My own personal blog. UNISON NEC member for Housing Associations & Charities, HA Convenor, London Regional Council Officer & Chair of its Labour Link Committee.
Newham Cllr for West Ham Ward, Vice Chair of Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, Pension trustee, Housing & Safety Practitioner.
Centre left and proud member of Labour movement family. Strictly no trolls please.
Promoted by Luke Place on behalf of J.Gray, Newham Labour Group, St Luke’s Community Centre, E16 1HS.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Our Union Reclaimed
Hat-tip thingy to Comrade Mercader (double click picture) who invites us to an early Crimbo social I think?
I couldn't possibly comment but it sounds like a fun event.
"The poison of Trotskyism has been killing the Union for years."
Yes, because as we all know, UNISON is a hotbed of Trotskyists.
*sigh*
1. Trotskyists are a minority within UNISON. Even they accept that their influence on events in, and direction of, the union is small compared to "the centre left".
2. Many Trotskyists, or those who are labelled as "Trots" but who simply have the temerity to be to the left of Labour, work incredibly hard for UNISON and our members, and loyally - and for that they earn the respect and electoral support of members.
3. UNISON is supposed to be a democratic union where all shades of opinion (bar the obvious - fascism, racism, sexism etc) are welcome and we debate and agree a way forward.
So why do you upload tripe like this? Disagreeing with the Left - even as forcefully as you do - is one thing and I'm not going to even try to trounce on your right to publicly express your disagreement - but endorsing something which calls for the expulsion of Trots (and by publishing it without comment you are endorsing it) is just pathetic.
The fact is that you and I know full well that there are scores of those dastardly "Trots" that without whom many UNISON branches would collapse and they work damned hard for the union and our members.
Why do you stoop to these depths? How does it contribute to developing a fraternal union?
So Chris do you think it is alright for their central committees to order them how to vote and what to do in our union on pain of expulsion regardless of what is best for our members?
Do you think it is alright for "some" of them to bully and violently threaten people who don't support them?
You think it is alright for them to publically attack and run down the union because they do not agree with the decisions of our democratically elected lay officials?
Hi Chris No doubt Mr Centre Left will respond for himself. But to be clear Cdr Mercader’s poster was a “tongue in cheek” response to a despicable and dishonest anonymous leaflet attacking the union and also named individuals.
We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points.
I do ponder your comments about branches that would collapse if the “dastardly trots” (your words not mine) were to leave? Have you ever wondered why these branches are in such a state in the first place?
I have always accepted that some of the ultra left do work very hard representing members at a local level especially over case work. But I do wish they would put in their election addresses that they are members of the SWP/SPEW and if elected they would follow the instructions of their central committees and not the wishes or best interests of their members.
After all - they should be proud of their democratic centralism?
I believe Mr.Leary describes himself with some pride as a revolutionary socialist (one who of course sees the irony of being such in Surrey).
I wonder why, then, he made absolutely no mention of this in his election address to UNISON members when he stood for the NEC?
I don't even ask that these people state which political party they belong to, just that they clearly state they have ambitions to achieve a violent overthrow of our current democratic politics.
Or do they think that UNISON members - whose work is effectively decided upon and paid for by our current democratic machinery (national and local) - would be a tad wary of backing them in their ambitions?
So come on, Chris, we all know your politics are important to you and inform your approach to life the universe and everything - why didn't you mention you are a revolutionary socialist? Did you think UNISON's young members might have recognised you for what you are?
I'm sure all Labour Party members standing for election mention their party membership in election literature. I'm sure they wouldn't forget to do so, what with Labour being so popular and all.
And I'm sure being members of the Labour Party would never influence their behaviour within UNISON, in the way that it apparently does with SWP/SP members.
"So Chris do you think it is alright for their central committees to order them how to vote and what to do in our union on pain of expulsion regardless of what is best for our members?
If people choose to be in such an organisation and choose to follow it's discipline, that's their choice. I used to be one (though not, I must stress, for a couple of years now, and have politically moved on since then to a type of syndicalist). There is nothing in the Rulebook to prevent it since the badly-worded Rule Amendment failed at NDC 2009. So what's the problem? John says they should be more honest about their affiliations and I think they are as honest as the rules allow, but sunlight isn't a bad thing and a bit more leaway in the rules to be transparent wouldn't go amiss.
"Do you think it is alright for "some" of them to bully and violently threaten people who don't support them?"
No. Absolutely not. You don't see me bopping our esteemed host on the snout do you? I'm a bit confused as to where this came from since nobody here has even mentioned violence.
"You think it is alright for them to publically attack and run down the union because they do not agree with the decisions of our democratically elected lay officials?"
Irony time: A lot of the Trot groups you condemn for being "undemocratic" have regular internal bulletins where critisisms of the leadership and political discussion can take place in front of the entire membership, who all recieve a copy of every bulletin that is produced, which is usually quarterly but can be more frequently if there is a disagreement in the offing.
Since there is no such rolling mechanism within UNISON, how else can such issues be raised with the membership? Maybe this is a democratic defecit you can all address?
These responses are not in order and will be staggered over several comments for reasons of space.
In response to John: given my media training, it is my opinion that I was reporting on allegations already made public; therefore, I didn't see the problem. However, I do take your point and will bear it in mind in future, and apologise for any offense or anxiety caused by mentioning names.
Having said that, I do think it's fair to comment that allegations have been made though I do undertake not to repeat them.
"We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points."
Unlike you I was in the court and heard the allegations made by a London full time official of the union about the behaviour of the most senior unelected officials in the region seeking to have elected officials undemocratically removed because of thier politics. What do you say is a lie in the reclaim the union leaflet?
If the accusations are untrue what do you have to fear from an inquiry?
OK; second post. This is the best recollection of my original response to John's reply to me (1.12.09, 7:30am) so it might not be the exact same or cover the same points in my original - though I advise John to redact parts of the post which he considers unreasonable, and say so, rather than delete the entire thing. Unless he objects to the entire thing.
No doubt Mr Centre Left will respond for himself. But to be clear Cdr Mercader’s poster was a “tongue in cheek” response to a despicable and dishonest anonymous leaflet attacking the union and also named individuals.
Why self-professed social democrats/left progressives invoke the name of a Stalinist murderer in a positive manner is beyond me.
But in any case; the original leaflet - which I hadn't seen when I made my original post but have subsequently, did make some very serious allegations which, if true, are very serious and have serious rammifications for lay democracy in our union generally, which I think are far more serious than this leaflet discussing them (and I have already covered why the Left has to use such leaflets in a previous post). Don't you think?
We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points.
But this is a charge often laid against you and in some circumstances, I don't think it's an unfair one. You have on occation run down elected lay officials of the Union in order to score narrow sectarian posts simply because they are Trots.
I do ponder your comments about branches that would collapse if the “dastardly trots” (your words not mine) were to leave? Have you ever wondered why these branches are in such a state in the first place?
You and I both know that there are branches - the number is not small - where that if you were to remove the local leadership of whatever political stripe, the branch would collapse. It's a problem facing lots of branches.
I have always accepted that some of the ultra left do work very hard representing members at a local level especially over case work. But I do wish they would put in their election addresses that they are members of the SWP/SPEW and if elected they would follow the instructions of their central committees and not the wishes or best interests of their members.
After all - they should be proud of their democratic centralism?
But I don't think they can. The union has a policy of only supporting the Labour Party, so I thought it might be against rule to mention such a thing - that's what I thought when I stood so I only mentioned the fact that I was a member of the Labour Party (which I was at the time, involved in Labour Link too).
Also, do you not consider that they feel that there is no contradiction between being a part of a disciplined Leninist party and representing the best interests of their members? After all, if the members didn't feel that the Left didn't represent their best interests, they wouldn't vote for them, right? But they do, and the number of SP members has increased on the NEC after the last election, right?
Trotskyism has been killing the union for years? Hows that then given they are such a tiny part of the union membership?
UNISON is run by those who support the Labour Party, so the failings should largely be put at their doorstep, such as the fact that we have so many branches that aren't functional, that density is so low in so many workplaces, that campaigns are lost on so many occasions (pay demands and the loss of pension rights come to mind).
"If you want it published take out the names you've mentioned of people who can't publically defend themselves."
