len mc"Exhilarating" is not an adjective that is often used on this site, especially when describing an event which involved being obliged to listen to twenty platform speakers. Most of them agreed with each other on the big picture stuff too.

Yet in its own way the Coalition of Resistance (COR) conference was exhilarating. One thousand three hundred people registered for it. The odd thing was that no one involved in organising the event or running it had any idea who most of them were. I was in two workshops and was surrounded by unfamiliar faces. By way of context there were more people I knew by sight at the last couple of central London demonstrations I’ve been at, both of which pulled about five thousand.

Here is an utterly arbitrary, probably occasionally inaccurate, selection of impressions.

Conference was due to start at 10.30. It did. That is unprecedented but the hall was full by that point. A student who’d been kettled earlier in the week kicked proceedings off. Quite right too. She was followed by Clare Solomon who said she found addressing the event more nerve-wracking than Newsnight. Who knows how much you can read into these things but she revealed that an ex-cop had sent her a letter with a tenner inside in which he said that the student demos had restored his faith in young people.

For COR Paul Mackney said that it is in transition from being a pressure group to becoming a mass movement. Its success will be measured not by programmatic elegance but by the breadth of the movement.

crowdIn a day that had its quota of demagoguery Rachel Newton, who spoke on behalf of the People’s Charter offered one of the most intellectually interesting contribution. The gist of it was that there is a strong similarity to the fragmented,disorganised working class which existed in the 1830s and 1840s and the same class today. Discuss.

Newly elected Unite general secretary Len McCluskey did not mention industrial action (if my notes are accurate) but he did say that he would be instructing his action committees to contact and work with local anti-cuts groups.

Both John McDonnell and Bob Crow came out strongly in favour of direct action with Bob suggesting that broken windows make work for glaziers, an incontrovertible fact as events at Tory HQ show.

Krushchev’s speech about how dreadful Stalin was came to mind when Chris Bambery of the Right To Work Campaign (RTWC) talked about how some people in the hall come from a tradition where organisations rush to call themselves a leadership. He rightly pointed out that those holding such pretensions need to be punished by the mass movement and invited those present to get involved in the RTWC’s upcoming conference and demonstration.

You could make a case that there was a democratic deficit in the day. You’d probably be a bit wrong.

One hundred and twenty people had their names put forward for membership of a national committee which will elect an executive at its first meeting. All were accepted and it was made plain that there would be a deliberate mixture of politics, areas and local campaign groups. Twenty two amendments were made to the resolutions which were up for discussion and I had honed my arguments against those calling for a general strike. This was time wasted as they were all remitted to the national committee. In the circumstances that was sensible and there will be a resolution based policy making conference before July

Messy in parts, occasionally repetitive and tendentious, big and diffuse. It felt like the start of something important.

42 responses to “Coalition of Resistance conference”

  1. Yes good day, Len was quite good, and quoted Engels.

    Credit to lots of people including Socialist Resistance and very good to see such broad swathe of the left looking to cooperate, makes a positive change.

    Like

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Derek Wall, Liam Mac Uaid. Liam Mac Uaid said: Coalition of Resistance conference: http://wp.me/p5JDA-1nV […]

    Like

  3. sometimes your irony within dry hukour goes right over my head. Are you casting Chris Bambery in the role of Stalin or Krushchev?

    Like

  4. sorry that’s ‘humour’.

    Like

  5. Yes, it was a remarkable conference, and your report is a good account of it. I was also struck by how many unfamiliar faces there were. The atmosphere was electric and it’s important to note that a number of practical things came out of it, including a national week of action and London demo in February.

    I’d also honed my argument against the silly posturing of those who call for a general strike before we’ve even had sectional or local strikes. But for me it’s a very simple argument. Can you go to work on Monday morning and persuade people to join a general strike? No? Then don’t put it on your placards or call for it from a conference platform. Simple.

    The good news is that the vast majority of speakers were militant and radical but with a sense of what’s possible in current circumstances, making calls for action that were, in Paul Mackney’s words, ‘militant and audacious’ while also plausible. I especially liked John McDonnell’s call for cultural resistance, including a carnival that will “make Glastonbury look like a school concert”.

    P.S. Reply to SWP member: both.

    Like

  6. Some people thought Chris’s head might explode, but I thought between him and John Rees they produced a good calendar of events. But Chris also said no-one knows where ‘it’ is going to break next.

