Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
He will get more than twice Holmes vote, just as he got more than twice the UUL candidate's vote last time out. On that occasion he was further behind the UUL candidate in terms of branch nominations.
Unison gen sec election
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
He will get more than twice Holmes vote, just as he got more than twice the UUL candidate's vote last time out. On that occasion he was further behind the UUL candidate in terms of branch nominations.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
It's not even a functioning organisation.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
How can this be a cause of division? - I beg everyone, please stop this meaninglessness - Prentis will win regardless. Socialists must surely aim to revitalise branches against the national leadership anyway offer the promise of a strong local branch, a strong national union is poppycock anyway. As ex-Unison, Unison branches are nearly all paper branches nearly everywhere in London that I know.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
So what? In my branche husting Holmes got far more than the other three put together. What one branch does is hardly that relevant.
So says the person who isn't in UNISON and obviously has a crystal ball. And you are wrong about him being further behind last time, last time Rogers got about 49 branches and Bannister 29, about 20 behind, which is less than 24, not that it matters.
But Bannister is a three times loser who obviously was going to stand no matter what. To be honest I'd support either candidate standing down, even though I prefer Holmes, but the SP have been all over the shop. First of all it was the red line of the Labour Party, then when that looked ridiculous it was Bannister was the best candidate no matter what, with the kind of crystal ball gazing you have just indulged in. At least Holmes said from day one that he would step down if he didn't get the most branch nominations or was happy to have a vote at an open meeting. And without a rank and file organisation to speak of, what other means was available?
One of the reasons I'd back Holmes is because of the strength of his branch, over 8000 members and around 80% density. Bannister's branch has about 1400 members I believe, and don't think the density would be anything like Kirklees. It is inspiring that Holmes has led a branch like that and an example to the whole union. Jon Rogers on the other hand had about 25% density in his branch, so they are not a like for like by any means.
UUL is a waste of space, but what have the Socialist Party done? They aren't even attempting to build an organised rank and file at all and their only answer is "join the Socialist Party". I'd have more time for the SP if they actually put their money where their mouth is and tried to set up an organised rank and file.
As sihhi has said building networks and strong branches has to be key and the Kirklees branch couldn't be much more of a better example.
The sad state of the rank and file in UNISON is shown by the response to the London region taking over Greenwich, Bromley and Hackney and kicking out the elected officers, after doing the same at Newham. We have to be honest and say that the response has been pretty muted, which must be in part a reflection of a lack of a militant and pro-active rank and file in those branches. This isn't an insult on those branches (Greenwich was better than most with density, although still less than 50% I believe), but sihhi is right that most UNISON branches barely function in terms of the involvement of membership. Even more reason I would think to have building a rank and file organisation one of the top priorities.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
That would be a hopelessly ultra-left position in the world beyond the unions (really support a no-mark sectarian against McDonnell or Corbyn?). Not that I accept the opposite logic that a Labour candidate will automatically have greater reach.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I wouldn't vote for any Labour candidate in a parliamentary, European or local election. The role the likes of McDonnell plays in legitimising staying in Labour, particularly in the unions, more than outweighs the tiny bit of good he can do with the odd impotent speech from the backbenches. Neither would I vote for a Green Party candidate, including someone I might otherwise have time for like Derek Wall. I will not vote for a candidate of a capitalist party, although I would under some circumstances vote for a member of Labour or the Greens standing for some post in a union or campaign.
If there was some mad sectarian standing, I might vote for them rather then spoil my ballot. If McDonnell or Corbyn stood against Labour, they would of course have my vote.
That's not a "sectarian" attitude, because I am not part of the same movement as the Labour Party. And it's not ultra-left either, it's based on a reasoned assassment of the nature of New Labour.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
that's certainly not a position I would share. Who does it benefit to have McDonnell, say, defeated and an anodyne capitalist politician replace him? The working class? I don't think so. The fact that Labour and the Greens will never be won over bag and baggage to breaking from capitalism doesn't mean that socialists currently working within those parties are the enemy. Not in my book. anyway. Seems like a classic case of seeing the world through the lenses of your own small group rather than what is in the wider interests of the majority of working people.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Who does it benefit to have McDonnell (or Caroline Lucas) in parliament as representatives of capitalist parties? Nobody that I can see.