John Gray I've seen you put up posts on here that name people and insult them, so don't you think it's a bit rich you saying this? I've also seen you put up blog posts which contain outright lies.
It's also the case that many people in the Labour Party didn't state that they were Labour Party members when they stood, I wonder why? It's also presumably the case that if they are in the Labour Party they have to go along, to some extent, with what the Labour Party wants, otherwise they too would be thrown out of the Labour Party. Hasn't that happened to whole unions such as the RMT?
Lastly the unions which have grown and had the most successful campaigns are the RMT and PCS. Aren't their leaderships part of the far left and in some cases are revolutionary socialists?
Finally for tonight, in response to Dwayne Evans (01 December 2009 09:35):
I believe Mr.Leary describes himself with some pride as a revolutionary socialist (one who of course sees the irony of being such in Surrey).
I don't know who Mr. Evans is, but I rather suspect he's a friend on Facebook, where my profile reads (and has read for quite some time) that "the irony of being a revolutionary socialist is not lost upon me".
Though, of course, as I have said; I see myself as more of a syndicalist in the style of Tom Mann, William Haywood, Elizabeth Gurley-Flynn, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, etc; and that I live in Richmond, which is technically in Greater London and hasn't been in Surrey since 1965. Mr. Evans neglects to mention that I was born in, and grew up in, Salford, Greater Manchester; a noted hotbed of the landed aristoracy if ever there was one.
Mr. Evans also neglects to mention the relevancy of any of this.
I wonder why, then, he made absolutely no mention of this in his election address to UNISON members when he stood for the NEC?
Because, as I've mentioned above, I wasn't sure I could. I tried to seek clarification to make sure I didn't breach any rules, and I think, in retrospect, I erred on the side of caution a little too much; but given the current wave of Rule I investigations, better to be safe than sorry.
However, I did mention my politics on my website, which was mentioned in my election address, and on the leaflet I produced (without UNISON resources, I might add). So I didn't exactly keep it a secret, either. I did mention that I was a Labour Party member in my election address, which was true (just ask anyone in South East region - I even represented UNISON at Labour South East conference and Young Labour conference last year). According to lots of people I have spoken to since, it was the Labour Party connection which did it in for me. Oh well.
There is also the point that I was not running for the Chair of the Petrograd soviet; I don't think socialism will come through trying to transform UNISON into a steeled disciplined tool of the revolutionary proletariat (that's what the IWW is for, which is why I'm a member of it) but I do think that there are certain things that the union could do in the coming months; that was the platform I stood on.
The "centre left" is always keen to critisise the far left for running on meaningless platforms about socialism and revolution that are "out of touch" with the membership; though when I actually do run on such a platform, I'm attacked for not being open about my politics! I can't win!
I don't even ask that these people state which political party they belong to, just that they clearly state they have ambitions to achieve a violent overthrow of our current democratic politics.
Or do they think that UNISON members - whose work is effectively decided upon and paid for by our current democratic machinery (national and local) - would be a tad wary of backing them in their ambitions?
They still voted for them though - as I mentioned earlier - the SP's representation on the NEC has increased since the last election.
So come on, Chris, we all know your politics are important to you and inform your approach to life the universe and everything - why didn't you mention you are a revolutionary socialist? Did you think UNISON's young members might have recognised you for what you are?
Because, as I said, I didn't think I could - I never got the clarification in time for the deadline for paperwork. But while I didn't win (and I think that was down to saying that I was a Labour Party member) I still got 45% of the vote, which I think - given that I'd only been in the union for about two years when I stood - wasn't a bad result for a first go.
oh dear just heard the members have had the termerity to elect another "dammed Trotskyist" to the national local government executive in london against the recommendation of John Gray and defeating one of the current london leadership and new labour supporter.
But let's put down past behaviour in elections as a regrettable mistake on your part.
Will you give a commitment (as there is no rule against being a revolutionary socialist and a member of UNISON) to stating explicitly that you are a revolutionary socialist in any future election addresses, and also state how you expect to achieve your goals through peaceful means?
(Subject of course to your not changing your mind in the meantime and jumping ship, like you did with 'past mistakes' like your membership of the SWP and the AWL and...do tell, Chris, were there any others?)
A straightforward answer would be very much appreciated.
Hi Jackson I think you can take it from the name of this blog and the links that it is fairly well known that I am a Labour Party supporter. I think that I have mentioned this before but only an imbecile would imagine that Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown or the Labour Party NEC instructs UNISON activists on whether or not to start or continue industrial action. But I can of course understand why you think this is so.
Hi Chris I am amazed you have had “media” training and would respectfully suggest you ask for an immediate refund! I am also surprised that you have not fully responded to the comment that you mislead folk about being a Surrey “revolutionary socialist” - whatever that means? It is a shame that you felt you had something to hide but again understandable.
I haven’t a clue what you are on about with the 2009 conference amendment which was only about fascists? I suggest you pay more attention at future UNISON conferences and to the deliberate heckling, abuse and name calling by ultra left extremists which is solely designed to intimidate those who don’t agree with them.
All UNISON lay officials are subject to elections so I don’t see how this is worse than Ultra’s 2 minute Hate sessions?
Hi Anon I am of course widely accepted as being sweetness and light in London region and would never ever seek to make any sectarian points. If you attended the hearing then say who you are and what you heard? Not make pointless anon tickle tackle comments. The press interest seems to be only from the Bromley free papers and what they report is nothing like the lies and smears put out by anon leaflets.
Hi Chris Not sure at all what you are going on about – needless to say I have IMO only had a go at folk who I felt deserved due to their deeds and actions not because they belong to a particular cult. If you make such accusations then you should back them up with specifics.
Obviously being a former revolutionary socialist (and now a whatever?) you have never felt the despair that ordinary union members feel in ultra left run branches. Who on earth would want to go to a branch committee and put up with all that rot and nonsense? (Apart from you I assume?)
It is not, repeat not, and repeat not again the policy of the union to only allow candidates of internal elections to only say they vote Labour!!! How on earth can you...?
Hi Anon Evidence please evidence! Hi Anon “The people have voted” So very, very sincere congratulations to John Mac and commiserations to Peter (who of course is not a member of any party – more the pity – don’t worry I am working on it). We do need to raise the appalling turnout in these elections (12 %?) and I am confident that in the new elections early next year we will do well.
Personally I think that everybody accepts that the higher the turn out the better it is for candidates that support my kind of views will do. Interesting?
Again, I think Mr. Evans is not who he says he is. He is going into detail about previous political associations that you would have to know me fairly well to know. It's not as if I hide them, and when I asked about them I always give an honest answer, but I don't broadcast them either. I post under my real name because I can be held accountable for what I say. So, Wayne; time to answer my question. How do you know about my previous affiliations? And, more to point, why do you consider it relevant? I know I haven't raised them, so why do you feel the need?
You may not like the answer I have given, but it is the answer nonetheless and it isn't going to change. You talk about "behaviour" which insinuates that I have, at some point, have exhibited a pattern of behaviour which is dishonest. Since we're all now insisting that we provide evidence, I'd like you to provide evidence that I have done so apart from your misleading straw man of an accusation that I have "hidden" my political beliefs, which even a cursuory look at my campaign site (which is still up at http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/ so you can see for yourself) would show isn't the case.
If people want me to state that I'm a syndicalist and socialist on my election materials in future then fine, I will do - as I said, I wasn't sure what I could put and what I couldn't so I didn't run the risk and if I knew then what I knew now, I would have done. As for acheiving goals by peaceful means - what do you mean by this? If you mean my platform for the union, then are you accusing or insinuating that I advocate the use of violence in the union? Because I never have, indeed, earlier on I adamently stated that I do not! If you mean in terms of acheiving socialism, then what relevance does that have with the union's short term goals of securing pay and conditions for members? I have already stated that I do not believe that UNISON should be used as a veichle for socialism. So what's your point here? Or is it, as I suspect, a smokescreen?
I am amazed you have had “media” training and would respectfully suggest you ask for an immediate refund! I am also surprised that you have not fully responded to the comment that you mislead folk about being a Surrey “revolutionary socialist” - whatever that means? It is a shame that you felt you had something to hide but again understandable.
