Friday, February 01, 2008

Disorganised Left Machinations?

A number of true comrades have fw me this interesting exchange from the “disUnited Left” (SWP et al) about their plotting and conniving for next weeks London UNISON AGM. I trust everyone did what they were told?

From: JON ROGERS
Sent: 30 January 2008 21:39

Subject: Re: Regional AGM

Speaking personally I have to agree that it is important that the left maximises our position on the Regional Committee. Over the past two years, although the office has won most of the Regional Council Officer positions we have managed to hold a working majority at most Regional Committee meetings.

Although we have been able to do no more than prevent the office having any mandate for their machinations I am sure that it would have been - and would be - far worse if we had not had this working majority. Whether we win or lose the Regional Convenor and other positions it is important that we do as well as possible in the elections for the Regional Committee.

We are in a poor position already in that - for various reasons - we have not nominated enough candidates for the women's seats. Therefore if we can hold four out of six of the general seats we must. Given the reality of STV we could not possibly hold five out of six.

The office will have issued detailed instructions to "their" delegates on how to vote and use their preferences to maximise their position. They are standing four candidates as that is the maximum they could realistically win by the most effective use of first preferences. If we run five left wing candidates for the six general seats the distribution of first preferences will probably mean that we win two or at most three seats, whereas if we run four candidates we are more likely to win three or even four candidates.

It is unfortunate that this year we have been insufficiently organised and are left having to try to arrive at decisions at the last minute. However, XXX is entirely right about yesterday's decision and that decision was also correct.

The candidate who is withdrawing will need to notify the office of course.

Best wishes Jon Rogers

----- Original Message ---- From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, 30 January, 2008 7:53:43 PM

Subject: Regional AGM
Dear

The campaign meeting last night discussed the general regional committee seats (again!)
The position is that it is going to be extremely hard to keep the 4 incumbent seats we have but obviously we should give it a go and try our hardest.

If we stand 5 candidates for the 6 general seats and the rightwing are standing 4 we will be splitting our votes and won't have any chance of retaining 4 seats - and more than that we may not even get 3 people elected.

The meeting last night agreed that the united left should only stand 4 candidates which I'm afraid means one of you withdrawing.

The meeting decided its preference would be for the 4th candidate for a balance between service groups.

Can you get back to me asap please as the region need to be told tomorrow in order to stop the ballot papers being printed with all 5 names.
Thanks XXX xx

20 comments:

Jackson Jeffrey Jackson said...

As opposed to organised right machinations?

I wouldn't have thought that was something to brag about in public.

Anonymous said...

How come the Disunited Left (Uber Trots) allowed the SWP to go for all the top positions in the Region

or did the SWPs PFI backers make them

look out for a policy change to support PFI and condem trade union rights in Iran should Unison dis United Left win

John Gray said...

Hi Jackson
Taking the Mick rather than bragging? – centre left UNISON activists in London are actually taking nothing for granted. However, it does appear that the extremists are falling somewhat to pieces and many former activists in United Left have realised that they have been taken for mugs by the SWP.

What about my question to you regarding Robert Barltrop (or haven’t you heard of him? He wrote a history of the SPGB)

John Gray said...

Hi Anon
“How come the Disunited Left (Uber Trots) allowed....”

Good question, answer – see above.

Not sure about the “support PFI” bit but certainly the current SWP line seems to be to attack trade union and rights for women in Iran.

Anonymous said...

Only 1 of the candidates for the regional council officers are swp.
Interesting how u got this email it was only sent to 7 people! Only 1 of whom isn't on a regular email list bitchin about u lot so not hard to work out who sent it!

John Gray said...

Hi Anon (Sean?)

The UL candidate for Regional convenor is for the 2nd year in a row, a member of the SWP (and I understand a member of their central committee to boot), while the others are workers liberty, socialist appeal (I think) and one officially non-aligned. The SWP have basically run the UL for years. They hold the secretary post and pay for most of the cost of venues, leaflets, postage and even web sites. I think we can guess who was selected for the chop in the regional committee and who will be on.

I had more than one original source for the emails and this it’s actually not just “bitchin” but a number of UL activists are thoroughly disillusioned with UL aims and methods and how the slates have been selected.

