RMT Conference on Political Representation
Publication Date: November 4 2009
In an important initiative aimed at shifting the political debate away from the cuts and pro-business agenda of the three main parties, transport union RMT is convening a conference on the “Crisis in Working Class Representation” in London this Saturday (7th November).
The RMT-sponsored conference comes at a time of increasing industrial militancy and will look at harnessing rank and file anger at attacks on jobs, pay, conditions and pensions into a co-ordinated political voice. The event will also bring together climate activists, pensioners, students, anti-racists and campaigners from both Britain and Ireland continuing the fight against the issues at the core of the Lisbon Treaty.
Speakers at the conference will include Bob Crow from the RMT, Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association, Matt Wrack from the FBU, Susan Press from the Labour Representation Committee and Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.
Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary, said:
“Saturday’s conference comes at a crucial time for working people in this country. The gap between rich and poor has never been greater, the BNP are on the streets and on the TV spreading their poison and seeking to exploit the political vacuum and yet the three main parties are all spouting the same pro-bosses mantra of public spending cuts and privatisation.
“We have seen from the transport sector, the firefighters, the postal workers, bin workers, BA and the construction industry that the working class is prepared to fight. People up and down the country are angry that they are being told to pay the price for the recession while the speculators who created it are bailed out to the tune of tens of billions and are gearing up for a bumper round of Christmas bonuses at our expense.
“Millions of working class people have been disenfranchised by the political establishment. Our aim is to give them a voice.”
ENDS
Also at A Very Public Sociologist.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8323
Comment by macullam — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
yeah yeah new workers party
just like scotland
Comment by sean — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Other fab conferences this weekend include the Put people First G20 Counter Conference at Westminster Central Hall, and the Campaign Against Limate Change at Camden Community School
Comment by The Socieallist Vote — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:56 am
Thank for your support Sean, now in the Real World …..
Comment by steelcityred — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:50 am
A pity those who attend the conference will not be “given a voice” since there are to be no resolutions, votes or decisions. And yet no doubt some deal will be made among a few bureaucrats and party leaders in a few months to launch son-of-No2EU
Comment by David — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Although anything which makes a move towards a united party or non agression pact is welcome, i worry this will be another stalinist stitch up like No2EU was.
What was the result of the SWP brokered talask last weekend? As there is no mention of this anywhere in Socialist Worker, assume the worst.
Comment by JimPage — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:36 am
ach well bob knows best he coluded to bust the SSP by taking the stance of an individual instead of an active program
he has failed on that one.
When senior t u officials bump their gums the question must be asked how much more is their salery than their members.
Ive no personal probs with bob just wondering where his reality is.
Comment by Anonymous — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Why the negative tone of comments? Gathering of lefts inside and outside the LP, discussing political representation, supported by some moderately significant Trade Unionists, certainly bigger the the last convention of the left, is pointless?
Such conferences need to start making decisions at some stage soon, and Crow etc could do with conducting their electoral discussions more publically (Saturday’s conference can provide pressure in this direction), but anything which edges us in the right direction is greatly welcomed.
Comment by Jota — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:21 am
While Bob Crow is one of the best Trade Union leaders in the country at the moment - it is a shame that the SP does not have a more critical approach then they do - at the moment they do appear to be like a little puppy dog running around their masters legs.
no2eu let in the BNP - no doubt - yet no lessons apparently have been learned.
The Greens, RESPECT and others not been approached about how they could contribute to building this movement to challenge neo liberalism.
Little work has taken place at a branch level to build the movement within the RMT or other trade unions.
Unity makes us strong not by going alone!
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:29 am
My understanding is that RESPECT has been approached, more than once?
I agree we need to to be a ‘critical friend’ to Bob Crow, whilst recognising that he has possibly done more for independent working class representation than any other TU leader of the current generation. Wrack, Serowatka and Canton have all done good work too.
I also agree that more needs to be done to involve the rest of the RMT - but I understand that the conference has been pushed inside the union? Also, perhaps lefts (SP or otherwise) can play a role approaching RMT branches.
Comment by Jota — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:35 am
The fact that there is no speaker from Respect- the only left party with a chance of getting elected in 2010- and the SWP- by far the largest party on the left does make this dubious.
In reality- there was one chance for a united left slate for 2010 - to get on board with the SWP proposal for a meeting last weekend to discuss this- which may or may not have been ignored
So in 2010- we will get at best a few dozen random lefties under various labels
Comment by JimPage — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
The lack of a platform speaker for SWP does not preclude their involvement on the day. Rightly or wrongly, some sections of the left are dubious of the SWP. The SWP can challenge this impression by actively engaging in this conference.