But the original post didn't accuse me of misleading anyone - it says that I did not mention it in my election address. The whole Surrey thing is a red herring. FYI, I'm on Point 22 on the NJC scales - not a large amount of money, and it's also to insinuate that everyone who lives in Surrey (Technically I live in Richmond upon Thames but who's quibbling) is posh and rich - a bit of a smack in the face to thousands of low-paid UNISON members who live in Surrey, don't you think?
Again, I've hidden nothing. If you think I have, prove it.
I haven’t a clue what you are on about with the 2009 conference amendment which was only about fascists? I suggest you pay more attention at future UNISON conferences and to the deliberate heckling, abuse and name calling by ultra left extremists which is solely designed to intimidate those who don’t agree with them.
But the conference amendment didn't refer to just fascists (indeed, IIRC, it didn't mention fascists at all, which is what the movers of the motion said was needed) but anyone who didn't agree with the "aims and objectives of the motion" which is so broad it could apply to anyone!
All UNISON lay officials are subject to elections so I don’t see how this is worse than Ultra’s 2 minute Hate sessions?
I thought you admitted that you left out in your statement you were a "revolutionary socalist"? So were you in the SWP and AWL? Who are you a member of this week?
Come on you are supposed to show me were I have lied? Please tell?
The wreakers of the anti-fascit motion of 2009 did it purely for spite and no other reason. Its a shame that many people fell for it - but there you go?
Call yourself a (ex) RS and you don't know what 2 minute hate sessions are?
Before I respond to John, a couple of points about what is currently laughingly passing itself off as "a debate".
1. When you're accused of making pointless, sectarian attacks on someone, it's not a good idea to respond with pointless, sectarian attacks on the accuser. Either you dispute the accusation, or do a mea culpa. That's the fraternal thing to do. Just so you know. It's also hypocritical to accuse the "ultra-left" of despicable anonymous attacks when you are also engaged in the exact sort of behaviour.
2. People are trying to attack me based on my previous political affiliations and the fact that I live in Surrey. The fact is, no matter how much you like to think you know about me, it's only about 5%. It's also missing the point. Attacking me does not respond to the points I have made, it is a diversion, and it is a poor, poor reflection on the "centre left" that it stoops to these depths. It is sad, but unsurprising. Would it be too much to ask to, y'know, respond to what I have said?
At this point now, I'm only engaged in this charade in the interests of political hygiene.
John says:
I thought you admitted that you left out in your statement you were a "revolutionary socalist"?
Maybe we're not using the same meaning for the word "hiding" here. I take it to mean that you actively try to deny something; even when asked. I don't think "Dwayne" ever accused me of hiding it, just not mentioning it in an election statement. I did mention it, however, on my campaign website which I linked to above - and the URL for which was in my candidate statement so people could find out more.
And, when asked, I always tell the truth.
So, based on my understanding of "hiding", I really haven't. If I was hiding it, I would have said "No, I am not a revolutionary socialist".
So were you in the SWP and AWL? Who are you a member of this week?
Haha haha. Sorry John, my sides are splitting at your dazzling wit and originality. Someone get a corset ready just in case, I mean, it's that bad. :|
The answer is: I was in both organisations in different periods. Not any more. Not for about two years now, I think.
Come on you are supposed to show me were I have lied? Please tell?
I never accused you of lying, I said that in some circumstances you sail close to the wind. For example, when you published a video which effectively accused me of being a racist, sexist, homophobe beceause I was a white straight bloke running for NEC. For example.
But anyway. You've accused me of being dishonest. Either you heavily substantiate this claim or it better wither away. Sharpish.
The wreakers of the anti-fascit motion of 2009 did it purely for spite and no other reason. Its a shame that many people fell for it - but there you go?
I didn't do it out of spite and I suggest, given the huge vote against it that it recieved after a card vote, did either.
Call yourself a (ex) RS and you don't know what 2 minute hate sessions are?
No, but since you're an expert on the revolutionary socialist, you can tell me.
Woah, now we've got Mark on the scene! Hello Mark, are you one of my Facebook stalkers too? I seem to be collecting them. Kind of thing to make a man paranoid, is this.
Whatever happened to the Socialist Youth Network? Wasn't that one of "Kit's" ex-dalliances?
It's all very well attacking democratic centralism (and I dislike democratic centralism too) when our own party, sadly, has adopted such features - especially in Newham. You remember the previous council candidate 'selections' of course... and, sadly, you know that this time is not going to be very much better... (though I sincerely hope you make it through). Maybe we should put our own house in order too?
I've taken only a quick look and I might be wrong (I've copied the pages just in case and will read them at a more leisurely pace soon) but it seems you only described yourself on those pages as a revolutionary socialist AFTER you lost the election and not before.
I'm happy to have your correction of my reading if I've got it wrong.
Hey, look who it is guys! If it isn't my very first stalker Dwayne! You know, Dwayne, out of all my stalkers, you're my favourite. I mean, you call me "Mr. Leary" which makes me feel important and special and everything! Gee Dwayne, you can definatly have a lock of my hair.
I've taken only a quick look and I might be wrong (I've copied the pages just in case and will read them at a more leisurely pace soon)
If you seem to know as much about me as you'd like us all to think, you'd know that I'm a bit of a dab hand at the old interwebs - and that me changing the page would be pointless in an interwebs with Google Cache and the Wayback Machine.
Don't you trust me Dwayne?
but it seems you only described yourself on those pages as a revolutionary socialist AFTER you lost the election and not before.
BZZZZT. Wrong. Let's have a look.
I am not ashamed of saying that I want to rebuild the industrial power of the union and rebuild workers’ solidarity. Some might say that’s an old-fashioned view, but it’s what unions are; without them, they cease to exist as unions. The way we win struggles is by not just having power, but also using it. And our key weapon is solidarity.
I believe in the organising model of unionism, but I think we need to go further than that; we need to build solidarity unionism; a model of union organising which looks to the power of ordinary workers to defend themselves, and to win improvements on the job. The union is the workers, and a well-organised, self-reliant union is a union that can win.
and, a bit further down:
Outside of UNISON, I’m a member of the Labour Party, but currently spitting feathers about how Brown & co have sold working people down the river, while making sure their fat cat mates are OK. I’m a member of the Labour Representation Committee, which organises socialists, trade unionists, campaigners and other general malcontents who think that privatisation and cowtowing to big business isn’t what the Labour Party is supposed to be about. I’m also a proud supporter of Education Not For Sale, a campaigning organisation which fights for free education and a fighting student movement; of No Sweat, the labour movement anti-sweatshop campaign; and of the Industrial Workers of the World, the “One Big Union” which seeks to organise workers industrially and the originator of Solidarity Unionism.
That was posted on April 15, 2009 (see http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/ballot-papers-are-starting-to-arrive-this-is-why-you-should-vote-for-me/) It was even sticked on the top when the campaign was on, only unstickied after the ballots closed.
On my about page:
Apart from my UNISON activism, I’m also a (very critical) member of the Labour Party and the Labour Representation Committee, and it’s youth wing, the Socialist Youth Network. I’m also a supporter of No Sweat, Education Not For Sale, and the Industrial Workers of the World.
See for yourself: http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/about-me/. It was also on the leaflet I produced, the PDF can be found at http://home.freeuk.com/chrisfornec/chrisleaflet.pdf.
Hi Chris Not a clue what you are going on about? But what about hiding by omission? Despite your denials you have accused me of lying quote “I've also seen you put up blog posts which contain outright lies”. So, either you are lying yourself or you will point out where I have told these porkies. I think this is fair enough.
I really haven’t got a clue about who you really are (or if exist to be true) but if you were a member of the recent united left NEC slate then say so for crying out loud. You may not like what the forces of light and reason said about the racist and sexist UL slate in that election but there was no lies told by me? If so then you should evidence it.
You didn’t wreak the anti-Nazi 2009 motion - you were just didn’t realise what was really going on - IMO.
It is in your favour that you must have been a very suspect member of the SWP not to be invited along to one their “hate sessions”.
Hi anon 20.15 This is very different. We may argue amongst ourselves about “the state we’re in” in our beloved Newham but this is a national politics and trade union issue where our employers all know about the democratic centralists and mocks us for putting up with it. It diminishes us all since it give succour to the Daily Hate and their lies about all trade unions and how we are controlled by the ultra left.
