Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
No need. I witnessed Hicks' disgraceful behaviour. Thankfully, he won't be the next GS of Unite.
Unison gen sec election
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
No need. I witnessed Hicks' disgraceful behaviour. Thankfully, he won't be the next GS of Unite.
No just SWP who have never supported Roger Bannister preferring the soft left option apart from when Yunus stood one of their own members, Again in a completly sectarion fashion.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
The UUL decided to back Holmes, although they didn't bother having a meeting to actually discuss the issue.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute. I've got no truck with the SWP and UUL is very badly run and organised (but remember the Socialist Party aren't even attempting to build an organised grassroots network in UNISON and only say "join the Socialist Party"). But they have supported:
1) Yunus who was one of their own members and the candidate of UUL.
2) Jon Rogers who was also in the UUL.
Why is that sectarian?
And what about the Socialist Party. You supported the soft left option in the PCS against Serwotka when he was first elected and are also doing so supporting LM in UNITE.
Obviously there are reasons for this but there is no need to scream sectarian at any opportunity.
As oppossed to the Socialist Party who haven't even attempted to set up an organised rank and file group. But agree they should have had an open meeting.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It's sectarian because in each case they were aware that Bannister was the stronger left candidate - just as they are aware of that fact on this occasion.
It is hardly a secret that the SWP have long resented playing second fiddle to the Socialist Party in Unison, particularly back when the SWP were bigger than they currently are and the SP were smaller. On pretty much every occasion when they have the opportunity they have supported any leftish candidate in a Unison election as against a member of the Socialist Party going for the same position, not just at General Secretary level. They do this even if the SP candidate is much closer to their politics than the other leftish candidate.
Once it was confirmed that another left candidate would be standing, it was absolutely guaranteed that the SWP would be supporting them. I'd have been genuinely shocked if they'd done anything else.
This time around the strategy seems to be to hope that Bannister doesn't get the 25 branch nominations in the very short nominations period, and that then Holmes will inherit the left vote - in every Unison election the UUL can deliver more branch nominations than the Socialist Party, while the Socialist Party candidates get more votes once it goes to the membership.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Have you tried to set up "an organised rank and file group"? Or is your role simply to whine that the Socialist Party haven't spoonfed you?
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Well I've been part of a joint effort at a local level which has massively increased the amount of stewards, increased membership density (including from 40% to 80% in some shops), made links with local community campaigns and TRAs including holding estate meetings and local demos. No great shakes, but we are trying, and have had some results.
If we can do this at a local level and include mostly independent stewards/members but members of far left groups as well, then I can't see why it can't be done by a socialist organisation that has a national network.
So you say this, therefore it makes it so. I think Paul Holmes is a stronger candidate.
Not really that interested in your intra-sect goings ons.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
What is this local rank and file network called?
One_Stop_Shop said:
I hate to break this to you, but the results from the previous few elections are already in. Some years ago. And on each occasion Bannister was the stronger candidate than the Labourites or SWPers put up the UUL. So no, it's not so because I say it, but because those votes have already happened.
As for your delusions about Holmes, I can only suggest that you go back on your medication. Absolutely nobody expects Holmes to get a bigger vote than Bannister, any more than the last few punters thrown up by the UUL did. The only issue is if Bannister can be stopped from getting enough nominations.
One_Stop_Shop said:
One_Stop_Shop all of three posts earlier in the thread said:
If you aren't interested in the answer to a question, my radical suggestion is that you don't ask it in the first place.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
No I hoped for an answer other than, it's sectarian because it's another sect. Should have known better.
I'd rather not say too much on here because my employer reads this website! But it's got about 14 stewards and many members involved and good links with TRAs. As said I'm not saying it's anything special but can't see why it can't be done in other areas or why the SP won't even try to build an organised rank and file.
Oh dear, you are touchy, I was talking about Holmes. Holmes leads probably the strongest branch in the country (proving he has done what he preaches), led the campaign for the pensions conference and is on the NEC. Obviously I don't know how well he will do before the election but feel he would be the stronger candidate. If he wasn't standing I'd support RB.
As for past elections, the UUL obviously got it wrong, as the SP got it badly wrong with Serwotka, but there is no way of knowing before an election. Sadly in all cases Prentis wiped the floor with all of them. I think given that RB has lost four in a row, and by some margin, we should give Paul Holmes a try, given his profile, branch and the fact that all their manifestos are almost identical.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Did someone shit in your cornflakes this morning? Or are you just having some kind of spasm?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
i could say the same to you.
You are being utterly dishonest with your clainms, and I suspect you know it, which is why you are having to be even more vituperative than usual.
You claimed there were significant differences between PH &RB on issues other than the labour mparty, but haven't been able to point out a single one. You claim that the SWP are sectarian for backing PH but cant back it up with more than 'because they didnt back our guy', and you repeatedly claim that poor previous results for RB (as opposed to very poor results for YB & JR) mean that RB definitively has more support now!