    Like

  7. I was in that small majority that was underwhelmed by the conference. Most people (including, apparently, Liam) saw the numbers and didn’t look too closely at the content.
    The inordinately large number of platform speakers in the plenaries (which, apart from anything else, meant no discussion) either told us what we already knew in terms of the government plans or reesorted to large dollops of hyperbole, promising actions which, with a little reflection, are undeliverable. Such may provide for warm feelings, but does little to help the movement get to grips with the real problems facing the movement.
    The real “elephant in the room” though was the total absence of any mention or discussion of the role of the Labour Party and labour Councils in relation to the cuts. Many anti-cuts committees around the country face the issue of how to relate to Labour Councillors and Labour-controlled councils. They are many diferent views on the left about what we do. Not a mention. In fact the workshop on “What should political representatives do” didn’t have anyone who could speak with any authority on the Labour Party on the platform. Bizarre.
    I’m afraid I even heckled Paul Mackney when he declared from the platform that “the Coalition of resistance works closely with the labour Representation Committee”, pointing out that the LRC had never once been approached by the CoR.
    I’m told some workshops had useful discussions. Good. I’m also told that others limited floor discussion to 2 minutes.
    Almost as problematic is the fact that the left seems to want to ignore that the 3 biggest unions – Unite, UNISON and the GMB are almost silent on the cuts. Yes, action by FBU, RMT, UCU, NUS etc is great, but it shouldn’t blind us to the obstacles we face. Maybe McLuskie will change this, but excuse me if his record around the BA dispute doesn’t inspire me with confidence. This weekend London region UNITE were supposed to be organising a `weekend of action’ (stalls etc) against the cuts, which they abandoned due to lack of interest….
    And why is it that virtually no section of the left mentions the government’s first wholesale privatisation, which is likely to be passed by parliament before the end of the year?
    Excuse me if I think that accepting 122 people on to the National Council from the conference isn’t the epitomy of democracy when conference isn’t even informed as to who they are. But no worries, no doubt our now permanent leaders of campaigns – Rees, German, etc are safely in the leadership of CoR.

    Like

  8. I note Alex Snowdon had ‘honed ‘ his argument against the ‘silly posturing’ of those caling for a general strike.
    Perhaps if he even attended his union meetings to put forward any thing that might be give him some frounds for speaking with any authority about what can or cannot be achieved,perhaps in future he should reserve his ‘honing’ and condemnation of others
    Step one Alex become a union rep step two put theory into practice step three cut out the pomposity
    For me Alex the question is have you ever gone into work on Monday and raised support for the CoR answer no

    Like

  9. Alex Snowdon didn’t if I recollect argue against John Rees and Lindsey German for advocating the general strike slogan around the Miners sackings in 1992. There were no sectional strikes then over the issue.It is so mechanical to say we have to have sectional strikes before arguing that the union leaders call national union wide strike action.It is wanting a re run of the 1950’s,1960’s and 1970’s presumably speeded up.
    It does of course also avoid awkward questions and tensions with Union leaders who speak left but don’t deliver.
    For what its worth where I work discussions are interesting in that people are angry and frightened.They lack confidence to take action in the absence of their union leaders calling it. Sectional struggle looks harder to them that possibly joining millions of other workers. France and the student protests in the UK have added weight to those arguing for the TUC to call action more that a demo. Alex Snowdon seems content with what we have.

    Like

  10. I went with 2 people who had never attended a left Conference or activity before. Both from the same NHS workplace. They both thought it was a good Conference with some buts

    Too much repetition
    Too many chiefs looking important on panels
    Piss ppor organisation of weorkshops
    No clear action
    No Democracy

    In one workshop I attended the local anti cuts campaigners in effect said this .We will do this ourselves we dont want you failed professional revoloutionaries telling us what to do get out the fucking way you useless failed bastards

    At another workshop an attempt to debate the finer points of marxs theory of something or other was listened too politely and then ignored as we went back to Solidarity and what this means
    The First rule of Solidarity an injury to one is an injury to all
    Rule Two Dont cross picket lines
    Rule Three defend all jobs and oppose every cut

    A good start

    But good consciouness raising and confidence building

    Like

  11. I think Pete’s contribution shows how you can get very different impressions depending on what workshop you went to. In the two I was in the question of relation to the LP and labour councillors was pretty central.

    I commented on it here:

    http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/3210

    Not quite as gushingly complementary as Liam but enthusiastic nevertheless. A very good start to the movement.

