REPORT OF UNITED LEFT IN UNITE MEETING
If they act like this now, would you want them running your union
by Richard Searle
PICTURE - HICKS AND HIS SUPPORTERS WALK OUT
The first big joint United Left meeting in Unite took place in Manchester on Saturday 5th Sept. This was to choose the left’s candidate to run for General secretary in 2010
Taking place at the Friends Meeting House. This was not the most auspicious start to a meeting that I’ve witnessed.
Instead of welcoming people into the Main Hall, there was a door policy of exclusions. Long standing members of the union going back years were excluded on a range of spurious grounds, like they not attended a specific meeting, or they were late. I then heard of others had been rung before the meeting told to not bother attending at all.
A number of Jerry Hicks supporters were excluded, some long standing members from his former workplace at Rolls Royce
The policy of excluding participants and oh so subtle gerrymandering was organised by supporters of the Len McCluskey [currently assistant general secretary]. I have no knowledge as to whether McCloskey gave his backing and blessing to this kind of behaviour or not.
Jerry Hicks spoke at the start of the meeting. He stated that because of this lack of democracy he was not going to participate any further and endorse that kind of behaviour and he walked out of the main hall taking 30 plus with him, joining those had been excluded from the main meeting
The main meeting then decided that all those excluded could now be admitted. So Jerry and others returned the main hall along with those who had been excluded. But then with just two speeches from the floor it was then decided that those who were excluded, who were now let into the main hall couldn’t vote anyway. This led to the second walk out by Jerry and supporters. It was just another form of exclusion that had been erected
Jerry and supporters then went into a side room in the Friends Meeting House. What I saw and heard was one of the best TU meetings I have been to for a long time.
Unite Reps and Stewards in Engineering, Construction, Manufacturing from the across the country debated, discussed the problems in the Union, the possibility of a new Tory government and what they would entail and whether Jerry should still run for Unite General Secretary, a decision on which is yet to be reached.
Later in the afternoon, in the main hall, Len McCloskey won 3 to 1 against Socialist Party candidate, Rob Williams. I don’t have the exact figures but I’m sure someone will post them later.
It would appear to all intents and purposes that this meeting was soley for the rubber stamping of McCloskey’s nomination.
My point is simply this. If sections of the so called Left are prepared to utilises these kinds of methods just to secure a nomination, what kind practices would they be prepared to engage in if they ever got elected.
If they consider new participants as a threat and not an asset, how are they ever going to recruit to, and rebuild the union’s fighting potential.
If you’re going to decide who the ‘candidate’ is going to be before anyone else turns up to the meeting, why would you want to go to that meeting in the first place.
A quick look at how the other sections in the Left in Unison have been treated should serve as a warning.
My own opinion is that, the one man who secured over 47,000 votes on shoestring budget, from standing start, should throw his hat into the ring, and that discussion needs to start now
This report breaks my heart as this is what happened in the SSP and is now being played out yet again,
No doubt it a bun fight between swp and cwi over thier vangaurdism
ach well comrades i hope you can get a united front in the south we tried in Scotland and still trying
its fucking atrocious when wee sectarian sects fuck up the way forward
Comment by rikki — 5 September, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Rikki:
I realise that like other members of the rump SSP, you think that Tommy Sheridan’s genitals are the main dividing line in world history, but perhaps you could do us all the favour of actually finding out something about the events you are commenting on before throwing in your half-baked tomfoolery?
Comment by Irish Mark P — 5 September, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Whats wrong with Len
ex Militant
and proven track record
He gets my vote
Comment by sean — 5 September, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
This is awful. Can you expand a bit on what happened and which groups were excluded (apart from Hicks and his supporters) and who was doing the excluding? Also an estimate of numbers there?
I have seen this before with Hicks being refused to speak at a rally in support of workers facing redundancy all because the SWP were supporting Faircloth in the GS election. Its was ultra sectarian behaviour from the local branch who had been denouncing Hicks during the week and went on to allow a Unite bureaucrat to speak. Badly.
Bizarre!
Comment by Steve — 5 September, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
The existence of such self styled broad lefts is inherently undemocratic and unrepresentative when determining GS election candidates. Full time officer machines or political parties or sects have a built in advantage - resources to mobilise and a caucus within a caucus. Today’s apparent reported carve up is symptomatic of that. But I’ve read similar reports of SP gerrymandering within PCS left unity machine, anti SP manouvering in UNISON’s United Left by SWP/LAbour Left and so it goes on across the movement.
Far better if the left campaigned for transferable votes & a minimum 50% + 1 requirement before winner declared in union GS elections and supported a pluralistic approach to enable left candidates to promote a spectrum of left views while uniting against the right when listing transfer preferences.
It is clear to me as a Unite outsider (UCU member) that the 3 candidates above stand on very distinctive platforms - McCluskey FTO Left but pro Labour and immersed in the reformist bureaucracy of social democracy, Williams rank and file Left but sectarian anti Labour and Hicks rank and file Left and willing on a non sectarian basis to only support politicans who support the union.
It would be a travesty if today’s undemocratic roll up roll up caucus is used to legitimise McCluskey a sole choice of the left. Jerry Hicks has earned his right to stand, subject to sufficent nominating branch support, after hs magnificent campaign in 2009/2009. Let the members decide. Go Jerry!!
Comment by Union Democrat — 5 September, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Irish mark p nothing to do with his genitals more to do with his STALINIST ME ME IAM THE PARTY.
Which was echoed by the CWI SWP and has left them in the wilderness of working class politcs in the impoverished areas of glasgow
Tommy was told he as not welcome at the wyndford st gregorys occupation as he was only there for self publicty.
funny how the class suss out charlaitans
Comment by rikki — 5 September, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
enough about Sheridan, PLEASE
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 September, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Richard’s report is rubbish. It was announced and circulated well in advance that:
“The meeting is scheduled to commence at 12 noon. However the Chair and Secretary accept that registration may not be completed by this time. Once the Chair and Secretary are satisfied that registration is complete, registration will be stopped and all participants should enter the hall. It will not therefore be possible for latecomers to be allowed entrance to the Hall once the meeting commences.”
At about 12.30 it was announced that a number of people had arrived and were requesting admission. Martin Mayer, in the Chair, announced that as registration had closed, they could not come in. At this point Gerry Hicks, who had already demonstrated that he was itching for an excuse to walk out, walked out, yaking with him about 20-30 people. The Chair’s ruling was challenged and voted upon, and it was (very narrowly) agreed to invite the comrades who’d walked out, together with those waiting outside, into the meeting. They came back, but then immediately walked out again (led by Hicks) when it was made clear to them that only accredited delegates could vote.
This was a cynical piece of choreography by Hicks and his supporters, and brings no credit upon them. I spoke to a Hicks supporter from Birmingham, who’d refused to walk out and had realised that this was a disgusting charade. He is now an *ex* Hicks supporter.
Rob Williams conducted himself well, and attempted to defend Hicks. But it was clear that his heart wasn’t in it.And he stayed in the meeting, getting 49 votes to McClusky’s 170.
McClusky is the democratically-elected choice of the left. The signs are that Rob Williams and the Socialist Party will accept that. The opportunist shyster Hicks and his sub-political supporters will not. They are Les Bayliss’s best friends in this situation. The serious left should repudiate them.
Comment by Jim Denham — 5 September, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
There is the minor problem that Jerry Hicks achieved 47,000 votes for a rank and file campaign outside the union machine only six months ago. McClusky has no such mandate. Hicks already has a network in place to campaign this time and more nominations are likely than during the last GS election.
The major issue is that Jerry stands on a platform of principled support for workers that fight and for those victimized. Not being part of the union hierarchy and resistant to the overtures of a thoroughly discredited Labour government, Jerry represents the best chance for electing a candidate that will lead a fight to strengthen trade unionism and prepare UNITE for the battles that are inevitable in the current economic predicament.
The problem for the United Left is that by opting for a ‘coronation’ of McClusky, it will both isolate itself from a serious grass roots movement and end up arguing for precisely the policies and strategies that have failed to help UNITE members since the merger. The problem of Broad Lefts simply being viewed as electoral machines within the union hierarchy. Hence, the lack of purchase among union members. Jim Denham’s ’serious left’ should read as ’stitch up’ left (the old CPers have been using these tactics for years in Broad Lefts, though Union Democrat has a point about its use by other organizations more recently).
Hicks got his tactics pitch perfect today. If a hostile group intent upon entrapment invite you into hastily constructed bear pit and you refuse to play along and let yourself be shackled and mauled, you are called an opportunist shyster.
Victory to the opportunist shysters! With them, there will be a fightback. With Jim and his crew, we will see the usual sweet FA!
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 5 September, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
andy it was the rirst and last post on that
but what i have lereand and ratifyed is that the vangaurd sects dont have a scoobie what the class needs on how to give support.
cheeers rikki
Comment by rikki — 5 September, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Dirty Red Bandana says:
“Hicks got his tactics pitch perfect today. If a hostile group intent upon entrapment invite you into hastily constructed bear pit and you refuse to play along and let yourself be shackled and mauled, you are called an opportunist shyster.
Victory to the opportunist shysters! With them, there will be a fightback. With Jim and his crew, we will see the usual sweet FA!”
Jim says: so much for rank and file democracy! Hicks and his people showed themselves up as a bunch of arrogant tossers. OK: youm think McClusky and his supporters are no good. Then explain why Rob Williams and the Socialist Party and the SWP didn’t walk out with Hicks?
The Hicks stunt was acynical, stage-managed exercise that alienated even some of his own supporters and would-be supporters. McClusky won fair and square.
Comment by Jim Denham — 5 September, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
So how did we all know what tactics would be pursued in the days leading up to the meeting? How did we all know it was a ‘coronation’ where some credentials would be questioned but not others? When the notice you quote went out, everyone knew what it meant: ‘Stop Hicks!’
Lectures on rank and file democracy from a Broad Left? Given that I assume you are not wet behind the ears, you can only be mendacious with such nonsense. Next, you will claim McClusky is ‘rank and file (full time officer)’.
The SWP and SP cannot be spoken for. Their tactics have been mystifying for years. However, if your entire industrial strategy amounts to grab a union position whenever possible, the Broad Lefts are the perfect vehicle so you cuddle up (and you are so cuddly, no?) and hope to get your turn. The SP have done this for years and the SWP has adopted the same tactics recently.
How strange that those of us with Hicks over the last few days have never found so much support so these claims are about as useful as the rest of your moral judgement and lacklustre indignation.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 5 September, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
Mmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Very interesting, without being there, it is difficult to deciver what happened but it appears that “left unity” was a problem. Can I ask how do you get “proper” accreditation for a left trade unionists conference and why were the standing orders about lateness followed so strictly - genuinely asking about the reasons why.
Comment by Cat — 6 September, 2009 @ 12:05 am
“Bandana”: You would have known about the arrangements for tyhe meeting if you were a member of the United Left, because the arrangements (that I quoted in my previous post) were sent out and emailed some time (about a week) in advance to all United Left supporters.
What point are you trying to make, Bandana?
That the United Left doesn’t have the right to define who is a member and who shoukld be allowed into tyhe meeting?
Hicks and his supporters showed themselves up as a bunch of undemocratic shysters. All the rest of us (including Rob Williams and the Socialist Party comrades) recognised that, and refused to walk out with him. Quite right too! Now get behind McClusky!
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 12:05 am
With all respect, if Hicks supporters who had not registered had voted. McClusky would have still won FACT
Secondly, Hicks would not have accepted the result FACT
If the SWP and ex SWP friends want to go off and stand that fine
McClusky will still win with SP, CP and non sectarian Left
Comment by sean — 6 September, 2009 @ 1:01 am
Totally endorse the comments made by Jim Denham an Sean.
i was sitting behind Dave Nellist from the Socialist Party at the meeting. When Jerry walked out for the second time Dave told me and two comrades sitting behind him that Jerry had lost all credibility after the second walk out.By the way there was laughter by a section of the audience when Jerry walked out the 2nd time when some shouted to Jerry ‘get yourself an equity card’ such was the stage managed way Jerry and his small group of comrades behaved.
Jerry has played, since his sacking from Rolls Royce no part in the left in Unite locally and nationally. I understand he has been invited to meetings but the invitation has not been taken up. This was expressed at the beginning of the meeting by SW United Left supporters.
When I arrived about 10.45 there was already strong rumours that Jerry and his supporters where going to turn up, complain and walk out, Jerry’s mind already made up that he will stand with or without the United Lefts support. This I assume under the delusional view that he could do what Mark Serwotka did in the PCS. Unite isnt the PCS.
