant. he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, and probably not even of being nominated by the requisite number of branches. Sadly, a vote for Rob in any GD election would just be one less for McCluskey, who will be the only person with a realistic chance of stopping a Les Bayliss election, and Bayliss would make Derek Simpson look like a paragon of democratic virtue.

The big problem with events on saturday was that the UL had failed to adequately inform the members of the arrangements in a timely fashion. I received them two days before the meeting, giving me just enough time to confirm that I was a bona fide member (and then my bloody lift didn't turn up on the day itself, grrr). Arrangements re 'weighted voting' and other matters to stop areas bussing people in were also confusingly put forward, so that there was a widespread dissatisfaction amongst many members with the arrangements, and a dis-trust of the top tables honesty. Whilst those arrangements were made, imo, with the best of intentions, and not implemented to favour or disfavour anyone in particular (they were brought in because of the farcical goings on in the old AUG), on the day they proved unnecessary and obstructive. I'd be surprised if the PR member was the only one excluded who was actually a bona fide member. Given the small numbers involved, there was no really good reason to exclude them. A farcical bit of bureaucratism that will only damage the UL.

i find it odd that some are criticising Hicks for going against 'official' AUG candidates. But considering how pathetic and (in all practical terms) corrupt the AUG had become, why one earth should anyone follow its 'lead'? They didn't support the challenge to simpson, and then backed a right-wing candidate who stood down before the election! Jokers.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

No they didnt!!!

You really dont understand the point.

The meeting was a closed meeting of UL supporters, not an open meeting. If say the SWP decided they wanted to swamp the meeting by getting 100 students to join Unite the week before and support who the SWP CC instructed them to, they wouldnt have been able to do so. The same I understand couldnt have been said about the old AUG. At one recent meeting in Preston the editorial board who were on the hard left were kicked out with the support of a load of people from Jack Straws Labour Party. They were not bonefide members of the AUG. You though obviously find that behaviour acceptable.

No I don't find it acceptable that Labour Party members were bussed in, but the AUG had their own stupid constitution that included the requirement to hold meetings in Preston of all places so they could have expected silly games.

I don't know how you can possibly run 'closed' meetings without a membership/attendance list, otherwise it becomes arbitrary as to who is included or excluded.

If someone on a membership list is excluded from attending a meeting they have the legal right to know that and why. That's because if you maintain a membership list you need to register under the Data Protection Act, which because of the data subject access rights brings a modicum of reassurance that people are not being excluded for arbitrary reasons.

The UL seem to be in halfway house - there is seemingly a 'shadow' membership list that was used on Saturday, but people (genuinely as far as I can see) don't know what the requirements are to get on it nor can they challenge their exclusion. At least one person claims to have been on the 'shadow' list but was still excluded.

Given the stakes it was inevitable this would result in conflict. Introducing a requirement to physically attend prior meetings could be regarded as discriminatory in law, particularly for people who live at a distance from the meeting location or have shift work or childcare commitments. Submission of accepted apologies is normal in such circumstances.

Even then the whole thing seems to be more under the control of a wing of the bureaucracy than the rank and file. I mean if the T&GWU Broad Left was so good, how come Woodley is so useless and unaccountable? For example he didn't even come out in support John McDonnell in the Labour Party leadership election despite the unanimous backing of the Broad Left, and the TGWU supported Gordon Brown for christ's sake - how "left" is that?

 

[rioted]

...You though obviously find that behaviour acceptable.

IME 99.9% of leninists/trots find it acceptable if it works in their favour and reprehensible if not.

 

[belboid]

I mean if the T&GWU Broad Left was so good, how come Woodley is so useless and unaccountable? For example he didn't even come out in support John McDonnell in the Labour Party leadership election despite the unanimous backing of the Broad Left, and the TGWU supported Gordon Brown for christ's sake - how "left" is that?

it is almost funny that a joker like FG's only point of criticism for Woodley is that he supported Brown not McDonnell. not any internal union matters, support for strikes etc etc, nope, only the Labour Party leadership election. not that that's unimportant, far from it, but it being the only example on offer shows how fg is clutching at straws.

Woodley has been a far better leader than most others, vastly preferable to Simpson or Bayliss, or the likes of Prentis, or indeeed any of all but three unions. the support he (& McLuskey) gave to the Lindsey etc strikers was far more than would have been got from most unions, and was vital. It helped to actually change things, it wasn't merely pontification and hot air (which is all we get from fg.)

I'd much rather elect a revolutinary socialist as leader of britans biggest union. but it isn't going to happen. And i very much do not want a properly right-wing, corrupt, cunt as my unions leader, so, with some sadness, its McLuskey for me.

