In late September I posted about the rumour I had heard that the Labour Party had apparently “purged” at least one person for being a “member” of the Ultra left “Alliance for Workers Liberty” (AWL). Due to possible appeals I didn’t mention any names.Last week Leicestershire UNISON member, Nick Holden, posted an article on his website run jointly with his partner, Kate Ahrens (UNISON NEC member). This article was called “Expelled” and confirmed that both of them had been expelled from the Labour Party. A shorter version was also posted on the AWL website yesterday by Nick here.
Nick is pretty bitter about the expulsion. However I must admit that I find most of his complaints somewhat surprising and even a little naive. He freely admits to have been a “supporter” of AWL (even calling himself an “AWLer”) for 16 years. However, I think the chief issue is that he doesn’t appear to think there is anything fundamentally wrong with being a member of the Labour Party but supporting candidates who stand against the Labour Party in elections.
I think this is crucial. Not only is the AWL registered as a Political Party in its own right but it has supported electoral candidates who have stood against the Labour Party. If you don’t think that this deserves expulsion then this does make you wonder what will? How can any political Party ever win anything if they allow its members to support opponents? He says there is no appeal but I understand (and may be wrong), if he is willing to deny being a "supporter" of the AWL then he would have a right of appeal. However, “membership” of the AWL and the Socialist Party (I am reliably informed by another usually well informed Labour blogger) is automatic ground of expulsion “if proven”. Sorry Nick and Kate, but I think quite right too.
LRC Grimmerupnorth (Susan) who I don’t normally see “eye to eye” on many Party things (except this year wearing red poppies!) does, I think, lay into Nick about things in the “Expelled” post comments and her own blog. To be fair, Nick as usual, is quite restrained in his response. As are most (not all) AWLers.
20 comments:
You haven't adressed the most interesting aspect.
Which is, why now?
Nick talks about this, why don't you?
when did awl register
The registering point is a bit of a red herring. The Co-operative Party is a registered political party.
The only issue really is the one about standing candidates against Labour candidates (although there is a related 'why now?' issue).
If it is a case of members supporting people who have opposed Labour - or even members having stood as candidates themselves - that's problematic. For all we know members of the Co-operative Party might have done so, it doesn't mean we'd expel half the Cabinet. The issue is actions of the ORGANISATION (and I do rather think it has to be about the recent actions of the organisation too - referring again to the 'why now' question).
awl have usually made useful contribution, for trots
but bizare position in LRC and now registering and not realising the implications
silly....very silly
Hi Charlie & Duncan
Why now? I don’t know, the Labour Party expelled them not UNISON. I would guess there has always been at least 1 or 2 of them out of the 40 odd UNISON delegations in the past.
So I don’t think anyone would have been really worried about what Kate got up to. The delegation is bound by policy and collective responsibility.
So I think any dig about UNISON is part of the general paranoia about UNISON by the tiny Ultra leftist’s sects whose reason for existence is pointless sectarian and poisonous arguments.
the swp have expelled more members this year than the Labour Party
FACT
stop the witch hunt in the SWP
Well I hope that unison is going to intervene in this debacle.
For a man to lean to the left.
Surely if I'm not wrong isn't the Labour party suppose to lean to the left or did I miss something?
Also could someone enlighten me when nu Labour began to get picky with members.
To start to expel them while hundreds are leaving the party monthly (FACT)I would have thought mediation would have been more appropriate!
Grayzee Did you leave the Libs or was you expelled?
Hi Anon
The Party to mediate with people who have set up their own party and are calling on people to vote against them? Please reference your FACT about 100’s leaving the Labour Party each month.
Hi Anon
I jumped (not pushed) both ways!
Read your Labour Party notes on the mass exodus of Labour supporters.
Even the unions including the one you officiat have more damming attacks on Nu Labour than the Tory Party.
Labour party subs are at there lowest for a decade - Labour party rank and file moral is also at the lowest its been for four years,
Your continuous support along with your nu buddies on housing policies leaves a sour taste and your old lessons your learnt from your Lib mates on sitting on the fence serves you well.
Your wannabe mate Fitzpatrick is finished he is clutching at straws talking of Straw he will be getting getting the same handshake that is when the puppet-master removes his hands from up there arses!
Can you enlighten us if you intend to purchase a nice new blue tie when the Tories take over Tower Hamlets council..................
You never know you might need a catsuit meooow..............
Ah yes.
You were in the Liberals, John.
That explains why you post more abuse about working class militants than the plutocrats of the Tory party...
I doubt that hundreds of people are leaving Labour each month, but there's no denying that membership is declining - and votes in England are, too. I think Jon Cruddas has the best analysis of why this is.
Good news about the tax cuts for working people, eh, John?
Talk about shooting Cameron's fox!
Hi Charlie
Not sure you are right about the abuse bit? It happens that were I am politically active - Newham and Tower Hamlets the major opposition until recently were respect. Also, the Ultra Left are a serious threat (in my view for what its worth) to the work of my union. I have done my bit of tory bashing as well (GLA) and will no doubt do more in future elections.
See I am very "liberal" with my "abuse"!
Yes, good news about tax cuts.
Anon
I have deleted your comment - by all means have a go at me but leave my employer out of it...and please try to stop swearing, it just makes you appear a ignorant fool. Which I am sure you are not really.