For the benefit of the author of the post Jerry got 39′307 votes against Simpson on a shoe string budget.The facts you give in your post are as accurate as your maths!! I took the figures from Jerrys own website.
D Simpson: 60,048
Jerry Hicks: 39,307
K Coyne: 30,603
P Reuter: 28,283
At the end of yesterdays meeting Len Mcluskey got 170 votes, Rob Williams got a credible 49 votes. If Jerry had remained I believe he would have come third with about 30 (and thats being a bit generous, I counted the people who walked out with him!!)
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 7:16 am
This was my first and quite possibly last meeting of the UNITE ‘United Left’, which I understood was to decide who should be ‘the Left’s’ candidate in the forthcoming GS elections. I wasn’t allowed in. Not only that, it would appear I’m an arrogant sectarian undemocratic opportunist shyster for complaining about it and for then attending a meeting with workers from Visteon and long-standing left-wingers in the Union, to which Hicks’ supporters attended.
It would also appear that my 25 years in the Union, including serving on Branch Committees of the NGA and GPMU in the 80’s and 90’s, as President of my local Trades Council, on the NW Regional Council of the TUC and Executive of Greater Manchester Association of TUC’s plus my involvement in almost every major TU struggle since Grunwicks including the Miners strike in which I helped to set up one of the first Miners’ Support Groups in the country, and my central involvement in the two year campaign to save Lancashire’s last remaining pit at Parkside were insufficient credentials to be allowed into this sham of a so-called ‘United Left’ meeting.
However, had I been involved in running the beer stall at some recent event in Bristol according to the report made by one of the people who walked out of the meeting in solidarity with those excluded, and had been a McCluskey supporter then my guess I’d have received the necessary accreditation to attend.
The whole thing was a complete farce. I mean 229 people of whatever ‘left’ political persuasion (and maybe 280 had everyone been let in) deciding who the “Left’s” candidate should be in the country’s largest Union if that isn’t arrogance what is?
The resounding 170 votes for McCluskey and 49 for Rob Williams speaks volume for the ‘United Left’s’ breadth of support within the union which at a rank and file level is virtually non-existent, a fact which was clearly illustrated by Jerry Hicks’s recent election campaign for the AMICUS Section Joint GS, which on a shoe string budget and from a standing start was able to mobilise more branch nominations and votes on the ground than the entire bureaucractic ‘United Left’ apparatus.
The reality of course is the United Left isn’t a genuine, broad, democratic, unsectarian and serious ‘Left’ at all, but would appear (notwithstanding the involvement of some genuine left forces such as the SP in it) to be little other an opportunist internal electoralist carve up (a thieves’ kitchen) of self-seeking fake left bureaucrats that exists purely to promote internally within UNITE its own sectarian (in this case ‘Left’ bureaucratic) self interests.
I use the term ‘Left’ losely since a great many of these so-called ‘Leftists’ refuse to do anything whatsoever to fight the anti-trade union laws, and in the main are supportive of the link with Labour and our member’s interests being subordinated to that at whatever cost to us.
In the Wigan area, were we do have a genuine unity on the Left and which also has the support of the Green’s, and were we are wanting to fight all the local council and parliamentary seats against Labour at the next elections, at least one of those present at the United Left meeting, and a prominent one at that in terms of the NW, is considered by ALL as a pillar of the right-wing Labour establishment. He can talk as left as he likes, we all think he should get the boot!
If joining the ‘united left’ in UNITE means uniting him and supporting the candidate he’s endorsing who is very much of his ilk, then the actual serious, democratic non-sectarian and united left across our borough including within UNITE say you can just fuck that for a lark!
If someone wants to call mean a sectarian then feel free do so. I don’t think you will find much support for that view amongst rank and file UNITE members in the NW or left grassroot activists in the region either, whereas some of people who attended the ‘United Left’ meeting would quite definitely fall into that category and are the real shysters.
What I’m against is not left unity but unity with fake lefts (don’t forget the arch left-winger Tony Woodley is a supporter of this grouping) who would surely sell us down the river if it meant saving their own jobs and positions. If you don’t believe me then just follow events and see how things unfold.
Surely the genuine Left in UNITE can do much better than this bureaucratic carve-up and need to take steps to do so pretty urgently.
Comment by Steve H — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:13 am
‘This was my first and quite possibly last meeting of the UNITE ‘United Left’, which I understood was to decide who should be ‘the Left’s’ candidate in the forthcoming GS elections. I wasn’t allowed in. Not only that, it would appear I’m an arrogant sectarian undemocratic opportunist shyster for complaining about it and for then attending a meeting with workers from Visteon and long-standing left-wingers in the Union, to which Hicks’ supporters attended.’
I stopped reading after that. Never been to a United Left meeting before? Why?
So that gives you a right to lecture the left in Unite? You remind me of that Harry enfield character interupting poeople by saying ‘you dont want to do this you want to do it like that’!!
Go home and cry Steve or get involved with the United Left to change it. Sitting on the sidelines can get cold and lonely.
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:24 am
Using the same logic as supporters of the Hicks camp, can I as I as a Marxist and Trade Unionist turn up at any meeting of the SWP, AWL, Respect, SP and CPGB (take your pick) and participate without fear of being thrown out??
Comment by Barmy Army — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:44 am
#15
Sean - you will have noticed that SWP members did not walk out of the meeting.
Comment by PW — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:59 am
So will you be campaigning for McCluskey, PW? What will the politics of his campaign be like?
Comment by Nas — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:21 am
Dear Unite Left,
I don’t need to go to, or need to have gone to any of your past meetings mate to qualify as being on the Left in the union. Plus the meetings of the so-called ‘United Left’ are obviously not open meetings as was testified by my exclusion. It seems to me as if you clearly don’t want people like like myself and even recent recruits to the union to get involved especially should that include us taking part in any voting. On that basis alone, why would I want to join the thing anyway now?
I used to get mailings from the Left in the GPMU but the meetings were infrequent, always held a fair way off from were I live, and appeared completely consumed with nothing other than discussing standing ‘left’ candidates in various internal elections and which I could never particularly see the point of attending when there were generally lots of other more important things to be getting on with locally in which I could actually make a difference. Looks to me like I should have continued with that view rather than wasting my time and actually making the effort to go to one of your meetings.
The subs I pay to the Union I think gives me a the right to criticise anybody I like in the Union including its so-called Left which at the end of the day is an official grouping.
If I remind you of a Harry Enfield character then you remind of that character in Upstairs Downstairs which is currently being re-run for the umpteenth time on ITV3 Hudson the loyal and subservient Butler Hudson. Not just you but the entire cabal you appear to want to pass of as a United Left. The master of the house in this case being not Lord & Lady Bellamy but our Union’s very own fake left labour lieutenants of capital.
As far as sitting on the sidelines and getting cold and lonely there. People who know me will definitely laugh at that one. Get involved in the United Left and change it. Well there’s a thought!
Going off the disgraceful reception I got yesterday, and the shyster I saw there who would look to head up the thing in the Wigan area, and who as I say is regarded by the overwhelming majority on the Left in our area as part of the right-wing Labour establishment, I think my time would likely be much better devoted to something a lot more productive.
Comment by Steve H — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Correction: the united left of course is an unofficial grouping.
Comment by Steve H — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:49 am
‘I don’t need to go to, or need to have gone to any of your past meetings mate to qualify as being on the Left in the union. Plus the meetings of the so-called ‘United Left’ are obviously not open meetings as was testified by my exclusion. It seems to me as if you clearly don’t want people like like myself and even recent recruits to the union to get involved especially should that include us taking part in any voting. On that basis alone, why would I want to join the thing anyway now?’
We include supporters from the GPMU who regalarly come to our meetings. You are obviously excluded from them as well, mate.
‘The subs I pay to the Union I think gives me a the right to criticise anybody I like in the Union including its so-called Left which at the end of the day is an official grouping.’
Yes quite agree. but it doesnt give you the right to just turn up on a whim, or the whim of that charlatan Hicks.
‘If I remind you of a Harry Enfield character then you remind of that character in Upstairs Downstairs which is currently being re-run for the umpteenth time on ITV3 Hudson the loyal and subservient Butler Hudson. Not just you but the entire cabal you appear to want to pass of as a United Left. The master of the house in this case being not Lord & Lady Bellamy but our Union’s very own fake left labour lieutenants of capital.’
er……..Ouch?
‘Going off the disgraceful reception I got yesterday, and the shyster I saw there who would look to head up the thing in the Wigan area, and who as I say is regarded by the overwhelming majority on the Left in our area as part of the right-wing Labour establishment, I think my time would likely be much better devoted to something a lot more productive.’
if you had joined and attended UL meetings you would have participated in the preparation for this event.
tough shit is a phrase that springs to mind, mate!
Comment by Barmy Army — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:59 am
Quite agre BA
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:00 am
I understand there was around 100 full time officials at the meeting so its hardly a rank and file broad left. In the PCS left unity, paid officials do not have a vote. If Hicks had stayed then Mcluskey would not have gained the two thirds necessary leaving the genuine left open to make a democratic decision on a left candidate. Rob Williams was pressured to accept the outcome of the meeting prior to speaking and refused.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:12 am
I am a socialist rank and file member of unite. My instincts on reading this post are firstly to feel profoundly depressed, but then to wonder if any of it makes any material difference. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me?
Comment by Armchair — 6 September, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Steve H says:
“However, had I been involved in running the beer stall at some recent event in Bristol according to the report made by one of the people who walked out of the meeting in solidarity with those excluded, and had been a McCluskey supporter then my guess I’d have received the necessary accreditation to attend.”
No, Steve: if you’d ever previously attended a United Left meeting, you’d have received the necessary accreditation.
Are you saying that the United Left has no right to define its own membership and set rules for who can and who can’t participate in the process of deciding its candidate for GS?
If Bayliss / Davison supporters had turned up should they have been allowed to participate?
Actually, I think there was a case for holding a completely open meeting (completely open to all Unite members, that is), but there was nothing *in principle* wrong or undemocratic in the United Left restricting the meeting to known supporters who had registered before the start of the meeting.
Richard Searle and Steve H appear to think the United Left has no right to define its own membership. Can I take it that Hick’s planning meetings will be open to all Unite members? Please let me know about them, I’d love to attend.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Is Denham really the spokesperson for the Unite ‘United Left’?
I thought he was a representative of a tiny fringe group that is right up the arse of the Israeli embassy. I suspect many of those on the ‘United Left’ would be acutely embarassed to have such a person as their mouthpiece.
Can’t they provide a better defender that this miserable specimen?
Oh wait, perhaps Denham’s rantings have little, if anything, to do with any issues in Unite. Perhaps its to do with Jerry Hicks’ well known role in Respect, and the fact that Denham is a Zionist provocateur who supports compiling blacklists of trade unionists who support boycott, disvestment and sanctions against Israel. Not that I am certain what Jerry Hicks’ views are on this, but I guess Denham might think his Respect membership would make him likely to support BDS.
Is it that Denham thinks that if Hicks wins, Unite may be more inclined to support the boycott campaign?
Perhaps Jim ‘Apartheid’ Denham has put Jerry Hicks on the Harry’s Place trade union blacklist he has supported in the past.
Comment by Zionists against Jerry Hicks — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I have posted the below on my blog but as it is a response to much of this discussion I thought I should post it here as well. I am not a member of Unite but I do feel I have the right to commment here as a socialist and a trade unionist, below are my thoughts
It is quite clear that the outcome of the meeting with McCloskey the current Deputy General Secretary as the official candidate of the Broad Left is not good for genuine lefts in the Union. It is also clear that rules of United Left membership were followed too ridgidly in the light of recent developments which have brought radicalised workers into the United Left. That however is the crux of the problem, why would the broad left want to keep out these new activists?
The answer is of course that despite the name there is very little that is left about the United Left, with about 100 full time officials in attendance, the same FTOs who did nothing to support workers at visteon or the construction industry and who had to be dragged along by Rob Williams in his employment dispute. Unite needs a drastic change in leadership and this will not come from the Unite Left.
The actions of Jerry Hicks and his supporters are questionable, but not neccessarily wrong. There is of course occasions where it is principled to walk out of such meetings as this. As I do not know the exact details of the build up to the meeting and the meeting itself I will not make a judgement. I will say however that Hicks does seem to have been discredited by walking out several times and that if planned to walk out he should have co-ordinated it better with other genuine left forces. It is also clear that If Hicks and his supporters stayed in the meeting and voted for Rob Williams it still would have not changed the outcome.
