LINDSEY OIL REFINERY- WHAT WAS WON?
by Neil Cafferky
Lindsey Oil Refinery Deal: An opening for workers control?
The Lindsey oil refinery dispute and its outcome are sure to be debated and studied in the labour movement for years to come. Much of the media attention has focused on the agreement by Total to provide 100 jobs to local, unionized labour on trade union pay and conditions, the National Agreement for the Engineering Construction Industry (NAECI).
Andy Newman in a previous article has already discussed what this agreement means in terms of stopping the race to the bottom through the exploitation of migrant labour and the discrimination against indigenous labour, so this article will not be examining this aspect of the agreement.
In addition to winning extra jobs from Total. There are even more positive outcomes to consider.
For years the anti-trade union laws have hung like the sword of Damocles over the heads of organised workers. Now in the face of determined, militant and well organised action they have been exposed as a paper tiger. This lesson will not be forgotten by workers.
Second, the working class in Britain, so long derided as inert, conservative, depoliticised, even xenophobic has stirred to life under the threat of mass unemployment and with a fraction of it’s organised strength smashed key European Court judgment’s that enshrined neo-liberalism and the race to the bottom in the legislation of every single EU country.
However, significant as these victories are there is another, less reported aspect to this agreement that could have the most positive long term implications for workers in the battle against unemployment and the bosses.
Readers will recall when this dispute first hit the headlines on Thursday 29th January that the immediate demands of the strikers were unclear to those outside the dispute. The dispute had been triggered by a ninety day redundancy notice issued by Shaws, one of the subcontractors on the Total site. This meant that by 19th February a number of workers on the site would be made redundant. Just before Christmas Shaws shop stewards were informed that part of the contract had been awarded to the Italian firm IREM. Shop stewards asked IREM for clarification in regards to hiring British labour. It became clear that IREM would employ segregated labour with no credible guarantee that those workers would receive NAECI pay and conditions. On the 28th January IREM stated they would not be employing British, i.e. unionised, labour.
On the 29th January it was clear to Socialist Party members on the ground that although the dispute had been triggered by the discriminatory employment practices of IREM, all sorts of moods, some less progressive than others, were emerging among the strikers. While the ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ placards and Union Jacks were in a minority this was being picked up by the media and spun as evidence of a xenophobic, ‘anti-foreigner’ strike. In passing it must be said the prominence of Union Jacks was partly due to the vacuum left by the trade union officialdom that did not follow their usual practice of flooding pickets with trade union flags and banners, such was their fear of being ensnared in the anti-trade union laws.
In these circumstances the task of the Socialists intervening into the disputes was to win the ear of the workers by giving full support to the strike and raising demands that pointed towards the unity of all workers. In that way nationalistic moods could be sidelined.
After a discussion between the Socialist Party and their supporters on the strike committee a list of demands were drawn up, these then became the property of the strike committee itself. This was then discussed at the strike mass meeting and unanimously adopted by the strikers.
• No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
• All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement
• Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members
• Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers
• All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
• Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - via interpreters - to give right of access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members
The first demand is normal practice in any industrial dispute while the last one is more of a demand on the trade union movement as a whole than on the employers. However the other demands all imply a certain amount of control by the union over the management practices in the workplace before they can become effective.
All workers in the UK to be covered by the NAECI:
Prior to the dispute IREM had given assurances that IREM workers would be paid NAECI rates. However the Lindsey workers are not so gullible as some on the left who simply took the assurances of a notoriously anti-union firm at face value. Such an agreement can only be enforced by the presence of a significant trade union membership amongst the workforce. The importing of non-union labour posed a mortal threat to NAECI wages and conditions. Therefore the agreement also means the ability of the workforce through the union to monitor and enforce on management pay and conditions more favourable to them.
All immigrant labor to be unionized.
Clearly this is not a demand that can be won overnight. Immigrant workers themselves need to be convinced that their interests lie with their fellow workers. In practical terms this means a constant dialogue between unionised and non-unionised workers. However this is made immensely more difficult if companies like IREM are allowed to bus workers to and from sites, keep non-unionised workers on separate shifts and isolate them on barges. In order to get around this the union must break the management’s monopoly of control over work patterns and shifts.
Thanks to the industrial action taken by construction workers up and down the country, Union Jack wavers included, ALL workers, British, Italian, Portuguese etc will be paid at NAECI rates. To ensure this is carried out the wages and conditions of ALL workers will be monitored by the unions.
To prevent future division of the workforce along nationalist lines Total has agreed to end the practice of segregating workers. The implications of this should be immediately apparent. A massive barrier to the basic foundation of effective workers solidarity, the habit of co-operation forged in daily routine of working alongside each other has been removed. The danger of nationalistic moods breaking out among the workforce has been pushed back.
Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members:
There has been much spurious debate around the idea that the 100 jobs reserved for unionized British labour represents a blow to workers unity. It is nothing of the sort; in fact this false idea betrays a lack of imagination.
Capitalism has now entered a period of sustained crisis. This has already manifested itself as huge surge in unemployment. The battle against unemployment and all the evils that come with it will become a central issue for the working class in this period.
Part of this battle is ensuring that the unemployed are not used as a battering ram against the pay and conditions of organized workers. This can only be done by winning the unemployed to the side of trade union struggle and by undermining the exclusive privilege of the bosses to decide who to hire and fire.
The agreement of Total to employ 100 unionised workers is in fact the chink of workers control in the hiring and firing of workers at the Total site.
People who argue this is British Jobs for British workers need to understand this can only be counter acted not by condemning the agreement but by going back into every single union branch and demanding that the unions set up registers of unemployed members nationally and also launching a massive union recruitment drive to unionise indigenous and migrant labour up and down the country. This can be the spring board to workplace wide and then industry wide closed shops. If the labour movement can achieve this, our class will be in an incomparably stronger position in relation to the bosses.
To conclude, there has been much comment, both positive and negative, around the role the Socialist Party played in intervening in this dispute. For us, the role we were able to play in the dispute demonstrates what can be achieved by a revolutionary party that has a clear understanding of the issues at stake and knows how to get across its ideas to workers. However to even reach this point it is necessary for activists to listen to what workers are saying, even when we might not like some of what they are saying. Any other approach simply amounts to patronizing workers and is a complete dead end.
The Lindsey dispute is a crucial turning point for Britain. We are witnessing the beginnings of something not seen since the Poll Tax battle, the working class operating on a national scale in the teeth of illegality to inflict a defeat on the bosses and the government.
Thanks to the industrial action taken by construction workers up and down the country, Union Jack wavers included, ALL workers, British, Italian, Portuguese etc will be paid at NAECI rates.
In other words, what’s been achieved is a big step towards the closed shop - including migrant workers; the very reverse of the “colour bar” nightmares which have been troubling some commenters. And to have a wildcat strike end without any injunctions, and without anyone being dismissed or kicked out of the union, is a real advance. It may be a conjunctural victory - owing something to the weakness of the Brown government and, perhaps, something to the weakness of Mandelson’s position in government - but it’s a victory nonetheless.
Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
Yes Phil,
if you look at it froom the point of the Italians, they get a payrise, and they can now more easily mix with the British workers on site.
And the British unions will provide superviion to ensure that the Migrant workers are not ripped off.
And all along the unions have been stressing that this is not a dispute against foreign workers.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Good article Neil.