I’m not sure that a united left slate for 2010 is make or break - the left must establish united structures at grass-roots and begin engaging in local campiagns together (which already happens in many places), start challenging in local elections and begin exploring a national structure. None of this will happen before the 2010 GE. But 2010 does give us the chance to build some constructive relationships - which won’t be achieved by being dismissive of each others efforts.
Comment by Jota — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Not the SWP’s biggest fan by far - but they should be on the platform to allow the showing of a united left front. As well as the Greens and RESPECT.
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Yeah, maybe - but the platform is already fairly broad - all platform means no time for anyone else. If the platform was just Bob Crow and SP - fair enough, but it isn’t, so shouldn’t be used as excuse not to participate.
Comment by Jota — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
There is a forum on working class representation on the Sunday afternoon at Socialism 2009. Speakers will include the Greens, LRC, RMT, SP (obviously), and Respect. The SWP have been invited but I’m given to understand we’re awaiting a response.
Comment by A Very Public Sociologist — 5 November, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
To echo Jim at 6, does anyone have any info about the meeting last weekend? Did it even take place?
Comment by RobM — 5 November, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
14# Are the SWP a significant group on the left? Do they have members active in the Trade Unions - some of whom are leading Trade Unionists? Yes they are!
Their is actually no political excuse for not allowing the SWP and others (including the Greens) a chance to show where they stand and everything to gain in building a movement of the left.
Th SP makes the point itself in its recent publication - ‘Socialism and left unity’that they oppose organisational methods in dealing with groups that they perceive may differ in opinion to theirs - when they lead campaigns etc
I think the SP have a chance to up hold this principle?
Or is it a case of ownership?
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
“My understanding is that RESPECT has been approached, more than once?”
I don’t think this is actually true. My understanding is that Respect have never formally been invited to attend any meeting with the RMT, SP or other component part of No2EU about this issue. I understand that the former Respect National Secretary Nick Wrack attends the former-o2EU meetings - but does so as an individual supporter and does not report in any way to Respect about developments.
Perhaps the lack of formal invite is understandable since Respect have decided - for sound electoral reasons of name recognition, existing profile, etc to to stand under their own name. Then again perhaps it’s might seem strange given that Respect has the best chance of actually getting someone elected at the next General Election - alongside the Green Party.
So it looks like there is going to be a mosaic of left challenges at the next general election. So where there is a credible left candidate the whole left should get behind them - work alongside and under the direction of whatever party/coalition they are standing for - and begin to build some trust and cooperation.
Comment by tlc — 5 November, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
So it looks like there is going to be a mosaic of left challenges at the next general election. So where there is a credible left candidate the whole left should get behind them - work alongside and under the direction of whatever party/coalition they are standing for - and begin to build some trust and cooperation.
So much for standing up for working people and fighting the real enemies - its a testing time for all those organising this conference - Will the SP come up to the mark?
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
The SWP have been invited to the meetings to discuss ‘Son of No2EU’ as far as I know and have attended at least one meeting but failed to turn up on most occasions. As for the platform on Saturday having no SWP speaker - well there isn’t a SP speaker or a CPB speaker is there? Unfortunately this is a conference organised to discuss working class representation with no votes or resolutions and no firm action as a result at the end.
No2EU wasn’t a breakthrough for working class representation in the Euros but it was a huge step forward - a national trade union stood against the Labour Party in a national election for the first time, left groups worked together without having to hide their indentity and were able to produce their own material. The name of course was crap - think this has been discussed at length - and son of No2EU has to start again in terms of name recognition.
One thing No2EU didn’t do was let in the BNP - if your main concern was to stop the BNP in the North-West then you should have called for a vote for UKIP!!!!! Lets make one thing cystal clear - THE LABOUR PARTY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LETTING THE BNP GET ELECTED IN THE EUROS.
As for the Greens I don’t think they should be involved in a conference to discuss working class representation as they are not a working class party, simple as that. If a coalition does appear for the general election it won’t stand in every seat so agreements with others like the Greens can be made and of course it wouldn’t/shouldn’t stand against Respect in Birmingham. Agreements and coalitions are fine but how far do you go?
There is a crisis in working class representation and next year’s general election needs a choice for working people in as many seats as possible.
Comment by Bob — 5 November, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8323
SP article on the conference
Comment by JimPage — 5 November, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Bob - #20 I don’t follow your logic re non-invitation of Greens. Assuming you don’t think that Labour is any form of (capitalist-) workers party anymore, then you wouldn’t invite Corbyn or the LRC either.
The fact that every Green doesn’t prioritise class interests doesn’t mean that there aren’t Greens who think this very important.