That of course is the real problem, how can the union offer a left leadership to sections of workers involved in huge struggles to come when the United Left is putting forward the current leadership as the new leadership.
The solution to me has to be a brake away from the United Left of the SP, SWP, CP, AWL, Hicks and his supporters and the new layers of radicialised workers at Visteon and in the construction industry along with other genuine lefts for a fighting right and file left challenge. Not only should this new block contest the electoral positions of the leadership but it should play the role of leading the struggles of the workers where the leadership will not.
As far as I can see there are already obvious candidates which come to mind both Rob Williams and Jerry Hicks. Despite Hicks polling well in the previous election against Simpson it has to be acknowledged that his moment to a certain extent has passed. Rob Williams on the other hand played a superb role of solidairty amongst Visteon workers, in reality playing the role the Union leadership should have done. Also the struggle for Rob’s re-instatement was inspirational and unlike Hicks in a similiar situation was able to win his battle. It would therefore send a much more positive message to new radicalised activists if Rob Williams was the candidate.
This will obviously require further discussions amongst genuine lefts in Unite, of which I will not be a part of although I will continue to comment on it but my suggestion is for genuine lefts to brake from the Unite Left and form a fighting broad left with Rob Williams and the GS candidate and Jerry Hicks as the DGS candidate.
I look forward to hearing other comrades thoughts on the matter.
Comment by Everyones Favourite Comrade — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
“the fact that Denham is a Zionist provocateur who supports compiling blacklists of trade unionists.”
Slander from a seriously deranged person. Try answering my (and Sean’s and others’ who were actually at the event) points, insead of spreading your filth, you liar!
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
#30 ‘there is very little that is left about the United Left, with about 100 full time officials in attendance’.
This beggars belief and pales into insignificance the payroll vote in the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is a travesty of union democracy which cannot be justified. I’m surprised that any genuine left activist would submit to such a corrupt stitch up.
However as this will be a 3 or 4 way contest and the voting is first past the post there is everything to fight for.
Let the members decide (not the FTO’s).
Comment by Union Democrat — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Btw: if it’s true that “100″ full-timers were present at the meeting, then that would mean at least one third of the meeting was made up of officials. This was quite clearly not the case.
Both the old T&G BL and the old AUG allowed full-timers to participate. That may or may not be a good thing, but to the best of my knowledge this is the first time anyone (including St. Jerry) has ever raised it as an issue. Btw: St. Jerry’s campaign manager Des Heemskirk was for some time a member of Derek Simpson’s staff *and* a prominent member of AUG.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
Jim I don’t see the relevance of your point, you are simply arguing that because things have been done wrong in the past that justifies them being donw wrong now!
Comment by Everyones Favourite Comrade — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
#33 ‘Both the old T&G BL and the old AUG allowed full-timers to participate. That may or may not be a good thing’
I don’t think so Jim Denham. I cannot think of a single argument in favour of unelected FTO’s participating in a rank of file caucus. Talked about managed democracy? A disgrace. I wonder how many present were union worklplace representatives? Once you put aside the FTO’s, individual members, retired members etc, I suspect hardly a bare majority in all probability.
What a sham.
Comment by Union Democrat — 6 September, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Jerry is an excellent candidate, he should run and I am sure will get plenty of support, Green Party and Respect members will work for him and I am sure, though, know less of their plans that the wide range of left groups who supported him last time will work for him again.
Impressive grassroots socialist and the one union candidate with a serious profile on green issues.
Go for it Jerry!
He is a candidate who can unite the left, last time round he came second…he can do better if we give him the necessary support.
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 September, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Can anyone shed any light on Jerry’s position on Heathrow expansion?
If there is not a likely candidate at present who is willing to stand up for Green Bans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ban), against the expansion of Heathrow, against new coal stations and against Trident replacement, then the green left (either formally or informally) must organise one
Comment by Tim Gee — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
“He is a candidate who can unite the left, last time round he came second…he can do better if we give him the necessary support.”
PMSL…
Jerry Hicks is a narcissistic egotistical loner. His performance yesterday was the antithesis of how a trade unionist should act. Hicks does not understand the most fundamental concept of trade unionism, the respect of the collective decision.
How Derek Wall can translate Hicks’ disgraceful behaviour yesterday, and his total disregard for discipline in the past, as qualities that will unite the Left is a mystery. Before yesterday’s meeting I was ambivalent about Hicks. His performance yesterday, which incidentally I was told two weeks ago was going to happen, proves that Hicks is the worst possible person to lead an organisation such as Unite.
Far from uniting the Left; the dance of fools Hicks’ performed yesterday will play right into Bayliss’ hands. Hicks will run against McCluskey; he won’t receive anywhere near the share of the vote he managed against Simpson; but, he could do enough damage to ensure that we get Bayliss for a GS.
At the GS winning party I daresay Bayliss will extend a special thanks to Jerry for his part in his victory.
Comment by Irenic — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
That well-known trade union activist Derek Wall says of St. Jerry:
“He is a candidate who can unite the left.”
St Jerry may be able to do many things, but “unite the left” is most certainly not one of them. If there is a case for supporting him, it’s surely not on *that* particular basis.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
To those comrades who object to full-timers being present: I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but why haven’t you raised this matter before? And - in particular - to any St. Jerry supporters now raising this issue - why did you not object to Derek Heemskirk’s participation in AUG on *precisely* those grounds?
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
The performance of various commenters here is an appalling advert for the left, but a good example of the state we’re in.
Comment by Nas — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
The reason why T&G leaders have beeen able to switch on switch off left rhetoric, duck and dive on delivering militant action and be utterly quiescent to New Labour is because of their suffocating grip on lay democracy.
Case study - Gate Gourmet. At TUC 2007 it was presented by TW as a casus belli. Yet within the subsequent Warwick 3 consultation and in the passage of the Employment Bill the demand for improved collective union rights vanished without trace. No fight no resistance from the so called Big 4 unions.
Yesterday’s approach will merely continue the same duplicitous tradition.
Dance of fools, ship of fools more like.
Comment by Union Democrat — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
It might just be useful to remind ourselves that many of the people now slating Hicks, including using the old canard of ‘letting the right in’, ’splitting the left’, having no support, etc., are the very same people who vented their spleens a few months ago on this site over the Amicus GS election claiming exactly the same nonsense - and as it turned out being completely wrong. Most of them failed to admit they were wrong then so it’s no surprise to discover they are continuing with the same old line.
Tragic but predictable.
Comment by TLC — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Irenic (37) warns of the danger of a Hicks candidacy “playing into the hands” of the right.
Sound familiar anyone?
Isn’t that exactly what Faircloth supporters said about Hicks’s prospective candidacy for the Amicus Gs ballot?
And then after the hapless Faircloth withdrew because he flopped on nominations, Simpson supporters made exactly the same “warning” about Hicks’s candidacy in the election itself.
And what happened?
Hicks finished a strong second and the two right-wing candidates came a poor third and fourth respectively.
The left will always be told not to stand for fear of “playing into the hands of the right.” It’s the most dishonest and unprincipled argument going.
McCluskey is clearly the candidate of the pro-Labour establishment and a Hicks/Williams (or Williams/Hicks) platform has got to be the way forward.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Good point TLC, I remember a Faircloth supporter claiming at the time that Faircloth had got “loads more” nominations than Hicks.
Completely unture.
And then various other “unity gazette” supporters telling us Coyne was going to win because Hicks was standing.
Not true again.
Are they just cutting a pasting the same old stuff from back then?
These “left” bureaucrats were talking crap then and they’re still talking the same old crap now.
Funny isn’t it, how the “left” bureaucrats hate Hicks so much and work so hard thinking up “clever” ways to stitch him up again and again, but the actual members seem to quite like him.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Williams and the Socialist Party would have to be mad to ally themselves with St. Jerry after his display yesterday. Like Ian, I was sitting near Dave Nellist and heard him say (after St. Jerry’s *second* walk-out) “He (St. Jerry) has lost all credibility.”
For the record I and my AWL comrades voted for Rob Williams (despite his utterly crap platform and silly obsession with disaffiliation). But it seems to me that the serious left in Unite should now throw our weight behind McCluskey, whatever our criticisms.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Oh yes: any of you objectors to te presence of full-timers want to answer my point about Des Heemskirk?
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Socialists.
Piss-up.
Brewery.
Comment by J Walker — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
In Message 20, Everyones Favourite Comrade states that the United Left applied its rules of membership to rigidly. Just to clear something up, first. The United Left does not operate on a membership basis – you can discern this from the United Left ‘Founding Statement’ – but, rather we’re all ‘supporters’. This is a small but important point.
On the issue of radicalised workers and new activists, we are inclusive. All Unite members who hold Left views are welcome as supporters. Indeed, as far back as April we advanced a welcome into our group of the Visteon occupiers. Several UL activists invited them to meetings; however, these Comrades, for whatever reasons, didn’t take up our offers.
UL supporters attended the Visteon sites. Indeed, one of our people was ensconced in the occupation for nine-days. For whatever reasons the Visteon activists did not become supporters of the UL. We all know about recruiting and organising; but, how do you force people into ‘joining’ when they demonstrate no interest whatsoever.
On Saturday we were holding an event for supporters of our United Left; this was not an open meeting.
I was on the steering group in my Region that set-up the London and Eastern UL. One of the biggest complaints of the National AUG was how their Preston meetings were conducted. Our AUG Comrades from the London and the Eastern Region told us horror stories of these meetings in Preston which were ramped-up with non-members who were bussed-in locally.
Our steering group, and eventually, the NCC agreed that such things would not be allowed to happen with the UL; and so, we put in place measures to eliminate this kind of corruption. Ironically, the first time we attempt to apply this safeguard we’re criticised for excluding people.
Come on people get real! I was involved with registering my Region on Saturday. The Region Supporters database is some 470 strong. We had a cut-off date of 18th July. For the past two weeks I’ve been receiving emails from supporters asking me to include this Comrade or that Comrade onto the database; all of whom have developed a burning desire to attend this one meeting.
One guy tells me he’s been a member of the union since 1974. What’s he been doing for 35-years? Mulling it over in his mind? Is he of an indecisive frame of mind? Personally, I don’t think he was really trying that hard.
As for the 100 full-time officials present on Saturday; who but some deluded nutter would give such rubbish the time of day. Everyones Favourite Comrade, even your propaganda deserves a scintilla of credence. Please, don’t take us for fools.
Comment by Irenic — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Support lenny as he will breach the divide until the new union is established. He is progressive.
Comment by john wiseman — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
John Wiseman! Aren’t you the guy who told us Laurence Faircloth was “progressive” too?
And that he was heading for victory.
Whatever happened to him John?
Seriously, the left needs to get Hicks and Williams together and work out a way that they can unite.
United, they can defeat McCluskey and the other right-wing candidates.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Anon: “Seriously, the left needs to get Hicks and Williams together and work out a way that they can unite.
United, they can defeat McCluskey and the other right-wing candidates.”
I’ve alreasdy told you that the Socialist Party would be mad to team uop with Hicks, after yesterday’s performance.
And (as someone who didn’t vote for McClusky) I say it’s a slander to call him “right wing”. You’ve lost your bearings, “Anon” if you seriously think there’s no difference between McCluskey and Bayliss.
Btw: no Hicks supporter, or any other objector to the presence of full-timers yesterday, has yet taken up my challenge to explain the role of full-timer (now sacked) Des Hemskirk in St. Jerry’s campaign. Put up or shut up!
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
‘Jerry Hicks is a narcissistic egotistical loner.’ I am going on his last campaign and the fact I support his politics, you seem to be coining insults but you cannot construct an argument.
He will run and most of the left will unite behind him, last election the scare was that he would let the right win, this time his opponents are looking for a new way of scaring support away from a strong grassroots socialist candidate…
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 September, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Well said Derek, it’s got to be Hicks/Williams or Williams/Hicks.
The prospect of a serious left, rank and file challenge has clearly got Labourites like Denham rattled already.
Odd tho’ that Denham - whoever he is? - also seems to want to speak for the Socialist Party too?
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Once the actual election campaign itself starts, none of the voters - the actual members remember them? - are going to give a stuff who did or didn’t “win” at a stitched-up caucus meeting of the “united left.”
Hicks knows this and hopefully Williams realises it too.
