Unison gen sec election

[articul8]

So Prentis is up for re-election then? Not quite sure what he's done to deserve it. Apparently Heather Wakefield (Head of Local Govt) was considering standing but didn't have the support at regional level.

Presumably Roger Bannister will stand? Will he be unopposed as the left challenger?

 

[glenquagmire]

Paul Holmes (Labour left) was rumoured to be likely to stand.

United Left met yesterday I think but not sure if they agreed on a left unity candidate (and whether Bannister would run as well, seeing as the SP I think are still outside the UUL).

 

[Fedayn]

So Prentis is up for re-election then? Not quite sure what he's done to deserve it. Apparently Heather Wakefield (Head of Local Govt) was considering standing but didn't have the support at regional level.

Presumably Roger Bannister will stand? Will he be unopposed as the left challenger?

There are claims that the SP wanted Wakefield to stand against Prentis, made by one or two folk elsewhere. There's apparently 3 'Left' candidates as possibilities. Personally I don't see past Bannister who in terms of position and authority is head and shoulders above any other candidate Left and or Right.

 

[articul8]

"United Left" being an inappriopriate moniker then?

I doubt Bannister has a broad enough appeal to clinch it, but will still outpoll the UUL candidate if they put one up?

 

[articul8]

There are claims that the SP wanted Wakefield to stand against Prentis, made by one or two folk elsewhere. There's apparently 3 'Left' candidates as possibilities. Personally I don't see past Bannister who in terms of position and authority is head and shoulders above any other candidate Left and or Right.

Yes pity she isn't standing as she could have united enough support to really challenge Prentis.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

"United Left" being an inappriopriate moniker then?

It doesn't really have much of an existence. There are a fair few people and groups affiliated to it, but it's a classic less than the sum of its parts situation.

I doubt Bannister has a broad enough appeal to clinch it, but will still outpoll the UUL candidate if they put one up?

This is probably broadly accurate.

The UUL will probably stand a Labour Left, like last time, and he'll poll dismally, like last time.

The left are not in a position to win this election.

 

[Macullam]

The UUL will probably stand a Labour Left, like last time, and he'll poll dismally, like last time.

The left are not in a position to win this election.[/QUOTE]

Paul Holmes will be the left candidate at this election and he has pledged to stand on a workers wage. His programme http://unionfutures.blogspot.com/ looks like something most of the left would be ble to support. I am not a fan of Paul the only time I have heard him speak he preferred a string of jokes and anecdotes rather than outlining his views. He will be easy prey for the beurocrats.

I have not had a report yet from the left meeting or what is the SP position on this. Maybe its a tactical move as this is to be a snap election with even less chance of a good left vote.

 

[Macullam]

Our assessment is (and no one gave a shred of evidence yesterday to the contrary) is that Paul Holmes does not have a genuine chance of beating Prentis and we do not believe that he would secure a better vote than Roger Bannister.

From SP report of saturdays meeting. Roger Bannister is seeking nominations.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

What a joke the SP and UUL are. One offers no option to members other than join the Socialist Party and isn't even trying to build a grass roots/rank and file network, the other, UUL, are a shell of an organisation and aren't building at a local level.

Paul Holmes is probably the best candidate in my view. The manifestos of Paul Holmes and Roger Bannister are pretty much identical, the only difference I can see is that PH says he wants a ballot for disaffiliation but won't personally support a vote in favour, RB wants a ballot and will support disafilliation. Pathetic that such a tiny difference is enough to stand two candidates.

However PH has a branch with 80% density, 250 stewards and has a local example of how to build a branch. He also led the push for the pensions conference, and yes, does have a sense of humour. As oppossed to Bannister who couldn't have less charisma if he tried. It would also be good to have a new face rather than someone who has gone for the last four elections and lost them all by a big majority.

If the Socialist Party were supporting Heather Wakefield it is a bit of a joke, she is a right wing bureaucrat.

Overall the left will look like a joke. Hopefully if more than one is nominated by the required amount of branches then they will agree to hold a hustings open to all members, have a vote and then the loser stand down.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Would add that my mate was at the meeting on Saturday and said it was a strange affair. What he really couldn't work out was why the SP have said that they would back Paul Holmes if he would openly say he supported disaffiliation along with calling for a ballot of members to see what they think. They said this was a red line.