Comment by MichaelC — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
The Labour Party is classically described as the party of labour in opposition and the bourgeoisie in government. The more forward thinking elements among the right in Labour (the voting record of John Cruddas puts him in the frame for this role) see this; thus the attempt to construct a ‘social democratic’ agenda for the opposition years that may await them.
The unraveling of the Cameron illusion and the more confident reassertion of ruling class priorities by the Tories (and the inevitable populist pre election moves by the government) will produce something of a return to Labour. And UKIP and BNP votes in some parts will likely have some impact on the Tory vote – these two factors possibly saving some Labour seats.
The only credible way that Labour can become a real contender is to mobilise the abstainers among its traditional supporters on policies that working class people think are important – typically the things that appear in the People’s Charter. For every five Labour voters there are eight abstainers.
However, I can find no one who thinks this is likely.
The alternative strategy of constructing an electoral alternative to New Labour is proving to be a more complex job than simply arranging to get all the fragments of the left into one conference room – difficult enough though that task seems to be.
The rather limited impact of No2EU – even in the relatively benign proportional electoral system of the Euro elections – is one indication of the difficulty.
But the obstacles lie not simply in an unfavourable voting system or in the congenital inability of the left in Britain to find common ground beyond pious words. It lies mainly in the low level of struggle and class consciousness. Not all of this can be laid at the door of the trade union leadership (although a more concerted effort by the public sector unions to overcome their inability to find common ground to mount mass actions against the governments attacks is in stark contrast to the relative success of French, Belgian and Italian unions.)
Even though the nominal ideological differences between them are even greater than the rather shallow rivalries in Britain they can carry out big campaigns of mass action, carry public opinion and blunt government attacks.
One weakness of existing attempts to draw together a left electoral challenge to Labour lies in the narrow trade union base for these initiatives. This is not simply a question of the relatively small size of the unions so committed but rather the fact that even in the most militant of them there is not yet that fusion of trade union consciousness and political understanding that would sustain a credible electoral challenge.
In this connection there is a contradiction between the continuing formal commitment by the Socialist Party to their project of a New Workers Party and their rather hard-headed and realistic survey of the existing potential for this goal – based no doubt on their rather keenly felt imperative to maintain influence where they already have some. Any attempt to freight a No2EU type coalition with this as its objective will erect even more barriers to a strategy that could carry the left in the trade union movement as a whole.
There will undoubtedly be some limited and local challenges to the worst of the New Labour ministers (Kim Howells has already taken out some insurance against the anger of those of his constituents with children serving in the armed forces).
No one except a hopeless sectarian would stand in the way of the election of a clutch of Respect and Green MPs and some independent and credible left wingers elsewhere but this does not add up to a strategy for the working class as a whole.
Comment by Nick Wright — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Jeremy Corbyn hasn’t changed its the labour Party that has changed around him. The Greens are a pro-capitalist party and always have been. There are probably some decent people in the Liberal Democrat Party are you suggesting they should be invited too?
Comment by Bob — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
24 was a reply to 22!
Comment by Bob — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
I must say I’m disappointed but not surprised by the reactions of some to this conference. There is a lot of talk about unity and participation but to me most of this seems to be a cover to vent deeper grievances against the SP and Bob Crow.
The coalition involved is also trying to bring something immensely important to the table; trade union participation. In the long run I think it is fair to say this is much more important than local electoral non aggression pacts (although they are important and should be applauded). It is also a very difficult and delicate process that requires patience and consistency.
Some of the arguments put forward here have an eerie echo of the debates around the Socialist Alliance. People will recall there was huge impatience to a) move to a party formation ASAP and b) get as much of the Left on board regardless of differences in political ideas and methods. The experience of the SA shows unless there is a broad consensus about the politics of the Alliance and most importantly how the constituent groups will behave within it then such an Alliance will quickly end up in a cul de sac.
In my opinion it would be better if this conference would result in a name, program and some target constituencies decided. However agreement has not been reached on this with all parties so the best thing we can do is to try and involve people in the labour movement to push this process along. This conference is an important step in this process for all its limitations. People genuinely interested in working class political representation should welcome it, not sneer from the sidelines.
Roy makes the preposterous insinuation that on the one hand the SP seeks to maintain a position of ownership and on the other are uncritical lap dogs of Bob Crow. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Unlike others on the left we have never seen ourselves as the genesis of a new left or mass working class party. What we have done is tirelessly campaign since 1995 for the labour movement to break from Labour and form its own political party. When we say we are part of a coalition that is exactly how we behave. So for that reason we do argue vigorously for our ideas in this coalition but on the other hand we welcome even limited steps forward by the leadership of the RMT rather than attack them for not going further.