Finally Chris – calm down and take a chill pill or three since I think you doth protest too much and are making a plonker of yourself with your OTT and self centred responses. Again this IMO for what it is worth.
I will take a "chill pill" (do you know what that means, by the way?) when anonymous posters don't make unfounded accusations against me. Plonker? Maybe - but when the "centre left" go around making baseless accusations in order to sully my reputation, to simply ignore it is to condone it and simply encourages it.
I did not accuse you of lying - your quote was from an anonymous poster and not me. I said that you do come close to, and that you accused me of being a sexist, racist homophobe by publishing that video. The only "proof" you have of it is because I am a straight white male who ran for NEC - not because, oh I don't know, because I've ever actually been or done anything like that. Some might call it a lie; I call it baseless. And really, should be beneath you.
My election statement did, IIRC, mention the Reclaim the Union slate and so did my website. Never denied that.
So - self centred? I've raised a legitimate issue and for my trouble I've been accused of being dishonest - an accusation without basis. Irony much?
A sad day for honesty and fraternity in our union...
"I didn't do it out of spite and I suggest, given the huge vote against it that it recieved after a card vote, did either. "
The truth is that the NEC amendment got a 100 000 majority - it didn't get the two thirds needed solely because of the misrepresentation of the Socialist Party (subverting union democracy) which deceived gullible delegates such as Chris.
John, what's the difference between Labour Party members following a particular line coming down from the top... from one person, for reasons of well meaning loyalty, career, patronage, while not being able to discuss differences in public due to party loyalty, and, er, democratic centralism...? At least with democratic centralism (and I'm not defending it at all) they do have a whole committee taking decisions. Locally in the party we have seem to have ended up in with a central committee of one?
I suggest your efforts are better spent working towards the aims and objectives of the union rather than spitting the dummy out. As New Lab supporters it's not unreasonable for you to appreciate that there will be people more left than you - this is okay.
Even if you don't agree with the way Chris wants to achieve his policies, he's entitled to believe in them and express them in public. Spending your time ripping into the left only makes you look like right-wing dickheads, rather than using the enthusiasm of the left to achieve consensus. If the left was brought in earlier in BNP rule change, then we'd be able to expel them.
Oi - John - you approved two comments and not mine. What gives?
Has Chris been attacked for living in Surrey? I've read the comments and can't really see any attack.
Mind you, what with his 'comrades' having joshed him about it, perhaps the deer chap's just a wee bit sensitive on the issue?
The whole Surrey thing, as I have said, is a red herring. Maybe someone can explain to me what the relevancy of it is to anything? Maybe you might have an insight here Sammy. Cos I am stumped - and it's something repeatedly asked.
John accused me of being "dishonest" about being a "Surrey revolutionary socialist" - neither of which, as the long trail of comments show, was ever actually true.
What is the pertinent point is this: John launched a petty, sectarian attack on a group of people. mrcentreleft claimed that "the poison of Trotskyism has been killing the union for years". The response? Repeated anonymous attacks claiming that I had sought to decieve union members - which, when clearly debunked, carried on anyway.
This is what the "centre left" should be judged by. And left deeply, deeply wanting.
Chris was in a number of political parties in the past in short order, but many of us have been there and done that on the road to practical politics so no shame there, I think?
In some election he claimed that members voted for him as an openly revolutionary socialist, although he didn't use those precise words until after the election, just gave a nod to a list of his beliefs at that time and some organisations he was connected with? Which seems to me fine, but maybe he should accept he wasn't entirely honest about those things adding up to "revolutionary socialist" and Dwayne maybe should not get so hung up on the words themselves getting used.
I suppose the question for me here though is that Chris's list seems more characteristic of a reformist rather than a revolutionary? Maybe that's why there's been more made of the 'revolutionary' tag than first meets the eye?
Not that there's anything at all wrong being a reformist or even a revolutionary if that's your bag, as far as I can see, but there is a world of difference, isn't there?
This whole "Chris is dishonest" meme is really getting rather boring.
This is the point: I made my affilations clear. I stood on a platform that I thought was relevant and achievable. I don't think, have never thought, that UNISON would be a veichle for revolutionary socialism, so what do people want me to do? Run on a revolutionary socialist platform? Call for UNISON to become the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat?
That's not what I want to achieve in UNISON, so I don't see why it's relevant. When you run for election, it's a good idea to state what you would do if you were elected. I said which campaigns and organisations I support. I mentioned my politics as far as they were relevant to the union and how we can take it forward.
What this all boils down to is that the UNISON right wing vultures are determined to find a scandal where there simply isn't one. After all, others have mentioned that prominent Labour Party members in UNISON didn't mention that they were Labour members when they stood for NEC (names do spring to mind). Where is the faux outrage there, eh?
John and "Dwayne" (who I suspect knows what little he does about me because I told him over dinner at a Brewer's Fayre in Gillingham, Kent) are essentially trying to pointscore and do down known left wingers but what they is found is that when I am punched, I punch back harder - and now they don't want to look stupid, so they are busy scrabbling aroud trying to find one little thing to stick on me, only to find that it isn't.
And it's really, really pathetic. If they spent even just five percent of the time they spend scurrying around the internet attacking imaginary enemies to actually build the union, we'd all be a lot better off.
What's worse? Scurrying round the internet checking facts or scurrying from one ultra left sect to another and from one political description to another?
I suppose the fact Chris is moving fairly rapidly now to the centre ground is at least a sign of some hope?
Leary fail? Ha. The fact that so many different anonymi need to come on here to make up scandal is the real fail.
I wouldn't mind if they did check their facts, but they didn't. They lied and pretended that was stuff was true when it wasn't. And they hide behind false names in order to spread smears and innuendo.
And anyway, even if I've moved around left wing groups a lot (I don't think three times is a lot, but there we go) and I've changed political description (only one - sort of) I still retain 95% of the same politics at 24 than I had when I was 16.
I have heard rumours of "Dwayne" moving to the Labour right after a stint in the Lib Dems, much like our host. I've never given them much credence until now but the veracity of Dwayne's... "questioning" now casts doubts.
Hi Chris Been a bit busy lately so apologies for not responding sooner. I think that the best response to all this is to suggest that you think very carefully before you type in the future. Since you cannot argue about lack of “honesty and fraternity” if you then go around accusing everyone else of bad faith (or worse). You can’t have it both ways. It just makes you appear either very immature or hypocritical (or both?). Think of it as S-S-S Now we all set off in life meaning to be saints in politics but quite often when blogging we end up being sinners (I plead guilty me lord!) but what we don’t want to become is satanists! I think that you Facebook friends are poking fun at you and you keep biting.
Hi Satanist Anon 13.36 Not sure who James is? But as a Labour Party Supporter (New, Old or whatever – we are all New Labour as far as I am concerned. But that doesn’t make us all Blairites) I do accept that there are people to the “left” of the Party and I work with them every day in my branch and workplace. But what I don’t accept are people who would betray our Party or our unions if they thought it would bring forward the “Great Day of the Revolution”. There can be no consensus with such people since they are not part of the democratic left tradition nor they do not have the best interests of the working class at heart. These are the people who deliberately wreaked the ant-BNP amendment to spite the national leadership and who are now openly and publically attacking the union. How can you have unity with such people?
Hat-tip thingy to Comrade Mercader (double click picture) who invites us to an early Crimbo social I think?
50 comments:
Great idea John,
It's about time we UNISON had one of these.
The poison of Trotskyism has been killing the Union for years.
Maybe you could organise the band John?
mrcentreleft said:
"The poison of Trotskyism has been killing the Union for years."
Yes, because as we all know, UNISON is a hotbed of Trotskyists.
*sigh*
1. Trotskyists are a minority within UNISON. Even they accept that their influence on events in, and direction of, the union is small compared to "the centre left".
2. Many Trotskyists, or those who are labelled as "Trots" but who simply have the temerity to be to the left of Labour, work incredibly hard for UNISON and our members, and loyally - and for that they earn the respect and electoral support of members.
3. UNISON is supposed to be a democratic union where all shades of opinion (bar the obvious - fascism, racism, sexism etc) are welcome and we debate and agree a way forward.
