Unison gen sec election

[Nigel Irritable]

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

The confusion here is entirely yours.

McLuskey is, in the opinion of Socialist Party members in UNITE, the best placed left candidate in that election. The SP disagrees with him about a whole range of issues, including Labour, but in the concrete circumstances takes a tactical position that it's preferable to back him rather than risk letting the right in.

Holmes is not the best placed left candidate in UNISON and has, in any case, zero chance of winning. The tactical reasons to back McLuskey simply don't exist in the case of Holmes, although I'd certainly accept that Holmes is much better politically than McLuskey.

In both elections, the Socialist Party is backing the candidate who is, in the view of its members in those unions, the best placed left candidate. There's nothing particularly difficult to understand or complicated about it.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Is Len McLuskey a candidate from a "capitalist party"?

The important word in that sentence is "from". The situation would be different if he was "a candidate of a capitalist party". He's not standing as a Labour Party representative, nor is he standing on the Labour Party's policy platform. He's standing on a soft left trade unionist platform.

I'd vote for someone who happened to be in Fianna Fail quite happily in a union or campaign election if they were standing on a platform I agreed with. In fact, there was a local coordinator of the anti-bin tax campaign who was in Fianna Fail. He was amongst the militant people on that particular issue.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

McLuskey is, in the opinion of Socialist Party members in UNITE, the best placed left candidate in that election. The SP disagrees with him about a whole range of issues, including Labour, but in the concrete circumstances takes a tactical position that it's preferable to back him rather than risk letting the right in.

Holmes is not the best placed left candidate in UNISON and has, in any case, zero chance of winning. The tactical reasons to back McLuskey simply don't exist in the case of Holmes, although I'd certainly accept that Holmes is much better politically than McLuskey.

In both elections, the Socialist Party is backing the candidate who is, in the view of its members in those unions, the best placed left candidate. There's nothing particularly difficult to understand or complicated about it.

As I said, the dialectics as always. I know all this already, still not convincing, especially when the Socialist Party have made such a big deal of Paul Holmes being in Labour, then only raising the issue of him not being the best candidate to get the best result after realising how ridiculous the Labour issue sounded when people looked at the SP in UNITE.

As for Paul Holmes he leads a far better branch than the three/four times loser Roger Bannister and also has quite a good national profile. Not sure why you think Bannister is such a good candidate to back over Holmes.

Also not sure why the Socialist Party refused to give a single way out so that a single candidate could be chosen. Paul Holmes gave to two ways that a single left candidate could be selected in advance of the branch nominations, either greatest branch nominations or greatest number of votes at an open meeting. The Socialist Party refused both suggestions and didn't give any other solution other than back Bannister. Sectarianism in my view.

It's also a shame that while the SP criticise UNISON United Left they do precisely nothing to try and build a rank and file organisation in UNISON.

And why are SP members in the PCS asking for people to vote for candidate of a capitalist party, as the SP would see it.

 

[Macullam]

Why are the SWP supporting Holmes when they are part of TUSC standing in elections against new labour contradiction or normal sectarian behaviour.

 

[articul8]

So it's OK for the SP to back a Labour guy in a union election and oppose them in the GE, but hypocritical for the SWP to do the same?

I'd need convincing that Holmes has a substantially better chance of beating Bannister to oppose the latter standing. But refusing to back McDonnell on the grounds he's a Labour candidate is totally facile.

 

[Grandma Death]

Proof if ever there was needed that Prentis needs kicking out:

Hammersmith & Fulham LBC is LGC’s Council of the Year - praised by the judges for “doing something very special in challenging times”.

The tribute came at the climax of the annual awards at London’s Grosvenor House Hotel.

The judges’ citation for the Hammersmith & Fulham entry said: “This council is doing something very special in challenging times. The whole of local government is expected to deliver more for less but this organisation is a leader.

http://www.lgcplus.com/news/council-of-the-year-hammersmith-and-fulham/5012964.article

This is a council that has ripped up all its workers contracts and given them worse terms and conditions, made over 600 people redundant and increased home care meals on wheels etc to finance a measly 3% council tax cut.

