Liam redux

, ,

Trust us. We’re the vanguard

Drummed into every fresh faced revolutionary neophyte is the conviction that the only meaningful measure of success is how big YOUR group is, how many front organisations it can run simultaneously and how many papers it sells at demonstrations. It’s predicated on two ideas. The first is that only one current can have the monopoly…

Liam
2–3 minutes

Drummed into every fresh faced revolutionary neophyte is the conviction that the only meaningful measure of success is how big YOUR group is, how many front organisations it can run simultaneously and how many papers it sells at demonstrations. It’s predicated on two ideas. The first is that only one current can have the monopoly on wisdom. The second is that the key for a successful revolutionary transformation is persuading everyone else to accept the first idea.

That brings us onto the upcoming election in UNISON which cynics suggest might  have something to do with getting Dave Prentis re-elected as general secretary before the end of his current term. The cynics also suggest that the plan is pre-empt a challenge when he is even more tarnished in a few months.

Nominations have closed and Prentis received 320, a modest fall of 200 since the last election. There are two potential left challengers. Roger Bannister of the Socialist Party got 34 nominations and Labour Party member Paul Holmes got 58. The election is on May 17.

Holmes had said that he would stand down in favour any left candidate who won more nominations than he did. The correct and sensible choice. He has also said that he would call a special conference to put the issue of Labour affiliation to the membership. It’s hard to see what the Amazon of money that UNISON donates to the Labour Party actually delivers to the union’s members but anyone who can read a newspaper can work out that it is not the first issue on the minds of most local government workers at the moment.

Roger Bannister affects to believe that it is a central line of division inside the union and is reported as saying that he won’t stand down in favour of Holmes on account of his Labour membership. Yet by all accounts Holmes’ instincts on all issues connected with defending the union against New Labour are spot on. 

From the outside, and I’m open to correction, the principal reason for Roger Bannister choosing to split the left vote is that the overriding priority is to build his organisation. Neither he nor Holmes is going to win but a modestly successful and unified left challenge to the bureaucrat Prentis has the potential to strengthen those forces in the union which are willing to work together to resist the proposed horrors of the coming months.

But that would involve unlearning lesson one from cadre school.

37 responses to “Trust us. We’re the vanguard”

  1. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Don’t be so foolish.

    It was always predictable that the assembled left groups and left labourites would be able to muster a few more people in the activist layer than the Socialist Party would and thus the UUL candidate would get more nominations. This happened last time around too.

    It is equally predictable that Bannister will get a much, much larger vote than Holmes when it goes to the membership. Just as happened last time around too.

    In fact on the last occasion, the UUL candidate (another well meaning but politically wrong Labour left, egged on by the SWP) finished further ahead of Bannister in nominations. And then proceeded to get about a third of Bannister’s vote when it went to the wider membership.

    The fact is that Bannister is much better known to the union membership than Holmes. As for the disagreement over the Labour Party, anti-Labour Party leftists consistently do better than pro-Labour leftists in Unison elections. Bannister’s stance, which offends a few with illusions in Labour in the activist layer will certainly be more popular with the rank and file.

    It never ceases to amaze me that other parts of the left in Unison insist on standing candidates against Bannister. Quite a few other left candidates have stood against him now over the years – SWPers trying to assert a leadership role in the union for their sect, Labour leftists trying to drag the Unison left back towards Labour, random left individuals, someone backed by the rump WRP etc. On each and every occasion they have succeeded in getting a humiliating vote but in taking some votes from Bannister. There is absolutely no reason to expect anything different on this occasion.

    Like

    Reply
  2. jimp Avatar
    jimp

    Paul Holmes is an excellent candidate.

    Like

    Reply
  3. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Mark P writes as though the local government pensions dispute never happened. It was Kirklees branch that consistently held the UNISON leadership’s feet to the fire and forced a special conference on the issue. In the wake of that Paul Holmes managed to defeat the President-elect to win a seat on the NEC. So unknown to the membership? Hardly.

    More importantly, though, there’s the question of what an election campaign is for. For all Roger Bannister’s excellent qualities, his election campaign is going to be a Socialist Party campaign, not a campaign to build the left across UNISON. And for all the United Left’s weaknesses, it’s still the only open organisation of the left in UNISON.

    Like

    Reply
  4. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Agree with Cjhj.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Danny Avatar
    Danny

    Thats true but I’d agree with Mark P though, in that Roger Bannister will still get more votes as he has a much higher profile amongst the membership, as far as I can see.

    Again the issue is about how you translate votes into activists, and organise activists into a network. On that I’d agree with the original post

    Like

    Reply
  6. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    chjh:

    The UUL is not an organisation at all. For all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist and Holmes campaign isn’t going to change that in any way, shape or form. The UUL managed to have its first meeting since plans for the elections were announced three days ago. God only knows when it last met before that.

