UNITE left meeting

[Silver_Fox]

In mid-July 20,000 people marched through Kilmarnock in protest at Diageo's plans to shut down its Johnnie Walker bottling plant in the town, and its grain distillery in Glasgow. Total threatened job loss: 900. At the closing rally great speeches by politicians from all the major parties pledged support for the campaign to keep the bottling plant open.
A government-led task force, involving representatives from across the political spectrum, trade union leaders, and civil servants, would draw up an alternative set of proposals to save jobs and the bottling plant in Kilmarnock.
A firm of consultants was commissioned to research Diageo's proposals and draw up alternatives. Their findings have now been published.
They describe Diageo's plans to shut workplaces and axe jobs as "sensible", dismiss the significance of the link between Johnnie Walker and Kilmarnock, and propose the sell-off of the Glasgow distillery, even though, in the current economic climate, a buyer is unlikely to come forward.

Did McLuskey have anything to do with this?

 

[belboid]

Dunno what McCluskey said in the debate over who to come out for in the leadership election, but Woodley's view was quite clear. McDonnell was the better candidate, but had about as much chance of wining as Robbie Williams has of becoming Unite GS. He wanted to extract some points of principle, and a Warwick 4 type agreement from brown before officially endorsing him, but Simpson jumped the gun (reports of the next meeting between Woodley & Simpson indicate a very 'full and frank' exchange of views between them). Woodley thought that backing McDonnell would make no difference to his wider campaign, but would just leave Unite on the fringes and without any influence over a Brown leadership. Had it not been for Simpson he [imight[/i] have been able to extract a concession or two in exchange for the support.

In other words, traditional left reformist bureaucratic manouverings. Not as good as Crow or Serwotka, but better than any other union leader.

Here's a nice (albeit long) quote from McCluskey at a recent youth workes conference:

Our second job is to reassert our fundamental values – to campaign for the understanding that
the world does not have to be this way. We have a different outlook, a different vision.
Gordon Brown has said that laissez-faire is dead. In principle, he’s right. But I will believe that
neo-liberalism is finished when it is buried at a crossroads at midnight with a stake through its
heart.
The people at the top who have benefited from thirty years of casino capitalism are not going
to let go lightly. They just want to reflate the punctured tyres of the market economy with
taxpayers’ money before taking us all for another ride.
Never again.
We have to say – never again. Never again rip-off privatizations. No to the Spivs and
Speculators. Never again light-touch regulation for the bankers but draconian anti-union laws
for working people. Never again a tax system which lets a hedge fund billionaire pay tax at a
lower rate than the office cleaner. Never again watching housing costs soar while blocking
councils from building new homes. More than ever, we need an economy which works for
working people.
And it is our union – Unite, and only our union, which has the strength to put this change on
the agenda. It would only be good for the Labour party’s prospects to make that change now. It
is the change people want, and it would be true to the Party’s better traditions. The
government has taken some half-steps in this direction. Our task is to turn those into real
strides and if successful the next election can be won.
But win or lose Unite will be fighting to reclaim our Party; drive the Blairite cuckoos out of the
nest and make Labour once more the voice – not just of working people. But of the new post-
neo-liberal consensus emerging across the world

 

[Silver_Fox]

But the Warwick "concessions" are pathetic. It's the same strategy that Prentis supports. The unions are on the fringes whether they support Brown or not.

And didn't McLuskey back banning union resolutions at Labour conference?

As for quotes they mean little to me. I've heard Prentis come out with the same similar stuff, but it's a crock of shit coming from Prentis.

 

[belboid]

And reports from the AWL mean less than little to me, honesty not being their forte (although they are now supporting McCluskey it seems)

The unions supported an alternative report which would save more of the jobs, tho probably not the kilmarnock plant, at the end of the day.

 

[Silver_Fox]

I'm not in the AWL and have little time for their politics. I'm just asking if what they are saying is true?

What you are saying sounds like a poor strategy as well. Why no call for nationalisation from McLuskey?

And did McLuskey oppose the banning of union resolutions at the Labour conference?

 

[belboid]

Fine.

No, it isnt true.

Don't know (tho probably becuse he knows such a call would be futile. Unlike Vesta's, saving a booze making company isn't really in keeping with the governments wider agenda)

Don't know.

 

[Silver_Fox]

It may be futile right now, but nationalisation is still something unions should try and put on the agenda as more and more places close down. Also nationalisation could mean taking over the factory and using it for something else other than producing booze.

 

[belboid]

true, and I wish the union had done so, but it isn't the key question at the minute, imo.

I don't think anyone, on here at least, thinks that Len Mc is the best possible person there could be to lead Unite. but he isn't bad, and he is better than the realistic alternatives. And some of those alternatives are very bad indeed. McLuskey will at least stick to the organising agenda that has meant Unites membership has fallen only slightly duiring the recession - a stretagry opposed by Simpson and his apparatchik Bayliss.