According to Liam’s blog, there’s a public meeting on on Friday 13th February at Friends Meeting House in London, organised jointly by the Socialist Party and Respect. It starts at 7 PM and speakers include Keith Gibson from the Lindsey strike committee and Jerry Hicks, the left candidate for Amicus General Secretary.
Comment by Irish Mark P — 7 February, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
“While the ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ placards and Union Jacks were in a minority this was being picked up by the media and spun as evidence of a xenophobic, ‘anti-foreigner’ strike. In passing it must be said the prominence of Union Jacks was partly due to the vacuum left by the trade union officialdom that did not follow their usual practice of flooding pickets with trade union flags and banners, such was their fear of being ensnared in the anti-trade union laws.”
And
“Thanks to the industrial action taken by construction workers up and down the country, Union Jack wavers included”
Please clarify, are you condoning the Union Jack wavers? I can’t see ANY condemnation of them and those who were holding the racist placards. What about red flags? They aren’t official union flags and banners, displaying them wouldn’t have fallen foul of anti union laws. If this was a progressive dispute they would have been waved NOT Union Jacks.
“Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members”
How local is “local”? No matter how I look at this it is “British jobs for British workers” in all but name.
Comment by paddy garcia — 7 February, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
#3
I think this meeting has been modified, for practical reasons that Keith couldn’t make Thursday, and Jerry had a prior engegement for the rearranged date on Friday.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Andy, Can you post up the new details etc please?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 7 February, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
“How local is “local”? No matter how I look at this it is “British jobs for British workers” in all but name.”
Paddy, I’ve answered this already in the article.
In a perfect world we could take the bosses word that they would pay trade union rates and conditions. We don’t live in that world. We live in a world where the bosses use every dirty trick in the book to drive down workers pay and conditions including importing unorganised labour from oversea’s on inferior rates. Therefore we need a strong union on site to ensure that doesn’t happen.
Again in a perfect world those workers from overseas would already be in a union in which case there would be no problem. But as things actually are organised labour means labour whose employment originates in Britain. (Note this does not always mean British labour, as the participation of Polish workers in this strike proves). So in this case the term ‘local’ needs to be seen in the context of the almost 100% unionisation of workforce in this sector throughout the country. That means that ‘local’=union. Getting an agreement that explicitly says union employees only is probably a bridge too far for the employers and the government at this moment in time given the balance of forces between the unions and employers generally. That should be our aim though and Lindsey gives the labour movement a platform to achieve it.
As I have said in my article the best way of avoiding the dangers you point up is to push for unionisation of all workers and take up a campaign in the unions to challange the bosses right to hire and fire. In this way migrant labour will have an input into hiring policies and the dangers of BJfBW can be checked.
My question to you Paddy is what is your alternative? Do you think the union and the SP should repudiate the deal?
As for the Union Jack business you know my position on it already as I have said in other forums and in other threads on this site. But since you insist on hearing it again, very well.
I think your position on the UJ amounts to saying that it is reactionary in any and all circumstances and that anyone who carries it is a reactionry. This is wrong and bears no relation to the real world. There are many different reasons why someone will carry a UJ and the only way Socialists can deal with it is sensitively. That means individual discussion with picketers who are carrying it to find out their motivations and to put across our ideas on the problems that exist with it. If it turns out they are fash or if the fash turn up trying to hijack the strike then they should be dealt with firmly, as the latter was done at Lindsey.
Your position of blanketly condemning anyone who carries the UJ from the outset is completely insensitive, wrong and counter-productive.
As for red flags well maybe more workers had UJ flags at home than red flags. Maybe that tells us something about where class consciousness and national consciousness is at right now and why national consciousness needs to be handled sensitively and skilfully.
Comment by Neil — 7 February, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
“Do you think the union and the SP should repudiate the deal?”
Not necessarily, lets see what happens in practice, ie if anyone will be discriminated against. I do think the intervention was broadly correct, it would have been good to do a bit more on the flag and placard waving though. Do you not think that a group of white men holding union jacks and “British jobs for British workers” placards is a problem and may well alienate a large section of the class, especially those whose origins are not British and may have suffered under the UJ? A yes or no answer will do> Can you not see my point? It really ain’t that difficult is it? I’m old enough to remember the NF doing the same in the 1970’s. Yes we have moved on since then, but for a large layer of workers, it really does send a chill down the spine.
“I think your position on the UJ amounts to saying that it is reactionary in any and all circumstances and that anyone who carries it is a reactionry”
Outside possibly sporting occasions and in popular culture yes. It is a loaded symbol best not displayed. Same goes for the BJ4BW placards, even more so actually.
Can you imagine what would happen if such things were displayed on for example a pickets and demos in London and other cities? Union activists have told me if such a scenario were to occur those waving those things would be rather robustly asked to take them down.
Comment by paddy garcia — 7 February, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Well Paddy there was a demo of 125,000 people, mostly Tamils in central London last week with many, many protestors carrying UJ’s and the Cross of St. George.
You will say this is a different context to the Lindsey dispute and I agree. But surely it shows how complicated national symbols are and why a one size fits all approach of blanket condemnation just won’t do?
The same goes for the slogan. Don’t you think the SP apporach of putting forwards demands that cut across BJfBW is better than simply attacking workers who carry the placard. As the disput wore on the BJfBW placerds and demand receeded, in part thanks to the work of socialists. It was the judgement of the comrades on site this was the best way of tackling the slogan.
Were they wrong?
Comment by Neil — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
“It became clear that IREM would employ segregated labour with no credible guarantee that those workers would receive NAECI pay and conditions.”
As an outsider from the USA please tolerate a “stupid question.” If IREM had guaranteed this, would that have been acceptable to the unions? I recall the SIPTU Irish ferry strike of 2006 when the demand was clearly for prevailing labor standards for ALL workers on the ferries, regardless of nationality or union status. I thought that this was the way to go in dodging the protectionist trap. Do you think this has been accomplished?
Comment by Bob Montgomery — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
10: I can’t answer that question for definate Bob as we are in ‘what if’ territory. However it is highly unlikely that IREM would go to the cost of flying in Italian labour, housing them sperately and bussing them to and from site and pay NAECI rates when they can avoid all those overheads by simply employing similarly qualified (in fact since these selfsame workers were working on the same job with Shaws before IREM won the contract they were better qualified than the Italian workers) unionised work on the exact same pay and conditions.
As the article states, the BJfBW demand was never a formal demand of the strikers and in any case was superseeded by the demands put forward in consultation with the Socialist Party at a mass meeting of striking workers.
Comment by Neil — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Yes comrade Neil, the context of the Tamil march was entirely different, why they were carried I do not know as unfortunately I wasn’t there to see for myself, reason being that I didn’t know about the demo. Amazing that such an enormous demo wasn’t reported!?
I will repeat my question:
“Do you not think that a group of white men holding union jacks and “British jobs for British workers” placards is a problem and may well alienate a large section of the class, especially those whose origins are not British and may have suffered under the UJ? A yes or no answer will do thanks.”
Comment by paddy garcia — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
“Don’t you think the SP apporach of putting forwards demands that cut across BJfBW is better than simply attacking workers who carry the placard”
What is the problem with doing both? A you say it was a minority of people who were carrying them.
I take your point if maybe was just the UJ without BJ4BW placards. But both being carried on the same picket where the issue was foreign workers send a reactionary racist message as the same did in the 1960s and 70s.