I also think that this is a bit of a generational moment when people are beginning to realise that there is more to life than grandstanding, passing emergency motions and pointless oppositional politics.

Anonymous said...

John Gray -you know very well that I am a member of the Labour party and that is that. If I could wag a virtual finger at you I would.

You also know I am in the United Left - because it does allow activists with a variety of left to centre left political views to have mostly reasoned debates and discussions -and organise activities around issues in the region -such as the Fremantle strike.

UNISON has 1.3 million members -and that will include many people of many different views. We cannot all be cheerleaders for the very same outlooks and views -that would diminish the union as a whole if we were all to be nodding donkeys.

I really enjoy reading your blog but I find it disturbing when you state mistruths -and I suspect you know that your slant on people's affiliations is a mistruth. No one on the 'UL' supported slate is in the SWP, the vast majority are in the Labour party. The problem, is I think that we bother to ask questions and want a little bit more transparency and accountability in the region which may well disjoint the noses of some senior officials.

We are no-one's and no organisation's nodding donkeys or unquestioning cheerleaders.

See you at the next Safety Committee!And good post on the safety stuff btw.
Kat

Sean said...

no John anon 2/2/08 wasnt me as it goes but I am interested as to why you think publishing other peoples emails is an acceptable practice? Perhaps you have been mixing with the sort of people who go in for secret monitoring and secret police type states to much?

John Gray said...

Hi Kat
“John Gray -you know very well that I am a member of the Labour party.....”

Congratulations – we have all been re-elected to regional safety committee unopposed!

Anyway, I thought I made it clear that you were the only “non-aligned” one (see above)! Even though I have been hearing nasty rumours that you have been going to WL meetings (naughty old HR)!

Regarding your statement “No one on the 'UL' supported slate is in the SWP” Has MB left the SWP? I did hear that she was facing expulsion because of her opposition to the ties with Galloway? But now I assume she is back in favour?

You are absolutely right that UNISON is big union with a wide divergence of views. The problem (as I see it) is that some comrades (not all) believe that they can use the union to pursue their own personal extremist revolutionary political beliefs. In doing so they undermine and harm the union.

Kat, what are you doing with this shower? You know many (not all) of them don’t even think key issues such as health and safety are proper “trade union activities? Hmmmm.... must be a reason? Have you ever seen the film “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?

John Gray said...

Hi Sean
“no John anon 2/2/08 wasnt me.....”

I think that exposing your political opponents as plotting and conniving even if it is in a divided, disorganised, defeatist and even vaguely Stalinist manner is “fair game”. It’s not a personal email.

The people who sent it to me are also horrified by the way UL has been run.

heenal said...

check your facts mate. i am not in AWL.

unison united left organises for a democratic, fighting union under direct control of lay members.

although united left members hold political beliefs (who doesn't?), those beliefs have nothing to do with wanting to create a union that can most effectively represent unison members against the challenges we face in today's workplaces: low pay, job cuts, privatisation, casualisation, discriminiation, victimisation, poor working conditions...

it is not an "extremist revolutionary belief" to say that unison should be controlled by its members, not by unelected officials.

it is not an "extremist revolutionary belief" to say that unison should fight against attacks on pay, rather than cosy up to the very politicians responsible for those attacks.

it is not an "extremist revolutionary belief" to say that unison should unite its members to stand as one to defend ourselves, as together we can achieve far more than we can as individuals. no, that is the very principle of trade unionism.

Andrew Berry said...

Well said Heenal and if my Maths are correct then for officers position 4 out 5 are Labour Party members one not a member of any party. Out of all those UL supporters nominated (all though some will withdrew and before you ask I have not been asked to withdrew and as far as I know nor has Sean and we are incumbents so your guess as for whom is for the chop is wrong) 7 out of 14 are LP members and 5 SWP at least one SWP member has withdrawn for reasons posted elsewhere on this site cant see there being less the 6 LP candidates and 4 SWP. If the SWP run, UL so they can take tall the positions as you seem to hint, then their not doing it very well.

Sean said...