    It is an electoral flag of convenience used by a few Labour lefts, the SWP and a couple of small left groups, with no presence on the ground at all. The Holmes campaign isn’t emphasising it and isn’t focused on trying to build it, mostly because Holmes has a better grasp of its complete irrelevance than you do.

    Bannister is the strongest candidate of the left. He has shown this over and over again. In most elections either the SWP or a Labour left has insisted on standing against him, often getting many more branch nominations. On each and every occasion they have then been completely demolished when the vote actually came. There is no reason at all to think that anything else will happen this time and if the left is serious about getting a respectable vote against the Prentis/bureaucracy behemoth it should fall in behind him

    Bannister is much better known to the rank and file than Holmes. The single biggest political difference between them is that Bannister is pro-disaffiliation while Holmes is anti-disaffiliation, and that too goes in Bannister’s favour with the rank and file – left candidates who are vigorously anti-Labour do better in Unison elections than other left candidates.

    That won’t happen of course.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    To illustrate my point:

    Go read Holmes’ request for nominations. It doesn’t mention the UUL once.

    Go read his blog. There is precisely one mention of the UUL, a repost of a press release criticising the Unison bureaucracy’s actions against “the four” Socialist Party activists. Other than that there isn’t a single mention of the UUL.

    His campaign is not about building the UUL, because there is no UUL to build. Arguments that his campaign should be supported because it, unlike that of Roger Bannister, is about building an organised left in Unison are nothing more than self-delusion.

    Like

    Reply
  8. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    The SP have demonstrated over the years that they have no intention of building a united left either. Even if Roger Bannister were to win more votes (big if) what does that translate into on the ground?
    Bannister won some votes last time didn’t he, what’s been the result of that?
    Consider the attacks on the Unison four. This represented a real chance to rally the rank and file against the bureaucracy. But instead of defying the bureaucrats they have fought a legalistic campaign.
    They should have posed defying the injunctions of the Unison leadership up to and including a split if necessary. I understand that in Greenwich already 300 members have abandoned Unison so disgusted are they with the bureaucracy. This is a base to build on.
    Its time now to pose splitting the union. Unison is no vehicle whatsoever to resist the forthcoming public sector cuts.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Lord save us from the armchair generals of Permanent Revolution.

    I’ll tell you what Bill. When your sect has built any campaign of any significance, or ever had to exercise any kind of influence in the union movement, or had to lead any struggle, I will be more than happy to pay some attention to the bleating emanating from your general staff in exile.

    Leading a small split from Unison now would be a crass piece of ultra-leftism, which would leave the overwhelming majority of council workers to the tender mercies of the most vicious bureaucracy in the British union movement.

    Like

    Reply
  10. matthew graculus Avatar
    matthew graculus

    What a marvellous confirmation of Liam’s argument!

    Like

    Reply
  11. Moreno Truth Kit Avatar
    Moreno Truth Kit

    We have a phrase for Liam’s article in the US: “anti-sectarian sectarianism.”

    Like

    Reply
  12. tlc Avatar
    tlc

    “Lord save us from the armchair generals of Permanent Revolution.”

    And in a flash one Mark P was gloriously transformed into another Mark P.

    Like

    Reply
  13. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    The other Mark P has his bad points, but an absence of patience with the abstract bleatings of Permanent Revolution isn’t one of them.

    Like

    Reply
  14. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    The problem with (Irish) Mark P’s argument is what it doesn’t say. No, the UNISON United Left isn’t a mass, vibrant rank and file movement thousands strong – but what is the Socialist Party’s alternative? What does the SP offer to UNISON militants who agree with their strategy in the union, but don’t want to join the SP?

    Like

    Reply
  15. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Funnily enough I was reading Socialism Today this issue and had a good laugh about the poll tax riot. Wasn ‘t it great?
    (Just thought I’d throw that in)

    Like

    Reply
  16. Harry Hound Avatar
    Harry Hound

    I think you’ll find Prentis has at least 350 nominations – probably more as that figure was published on the day before closing of the nominations.

    True, the UUL is tiny and riven by the usual inter-faith bickering, but I think it’s active support for Paul Holmes and its work to promote his campaign has been woefully below what such pre-exisiting disorganisation might lead anyone to believe.

    Roger was right not to even bother showing up at the UUL meeting to discuss getting a single candidate. The UUL is an irrelevance and unable to deliver their own individual votes for their candidate of choice. Bannister’s supporters at least seem to have some discipline about them.

    Like

    Reply
  17. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    chjh:

    You are missing the point.

    You were portraying the idea of building a broad left or a rank and file group or some other left body as a difference between the Holmes and Bannister campaigns. I was pointing out that no such difference exists. The UUL is not such an organisation, or indeed an organisation at all, and the Holmes campaign is not about building it into one. The Holmes campaign doesn’t even mention the UUL. You are projecting your desires onto it. Any criticism you might make of the Bannister campaign on this issue applies with equal force to the Holmes campaign.