Comment by paddy garcia — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
The more doctrinaire and sectarian opponents of this strike wouldn’t have been able to provide any leadership to it *whatsoever*.
Their analysis either left them on the sidelines as spectators. Or, in the worst case scenario, implied the need to break it.
An absolutely disastrous approach, given that this was the first mass action against the anti-union laws in years.
The agreement has completely wrong-footed their arguments and could only have happened as a result of socialists actively intervening to win leadership.
This required accepting that:-
(1) The workers had a legitimate grievance.
(2) Socialists were on their side against the employers and wanted them to win.
Without that intervention, the outcome may have been more favourable to the reactionaries who tried to jump on the bandwagon. Whipping up the nationalist divisions that the multinationals and EU laws have already provided a breeding ground for.
That’s the message that was drummed home by the press and TV throughout the dispute and spread internationally.
But it’s not a reflection of the real causes or consequences of the dispute.
People who didn’t like the slogans or placards could have turned up with some of their own.
There’s usually no shortage on most demos, along with people with megaphones, using the most lurid slogans. I know Lincolnshire’s a bit remote and it was snowing, but the fact they didn’t show up could indicate that they didn’t accept points (1) & (2) above.
But then again, it’s probably a good thing they didn’t show up and the workers were able to debate the issues in a calm way.
(Good article, by the way)
Comment by prianikoff — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
“Do you not think that a group of white men holding union jacks and “British jobs for British workers” placards is a problem and may well alienate a large section of the class, especially those whose origins are not British and may have suffered under the UJ? A yes or no answer will do thanks.”
I don’t think a Yes or No answer will do, because I think the answer is “It depends” - it depends what those workers are trying to achieve, what in fact they do achieve, and whether the people you’re talking about get to hear about those things. What the LOR strikers were trying to achieve and did achieve clearly can’t be summed up as “British jobs for British workers”, or with any other nationalist slogan. As for whether workers who might be alienated by the UJ know about this, I guess it’s up to the organised Left - RESPECT even more than the SP, perhaps - to spread the word.
Comment by Phil — 7 February, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
#13 Paddy mate, that particular train left days ago, you’ve missed it.
Read through the comments on all the stories related to Lindsey and you’ll see people trying to argue what you are here. The argument was comprehensively demolished and it now looks like even the SWP, who have a similar tendency to petty-bourgeois ultra leftism that you do, have pulled back to something a bit more sensible.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 7 February, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
#15
“As for whether workers who might be alienated by the UJ know about this, I guess it’s up to the organised Left - RESPECT even more than the SP, perhaps - to spread the word.”
Indeed - and I am a bit worried what position the Respect paper might take, given that it is under the editorial control of the ISG who took the same anti-trade union approach as the SWP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
#17 Andy, that was one of the most disappointing aspects of the past weeks events.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 7 February, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Andy Newman comment 17 “Indeed - and I am a bit worried what position the Respect paper might take, given that it is under the editorial control of the ISG who took the same anti-trade union approach as the SWP”
Fair point Andy. I just hope Jerry Hicks writes the front page article on this dispute for Respect.
Great to see Jerry Hicks (Respect)and Keith Gibson (SP) are having a joint meeting soon (cant remember the details)- perhaps Keith (and or yourself) could make a guest contibution to the next edition of the Respect newspaper due to the fine role played by the Socialist Party on this issue (and your web site).
Andy can I take this opportunity to also say that you have also played a very positive role in correctly clarifing key issues for other progressive people over the constuction workers dispute - thank you. Your web site was invaluable. The Respect Supporters Blog also took a similar position I am pleased to say.
Comment by Neil Williams — 7 February, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
To be fair to the ISG their position may have been due to a completely sectarian document distributed by Workers Power to the entire European left email list denouncing the strike and the role the SP were playing in it.
The CWI have since answered the charges but perhaps Alan Thornett and co were getting worried phonecalls from Paris or something?
Comment by Neil — 7 February, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Trade Unions controlling access to jobs again - is like something from the 50-70’s and as long as anti racist etc policies/practice are pursued, is a massive step forward for the labour movement especially by keeping and gaining unemployed workers and immigrant as part of the labour movement - I bet the BNP hates this idea!
We need as Socialists to ensure that the tops of the Trade Unions campaign strongly for this and this should be a central part of Jerry Hicks campaign.
Comment by Roy — 7 February, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
#17, 19
I don’t think you should be slagging off the editorial board of the Respect paper in public without at least discussing it with other NC members and the board itself.
The editorial board were elected by the NC which itself was elected at our last conference.
Andy. Has the fact you were lukewarm at best about the conference and the idea of putting some democratic structures in Respect got anything to do with this.
If the paper comes out with the anti strike line then an emergency NC meeting should be called.
For what it’s worth I don’t think they will. And no I am not a member of the ISG
Comment by paulv — 7 February, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
I would echo what Paul V says here. And I would also point out that many people who strongly supported the Respect conference, and who tend to ally with ISG comrades in that sense, do not agree with the over-cautious (IMO) position on the LOR strike in the ISG statement, and were strongly supportive of what Jerry Hicks and George Galloway said about this and the progressive role of the Socialist Party comrades in the strike. I don’t think there is any reason to be concerned that the Respect paper will not reflect what I believe is the majority trend of opinion in Respect.
Comment by ID — 7 February, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Well if my concerns prove ill-founded, then I will be pleased.
You shouldn’t read too much into my comments here. I am generally luke-warm about the Respect paper which I feel is generally too “leftist”, and I have said before that I find the paper too oriented towards Trotskite positions.
I am entitled to that opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the editorial board was elected by conference.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
#19
Thanks for your kind words Neil.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
I think that the success of this strike has certainly accomplished a “sorting out” process on the British left. The Workers’ Power group, at one extreme, unequivocally put themselves up against workers’ power. Similarly, Gerry Downing on another blog said something like “workers power, yes… but to what end?” On the other hand, the Socialist Party played a leading role despite the fact that “no workers’ movement is ‘chemically pure’. Elements of confusion, and even some reactionary ideas, can exist, and have done in these strikes…”
The essential question here is: is the content of the movement the deciding factor, or is it its form? Those socialists who opposed the strike because of unpleasant slogans raised by some workers were working from the point of view that it’s the slogans that matter - as has been confirmed by some people worried that now “BJ4BW is now a household word”. Contrast this with the kind of thing the SWP were saying when they went into Respect, that it would be ridiculous to expect newly radicalising forces to sign up to socialist principles 100% in advance.
I think that at root the question is materialism vs. idealism. Either the important thing is that workers’ power was being exercised in the workforce and won - in which we can see the germs of social revolution. Or, the problem was that it was not exercised in the “correct” way, as defined by “revolutionaries”, and that it wasn’t a good look in the bourgeois press.
Does the radical left support workers’ power, an actual social revolution? Or do we conceive “revolution” as meaning that the masses will swing in behind a platform worked out by tiny groups of self-declared radicals in advance? Are we working for broadening democracy or enlightened dictatorship? And is this question at the heart of what passes for Leninist political action today?
Comment by Daphne — 7 February, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
paulv comment 22 “I don’t think you should be slagging off the editorial board of the Respect paper in public”
Paul I have not slagged aynone off (nor for that matter did Andy). I expressed a wish that Jerry Hicks writes about the construction workers dispute. I repect other views on all matters within Respect (so please respect mine) and the editorial board of our paper work very hard on the paper which is evolving month by month.