As far as the SWP are concerned people may recall when NO2EU was set up we called for the full participation of all groups in agreement with the aims of NO2EU. This is still our position. However since some peoples memories seem to be a little bit short let me be blunt.
The SWP are wreckers. Their record should speak for itself but if it doesn’t then cast your mind back to this article from Madam Miaow on their behavior in the Socialist Alliance: http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/Chen.html
A discussion on the SWP is also underway over at Splintered Sunrise. This is a contribution from Chris Williams regarding some independents attitude to the SWP in the SA:
“At the final break up conference at the IoE, I proposed Pete Maclaren’s independent-friendly motion, so I might appear to fall into MarkP’s category (1) (inexperienced) or (4) (blinded) below. But I seem to remember a long phone conversation with one of officers of the SA, when we agreed on what would happen if the SWP turned up. There were only two solutions to that problem:
1) grow and cohere fast enough that we could out-vote them when they arrived. We tried this.
2) cohere fast enough to actively exclude them from participation. We rejected this, on the basis that we could not unify fast enough to carry out a competent screening process which would still allow us to recruit.
In other words, we did see it coming, but we couldn’t do anything about it, and most of us voted with our feet along with the SP. Hopefully the Cliffites are now too weak to destroy a similar attempt in the future”
http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/he-gets-knocked-down-but-he-gets-up-again/#comment-10700
There’s also the little fact that the SWP slammed the door shut on the SA co-operating with the RMT the first time they entered the political field when they ran candidates as the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation. Or does any one remember when they announced Bob Crow was backing Lindsey German for mayor, which was news to Bob Crow?
Some people here may have short memories but others in the movement do not. The SWP are not trusted and need to prove that they should be before they get invited onto platforms and the like. The Socialist Party believes all serious working class forces including the SWP should be involved. But the SWP and their naïve boosters like Roy must recognise that they must prove they have genuinely changed their political methods before people will sit easily beside them in any field of co-operation.
Comment by Neil — 5 November, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
nice non sectarian post. brilliant.
Comment by artful dodger — 5 November, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Wow, post 26 made me feel all nice, warm and fuzzy inside!
Despite your mad sectarianism I still hope our parties can work together soon. The fight against fascism won’t wait for you to finally trust us.
Comment by Gary McNally — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Very helpful Neil. And I would like to point out for the benefit of newer people that the Anna Chen article you link to, in the areas around Birmingham SWP are either outright untruths (esp the FBU related stuff)or gross distortions. The national stuff (some of the detail of which I am less familar with) generally concerns a certain individual who, it might be noted, is no longer in the national leadership of the SWP. And I don’t know why you’re talking about the final SA conference, you’d already walked out.
In terms of the RMT conference, the swp will be there. We’re not making a big noise or whinging about not being on the platform, although I reckon both the SWP and the SP should be. But we’ll be there nevertheless.
Comment by up the posties!! — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
In response to posters at 6 and 15: If the SWP did issue invites to other parties on the left to meet last weekend, the CPB did not receive one (I am reliably informed by “sources close to Ruskin House”). So who did?
The SWP were not invited to the No2EU steering committee because the RMT made it clear that they could not support it, due to the SWP’s initial response to the Lindsey strike.
Respect could have affiliated to No2EU, but after a series of votes at its executive it did not do so.
This weekend’s Communist University has a forum on The Crisis of Working Class Political Representation, with Len McCluskey (Unite), Bob Crow, Carolyn Jones (CPB) and Ruth Winters (FBU)taking part. Details and the full programme can be found at www.communist-party.org.uk
Comment by Party hack — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Cynicism, negativity and further mindless, dull futile and pointless endless pathetic internal squabbling are complete luxuries none of us on the Left can afford.
Seriously is Time to wake up, grow up , work together and engage.
Comment by Fleabite — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
“Respect could have affiliated to No2EU, but after a series of votes at its executive it did not do so.”
This is not so. There was no “affiliation” to No2EU. The founding groups constituted the organisation and determined the political framework and every nuance of tactics; anyone else interested just had to support whatever they decided by providing legwork. The No2EU organisation bent over backwards to include the tiny pro-capitalist Liberal Party, but failed to invite other socialist organisations into its ranks, not just the SWP and Respect but significant local organisations such as the Wigan-based Community Action Party.
Respect had already committed to supporting the Green Party list in the North West and No2EU was not prepared to compromise on standing a full slate. That it got less votes than the ultra-sectarian moribund SLP is a searing indictment on its modus operandi. Hopefully all those involved have learnt their lessons though the platform does not give much encouragement.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Sorry, Prinkipo Exile, but you are wrong on just about every count. You shouldn’t let your hostility get in the way of the facts.