 

[Urbanblues]

I think it is unfortunate that you choose to denegrate the PCS as a small union and say "funny things happen" in small unions. Actually it has over 320,000 members so it's not that small at all (as oppossed to ASLEF with 18,500 members). The fact is that the PCS is one of the most militant unions in the country and one of the only unions in the country actually gaining members.

But by the logic of you and UB you wouldn't have supported him.

Where did I say that someone should be tied to the SWP, SP or RESPECT. However I do think that someone with socialist politics would better represent the union. I don't think someone with the politics of Woodley falls into the category and they will fail the memebership once again. I can't work out why a broad left would back such a candidate.

The PCS union and Unite are completely different entities. The first covering a narrow field of employment sectors while the second covers 24 sectors within which hundreds of sub-sectors exist. Unite is a far more diverse proposition to the PCS.

Given the choice of candidates standing in the PCS election I’m sure I’d have voted for the only Left candidate.

 

[Urbanblues]

i find it odd that some are criticising Hicks for going against 'official' AUG candidates. But considering how pathetic and (in all practical terms) corrupt the AUG had become, why one earth should anyone follow its 'lead'? They didn't support the challenge to simpson, and then backed a right-wing candidate who stood down before the election! Jokers.

Belboid, nobody put a gun to Hicks’ head and forced him to seek the AUG’s nomination for the Amicus GS election. He sought the nomination; wasn’t chosen; and, then stood anyway.

You’re correct, why would anyone follow the then AUG’s ‘lead’. But, it seemed important enough at the time for Hicks to do so. You’re also correct; they did nominate a right-winger who subsequently jumped ship leaving them without a candidate.

What a shame Hicks didn’t stay and speak. Maybe he could have swayed the ambivalent in the audience with his compelling arguments. Trouble is all he succeeded doing on Saturday was to walk out with less people on the second occasion than the first. Had he been given the opportunity of a third walkout, I think he’d have been alone.

 

[nightbreed]

it is almost funny that a joker like FG's only point of criticism for Woodley is that he supported Brown not McDonnell. not any internal union matters, support for strikes etc etc, nope, only the Labour Party leadership election. not that that's unimportant, far from it, but it being the only example on offer shows how fg is clutching at straws.

Woodley has been a far better leader than most others, vastly preferable to Simpson or Bayliss, or the likes of Prentis, or indeeed any of all but three unions. the support he (& McLuskey) gave to the Lindsey etc strikers was far more than would have been got from most unions, and was vital. It helped to actually change things, it wasn't merely pontification and hot air (which is all we get from fg.)

I'd much rather elect a revolutinary socialist as leader of britans biggest union. but it isn't going to happen. And i very much do not want a properly right-wing, corrupt, cunt as my unions leader, so, with some sadness, its McLuskey for me.

Spoken like someone with reality fixed firmly on their agenda.

Take note Fisher Gate.

 

[nightbreed]

For the benefit of lefty groups who specialise in busing in supporters.........

I hate cutting and pasting but for the benefit of those on the left with problems comprehending how United Left works here is what was put out on the 22nd August.

Saturday, 22 August 2009
General Secretary Election
Unite will elect its first sole General Secretary during 2010 who will replace the existing Joint General Secretaries by the end of 2011.

The election will set the tone for the next few years for the union - will we be a union that accommodates to the employers or will we be a fighting back union.

The United Left are holding hustings to determine which candidate we will be supporting in the election.

The hustings meeting will be open to all United Left supporters who will be able to listen to and question the candidates, and then vote to determine the United Left's choice.

The meeting will take place on Saturday, 5th September 2009 from Noon - 3:00 pm.

The venue is:
Friends Meeting House
6 Mount Street
MANCHESTER M2 5NS
(map)

The venue is approximate 3/4 mile from Manchester Piccadilly Station.

United Left supporters who wish to be considered as potential candidates for the post of General Secretary Designate should write to the National Secretary at 33 Woodstock Road, BIRMINGHAM B13 9BD, giving notice of their interest, in good time to arrive by Tuesday, 1st September.

Potential candidates will be asked to give an undertaking not to run in the election against the United Left candidate if they fail to win the United Left selection contest. The same principle will also apply to individual supporters, i.e. they will be asked not to campaign or vote for any candidate other than the official United Left candidate.

For further information you can email the National Secretary.

On that website there are links to the various coordinators in the regions who could have validated potential UL supporters. I find it odd that Hicks and his supporters who would have turned up to the opening of a fridge, if it had a picket line round it, hadnt used this idiot proof method of registering for the conference.I personally would then have enjoyed and supported Jerry's contribution. Unfortunately he wouldnt let me by his stage managed antics.