So why do you upload tripe like this? Disagreeing with the Left - even as forcefully as you do - is one thing and I'm not going to even try to trounce on your right to publicly express your disagreement - but endorsing something which calls for the expulsion of Trots (and by publishing it without comment you are endorsing it) is just pathetic.
The fact is that you and I know full well that there are scores of those dastardly "Trots" that without whom many UNISON branches would collapse and they work damned hard for the union and our members.
Why do you stoop to these depths? How does it contribute to developing a fraternal union?
So Chris do you think it is alright for their central committees to order them how to vote and what to do in our union on pain of expulsion regardless of what is best for our members?
Do you think it is alright for "some" of them to bully and violently threaten people who don't support them?
You think it is alright for them to publically attack and run down the union because they do not agree with the decisions of our democratically elected lay officials?
Hi Chris
No doubt Mr Centre Left will respond for himself. But to be clear Cdr Mercader’s poster was a “tongue in cheek” response to a despicable and dishonest anonymous leaflet attacking the union and also named individuals.
We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points.
I do ponder your comments about branches that would collapse if the “dastardly trots” (your words not mine) were to leave? Have you ever wondered why these branches are in such a state in the first place?
I have always accepted that some of the ultra left do work very hard representing members at a local level especially over case work. But I do wish they would put in their election addresses that they are members of the SWP/SPEW and if elected they would follow the instructions of their central committees and not the wishes or best interests of their members.
After all - they should be proud of their democratic centralism?
I believe Mr.Leary describes himself with some pride as a revolutionary socialist (one who of course sees the irony of being such in Surrey).
I wonder why, then, he made absolutely no mention of this in his election address to UNISON members when he stood for the NEC?
I don't even ask that these people state which political party they belong to, just that they clearly state they have ambitions to achieve a violent overthrow of our current democratic politics.
Or do they think that UNISON members - whose work is effectively decided upon and paid for by our current democratic machinery (national and local) - would be a tad wary of backing them in their ambitions?
So come on, Chris, we all know your politics are important to you and inform your approach to life the universe and everything - why didn't you mention you are a revolutionary socialist? Did you think UNISON's young members might have recognised you for what you are?
Dwayne Evans
I'm sure all Labour Party members standing for election mention their party membership in election literature. I'm sure they wouldn't forget to do so, what with Labour being so popular and all.
And I'm sure being members of the Labour Party would never influence their behaviour within UNISON, in the way that it apparently does with SWP/SP members.
Now onto Anon's straw men:
"So Chris do you think it is alright for their central committees to order them how to vote and what to do in our union on pain of expulsion regardless of what is best for our members?
If people choose to be in such an organisation and choose to follow it's discipline, that's their choice. I used to be one (though not, I must stress, for a couple of years now, and have politically moved on since then to a type of syndicalist). There is nothing in the Rulebook to prevent it since the badly-worded Rule Amendment failed at NDC 2009. So what's the problem? John says they should be more honest about their affiliations and I think they are as honest as the rules allow, but sunlight isn't a bad thing and a bit more leaway in the rules to be transparent wouldn't go amiss.
"Do you think it is alright for "some" of them to bully and violently threaten people who don't support them?"
No. Absolutely not. You don't see me bopping our esteemed host on the snout do you? I'm a bit confused as to where this came from since nobody here has even mentioned violence.
"You think it is alright for them to publically attack and run down the union because they do not agree with the decisions of our democratically elected lay officials?"
Irony time: A lot of the Trot groups you condemn for being "undemocratic" have regular internal bulletins where critisisms of the leadership and political discussion can take place in front of the entire membership, who all recieve a copy of every bulletin that is produced, which is usually quarterly but can be more frequently if there is a disagreement in the offing.
Since there is no such rolling mechanism within UNISON, how else can such issues be raised with the membership? Maybe this is a democratic defecit you can all address?
Well said Chris Leary
Chris
I've refused your 2nd comment. If you want it published take out the names you've mentioned of people who can't publically defend themselves.
You should know better.
These responses are not in order and will be staggered over several comments for reasons of space.
In response to John: given my media training, it is my opinion that I was reporting on allegations already made public; therefore, I didn't see the problem. However, I do take your point and will bear it in mind in future, and apologise for any offense or anxiety caused by mentioning names.
Having said that, I do think it's fair to comment that allegations have been made though I do undertake not to repeat them.
"We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points."
I take it you'll be resigning then John?
John
Unlike you I was in the court and heard the allegations made by a London full time official of the union about the behaviour of the most senior unelected officials in the region seeking to have elected officials undemocratically removed because of thier politics. What do you say is a lie in the reclaim the union leaflet?
If the accusations are untrue what do you have to fear from an inquiry?
OK; second post. This is the best recollection of my original response to John's reply to me (1.12.09, 7:30am) so it might not be the exact same or cover the same points in my original - though I advise John to redact parts of the post which he considers unreasonable, and say so, rather than delete the entire thing. Unless he objects to the entire thing.
No doubt Mr Centre Left will respond for himself. But to be clear Cdr Mercader’s poster was a “tongue in cheek” response to a despicable and dishonest anonymous leaflet attacking the union and also named individuals.
Why self-professed social democrats/left progressives invoke the name of a Stalinist murderer in a positive manner is beyond me.
But in any case; the original leaflet - which I hadn't seen when I made my original post but have subsequently, did make some very serious allegations which, if true, are very serious and have serious rammifications for lay democracy in our union generally, which I think are far more serious than this leaflet discussing them (and I have already covered why the Left has to use such leaflets in a previous post). Don't you think?
We cannot develop a “fraternal union” if we have people who think it is perfectly acceptable to tell lies and run down the Union in order to score narrow sectarian points.
But this is a charge often laid against you and in some circumstances, I don't think it's an unfair one. You have on occation run down elected lay officials of the Union in order to score narrow sectarian posts simply because they are Trots.
I do ponder your comments about branches that would collapse if the “dastardly trots” (your words not mine) were to leave? Have you ever wondered why these branches are in such a state in the first place?
You and I both know that there are branches - the number is not small - where that if you were to remove the local leadership of whatever political stripe, the branch would collapse. It's a problem facing lots of branches.
I have always accepted that some of the ultra left do work very hard representing members at a local level especially over case work. But I do wish they would put in their election addresses that they are members of the SWP/SPEW and if elected they would follow the instructions of their central committees and not the wishes or best interests of their members.
After all - they should be proud of their democratic centralism?
But I don't think they can. The union has a policy of only supporting the Labour Party, so I thought it might be against rule to mention such a thing - that's what I thought when I stood so I only mentioned the fact that I was a member of the Labour Party (which I was at the time, involved in Labour Link too).
Also, do you not consider that they feel that there is no contradiction between being a part of a disciplined Leninist party and representing the best interests of their members? After all, if the members didn't feel that the Left didn't represent their best interests, they wouldn't vote for them, right? But they do, and the number of SP members has increased on the NEC after the last election, right?
Trotskyism has been killing the union for years? Hows that then given they are such a tiny part of the union membership?
UNISON is run by those who support the Labour Party, so the failings should largely be put at their doorstep, such as the fact that we have so many branches that aren't functional, that density is so low in so many workplaces, that campaigns are lost on so many occasions (pay demands and the loss of pension rights come to mind).
"If you want it published take out the names you've mentioned of people who can't publically defend themselves."
John Gray I've seen you put up posts on here that name people and insult them, so don't you think it's a bit rich you saying this? I've also seen you put up blog posts which contain outright lies.
It's also the case that many people in the Labour Party didn't state that they were Labour Party members when they stood, I wonder why? It's also presumably the case that if they are in the Labour Party they have to go along, to some extent, with what the Labour Party wants, otherwise they too would be thrown out of the Labour Party. Hasn't that happened to whole unions such as the RMT?
Lastly the unions which have grown and had the most successful campaigns are the RMT and PCS. Aren't their leaderships part of the far left and in some cases are revolutionary socialists?
Finally for tonight, in response to Dwayne Evans (01 December 2009 09:35):
I believe Mr.Leary describes himself with some pride as a revolutionary socialist (one who of course sees the irony of being such in Surrey).
I don't know who Mr. Evans is, but I rather suspect he's a friend on Facebook, where my profile reads (and has read for quite some time) that "the irony of being a revolutionary socialist is not lost upon me".