He's a four times failed candidate who has never attracted a particularly large vote from the membership. He has absolutely zero chance of beating Prentis, and wont beat whoever his succesor is in five years time. A non-sectarian approahc is to judge who is the best longer term candidate to build a fighting union. That is not a question you have even attempted to address, possibly cos you know that PH is a bloody strong candidate on that score.
it doesn't reflect well on your or your organisation I'm afraid. And it makes it look like you're on a sect building exercise, not a serious political process.
You are being utterly dishonest with your clainms, and I suspect you know it, which is why you are having to be even more vituperative than usual.
You claimed there were significant differences between PH &RB on issues other than the labour mparty, but haven't been able to point out a single one. You claim that the SWP are sectarian for backing PH but cant back it up with more than 'because they didnt back our guy', and you repeatedly claim that poor previous results for RB (as opposed to very poor results for YB & JR) mean that RB definitively has more support now!
He's a four times failed candidate who has never attracted a particularly large vote from the membership. He has absolutely zero chance of beating Prentis, and wont beat whoever his succesor is in five years time. A non-sectarian approahc is to judge who is the best longer term candidate to build a fighting union. That is not a question you have even attempted to address, possibly cos you know that PH is a bloody strong candidate on that score.
it doesn't reflect well on your or your organisation I'm afraid. And it makes it look like you're on a sect building exercise, not a serious political process.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Actually, I have already mentioned some of the other differences between their programmes earlier in the thread. These include the workers wage, which isn't mentioned in Holmes' request for nominations or initial material, and the election of officials. Holmes is for the election of the most senior officials, Bannister for the election of all of them.
belboid said:
No.
I back it up by pointing out that the SWP have, in every single GS election, backed a weaker left candidate against a Socialist Party member. This isn't a matter of them being "weaker" in my opinion. They actually were weaker and got the votes to show it. They did this even where the candidate had politics further from theirs than the Socialist Party one.
Once could easily be a difference of opinion, a different tactical assessment. Four times in a row is a pattern. Particularly when you remember that they've repeatedly done the same in other Unison elections apart from GS ones.
As for who is the better candidate to build a fighting union: I believe that Bannister is. I believe that he's standing on a superior programme. I believe that he's much better known across the union. And I believe that his record as a union activist bears comparison with that of anyone in Unison.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Interesting that you cant even try to deny that Bannister is going to lose. Or that he'll lose next time. You've given up on winning so are trying to build your sect at the expense of the wide rmovement. You cant actually show any way in which RB has been better at basic branch/union building.
At least you could finish off by admitting that some of your thoughts are merely that, your thoughts, your crystal ball having strangely vanished now. There was no reasons to believe that Bannister would especially be the best candidate in the previous elections, and, to be perfectly honest, the difference in the margin of failure was pretty small considering the size of the Unision membership.
Banniseter has failed to galvanise the vast majority of Unison members before, there is no reason at all to believe he will do any better now.
At least you could finish off by admitting that some of your thoughts are merely that, your thoughts, your crystal ball having strangely vanished now. There was no reasons to believe that Bannister would especially be the best candidate in the previous elections, and, to be perfectly honest, the difference in the margin of failure was pretty small considering the size of the Unision membership.
Banniseter has failed to galvanise the vast majority of Unison members before, there is no reason at all to believe he will do any better now.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Weren't you the very person who earlier in this very thread was saying that of course the left candidate is going to lose this election? Why would I deny it? The only people who seem to be confused on that score are a few of the more excitable people around Holmes. The left are on the defensive in this election, due in large part to the sudden way in which it was called. In those circumstances it is important the left demonstrate that it has considerable support by getting a respectable vote, but there is essentially no chance of a left victory.
Bannister, assuming that the others don't manage to stop him from getting enough nominations in the very brief nominations period, is the best positioned left candidate to get a respectable vote - as opposed to the 5-7% UUL candidate have typically received.
It is bizarre that you seem to think that having a realistic assessment as opposed to a mental delusion is a bad thing. Anyone who thinks that the left is going to win this election is a lunatic.
belboid said:
In the last two elections he got roughly three times the vote of the UUL candidate. I don't think that's even remotely close. On each occasion, the UUL candidate served as a sectarian sideshow.
And actually there were pretty good reasons to think that he'd do better than his opponents on each occasion. He was better known than Baksh, Rogers etc, just as he is the best known left contender on this occasion. And in addition, left candidates who make their hostility to Labour well known have consistently done better than left candidates who are Labour loyal or soft on the question in Unison elections in recent times.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
slightly/somewhat better on a piss low turnout. That isn't the way to build a long term fighting force.
RB's vote fell significantly last time, to his lowest yet. He's not going forwards, sorry.