Comment by Neil Williams — 7 February, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Daphne #26
Does the radical left support workers’ power, an actual social revolution? Or do we conceive “revolution” as meaning that the masses will swing in behind a platform worked out by tiny groups of self-declared radicals in advance? Are we working for broadening democracy or enlightened dictatorship? And is this question at the heart of what passes for Leninist political action today?
Reply:
The slogan Bj4BW is a reactionary slogan, no matter how much of a gloss you attempt to place on it. White workers carrying UJs and placards bearing this slogan is not progressive. Those workers that came out on strike out of sectional interests were NOT advancing one inch in the direction of social revolution. On the contrary they were advancing the cause of workers competing against one another for the crumbs from the bosses’ table.
As I said previously, the work done on the ground by socialists was and is key. A strike by its nature, especially a spontaneous action such as this, is a fluid situation. The BNP, UKIP, the right wing press saw in this action an opportunity to advance their agenda given the nationalist trajectory it intitially took and the issues involved. This is why it was essential that socialists and class conscious workers engaged with the strike instead of attacking it from the sidelines.
Democracy in itself does not constitute progress. It is the substance and not the form that counts. The ability to synthesise and communicate the needs of the class at any given point in clear and concrete terms is what wins the class to a particular platform. The Bolsheviks did not regale the Russian working class and poor peasantry with Marxist jargon or theory. Instead they won them with a simple slogan that encapsulated their needs and cut through the nationalism and patriotism of the ruling class. That simple slogan was ‘Land, Peace, and Bread’.
Comment by John Wight — 7 February, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
Andy #24 - ‘I am generally luke-warm about the Respect paper which I feel is generally too “leftist”, and I have said before that I find the paper too oriented towards Trotskite positions.’
It sounds as if you haven’t read the Respect paper recently Andy and are just (er) trotting out prejudices. Unless you think that Galloway, Yaqoob, Abjol Miah etc are pushing trotskyite positions! I think the editorial board strive for a balance which reflects Respect - with all our interesting diversity!
Comment by steph — 7 February, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
#27
Neil
As you say, those who work on the paper do a good job and work hard. To try and make out it was me that was not respecting other people’s ideas and effort is a complete misunderstanding of what I said.
Andy is quite clear he thinks the paper is too left wing. I feel he is using the differences over the LOR dispute to cast aspersions on the editorial board and make out they will not be sharp enough to realise the consensus over the dispute.
You are both on the NC and if you feel the paper needs a change of direction say so-that’s why we fought for a conference remember.
Comment by paulv — 7 February, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
“Andy is quite clear he thinks the paper is too left wing. ”
I had hoped we’d left that kind of deliberate misrepresentation of other people’s views behind after the split, Paul. The rest of your post has the same tone. It’s that style of hectoring argument that people find really distasteful on the left.
Comment by external bulletin — 7 February, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
Paulv - reasonable points. I never realised, however, that there was a ‘fight’ for a conference. People didn’t like being manipulated in the Rees’s Respect. Given the growth of the organisation over the last few weeks, there are an awful lot of people who won’t take kindly to that kind of stuff again.
Comment by Nas — 7 February, 2009 @ 10:56 pm
To be honest I find the paper irrelevent to my own personal activityy. So i don’t normally care what is in it.
But I am worried someotme about the balence, for example a few months ago there were three seperate articles in the same issue, calling for trade unions to disaffiliate from labour party; and no point of view expressing the contrary opinion. And one article talking about GMB’s relationship with Labour party that was absolutely off beam.
These things can come back to haunt activists in the unions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
John @ 28 : But what of the slogan BJ4BW adopted by Unite? From comments made by strikers quoted here and elsewhere there was disquiet about the use of this slogan among the strikers but the SP and SWP weren’t presenting progressive slogans behind which strikers could unite. Comrades spent more time arguing amongst each other about slogans then actually working out a program and a way forward. Very disappointing. Respect however to SP for being there. However, I don’t see how replacing the word “British” with “local” actually changes anything, we still have BJ4BW. Another thing, when these contracts end will “British” workers find themselves having to fight workers from the continent all over again. And when we allow this word “local” to become normalised will Scottish workers apply the same tactics to workers from other parts of the UK?
Another very telling aspect is the lack of analysis of Unite’s role in this entire mess. While socialists were either trying to duck the issue of the BJ4BW banners and Union Jacks (SP) and the SWP were wringing their hands over the same, Unite were being broadcast on telly shouting demands for British jobs through klaxons while strikers held BJ4BW placards which, somewhat diminishes the claims, unless one is prepared to admit that the strikes were hijacked by Unite, that the strikers were demanding BJ4BW!
I am curious why no one on this site has tackled exactly what led up to the wildcat strikes and the role played by Unite in negotiating terms of contract for Irem only to turn around and hijack the wildcat strike by British workers.
Comment by naruto — 7 February, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Paul V #22
” Has the fact you were lukewarm at best about the conference and the idea of putting some democratic structures in Respect got anything to do with this.”
Incidently, this is completely untrue.
There was a debate about the best timing of conference, and about whether the confernce was best structured in the way it was. I personally didn’t have any strong opinion over the date of conference, but was tilted towards the arguments of those who favoured a delay. There were strongly expressed opinions from other people on both sides of the debate.
I am of course in favour of democratic structures - but I have always had concerns that certain organisational forms can privilige those Respect members from backgrounds in the far left groups, compared to the rest of the membership.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 February, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
Naruto:
For more info on the events leading up to the strike see this report from Keith Gibson: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/565/6853
“Unite in negotiating terms of contract for Irem only to turn around and hijack the wildcat strike by British workers.”
I don’t really understand what all this is about. Do you mean before the strike? Or after.
As for hijacking the strike well Unite did try to do that:
From the Socialist editorial:
“The Lindsey strike committee only found out through the management that two national officials from Unite and the GMB were in talks with Acas in Scunthorpe. Fifty strikers set out for Scunthorpe, where the officials were ensconced in a hotel with Acas. When the strikers got there they were blocked from the hotel by police.
Only by smuggling a note past the police did the strikers get the national officials to come out and talk to them. As a result the strike committee forced their way to the table to ensure that no deals are done behind their backs.”
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/565/6852
So you see another fine tradition of the militant working class is on display, workers control over union officialdom.
Comment by Neil — 7 February, 2009 @ 11:45 pm
If my tone was hectoring it was because I was angry with Andy. His subsequent posts only confirm my initial reaction. It was Andy himself who said the paper was too “leftist “and later goes on to say he doesn’t care what’s in it.
Should we pull our punches when dealing with the Labour Party to win over the Trade Unions? I don’t think so and neither do most Respect members. If you think about it it would be pointless as we aim to be a pole of attraction to the left of Labour.
The question of the conference. At a previous conference we agreed to have one annually. This was delayed on several occasions, and in the end it became clear some people didn’t want a conference at all and were using any excuse to put it off.
.
Comment by paulv — 8 February, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Nas #32 “People didn’t like being manipulated in the Rees’s Respect. Given the growth of the organisation over the last few weeks, there are an awful lot of people who won’t take kindly to that kind of stuff again.”
OK, I accept that some people felt hard done by because they couldn’t overturn a prior decision of Respect’s national council. But Nas, how will the new members who supposedly have similar desires express their view if not through the democratic structures of the party? How will they overturn a previous (let’s say ‘wrong’ decision) if not by calling a meeting to challenge the decision and then having a vote?