    The Socialist Party is in favour of forming a left activist group in Unison, but only on a useful basis. The UUL was a disaster which destroyed much of the work of the old CDFU. Hopefully a strong vote for Bannister will help lay the foundations for an actually useful left grouping to emerge, but it will be a gradual process. At the moment, the focus has to be on strengthening branch democracy rather than on creating an otherwise empty shell for left groups to squabble in.

    Like

    Reply
  18. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Odd, that. The UNISON Left meeting I went to on Saturday was facilitated by the United Left, heard Paul Holmes speak, and discussed how to use his campaign to build the left inside the union. Still, I’m sure you know better than I do what’s happening in my union.

    Like

    Reply
  19. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    I already mentioned that meeting Chjh – the first UUL meeting in God knows how long. Years probably. The UUL will not be a basis for building a left in the union.

    Like

    Reply
  20. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    And neither will the SP.
    Much as I like Paul Holmes its not looking too promising really is it?

    Like

    Reply
  21. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Bannister has had a significant and long term principled presence in Unison among rank and file activists that is beyond the existing organisational reach of either the SP or the UUL. For that reason I think he will easily outpoll any other left candidate. He should therefore be supported and his campaign used to build a stronger left collaboration in the union. His policy on Labour disaffiliation is wrong but is relatively marginal within the broader issues of a trade union fightback, particularly in the coming storm ahead on public service cuts regardless as to gets in at the General Election.

    Like

    Reply
  22. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    But you haven’t answered the main question. Let’s say he wins more votes how will that advance the left? He won more votes last time and it didn’t. Instead the SP did nothing to build a rank and file organisation while 4 of their own branch secretaries were victimised. If that isn’t enough incentive to get things moving then its difficult to see what is.
    Socialists should vote Paul Holmes and fight to develop whatever, however limited, rank and file initiatives undertaken by the United Left.

    Like

    Reply
  23. macullam Avatar
    macullam

    Why are the SWP supporting Holmes when they are standing in the General election as part of TUSC which is supposed to be an alternative to new labour.

    Like

    Reply
  24. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Well, you could ask the same question of the Socialist Party supporting Len McCluskey in UNITE’s General Secretary election. But of course Paul Holmes isn’t new Labour -he’s part of the opposition to new Labour inside the Labour Party.

    People may well think that left-wingers inside the Labour Party are wasting their time, but it can’t be denied that they exist, and are an integral part of the left inside most unions.

    Like

    Reply
  25. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Macullam:

    The SWP in Unison will always, given the opportunity, support any left candidate they can find against a Socialist Party one. This is the third time they’ve backed a candidate against Bannister. On both previous occasions the candidate they backed got a dismal result.

    Like

    Reply
  26. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Support any left candidate against a Socialist Party candidate? Quite untrue. Last year I voted for, and Socialist Worker argued for a vote for, several SP members who were standing for the NEC. The United Left and the SP even held a joint national meeting to agree a common platform for those elections, and to ensure that the left didn’t stand against each other. First time ever, and it resulted in the left taking 15 seats (plus one UL member who won the vote but was disqualified).

    On a lighter note, there was a nice Freudian slip in the list of branches nominating Paul Holmes – one Welsh branch was mis-spelt as Rhondda Cynon Taafe…

    Like

    Reply
  27. Mark P Avatar
    Mark P

    Chjh:

    You misread my post. I said that “given the opportunity” the SWP in Unision will always support any other left candidate against a Socialist Party member. Where there are no other left candidates standing against SP members and where the SWP isn’t in a position to stand itself against them that doesn’t arise.

    But where it does arise, the record is pretty plain to see. Just as Yunus and Jon, previous candidates supported by the SWP against Bannister. What percentage of the vote did they get again? Can you explain how the SWP consistently manages to back weaker candidates in Unison GS elections against Bannister? What is the strategic thinking behind so consistently splitting the left vote?

    Like

    Reply
  28. Richard Searle Avatar
    Richard Searle

    just an aside. I was on the UUL email list and when the news about the GS election broke I was flooded with emails, descending into banality, that glogged up my mailbox.
    My first instinct was to unsubcribe for the email list, which I did.
    Not inspiring at all.
    I suppose that they reflected the relative weaknesses of the Left in UNISON after years of trench warefare witchhunting,
    weaker grass roots and stewards organisation.

    However, It does strike me as mad, that the left does not, at this stage of the proceedings swing behind the best placed candidate, in this case Roger., who has, got the most votes, every time, for the left.
    He’s good at what he does.
    He’s a socialist., which particular box does he not tick ?