And I cant whooly recall the 2000 election, but I didnt think there was a UUL candidate then. It was between Prentis RB and an ex-hillingdon WRPer. My recollection was that the SWP, and most of the left, backed Bannister that time.
RB's vote fell significantly last time, to his lowest yet. He's not going forwards, sorry.
And I cant whooly recall the 2000 election, but I didnt think there was a UUL candidate then. It was between Prentis RB and an ex-hillingdon WRPer. My recollection was that the SWP, and most of the left, backed Bannister that time.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Again you are lying.
His statement starts, in bold:
Later on it says:
I'm not sure there are many other positions to be elected, but Paul Holmes has said that he supports all positions being elected.
So first of all you make up the point about a workers wage and then you talk about elected positions in a disingenuous way.
Believe being the operative word. This takes on even more significance given that you believed that Paul Holmes wasn't saying he would stand on a workers wage (something he has always supported by the way, indeed I think he used to be in Militant).
I'm perfectly ok with people commenting on unions they aren't in, but maybe you should check your facts a little more.
Don't you think presentation is important though? Do you really think members will be inspired by the Socialist Party openly saying "vote for us, but we have no chance of winning, we just want a respectable vote for us". At least Paul Holmes is going for it, however slim the chances.
The point has also been made that RB is no candidate to build for a future campaign. He has no charisma whatsoever and is a four times loser who I should imagine is not too far off retirement.
I could be wrong but I think Paul Holmes is a far better candidate than the other two UUL candidates.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
No I'm not, I just made the mistake of skipping forward to his "Where I stand" list, which had no mention of the workers wage.
One_Stop_Shop said:
Why doesn't he say so in his statement then? Why list only the more senior officials rather than just saying "I think that all officials should be elected"? That's a real question by the way, not a rhetorical one.
One_Stop_Shop said:
Don't be silly. Talking up your chances of winning when you know that you have no chance is not a very good idea if you are serious about building anything.
One_Stop_Shop said:
I think that you are wrong. If both he and Bannister get nominated, he will finish a distant last. That's what UUL candidates do, generally. And the fact that you seem to personally like the guy doesn't change that.
By the way, why are you so keen on a Labour Party member? Maybe I picked this up wrong, but I thought you were vaguely IWCAish in your views and they are about as hostile to Labour as it's possible to get.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Why be so vitriolic about things then when you haven't even looked into it properly. You do the typical far left thing and denounce everyone, but haven't even taken the time to know what is going on.
To be honest he probably should have, but it's a bit of a desperate attempt by you to find a difference. But as said I'm not sure how many more full time officials there are.
There is talking up your chances and saying to members, the vast majority of whom know absolutely nothing about the far left or their candidates, vote for us but we're going to lose. Hardly a vote winner.
I disagree and I don't know him from Adam, I just think he's the better candidate.
I would prefer a non-Labour candidate to be honest, but I think he is a socialist and the best of the bunch in the circumstances.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I think I'll have to go back to me "who shat in your cornflakes" question again. Is there any particular reason why you are being so abusive?
I have posted in support of the candidate who is closest to my own politics (and probably the closest to yours, assuming you haven't gone soft on Labour in your old age), and also the one of the left candidates most likely to get a good vote, based on previous elections and on the opinions of pretty much everyone in Unison I've seen mention it, from the bureaucracy on leftwards.
I think that the Labour Party issue is an important one and given the choice I will always prefer a revolutionary socialist candidate to a Labour Party one, particularly when the issue of disaffiliation is a proven vote winner for left candidates in that union. That wouldn't stop me from advocating that Bannister step aside if anyone could make any sort of case that Holmes would do dramatically better than him, but absolutely nobody is making that case.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
In the words of that tennis player, you can't be serious.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm not talking about generally. There's nothing wrong with taking a hard line on a message board, particularly one like this with a quite disproportionate number of nimrods on it.
I'm asking someone I've posted on the same boards as for years, where the "you are a prick" stuff is coming from, not making some kind of plea for gentility and manners.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
because such disingenuous shits as you are being here are a prime example of why the left fails. And deserves to fail.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Paul Holmes got 58 Nominations and Bannister 34. Bannister at this stage doesnt look like he's standing down.
Why should he at Hampshire Local govt branch Roger Bannister got the nomination with more votes than the other 3 combined. The northern region along with others backed Prentis without giving the option of a hustings meeting.
The misnamed unison united left held a meeting in London on saturday 3rd april and decided to back Paul Holmes not sure how many attended this meeting.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
cos you would be doing if the results were the other way round.
who gives a flying fuck
pathetic
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Because he's stood twice-and failed. He's also got less nominations overall than Holmes. He should do the honourable thing and stand down instead of splitting the vote. He's had a fair crack at the whip.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
It's true though, it is utterly misnamed in that it is certainly not the 'united left' in any way shape or form.
Similar threads
- Poll