    Like

  12. Reliable sources tell me that Alex also strangles kittens for recreation and mugs old ladies to fund a crack habit.

    It’s utterly dismal when people refuse to engage with the ideas and just dole out personal criticism of someone with whom they disagree. Utterly dismal or apolitical bullying, it’s hard to decide.

    There is a debate to be had about the general strike slogan and there was not space to discuss it yesterday. My view is that it just is not connecting with where most trade unionists are at the moment. Yesterday it was an easy why to differentiate oneself and get a cheer from some advanced activists. That’s not the same thing as it having a resonance in the whole class. My own experience of union meetings at which I speak is that people want proof of some immediate small scale victories. Let’s give them that before calling for a general strike.

    The COR statement which supports all industrial action gets the balance right.

    Like

  13. I travelled from Manchester to attend the Coalition of Resistance conference in London yesterday and have to agree with the comments above from Pete Firmin and Anin. People commented that there were many at the conference that they didn’t recognise, and that this was a good thing, and yet the conference did not seem to embrace this. I have never attended a conference of this nature but felt moved to attend by my anger and frustration at the current government. I was hoping to learn more about what I could do to help oppose this government, but even during the Organising Locally Against the Cuts workshop, all I got was being talked at by people saying, ‘Well, we’re doing this, we’ve done that’. HOW? How do you find like-minded people? How do you go about arranging a meeting? How do you publicise your activities? How do you raise funds to support your activities? One gentleman in the room who tried to ask how these protest groups advertise themselves was asked to be quiet. My overwhelming sense of the day was that it was a meeting of activists, who already knew and agreed with each other, having a get together to re-hash old ground. During the plenaries, when there was an inspiring and informative speaker, they were rushed through their speech. Trying to concentrate on what was being said was made difficult by other people on the panel talking amongst themselves and wandering about.
    I’m glad I attended, and I am glad that there are groups such as this, and I will continue to support them. The workshop on Climate Change was great, as were some of the speakers, but I would think twice before attending something similar if it involved an expensive rail fare because I felt like a new kid at school who no-one was interested in talking or listening to. Please work harder on welcoming newcomers or you risk alienating them before they have a chance to get involved.

    Like

  14. The point I was making about Alex Snowdon was that if he had any record of raising any thing in his workplace let alone attending his NUT meetings which he does not ,then he would have at least got some grounds for pontificating about the level of support for a general strike. As he never raises any politics at his workplace how would he know
    The issue here isn’t to counterpose a general strike to sectional action but to have exactly as you say a debate about it .
    Perhaps he’s spent too much time with Clare Wiliams and Kenny Bell the right wing witchunters who he invited to the last CoR meeting in Newcastle. They don’t even support the CoR statement !

    Like

  15. Thanks very interesting

    But isnt 120 a bit large for an small organisation?

    Like

  16. I think Pete Firmin’s assessment of the Conference is a lot more objective that Liam’s. I also have a fair degree of sympathy with the person who anin reports at one workshop said: “We will do this ourselves we dont want you failed professional revoloutionaries telling us what to do get out the fucking way you useless failed bastards”.

    A testimony to the continuing failure of much of what passes itself off as the revolutionary left in Britain today I’d say, will be how most if not all of them will gloss over virtually all of the negatives and will no doubt attempt to pass off yesterday’s Conference as some big step forwards when it wasn’t.

    Such that there was a positive in it, this was that many of the sectarian groupings present appear now more willing to work with each other after years of generally denouncing each other.

    This sadly has a negative side to it too which is highlighted by Liam’s reference to Chris Bambery of the Right To Work Campaign (RTWC) speech in which he referred to how some people in the hall come from a tradition where organisations rush to call themselves a leadership. Bambery rightly pointed out that those holding such pretensions need to be punished by the mass movement as no doubt CoR will be in the not to distant future, without most of those involved coming to terms with the fact that CoR is attempting to do precisely that.

    Indeed, it seems to me that a greater number of the would be revolutionaries than those from the SWP tradition who attended the Conference yesterday have joined the rush to proclaim themselves as such a leadership, when the reality is, the anti-cuts movement nationally is still very much in its infancy and doesn’t exist at all in some places, simply in order to ‘get in on the action’ and to be seen as part of this ‘leadership’ so as to establish for itself some kind of credibility that it currently lacks.

