Unison gen sec election

[Nigel Irritable]

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)

Actually, Rob Williams was proposed as a candidate in the Unite election. With other left candidates standing, he stood down because given the balance of forces he was going to get a lower vote and that was the right thing to do tactically.

I am genuinely baffled by the idea that the Socialist Party will only back pro-disaffiliation candidates. That isn't true in Unite. It wasn't true in Unison when a left(ish) challenger who could conceivably win was considering standing. It wasn't true in the NUT Deputy GS election just past. It isn't true anywhere.

The Socialist Party very definitely thinks that left candidates in unions should favour disaffiliation. It makes no secret of that. However, if the strongest left candidate available is anti-disaffiliation then it will back that candidate unless there's some other strong reason not to do so.

But what has that got to do with the present issue?

Contrary to our resident New Labour supporter's mendacious account above, when there was a stronger candidate than Roger, to the left of Prentis, potentially in the field the Socialist Party was willing to stand aside. Now there isn't a stronger candidate. There is absolutely nobody who thinks that Holmes will get a bigger vote than Bannister. So why exactly should Roger stand aside for a weaker candidate?

The people who are making attitudes to Labour into an insurmountable issue of principle in these elections are the people who want a weaker candidate to stand against Bannister simply because Bannister is pro-disaffiliation. When the situations were reversed (with Wakefield) Bannister was willing to step aside.

Why do you think that Bannister should stand aside for Holmes? I mean that as a serious question.

 

[glenquagmire]

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?

No, if the talks were serious they should have entered discussions by adapting their minimum demands to what can potentially be gained in those negotiations. That's what people normally do if they have a genuine desire to reach agreement. It's what the SP does in other Broad Lefts.

By retaining the disaffiliation 'red line' the SP are saying one of two things:

- either that disaffiliation is a 'red line' issue in Unison but not other unions, which seems a bit nonsensical;

- or conceding that the only reason they are pushing it so hard in Unison compared to Unite is because their (and their candidate's) strength relative to other left organisations is stronger in Unison than in Unite i.e. just because they can. In which case why bother entering into talks with UUL if you deem them irrelevant and have no intention of reaching agreement?

 

[glenquagmire]

So Nigel is categorically stating that the reports of the SP's "red line" on disaffiliation are outright lies.

Until the truth or otherwise of that is established, the rest is fairly irrelevant.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

No, if the talks were serious they should have entered discussions by adapting their minimum demands to what can potentially be gained in those negotiations. That's what people normally do if they have a genuine desire to reach agreement. It's what the SP does in other Broad Lefts.

Ah, "adapting" their demands.

What you are actually saying here is that the SP should have dropped their view on Labour in favour of the UUL's. And that if they don't the UUL are justifed in splitting the left vote by nominating a weaker candidate.

The people making an insurmountable issue of Labour affiliation are the people who are refusing to back a candidate who disagrees with them on that issue, even if they are the strongest available left candidate.

The Socialist Party regularly supports candidate in union elections who don't agree with them on that issue, if that candidate is better placed. They would have done so in Unison too if Wakefield had stood - because Wakefield would have been the candidate with the best chance of beating Prentis. What you are saying is that pro-Labour people are perfectly right to refuse to do the same when they have a weaker candidate. That's your view, isn't it?

And then you have the cheek to claim that the Socialist Party are drawing a "red line" on the Labour issue!

 

[glenquagmire]

Ah, "adapting" their demands.

What you are actually saying here is that the SP should have dropped their view on Labour in favour of the UUL's. And that if they don't the UUL are justifed in splitting the left vote by nominating a weaker candidate.

The people making an insurmountable issue of Labour affiliation are the people who are refusing to back a candidate who disagrees with them on that issue, even if they are the strongest available left candidate.

The Socialist Party regularly supports candidate in union elections who don't agree with them on that issue, if that candidate is better placed. They would have done so in Unison too if Wakefield had stood - because Wakefield would have been the candidate with the best chance of beating Prentis. What you are saying is that pro-Labour people are perfectly right to refuse to do the same when they have a weaker candidate. That's your view, isn't it?

And then you have the cheek to claim that the Socialist Party are drawing a "red line" on the Labour issue!

Read my subsequent posting. No point in replying to this disingenuous nonsense until the main question is cleared up.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So Nigel is categorically stating that the reports of the SP's "red line" on disaffiliation are outright lies.

There is nothing to clear up.

The Socialist Party's paper, in an article written by one of its leading Unison activists, makes it explicitly clear that:

The Socialist Party would be happy to stand down if we believed that there was a candidate who would have a better chance of defeating Dave Prentis than Roger Bannister, even if that meant making concessions on our political programme.