McDonnell can table the odd motion or make the odd speech, unnoticed by anyone outside of a few hard left political anoraks. His only real political impact is as a fig leaf for people in the unions who want to stay in Labour. Other than that he is completely irrelevant.
I wouldn't vote for some other capitalist party against him, but I wouldn't vote for him either as long as he's standing for New Labour.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
When the BA strikers at Heathrow got support from McDonnell as their local MP do they see him as a "representative of a capitalist party", or someone on their side, taking on the bosses? To say that the question of "in or out" of Labour trumps any other consideration is just posturing.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
We'll see.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Spot on. Ive been a steward for four years at Kirklees and I have no affiliation to any party. Paul is an excellent branch sec. and would IMO make a good general secretary. One of the reasons why Kirklees is such a strong branch is on the back of the hard work Paul has done building up that branch.
My only disagreement with Paul is on the issue of disaffiliation of the labour party-but thats not a good enough reason for me to back bannister.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Your position re McDonnell is totally at odds with SP members in PCS including the President, asst. General Secretary a deputy/Vice President and a number of NEC and DWP GEC members.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I'm not particularly interested in whether or not my view accords with that of Lenin, who died 90 years ago. However as it happens you will find that the statement "I would never vote for the candidate of a capitalist party no matter how personally progressive they are" is entirely in keeping with his arguments.
You could argue that I disagree with Lenin that the Labour Party is a capitalist party. However, I don't actually disagree with him about the Labour Party of his day and he didn't express an opinion on the class nature of Labour Party of 2010. Once it's accepted that Labour is a capitalist party however, my position is a perfect statement of Leninist "orthodoxy", for what that's worth. (Not a lot in my opinion).
As for whether it's of much use any leftist getting elected, it is of some use but that use is very limited. And providing a fig leaf for union affiliation to a capitalist party more than outweighs that limited utility.
Fedayn said:
Fortunately, whether or not I agree with someone in the Socialist Party in England about whether or not it's acceptable to vote for a Labour candidate is a metter of supreme irrelevance.
Grandma Death said:
Do you disagree with Bannister on anything at all?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
...when he came to our branches hustings I'd say nothing. Like I said I disagree with Holmes on affiliation to the Labour Party. My views on Holmes come from being a part of the branch he is secretary for and the countless conversations we have had on politics.
I'm not in that position with Bannister.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
I think it shows your own ignorance of the role McDonnell halps play for PCS more than anything.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
that's not what you say when it comes to Joe Higgins, is it?
Really Nigel, in cases like this you'd be much wiser to shut the fuck up and leave it to peole who have some involvement, and don't, therefore, come across like a pathetic hack who'll spew out whatever he's told.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
Actually, that's exactly what we say when it comes to Joe Higgins. His position is of use to publicise the campaigns and struggles we support and to make contact with people who otherwise might not have heard of us. That's about it.
belboid said:
Actually, you desperate cretin, I've never been told one word about this election by anyone in the Socialist Party in England and, at least according to Fedayn, my views on McDonnell are not those of the English SP.
It remains the case that Bannister will get a significantly better vote than Holmes. And you know it too.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
hartdly nothing tho, is it? You know you are contradicting yourself entirely
actually, they show up the wider hypocrisy of the SP which does usually argue exactly what you say (as you well know)
I kbnow no suich thing, I do know that arguments like yours cost him votes tho, so you keep going.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
No it's not nothing. But it's also not a vast amount. John McDonnell on the other hand is a much lower profile figure in British politics, with a correspondingly lower utility for his position. And unlike Joe Higgins, the good he can do with his position is heavily weighed against by the bad that he does - providing the union bureaucrats and remaining bewildered Labour lefts with a fig leaf for supporting Blair and Brown's party.
See for example Denis Kucinich who plays much the same role in the Democrats in the US. I wouldn't vote for him either. Would you? Do you think that Labour is still a "bourgeois workers party" or some such gibberish?
By the way, I withdraw the "cretin" remark. It was just an irritated response to your aggressive tone.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
Nigel Irritable I don't know why you keep saying Bannister will get a far better vote with nothing to go on. You cannot compare this to the past elections where the UUL candidate (Rogers) was far less impressive and less well known. He certainly hadn't helped to build up a branch anything like the stature of Kirklees.