However in UNITE they didn't support Jerry Hicks, who does want disaffilation but did support Len McCluskey who doesn't and hasn't even said he will support a ballot on the question. Would this red line be there to make sure Bannister will have to stand by any chance?

 

[glenquagmire]

Would add that my mate was at the meeting on Saturday and said it was a strange affair. What he really couldn't work out was why the SP have said that they would back Paul Holmes if he would openly say he supported disaffiliation along with calling for a ballot of members to see what they think. They said this was a red line.

Have I read this correctly?

The SP are saying that their red line for supporting a candidate is that s/he not only supports a ballot on affiliation but actively supports disaffiliation?

That is crazy sectarian madness.

Can anyone from the SP confirm this?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Yeap that is 100% the case. As they know full well Paul Holmes won't do this they know they can use it as a red line (whatever that is).

My mate was in the meeting where this was said and it has been confirmed by others.

All the more bizarre given that the SP took the opposite position in UNITE. No explanation for this was given at the meeting.

 

[glenquagmire]

Is this

a) complete and utter ultra-left nonsense, which will (if maintained) make it impossible for any future rapprochement between the SP and the UUL? It would rule out supporting joint candidate not only with the Labour left but most of the left organisations in the union Broad Lefts. Is that a deliberate ploy? Fair enough there are major criticisms of the UUL and other BLs but this would seem to rule out the SP ever joining such an organisation again.

or

b) an opportunistic made-up "red line" being used as an excuse for refusing to support Paul Holmes, even if he were to gain the support of all the UUL groups, get more nominations and win the majority of the vote at a left hustings event, etc? Presumably to be quietly ditched after the election.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I presume it is (b) because the SP haven't taken this position in UNITE, they've done the opposite.

They also agreed not to have this red line in the joint literature in the Reclaim the Union literature for the last NEC elections.

 

[Macullam]

Report From The Socialist

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8771

 

[belboid]

The Socialist article seems to back what OSS says about saturdays meeting, which also tallies with what I've heard about it.

Whilst RB very probably does have the slightly better manifesto, he will never win, and there is definitely something to the idea that it would be a good idea to start promoting a candidate that could win next time, RB must be getting on a bit now, could he even stand next time?

 

[bluestreak]

Slightly related question: do Unison provide funds to Labour these days?

 

[articul8]

Heather Wakefield...is a right wing bureaucrat.

Only in some ultra-left fantasy world - she seemed like a candidate around which a broad left could unite as having a credible chance.

 

[articul8]

refusing to support Paul Holmes, even if he were to gain the support of all the UUL groups, get more nominations and win the majority of the vote at a left hustings event, etc? .

But the UUL and it components have relatively little weight in the wider membership - which is why Bannister could soundly beat the UUL candidate last time.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Whilst RB very probably does have the slightly better manifesto

I honestly can't see the difference. The only difference seems to be RB saying he would have a ballot and calls for a break, PH says he will have a ballot but won't. Other than that they seem the same.

Can't say I agree that Paul Holmes is less well know than Jon Rogers, he leads a far better organised and far bigger branch and organised the pensions conference.

The Socialist Party article is a joke because apparently at the meeting they said it was the red line issue of calling for a break from Labour was why they couldn't back down. They have probably realised how ridiculous this sounds given what they are doing in UNITE and are now saying it is because they think RB will get more votes. My mate said that wasn't mentioned once at Saturdays meeting.

Only in some ultra-left fantasy world - she seemed like a candidate around which a broad left could unite as having a credible chance.

Well she is part of the bureaucracy that is witch hunting activists across UNISON. Hardly a great candidate to back.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Slightly related question: do Unison provide funds to Labour these days?

Yes, millions.

 

[Macullam]

Slightly related question: do Unison provide funds to Labour these days?

Yes, there was a temporary suspension of funds to constiuency parties. Prentice was cheered to the rafters when this was announced at last years conference. so the question of affiliation is not a secondary issue to members.