Though, of course, as I have said; I see myself as more of a syndicalist in the style of Tom Mann, William Haywood, Elizabeth Gurley-Flynn, James Connolly, Jim Larkin, etc; and that I live in Richmond, which is technically in Greater London and hasn't been in Surrey since 1965. Mr. Evans neglects to mention that I was born in, and grew up in, Salford, Greater Manchester; a noted hotbed of the landed aristoracy if ever there was one.
Mr. Evans also neglects to mention the relevancy of any of this.
I wonder why, then, he made absolutely no mention of this in his election address to UNISON members when he stood for the NEC?
Because, as I've mentioned above, I wasn't sure I could. I tried to seek clarification to make sure I didn't breach any rules, and I think, in retrospect, I erred on the side of caution a little too much; but given the current wave of Rule I investigations, better to be safe than sorry.
However, I did mention my politics on my website, which was mentioned in my election address, and on the leaflet I produced (without UNISON resources, I might add). So I didn't exactly keep it a secret, either. I did mention that I was a Labour Party member in my election address, which was true (just ask anyone in South East region - I even represented UNISON at Labour South East conference and Young Labour conference last year). According to lots of people I have spoken to since, it was the Labour Party connection which did it in for me. Oh well.
There is also the point that I was not running for the Chair of the Petrograd soviet; I don't think socialism will come through trying to transform UNISON into a steeled disciplined tool of the revolutionary proletariat (that's what the IWW is for, which is why I'm a member of it) but I do think that there are certain things that the union could do in the coming months; that was the platform I stood on.
The "centre left" is always keen to critisise the far left for running on meaningless platforms about socialism and revolution that are "out of touch" with the membership; though when I actually do run on such a platform, I'm attacked for not being open about my politics! I can't win!
I don't even ask that these people state which political party they belong to, just that they clearly state they have ambitions to achieve a violent overthrow of our current democratic politics.
Or do they think that UNISON members - whose work is effectively decided upon and paid for by our current democratic machinery (national and local) - would be a tad wary of backing them in their ambitions?
They still voted for them though - as I mentioned earlier - the SP's representation on the NEC has increased since the last election.
So come on, Chris, we all know your politics are important to you and inform your approach to life the universe and everything - why didn't you mention you are a revolutionary socialist? Did you think UNISON's young members might have recognised you for what you are?
Because, as I said, I didn't think I could - I never got the clarification in time for the deadline for paperwork. But while I didn't win (and I think that was down to saying that I was a Labour Party member) I still got 45% of the vote, which I think - given that I'd only been in the union for about two years when I stood - wasn't a bad result for a first go.
oh dear just heard the members have had the termerity to elect another "dammed Trotskyist" to the national local government executive in london against the recommendation of John Gray and defeating one of the current london leadership and new labour supporter.
congrats John Mc
Sorry, Chris, that's no answer to my question.
But let's put down past behaviour in elections as a regrettable mistake on your part.
Will you give a commitment (as there is no rule against being a revolutionary socialist and a member of UNISON) to stating explicitly that you are a revolutionary socialist in any future election addresses, and also state how you expect to achieve your goals through peaceful means?
(Subject of course to your not changing your mind in the meantime and jumping ship, like you did with 'past mistakes' like your membership of the SWP and the AWL and...do tell, Chris, were there any others?)
A straightforward answer would be very much appreciated.
Dwayne Evans
Hi Jackson
I think you can take it from the name of this blog and the links that it is fairly well known that I am a Labour Party supporter. I think that I have mentioned this before but only an imbecile would imagine that Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown or the Labour Party NEC instructs UNISON activists on whether or not to start or continue industrial action. But I can of course understand why you think this is so.
Hi Chris
I am amazed you have had “media” training and would respectfully suggest you ask for an immediate refund! I am also surprised that you have not fully responded to the comment that you mislead folk about being a Surrey “revolutionary socialist” - whatever that means? It is a shame that you felt you had something to hide but again understandable.
I haven’t a clue what you are on about with the 2009 conference amendment which was only about fascists? I suggest you pay more attention at future UNISON conferences and to the deliberate heckling, abuse and name calling by ultra left extremists which is solely designed to intimidate those who don’t agree with them.
All UNISON lay officials are subject to elections so I don’t see how this is worse than Ultra’s 2 minute Hate sessions?
Hi Anon
I am of course widely accepted as being sweetness and light in London region and would never ever seek to make any sectarian points.
If you attended the hearing then say who you are and what you heard? Not make pointless anon tickle tackle comments. The press interest seems to be only from the Bromley free papers and what they report is nothing like the lies and smears put out by anon leaflets.
Hi Chris
Not sure at all what you are going on about – needless to say I have IMO only had a go at folk who I felt deserved due to their deeds and actions not because they belong to a particular cult. If you make such accusations then you should back them up with specifics.
Obviously being a former revolutionary socialist (and now a whatever?) you have never felt the despair that ordinary union members feel in ultra left run branches. Who on earth would want to go to a branch committee and put up with all that rot and nonsense? (Apart from you I assume?)
It is not, repeat not, and repeat not again the policy of the union to only allow candidates of internal elections to only say they vote Labour!!! How on earth can you...?
Hi Anon
Evidence please evidence!
Hi Anon
“The people have voted” So very, very sincere congratulations to John Mac and commiserations to Peter (who of course is not a member of any party – more the pity – don’t worry I am working on it). We do need to raise the appalling turnout in these elections (12 %?) and I am confident that in the new elections early next year we will do well.
Personally I think that everybody accepts that the higher the turn out the better it is for candidates that support my kind of views will do. Interesting?
I will answer "Dwayne" first.
Again, I think Mr. Evans is not who he says he is. He is going into detail about previous political associations that you would have to know me fairly well to know. It's not as if I hide them, and when I asked about them I always give an honest answer, but I don't broadcast them either. I post under my real name because I can be held accountable for what I say. So, Wayne; time to answer my question. How do you know about my previous affiliations? And, more to point, why do you consider it relevant? I know I haven't raised them, so why do you feel the need?
You may not like the answer I have given, but it is the answer nonetheless and it isn't going to change. You talk about "behaviour" which insinuates that I have, at some point, have exhibited a pattern of behaviour which is dishonest. Since we're all now insisting that we provide evidence, I'd like you to provide evidence that I have done so apart from your misleading straw man of an accusation that I have "hidden" my political beliefs, which even a cursuory look at my campaign site (which is still up at http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/ so you can see for yourself) would show isn't the case.
If people want me to state that I'm a syndicalist and socialist on my election materials in future then fine, I will do - as I said, I wasn't sure what I could put and what I couldn't so I didn't run the risk and if I knew then what I knew now, I would have done. As for acheiving goals by peaceful means - what do you mean by this? If you mean my platform for the union, then are you accusing or insinuating that I advocate the use of violence in the union? Because I never have, indeed, earlier on I adamently stated that I do not! If you mean in terms of acheiving socialism, then what relevance does that have with the union's short term goals of securing pay and conditions for members? I have already stated that I do not believe that UNISON should be used as a veichle for socialism. So what's your point here? Or is it, as I suspect, a smokescreen?
Now onto John:
I am amazed you have had “media” training and would respectfully suggest you ask for an immediate refund! I am also surprised that you have not fully responded to the comment that you mislead folk about being a Surrey “revolutionary socialist” - whatever that means? It is a shame that you felt you had something to hide but again understandable.
But the original post didn't accuse me of misleading anyone - it says that I did not mention it in my election address. The whole Surrey thing is a red herring. FYI, I'm on Point 22 on the NJC scales - not a large amount of money, and it's also to insinuate that everyone who lives in Surrey (Technically I live in Richmond upon Thames but who's quibbling) is posh and rich - a bit of a smack in the face to thousands of low-paid UNISON members who live in Surrey, don't you think?
Again, I've hidden nothing. If you think I have, prove it.
I haven’t a clue what you are on about with the 2009 conference amendment which was only about fascists? I suggest you pay more attention at future UNISON conferences and to the deliberate heckling, abuse and name calling by ultra left extremists which is solely designed to intimidate those who don’t agree with them.