I’m genuinely interested in this question. I do have some sympathy with the view that, as Andy puts it, “certain organisational forms can privilege those Respect members from backgrounds in the far left groups, compared to the rest of the membership”. I would only add, “and privilege those from backgrounds in the trade union movement”.
We should always be looking for ways to make Respect meetings better (although I think they’re usually pretty good already), but I’ve never yet heard a democratic alternative to the old ‘formulate a position and vote on it’ style of procedure. If we abandon that we seem to be left with ‘let the people who know best make the decisions’, just as under Rees’s management. Please let me know what the alternative is, if you have one.
Comment by steph — 8 February, 2009 @ 2:12 am
steph - I agree with you on most of the things you say, I think. It’s just that I’m surprised by the idea that there was a “fight” for the conference.
I’d like to know who that person thinks they were fighting against. A debate and discussion, yes. A “fight”? Only in Boy’s Own fanatasy politics land.
Comment by Nas — 8 February, 2009 @ 2:50 am
#37 “This was delayed on several occasions, and in the end it became clear some people didn’t want a conference at all and were using any excuse to put it off.”
I don’t know who “some people” are supposed to be. Perhaps paulv should say, so that “some people” have a chance to say what they actually think. Personally, I think it is ludicrous to suggest anyone was opposed to a conference as such. There was only concern that the conference, if held when it was scheduled and in the way it was scheduled, would not attract the people it needed to attract to be as successful as it needed to be. As it happens, that turned out to be correct.
I think it was perfectly legitimate to raise these genuine concerns. Sadly, the reaction of “some people” was to suggest bad faith on those who did so. Just as paulv does now. He and they have yet to produce one iota of evidence that those who raised concerns were opposed to ever holding a conference “at all”. What a completely mad idea.
Comment by rachel trickett — 8 February, 2009 @ 5:43 am
Post #26 “The essential question here is: is the content of the movement the deciding factor, or is it its form? Those socialists who opposed the strike because of unpleasant slogans raised by some workers were working from the point of view that it’s the slogans that matter.”
Don’t be so idiotic. The slogans raised in a dispute or protest are concise expressions of a political program. In this case the program so condensed was that of Labourite nationalism.
If you cannot understand this elementary idea small wonder that your organisation now poses at elections as a ratepayers grouping and wins derisory votes.
Comment by Mike — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:29 am
From the above article “People who argue this is British Jobs for British workers need to understand this can only be counter acted not by condemning the agreement but by going back into every single union branch and demanding that the unions set up registers of unemployed members nationally and also launching a massive union recruitment drive to unionise indigenous and migrant labour up and down the country. This can be the spring board to workplace wide and then industry wide closed shops.”
The above is put plain a fantasy of union control and even if enforced would mean the exclusion of those not already working in the industry. That is to say it would constitute a pre-entry closed shop which the revolutionary left traditionally opposed as sectionalist.
Moreover it potentially turns the unions into job agents as happens in some industries in the USA. That is to say the union contracts to supply skilled workers to a given employer at the cost of policing thoe workers in the workplace for the employer. At its best this guarantees some workers higher than average wages and a level of job security. At its worst, in times of recession, it means sectionalism, chauvinism and potentially racism.
Given that the far left, still less the SP (CWI), cannot launch a mass unionisation drive and the unions will not the chauvinist and nationalist tendency that was always a major element of the Lindsey dispute will triumph at the cost of worker unity.
Comment by Mike — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:36 am
#37: “Should we pull our punches when dealing with the Labour Party to win over the Trade Unions? I don’t think so and neither do most Respect members. If you think about it it would be pointless as we aim to be a pole of attraction to the left of Labour.”
This is fantasy land politics.
In what parallel universe could Respect - as it currently stands - “win over the Trade Unions”? We have one MP, and even the most wildly optimist projections would give s a maximum of three MPs in the next parliament.
Being a “pole of attraction to the left of Labour” doesn’t mean that we have to be oblivious to the tactical considerations of how to work with those who still see some value in the link with the Labour Party.
There is a persuasive argument that the issue of disaffiliation is specific to the politics within each union. What is concretely important is to encourage a more critical political relationship between the unions and the labur government, and encourage the unions to become independent political agents in their own right - whereby these mass organisation can draw their own lessons about the usefulness or other wise of working through Labour party.
It is a wildly over-optimistic conceit to assume that these mass organisations are going to be attracted to a tiny organisation like Respect. Sadly many on the left have got over excited by the position of one or two general secretaries of unions that are very small, have a relatively homogenous membership (therefore swayed by specific of their own industry); and where those gen secs don’t even speak for their own unions on this issue.
The process of forming a left of labout party is a historically contingent and politically specific one; and the context is now much less favourable than it was just a few years ago. This therefore requires a great deal of tactical nous - that PaulV doesn’t seem to have.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:45 am
Steph #38
The dilema of how to operate in a democratic manner cannot be abstracted from a realistic assement of the nature of the organisation, and the political context it finds itself in.
Respect is not an organisation with an even national spread, or politically homogenous membership. It is concentrated in East London and South Birmingham, with a few other activist groups - most sucessfully in Bristol and Manchester. There is also an unevenness, that for example George, Salma and perhaps Yvonne, have a much higher political profile than the organisation that they are a member of. They therefore have much greater responsibilities, and have much wider opportunities for promoting Respect.
From my observation, many of the most successful and fruitful activities of Respect actually by-pass the formal structures and happen by networking - which is a reflection of the underlying reality of uneveness.
Despite what PaulV has said, I did NOT have strong views about the timing of conference. I do however worry that the approach of some in Respect’s formal leadership to see ourselves as a far left party competinig in the same field as the SWP and SP is a recipe for disaster.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:59 am
I don’t see how the Lindsey dispute can directly encourage to the formation of a left-of-Labour party.
The government didn’t attempt to intervene legally against the union.
Nor did the union leaderships crack down on unofficial action.
So the argument that the LP’s direction can be changed is likely to hold sway.
The wider issue which arises from dispute is the question of fighting unemployment.
Currently there are lay-offs in the car industry and steel and a predicted 100,000 jobs/month being lost.
This situation can’t be effectively combatted by sectional disputes.
Unions should be calling a national demonstration on unemployment around such demands as
a reduction in working hours, nationalisation of the banks and laws to safeguard employment rights.
Something along the lines of the mass demonstrations that have been occurring in France recently.
All elements of a socialist action programme.
If that gets off the ground, the attempts by the nationalist right to hijack this movement will be undercut.
It can also act as a springboard for unions to carry these demands into the LP.
The political equation has been changed by the economic crisis.
One or two independent socialist MP’s and councillors does not a party make.
But the argument that Labour will win the next election, if it carries out radical measures against the crisis is making more and more sense.
Comment by prianikoff — 8 February, 2009 @ 11:35 am
“Unions should be calling a national demonstration on unemployment”
Can we please do it in summer?
Comment by external bulletin — 8 February, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Sorry, I know this is all wildly off topic, and the topic is an interesting one, but the issue has been raised here, so it’s back to an old argument in Respect which hasn’t been resolved…
Nas #39 - Well, ‘fight’ was not my terminology, but ‘debate and discussion’ is just a more genteel way of putting it. The debate was between those who wanted to carry on and hold the conference on the most recently agreed date of October 2008 (after it had already been postponed a couple of times) and those who wanted to delay it until spring/summer the following year, making it over two years since any of the national council had been elected.