Paul Homes would urge for the link to be maintained in a ballot therefore putting him to the right of the majority of members.

 

[belboid]

to the right of the majority of members.

a cheer at conference hardly equates to 'the majority of members,' and it'll be very sad if that is the line the SP decide to pursue

 

[articul8]

Well she is part of the bureaucracy that is witch hunting activists across UNISON. Hardly a great candidate to back.

Given that many (all?) of those witch-hunted are SP I think they would be in a good position to judge who is and who isn't responsible. It makes no sense to see every official as equally responsible for pursuing those stupid charges - some see it as a total embarrasment to the union.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This argument is ludicrous.

The Socialist Party want the General Secretary candidate to have a clear line in favour of disafilliation. This is unpopular with a small layer of activists in and around the nearly moribund UUL, however there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is unpopular with the membership - the Socialist Party consistently do better than other left forces in Unison elections.

However, the Socialist Party has made it very clear that Bannister would stand aside, despite this disagreement, if there was some markedly stronger left candidate to stand aside for. But there isn't. In the last two General Secretary elections other sections of the left (the SWP and UUL) stood candidates against Bannister and in both of those last two GS elections they got absolutely dismal votes. On the last occasion the UUL candidate stood on a basically identical basis to Holmes but was better known. He got 5% of the vote.

Bannister is by far the best known of the prospective left candidates and absolutely nobody has provided even the slightest reason to think that a UUL candidate will poll better. It's incumbent on anti-disaffiliation lefts to stand aside for the stronger left candidate, not on the the stronger candidate to step aside for the weaker one. As for instance the Socialist Party is doing for an anti-disaffiliation candidate in UNITE. And as the SP would have done in Unison if a stronger candidate was standing - for instance Wakefield, who is certainly not pro-disaffiliation.

The people making disaffiliation into a "red line" are the people encouraging a weaker candidate to stand against Bannister because they don't like Bannister's pro-disaffiliation view.

 

[belboid]

The people making disaffiliation into a "red line" are the people encouraging a weaker candidate to stand against Bannister because they don't like Bannister's pro-disaffiliation view.

this is not how it reads in your own articles Nigel. It is the SP who is drawing this so-called 'red line' (and you're not 'standing aside' in Unite, you dont have a viable candidate)

I am grateful for your comment tho Nigel, as it reminds me just how the SP is as dishonest as the rest of them.

 

[glenquagmire]

What belboid said.

Unless somebody specifically contradicts what OSS reports, it sounds very much like the SP has drawn a "red line" around being pro-disaffiliation, despite the "we'd stand down in favour of an anti-disaffiliation left candidate if only they were better known" line now being peddled by Glenn Kelly and Nigel Irritable.

Oh and articul8 - if you don't want to waste everyone's time, please try actually reading my post (and other people's) before replying. Thanks.

 

[articul8]

Oh and articul8 - if you don't want to waste everyone's time, please try actually reading my post (and other people's) before replying. Thanks.

wtf? I have thank you - but have been responding to wrong-headed arguments (Wakefield is just a right wing bureaucrat" - OSS) and your 2 previous comments full of general bullshit

 

[glenquagmire]

wtf? I have thank you - but have been responding to wrong-headed arguments (Wakefield is just a right wing bureaucrat" - OSS) and your 2 previous comments full of general bullshit

You argued with a point which I wasn't making.

I know that "the UUL and it components have relatively little weight in the wider membership etc". So do the Socialist Party and all other left organisations. Whether or Holmes would poll better than Bannister or not is irrelevant to the point I was making.

The point I was making was that the SP entered into discussions with the UUL about a unified left candidate. Yet, if OSS's report is correct, they did so on the basis of a minimum position which they knew would never be acceptable to the UUL and so would run their own candidate even if hypothetically the UUL candidate was stronger, more popular and more high profile.

And if that same minimum position (being pro-disaffiliation) was maintained across all unions they would never participate in a Broad Left ever again, and would have to change their position in Unite.

 

[articul8]

So the SP should have entered discussions by adapting their position to conditions that might apply in a purely hypothetical scenario? Surely what counts in terms of negotiation is the relation of the Broad Left and its politics to the balance of forces within the wider union membership?