    The turnout was good, as was the self-evident enthusiasm of many to work together despite previous rivalries, however all this needs to be put into perspective, for even if there had been 2000 there yesterday, this translates itself into a local Conference of around only a 100 people in Greater Manchester and 60 in Merseyside. Even if twice that number attended such an event in Liverpool and in Manchester most people would hardly see this as a big breakthrough as many of those based in London appear to think yesterday was, mostly I’d say in the case of the latter, because they were involved in organising it and want to paint the thing in the best possible light to justify there own involvement in it, rather than to analyse it all objectively, which is what I thought serious Marxists are supposed to do.

    Politically the thing was also all over the place, with no coherent line or strategy evident in relation to the Labour Party and Labour Councils, as pointed out by Pete, an apparent fetishising of strikes and a general strike as a be all and end all, rather than seeing the latter as an important part component of such strategy, and in its failure to recognise the driving force local campaigns and community groups need to be, alongside rank and file trades unionists, in the anti-cuts movement if it is to have any chance of winning genuine mass support.

    Yesterday”s Conference was a modest step forward at most, the 120 odd strong self-appointed National Council consisting of who knows who, a potential disaster, if it even vaguely sees itself as some kind of authoritative General staff of what is as yet a still an emerging movement against the cuts.

    The predominantly London based non-SWP, SP & non-Labour Left which organised yesterday’s conference ignore all these comments at their own peril.

    Like

  17. Paul, could you tell me what political organisation you are a member of so I can be sure to avoid it in future?

    Thanks for the report Liam – glad to see there’s a conference of people who want to put factional differences behind them.

    Like

  18. Liam’s dead right on the apoliical abuse and character assassination which passes for “debate” on the left.
    But of course it is also astonishingly short sighted and never applies to one’s own organisation. As far as I know Bambery isn’t a member of a trade union, has never lead a strike in fact his sole qualification for his role as joke pontificator is his position in the SWP bureaucracy/apparat.
    Of course that also applies to John Rees and Lyndsey German too. Hopefully the COR will not make the mistake of appointing them to work full time for it.

    Like

  19. Hi Liam or others who were there,
    Is the CoR supporting action on the 30th? I heard that they didn’t mention it at another event Rees et al were speaking at – I’m a little confused about what’s going on that day.

    Like

  20. I tend to agree with Pete Firmin’s points above.
    There were serious problems with how the issue of Political Representation was dealt with.

    I don’t see why Billy Bragg was given such prominence in the Workshop.
    He argued for tactical voting for Lib Dems at the last General election, and is now focusing on the proposed referendum on AV.
    The first position has been shown to be disastrous and the second is highly contentious.

    Nor did Laurie Penny’s arguments offer any strategy for dealing with the isssue of the Labour Party (of which, I assume, she is still a member)
    Then there was a leftish Green, Samir Jeeraj & Liz Davies, whose main point seemed to be that the Greens offered a progressive alternative to the LP.
    Caroline Lucas may be, but as a party they’re not opposed to capitalism, they’re not capable of forming a government and where they’ve had influence on Coalitions in Europe, they’ve sold out.

    None of which offered much of a way forward to the 30,000 – 50,000 people (depending on whose figures you accept) who have joined Labour since the election.
    As Alex Kenny of the NUT pointed out, these had joined Labour to fight.
    This was a serious weakness of the approach being adopted.

    Another issue which still needs serious thought is the attitude to Labour Councillors.
    Ted Knight, from the floor, argued that they had to be presented with an utlimatum by the anti-Cuts movement.
    – ‘We will support you if you refuse to implement any cuts, be prepared to face fines & prison sentences & central goverment take-over of local councils.
    Otherwise we’ll treat you as no better than the Tories in Central Government’.
    That was probably the majority view, but I’m not convinced that this is a viable strategy.
    Quite a few other people in the workshop seemed to agree.

    Certainly if they adopt the positions that the South Wales councils did, they’re beyond the pale.
    But there may be ways of reaching agreements between Labour Councils, the unions and community organisations that can still lead to a fight with central government.

    I’ll post a longer report on the COR conference on Socialist Unity.

    Like

  21. re General Strike slogan

    I actually think that several of the speeches were edging closer towards acceptance of this, including Len McCluskey’s.
    I think it’s something that should be explicitly promoted with a view to synchronising the widest possible industrial action with the demonstration in March.
    My own view is that this could well have over a million people marching through London and rival the big StWC demo.
    Certainly the leadership of the TUC will be putting their weight behind getting the maximum number of people there.