Nick Wrack - or anybody else from the Respect - could have been on the No2EU steering committee in an official capacity, had Respect decided to do so. It was their decision not to be represented in that way, for the reasons you indicate (prior commitments etc.). The SWP position is as I explained. Nobody “bent over backwards” to include the Liberal Party. They wanted to be involved and were - although they did not take up a place on the national steering committee, although they could have done so. National organisations were affiliated in the sense that they committed themselves to paying specified contributions to the central campaign fund.
Sorry if this doesn’t suit your version of what happened and how, but you weren’t there. But, hey, so what? Just do some malicious guesswork and misrepresentation, and urge everyone to learn non-sectarian lessons.
Comment by Party hack — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Ownership vs dialogue - don’t you think the second option might be better comrades? before reaching a decision that may result in a spilt left?
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
26# Have to say Neil, it did raise a smile, to be talked about being a ‘naive booster’ for the SWP - frankly I have had very little tine for some of the antic of the SWP in the past - but to ignore some strength they have in the labour movement is just plain silly, foolish and not a serious approach to the urgent need to present a clear left choice at the next General Election - or shall we just appear split again and let the BNP etc in?
I don’t think you are a member of the SP - given your lack of understanding of the urgent and united struggle we all need to undertake.
Comment by Roy — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
“Nick Wrack - or anybody else from the Respect - could have been on the No2EU steering committee in an official capacity, had Respect decided to do so.”
That will certainly be news to anyone in the leadership of Respect as at no time were the National Council ever invited to send anyone to a meeting, or to support No2EU, by anyone within No2EU. As far as I am aware there was never an invitation extended to Respect.
Nick proposed a motion to support No2EU at a National Council, that is true, but surely an organisation which wanted everyone on board could have actually invited people along at the offset.
After all, Respect took a similar position to the SP over Lindsey. Was there another reason why Respect was not invited to take part in the initial discussions? Of course it is entirely within the rights of these organisations to do what they want - and invite who they want. But it seems silly to suggest they invited Respect to participate when in reality they did not.
Comment by tlc — 5 November, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
What is going here?
Tlc, dear comrade, nobody - not the CPB nor the SP nor anyone else - received a formal invitation to take part in No2EU. People in different organisations were contacted by RMT representatives and asked if they would be interested.
They then raised the question in their organisations. Those thought by the RMT to be most likely to be interested were contacted first.
It was all done quite late in the day.
Nobody excluded Respect, and the possibility of involving them was pursued from the outset. Nick Wrack raised the question within Respect, and Respect decided not to participate in No2EU on a national basis.
Why this sudden attempt to make mountains of molehills?
Comment by Party hack — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:24 am
Since Respect didn’t try to affiliate we’ll never know, but I can say that Socialist Resistance voted to affiliate very early on, and we were not admitted to the steering group before the election, or the core group since then.
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:41 am
Socialist Resistance has drafted a leaflet to welcome the RMT conference: http://socialistresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/unitynovember2009.doc
Comment by Duncan Chapel — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Party Hack - you are completely wrong on the Liberal Party. The pro capitalist pro privatisation Liberal Party were included on the No2EU list in the North West. It was stated that this was non-negotiable from the outset. The RMT representative at the North West launch meeting made it clear that while there was still some possibility of movement on the list, the Liberal Party had to be included even though they did not send anyone to the meeting, did not lift a finger during the campaign and did not support the national steering committee. Socialist Resistance voted to affiliate to No2EU, supplied the number 1 candidate in the South East list, and actively campaigned for No2EU in London, west midlands and the south east, but still has yet to be invited to any follow up events.
No2EU was a self-selecting group. It is entitled to be that. But please don’t pretend there was any sense of openness or formal affiliation process.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Any chance with focusing on the conference which this thread is about?
Regardless of your attitude to No2EU:
- stitch-up
or
- important step forward along the road of TU-backed left of labour representation
This is an open conference. Stop looking for excuses to not support it.
Comment by Jota — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:27 am
“Tlc, dear comrade, nobody - not the CPB nor the SP nor anyone else - received a formal invitation to take part in No2EU. People in different organisations were contacted by RMT representatives and asked if they would be interested.”
Dear Party Hack,
I’m not trying to make mountains out of molehills I’m just trying to be honest. It may be the case that nobody recieved a formal invitation to take part in No2EU. That is fine if the RMT officials involved believed that was the best way to build their new organisation (I’d politely disagree with this method). But as far as I am aware Respect was not contacted by any RMT respresentatives and asked if we would be interested.
Now you may be suggesting that Nick wrack was contacted - unofficially - but if that was the case, then my understanding is that he never passed this information on the the National Council. Hence they were unable to discuss this offer. Instead they discussed a motion from Nick calling on support for NO2EU after it’s fomation.