These caucus groups are a complete irrelevance as we saw in the Amicus GS poll, where AUG totally discredited itself and made itself a laughing stock.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
“I am going on his last campaign and the fact I support his politics, you seem to be coining insults but you cannot construct an argument.”
How could I construct an argument around Hicks’ politics when he denied me the right to hear them. If my views are construed as insults it’s because I’m going on his performance on Saturday. Hicks has left himself open and exposed to insults. We are each of us judged on our actions. Hicks’ actions in Manchester were not those of somebody fit to run my union.
“He will run and most of the left will unite behind him, last election the scare was that he would let the right win, this time his opponents are looking for a new way of scaring support away from a strong grassroots socialist candidate…”
Yes, he will run. He’ll run, not by popular acclaim from the vast majority of the Left; but, because Hicks is hungry for office at any cost. I’m extremely wary of anyone who not only refuses to accept a discipline, but also spits in the face of collective decisions.
In the last election Hicks was running against an almost universally despised Simpson. McCluskey, whatever some elements in the Left claim, is a trade unionist of the Left tradition; he is largely respected by much of Unite; and so, will not be carrying the baggage Simpson carried that allowed Hicks to win second place.
Derek, I don’t know on what you base Hicks’ ability to unite the Left on. From his behaviour on Saturday I don’t see Hicks as a unifying figure; I see him as a destructive force who could only manage to muster around 25 people to his cause.
How exactly do you see Hicks unifying the rest of the United Left; and then, the population of Unite the Union.
Comment by Irenic — 6 September, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
Report here confirming Richard’s account
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2819
Comment by bill j — 6 September, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
Thanks for the link Bill. If this is indeed what happened then it seems that sadly, the old Ken Jackson-style gerrymandering is alive and well in the union’s north-west region.
However, if the respective positions of the SP and SWP as stated in the piece - that they have not endorsed McCluskey - are correct, then perhaps there are some grounds for optimism that they, along with Hicks and his supporters, may yet mount a genuine unified left challenge to McCluskey and the union’s pro-Labour, “don’t rock the boat” establishment.
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
Either the broad left is a democratic centralist organisation with a rigid membership, subs and internal discipline (like a trade union, the Labour Party, or indeed SPEW or the SWP), or it is an open organisation welcoming anyone who views themselves as on the left. What we have instead is some halfway house - a broad organisation, but with regional coordinators seemingly arbitrarily excluding people whom both Jerry Hicks and Rob Williams could vouch for. One wonders whether they would have been let in had Mclusky vouched for them…) This is a recipe for an undemocratic farce.
As for the United Left’s candidate, rank-and-file members have had their fill of full-time officers talking left whilst propping up the union and Labour establishment. (Derek Simpson, anyone?) A genuine rank-and-file candidate is needed who can challenge the union bureaucracy and turn Unite into a fighting union.
Whilst in my view Rob Williams and his supporters made a mistake in remaining in the meeting (and thus giving it some credibility), what matters most now is that all honest trade-unionists, including Rob and SPEW, have a frank and open discussion with Jerry and his supporters on how to organise a genuine left movement in the union and challenge for its leadership.
Comment by Luke Wilson — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
56. This meeting was a million miles from the Ken Jackson style gerrymandering you allude to. Other UL supporters here have made it very clear that the meeting was conducted in a fair and balanced way. Hicks could have given himself a lot of credibility if he had just shut up and entered into the agenda of the meeting. He didnt and he let everyone including the small amount of people he brought with him down.
What surprised me is the amount of people that came with him. If 30 is all he could muster then he indeed is going to have a problem improving on his 39′500 votes he got against Simpson. This is not Amicus anymore. He has very little support in the old TGWU section and what little he had probably dwindled to nothing by his grand standing on Saturday.
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
Meanwhile back in the real world
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6823346.ece
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
It all sounds remarkably similar to the discussions over the Amicus GS election a few months ago doesn’t it?
The anti-Hicks brigade insisting their caucus meeting was fair and above board and contemptuously rejecting all criticism.
Other similarities are that once again it seems to be the north-west region at the centre of it, the anti-Hicks brigade insisting he’s got no chance and that he’ll “split the vote and let in the right”
And Hicks once again clearly focussing on the wider membership, the rank and file, rather than pandering to the “left” bureaucracy.
We’ll see who has the support when the campaign gets going won’t we?
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
‘And Hicks once again clearly focussing on the wider membership, the rank and file, rather than pandering to the “left” bureaucracy.’
Hicks didnt pander to anyone because he fucked off out of the meeting twice.
yes we will see………
Comment by Unite Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
Jerry will run and I am sure that a very wide variety of left currents will back him, ecosocialists are enthusiastic about him but we are not alone.
Seems a lot of mud is being thrown at him, be nice to see some positive reasons why other candidates feel they should get the support of socialists including green socialists!
Comment by Derek Wall — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
billj: I have replied to the nonsense you linked to, from “Permanent Revolution”, on their website.
And I have still to see a reply to my challenge to those Hicks supporters complaining about the involvement of full-timers, to explain the role of Des Heemskirk…
And, “anon”: my objection to Hicks isn’t that he’ll “split the vote.” That objection could have been made about Williams, who I voted for. NO: my objection to Hicks is that he’s an irresponsible poseur with no sense of elementary democratic norms, and unfit to lead a union.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
Derek Wall:
(It’d) “be nice to see some positive reasons why other candidates feel they should get the support of socialists including green socialists!”
Well, Derek, one reason is that a democratic, representative meeting of the main left grouping within the union voted to support someone else…Len McCluskey. I’m sure Len would be happy to answer any questions you may have on policy issues. Seriously! Why not contact him for an interview? I’m sure he’d be willing.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
How do you find out about the United Left?
I’m a socialist and I’m a member of Unite. If I don’t vote for Len McCluskey (I may well do so), have I broken some discipline?
I don’t understand how this meeting was democratic and representative. Representative of who apart from the people who attended? I just don’t feel that unions work like this.
The kind of discussion above is profoundly de-motivating, and I have to say that I have noted that there have been contributors on both sides whose politics and methods I profoundly mistrust.
Comment by Armchair — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
64. http://www.unitedleft.org/
‘If I don’t vote for Len McCluskey (I may well do so), have I broken some discipline? ‘
As a unite member you can vote for who you like. As a United Left supporter I hope the discipline of the United Left would be respected.
Comment by United Left — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Armchair: there is no “discipline” in the sense you mean, with regard to the United Left. I think that’s generally a good thing. You can vote for who the hell you like (except the thug Bayliss) and still be welcome in the Unied Left.
The UL organises at a regional level, so I don’t know who you should contact, but if you want to contact me offline, or via “Shiraz Sociaolist” I’ll let you know.
Tyhe meeting, by the way, didn’t claim to epresent *anyone* except United Left supporers. Which is precisely why I’ve been arguing that it had a perfect right to decide who was, and who wasn’t entitled to attend.
We can’t stop Hicks from standing. We *can* say that he doesn’t have the support of the majority left grouping within the union.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
What we can say if we’re being honest is that McCluskey has the support of 170 members of the two-million strong Unite union.
And Hicks defeated the two right-wing candidates and finished a strong second in the national election of all members of Unite’s Amicus section.
(And I’m sure he’ll be mightily relieved that Jim Denham is not going to stop him standing)
Comment by Anonymous — 6 September, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
Anon on Hicks: “(And I’m sure he’ll be mightily relieved that Jim Denham is not going to stop him standing).”
Yeah, bold “Anon”: your heavy sarcasm is pretty witless. When did I ever suggest that I wanted to stop St. Jerry from standing?
All I’ve ever said on this subject can be boiled down to the proposition hat the United Left has tyhe right to decide who attends and votes at its meetings, and to choose it’s own candidate. Which in this case happens not to be St Jerry, despite the idea tha sme comrades seem to have, that he has a divine right to our support.
St. Jerry will stand against McCluskey. Us in the serious left will back McClusky, for all his faults. Bayliss may well profit by the split in the left vote. That would be OK if the “splitter” was a principled candidate. But *not* the charlatan Hicks!
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
67. No Anon. He has been endorsed by 170 votes at a United Left hustings meeting.
Jerry turned up with about 30 supporters. Wow.
Comment by United left — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
Jim Denham- I’m in Region 6.
Comment by Armchair — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Denhsm: that’s settled then. various peoplr will stand, a grouping backs one and not others, and the members will decide under the restricted democracy that applies. So what political basis are the candidates running on?
Comment by Nas — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Armchair: you’ll be pleased to know that Region 6 is traditionally the most left-wing region in the union (certainly, as far as the old T&G goes). I think your local UL organiser is John Sheridan, but I don’t have his contact details immediately to hand. Send an email to:
Secretary@UnitedLeft.org
If that doesn’t work (but it should), get back to me on
jimcftu@yahoo.com
Nas: if you were at the Manchester meeting you’d have heard both McClusky and Williams (but, sadly, not Hicks) speaking on their respective politics - and answering questions. If you weren’t there, then you’ll just have to wait for the manifestos to come out and/or look out for local meetings.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
I was at the said meeting, was aware of the agenda & the rules pertaining. All well in adavance of the event. It was quite clear to me what was required by all who attended & the prospective nomineees. I went to hear the views of all three candidates, but because of the walkout, I was not able to hear what Gerry Hicks latest viewpoints were.
I am very sorry for those who decided to walkout, they have lost the opportunity to offer the members of Unite a credible alternative.
For me Gerry, you blew it.
regardss
comrades.
Comment by Barrie D. Eckford — 6 September, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
Denham: I wasn’t there. I’m not in your union. You’re commenting on this blog. So am I. What bases were the three left candidates standing on? Enlighten me.
Comment by Nas — 6 September, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
I’ve just noticed this:
“Once the actual election campaign itself starts, none of the voters - the actual members remember them? - are going to give a stuff who did or didn’t “win” at a stitched-up caucus meeting of the “united left.”
Hicks knows this and hopefully Williams realises it too.”
Im think that about sums up the true attitude of the Hicks “left”: their beef isn’t *really* with the way the UL meeting was conducted: hey just *know* their man has a divine right to run and to win. Well, we’ll just have to wait and see. But those of us who care about rank and file democracy will do all we can to stop this arrogant poseur.
Btw: the Hicksites seem to have gone all quiet about the alleged “100″ full-timers at the Manchester meeting, since I raised the question of Des Heemskirk. Please give me an answer, comrades.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
Nas: “Denham: I wasn’t there. I’m not in your union. You’re commenting on this blog. So am I. What bases were the three left candidates standing on? Enlighten me.”
Nas: a union election is not like a general election. The candidates are under no obligation to put their platforms before the general public: only the members of their union. Williams and McClusky did that on Saturday. Hicks didn’t.
With all due respect, you’re going to have to find out for yourself.
Comment by Jim Denham — 6 September, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
But you’re here, jim, arguing for a vote for McCluskey. Why? What is he saying that should lead to people voting for him? You want him to lead your union. Why? I don’t have a vote, but I do have a legitimate interest in who leads a major union in Britain.
Comment by Nas — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:09 am
Can anyone tell me..
what’s the point of Jim Denham ?
Comment by JFK — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:27 am
OK, Nas: MccLusky says that he will fight to make Labour responsive to union and working class demands.
He says that the union shouild support workers in sreuggle aginst plant closures, and - if necessary - demand nationalisation.
He says that ethnic minorities, women and gays should be made welcome in the union and encouraged to stand for leadership positions.
He says the union should develop its intersnational role, allying with other unions globally and supportimng workers against repressive regimes. He’s anti-war and pro-Cuba (more so than me as it happens).
He wants a green economy and support for renewable energy.
He said all this on Saturday. Whether you believe him is quite another matter. But then as you say, you’re not a member of Unite. So your interest is welcome and legitimate. But those of us who *are* members will be the ones who decide whether to support him or not.
Comment by Jim Denham — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:45 am
JFK:”Can anyone tell me..
what’s the point of Jim Denham ?”
Thought, “JFK”. Something that you’re presumably incapable of.
Comment by Jim Denham — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:47 am
If Region 6 of the T&GWU was the most left-wing region of the union then God help us! If the United Left is the ‘organised Left in the Union’ then doubly so! Apart from me no one has ever heard of the United Left in my branch and certainly have no idea where and when it meets, and what it might do other than promote this of that Left talking bureaucrat in various internal elections. Does it do anything else I ask? If it does then I can’t say I’m aware of it! I can’t say I remember seeing anything put out by it under its own name on the Visteon, LOR and Vestas disputes, and certainly haven’t seen anyone from this so-called United Left at any of the protests at the Vestas HQ in Warrington recently.