The main problem was that the issue of postponement seems to have been raised too close to the date of the conference to have brought the issue back to the national council for another discussion and vote, so those few people on the national council who did want to postpone would have had to make that decision on behalf of the whole party, against the wishes of other members of national council and of many who form the bedrock of Respect’s support in terms of actual membership.
This seemed to be a rather cavalier attitude to democracy, and as someone who had been disappointed every time the conference was deferred, I believe it was right to go ahead, even if some of our leading figures would no longer be able to attend due to other commitments.
I understand from what Andy says that some people also didn’t like the proposed structure of the conference (presumably in terms of resolutions and voting), although I wasn’t party to any discussion along those lines myself. I agree with Andy about the unevenness of Respect, but I don’t see why that should make having a democratic conference once a year such a problem, and I still don’t see that any alternative forms of democracy have been proposed.
Comment by steph — 8 February, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
#47 Steph’s memory is not correct. The proposal was to defer to January or February. True it was not possible to convene another National Council meeting. But the majority of people who recorded an opinion in the email discussion that occurred about the timing of the conference were for postponement, including key members in Manchester and Birmingham. However notice was sent out for the conference despite this and those who had suggested a postponement accepted the fait accompli. “Cavalier” is a term that might better not be used in this context but if it is I think the boot is on the other foot.
Comment by rachel trickett — 8 February, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
In actual fact, a cnfernec ewould have beenn problematic in January or February - due to unforseesn events in Gaza, and th aid convoy. So one of the argumenst of those who wanted to go ahead with the coonference in October has actually been proven correct - ie.e there will alsways be something in the outside world more importnat than conference.
But this really just underlines the problem in the actually existing world that Respect is small, partial and uneven, and any concept of building a formal national structure upon those foundations is problematic.
I don’t have an answer to that, but the lack of formal mandate for the NC was not the biggest of our problems.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
It’s my understanding that the coverage of the Lindsey dispute in next week’s issue of the Respect paper is written by Jerry Hicks whose views are not identical to those of some of the production team.
This can mean a couple of things. Either that the ISG members of the EB are really inept at taking editorial control or that they were telling the truth when they said that they would hand over the resources dedicated to producing Socialist Resistance to helping produce a monthly publication for Respect.
Comment by Liam — 8 February, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
Well Liam
As I said before, I am very pleased that my concerns have proven unfounded.
(I still think the paper is too “leftist” though)
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
It is incidently an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that a lot of people read this blog, that people sometimes take an exagerated interest in some of my off-the cuff and casualy expressed opinions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
I think Respect is establishing itself as a class struggle organisation in opposition to the propaganda sects. Its interventions in the recent strikes, the Gaza situation, Woolies closure etc all augur well for the future. As was said above, it should not see itself in competition with these sects but with the current misleaders in the labour and tu movement and that means orienting towards these organisations. Respect is a transcendence of the Cold War sects but must guard against any attempt by them to reassert themselves. I think the Respect paper can, is and hopefully will play a big part in that by carrying the views of all the elements that make up Respect and the wider movement.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
As one who is not a member of the Respect Party, I think it’s interesting, informative and a credit to that party that its members feel free to discuss their differences here.
I get the impression that there’s a positive trend developing with regard to increasing co-operation between Respect and SP and this can only be a good thing in my opinion.
My question would be: Do Respect Party members see a possibility of their party becoming a constituent part of a future Workers Party - one dedicated to the establishment of working-class state power?
Or do they take more of a view as expressed by David Ellis that the Respect Party is some kind of “transendence” of class politics?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 February, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Karl: It is hard to imagine that you could mis-read my comment so comprehensively. I said Respect was a class struggle organisation that had transcended the sects which is the very opposite of what you say I said.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Hi David,
Apologies, your contribution was a little confusing and I thought that was what you meant.
By “the sects,” I took you to mean the existing left-of-Labour parties and by “transendence,” I took you to mean some kind of “leaving behind” of their essential political outlook.
What did you mean by that exactly?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 February, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
This front page article in Saturday’s Financial Times London edition gives important background on the bosses’ motivation in using foreign labour in Lindsey and elsewhere.
Says it all really.
Walkouts spurred use of foreign workers
By Jean Eaglesham
Financial Times ( London ): February 7 2009
A rash of 1970s-style unofficial walkouts by British workers over issues such as tea breaks spurred employers to use foreign workers in the sector at the centre of a wave of industrial unrest in recent weeks, industry insiders have told the Financial Times.
More protests are planned next week over the use of foreign workers at Staythorpe plant in Nottinghamshire, threatening a repeat of a national wave of wildcat strikes at oil refineries, gas terminals and power stations in sympathy with the dispute at Total’s Lindsey refinery.
Political debate over the recent disputes has been dominated by union allegations that non-UK companies are seeking to undercut British workers by paying their foreign employees less.
But companies working in the sector state privately that the attraction of using foreign rather than British workers is that they are much less likely to stage illegal strikes. There is an industry tradition of staging “sympathy stoppages” on the death of a worker’s relative or a retired worker – a site in Southampton suffered a limited walkout for this reason only last month.
British workers are also seen as being prone to walk out over problems with site facilities, such as hot-water boiler breakdowns. Tea breaks – protected in an industry-wide agreement with the unions – are another “huge bone of contention” and had led to walkouts, one insider states.
The engineering construction sector, at the heart of last week’s dispute at the Lindsey oil refinery, lost more than 22,400 days to unofficial action in the year to November. This equates to almost one day for every one of the roughly 25,000 blue-collar workers employed – about 32 times worse than the average for the UK workforce as a whole for the same period.
The Unite union rejected any suggestion that “British disease” of strike-prone workers was behind the unrest in the sector. The union said many of the unofficial walkouts stemmed from accidents. The perceived reluctance by non-UK companies to use local workers had “got to do with costs, in terms of circumventing national agreements”, a Unite official told the FT.
Business is alarmed by the increasing pressure on Gordon Brown, the prime minister, to press for a change to European law to allow non-UK companies in Britain to be required to sign up to such collective agreements.
Ministers are privately frustrated that the debate is being dominated by unsubstantiated claims that non-UK employers are paying staff less. Employers contacted by the FT refused to comment on record on illegal walkouts for fear of retaliatory action by the workers.
This wall of silence surrounding British workers’ productivity makes it harder for Mr Brown to win the argument against protectionist measures to ring-fence jobs for British workers, government insiders believe.
Comment by Neil — 8 February, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
#56 Karl
`By “the sects,” I took you to mean the existing left-of-Labour parties and by “transendence,” I took you to mean some kind of “leaving behind” of their essential political outlook.’
That you got right. But I can see you are determined to misunderstand me so here is how Marx put it in 1871, though of course I’m not yet comparing Respect with the formation of the First International:
`The International was founded in order to replace the Socialist or semi-Socialist sects by a real organisation of the working class for struggle. The original Statutes and the Inaugural Address show this at the first glance. On the other hand the Internationalists could not have maintained themselves if the course of history had not already smashed up the sectarian system. The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers’ movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity ail sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere was repeated within the International. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain itself within the newly achieved form.
And the history of the International was a continual struggle on the part of the General Council against the sects and amateur experiments which attempted to assert themselves within the International itself against the genuine movement of the working class.’