    However, to argue for an open-ended General Strike is not where things are at.
    It’s even quite dangerous if there is no accompanying political movement.
    Unless it leads to a Workers Government, it could well lead to defeat and demoralisation.

    A Workers Government could mean many things;
    It could be a Labour Government with a Left Wing leadership.
    It could be a Coalition between Labour and Parties to the Left of it.
    But what it’s not synonymous with Councils of Action.
    Obviously were quite remote from either at the moment.

    But a One Day General Strike aound March 26th would push the movement forward to a new level.
    Events in Ireland should also be watched closely, as I think the situation there is very volatile.
    Events could move very rapidly, depending on the political leadership that’s given to the mass movement.

    Like

  22. Our Freud, not someone quote that much on the left, talked about what it was that led to hatred, basically difference. He thought there were two types Hatred of Big Differences and hatred of Little Difference.

    Freud linked all this to narcissm, healthy and unhealthy.When you think your the only thing that exists in the world or that your the only thing that has any importance then Hatred of differences, big or small presents itself.

    Now subsquent theory has moved on from Freud
    but Freuds insight it seems to me is very useful when looking at the left

    Its inability to learn and its hatred of small difference…..all that energy proving your opponents wrong on the interpretation of an 160 year old text

    The Ruling Class understand that small differences dont matter when your fighting for your survival, they only matter when you have something positive to fight over

    Communication and Co-operative working, there are new scientific understandings of how Groups, Organisations and Systems work.

    Yet the Left carries on its ritualistic,outdated, irrelevant, wasteful, uselesss ways of thinking and working

    A Machine for destroying Socialists thats the Left today.

    The Crisis is in/on the Left thats why the right can demolish our welfare system and the majority of workers standby and watch

    Like

  23. Difficult to make an overall assessment. I was locked out of the main hall and was in the overflow meeting. Obviously the turn out was very positive, but for many people John Rees and co are on probation.

    What seemed to be missing from what I attended was a lack of serious discussion on strategy. There was some discussion of real problems in ‘mobilising the trades unions’ and if we only had 2 minutes to speak, Liam, who was in the chair did enable lots of people to speak from the floor.

    As I approached the venue, I thought I was back in the 1970’s – nice yellow SWP posters saying TUC call a General Strike. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Such a ‘demand’ is risible. As I said in the TU workshop, the question in some sectors is whether there will be any strike action (e.g. the NHS).

    Ideally there should be an anti-cuts movement which brings together representatives of local groups (not a collection of individuals, however well meaning). But we face the problem of the congenital sectarianism of most of the far-left groups.

    The SP appears to be proposing that the NSSN organises a national anti-cuts movement – yes another one. Chris Bambery saying that nobody should consider themselves the leadership of this movement is a bit like the devil calling for a raprochement with God (OK the analogy is overblown but you get my drift).

    But even assuming that you could create a single anti-cuts coalition, the fundamental question is whether or not the unions deliver workplace action. And here is where we face the problem of the big three (UNISON, UNITE, GMB) and their opportunist relationship with the Labour leadership.

    Can the left mobilise the membership of these three unions to force them to take action, and to implement the TUC Congress resolution? Remember? The one about coordinated strike action.

    Mark Serwotka, in a practical speech to the overspill meeting, informed us that PCS was in discussion with the NUT and UCU about coordinated action in relation to pensions. Good. But what are the big three going to do?

    Like

  24. Prianikoff “Certainly the leadership of the TUC will be putting their weight behind getting the maximum number of people there.”

    You think so. Wel,, the TUC appears to have done fuck all so far and I think too many peole have il founded illsions in the TUC. Most of theis concrete arsed bureaucratic organisation want a nice orderly march from A to B and for us to all go home and obediantly vote for the lesser of three eveils ie the Labour party and it’s cuts and privatisation polices as we did for the last 13 years.

    Half the probelm and one of the major problems for the anti cuts movement is the collusion between the right wing dominated Labour party and the right wing dominated TUC in blocking workers and trade union struggles against cuts and prvatisation from developing or growing. It was ever thus.

    Like

  25. When it comes to a demo, I think they will put their weight behind it., however tokenisic and belated it is.
    They may well be far more reticent about strike action, but McCluskey could well deliver & the mood is changing.
    Any big TU demo in March will be occurring in the context of widespread direct Action by Students, strikes by RMT, FBU, PCS and quite probably NUT & UCU members. Not to mention the knock on effects of the Irish crisis.
    So I think it will be too big to control by bureaucratic means alone.
    Anway, I’ve had a busy weekend, done lots of travelling and I need to eat….