Guess who was on the panel of judges....

* George Black, Chief Executive, Glasgow City Council
* Steve Bundred, Chief Executive, Audit Commission
* Andrew Jepp, Head of Local Government, Zurich Municipal
* Jo Miller, Deputy Chief Executive, LGA
* Joe Montgomery, CLG Director General Department for CLG
* Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison
* John Sinnot, Chief Executive, Leicestershire CC

 

[sihhi]

Proof if ever there was needed that Prentis needs kicking out:



http://www.lgcplus.com/news/council-of-the-year-hammersmith-and-fulham/5012964.article



Guess who was on the panel of judges....

* George Black, Chief Executive, Glasgow City Council
* Steve Bundred, Chief Executive, Audit Commission
* Andrew Jepp, Head of Local Government, Zurich Municipal
* Jo Miller, Deputy Chief Executive, LGA
* Joe Montgomery, CLG Director General Department for CLG
* Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison
* John Sinnot, Chief Executive, Leicestershire CC

Most of Unison is just a shambles - it's partnership, partnership, partnership and 'concern' yet the massacres just keep continuing in Unison-organised workplaces:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8603566.stm

http://www.midhurstandpetworth.co.uk/news/VOTE-Cash-cuts-put-before.6212007.jp

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...hostels-housing-sex-offenders-91466-26160110/

 

[sihhi]

Proof if ever there was needed that Prentis needs kicking out:



http://www.lgcplus.com/news/council-of-the-year-hammersmith-and-fulham/5012964.article



Guess who was on the panel of judges....

* George Black, Chief Executive, Glasgow City Council
* Steve Bundred, Chief Executive, Audit Commission
* Andrew Jepp, Head of Local Government, Zurich Municipal
* Jo Miller, Deputy Chief Executive, LGA
* Joe Montgomery, CLG Director General Department for CLG
* Dave Prentis, General Secretary, Unison
* John Sinnot, Chief Executive, Leicestershire CC

His wife is just as bad Liz Snape

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2009/e09064.htm

on the HSE board agreeing to its laughable "enforcement decisions".

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Yeah I heard about Prentis going on that panel, says it all really.

Why are the SWP supporting Holmes when they are part of TUSC standing in elections against new labour contradiction or normal sectarian behaviour.

A typical comment from someone in a far left group/sect jumping over themselves to get one over on another far left group/sect.

The SP are backing Len McClusky who is in the Labour Party against Hicks who isn't but are part of TUSC. Contradiction or normal sectarian behaviour?

 

[Macullam]

Yeah I heard about Prentis going on that panel, says it all really.



A typical comment from someone in a far left group/sect jumping over themselves to get one over on another far left group/sect.

The SP are backing Len McClusky who is in the Labour Party against Hicks who isn't but are part of TUSC. Contradiction or normal sectarian behaviour?

This would be true if SP were standing on electoral platform with Respect's Hicks and calling for a vote for McCluskey

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

This would be true if SP were standing on electoral platform with Respect's Hicks and calling for a vote for McCluskey

So just because the SWP are in the federation that is TUSC they have to vote for every Socialist Party candidate in every union even if they think another candidate is better? That would be true if you are a total sectarian.

Also Bannister isn't standing as a TUSC candidate, he is standing as a Socialist Party candidate.

Have you got any news on why the SP criticises UUL but does absolutely nothing to build an organised rank and file grouping?

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

To be fair to the SP, I would imagine their reasoning goes something like this;

Bannister - well respected candidate.

Holmes - A clown.

MacClusky - credible candidate.

Hicks - A clown (albeit a likeable one).

Just because a donkey has a red rossette on doesn't mean you have to support it.

In each case you have to make a decision of which candidate is best place to advance the rank and file cause.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

Yes Holmes is a clown because he leads one of the biggest branches in the country with over 8000 members and with an 80% density rate and who also lead the recent fight to get a pensions conference against the bureaucracys wishes and is, as you put it, very well respected.