Now this is all in the past - so why does it matter?
Well put simply. If the component parts of No2EU want Respect to take part in any new organisation/body/coalition/whatever then there will have to be a formal approach - as the only body that can agree to such a move is either the National Conference or the National Council. That formal approach can be as simple as a letter/email inviting people to a meeting. The NC has passed published policy that states they will respond positively to such moves and so I would assume respresentatives would attend a meeting and then report back to the NC for further discussion.
Now if people don’t want Respect to take part then that is their right - I’m not picking a fight over this. I just want to make it clear that while in some left organisation that are ‘democratic centralist’ the leaders can make snap decisions which bind the membership, that is not the case with Respect.
You state that “the possibility of involving them was pursued from the outset” but if members of Respect are telling you that they have no idea how this was done then perhaps there might be a problem with the process.
Process is all important here and if everyone agrees that we have to build trust and take things slowly to avoid the errors of the past - perhaps it might be sensible to accept that for some individuals and organisations the process around the formation of No2EU also contained errors which should not be repeated.
Comment by TLC — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:54 am
Jota - agreed. This is an open conference and everyone seriously interested in left unity should back it.
The Socialist Resistance leaflet welcoming the conference is worth quoting from:
===========
As part of the process of building a broad inclusive working-class party, it is therefore crucial that there is a viable left challenge at the General Election. It is now very late but today’s conference — along with the unions represented at it — is best placed to start the process towards this.
A new party is for the future, but a common framework for the election — maybe based on the People’s Charter —which allowed existing parties to stand in their own name would be an important step forward
On November 14th, there will be the Respect conference in Birmingham. It has the biggest electoral footprint on the left, and has the possibility of doing very well, or even winning, in three Westminster seats, especially now that the Greens have made the welcome decision not to stand against Salma Yaqoob. There are other areas where the left could do well: for example, Dave Nellist in Coventry or Caroline Lucas for the Greens in Brighton.
Only a strong, united left intervention into the general election can offer a real alternative to the racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and fascism of the far right.
======================
Unfortunately resolutions will not be taken and there will be no formal organisational steps coming out of the conference. It is therefore incumbent on those represented at the conference to take the necessary steps, such as those outlined in the SR leaflet, on as broad a basis as possible. The previous practice of excluding currents such as SR and indeed the whole of Respect, and the SWP, from the core group should be dropped. All have a role to play.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Yep. Always nice to broadly agree with someone on this site.
Comment by Jota — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
“In response to posters at 6 and 15: If the SWP did issue invites to other parties on the left to meet last weekend, the CPB did not receive one (I am reliably informed by “sources close to Ruskin House”). So who did?”
WW say that all of the left parties in england who have actually got someone elected, (except the IWCA) were invited, namely SP, Respect, SWP and Barrow Peoples Party along with the CPB, in view of their status in the wider labour movement
If the CPB did not get their invite with the greatest of respect- knowing of the meeting via WW they should invest in a telephone and phone up the SWP- as should the SWP to chase up their invite. Or maybe use those train things you have in London to meet and go for a pint or something?
I dont think anyone is saying this is a bad idea at all - and if the CPB, AGS and SP are on good terms, its a good start they can find common ground. But it ignores Respect who are the only group with anyone elected to High office and the SWP- the biggest group on the left with a claimed 5,800 members - which dwarfs all the other left groups put together
Comment by JimPage — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
In regards to the fact that it is a non resolution based conference I think the reasons for it are less sinister than people may imagine.
At the last RMT conference there was an overwhelming vote endorsing the NO2EU campaign. There was also a vote mandating the RMT exec to continue talks with other parties with a view to addressing the crisis in working class representation.
Part of this resolution called for a non resolution based conference. So far from a ‘Stalinist stitch up’ the RMT exec are simply following the mandate laid down for them by the rank and file elected delegates at their conference.
I think the RMT exec should have argued for a resolution based conference and given the overwhelming support for the NO2EU campaign (this was after the Euro elections) I believe they would have got it. But that is a difference of opinion and at the end of the day it’s their union and it is the RMT that are calling this conference, not the SP, CPB or anyone else.
As far as ’sectarianism’ is concerned I’ve always found it very amusing that some of the softer sections of the left seem to think plain speaking and calling things by their proper names is sectarianism.
I have already stated that organisations should try to work with the SWP where possible. But this must be on a basis of trust and equality. If people have justifiable worries about working with them based on their very recent past record then I see no reason why others should assume this is for selfish or sectarian reasons.
My advice to SWP members is this:
If you don’t like being called wreckers then don’t wreck things. It’s quite simple really.