We would be prepared to stand aside for Paul Holmes, despite the weakness of his political programme and our disagreements with it, in particular over the issue of the Labour Party.

That is the position of the Socialist Party. It was also their position when they were willing to talk to Wakefield, who is anti-disaffiliation and who would have had a worse all around programme than Holmes.

The people who are refusing to support a stronger candidate because it would mean having to back a candidate who disagreed with them on Labour are Holmes' supporters. Yet strangely you don't seem to have a problem with that.

 

[glenquagmire]

What I had a problem with was the idea that the SP was making a "red line" issue out of being pro-disaffiliation at the meeting last weekend. Until that's cleared up by someone who was there, the rest is just guesswork.

If there are no "red lines" from either side about affiliation, then I would hope that some form of process can be agreed for assessing which of the three candidates should go forward as the left candidate (by the way, "Nigel says Roger's a better candidate" doesn't count as a process of selection). I'd then hope that the UUL, SP and anyone else on the left would unite around that candidate, whether or not I agree with them on disaffiliation.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What I had a problem with was the idea that the SP was making a "red line" issue out of being pro-disaffiliation at the meeting last weekend.

Perhaps you are confused. The "line" the Socialist Party drew on that issue was to insist that if Bannister stood, he would be standing on his views on Labour as well as on his other views. Just as if Holmes stands he will be standing on his views on Labour as well as on his other views. If Holmes had been the stronger candidate there is of course absolutely no prospect that he would have "negotiated" his way into agreeing to represent the Socialist Party's views on Labour rather than his own in return for the Socialist Party's support. Even to suggest as much is laughable.

The "line" drawn was never that the Socialist Party would refuse to back a stronger candidate unless he or she agreed with us on Labour. That would be entirely inconsistent with its approach in every other union - and in Unison, given that it would stand aside for Wakefield, who was much worse than Holmes on the affiliation issue.

The only people who are drawing this latter kind of "line" are the people who are supporting Holmes because Bannister disagrees with them on Labour.

And let's be clear, nobody is seriously suggesting that Holmes is a stronger candidate. Bannister is by far the best known left activist in the union and in the last two elections, when the UUL and SWP stood candidate against him, he got many times the vote of those candidates.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I have had more feedback and the article you have linked to is bizarre.

At the meeting nothing was said about the fact that SP weren't backing down because they thought Mr Charisma was the best candidate who would get the best vote. What was said is that they wouldn't back down because of the red line of PH being in favour of keeping affiliation at the promised ballot. When pressed on the difference with their line in UNITE no real answer was given.

Maybe now the SP have realised that this argument sounded idiotic and have changed it to Mr Charisma is the best candidate to get the most votes and win.

I disagree, and I have no time for either the UUL or the SP, because I think Paul Holmes runs a far better branch than Jon Rogers, is better known and recently was the driving figure for the pensions conference. I don't agree at all that more members would know Jon Rogers.

I would back Paul Holmes because I think he has more chance of winning.

One way or another the SP are being dishonest or they have changed their reasoning since the meeting and should be open and say so.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

It is also interesting that apparently Paul Holmes said he genuinely thought he could win while JB said he knew he couldn't win. Nothing like a bit of optimism.

On the issue of three candidates apparently a "solution" has been given.

On 1 April we will find out which, if any, of the left candidates got the required 25 branches to back them. If there are more than one candidate it has been proposed that an open meeting be held and a hustings take place (on Saturday 3 April). At that meeting there will be an open vote and the losing candidates will drop out.

Paul Holmes has agreed to this. Will the Socialist Party? If not, why not?

 

[glenquagmire]

Perhaps you are confused. The "line" the Socialist Party drew on that issue was to insist that if Bannister stood, he would be standing on his views on Labour as well as on his other views. Just as if Holmes stands he will be standing on his views on Labour as well as on his other views.

Perhaps you are confused. I'm going on one report from someone who was at the meeting who says differently as to what your "line" was. Not having been there myself, I don't know.

If Holmes had been the stronger candidate there is of course absolutely no prospect that he would have "negotiated" his way into agreeing to represent the Socialist Party's views on Labour rather than his own in return for the Socialist Party's support. Even to suggest as much is laughable.

NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THAT ROGER BANNISTER SHOULD REPRESENT ANYONE'S VIEWS ON AFFILIATION APART FROM HIS OWN.