Bannister, while not a clown, as you would put, has a branch of 1300-1400 members with a density nothing like this and has lost four times in a row standing for general secretary (by very large margins each time).

Would like to know what criteria you are using.

In each case you have to make a decision of which candidate is best place to advance the rank and file cause.

Given the Socialist Party have done nothing to build an organised rank and file organisation in UNISON for years now, preferring instead to concentrate on "join the Socialist Party", then in that case Bannister wouldn't be that best placed.

 

[Grandma Death]

http://www.youtube.com/user/fourmanfilms#p/c/E12E89A9677FC074/0/xtDcrL7m9WM

Recent Paul Holmes speeches.

 

[belboid]

mrs b got her ballot paper yesterday, couple of interesting things in it.

Prentis has a whole section on 'who are the other candidates?' - answer 'they are supported by revolutionary political parties, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist party (Militant). Dave is [I precis] his own man, beholden to no one.

Dave has been described by The Telegraph as 'a thorn in the side of New Labour' (that's the only mention of the Labour Party by him)

RB's statement includes 'for a Premium Rate for One Stop Shop staff' - what's a 'premium payment, and why for them in particular?


tbh, Holmes' statement does read best, Prentis' is obviously crap, and Bannisters, while sound, reads like it is torn straight from the pages of The Socialist, a series of demands that the GS can't implement. Holmes' statement is more about how union membes can build to fight back, rather than just saying 'this is how the way to fight back'

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I agree that Holmes has the best statement, I was pleasantly surprised by it.

 

[audiotech]

Paul Holmes has my vote.

 

[audiotech]

mrs b got her ballot paper yesterday, couple of interesting things in it.

Prentis has a whole section on 'who are the other candidates?' - answer 'they are supported by revolutionary political parties, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist party (Militant). Dave is [I precis] his own man, beholden to no one.

Not unusual from witch finder general, Prentis and also typical of any of his minions who stand.


..

 

[stethoscope]

Prentis has a whole section on 'who are the other candidates?' - answer 'they are supported by revolutionary political parties, the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist party (Militant). Dave is [I precis] his own man, beholden to no one.

Yeah, I couldn't fucking believe that when I got mine... the others sticking to what needs to happen, and Prentis resorting to negative tactics...

Time to oust Prentis anyway... Part of me wants to go Holmes but I'm veering Bannister atm.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I agree that Holmes has the best statement, I was pleasantly surprised by it.

Also agree. The statement from Bannister (why does the left have to stick so many exclamation marks in to their statements ), does read like pages out of the Socialist, which isn't a good thing in my view, sounds really dry.

Such a shame there are two left candidates. I've also still not had any answers as to why the Socialist Party don't/won't do anything to set up a rank and file network in UNISON and only answer is to join the Socialist Party and vote for the Socialist Party.

 

[Jean-Luc]

So the UNISON Gen Sec is elected by the first-past-the-post system? If so, how was that allowed to happen as many other unions use the Alternative Vote?

 

[dennisr]

I've also still not had any answers as to why the Socialist Party don't/won't do anything to set up a rank and file network in UNISON and only answer is to join the Socialist Party and vote for the Socialist Party.

The SP worked for decades to build a united left. It is now stuck with being back ar the stage pf re-stating the basic programme a united left would require.This is really the result of the years late arrival of the SWP (who had previously stood against the rest of the left for many years) playing its classic tactic of joining and then detroying any effective left - preferring a combination of opportunist cheerleading pseudos and cutting out the serious lefts. Yet again the SWP, in looking for a tactical shortcut through opportunist alliances, acts as a block that has set the rest of the left back to the starting block - an attempted shortcut becomes a further delay. You cannot build a united left in the union out of the wish to - you have to work with the other forces around your own where you can or - in the the present situation in unison - wait and, in the meantime, build among those you can get an ear of. The SP supports left unity but sees no gain for union members in cheerleading, providing a left-cover for and compromising to the extent required to work with the next set of left bureaucrats.