I see that Hicks has the support of the Green Party (or at least the Green left), which could do him good, except the greens are so disorganised and have no presence in the union really.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

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.
...

I think Silver Fox has summed up the broader political issues perfectly, and s/he is spot on about Prentis in Unison too, so I have little more to add.

Interesting account in SW:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18969

 

[Urbanblues]

I think Silver Fox has summed up the broader political issues perfectly, and s/he is spot on about Prentis in Unison too, so I have little more to add.

Interesting account in SW:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18969

Unfortunately, the report misrepresents why Hicks, their preferred candidate, walked out. Of course they’re hardly going to admit the truth, that Hicks didn’t have the bottle to put his case to those in attendance.

Stating his walk-out was due to a late change in the rules is quite simply a lie.

These were only introduced after Jerry Hicks and Rob Williams—who led a successful fight at the Linamar company—had said they will stand.

The above statement is another complete fabrication.

The changes prevented many people, including two former Visteon convenors, from attending as their application for “credentials” had been declined.

Yes, people who had no history within the UL; didn’t appear on a database; and, had arrived late (by late I’m talking about 25 minutes after the official start time) were ineligible to participate.

The numbers that were on the outside amounted to no more than a dozen or fifteen; some of whom were McCluskey supporters.

Around thirty people did follow Hicks out the first time. Interestingly, when he walked out for the second time only around 20 scurried behind him. Considering 30 followed him the first time; then when he got his way and the ‘excluded’ were admitted, one would have expected this to bolster his number; especially since they were supposedly his supporters.

It doesn’t add up, does it? 40 or 50 should have followed him the second time, surely?

When I was a kid my old man once belted me for not telling the truth. After which he gave me a piece of sound advice: you need a good memory to be a liar; unless you can keep all the ‘facts’ and sequences in your head – don’t lie; you’ll always get caught when someone more observant that yourself comes along.

It’s a shame the author of the SWP report didn’t receive the same salutary lesson.

 

[belboid]

the article is interesting not only fort its 'errors' (which UB has accurately detailed above), but also for the fact that it seems to be rebuking their comrades, both at the meeting and in the run up to it - it was, after all, one of their members who agreed the late rule 'changes', and who chaired the meeting, wasnt it?

 

[belboid]

report from Simpsons cabal - http://workersunitinggroupnews.blogspot.com/2009/09/report-of-workers-uniting-group-bristol.html

 

[Nigel Irritable]

http://www.marxist.com/britain-bureaucratic-obstructions-sabotage-united-left.htm

Report from the geriatrics of Socialist Appeal. They want Hicks to announce that he's standing no matter what.

 

[articul8]

but they would take anyone that wasn't CWI

 

[nightbreed]

http://www.marxist.com/britain-bureaucratic-obstructions-sabotage-united-left.htm

Report from the geriatrics of Socialist Appeal. They want Hicks to announce that he's standing no matter what.

Socialist Appeal have a really weird position here. They are supporting Hicks who has a record for being an SWP/Respect member and now a Respect Renewal (do they still exist!!)supporter who has spoken consistently against Labour. Yet Socialist Appeal are committed to reclaiming Labour which is McCluskeys position.
Would Socialist Appeal rather die in a ditch than support Rob Williams, by far the better candidate than Hicks, by a long chalk?
Did the early 90s split in Militant affect them that much?

As I have said in an earlier post, I think the SP have gained a lot of credit and support by Williams' position last Saturday. As long as the SP dont throw their hat into the ring as well, Williams will have a good future in the union.
Respect is due.

Im still supporting McCluskey, mind!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

the article is interesting not only fort its 'errors' (which UB has accurately detailed above), but also for the fact that it seems to be rebuking their comrades, both at the meeting and in the run up to it - it was, after all, one of their members who agreed the late rule 'changes', and who chaired the meeting, wasnt it?

That's why it is interesting. It indicates a change of line from the line taken by SWP members in the meeting.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

....


Yes, people who had no history within the UL; didn’t appear on a database; and, had arrived late (by late I’m talking about 25 minutes after the official start time) were ineligible to participate.
....

One of the other rules was that only candidates who declared they would accept the outcome would be allowed to participate.

That rule was broken, but nobody stopped the meeting as a result and excluded the candidate who broke it.

 

[Urbanblues]

http://www.marxist.com/britain-bureaucratic-obstructions-sabotage-united-left.htm

Report from the geriatrics of Socialist Appeal. They want Hicks to announce that he's standing no matter what.

Oh bless.

 

[Urbanblues]

One of the other rules was that only candidates who declared they would accept the outcome would be allowed to participate.

That rule was broken, but nobody stopped the meeting as a result and excluded the candidate who broke it.