The "line" drawn was never that the Socialist Party would refuse to back a stronger candidate unless he or she agreed with us on Labour. That would be entirely inconsistent with its approach in every other union - and in Unison, given that it would stand aside for Wakefield, who was much worse than Holmes on the affiliation issue.

Like I say, someone who was at the meeting claims differently. I'm waiting to be proved wrong by someone else who was at the meeting.

And let's be clear, nobody is seriously suggesting that Holmes is a stronger candidate. Bannister is by far the best known left activist in the union and in the last two elections, when the UUL and SWP stood candidate against him, he got many times the vote of those candidates.

I'm afraid you're going to have to do better in terms of proving that Roger is a better-placed candidate.

 

[belboid]

Niogel, the one and only part of the the supposed 'weakness of [Holmes'] political programme' that the SP mention is over the Labour Party. That is why it is clearly the 'red line' that you try to deny exists. You are being utterly disingenuous.

NOw I do take some of your (other) argument as to why RB would be a better candidate, but that is not the whole story. For instance the claim that he WILL beat Holmes is simply conjecture at the moment. It's probably true, but far from definite. It is also true that some people don't seen the point of voting for a thrice failed candidate - it could well be time to pass the torch, and to build for next time. Prentis will win this election, so that shouldn't be an issue. The question is over how the election can be used to build a stronger rank and file, and on that basis Holmes does have a good track record.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

One Stop Shop:

Let me suggest to you that between "your mate" and yourself you are managing to entirely distort the Socialist Party's view. They say in their paper that they would be willing to stand aside for Holmes if they thought he was the stronger candidate. That is entirely in keeping with (a) their practice in other unions and (b) the fact that they were willing to stand aside for Wakefield.

The idea that they somehow didn't mention that they think that their candidate is the strongest available at a meeting to discuss candidates is completely incredible.

Paul Holmes has agreed to this. Will the Socialist Party? If not, why not?

I have no idea. They may agree to that or they may not.

I wouldn't personally favour agreeing to it because, as shown in repeated Unison elections, the narrow layer of existing left activists can be quite drastically out of step with the wider membership. Jon Rogers may well have won a "hustings" in front of an audience largely consisting of left activists, most of them affiliated with one group or another. He was backed by the Labour left, by the SWP and by some of the smaller groups and between them they could probably dig up more activists than the Socialist Party. Yet he got less than a third of Bannister's vote when the membership actually voted.

There isn't a representive broad left in Unison. There's no common organisation which can vote on things like this with any sort of expectation that anyone will consider themselves bound by the decision. That's why negotiations are necessary in the first place.

 

[glenquagmire]

So what would be the basis of these negotiations? If there isn't a representative Broad Left. Is it just a case of "Roger beat Jon last time, I've never heard of Paul, therefore Roger is better than Paul"?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Niogel, the one and only part of the the supposed 'weakness of [Holmes'] political programme' that the SP mention is over the Labour Party. That is why it is clearly the 'red line' that you try to deny exists. You are being utterly disingenuous.

I'm not being at all disingenuous. One of the big disagreements between Holmes and Bannister is over the Labour Party. As far as we are concerned that does make his programme weaker.

There are other disagreements, for instance Holmes supports the election of very senior officials but not all officials. If he supports the idea of a workers wage (and I don't know if he does) it certainly doesn't appear in his appeal for nominations. But the Labour Party one is certainly a major one as far as the SP is concerned.

But arguing that Holmes is wrong on Labour categorically does not amount to drawing a "red line" against supporting candidate who are wrong on Labour. The Socialist Party regularly does that where there is a stronger left candidate. Here there is no stronger left candidate and everyone involved in the discussion knows that.

Prentis will win this election, so that shouldn't be an issue. The question is over how the election can be used to build a stronger rank and file, and on that basis Holmes does have a good track record.

And Bannister also has an excellent track record on that basis. What's more whether Prentis will win the election actually does appear to be an issue because Holmes, according to people in this thread, does think that he can win or at least is claiming that he does.

 

[belboid]

of course he claims he does, everyne who stands claims they can win. But 'everyone' knows that actually Prentis will win.

How old is RB now? Will he be able to stand again?

 

[glenquagmire]

there is no stronger left candidate and everyone involved in the discussion knows that.

This is a poor argument.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

This is a poor argument.

It isn't an argument that even has to be made inside Unison. Bannister is better known by miles and has absolutely crushed the three other left candidates who stood in the last two elections.

How old is RB now?

I believe he's 55.

 

[glenquagmire]

It isn't an argument that even has to be made inside Unison. Bannister is better known by miles and has absolutely crushed the three other left candidates who stood in the last two elections.