As far as I can see those who voted for McCluskey consist primarily of a clique of self-serving full-time fake-left union bureaucrats, Stalinist old timers, fellow travellers and their ageing entourages, most of whom don’t really give jack shit about us ordinary members, and who are becoming an increasing obstacle to the development of UNITE as a fighting democratic union.
The key question is the link with Labour and the subordination of the needs of UNITE members to the interests of Labour’s front bench and it continuing pro-capitalist neo-liberal socio-economic agenda. This issue should define the left-right divide in the Union not claims concerning how left-wing an individual candidate is. After all anyone can claim to be anything but it doesn’t mean that is necessarily true, and especially when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that should McCluskey get elected the result would be anything other than business as usual in more or less the Woodley-Simpson mould.
Will McCluskey fight to break the link with Labour, will he fight for the repeal of the anti-trades union laws? On the contrary it’s almost a certainty he’ll do exactly the opposite, so why would anyone worth their salt on the ‘Left’ of the union want to vote for him even if he were deemed the ‘official’ Left candidate as a result of Saturdays ‘hustings’ in Manchester?
Strikes me we need a new Left grouping in the Union that stands clearly on the basis of breaking the link with Labour, fighting to repeal the anti-trades union laws and which is prepared to lead a fight back against the employers on behalf of ordinary rank and file members.
Comment by Steve H — 7 September, 2009 @ 1:58 am
81. Steve H . You are completely detached from reality.
You represent a typical example of why the left is not taken serious by most of the working class and trade union members.
You carry on. Youre doing a brilliant job.
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 6:26 am
Jerry Hicks statement on Vestas http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2009/07/jerry-hicks-statement-in-support-of.html
Great stuff, union members in the Green Party will I am sure continue to back him, a great candidate taking environmental issues and workers struggle seriously.
Comment by Derek Wall — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:33 am
I must say that the kinds of venomous language being used about Jerry Hicks in this thread do no one any credit. Hicks is going to continue to be important to the labour movement and, one hopes, a viable member of the awkward squad.
As someone who has never even been able to join a union, never mind vote in one, I have a couple of questions. Denham, maintaining that McCluskey’s election was perfectly valid and above-board, says this on Permanent Revolution:
“Each regional Co-ordinator must use their discretion on differentiating between “new”, “recent” etc. but if there is any doubt the Chair and Secretary suggest that supporters should have been known and accepted as United Left supporters by 18th July when the National Co-ordinating Committee met tp decide arrangements for the Hustings Meeting.”
Can anyone enlighten me? Does this not give organisers considerable leeway for excluding people they don’t want there? Are there not membership lists, and would these not be a better criteria for admission than a co-ordinator’s discretion, on such nuanced distinctions between “new” and “recent” members? And if it is true that people were told in advance not to bother turning up, while others were barred on the grounds that their face was unfamiliar, is this an appropriate use of “discretion”?
Second question. Judging from this thread, and the linked information, the main differences between McCluskey and his two opponents are that: McCluskey favours retaining the link with New Labour, and the other two do not; McCluskey comes from the union bureaucracy and has similar politics to Woodley, whereas his opponents are rank and file socialist militants. Is that roughly the case? And if so, why was it not possible to have *one* rank and file candidate opposing McCluskey rather than two? I know nothing of Rob Williams, but I do know a little about Hicks’ record and his previous performance - was Hicks not the natural candidate?
Comment by lenin — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:25 am
#84
“favours retaining the link with New Labour, and the other two do not; McCluskey comes from the union bureaucracy and has similar politics to Woodley, whereas his opponents are rank and file socialist militants. Is that roughly the case? ”
Nearly.
With regard to the labour party, as I understand it Jerry does not advocate breaking the link with the labour party - what he does advocate is greater political independence from the union, and backing politicians who support UNITE policies.
IMO, the socialist party’s position of pushing disaffiliation as a formal demand creates a distraction from the real issues.
Comment by Andy Newman — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Lenin- just out of interest (and this is a genuine question)- why have you never been able to be a member of a trade union?
Comment by Armchair — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:56 am
‘I must say that the kinds of venomous language being used about Jerry Hicks in this thread do no one any credit. Hicks is going to continue to be important to the labour movement and, one hopes, a viable member of the awkward squad.’ reminds me of the Green Party Executive contest over the weekend, where the excellent Tracy Dighton-Brown was attacked in similar terms….her opponents eventually withdrew from the contest and she won easily.
Both Tracy and Jerry have done their bit for Vestas, by the way!
Comment by Derek Wall — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Steve H- whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument about the link with Labour the idea that this issue is the defining one for whether someone is on the left or right is absolute nonesense. Are you saying that unions should not support Labour MPs who support their demands? I am in favour of disafiliation generally because generally New Labour does not act in the interests of union members.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater!
Your contribution appears completely at odds with your project of promoting the People’s Charter, and closer to something I would have expected to read in The Next Step in the ’80s.
Where does your suggestion that McCluskey won’t fight for repeal of the anti-Union laws come from? You lump this question in with that of disafilliation as if they were essentially the same issue, as if there is an automatic contradiction between wanting to mmaintain the union-Labour Party link and repeal, which there clearly is not.
Personally, I haven’t decided who to vote for, but your contributions in support of Hicks have not helped make him the attractive option, just as Jim Denham’s cahracteristic OTT venom has failed to endear McCluskey to me either.
All I can say is that the more things change, the more they remain the same.
Comment by Armchair — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:58 am
This article appeared last week http://renelavanchy.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/the-fight-for-unite-the-union-is-on/
Don’t know if it’s accurate.
Comment by GMB observer — 7 September, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Whilst the election of a General Secretary is important there is a much more important question facing members of UNITE - that is how to organise a struggle for the democratisation of the union. As it stands at the moment you have a bizarre situation in the ex-Amicus wing where correspondence from branches is sent out by head office, giving them the ability to veto the content. At the same time branch secretaries are denied the right to have the details of their members and workplace reps. How can you build a branch under such conditions?
This is centralisation gone mad, and it needs to be challenged.
A question in relation to the United left is, is it’s purpose to get left leaders (real or imagined) elected, or is its job to mobilise the members to democratise the union from top to bottom? There has been much experience of Broad Lefts where they have been essentially electoral machines to win positions in the apparatus. But without membership control there can be no or inadequate control of the leadership and elected bodies.
Comment by Anonymous — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:16 pm
Sorry, 93 should have read Martin Wicks, not Anonimous.
Comment by Martin Wicks — 7 September, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
Saturday’s events illustrate the problem before the trade union movement. The old strategies of the ‘New Realism’ and ‘New Labour’ years have failed and the movement is shrinking in quantitative and qualitative terms (less members and weaker organization). Yet the whole gearing and political direction of the Broad Lefts is towards replenishing the ‘leadership’ of the unions from within the layer of officers, such as McClusky, without consideration of their policies or politics.
So these officers come from nowhere with no reputation or fighting credentials among union members who are expected to swallow the recommendation of a Broad Left (that has proved itself worthy of leadership on so many occasions by appearing at elections to call for a vote, only to find its candidate ignores the left and union members whenever possible!).
The Broad Left strategy is about getting left officers elected not building the union or rank and file solidarity. The members get sick of following this advice when the left officers prove as right wing as their predecessors (and usually disavow or split the Broad Left in the process). This strategy explicitly acts to prevent rank and file candidates who are not considered reasonable or realistic because they have not sat in an office failing to support action for years.
This is why Denham and co cannot argue policy or action but only childish name calling. The politics are vacuous and the strategy meaningless. The members feel this way which is why candidates like Hicks get such a hearing, because he represents real policies, real opposition to the government and real solidarity. Most union members believe that is fundamentally what their union should be about.
The Times Online carries an interesting piece today which suggests some of the real stakes in the forthcoming election. ‘The anti-Establishment mood is building’ says one unnamed officer, which should be the tag line of Hicks’s campaign. How sad that the United Left sees itself as part of the Establishment in this context.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 7 September, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I think the issue is pretty straight forward: a United Left meeting was convened, before the meeting strict rules of attendance were set in place … by supporters of McCloskey, basically you had to be “recognised” by stewards … appointed by McCloskey or had someone to vouch for you
a number of people who had (most of them) come to support Hicks were excluded … by supporters of McCloskey. these people were all left wingers (no one has claimed they were right wingers so far), members of the union and many of them shop stewards and people involved in struggles (including some of the Visteon occupiers), why not allow them in as part of the left? even if they had not attended any meetings of the left before? it seems that the only real reason was … that they were not there to vote for McCloskey
Jerry Hicks asked for those people to be allowed in and when refused by the chair, he walked out with a few other people
then a vote took place in the meeting to allow those excluded back in. the vote was won narrowly (107 to 104)
the excluded and those who had walked out went back in. but then those who had lost the vote started to shout that they would not be able to vote or speak. the chair made a ruling to that effect. then Hicks said this was a farce (why allow people to attend a meeting if the can’t vote or speak!!!) and led a second walk out
nobody challenged the chair’s ruling (not the SP nor the SWP supporters in the room)
McCloskey was then elected.
Hicks has supported every group of workers in struggle in the union, whether their dispute was legal and official or not. McCloskey was told not to go to Vestas as this was an unofficial dispute and he did not go. Hicks was there
the London “United Left” meeting voted (narrowly) not to allow a victimised member of the union from the cleaners campaign to speak at their meeting
Comment by willis — 7 September, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
I think the issue is pretty straight forward: a United Left meeting was convened, before the meeting strict rules of attendance were set in place … by supporters of McCloskey, basically you had to be “recognised” by stewards … appointed by McCloskey or had someone to vouch for you
No, the rules were set at a previous meeting by supporters of…well, everyone.
a number of people who had (most of them) come to support Hicks were excluded … by supporters of McCloskey
Because they were not allowed to enter according to the rules set by the previous open meeting. And at least one McCluskey supporter was refused entry for the same reason.
why not allow them in as part of the left? even if they had not attended any meetings of the left before? it seems that the only real reason was … that they were not there to vote for McCloskey
No, because they were not allowed to attend according to the rules agreed and circulated before the meeting.
Funny how some people like rules when it suits them, but like ignoring them when that suits them.
Comment by smells like — 7 September, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
funny how a democratic vote was taken to allow people in the meeting and then the chair ruled they couldn’t vote or speak …
Comment by willis — 7 September, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
Because they weren’t accredited delegates in accordance with the agreed UL rules.
Again: there were rules and procedures agreed openly and democratically. By all means whinge about how useless Broad Lefts are, but if you want to seek their endorsement you have to play by their agreed rules.
Comment by smells like — 7 September, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
c’mon, many people were given no reason for not being allowed in other than “I don’t know you” … hardly democratic
Comment by willis — 7 September, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
If they didn’t have delegate credentials then it’s perfectly democratic to exclude people.
The rules were brought in precisely to prevent the packing of meetings as happened in the AUG.
Comment by smells like — 7 September, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
I was present on Saturday and would like to comment on the events leading up to the meeting and the meeting itself. Certainly there had been `rumours` circulating far and wide that there would be a strict admissions policy and I know of specific individuals who were advised not to turn up because they wouldn`t be allowed to attend. I have attended various meetings of the broad left over the years and indeed attended the inaugural meeting of the current UL meeting held in Birmingham a few months ago. I think I have always signed in but until this time I was not aware that this probably did not constitute membership. In the good/bad old days the TASS broad left used to be based on an invitation. The only point I am making is that it is not apparent how someone qualifies to be a member. Naively until this point I assumed I was on the `left` if for no other reason than I have been for over forty years including 26 years as a full time official of ASTMS/MSF on the left much to the chagrin of at least three general secretaries, one of whom was only stopped from sacking me by the promise of seven coachloads of members from Coventry attending the next NEC meeting.
Before the meeting commenced I was not aware of any delgates being refused credentials? Howeveer at 12.30. it was announced that the doors were to be closed and no further `delegates` would be allowed in. There was some confusion about this and a number of people raised their hands presumably to object. I saw Jerry Hicks talking to the chairman and the other two candidates, presumably arguing that late delegates be allowed in, but when the chairman ruled otherwise Jerry led a walk out which I joined. Anyone who was there is entitled to express their view as to the wisdom or otherwise of this action, but frankly as events turned out any views are redundant because after about twenty minutes we were informed that a vote had been taken with a majority of one to allow latecomers to take part.