So long as people obide by the rules of Unison and share its objectives - how can ultra-lefts be a problem?
In fact, the view that the union should stridently defend its members - something trotskyists are calling for - is not that different from what the Gen Sec is saying: http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B4288.pdf
"UNISON therefore calls on the UK government and all relevant regulatory agencies to take bold and principled action to protect the public interest and the living standards of the majority:
• working people, particularly the lower paid, must be protected from the worst effects of the crisis. Relief from rising fuel bills must be financed by a windfall tax on the profits of the energy sector, combined if necessary with price controls. Measures must be taken to minimise evictions and homelessness, including empowering councils to take on threatened homes. The current public sector pay policy, which imposes real terms pay cuts on millions of public service workers, must be abandoned.
• protective measures to help pension funds deal with the current crisis, and prevent enforced closure of schemes, must be developed. Member-nominated representatives must be given 50% of seats on pension boards as promised, and the Local Government Pension Scheme must be reformed to provide the same representation. Member representatives must be included in discussions of future market regulation and economic policy.
• spending on public services must be increased to meet greater social need and counteract the downturn in the private sector. This will necessitate an increase in public debt, currently low by international and historic standards, and a rebalancing of our system of taxation so that corporations and wealthy individuals are required to pay their fair share.
• to make up for the increased costs, risks, and likely shortfall of private investment afflicting PFI and other privately financed schemes, we must return to direct public sector investment in and ownership of public service facilities, affordable housing, and other essential infrastructure. Too often we have seen the market fail to serve the public interest and the public sector forced to step in and pick up the risks created by the private sector – a phenomenon we are now seeing repeated again on a grand scale.
• to stimulate investment and growth throughout the economy, interest rates must be cut as a matter of urgency, and the monetary policy pursued by the Bank of England needs to move on from an exclusive focus upon controlling inflation to one that also seeks to ensure high levels of investment and employment.
• intervention to secure the banking system should not merely “bail-out” those who have caused this crisis by socialising the losses and taking on unprofitable parts of the sector. Instead any public financial support for the sector should entitle the public to share in the benefits of any future recovery, and must be accompanied by an extension of regulatory controls to ensure that the excesses of the recent period are not repeated or rewarded. The bonus culture that has fuelled destructive risk-taking in the financial sector must be brought to an end. At the same time appropriate measures of protection and support are needed to ensure that lower paid financial service employees do not pay the price of others’ irresponsibility.
Hi Anon
I’ve deleted another comment – I’ve already advised you that I will not “approve” attacks on my employer, also these pointless name calling about councillors and “we are keeping an eye on you” threats is just plain silly and daft. I don’t mind rough and tumble in politics but at least try to formulate some sort of arguments.
Your pointless ranting just makes you appear as ignorant fools to be honest (at best).
Hi Charlie
Apologies for the delay in replying. I think it is best to divide those who tend not to agree with me in the union over such issues into 2 camps. I’m simplifying issues massively of course.
The first “camp” genuinely think that the union has not been aggressive or affirminative enough with the government/employers and would have achieved more for members if they had been. Now, while I don’t agree entirely with this analysis I can respect these views even if I think that they can damage the union.
The other camp genuinely believes that we live in such a rotten society that we need revolution now (classic syndalists). Bizarrely, they think that those public sector unions are the new vanguard that will bring about this revolution. Pursuing strikes and confrontations at all opportunities regardless of merit to further this aim I think is disastrous. Even if such action is strictly within rule.
By all means stridently defend members to improve their terms and conditions, but not to lead them to inevitable glorious defeats.
The problem is, John, how one divides the two categories. How do we know what other people believe? There's a danger that anyone who wants to act assertively is dismissed as a lunatic. The truth is that assertiveness pays off - both in results in the workplace and also for increased membership.
By the way, your listing of the LRC blogs as "McNoHopers" is a bit off, isn't it?
Hi Charlie
Sorry about the delay in replying. A bit busy at moment. Yes, you make a fair point. However, the difference was pretty clear when I had to delete 2 comments on this post (never done before on a single post and very few otherwise) from such an ultra left lunatic!
I been involved in quite a number of disputes over the years and yes, assertiveness, does pay off but oppositional politics for the sake of opposition does not.
The McNoHopers is I suppose a little off, as you say. It’s not really a dig at the LRC (grim is not included and you cannot get more LRC than Susan) it come about during the row over the deputy leadership election when things got a little sectarian on all sides. I’m quite nostalgic about the term now so it will stay until something better comes along.
In my reply to Nick's blog, I was arguing for people to leave Labour and start to form a new party of the working class. It has been done in Germany with Die Linke and in France with Le Nouveau Partie Anti-Capitaliste, so why can't we do it here? There is a campaign for a new workers' party - see http://www.cnwp.org.uk
I think New Labour is finished as a vehicle to stand up for ordinary people. They have gone farther than even the Tories ever dared in privatising the NHS, setting up academy schools, part-privatising the post office and selling off council housing.
The union leaders are too closely tied to NuLab bureaucracy and need to stand up more for their members. I do not think this is ultra-left utopian dreaming - I think it is utopian to think that we can somehow reclaim the Labour Party to a left wing programme.
Sorry Drewish but in my view there is no alternative to a centre left Labour Party and that the Party will never be “left wing” enough for you.
Not sure were that leaves you?
Post a Comment