Finally I would say to Roy that your personal opinions about the SWP are irrelevant. If you think people should just ignore their past records then you are unquestionably naive.
However I believe you are a member of the Green Party, are you not? Remind me again how many electoral type joint initiatives or coalitions YOU have been in with the SWP?
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
So which party are you in Neil? I doubt very much it’s the SP? I guess you may have been a fellow traveller with them at some point from other comments you have made on this and other forums.
I have always had problems with the SWP – they can be very difficult to work with - but only a fool would ignore that actually they do have a fair number of workers reps who are their members and in fact some members in the leading positions in a number of trade union.
What I am actually saying is that dialogue should take place with all those parties who have a significant base of support and oppose neoliberalism -Now that clearly includes the Greens, RESPECT, and also the SWP.
I tell you what Neil - lets just stand against each other just like we did in the euro’s - what a good idea - I am sure this will take the interests of working class people forward!
Comment by Roy — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
#47
Right so that would be none then.
I think you are being quite disingenuous. Nobody is ruling out dialogue with the SWP. We have met with them after all to discuss this issue.
Tell me, how many face to face meetings have the Green Party had with the SWP?
How many union broad lefts do you work alongside them in?
The SP does work with the SWP where agreement can be reached. But that does not mean we will for one second gloss over the very real destructive role they have played in the past espcially for something as important as an electoral initiative. To do other wise would be… naive.
What you seem to be forgetting in your rush to the moral high ground is that this is not a conference called by the Socialist Party. It’s called by the RMT. They are the ones who must be convinced the SWP will play a positive role?
Are the wrong to be sceptical?
Don’t they have a responsibility to make sure that if they put the prestige and money of the union on the line then it won’t end up the way the SA or Respect?
Of course all these questions don’t mean anything to you as the Green Party have no intention of getting involved in any way shape or form with the SWP on the electoral field.
You also don’t seem to recognise the central role the unions must play in order for a new workers party to emerge. That’s why instead of welcoming this step forward by the leadership of a national trade union you quibble about the inclusion of a small party on the platform.
Nobody is ruling out the SWP from any future iniative for ever and a day. I’m just trying to explain to you why they haven’t been invited this time.
You however refuse to hear this and instead use it as an excuse to snipe at a very worthy iniative while all the while pleading for dialogue and co-operation.
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
So its going it alone again then - how many votes did no2eu get last time? And how many BNP members were elected?
Dialogue No - Exclusion Yes - seems to be the methodology being used - it does look a bit odd from a party that has always be forefront of promoting left unity - where has the 80% gone?
Comment by Roy — 6 November, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Just received the leaflet for the ‘RMT’ Conference - good stuff - but with a fairly limited remit - no mention of specifically opposing the BNP - or forming a ‘workers party’.
In fact very much a coalition of trade unionists and socialists promoting workers rights and working class representation.
Like the bit about specifically standing against cabinet minister
Being working class myself OK - perhaps does not go far enough, but really not much wrong with it - in fact - what if the select few - were joined by Green Party, RESPECT and even the SWP - seems like we all share the same values. Or atleast a non aggression agreement for the same reasons?
Comment by Roy — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
“The SP does work with the SWP where agreement can be reached. But that does not mean we will for one second gloss over the very real destructive role they have played in the past espcially for something as important as an electoral initiative”
Don’t you even have teabreaks?
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Neil, just worked out how to make it easier for you? If its trade unionists you want or Bob Crowe wants?
Why not invite someone from the excellent Green Party Trade Union Group, Jerry Hicks (who knows a little bit about trade unions and workers rights) from RESPECT and who ever the SWP can find in one of Trade Unions?
Comment by Roy — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Roy - Neil and the SP didn’t call the conference. How many platform speakers should the RMT have invited? Whowould you leave out of the current line-up. Seriously - ‘The RMT-sponsored conference comes at a time of increasing industrial militancy and will look at harnessing rank and file anger at attacks on jobs, pay, conditions and pensions into a co-ordinated political voice. The event will also bring together climate activists, pensioners, students, anti-racists and campaigners from both Britain and Ireland continuing the fight against the issues at the core of the Lisbon Treaty.
Speakers at the conference will include Bob Crow from the RMT, Brian Caton from the Prison Officers Association, Matt Wrack from the FBU, Susan Press from the Labour Representation Committee and Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn.’
This is not the SP or anyone else going it alone - it is an excellent event you should support.
Comment by Jota — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
What no-one seems to have mentioned is that this conference being discussed coincides with the SP’s annual self-congratulatory circle-jerk in London.
What will the independent thinking SP members do?
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I’d imagine that, in as far as the two overlap (which isn’t that much), they will organise themselves so that some comrades are at each event.