    The sober assessment of the relative strengths and weakness of left would convince you that you don’t have the luxury either, to not consider him the creditable candidate

    Like

    Reply
  29. Richard Searle Avatar
    Richard Searle

    I should add, that just because I would vote for Roger, doesn’t mean that I think the SP are right to back Len McCluskey in the GS election in UNITE.

    I think they, the SP are mistaken,
    I hope they shift their decision, and back Jerry Hicks as the best placed and most creditable candidate, and perhaps through some comradely discussion, we convince them of Jerry’s case.

    However, they at least the SP have come to decision, while the SWP still cannot make it mind, who to back in UNITE.
    I think they, the SWP, are wrong in the UNISON GS elections, but they can still make the right decision in the UNITE GS election

    There’s a shit storm and/or mother of all cluster -fucks on the horizon for the public sector, and still some people want to discuss which deck chair to sit on..

    On Jerry Hick’s impact

    See this recent piece in the NUJ house magazine, Journalist on page 6

    http://www.thejournalist.org.uk/marapr10_index.html

    Like

    Reply
  30. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    I partly agree about the UUL e-mail list, but i think that’s an unavoidable downside of any unmoderated e-mail list. It’s simple enough to look at the names of posters and delete accordingly, though, and it does have its uses.

    I don’t follow Richard’s argument here – in UNISON Roger Bannister should be supported because he will get the best vote, but in UNITE Jerry Hicks should be supported regardless of who might get the best vote? Or am I missing something?

    Like

    Reply
  31. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    Come off it. Supporting McCulskey is completely mad. It does rather illustrate the point though. The SP are happy to call everyone sectarian, except themselves, while supporting a bureaucrat like McCluskey against Jerry Hicks.
    Not that that’s sectarian you understand.
    There is no point in voting for Roger Bannister, irrespective of whether he gets more votes, or rather whether its expected he’ll get more votes than Paul Holmes. Experience has taught us that his candidature amounts to nothing. He will do nothing to build a rank and file organisation of any sort. Paul Holmes might and that’s why he should be supported.

    Like

    Reply
  32. Richard Searle Avatar
    Richard Searle

    ‘Or am I missing something?’

    yes, Charlie, I would argue, context.

    A weakened left in UNISON, as the Union leadership held the line for New Labour.

    The Left in UNITE has not been subject to the same 10 + years of ongoing and systematic witch hunt.

    The result Jerry Hicks received in the Amicus section election, in 2009, that of 47,000, votes.

    That’s a good starting point

    and the impact his campaign is having now.

    Like

    Reply
  33. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    Richard, I agree that the context in the two unions is very different. One of those differences is that in UNITE there’s a left candidate who can win – Len McCluskey. I still don’t get why it’s OK for Jerry Hicks to ‘split’ the left vote, but wrong for Paul Holmes.

    More importantly, what this discussion hasn’t really reflected is that there are moves towards greater left unity in UNISON, which should be welcomed. The United Left and SP have agreed to support common candidates for the Service Group elections (which start this week), and both had serious discussions about getting one left candidate for General Secretary.

    We didn’t get there, but it sounds as though it was a useful process anyway. And we should be very clear that Roger Bannister and Paul Holmes aren’t standing against each other – both are standing against Dave Prentis.

    Like

    Reply
  34. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    You’re not seriously suggesting that the SWP are going to support McCluskey?
    Jesus H. Christ.

    Like

    Reply
  35. chjh Avatar
    chjh

    I’m not in UNITE, so I’m not part of that decision. My view from outside is that there are arguments both for backing McCluskey and for backing Jerry Hicks, and I’m not going to get drawn into an argument about which side SWP members in UNITE should come down on.

    My point was that the accusation about ‘splitting’ the left vote, if it applies to Paul Holmes, applies equally to Jerry Hicks. I don’t think it’s the decisive criterion – I think what candidates stand for, and what can be built around them, are more important criteria.

    Like

    Reply
  36. bill j Avatar
    bill j

    I’m not in Unite either, but its not hard to tell which one is the bureaucratic and which one is the anti-bureaucratic candidate.
    Obviously Len McCluskey – currently overseeing the sell out of the British Airways strike – is the anti-bureaucratic candidate.
    Pause. Gulp. Not really.
    There is no comparison with Unison. Len McCluskey is under no circumstances and in no respect – other than as a purely electoral devise aka his forerunner Derek Simpson – a “left wing” candidate.
    Of course both Paul Holmes and Roger Bannister are left wing candidates. But Roger Bannister has consistently demonstrated he is not prepared to take any steps to organise a rank and file organisation, whereas Paul Holmes has.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Jota Avatar
    Jota

    Surely standing the best known leftwinger in the union with a credible record of support is not sectarian. Unseating Prentis is not going to happen this side of the upcoming slash and burn of public services – so why would lowering the profile of Bannister at this stage make sense for the SP or the wider left?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Richard Searle Cancel reply

Trending