Upon the return someone shouted out that only those with credentials be allowed to vote. As no credentials had been issued after 12.30. it made no sense and at that stage the chairman refused to take any further contributions despite several hands going up against a background of shouting mainly from the part of the hall where the largest delegation, the North West were sitting. In these circumstances the meeting had gone from incompetence to farce and I left the room with others shedding any doubts I may have had concerning the first walk out.
I have like I am sure many others present attended annual conferences, national meetings etc. and the only time the doors have been `closed` has been during a vote. I simply cannot understand why the chairman did not allow for some rational debate and if necessary a further vote. I have always thought that partcipation was a necessary ingredient to democracy.
Turning to the issue of a general secretary, it has been my experience that with some notable, but few exceptions, so called left general secretaries have acted just as badly as right wingers in the way they have operated. The simple truth is that a GS has the power to intimidate and even secure the dismissal of f.t.o`s.particularly those who do not agree with his(very occasionally her)views. I can offer lots of examples including my own, but the examples of Lyons, Jackson and Simpson provide several examples. What is needed is control by the membership and a good start would be the election of officials. There are many other reforms required, but this would be a start.
One of the reasons that many f.t.o`s are not respected does not come down to right or left, but to integrity and courage. One of the reasons that members do not take action is not that they are apathetic, but rather that they have no confidence in their union leaders. The anti trade union laws have effectively neutered the power of members to take action to resist the employer`s offensive. The only way is to break the law as many trade unionists have had to do in the past and a good way to start is for the unions, ours in particular, to encourage this not in rhetoric but by campaigning for solidarity stike action. Both Rob Williams and Jerry Hicks have put their money where their mouth is by leading unofficial stike action. In Jerry`s case, despite his campaigning vigourously for Simpson`s original election, Simpson never came anywhere near the dispute which lasted around five weeks.
I have absolutely no confidence that the UT candidate will do this and if by some chance he is elected and proves me wrong I will happily publically crawl and kiss his shoes, souls and uppers!!
In the meantime, you will be delighted to know that I will never attend a UT meeting as presently constituted again.
Comment by John Fisher — 7 September, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
John,
Good to see you’re still fighting the good fight! All the best comrade.
Comment by Doug — 7 September, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Here are a couple of points in response to Massage 102. After Hicks was allowed in for the second time the Chair ruled that the late comers, the so called excluded, could take part in all areas of the hustings apart from the ballot.
How could the Chair have policed a ruling that debarred the latecomers from taking part in the debate? Hicks’ choreographed charades ate into a three-hour meeting. It was already 12.50 when the Chair made the latecomers announcement. To satisfy the indiscipline of the latecomers would have eaten up more time.
John Fisher, your twisted logic would see us voting every time the likes of Hicks wanted to pull a stunt. At that rate we’d have UL meetings in permanent session.
Come on exercise you brains before you begin tap-tap-tapping your propaganda. The fact you’ve got access to the Internet is not a licence to act like a moron.
Comment by Irenic — 7 September, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
None of Hicks supporters have claimed that even with barred late-comers voting, he’d have won the vote. If his supporters were a smallish minority, perhaps a walk-out was preferable to not turning up or getting heavily defeated on a vote. It is a shame the chair and his associates were hamfisted enough to unintentionally give ammo for the walk out. I’d support Hicks or Williams - but games (if that is what they were - it’d be interesting to hear from Hicks whether he’d have abided by the vote if he had believed the meeting fair) like these do nobody credit.
Comment by Jota — 7 September, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
FYI:
There has been some speculation about a Hicks/Williams ticket, Rob Williams running himself or the Socialist Party backing Lenny McClusky.
At this stage the Socialist Party and the Unite caucus have not made any decision regarding our stance in the General Secretary’s election.
Comment by Neil — 7 September, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Rather to my surprise Lenny “Seymour” Linen (~87) makes a fair point:
“Does this not give organisers considerable leeway for excluding people they don’t want there? Are there not membership lists, and would these not be a better criteria for admission than a co-ordinator’s discretion, on such nuanced distinctions between “new” and “recent” members? And if it is true that people were told in advance not to bother turning up, while others were barred on the grounds that their face was unfamiliar, is this an appropriate use of “discretion”?”
Yes, Lenny, it “does” (did) give the (regional) organisers considerable leeway/discretion. However,
1/ There *is* no national membership list and to have used the old membership lists of the two old organisations would have meant using very out-of-date lists and would have meant *more*, not *fewer* exclusions - especially of new comrades.
2/ To the best of my knowledge *no-one* who arrived before the doors were closed at 12.30 was ecluded (even John Fisher’s account above seems to confirm this): the only people to be excluded were those who arrived after the doors had closed and the meeting had started - which is exactly what the organisers had stated in advance would happen.
3/ So where’s the stitch-up? If you accept that the United Left has the right to control who attends its meetings and who is - and isn’t - a supporter then I can’t see that the organisers did anything wrong. And if *don’t* think they have that right, Lenny, then explain why your comrades in the SWP *didn’t* walk out with Hicks?
Finally, it is probably true that by giving Hicks the excuse he was looking for to walk, the organisers made a purely tactical error and actually played into his hands. But that’s quite a different matter to the “stitch-up” that is being alleged in some quarters (including on this blog). I reapeat: either the UL has the right to define its own membership or it doesn’t. If you agree that it does have that right, then *what* did the organisers do wrong?
Comment by Jim Denham — 7 September, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
So why wait until Saturday to define the membership? Most organizations start with this principle as item one in a constitution.
Why did the United Left wait until this contentious meeting to decide to define its membership?
Also, why did all those who voted for the restrictions in the meeting also vote for Len McClusky?
How many McClusky supporters were not allowed in?
How many McClusky supporters were rung beforehand and told not to bother attending as they would not be allowed in?
How many complaints have been received by the United Left Secretary about this meeting since Saturday?
Why are you so personally abusive about Jerry Hicks?
Why have you attacked Hicks yet said nothing about the policies that will be pursued to strengthen UNITE in the face of hostile government and employers?
The answers to which reflect the other problem with Broad Lefts - when a rank and file candidate dares to challenge their dominance and claim to speak for the ‘left’, they are subjected to smears and witch hunts.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 7 September, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
To 87
Lenny….
‘“Each regional Co-ordinator must use their discretion on differentiating between “new”, “recent” etc. but if there is any doubt the Chair and Secretary suggest that supporters should have been known and accepted as United Left supporters by 18th July when the National Co-ordinating Committee met tp decide arrangements for the Hustings Meeting.”
Can anyone enlighten me? Does this not give organisers considerable leeway for excluding people they don’t want there? Are there not membership lists, and would these not be a better criteria for admission than a co-ordinator’s discretion, on such nuanced distinctions between “new” and “recent” members? And if it is true that people were told in advance not to bother turning up, while others were barred on the grounds that their face was unfamiliar, is this an appropriate use of “discretion”?’
Ask Pete Gillard, your comrade in the SWP. He assisted in putting the rules together.
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Dirty Banana: *who*, exactly “were rung beforehand and told not to bother attending as they would not be allowed in?”
And I agree, btw, that the UL *should* have got its national membership organised before this meeting. But the fact is it didn’t. It’s a new grouping and still in the process of getting its act together. The arrangements for Saturday were not ideal, but the best possible under the circumstances. The only alternative would have been to have held a completelly open meeting with *no*m restricyiions beynd membership of Unite. Bayliss & Co would, of course, then have been free to attend, participate and vote. Maybe there was a case for that, but no-one on this blog has said that’s what they wanted.
United: good point about SWP’er Pete Gillard. I trust Lenny “Seymour” will be asking his comrade for an explanation of his role in all of this?
Comment by Jim Denham — 7 September, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Frankly Unite members should be evaluating potential leadership credentials in the context of the acute crisis that union is facing.
Unite is declining faster than any other union in the UK and possibly Europe. It has lost over 500 000 members in the short period since the merger. Boasts of 2 million are now scaled down to 1.5 million although the number of working mebers is significantly fewer.
Unite’s income last year from members was over £50 million (30%) less than UNISON (with a smaller membership?). Ex GPMU and Ex UNIFI members made redundant have struggled badly to access union support following the closure of branch offices and sub regional offices and the clear out of oficials.
This begs more serious questions of leadership candidates than political posturing and sloganising.
One thing Unite has not been short of in recent years is hubris - TW and DS have had that in abundance while overseeing this historically rapid decline. The prentious grand international union is smoke and mirrors.
Organising and industrial solutions as well as a progressive political stance are required to halt the process of de-unionisation and the demise of effective working class organisation in private companies
Comment by Union Democrat — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
“Message 109
Can anyone enlighten me? Does this not give organisers considerable leeway for excluding people they don’t want there? Are there not membership lists, and would these not be a better criteria for admission than a co-ordinator’s discretion, on such nuanced distinctions between “new” and “recent” members? And if it is true that people were told in advance not to bother turning up, while others were barred on the grounds that their face was unfamiliar, is this an appropriate use of “discretion”?’”
I’m not sure you really want enlightenment. No, you want the right to rant and scream ‘Betrayal!’ But, I’ll shine the torch of righteousness to allow you to tread the path to truth, anyway.
I’m the Coordinator from the London and Eastern Region. There are some 500-ish names on our Regional supporters’ database. I probably know, by sight, around 100; of which I can put a name to around 50 or 60; all of whom come from different political groups.
Would the author of Message 109 explain how I’d exclude people I didn’t want there?
The UL is not a membership organisation; but, we do have supporters’ lists; and, it was this very list I endeavoured to work from on Saturday. To say admission to the event was at the Coordinators’ whim is a lie.
As for ‘new’ and ‘recent’ members; the L&E UL voted that supporters who were on the database when the hustings date was confirmed, 18th July, would be eligible to attend; and, that any supporters who were listed after this date, or not listed at all, would not gain admission.
Five days before the hustings I received an email from a UL supporter in which he asked that a list of four people be included onto the UL supporters database. I replied, welcoming him and the four to our next L&E UL meeting; where they would be welcomed into our Left; but, as they fell outside the time limit, I advised him they were not eligible to attend the hustings.
Neither he nor the four Comrades turned up for the Regional meeting. How does that work? They can’t make it to a meeting a few miles distance; but, are able to attend one a couple of hundred miles away.
Should I have let them make that journey; spend £50 or £60 on a journey to Manchester to be told “Sorry, you can’t come in!”? On the one hand I’m damned for acting responsibly; while on the other I’m damned for applying a rule that had been democratically arrived at through a vote.
No wonder we’re known as the Loony Left; alliteration deservedly applied, if any of the responses on this site are to go by.
Comment by Irenic — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Irenic.
Im refering to message 87. I hope you are not picking on me. Im on your side!!:-)
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
“Im refering to message 87. I hope you are not picking on me. Im on your side!!:-)”
Whoops, I think I was picking on you Ul.
Spotted the quotation marks somewhat after the event. Will endeavour not to be too ‘previous’ in the future.
Comment by Irenic — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
thats ok but be careful. the Hicksites might start up a solidarity campaign.
It wouldnt do my lefty street cred any good whatsoever!!
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
It does seem daft to exclude a recent Unite left candidate like Hicks from a vote at a broad left meeting because he hadn’t followed some membership criteria.
How is a broad left in any union meant to grow unless we embrace members on the left? As for packing out meetings that can happen regardless of whether a broad left has membership lists or not.
I just can’t understand why Hicks was excluded from voting in a broad left meeting. How much more high profile do you have to be before you are accepted as a member of the broad left?
I do think that if the socialist left want to put forward a candidate them they have to work together so in that context I can understand the SP and SWP members not walking out but instead voting as they had agreed.
Comment by Ray — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
#109
Ian:
The United Left National Co-ordinating Committee agreed “that Regional delegations could agree to admit new supporters on the day if existing supporters were prepared to vouch for them.” (NCC Minutes).
This was intended to prevent incomplete supporters lists being a barrier to attending the meeting. Unfortunately, different regional co-ordinators interpreted the decision differently. I know I vouched for one comrade for one region without difficulty, but found the same process in my own region more challenging.
Comment by PW — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:29 pm
Ray- I may be mistaken but I think you need to pay attention- Jerry Hicks wasn’t excluded, he walked out in supporrt of people who were.
Comment by Armchair — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
116. And this was raised at the meeting as a point of order wasnt it???
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
“The United Left National Co-ordinating Committee agreed “that Regional delegations could agree to admit new supporters on the day if existing supporters were prepared to vouch for them.” (NCC Minutes).”