Comment by KrisS — 7 November, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Any comment about this conference from people that attended yesterday?
I estimate that there were about 300 people there.
I took quite a lot of notes, spoke to people to canvass their views and have formed some tentative conclusions on where it’s going.
I’ll keep these to myself for the time being though.
Comment by prianikoff — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Er, why?
Comment by Anonymous — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:36 am
I want to hear other views first.
Comment by prianikoff — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Hey Prianikoff, I’d veen hoping to go to the RMT conference yesterday, but something came up and I had to be somewhere else.
Come on, don’t be coy, tell us all about it?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 November, 2009 @ 11:12 am
re 58 - coward. publish and be damned.
Comment by up the posties!! — 8 November, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Just tell me, I promise I won’t tell the others!
Comment by Let Prianikoff speak! — 8 November, 2009 @ 11:20 am
It didn’t go well - http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/full-and-democratic-debate-but-when/
Comment by David — 8 November, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Thanks for posting the link David.
Is there a name for this initiative? Or a plan to meet up again?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
This will be of interest to some readers here:
http://www.myfreedompost.com/2009/09/excerpts-from-sarah-palins-hong-kong.html
Amazing that this woman is being touted as a sharp thinker yet again.
Comment by Lenny — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
The fact that the RMT voted for this conference is obviously of historical significance, since its ancestor organisation, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants played a big role in the original Labour Representation Committee.
Besides the representatives of the political parties involved, No2EU’s European election campaign attracted workers from the Lyndsey Refinery and Visteon disputes.
There are also a number of local campaigns, formed from ex-Labour Party, trade union and community groups, which are keen to engage in an electoral challenge.
During the course of the Conference, reference was made to the “Alliance” already in the making.
It was implicit that the “Peoples Charter”, which arose from discussions in the FBU, RMT and PCS, would form the basis of its programme.
But it should be stressed that this was a meeting without any motions or resolutions.
It took place purely because of an RMT Conference motion, which was certainly NOT a call to form a new party.
The history of attempts to do that isn’t very propitious, as Patrick Sikorski of the RMT exec should know well!
Besides the SLP, Socialist Alliance and Respect, there are the numerous Marxist sects.
The pre-War ILP was more influential than all of them, had more MP’s, but never came anywhere near to becoming a majority party of the working class.
There was a clear line of divide in the Conference beween the LRC and the line of the Socialist Party.
Susan Press sees the LRC as being the bridge between Socialists inside and outside the party and was defensive of its MP’s role.
Andy Price of the SP summarised their position, that the LP has become an entirely capitalist party, when he said:-
“If the RMT can endorse the CNWP alliance, why can’t Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell”?
Much as I respect Andy, his words came across as rather hollow.
I don’t think there’s much chance that they’ll do so.
Moreover I felt very uncomfortable with the oft-repeated argument that “If the BNP vote increases, it’s New Labour’s fault”.
It’s got an aroma of the Third Period about it.
The point is to develop policies that stop it happening!
The RMT backed No2EU Euro campaign achieved 153,000 votes.
Labour still attracts around 22% of the popular vote.
There is also a lack of political clarity amongst the unions that are passing motions for disaffiliation.
For instance, the FBU, having stopped paying the LP hasn’t taken a position on backing any party.
It remains cautious, precisely because of the recent history.
As LRC supporting postman Pete said, the London Regional Committee of the CWU has voted for disaffilation from Labour, but also supported calling off strike action before Christmas!
Which indicates that a vote to stop backing Labour, without a meaningful alternative isn’t necessarily a progressive position.
Dave Nellist made it absolutely clear that there was no intention of SonofNo2EU standing against McDonnell, Corbyn or the Socialist Campaign group.
So even within the No2EU bloc, there’s recognition that it’s necessary to have a strategy towards Labour Supporters.
Clearly everyone agrees that New Labour is reactionary and probably doomed.
Everyone seemed convince by the scale of the recession and the fact that all the main parties are united in a cuts agenda.
This means the field is open to a political formation with union backing with an action programme to fight the cuts.
We can probably all agree with Joe Higgins’ view that Social Democracy from Ireland to Russia has moved right, although we might disagree about the dimensions of the “gaping hole” left behind.
A new “Socialist Alliance” could well be a stimulant to the resolution of the crisis of Social Democracy in Britain.
This one is definitely worth participating in, but should be pulled back from having too grandiose plans.
It needs to be far more representative, younger, blacker, more female.
It needs better politics.
Which means careful discussion of the issues, motions, ammendments and votes.
It can’t be any less democratic than a union!
Then, in time, it might fly.
Comment by prianikoff — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
What do you mean Karl? What initiative?
Comment by JT — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:50 am