I haven't got a clue who will do better, it's just a shame that given the candidates manifestos have a rizla paper between them that some way couldn't have been found to have a single candidate. As the Socialist Party declined any conceivable way of doing this, that couldn't happen. Also while many of the SPs criticisms of the UUL are true, it's a bit rich given the SP do absolutely nothing to build an organised rank and file organisation and just say, join the Socialist Party. Given the muted response to the totally undemocratic attack on branches in the last month this would seem a priority.
Also given you haven't been given one word about the UNISON election, and therefore must be very limited in what you know about it, it's a bit suprising you make such strident statements about it.
As for John McDonnell, given you think that the Labour Party is an out and out capitalist party (and I have quite a bit of sympathy with this), then I don't think what you're saying is wrong. I'm more surprised that given the SP in England think the same that the leading SP members in the PCS don't agree. If they don't it does indeed seem hypocritical and opportunistic.
You might not agree it is one, but why is it gibberish? It's a theory that the SP long held on to and still do with some parties around the world.
I haven't got a clue who will do better, it's just a shame that given the candidates manifestos have a rizla paper between them that some way couldn't have been found to have a single candidate. As the Socialist Party declined any conceivable way of doing this, that couldn't happen. Also while many of the SPs criticisms of the UUL are true, it's a bit rich given the SP do absolutely nothing to build an organised rank and file organisation and just say, join the Socialist Party. Given the muted response to the totally undemocratic attack on branches in the last month this would seem a priority.
Also given you haven't been given one word about the UNISON election, and therefore must be very limited in what you know about it, it's a bit suprising you make such strident statements about it.
As for John McDonnell, given you think that the Labour Party is an out and out capitalist party (and I have quite a bit of sympathy with this), then I don't think what you're saying is wrong. I'm more surprised that given the SP in England think the same that the leading SP members in the PCS don't agree. If they don't it does indeed seem hypocritical and opportunistic.
You might not agree it is one, but why is it gibberish? It's a theory that the SP long held on to and still do with some parties around the world.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
PCS backs leader of the PCS Parliamentary group and prominent socialist. Where's the hypocrisy, particularly in circumstances where the union membership is yet to formally back supporting any alternative slate?
If TUSC were standing then it might be different - but since they appear to have the good sense not to stand against McDonnell it's a non-starter.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Post of the year imo
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
The hypocrisy is that the Socialist Party say that the Labour Party is a bourgeois party i.e. the same as the Tories, so why back one of their MPs?
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
It's not quite the same as saying the every single candidate is indistinguishable from those of other bourgeois parties. To pretend that every Labour candidate is as bad as each other is untrue and dishonest politics (though admittedly the exceptions are perhaps fewer and farther between than at virtually any point in its history).
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
It's not my point of view, it's what the Socialist Party say. In the words of Nigel Irritable:
What he has put is what the Socialist Party says on the matter. So if they do back John McDonnell, I can't think why, other than for the reasons I've said.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
No, I think Nigel Irritable is putting an especially boneheaded sectarian interpretation the SP position, and which - in practice - they don't adopt eg. Is Len McLuskey a candidate from a "capitalist party"? Then why are the SP backing him for the UNITE gen sec elections?
I think it would be entirely compatible with their perspective for SP members in the PCS to call on local members to vote Labour *in that constituency* as an exception to the general rule.
I think it would be entirely compatible with their perspective for SP members in the PCS to call on local members to vote Labour *in that constituency* as an exception to the general rule.
One_Stop_Shop
Well-Known Member
But as Nigel Irritable and the SP says it, there is a difference between calling for a vote for representative of a capitalist party in the general and local elections and supporting someone in a trade union election.
Even there though I think the ever present dialectics would get a bit stretched. Which leads them to twisting all over the shop to explain why they back Len McLuskey in UNITE but make a massive deal out of Paul Holmes being in the Labour Party in UNISON despite him being far more left wing than Len McLuskey and supporting a vote on whether UNISON should carry on affiliating to the Labour Party.
I agree with you though that they aren't consistent and often don't adopt their position in practice.
Similar threads
- Poll