Good point! How the flip did Jerry Hicks not get a co-ordinator to vouch for him? It beggars belief.
Regardless of whether Jerry Hicks turned up late or didn’t follow protocol it doesn’t seem credible to exclude him and his supporters from voting. It just causes unnecessary antagonism If Jerry Hicks is behaving like a loose cannon then it won’t draw him much support anyway. His behaviour and the decision to exclude him from voting are two different issues. The one doesn’t excuse the other.
Comment by Ray — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Leaving aside the “it was a fair meeting/it was a stitch up” argument for a moment, today’s Morning Star advertises a TUC fringe meeting at which both United Left’s Len McCluskey and Workers Uniting Group-supported Les Bayliss are due to speak.
So, if any of you are up in Liverpool next week, this should be an interesting event.
I’ll be curious to find out how different these two AGSs are from one another.
As for the possibility of a rank&file challenge, this rather depends on whether Williams and Hicks can come to an agreement whereby one withdraws and supports the other.
Comment by Anonymous — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
‘As for the possibility of a rank&file challenge, this rather depends on whether Williams and Hicks can come to an agreement whereby one withdraws and supports the other.’
That will depend on the important point that Dave Nellist made when Hicksey walked out for the second time that he ‘lost all credibility’ with that action.
Anon, you are hanging on a thin and very slimey thread of hope.
Comment by United left — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
“Ray- I may be mistaken but I think you need to pay attention- Jerry Hicks wasn’t excluded, he walked out in supporrt of people who were.”
My apologies if that is the case. But I still think his supporters should’ve been allowed to vote. Why else would they support him if they are not on the left? If such a high profile left activist such as Hicks vouches for them then that should be good enough shouldn’t it?
It shouldn’t be the case that broad left members have to attend x number of meetings or be on a membership list before they can vote because some workers who support the left are not in a position to devote as much time to political activity as others but they may still want a say in how the left organises.
I accept that the left doesn’t want people attending who are intent on attacking the broad left but this doesn’t appear to be the case with Hicks supporters. Perhaps they would have handled it more constructively if they hadn’t been excluded.
Comment by Ray — 7 September, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
#118 It was raised.
Comment by PW — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Oh dear…
Comment by Irenic — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:23 pm
Thanks United Left, you seem a slimy sort yourself.
Why don’t you explain to us what the policy differences are between Bayliss and McCluskey?
Comment by Anonymous — 7 September, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
The main measure of credibility will come at the election. A lesser measure comes now. The imposition of bureaucratic exclusion mechanisms is a blow to the credibility of those who do so. That much ought to be clear from recent years.
Comment by Nas — 7 September, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Dim Jenham,
Answer the questions or stop bleating. Your abuse is no substitute for analysis or (God forbid) policy.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 7 September, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
Jim. In postings 33#, 47#, 52#, 65#, 78# you criticise my role in AUG as well as my support for Jerry Hicks in an attempt to counter the criticism of the 100 full time officers mentioned in 30#. I do not know how many full time officers were present but I did recognise several Officers, including one who gave a false witness statement for Simpson at the tribunal hearing which established that I had been unfairly dismissed by the union. He also campaigned for Simpson in the GS election earlier this year and was then temporarily suspended following the election. I defend my role in AUG. I helped to revive the AUG in the 1990’s to try to turn it into an open democratic campaigning Broad Left after it had been abandoned by the left Officer bureaucrats who had run it previously as a secret election machine. I helped build up the organisation and run the election campaign that successfully defeated Sir Ken Jackson in 2002. Myself, the Chair of AUG, Jimmy Warne, together with Cathie Willis, defended the election of officers rule passed at the 2005 rules conference, for which we were suspended and then sacked from our jobs in the union in a witch hunt conducted by the bureaucracy (for details see the website of your organisation) http://www.workersliberty.org/node/6053 Despite winning the tribunal I was refused reinstatement, with most members of the so-called TGWU and Amicus left on the Joint Executive voting to refuse re-instatement. Quite apart from this disgusting behaviour towards left comrades what message did this scandalous episode send to employers when arguing for reinstatement of sacked members who have been dismissed? I refused to kowtow to Simpson despite considerable pressure bought to bear after he was elected. Following the lessons of our dismissals I would therefore argue that any full time appointed officer serving under the current regime should be protected from retribution by being refused permission to vote in a left organisation as they are under undue pressure to vote the ‘right’ way, something we clearly witnessed on Saturday.
Comment by Des Heemskerk — 8 September, 2009 @ 1:43 am
Des, did you fall asleep on Saturday and awaken in cloud-cuckoo-land?
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 2:20 am
Des. there was no pressure on full time officers as far as I saw. The meeting after you and Jerry left got about its business without many problem and there certainly wasnt any duress placed on any individual. How you know this anyway is beyond me as you were only in the hall a few minutes. I was seated by the door and saw you leave.
Des there is no denying you were treated abyssmally by your former boss. I certainly cant comment on why the executive didnt chose reinstatement. But you yourself must agree that the reason the UL used the registration method before the meeting was stop anyone bussing in supporters to boost any candidate. You , Cathy and Jimmy were subject to those very same tactics when you were removed from your posts in the AUG, werent you?
Also, why hasnt Jerry participated in any UL meetings in the SW? He has been invited on numerous occasions in the past.
Comment by Barmy Army — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:54 am
#84: “I can’t say I remember seeing anything put out by it under its own name on the Visteon, LOR and Vestas disputes, and certainly haven’t seen anyone from this so-called United Left at any of the protests at the Vestas HQ in Warrington recently.”
At the last NW UL meeting there was a discussion about the Vestas dispute, I organised a collection at the meeting and (as the campaign requested) sent in photos of people at the meeting holding up “Save Vestas” posters. Some of us then went down and joined the protest outside the Vestas HQ.
There are many valid criticisms of the UL, and I certainly think it should do a lot more round disputes, campaigns etc, but let’s not slide into assuming the worst of each other without any facts.
Ian.
Comment by Ian Allinson — 8 September, 2009 @ 8:02 am
This meeting was a farce. I was undecided between Hicks and Williams at the beginning, but Hicks’ second stage-managed walk-out lost him a lot of the respect I had for him as a serious candidate. It is a shame Williams did not get elected. It seemed sections of the audience latched on to one or two things he said and then wouldn’t let them go. Len McLusky talks a good left. Time will tell, he could be a good GS. Sadly I think he could easily turn into another Simpson. The ironically named United Left missed a great opportunity to get a rank and file candidate elected. Rob Williams would have been excellent.
I saw full timers, apparently delegates from our region being waved through the entrance who no-one had seen at any meetings.
Comment by SWPer in Unite — 8 September, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
SWPer, the farce element from my Region was put in place by one of your SWP Comrades. Who then attempted to wind the situation up during the registration. Not content with losing the argument by a democratic ballot; the SWP in my Region use all kinds of ploy to undermine and subvert any democratically arrived-at decisions.
The Left in Unite will never be United as long as the SWP puts its interests above the interests of the collective UL; trade union interests over narrow party interests. Since the SWP is incapable of leaving its party politic propaganda outside the meeting room; there can never be true unity in our Left.
SWper, which Region are you from?
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
#134
Irenic:
I thought you argued not to have internal arguments within the UL broadcast on the Internet?
PW
Comment by PW — 8 September, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
PW, I did argue that case at the last Regional UL. However, had you been paying attention at that meeting you would have heard the “…internal arguments within the UL broadcast on the Internet” element was removed from the proposal; which simply asked for supporters not to name other supporters on the Internet, in papers etc.
I have stuck to this discipline.
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
#136
However individuals have been named in this discussion - not by you - but by comrades who have supported your position. Is this the best way to conduct a democratic debate?
On the conduct of the SWP, you attack an SWP comrade for arguing for the admittance to the meeting of a union activist who had been a supporter of AUG and had attended its meetings on the technical grounds he was not on a computer list. In line with the NCC decision - which you supported at the NCC meeting - the comrade was vouched for by a number of other AUG comrades (not SWP members). It took the intervention of the National Chair to allow the comrade into the meeting.
So what other crimes did the SWP commit during the meeting - not walking out? Voting for a candidate in the selection process? Ensuring the result of the meeting was placed on the public website? I can understand a number of contributors to this blog attacking SWP members for being supporters of the UL, as they have done in the past, but your position seems identical with theirs’! Do you really support the commitment made in the founding statement to a truely broad left without bans and proscriptions?
Comment by PW — 8 September, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
PW, now you’re just being silly.
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
#138 Irenic
Thank you for the reasoned response.
Comment by PW — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
Very silly.
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
I think you’re silly.
Oh no I’m not.
Oh yes you are.
Oh no I’m not.
Come on children…
He’s behind you
Oh no he isn’t
Oh yes he is
Etc etc
Comment by Armchair — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
141.
“I think you’re silly.
Oh no I’m not.
Oh yes you are.
Oh no I’m not.
Come on children…
He’s behind you
Oh no he isn’t
Oh yes he is
Etc etc”
Lol…
Fair point Armchair.
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Des:”In postings 33#, 47#, 52#, 65#, 78# you criticise my role in AUG as well as my support for Jerry Hicks in an attempt to counter the criticism of the 100 full time officers mentioned in 30#…”
des: I did *not* “criticise” your role in AUG. I merely pointed out that while a paid full-timer at Amicus, you were also active in the AUG - something that some comrades attacking the presence of full-timers at Saturday’s meeting seem to have forgotten, or are unaware of. That’s my only point about yourself.
I still cannot believe that there were “100″ full-timers(ie a third of the meeting) present.
Comment by Jim Denham — 8 September, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
There were 100 full timers at the hustings on Saturday; there were only 40.
Comment by Irenic — 8 September, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
so you wanted have Mark Serwotka at a PCS braod left because hes paid staff
How stupid
The truth is the SWP are just looking for reasons not to go along with the majority
New small impoved SWP just seems liked the post 1980s SWP to me
Comment by sean — 8 September, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Change the names and this story could have been at any time in the last 30 years of the English Left. That explains lots really if you think about it. Political ineptitude masquerading as ruthlessness. Factionalism at every turn. The sterile tactic of infiltration elavated to strategic objective.
Comment by Christy — 8 September, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
With all respect to Comrade Hicks and his supporter
would he have ever agreed to be bound by the vote of this or any similar broad left meeting
We can always organise another meeting/vote
but I fear he would not feel bound by democratic vote
He believes it his right to stand (as indeed it is)
Then why attend the Left meeting ?
whos sole purpose was to agree a candidate
Comment by sean — 9 September, 2009 @ 7:25 am
sean. Would Jerry be able to bring more than the 25/30 supporters he had?
Begs the question doesnt it. Personally I dont think he can.
Comment by Barmy Army — 9 September, 2009 @ 9:01 am
In response to 148.Sean
One or two factors to consider: Jerry Hicks secured 39,307 votes in the election for the Amicus GS despite the fact that it was stated that a vote for Jerry Hicks would be a vote for the right wing candidate Kevin Coyne. He also had very modest resources compared with the other candidates who were all full time officials After the results were known a number of members remarked to me and others that if they had thought that Jerry had a chance they would have voted for him. Therefore we can assume that at least this number would support him in the election for the next GS and based on his manifesto showed that they were voting for someone who reflected their views e.g. election of officials, taking the average wage of skilled workers, supporting `unofficial` action etc., only supporting the labour party insofar as they supported the union`s policies, and a strong position on environmental issues.
Unlike Simpson who the AUG ended up supporting and had a history of renuaging on the policies he had originally promised, including posing with two young models on the front of the `Daily Star` or `Daily Sport` with a small banner saying `British Jobs for British Workers. Jerry would not do this as he has both courage and integrity.
We know that in the past candidates have talked the talk, but have they walked the walk? Is there evidence that for instance McClusky has called for support for members who have taken unofficial action? Does he support the election of full time officials? Would he advocate the cessation of union funds where a Labour Government refused to abolish the anti-union laws together with all the other anti-working class policies they have enthusiastically pursued?
One thing is absolutely clear among the Unite members I come in contact with, they are completely dissatisfied with the current leadership and I am not talking about only those who are `on the left`, but those who day in day out try to keep the union together whether as branch officials and/or union representatives who battle each and every day against a hostile management. Only the other day some stewards were telling me that an f.t.o. who had only recently been given responsibility for their workplace, which has a proud history of struggle, told them that his job was to `mediate` and was surprised, when he asked what was the density of membership, to be told that it was 100%!