But the conference amendment didn't refer to just fascists (indeed, IIRC, it didn't mention fascists at all, which is what the movers of the motion said was needed) but anyone who didn't agree with the "aims and objectives of the motion" which is so broad it could apply to anyone!
All UNISON lay officials are subject to elections so I don’t see how this is worse than Ultra’s 2 minute Hate sessions?
What are you talking about here?
Hi Chris
I thought you admitted that you left out in your statement you were a "revolutionary socalist"? So were you in the SWP and AWL? Who are you a member of this week?
Come on you are supposed to show me were I have lied? Please tell?
The wreakers of the anti-fascit motion of 2009 did it purely for spite and no other reason. Its a shame that many people fell for it - but there you go?
Call yourself a (ex) RS and you don't know what 2 minute hate sessions are?
Whatever happened to the Socialist Youth Network? Wasn't that one of "Kit's" ex-dalliances?
Mark
Before I respond to John, a couple of points about what is currently laughingly passing itself off as "a debate".
1. When you're accused of making pointless, sectarian attacks on someone, it's not a good idea to respond with pointless, sectarian attacks on the accuser. Either you dispute the accusation, or do a mea culpa. That's the fraternal thing to do. Just so you know. It's also hypocritical to accuse the "ultra-left" of despicable anonymous attacks when you are also engaged in the exact sort of behaviour.
2. People are trying to attack me based on my previous political affiliations and the fact that I live in Surrey. The fact is, no matter how much you like to think you know about me, it's only about 5%. It's also missing the point. Attacking me does not respond to the points I have made, it is a diversion, and it is a poor, poor reflection on the "centre left" that it stoops to these depths. It is sad, but unsurprising. Would it be too much to ask to, y'know, respond to what I have said?
At this point now, I'm only engaged in this charade in the interests of political hygiene.
John says:
I thought you admitted that you left out in your statement you were a "revolutionary socalist"?
Maybe we're not using the same meaning for the word "hiding" here. I take it to mean that you actively try to deny something; even when asked. I don't think "Dwayne" ever accused me of hiding it, just not mentioning it in an election statement. I did mention it, however, on my campaign website which I linked to above - and the URL for which was in my candidate statement so people could find out more.
And, when asked, I always tell the truth.
So, based on my understanding of "hiding", I really haven't. If I was hiding it, I would have said "No, I am not a revolutionary socialist".
So were you in the SWP and AWL? Who are you a member of this week?
Haha haha. Sorry John, my sides are splitting at your dazzling wit and originality. Someone get a corset ready just in case, I mean, it's that bad. :|
The answer is: I was in both organisations in different periods. Not any more. Not for about two years now, I think.
Come on you are supposed to show me were I have lied? Please tell?
I never accused you of lying, I said that in some circumstances you sail close to the wind. For example, when you published a video which effectively accused me of being a racist, sexist, homophobe beceause I was a white straight bloke running for NEC. For example.
But anyway. You've accused me of being dishonest. Either you heavily substantiate this claim or it better wither away. Sharpish.
The wreakers of the anti-fascit motion of 2009 did it purely for spite and no other reason. Its a shame that many people fell for it - but there you go?
I didn't do it out of spite and I suggest, given the huge vote against it that it recieved after a card vote, did either.
Call yourself a (ex) RS and you don't know what 2 minute hate sessions are?
No, but since you're an expert on the revolutionary socialist, you can tell me.
Woah, now we've got Mark on the scene! Hello Mark, are you one of my Facebook stalkers too? I seem to be collecting them. Kind of thing to make a man paranoid, is this.
Whatever happened to the Socialist Youth Network? Wasn't that one of "Kit's" ex-dalliances?
Dalliances? I'm still a member.
where that AWL Bakash video can you pass it round
Sorry to but in, but isn't "two minute hate" something from Orwell's 1984?
John
It's all very well attacking democratic centralism (and I dislike democratic centralism too) when our own party, sadly, has adopted such features - especially in Newham. You remember the previous council candidate 'selections' of course... and, sadly, you know that this time is not going to be very much better... (though I sincerely hope you make it through). Maybe we should put our own house in order too?
Labour Anon.
Dear Mr.Leary,
Thanks for the address of your blog.
I've taken only a quick look and I might be wrong (I've copied the pages just in case and will read them at a more leisurely pace soon) but it seems you only described yourself on those pages as a revolutionary socialist AFTER you lost the election and not before.
I'm happy to have your correction of my reading if I've got it wrong.
Fraternally
Dwayne Evans
Hey, look who it is guys! If it isn't my very first stalker Dwayne! You know, Dwayne, out of all my stalkers, you're my favourite. I mean, you call me "Mr. Leary" which makes me feel important and special and everything! Gee Dwayne, you can definatly have a lock of my hair.
I've taken only a quick look and I might be wrong (I've copied the pages just in case and will read them at a more leisurely pace soon)
If you seem to know as much about me as you'd like us all to think, you'd know that I'm a bit of a dab hand at the old interwebs - and that me changing the page would be pointless in an interwebs with Google Cache and the Wayback Machine.
Don't you trust me Dwayne?
but it seems you only described yourself on those pages as a revolutionary socialist AFTER you lost the election and not before.
BZZZZT. Wrong. Let's have a look.
I am not ashamed of saying that I want to rebuild the industrial power of the union and rebuild workers’ solidarity. Some might say that’s an old-fashioned view, but it’s what unions are; without them, they cease to exist as unions. The way we win struggles is by not just having power, but also using it. And our key weapon is solidarity.
I believe in the organising model of unionism, but I think we need to go further than that; we need to build solidarity unionism; a model of union organising which looks to the power of ordinary workers to defend themselves, and to win improvements on the job. The union is the workers, and a well-organised, self-reliant union is a union that can win.
and, a bit further down:
Outside of UNISON, I’m a member of the Labour Party, but currently spitting feathers about how Brown & co have sold working people down the river, while making sure their fat cat mates are OK. I’m a member of the Labour Representation Committee, which organises socialists, trade unionists, campaigners and other general malcontents who think that privatisation and cowtowing to big business isn’t what the Labour Party is supposed to be about. I’m also a proud supporter of Education Not For Sale, a campaigning organisation which fights for free education and a fighting student movement; of No Sweat, the labour movement anti-sweatshop campaign; and of the Industrial Workers of the World, the “One Big Union” which seeks to organise workers industrially and the originator of Solidarity Unionism.
That was posted on April 15, 2009 (see http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/ballot-papers-are-starting-to-arrive-this-is-why-you-should-vote-for-me/) It was even sticked on the top when the campaign was on, only unstickied after the ballots closed.
On my about page:
Apart from my UNISON activism, I’m also a (very critical) member of the Labour Party and the Labour Representation Committee, and it’s youth wing, the Socialist Youth Network. I’m also a supporter of No Sweat, Education Not For Sale, and the Industrial Workers of the World.
See for yourself: http://chrisleary.wordpress.com/about-me/. It was also on the leaflet I produced, the PDF can be found at http://home.freeuk.com/chrisfornec/chrisleaflet.pdf.
Shame Dwayne.
Hi Chris
Not a clue what you are going on about? But what about hiding by omission? Despite your denials you have accused me of lying quote “I've also seen you put up blog posts which contain outright lies”. So, either you are lying yourself or you will point out where I have told these porkies. I think this is fair enough.
I really haven’t got a clue about who you really are (or if exist to be true) but if you were a member of the recent united left NEC slate then say so for crying out loud. You may not like what the forces of light and reason said about the racist and sexist UL slate in that election but there was no lies told by me? If so then you should evidence it.
You didn’t wreak the anti-Nazi 2009 motion - you were just didn’t realise what was really going on - IMO.
It is in your favour that you must have been a very suspect member of the SWP not to be invited along to one their “hate sessions”.
Hi anon 20.15
This is very different. We may argue amongst ourselves about “the state we’re in” in our beloved Newham but this is a national politics and trade union issue where our employers all know about the democratic centralists and mocks us for putting up with it. It diminishes us all since it give succour to the Daily Hate and their lies about all trade unions and how we are controlled by the ultra left.
Finally Chris – calm down and take a chill pill or three since I think you doth protest too much and are making a plonker of yourself with your OTT and self centred responses. Again this IMO for what it is worth.