Its interesting to see what voices are dmending 'left unity' (at all costs in practice...) as a slogan to avoid the hammering out of a genuine united programme. The same method has been used many times before.

 

[sihhi]

The SP worked for decades to build a united left. It is now stuck with being back ar the stage pf re-stating the basic programme a united left would require.This is really the result of the years late arrival of the SWP (who had previously stood against the rest of the left for many years) playing its classic tactic of joining and then detroying any effective left - preferring a combination of opportunist cheerleading pseudos and cutting out the serious lefts. Yet again the SWP, in looking for a tactical shortcut through opportunist alliances, acts as a block that has set the rest of the left back to the starting block - an attempted shortcut becomes a further delay. You cannot build a united left in the union out of the wish to - you have to work with the other forces around your own where you can or - in the the present situation in unison - wait and, in the meantime, build among those you can get an ear of. The SP supports left unity but sees no gain for union members in cheerleading, providing a left-cover for and compromising to the extent required to work with the next set of left bureaucrats.

Where were the SWP cutting out the serious lefts?
I have to go now, but could this be substantiated more precisely? I'm sure SWP would say the exact opposite.
Is it something that emerged in UNISON or was it there in NUPE or NALGO.
Was "the left" in those previous unions stronger because there was more left unity?

As ex-UNISON (from 2002) looking on the outside it seems weaker now than back then, and both SWP and SP militants have been witchhunted in that time.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

The SP worked for decades to build a united left. It is now stuck with being back ar the stage pf re-stating the basic programme a united left would require.This is really the result of the years late arrival of the SWP (who had previously stood against the rest of the left for many years) playing its classic tactic of joining and then detroying any effective left - preferring a combination of opportunist cheerleading pseudos and cutting out the serious lefts. Yet again the SWP, in looking for a tactical shortcut through opportunist alliances, acts as a block that has set the rest of the left back to the starting block - an attempted shortcut becomes a further delay. You cannot build a united left in the union out of the wish to - you have to work with the other forces around your own where you can or - in the the present situation in unison - wait and, in the meantime, build among those you can get an ear of. The SP supports left unity but sees no gain for union members in cheerleading, providing a left-cover for and compromising to the extent required to work with the next set of left bureaucrats.

Its interesting to see what voices are dmending 'left unity' (at all costs in practice...) as a slogan to avoid the hammering out of a genuine united programme. The same method has been used many times before.

I'm not really that interested in the in-fights between the SP and the SWP and neither are the 1.3 million members who aren't in either group, compared to the 100 or so who are. The SP haven't tried to build a rank and file organisation for years in UNISON and the SWP haven't taken it at all seriously with UNISON United Left (which is a shell of an organisation at present). But even then there is something to get involved with, and there are quite a few people in UUL, with all its flaws, who aren't in the SWP, but it is rubbish at present.

But the SP literally offer nothing other than vote for the SP and join the SP. Why not try and set up a rank and file grouping without the SWP? And who said anything about doing it without having a programme first? After all the SP are constantly saying how angry the membership are with the bureaucracy and the Labour funding, have you so little faith that such an initiative couldn't attract some of the 100,000s of left leaning members who aren't in far left groups?

The local initiative we have built in our branch has attracted dozens of left leaning stewards and members (the big majority independents), recruited nearly two dozen new stewards (not all who have joined our network), and increased density in some places from 40% to 80% (although the branch as a whole has lot to do, as density is still far too low).

We have also won several officer positions on the branch committee (about half of them), through forcing elections for the first time in years and years and stood against people supported by the UUL in some cases because they are, as you say, left bureaucrats. We have built work place meetings in loads of places for the first time in a decade, got a newsletter going for the first time in over a decade and are just about to set up joint trade union political and trade union educational meetings. This has all been done while fighting off a branch leadership which poses to the left (including the bureaucrat blocking and bullying of our supporters), indeed the very "left bureaucrats" you talk about, including a prominent member of UUL. If this can be done in one branch, then an organised national group should be able to do it elsewhere as well.