Check the site here.

 

[Shevek]

was on the train leaving Manchester at about 4/5 on saturday afternoon. There were two guys sat behind me talking about TU issues. Wondered if there had been something going on in mcr.

 

[Urbanblues]

was on the train leaving Manchester at about 4/5 on saturday afternoon. There were two guys sat behind me talking about TU issues. Wondered if there had been something going on in mcr.

Where was your train bound?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

... You’re also correct; they did nominate a right-winger who subsequently jumped ship leaving them without a candidate.

...

Err no, the mass ranks of the AUG, that wing of the Union's then "Broad Left" and "the only show in town" according to some, were unable to get him enough Branch nominations, despite the support of the likes of the SWP, to run a credible campaign effectively forcing him to withdraw.

Then, and only then, did he jump ship and endorse the incumbent.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

....

"The hustings meeting will be open to all United Left supporters who will be able to listen to and question the candidates, and then vote to determine the United Left's choice."
...

Where does it say what the rules for being considered a UL supporter and allowed into the meeting are?

 

[nightbreed]

Fisher Gate.

Where does it tell me on the SWP website I can participate in the next SWP CC meeting? I am a Marxist/Trotskyist and an active 'fighting back member of a trade union? Surely I can rightfully participate cant I?

Seriously, you contact the coordinator to join on the website. But dont you think that information should go to members only? The UL meeting was an internal UL meeting , not open to anyone. Why cant you understand this?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

it is almost funny that a joker like FG's only point of criticism for Woodley is that he supported Brown not McDonnell. not any internal union matters, support for strikes etc etc, nope, only the Labour Party leadership election. not that that's unimportant, far from it, but it being the only example on offer shows how fg is clutching at straws.
...

Well I'm not a member of that union, so it is only natural that I pick on broader issues of Labour movement politics ...

but supporting Brown in the Labour leadership election was a scabbing position, especially when the Broad Left had declared unanimously for McDonnell.

It says that every rotten position of the Labour government is acceptable to the biggest union in the country, who would not put up a whimper yet alone a fight, so yes, far from clutching at straws, I make no apology for raising it as a touchstone.

A union leader elected with the support of the Broad Left, who then pisses on the positions of it once in office is truly awful, if predictable, and affected every labour movement activist in the country.

Give me Serwotka any day.

 

[nightbreed]

Well I'm not a member of that union,.

End of discussion!!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

End of discussion!!

Well that's a typical right wing view.

 

[Urbanblues]

Well that's a typical right wing view.

When all else fails...predictability prevails.

 

[nightbreed]

Back to the real world again.

 

[Silver_Fox]

Why is it end of discussion? Are you seriously saying that union activists should only talk about what goes on in their union? And you said you were a marxist?

The PCS union and Unite are completely different entities. The first covering a narrow field of employment sectors while the second covers 24 sectors within which hundreds of sub-sectors exist. Unite is a far more diverse proposition to the PCS.

Given the choice of candidates standing in the PCS election I’m sure I’d have voted for the only Left candidate.

Actually much of the left said didn't support Serwotka in favour of another candidate for very similar reasons you have given.

Actually the PCS covers a wide range of sectors, but I don't think that matters that much.

Whatever happened in the meeting I find it strange and disappointing that the best candidate the broad left could back was someone who will be not better than Woodley, someone who backed Gordon Brown and hasn't exactly been an inspirational figure for union members.

 

[belboid]

Well I'm not a member of that union, so it is only natural that I pick on broader issues of Labour movement politics ...

all but irrelevant. I prefer to talk about how to actually build a fighting, winning union. Even if Woodley (who isn't the sole GS of corse) had decided to insist the Unite vote went for McDonnel, it would have made no difference, Brown would styill have won, and it would have been very doubtful whether McDonnel would have even got enough nominations to stand. So, your sole big point isn't even a very good one.

Being a member of another union, and not knowing much aobut ours, doesn't mean 'end of discussion' for me, but it does show that you should shut up occasionally and try and learn something. Cos you really dont know the ins and outs at all.

Don't forget that this is the first joint union election, there will still be splits between the Amicus & T&G side. that will have a significant effect upon all votes for the next leader. And, quite simply, Rob will get very few from Amicus, and Jerry will get only slightly more from T&G members if they both stand, and each would probabnly only do slightly better if there were a 'joint candidature'.

I make no pretence that Woodley has been a godlike leader, but he has done a better job than anyone bar Serwotka and Crow, but neither of them, nor anyone remotely like them is going to win the election. And as we come up to leading a union under a tory government, having a shitty right-winger in place is the last thing we need.