    Like

  26. Namerry when kin Glasgow in the old FI was active in Troops Out on the ground

    Like

  27. I can see why Liam gets frustrated, such a level of criticism of a successful meeting.

    The fact is a lot of people came to this meeting with suspicions that influenced their impressions of it:

    • Anti cuts activists from local campaigns that were suspicious that some political group or other was trying to use it to proclaim itself the leadership

    • The SWP and SP that viewed it as an attempt to dish their right to be leading the anti cuts movement with their own Right to Work or NSSN

    • Some LP/LRC members who view any conference that downplays or ignores the importance of work in the LP as “missing the point”

    • Others came with there own prioritised agenda – make a big splash, get onto the leadership, get their resolution through etc.

    • And some came because they are inveterate meeting goers, and one would have to say inveterate whingers – who, if allowed, would wreck anything positive that came their way.

    Thankfully the majority came because they were involved in struggle, wanted to hear what others were doing and discuss the problems arising. The organisers had to cope with all these different groups, allay fears and suspicions and attempt to get a positive outcome. Overall I think we should congratulate them for their efforts.

    Some points being made here are useful. It didn’t occur to me in an age where 14-16 year olds can organise a several thousand strong rally and march in Trafalgar Square through Facebook that how to organise locally was an issue. We should have a workshop on it next time.

    Someone raised in a workshop that some community activists might only get involved on their own issue – a park under threat, their local library cut. How do we draw them in? Good question.

    Lets do something useful, collect the positive observations and feed them back to the organisers/National Council.

    And why oh why do we insist on discussing the general strike at a campaign’s first meeting, where there is no time and no one has had resolutions in advance? Madness.

    And I am one of those who think we will need a general strike to defeat this government’s programme.

    Like

  28. `• Anti cuts activists from local campaigns that were suspicious that some political group or other was trying to use it to proclaim itself the leadership.’

    And they would be right to be suspicious. The danger is this is a leadership that is imposing itself on the movement without ever having to win a political argument or compete for influence through exemplary practice and analysis (the non-aggression pact with RTW is a very bad sign). Its `leadership’ will be exclusively based on its administrative/bureaucratic role. In fact that is why politics (program) is not on the agenda and not allowed on the agenda. The bureaucratic centrists don’t want to frighten the left reformists and in the process frighten themselves.

    On the general strike. It would be great if we were in a position to call one and we must get there somehow. The only thing is to guard against bureaucrats or ultra lefts using the slogan as an excuse not to organise anything on the grounds that only a general strike has any value. Certainly a 24 hour public sector general strike might be possible to pressure the leadership into as a starter and we could take it from there but things are incredibly fluid so lets not forget to adapt to events too.

    Like

  29. What did Heather Wakefield of UNISON say, and how did it go down?

    Like

  30. I was enthusiastic after the first plenary. Mark Serwotka in particular was clear and eloquent. The numbers were impressive and I was somewhat optimistic. This continued for a while. I went to sessions on mobilising in unions – this included lots of useful comments and interesting contributions from the platform and the floor. Unfortunately given the run-over of timings and consequent shortened lunch break there was insufficient time for people to get together in groups and discuss how to maintain contacts/learn from each other in an informal way and so it didn’t really provide any tools for ongoing organising. I then went to the benefits session. Again intersting contributions but too little time for informal organising. From both sessions the main outcome seemed to be making links between service users and workers. A laudable objective.

    BUT, and it’s a big but. The final plenary was totally awful. Voting for 122 people to be on national council without telling us who they are is NOT democratic. Especially since, as I understand, there was at least some screening of nominations as they were being made ‘to ensure diversity’. It is doubly undemocratic because it was not made clear in the first session that ‘anyone’ who ‘nominated’ themselves would be on the council. Had this been made clear I’m sure a lot of others, including a lot of people who were newer to the movement, perhaps shy or who felt they would not be well enough ‘known’ to win a vote, would have also nominated themselves. I spoke to several in the pub afterwards who said as much. It is also not democratic to remit all twenty odd (or not so odd – I have no way of knowing) amendments to the national council (of whom we know nothing except their number). My only guess about the logic of this is that by the time this unwieldly council meets it will be so disparate that it will prove easy enough for those well organised ‘leaders’ to be anointed to the steering committee.