That isn't an argument for him being the strongest candidate in this election.

I can see that argument has been won already in your head but you'll have to try and convince a few other people along the way.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Let me suggest to you that between "your mate" and yourself you are managing to entirely distort the Socialist Party's view. They say in their paper that they would be willing to stand aside for Holmes if they thought he was the stronger candidate. That is entirely in keeping with (a) their practice in other unions and (b) the fact that they were willing to stand aside for Wakefield.

The idea that they somehow didn't mention that they think that their candidate is the strongest available at a meeting to discuss candidates is completely incredible.

Incredible or not this is what happened. The person I'm speaking to, right now, was at the meeting. They have no reason to make it up. You on the other hand weren't there. The SP are now changing their reasoning to suit.

RB has no charisma and has lost time after time, by big majorities. A new face, who leads maybe the best branch in the country (i.e. he has actually done what he preaches) and is on the NEC must be worth a go given the manifestos are almost identical. Where the idea has come from that he is less known that Jon Rogers I don't know, it's complete rubbish.

If he supports the idea of a workers wage (and I don't know if he does) it certainly doesn't appear in his appeal for nominations.

Really that's why his nomination address begins, in bold, with for a general secretary on a workers wage. Why do you talk about things with such authority when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Also I don't think you are right about elected officials either.

There isn't a representive broad left in Unison. There's no common organisation which can vote on things like this with any sort of expectation that anyone will consider themselves bound by the decision. That's why negotiations are necessary in the first place.

Indeed there isn't and the Socialist Party, for years now, isn't even attempting to build one. It's join the Socialist Party or nothing. But it's funny that closed door negotiations are ok but not an open meeting who anyone can turn up to. And I'm saying this as an independent.

What about saying the person who gets the most branch nominations goes through? Or is that not ok either?

Looks like the SP will stand Mr Charisma no matter what.

It isn't an argument that even has to be made inside Unison. Bannister is better known by miles and has absolutely crushed the three other left candidates who stood in the last two elections.

But when crushed is him getting about 17% on a 17% turn out it doesn't really amount to much. Trying someone new and more charasmatic who leads possibly the best branch in the country must be worth it.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Why do you think that Bannister should stand aside for Holmes? I mean that as a serious question.

Because he's already stood for the same position and lost 4 times and it might be time to move on?

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Plus Holmes has built a branch of over 10,000, with over 80% density, with 200 stewards that has their AGM in a football stadium. Don't think Bannister has anything like the same success in his branch.

Holmes is also on the NEC and led the special pensions conference. Relatively well known in fact.

 

[Grandma Death]

Plus Holmes has built a branch of over 10,000, with over 80% density, with 200 stewards that has their AGM in a football stadium. Don't think Bannister has anything like the same success in his branch.

Holmes is also on the NEC and led the special pensions conference. Relatively well known in fact.

Correction: The single status meeting was held in the Galpharm NOT the AGM. The AGM is held in the town hall. You're right on the density though and it was a motion from our branch that resulted in the pensions conference so right there too. I'm one of those 200 stewards

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I take it you are supporting Mr Holmes then?

Wow that you're in that branch, I would love to be in a branch like that! (do really like my branch but we've got a way to go to get like yours).

 

[Grandma Death]

I take it you are supporting Mr Holmes then?

Wow that you're in that branch, I would love to be in a branch like that! (do really like my branch but we've got a way to go to get like yours).

Great branch and very well organised.

 

[articul8]

see McDonnell is backing Paul Holmes

 

[Macullam]

see McDonnell is backing Paul Holmes

Well he would given Paul is in favour of continued affiliation to new labour. SWP are also supporting Holmes for sectarian reasons.

 

[Urbanblues]

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

What's bizarre? Gerry Hicks didn't have the political bottle to put across his case, as did Williams and McCluskey, at the September hustings. So, the SP agreed to back the most credible of the Left candidates, McCluskey.

 

[belboid]

SWP are also supporting Holmes for sectarian reasons.

why are there reasons sectarian? you know that does makes it sound like you think anyone supporting holmes is doing for 'sectarian' reasons

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

What's bizarre? Gerry Hicks didn't have the political bottle to put across his case, as did Williams and McCluskey, at the September hustings. So, the SP agreed to back the most credible of the Left candidates, McCluskey.

Read the thread more.

why are there reasons sectarian? you know that does makes it sound like you think anyone supporting holmes is doing for 'sectarian' reasons

Agree. They might actually think he is the best candidate. Mind you this kind of reponse is a par for the course response from a far left group.