Sorry but I don't think a few dozen members of the SWP in UNISON out of 1.3 million members, however they behave or whatever they do, is any reason or excuse for another organised group not to at least try and set up a rank and file organisation, newsletter, meetings etc when this is what they go on about all the time. Just saying join my group is a sectarian and totally flawed way of going about things.

 

[The39thStep]

voted Holmes for what its worth

 

[dennisr]

I'm not really that interested in the in-fights between the SP and the SWP and neither are the 1.3 million members who aren't in either group, compared to the 100 or so who are.

I love the way you try to position yourself as the voice of the ordinary members OSS - the SP members have been building branches and playing a leading role in winning action. Thats the most effective way of building and developing the activite participation of that same membership. It is also the reason why they are being witchhunted - SP led branches effectively closed down etc - because they have been effective.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

I love the way you try to position yourself as the voice of the ordinary members OSS - the SP members have been building branches and playing a leading role in winning action. Thats the most effective way of building and developing the activite participation of that same membership. It is also the reason why they are being witchhunted - SP led branches effectively closed down etc - because they have been effective.

Not trying to position myself as anything. Members have a huge variety of views, as you will know. I'm just not interested in the in-fights between the SWP and SP who represent about 100 people and I don't think I'm going that out there to suggest that hardly anyone else is either.

I'm not saying that the SP haven't achieved anything, I'm saying that I think they should try and put some energy into building a rank and file network rather than only saying join and vote for the SP. This is especially the case given that in the vast majority of branches there are no SP members at all.

But agree with you that it is a disgrace what is happening with SP led branches and the shut downs, but given the response has been fairly muted, it shows the weakness of not having any kind of rank and file network. The response from the branches and the London region needs to be far more energetic and involve far more members than it has done at the moment. If I'm totally honest I think it is also partly reflective of the fact that even in left led branches there is still not nearly enough involvement and engagement with members (even if it is obviously better than the right wing/Prentis supporting branches).

One reason I like Holmes is because he has a branch of 11,000 members and over 80% density and he obviously has the respect and support of the members of that branch. There aren't many UNISON branches with anything like that number of members or density figures like that and he has shown in practice what can be done.

 

[sihhi]

I love the way you try to position yourself as the voice of the ordinary members OSS - the SP members have been building branches and playing a leading role in winning action. Thats the most effective way of building and developing the activite participation of that same membership. It is also the reason why they are being witchhunted - SP led branches effectively closed down etc - because they have been effective.

Any further explanation of your post 142, please?

 

[dennisr]

Any further explanation of your post 142, please?

I have little knowledge of what is happening inside Unison - it not my union but I do know that, where the SP worked with the other left groupings to build a left unity project, was in the CFDU with some success over many years, carefully working with and not overriding the smaller groups and individuals on board. This came to a grinding halt with the very late arrival of the SWP.

 

[dennisr]

One reason I like Holmes is because he has a branch of 11,000 members and over 80% density and he obviously has the respect and support of the members of that branch. There aren't many UNISON branches with anything like that number of members or density figures like that and he has shown in practice what can be done.

Which is building the branches - which is what the SP are also doing. Of course, we would argue we are doing that on a better fighting programme.

Its false to say all the SP offer is 'join the SP' - both you and I know it does not. You dismiss the comments on the difficulties of attempts to build a broader left unity as irrelevant to the vast majority of members - OK so rank and file work is building the activity of the membership in their own branches - which you accept we do. The two are not seperate in the longer term - those fighting branches will need to get around the bureaucracy in an organised manner and a united left organisation is therefore also required.

Or is your only point just around this election? - trying to illustrate your view of the superiority of Holmes over the other candidates - for those members you are concerned for this is also one small battle in a longer war. Good - re branch density etc - others can learn from Holmes methods and apply that across the union for the longer term.