Indeed I can confirm my name is on the ballot paper.So I am sure you will want to vote for two Labour Party comrades in me and Andrew in the general seats John and for one in the Standing orders Committee elections :)

Anonymous said...

Oh dear me - I feel I shouldn't jump on t' bandwagon of replies but what the hell! And it may be excessively wordy too so my apols.

Why am I with this 'shower' of UL peeps? Well -at least with a shower you feel clean unlike wallowing in a bath of muddied waters.I don't agree with all of the UL views but that is the norm for any group -inc UNISON -but it allows freedom of expression and criticism -unlike the shared bathing waters of our region with the current leadership. I distinctly recall the sometimes appalling and rude behavior of our previous recent convenor when I asked questions - as a RCO in RCO meets -about appropriate conduct of meetings. I don't blame him -because he obviously felt incredibly pressurised -but I do squarely blame the poor advice from senior officials that pushed him into making distinctly odd responses that were previously uncharacteristic. I have unfortunately seen the same happening with Gloria -but that again is pressure from officials -and I hope Gloria finds her own voice with which to defend activists and democracy within the region.

On the Safety Committee -yes great we are all back on it but what about the individual who -standing as Deputy Convenor on the 'right' slate- never turned up or apologised for never attending the safety committee -and is back on it? Is that a real interest in safety or just somebody wanting to be on a committee and never contribute? So -its not just the UL?

There needs to be a lay led leadership in the region -and I don't care who it is so long as they bother to ask the serious questions and get the answers and allow activists to organise and recruit and empower and defend members. And that means making officials accountable to all of us. They patently are not.
After all -being a Regional Council Officer is only an illusion of power and influence unless you are prepared to push -together and persistently-for a lay led union. And my experience is that unenlightened officials don't like that.
kat

Anonymous said...

Oh bless my paws John G -what is the rumour shop 'HR' you mentioned? Flesh fish fowl or good red herring? Rumours are great for goss - but you do have my email and phone number to check. I'm too busy looking after aged p's ,members, cats dogs and ferrets -oops and an academic absent minded husband -to attend many meets -let alone AWL! No Sweat yes. on email list -v good on campaigning to protect workers in sweat shops - but no time!Not a time lord y'see!
kat

John Gray said...

Hi Heenal

"check your facts mate. i am not in AWL...."

Glad to hear that you are not a member of AWL (workers liberty) even though their ultimate political aims are (in my view) utterly wrong and unachievable I have always been impressed with their politeness, sincerity and eagerness to engage in reasoned political discourse.

Do you honestly believe that your slogans actually mean anything? Will you convince people by these arguments to your view? What is the point of expressing views in such a simplistic manner? Actually I suppose I should be saying – keep it Up Heenal! Revolution tomorrow!

John Gray said...

Hi Andrew
“Well said Heenal and if my Maths....”

Not quite sure (actually I haven’t got a clue) on what you are talking about? Is MB a member of the SWP or not? Or has she just resigned for the purpose of this election? They have done this before.

I don’t think I actually said who is going to drop out of RC elections? It’s not clear but are you admitting that 40% of all candidates are SWP members? Of so – is this right for such a tiny unrepresentative political party?

John Gray said...

Hi Sean

“Indeed I can confirm my name is on the ballot paper....”

I am now totally confused – are you talking about Labour Link elections or RC? Surely you do not want my New/Old Labour Endorsement? Or maybe so? If so, welcome to the fold! I knew it would happen eventually!

John Gray said...

Hi Kat
“Oh dear me - I feel I shouldn't jump on t' bandwagon...”

Now, now – I have heard lots of complaints about you being rude and aggressive and of course I just think that people have just misunderstood you.

I notice you haven’t mentioned the complete non attendance of our mutually beloved NEC member at our safety committee? No doubt he had “urgent” business elsewhere?

Unlike some (but not all) in many branches members do have awful problems with time off for trade union activities. We shouldn’t demonise people for the fact that thier employers are unlike (usually Labour councils) who are mostly very good for giving union reps time off.

John Gray said...

Hi Kat
“Oh bless my paws John G....”
Good to hear that you are not in the AWL –as I said it was only a rumour (perhaps because we are worried about you!)