BTW Chris
Are you related in any known way to our Newham Mike Law?
Your opinion = not worth a lot.
I couldn't resist that one John.
Just seen your latest comment - it came up after I posted mine.
You're a very, very funny guy.
What is it about Chris and I that seems so similar to you?
The only similarity I can see is that when you're stuck for a response to reach your natural level and stoop to insult... very stylish.
Hi Mike
haircut?
Brilliant..... did make me laugh!
John
I will take a "chill pill" (do you know what that means, by the way?) when anonymous posters don't make unfounded accusations against me. Plonker? Maybe - but when the "centre left" go around making baseless accusations in order to sully my reputation, to simply ignore it is to condone it and simply encourages it.
I did not accuse you of lying - your quote was from an anonymous poster and not me. I said that you do come close to, and that you accused me of being a sexist, racist homophobe by publishing that video. The only "proof" you have of it is because I am a straight white male who ran for NEC - not because, oh I don't know, because I've ever actually been or done anything like that. Some might call it a lie; I call it baseless. And really, should be beneath you.
My election statement did, IIRC, mention the Reclaim the Union slate and so did my website. Never denied that.
So - self centred? I've raised a legitimate issue and for my trouble I've been accused of being dishonest - an accusation without basis. Irony much?
A sad day for honesty and fraternity in our union...
CL erroneously wrote:
"I didn't do it out of spite and I suggest, given the huge vote against it that it recieved after a card vote, did either. "
The truth is that the NEC amendment got a 100 000 majority - it didn't get the two thirds needed solely because of the misrepresentation of the Socialist Party (subverting union democracy) which deceived gullible delegates such as Chris.
Dear Mr.Leary,
Not good enough.
There's all shades of leftists who could have written what you wrote but would not choose to describe themselves as 'revolutionary socialists'.
(Maybe even Mr.Rogers?)
So no, you didn't declare upfront that you were a revolutionary socialist (are you still?), and that's the shaming truth.
Dwayne Evans
NOT GOOD ENOUGH MR LEARY.
ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?
Has Chris been attacked for living in Surrey? I've read the comments and can't really see any attack.
Mind you, what with his 'comrades' having joshed him about it, perhaps the deer chap's just a wee bit sensitive on the issue?
John, what's the difference between Labour Party members following a particular line coming down from the top... from one person, for reasons of well meaning loyalty, career, patronage, while not being able to discuss differences in public due to party loyalty, and, er, democratic centralism...? At least with democratic centralism (and I'm not defending it at all) they do have a whole committee taking decisions. Locally in the party we have seem to have ended up in with a central committee of one?
John/James:
I suggest your efforts are better spent working towards the aims and objectives of the union rather than spitting the dummy out. As New Lab supporters it's not unreasonable for you to appreciate that there will be people more left than you - this is okay.
Even if you don't agree with the way Chris wants to achieve his policies, he's entitled to believe in them and express them in public. Spending your time ripping into the left only makes you look like right-wing dickheads, rather than using the enthusiasm of the left to achieve consensus. If the left was brought in earlier in BNP rule change, then we'd be able to expel them.
Oi - John - you approved two comments and not mine. What gives?
Has Chris been attacked for living in Surrey? I've read the comments and can't really see any attack.
Mind you, what with his 'comrades' having joshed him about it, perhaps the deer chap's just a wee bit sensitive on the issue?
The whole Surrey thing, as I have said, is a red herring. Maybe someone can explain to me what the relevancy of it is to anything? Maybe you might have an insight here Sammy. Cos I am stumped - and it's something repeatedly asked.
John accused me of being "dishonest" about being a "Surrey revolutionary socialist" - neither of which, as the long trail of comments show, was ever actually true.
What is the pertinent point is this: John launched a petty, sectarian attack on a group of people. mrcentreleft claimed that "the poison of Trotskyism has been killing the union for years". The response? Repeated anonymous attacks claiming that I had sought to decieve union members - which, when clearly debunked, carried on anyway.
This is what the "centre left" should be judged by. And left deeply, deeply wanting.
Can I just check this then?
Chris was in a number of political parties in the past in short order, but many of us have been there and done that on the road to practical politics so no shame there, I think?
In some election he claimed that members voted for him as an openly revolutionary socialist, although he didn't use those precise words until after the election, just gave a nod to a list of his beliefs at that time and some organisations he was connected with? Which seems to me fine, but maybe he should accept he wasn't entirely honest about those things adding up to "revolutionary socialist" and Dwayne maybe should not get so hung up on the words themselves getting used.
I suppose the question for me here though is that Chris's list seems more characteristic of a reformist rather than a revolutionary? Maybe that's why there's been more made of the 'revolutionary' tag than first meets the eye?
Not that there's anything at all wrong being a reformist or even a revolutionary if that's your bag, as far as I can see, but there is a world of difference, isn't there?
Or am I missing something?
This whole "Chris is dishonest" meme is really getting rather boring.
This is the point: I made my affilations clear. I stood on a platform that I thought was relevant and achievable. I don't think, have never thought, that UNISON would be a veichle for revolutionary socialism, so what do people want me to do? Run on a revolutionary socialist platform? Call for UNISON to become the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat?
That's not what I want to achieve in UNISON, so I don't see why it's relevant. When you run for election, it's a good idea to state what you would do if you were elected. I said which campaigns and organisations I support. I mentioned my politics as far as they were relevant to the union and how we can take it forward.
What this all boils down to is that the UNISON right wing vultures are determined to find a scandal where there simply isn't one. After all, others have mentioned that prominent Labour Party members in UNISON didn't mention that they were Labour members when they stood for NEC (names do spring to mind). Where is the faux outrage there, eh?
John and "Dwayne" (who I suspect knows what little he does about me because I told him over dinner at a Brewer's Fayre in Gillingham, Kent) are essentially trying to pointscore and do down known left wingers but what they is found is that when I am punched, I punch back harder - and now they don't want to look stupid, so they are busy scrabbling aroud trying to find one little thing to stick on me, only to find that it isn't.
And it's really, really pathetic. If they spent even just five percent of the time they spend scurrying around the internet attacking imaginary enemies to actually build the union, we'd all be a lot better off.
What's worse? Scurrying round the internet checking facts or scurrying from one ultra left sect to another and from one political description to another?
I suppose the fact Chris is moving fairly rapidly now to the centre ground is at least a sign of some hope?
Leary Fail formally declared.
Leary fail? Ha. The fact that so many different anonymi need to come on here to make up scandal is the real fail.
I wouldn't mind if they did check their facts, but they didn't. They lied and pretended that was stuff was true when it wasn't. And they hide behind false names in order to spread smears and innuendo.
And anyway, even if I've moved around left wing groups a lot (I don't think three times is a lot, but there we go) and I've changed political description (only one - sort of) I still retain 95% of the same politics at 24 than I had when I was 16.
I have heard rumours of "Dwayne" moving to the Labour right after a stint in the Lib Dems, much like our host. I've never given them much credence until now but the veracity of Dwayne's... "questioning" now casts doubts.
Hi Chris
Been a bit busy lately so apologies for not responding sooner. I think that the best response to all this is to suggest that you think very carefully before you type in the future. Since you cannot argue about lack of “honesty and fraternity” if you then go around accusing everyone else of bad faith (or worse). You can’t have it both ways. It just makes you appear either very immature or hypocritical (or both?).
Think of it as S-S-S Now we all set off in life meaning to be saints in politics but quite often when blogging we end up being sinners (I plead guilty me lord!) but what we don’t want to become is satanists!
I think that you Facebook friends are poking fun at you and you keep biting.
Hi Satanist Anon 13.36
Not sure who James is? But as a Labour Party Supporter (New, Old or whatever – we are all New Labour as far as I am concerned. But that doesn’t make us all Blairites) I do accept that there are people to the “left” of the Party and I work with them every day in my branch and workplace. But what I don’t accept are people who would betray our Party or our unions if they thought it would bring forward the “Great Day of the Revolution”. There can be no consensus with such people since they are not part of the democratic left tradition nor they do not have the best interests of the working class at heart. These are the people who deliberately wreaked the ant-BNP amendment to spite the national leadership and who are now openly and publically attacking the union. How can you have unity with such people?
Like I said a total c... John
Post a Comment