Believe you me, I was not overly impressed by the majority of f.t.o`s I worked with in the past, but compared with those I have met, or heard reports of, in recent years, my former colleagues seem like outright militants.
Unite needs a General Secretary who will initiate a new culture in the union as opposed to the present culture whereby f.t.o`s seem more concerned that they will keep their jobs rather than building and supporting the membership. I hope Jerry decides to stand with the support of at least 39.000 members not just because he will do what he says he will do, but because he showed that he was prepared to put his job on the line when it mattered.
Comment by John Fisher — 9 September, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
John F- a very eloquent argument in favour of Jerry Hicks, who I may vote for if he decides to stand, unless I decide to join the UL in which case I will abide by its dicipline.
Would he have gone ahead and stood and would you be supporting him had the UL meeting gone ahead without exclusions and he had lost the vote of the UL?
If the answer to either question is “yes” then this very divisive post is a bit of a waste of people’s time.
Comment by Armchair — 9 September, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Agreed, Hicks did extremely well against Simpson; and, he did this on a shoestring budget. Good for Hicks. However, Hicks secured over 39,000 in an election against a damaged Simpson.
It is safe to say Simpson is, and was at the time of the election, fairly universally disliked. Therefore, pretty much any contender declaring a Left interest would secure a decent lump of the vote.
Next year’s election will not be a rerun of that election. Len McCluskey isn’t Derek Simpson; Len McCluskey is associated with the Left; Len McCluskey is known and respected amongst a wide section of ex-T&G activists of all political stripes.
JF, you claim Hicks has both ‘courage and dignity’. These may well have been his defining qualities in the past. Sadly, neither of these characteristics was evident on Saturday.
Comment by Irenic — 9 September, 2009 @ 4:13 pm
jERRY Hicks what a t**t, he didnt even take his coat off. He will stand and maybe he could win. Whatever the left is the loser, Hicks and his mates are a small insignificant rump of what was the manufacturing arm within MSF. The discipline in the lft is lacking in these individuals. The Manchester meeting became difficult because of an illdisciplined grouping around Hicks.
If you cant turn up to a meeting on time then you are going to be late for the revolution, comrades.
I’ve seen meeting packing up close this was the worst organised case I’ve ever witnessed. If you are going to organise packing get better organised Hicks.
Comment by GERRY RAMSDEN — 9 September, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
If the likes of Gerry Ramsden represents the Left then it’s lost already. This whole discussion spells out why the Left is so weak and so impotent.Having read all these posts I can only say thank the lord I’m not in Unite. Unison is beginning to look quite pleasant by comparison.
Comment by in despair — 9 September, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
Armchair - the answer is certainly yes on both counts. There was discussion about whether to stand anyway but Hicks was certain that he would not stand if he lost the vote in a fairly convened meeting.
However, it was also obvious that the right and left wing officers were intent on packing the meeting and imposing a new definition of member to exclude Jerry’s supporters. Hence, it became clear that a bear pit was being created. The amazing ignorance of much of the comment that has followed (Gerry Ramsden offers a perfect illustration) demonstrates the anger of those who thought they had set a trap only to find the fox had noticed.
John F asks pertinent questions about McClusky’s policies and all we get in return is ‘Jerry is a t**t’. Another illustration of why these people do not deserve support.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 9 September, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Gerry Ramsden says Hicks is ex-MSF, but I thought Hicks was a former aero-engine fitter and so wouldn’t he be ex-AEU?
The MSF-craft section was made up of ex-Tass, i.e. Foremen, draughtsmen and metalworkers from the former NSMM and NUSMWCHDE, none of which apply to engine fitters.
Irenic says Simpson was “universally disliked” when the Amicus GS poll took place, so why did he win it?
Comment by Anonymous — 9 September, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
BRB- I asked -”Would he have gone ahead and stood…had the UL meeting gone ahead without exclusions and he had lost the vote of the UL?”
Part of your response- “Hicks was certain that he would not stand if he lost the vote in a fairly convened meeting”.
So doesn’t that mean the answer to my question was no and no. Otherwise I really don’t understand the point.
Gerry Ramsden- Hicks could win but this will be bad for the left - what about the members? He and his supporters are an insignificant rump - well he’s not likely to win then is he.
I find this discussion more and more mystifying.
Comment by Armchair — 10 September, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Sorry that should have been DRB (ie Dirty Red Bandana)
Comment by Armchair — 10 September, 2009 @ 10:37 am
Hicks can win and this will be good for the left!
Comment by Derek Wall — 10 September, 2009 @ 11:08 am
Socialist Worker carries similar story to Searle’s post:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=18969
Comment by Futurecast — 11 September, 2009 @ 11:38 am
“159.Socialist Worker carries similar story to Searle’s post:”
Now, there’s a surprise!
Comment by Irenic — 11 September, 2009 @ 11:51 am
It is the character of the UL that this affair highlights. Whether there were 40 (or less) or 100 or more FTO present none of them should be allowed to vote. It goes without saying that an FTO votes for his or her career in the first place. Those aspirants for positions in the structures of the unions make relationships with the FTOs to secure the assistance of the apparatus in getting elected. Old Joe Stalin and old Earnest Bevin pioneered the nomenklatura system of patronage which ensured the lower echelons of the bureaucracy knew how to advance themselves. It is to the discredit of the SP and the SWP that they have gone along with this blatant fraud of a ‘broad left’ and United left’ - they should appeal directly to the ranks over the heads of these bureaucrats and their bagmen. Jerry Hicks did it against Simpson, the entire (anti-bureaucratic) left should agree a candidate and do it now. They should this as the basis for building a real rank-and-file movement in Unite and recognise what every socialist with a spark of revolution in his or her soul (the spark had clearly spluttered out in Jim Denham’s soul long ago) knows - the TU bureaucracy are the sworn enemies of the working class and will be up against the wall on day two of the revolution - day one for the capitalists, of course.
I was quite taken by this piece from the last Weekly Worker on this same subject in a review of Andrew Murray’s book on the history of the TGWU which should really be called ‘In defence of Bureaucracy’.
“Murray tell us that, “The removal of the ban on the Communist Party members holding office also contributed to the growing strength of the Broad Left, which increasingly came to set the union’s political course, and influence the appointment of a new generation of full-time officials” (p142-3). This supposedly left body fighting for “a members’ union” has always supported the bureaucracy against the membership. As Murray unwittingly suggests it functioned as a system of patronage where all the jobs and lay positions in the union were available only to those who paid the ideological Danegeld and acknowledged the CP’s agenda of capitulation to the bureaucracy. And until 2007 this body, which was illegal under union rules designed to protect the bureaucracy against the membership, determined the union’s political course, admits Murray! Of course any genuine attempt to mobilise the membership felt the full force of the bureaucracy’s anger, unlike this bogus body. That is why its successor group in Unite, the United Left (UL) were so hostile to organising cleaners that they denied speaking rights to Alberto Durango, a sacked and victimised cleaner on 18 July. His ‘crime’ was to mobilise his membership to fight the bosses. Bureaucratic control of everything that moves within its orbit is Bevin’s real legacy to the entire TU bureaucracy. This can be overcome in periods of increased class militancy by a determined rank and file leadership, something every bureaucrat since - including Murray and the United Left, is at great pains to avoid.”
Comment by gerry downing — 11 September, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
#161 Jerry Hicks this guy is not your best weapon to say the least, and ffs don’t have him campaigning in Lindsay!
Comment by Armchair — 11 September, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
Gerry Dowling: what point, exactly, are you trying to make? Are you involved in the Unite left? In fact: who the bloody hell are you and what the bloody hell are you up to? If you want a more rank-and-file oriented Unite Left, then fine: we can deabte. The problem is that you don’t seem to have a basic grasp of what trade unionism is all about. So you’re no use to the working class and no use to the labour movement. In facy, Dowling: you’re simply a waste of space.
Comment by Jim Denham — 12 September, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
#163
“So you’re no use to the working class and no use to the labour movement. In fact, …: you’re simply a waste of space.”
Jim, do you have a mirror you could look in?
Comment by Andy Newman — 12 September, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
…and see you, Nooman? No that would be too likke Dorian Grey.
Comment by Jim Denham — 13 September, 2009 @ 1:53 am
Capitalism is in collapse, the union bureaucrats have no answer other than advise the workers to accept redundancies, paycuts and defeat and Jim Denham’s advice to Unite members is to carry on and accept McClusky and more of the same. Or did I miss something and he and Jim have a secret revolutionary plot to save us all?
Critical support to Jerry Hicks not on the basis that he has great politics (he has not) but he is for mobilising the membership outside of the appalling bureaucratic straightjacket that is the UL, he did it against Simpson and he should have the critical support of every serious leftist if he does so again. These are much better conditions for revolutionary intervention than the fraud leftistism of the UL - which contains so many straight rightist who know that they must vore in the right way for their careets (and Socialist Fight 3 will be supplying the details) - that it is shameful that both the SP and the SWP (the latter to the extent of supporting the right winger against Hicks until he withdrew in the Amicus vote) have gone along with this fraud. The old Stalinist, with the able assistance of the politically sclerotic Jim Denham (and you do know me)will lead us to defeat, at least we can have a fight when the members are mobilised. It is the sad end of a former revolutionist and leftist to become their bagman - and we shall comment on that political demise on SF3
Comment by Gerry — 13 September, 2009 @ 9:47 am
No, Geerry: I advocate along, tedious battle to educate our members, take on the bosses and rebuild our union. There are no short-cuts in that process. Serious socilalists know what has to be done. The likes of Hicks have no role to play in the process.
Comment by Jim Denham — 13 September, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Jim Denham- “The likes of Hicks have no role to play in the process”.
Your sectarian venom is as endearing as ever. Ironically it reads much like classic Stalinism. The school of Vishinski.
Is that your opinion of Jerry Hicks irespective of what happened with the United Left?
The idea that a socialist who managed to get the vote he did in a national election has no positive role to play in the process you describe is ludicrous.
Perhaps he should start accusing rank and file women members of wanting to prolong a strike just so that they can continue to get strike pay from the union at the behest of their husbands?
Comment by Armchair — 13 September, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Gerry Downing at 161:
“The TU bureaucracy are the sworn enemies of the working class and will be up against the wall on day two of the revolution”.
So if Jerry Hicks stands and wins the Unite GS election, as Downing appears to be supporting in his largest incoherent rant, doesn’t that mean we’ll have to shoot him on Day 2?
Linking Andrew Murray to the UL decision not to have a speaker for sacked cleaners at a London meeting which he had nothing to do with, via the 1940s-60s ban on the CP in the TGWU, the post-war TGWU Broad Left and the United Left today, is a bit desperate. Did Downing do some anti-Communist training with the House Committee on Un-American Activities?
Referring us to the Weekly Worker as a source of information and analysis is almost as laughable.
I understand that one of the main union officials leading the fight for City cleaners’ rights is a dreaded Stalinist bureaucrat (RM), who has organised all kinds of industrial action, pickets, lobbies, stunts etc. Then again, this could be part of the same cunning plot to disarm the working class which Downing and the Weekly Worker want to tell us about.
Give me strength.
Comment by Unite member (non-bureaucrat) — 13 September, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
“Your sectarian venom is as endearing as ever. Ironically it reads much like classic Stalinism. The school of Vishinski”
I’ve always thought this was the central paradox about Jim. Probably comes out of his worship of all those pro-war ex-stalinists who founded Harry’s Place.
Comment by Anonymous — 13 September, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
sorry the above was me…
Comment by johng — 13 September, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
Am I the only one who is still curious to actually see the missing picture that should be topping this article? It has surely got to be more enlightening than most of the comments that have followed it.
Comment by TLC — 13 September, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
“172.Am I the only one who is still curious to actually see the missing picture that should be topping this article? It has surely got to be more enlightening than most of the comments that have followed it.”
It was supposed to be a picture of Jerry Hicks; but, he walked out!
Comment by Irenic — 14 September, 2009 @ 1:30 am
Obviously Irenic is disappointed at being unable to look at Jerry’s picture so here instead is a very good film of Jerry Hicks on this news report from Channel 4
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=39928662001
Comment by Anonymous — 14 September, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
The really truth about this election is that it has nothing to do with politically belief it’s about the TGWU V Amicus This is very clear both parts of the union have problems The old TGWU have wasted millions on a Organising model that don’t work The Amicus section has failed to deliver on the .political agenda i.e. get more working people involved in politics
Comment by joker — 2 January, 2010 @ 8:15 pm