This rule was broken. People did point this out to the Chair. People also wanted the meeting to go ahead.

 

[Silver_Fox]

Is Murrary part of the UNITE broad left?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/loyaltothe.php

 

[Silver_Fox]

This rule was broken. People did point this out to the Chair. People also wanted the meeting to go ahead.

When it was clear that hoardes of Simpson supporters weren't outside the door why not also break the other rule and let everyone who turned up vote?

Who are the Socialist Party supporting in the upcoming election?

And why when left candidates can pick up tens of thousands of votes can the broad left only get a few hundred to its meetings out of a union of over a million?

 

[Urbanblues]

When it was clear that hoardes of Simpson supporters weren't outside the door why not also break the other rule and let everyone who turned up vote?

You just don't get it, do you?

Who are the Socialist Party supporting in the upcoming election?

Don't know.

And why when left candidates can pick up tens of thousands of votes can the broad left only get a few hundred to its meetings out of a union of over a million?

Hicks’ 39,000 votes in the last Amicus GS election were a protest. Had he been running against almost anybody else but Simpson his share of the poll wouldn’t be so flattering.

He will poll nowhere near as high a proportion of the vote next year; for the greater part of the Left will swing behind McCluskey. However, that’s not to say McCluskey will win.

Should the Left vote be split and Bayliss wins; Jerry Hicks will be able to sit back happy in the knowledge of a job well done.

 

[Urbanblues]

Is Murrary part of the UNITE broad left?

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/783/loyaltothe.php

Sorry pal. Wouldn't tell you if I knew; because, it's none of your fucking business.

Who the fuck are you? SIS?

Phone him up and ask him - 020 7612 5478

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Don't know.

The report in the Socialist doesn't specify, but it gives the impression that they will be backing McCluskey if he stands on a left wing platform.

http://socialistparty.org.uk/issue/592/7698

 

[Silver_Fox]

Sorry pal. Wouldn't tell you if I knew; because, it's none of your fucking business.

LOL! You're a tad touchy. Why is it none of anyones business? I'd be surprised if he wasn't. That linked article is none too flattering of him and rightly so by what they've said.

Who are SIS when they're at home?

You just don't get it, do you?

I do get it, I just disagree with you. One rule was broken, as you have said. I can't see why another one couldn't have been broken when it was obvious that the people outside were obviously not hoardes of people trying to fix the vote.

He will poll nowhere near as high a proportion of the vote next year; for the greater part of the Left will swing behind McCluskey. However, that’s not to say McCluskey will win.

Should the Left vote be split and Bayliss wins; Jerry Hicks will be able to sit back happy in the knowledge of a job well done.

Again sounds remarkably like the arguements about why people shouldn't have voted for Serwotka.

Also still doesn't explain why the United Left has so few members involved.

 

[Silver_Fox]

From the SP report:

Len McCluskey gave a left-sounding speech but continued to support the union's backing of New Labour. He argued we should convince workers to join the Labour Party to transform it.

funding Labour to the tune of £13 million was a millstone round the union's neck.

Every penny well spent.

It should be a rank and file body, allowing unelected officials to attend and speak, but not to vote as they can at present.

Seems right.

 

[Rod Sleeves]

The Unite United Left is pretty much unknown outside it's own supporters, and places like this, just as the old T&G Left was, having said that Hicks cannot and will not win the next leadership election, and I doubt Rob Williams would have either, unfortunately - though I would have voted for him.

Sadly the best we can hope for is McCluskey who would probably be an alright Gen Sec, the best we can hope for at the moment, a bit like Woodley really.

The thing to remember about the UL is that they are not interested in democratising, or opening up to rank and file members as that would dilute the power of the fulltimers within it, and anyway at the moment I'm not sure the rank and file would be that interested in getting involved even if they knew of it's existence.

 

[nightbreed]

The thing to remember about the UL is that they are not interested in democratising, or opening up to rank and file members as that would dilute the power of the fulltimers within it, and anyway at the moment I'm not sure the rank and file would be that interested in getting involved even if they knew of it's existence.

Wrong on all counts.

 

[nightbreed]

Also still doesn't explain why the United Left has so few members involved.

How about why couldnt Hicks muster up more than at the most 30 people to the UL hustings. Answer that question.


Actually it is a good question. I would put this question up with why havent more workers joined the CNWP or Respect. Or why are workers voting BNP instead of left wing parties offering alternatives to Labour.

Size isnt everything.

Still the UL exist, they are relevant and cannot be ignored if honest isolated militants want to turn Unite to the left.

 

[Silver_Fox]

Asking why Hicks could only get 30 people there is indeed also a valid question.

I also agree, that in general, a left caucus is better than nothing. It just seems that it must be very weak if that's the amount of members who turn up.