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
Thanks David,
I wasn’t deliberately trying to misunderstand you, I just found your first post (53) confusing.
At (53), you say that Respect is in opposition to but not in competition with “the sects,” “sects” which you claim that Respect has “transended.”
Three different attitudes to “the sects” within the one post is a little confusing David.
You don’t identify which aspects of their policies/principles/activities/organisational forms that you believe are sect-like, or put forward any examples of such behaviour.
But is it not a little paradoxical that you dismiss all other organisations to the left-of-Labour as “sects” - who are sects because you say they are - while claiming to be yourself anti-sectarian?
David, the rest of the left-of-Labour left is not going to dissolve itself into Respect - it’s simply not a realistic prospect.
Don’t you think that a more productive way forward would be for Respect to play a positive role as a consituent part of a new Workers Party dedicated to working-class state power?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 February, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Well Karl, Respect competes directly with the labour and tu bureaucracy and is therefore obliged to relate to the broader working class and not the sects. It stands under its own name in elections and has a genuine mass following in certain areas both of which forces it to remain open about its internal doings. This prevents it from having interests separate from the movement. It doesn’t simply believe that we are engaged in a battle of ideas but is striving to be an actual class struggle party. Whether the rest of the left-of-Labour disolves itself into Respect is neither here nor there. Respect has the potential to become a movement but I’m sure it will be looking to link up with broader class struggle forces where it can from where ever they come as long as they are serious.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Well Rachel at #48 may be right about the proposed delay to the conference, but whether it was three months or six, I don’t think the people concerned had the right to cancel it for October on the basis of an email discussion. After all, the elected members of the NC were all well past their ‘re-elect by’ date, while I think others had been co-opted after the split and never elected at all. On this basis, their views should hold no more weight than those of the ordinary members on the ground.
I know that the NC of last year worked very hard, and I do appreciate all the commitment and work that people put in to hold Respect together in the aftermath of the split. I think they were fantastic, and that’s why I’m a member. But one of the things that will make all that effort worthwhile is if we create a better and more democratic organisation now. If we just rely on people voting for Respect and don’t create a good party that people wish to join and feel they have a say in, then I think we’ll probably end up as bad as the Labour Party!
In some ways we are treading new ground here and our structures will continue to evolve. I agree with Karl S that it’s good we discuss them publically, and it’s a pity that we didn’t really manage to do that at the time. Obviously not all members have email or read blogs, so I don’t know how you get around the problem of some people always being left out of these things.
Comment by steph — 8 February, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
David,
Can you explaing your description of the rest of the left-of-Labour left as “the sects”?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 February, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
#54 Karl - the view of Socialist Resistance supporters is that Respect will be one component of a larger class struggle party. This is also a widely held view inside Respect. It is not going to happen in the next few months but it is what we are working towards.
Here is how Nick Wrack put the immediate task and I agree with this way of formulating the matter.
“All those groups who intend to stand left-wing candidates in opposition to New Labour should seek to work together to maximise the impact of such a challenge. Firstly, every effort should be made to ensure that there is only one left-wing candidate challenging New Labour in each constituency or ward. Secondly, at the very least it would make sense to try to get all such candidates to stand under one umbrella name. This would preserve the independence of each party’s policies and campaigning activity but would be an important step towards a united challenge from the left.”
http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/unity-is-strength-nick-wrack/
Comment by Liam — 8 February, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Hi Liam,
That sounds very positive, efforts to ensure just the one left/working-class candidate and the idea of an “umbrella” name would be a huge step forward.
I was a little concerned at David’s tone towards the rest of the left-of-Labour tho’.
If those of us who are no longer in any of the longer established non-Labour left parties adopt such a dismissive tone towards them, then we won’t achieve working-class political unity (notwithstanding the fact that there are valid criticisms to be made of these organisations).
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 February, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Potted History
The argument over conference, the editorial board of the paper, the behaviour of some pre-split socialists are all masking the real political arguments Respect need to be having.
The Labour party had presided over 10 years of majority rule in which time they introduced numerous anti working class policies and failed to repeal Tory union legislation, all with the seeming acquiescence of the Trade Unions. The final straw was the war in Iraq.
The biggest demonstration Britain had ever seen marched in London. Stop the War played a pivotal role.
The previous 10 years of neo lib.pol. had marginalised socialist ideas and there was no mainstream party opponents of the war could vote for.
George Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party. He became a focus of anti-war sentiment-Respect was born.
What sort of organisation was it to be? It had to encompass all the progressive element s to stand any chance electorally. This was done, with some unprecedented successes in council elections and an MP elected.
It was a new party; it didn’t have a history, a tradition, an organisation, an underpinning philosophy, and this led with the help of some extremely let’s say clumsy interventions from some socialists to a split.
From that moment some members felt the usual democratic party structures and procedures should be sidelined in favour of a more top down cheerleading approach. I’m not implying anything sinister here, I just feel they are wrong and it’s a bit patronising to assume new members would be put off by discussions in a branch or helping formulate a motion to their annual conference.
It also leaves us very vulnerable when things change.
Hopefully the success of the LOR strikers will encourage other workers to take it into their own hands and fight back. If this happens the LP and TU will be forced left. In such circumstances, without any proper forums for regular discussions, and opportunities for socialists to put their case we will be unable to make the most of the situation.
Comment by paulv — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
#63 Liam: `all those groups’? `every constituency’? Surely not.
Every wing-nut sect standing under the Respect umbrella? Respect should not become to Labour what UKIP is to the tories. It needs to stand where it is strong and select a few New Labour stand outs to oppose but should make it absolutely clear that it is in favour of Labour being re-elected. Anything else would be hyperbole (unless Respect suddenly grows massively) and would lessen the Respect vote. Plus Respect must retain the ability to impose democratic control over its elected representatives i.e. expel them if necessary. Let’s be sensible. Negotiations with the SP might be viable but I don’t think there can be any question of taking their CNWP front seriously. They might be persuaded to join Respect and stand under its electoral umbrella under the democratic control of its NC however as they probably wouldn’t be able to stand as SP candidates under Elec Commission rules otherwise they’d have done it already I guess.
Karl, just to remind you, I’m not a spokesperson for Respect.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
‘From that moment some members felt the usual democratic party structures and procedures should be sidelined in favour of a more top down cheerleading approach.’
That’s one way of putting it, paulv. But it’s a tad one-sided, non? A bit, asked and answered, as they say in the American legal dramas.
Much more important is how Respect is growing now. That will provide an indication of what the best perspective for the organisation is.
Comment by Nas — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
#67 `Much more important is how Respect is growing now. That will provide an indication of what the best perspective for the organisation is.’
Well put.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
I think Nick Wrack was suggesting establishing a new umbrella name under which the left could fight elections, with all parties involved agreeing to a basic charter of demands. I agree, and think something as simple as ‘The Left’ would be a good choice.
To avoid losing the benefit of the individual party brand names, parties could also use their own name on the ballot, for example ‘The Left - Respect Party’ or ‘The Left - Socialist Alternative’. I think this could be accomplished by registering ‘The Left’ (or what ever name is decided on) as a political party, and the constituent party names as electoral descriptions of The Left party. You are allowed up to six descriptions.
Just my two cents- I don’t know the legal implications of fighting elections in such a manner but I can’t see why it wouldn’t work.