SF, do you have any connection with Unite? I only ask cos if you honestly think that Woodley hasn't inspired anyone, you'd be ignorant of the support he has got from many of the most important disputes over the last few years.

 

[Urbanblues]

all but irrelevant. I prefer to talk about how to actually build a fighting, winning union. Even if Woodley (who isn't the sole GS of corse) had decided to insist the Unite vote went for McDonnel, it would have made no difference, Brown would styill have won, and it would have been very doubtful whether McDonnel would have even got enough nominations to stand. So, your sole big point isn't even a very good one.

Being a member of another union, and not knowing much aobut ours, doesn't mean 'end of discussion' for me, but it does show that you should shut up occasionally and try and learn something. Cos you really dont know the ins and outs at all.

Don't forget that this is the first joint union election, there will still be splits between the Amicus & T&G side. that will have a significant effect upon all votes for the next leader. And, quite simply, Rob will get very few from Amicus, and Jerry will get only slightly more from T&G members if they both stand, and each would probabnly only do slightly better if there were a 'joint candidature'.

I make no pretence that Woodley has been a godlike leader, but he has done a better job than anyone bar Serwotka and Crow, but neither of them, nor anyone remotely like them is going to win the election. And as we come up to leading a union under a tory government, having a shitty right-winger in place is the last thing we need.

SF, do you have any connection with Unite? I only ask cos if you honestly think that Woodley hasn't inspired anyone, you'd be ignorant of the support he has got from many of the most important disputes over the last few years.

Indeed, leading figures in Enfield Visteon dispute have praised the work Tony Woodley carried out on their behalf.

It's incredible that people are willing to post to sites such as this and SU from a position of near total ignorance. Many, on both sites, claim not to know McCluskey, or of him; yet, they're willing to proffer political analysis of the Unite/UL situation.

Reading or hearing something second, third or fourth hand does not give people the right to make judgements of others. Because someone you know knew someone who heard from someone who thinks they knew someone who might have attended a hustings in Manchester on 5th September doesn’t entitle the poster to make a judgement of those involved in the hustings or the event.

I’ve said it before; and, doubtlessly I’ll say it again – access to the Internet is not a licence to act like a moron.

 

[Urbanblues]

Why is it end of discussion? Are you seriously saying that union activists should only talk about what goes on in their union? And you said you were a marxist?

Anyone can express a view on the business of other unions. However, when views become opinionated political point scoring; when information posted is only supported by ignorance and ‘know-nothing-ness’. I think those closer to the issue, those who know the players, and those who were present at the event and know what went on are entitle to tell the ‘outsiders’ to politely “Shut the fuck up. You’re talking bollocks!”

If you think you’re entitled to a say in Unite’s UL; join Unite; then become a supporter of the UL; then attend your Regional meetings; support local and National events, disputes, strikes, lock-ins; bring new Comrades into the fold – then, and only then will you be able to speak from a position of authority.

 

[Silver_Fox]

all but irrelevant. I prefer to talk about how to actually build a fighting, winning union. Even if Woodley (who isn't the sole GS of corse) had decided to insist the Unite vote went for McDonnel, it would have made no difference, Brown would styill have won, and it would have been very doubtful whether McDonnel would have even got enough nominations to stand. So, your sole big point isn't even a very good one.

I take your point but surely the fact that Woodley (and McLuskey I believe?) did support Gordon Brown does say something about their politics and outlook?

SF, do you have any connection with Unite? I only ask cos if you honestly think that Woodley hasn't inspired anyone, you'd be ignorant of the support he has got from many of the most important disputes over the last few years.

I'm a union steward, but for UNISON, a union with many, many problems. But I know some stuff about UNITE, but I take your point about learning from others. Maybe I was harsh in my statement, and I'm not saying he is the worst trade union leader. But as a union activist he doesn't inspire me in the way that Crowe or Serwotka do, nothing like. And the fact that he did back Brown does say something.

You say that a more radical candidate couldn't win, but you can't know that for sure, that's what lots of people on the left said about Serwotka. Personally I think it would be better to go for someone like Hicks or Williams.

I just think that not having anyone the left can back other than McLuskey is a sad state of affairs. After all is Brown much better than Cameron?

UB there is a point in what you say, but not in such a blunt fashion. I would say that other union activists not in UNISON are more than welcome to criticise the appalling state of UNISON United Left or what is, in my view, the secatarian approach of the Socialist Party.

If you want to post up what Woodley or McLuskey backed Brown and why that isn't a problem then go ahead. Or if you want to say why his record is a good one, again go ahead.