Comment by Jon — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
All this rather by-passes the strategic necessity of working for the reelection of a Labour government, and overlooks the fact that there are perhaps only a maximum of four or five credible left of labour electoral challenges in the whole of England.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
As someone who is not a member of Respect, I hope it goes from strength to strength and is able to overcome the same challenges and bumps along the way that any new serious political formation encounters. The split of course was a setback, but make no mistake Respect has been responsible for giving a political voice to a Muslim community that has and continues to be under attack in this country. It has allowed such outstanding figures as Salma Yaqoob to rise to prominence, and recent events in Gaza have proved that it has a key role to play in the international anti-imperialist movement. The political space it has created in which socialists, trade unionists, Marxists, Muslims, and others are working together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding is something new and exciting, and in time, as it matures, so shall its structures and coherence.
I hope that whatever differences there are within the organisation the comrades involved will see them as nothing compared to the crucial role that Respect now plays in British politics.
Comment by John Wight — 8 February, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
#69 That one won’t fly jon and nobody wants to be beholden to an imposed or handed down charter especially if it is not `organic’. Respect is good because you can argue openly over programme. A charter (which could only appeal to the lowest common denominator) would stop all that. But I hope one day, when it is ready, Respect will commission a manifesto or programme.
I agree with Andy to a point but Respect does need to remain open to the possibilities and it could be a while until the next election (or it could be next week). There may be many de-selected left MPs that Respect could incorporate by then or all sorts of occurences. The strategic need is to build the class struggle party but sectarianism in relation to the re-election of Labour at the next election will not help but will hinder that.
Comment by David Ellis — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Surely challenges to Labour MPs should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a Labour MP’s voting record puts them on the right-wing of the party, we have every reason to stand against them. If they are on the left-wing or centre-left, we should support their re-election.
The other consideration is whether we have the resources to mount an effective challenge to the seat or not. There may only be half a dozen seats in the country where the left can mount an effective challenge, but even so we have a better chance of winning those seats if we are united.
Comment by Jon — 8 February, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
#72 By charter I mean a short basic list of policies, such as that presented in the People Before Profit charter. If the left can’t unite around something as simple as that then heaven help us. We should leave detailed policy making, over which there may well be strong debate and disagreement, to be thrashed out in individual parties.
Isn’t this roughly the approach the RMT are advocating?
Comment by Jon — 9 February, 2009 @ 12:06 am
#65 Apart from Respect, are you a member of any other left wing organisation, paulv?
Comment by rachel trickett — 9 February, 2009 @ 3:36 am
#75 Surely the correct phrasing is “Are you now or have you ever been…”?
Comment by chjh — 9 February, 2009 @ 8:17 am
chjh - ah, the extremely wide definition of witch-hunt rears its head again. What’s wrong with asking if someone’s a member of an organisation?
Comment by Nas — 9 February, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Rachel
No I’m not at the moment. I was a member of the SWP 25 years ago. Why do you ask?
Comment by paulv — 9 February, 2009 @ 9:30 am
The evens of the last couple of weeks ( LOR dispute) rekindled something.
I’ve been on the STW and Gaza demos and brilliant as they were the feeling of powerless still creeps back.
The hundreds or so workers who took action and won reminded me of where our real power lies.
Comment by paulv — 9 February, 2009 @ 9:59 am
#77 “the extremely wide definition of witch-hunt rears its head again”
Like the one you used a few days ago when accusing ll of being a one-person witch-hunt?
More seriously…
#63 “Firstly, every effort should be made to ensure that there is only one left-wing candidate challenging New Labour in each constituency or ward. Secondly, at the very least it would make sense to try to get all such candidates to stand under one umbrella name.”
Firstly, Nick Wrack talks about supporting challenges to New Labour without specifying that they are socialist ones. He talks about the Greens and Galloway is close to MPs in the Lib Dems or even the Tories, which suggests a popular front approach which others on the Left may noticeably disagree with. Secondly, what of those left-wing members of the Labour Party who don’t wish to jeopardise their membership by supporting another party against one of their own? Thirdly, perhaps the time when the focus of politics was the Iraq war it made some sense to centre everything aroung opposition to “New Labour”. Now that centrality is gone, saying everything is about opposition to New Labour can lead to some right-wing positions.
On his show on Saturday night, Galloway had a go at “far left sects” and “people who should know better” for not supporting the Lindsey dispute. I wonder who he was talking about (genuinely, was it the SWP or Socialist Resistance?).
Comment by skidmarx — 9 February, 2009 @ 11:54 am
It would seem the height of stupidity for Leftists not to work together where they can and must. I’m thinking in particular of the North West and the Euro Elections. A genuine socialist putting forward broad class politics is absolutely vital if Griffin is to be stopped and the general cause of socialist politics and influence advanced in that area. Just UAF-type interventions with implied support for New Labour or formally support the Greens would be a big mistake I feel. There are the comrades on the ground in Respect and the SP, a huge working class audience for our ideas and thousands of potential votes to take off the BNP. A credible candidate - Val Wise?
Comment by Doug — 9 February, 2009 @ 11:57 am
“A genuine socialist putting forward broad class politics “
That would be Theresa Griffin, number three on the Labour party list.
Or perhaps Peter Cranie, #1 on the Green party list. Clearly a socialist, and would make a fantastic left MEP.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 February, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
You still don’t get it do you?! She’ll be on the New Labour list and New Labour are the main cause of the BNP’s rising vote numbers. And do you seriously think the Greens are going to produce specific pro-working class policies in their material? Get real.
Comment by Doug — 9 February, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
David,
This is the type of infantile sectarianism that really needs to be overcome.
(66)”Every wing-nut sect standing under the Respect umbrella? Respect should not become to Labour what UKIP is to the tories. It needs to make it absolutely clear that it is in favour of Labour being re-elected. Negotiations with the SP might be viable but I don’t think there can be any question of taking their CNWP front seriously. They might be persuaded to join Respect and stand under its electoral umbrella under the democratic control of its NC.”
I don’t think you’ll get anywhere by simply saying to people: “We’re Respect, if you want to work with us, join us or fuck off.”
That’s what you’re saying, in effect. And it’ll simply result in you being told to fuck off yourself - pathetic.
Secondly, as for working for a Labour victory at the next election - a position also being argued for by Andy at (70), well I’m sorry, but that’s very much a minority view across the non-Labour left.
As long as people on the non-Labour left remain wedded to this ridiculous idea that the thug who wants to punch you on the nose (Labour) is somehow better than the thug who wants to kick you in the head (Tory) then our real task - of organising our class for ourselves, to defend and advance our own interests and fight back against both of these enemies of ours - will be further delayed.
Jon at (69) at least gets the idea that joint election work must not be the property of a single part of the non-Labour left, but the sum of its parts, but how about “the Workers Party” as the umbrella name?
In the name itself, it states clearly that this is a class-struggle based political party and, in its essential aims, it also needs to state that it is a party of socialists and communists fighting for the working class to become the ruling class.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 February, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
skidders - Socialist Resistance did support the strikers. And your usual lack of logic is manifesting itself. ll called for a News of the World style witch-hunt against George Galloway (still not prepared to acknowledge that, are you?)Only in a fevered imagination could that be considered the same as someone asking if someone else belongs to a political party.
You really are an obsessive when it comes to Galloway - a popular front with Tories, eh? Utterly delusional.
Comment by Nas — 9 February, 2009 @ 2:38 pm