    Sorry to sound cynical. I was enjoying the conference for the first half, but the rushed discussion, lack of space for organic organising, prioritising of the great and good on the platform over discussion and dismissive attitude to democracy (especially when done in the name of ‘inclusivity’) reminded me of previous campaigns headed by John Rees and Lindsey German.

    Also, just a side-note – it started to seem like every speech and every campaign suggestion was being, often spuriously, linked with student protests. The student protests were/are great. I was at Millbank. It was inspiring. As are the occupations. But can we please concentrate on some of the other things that are happening – e.g. destruction of the NHS? Screwing over of benefit claimants?

    Like

  31. While I have a postive view of CoR, I concur with many of PlasticR’s reservations. This is not cynicism, just healthy scepticism based on experience.

    The 120 strong steering commitee has to be pared down. It should represent active local anti-cuts groups and be elected via a transparent nomination and voting process.

    Similar considerations apply to the 22
    ammendments received on Saturday.
    They need to be composited if necessary, have proposers and seconders and be put to a vote.
    All this can be sorted out at the February Conference.

    Let’s be charitable and assume that the organisers were overwhelmed by the numbers that turned up.
    Now they’ve collected some money from the 1300 people that did so, they should have a tidy sum at their disposal. It should allow CoR to be better organised and to circularise supporters beforehand.
    This wasn’t the case prior to Saturday; many people didn’t receive agendas or tickets in advance.

    It’s up to those with criticisms to organise around the Feb Conference, put forward their views there.
    and try to win people to their positions.

    To simply dismiss CoR out of hand would be churlish, given the representative nature of the platform & the numbers attending.
    The test of CoR will be whether it can mobilise wider forces. If not, it will be bypassed.

    Like

  32. On PR’s site George comments “Heather Wakefield, assistant general secretary for local government did not materialise on the day and no explanation was offered for her absence from proceedings.”

    As for how COR develops it has promised a policy making conference within six months. If that happens it should address the valid criticisms made about Saturday.

    Like

  33. I think there were many pros and cons to Saturday’s event. I think most of them (on both sides) have already been referred to. I think the key thing to avoid is the new National Council seeing itself as anything other than an interim and facilitatory body precisely because many people on a grassroots won’t take to kindly to anything else.

    I think there also needs to be a thorough debate on strategy. At the moment the movement doesn’t have one. We need to discuss what approach we should take towards the Labour leadership and Labour Councils, towards the trades union tops and the trades unions generally, to local community groups, local anti-cuts campaigns, etc.

    I think we also need to go beyond thinking co-ordinated strikes are our key or only weapon when a great many of the people we want to win to our cause, such as pensioners, the unemployed, homemakers, the disabled can’t go on strike even if they wanted to. Are they to be merely confined to the role of cheerleaders of those workers who do go on strike or might they be involved in other militant actions like sit ins, occupations, mass demonstrations and other street protests, which in the recent past have managed to topple Government’s (especially in Eastern Europe) without their being simultaneous strikes or even a General strike?

    The idea of more generalised co-ordinated strike action, building up to the possibility an all out General strike is obviously something we should want to encourage. However, it is merely one aspect or tactic of, rather than a strategy for our achieving victory.

    The sooner people start to wise up to this and also stop fetishising the unions and to regard them as merely an important component part of this fight, the sooner we’ll start to make some real progress.

    Like

  34. The fact is a lot of people came to this meeting with suspicions that influenced their impressions of it:
    • Anti cuts activists from local campaigns that were suspicious that some political group or other was trying to use it to proclaim itself the leadership
    • The SWP and SP that viewed it as an attempt to dish their right to be leading the anti cuts movement with their own Right to Work or NSSN
    • Some LP/LRC members who view any conference that downplays or ignores the importance of work in the LP as “missing the point”
    • Others came with there own prioritised agenda – make a big splash, get onto the leadership, get their resolution through etc.
    • And some came because they are inveterate meeting goers, and one would have to say inveterate whingers – who, if allowed, would wreck anything positive that came their way.
    Thankfully the majority came because they were involved in struggle, wanted to hear what others were doing and discuss the problems arising. The organisers had to cope with all these different groups, allay fears and suspicions and attempt to get a positive outcome. Overall I think we should congratulate them for their efforts.

    I think Stuart’s points about the reasons people attended nailed it totally and the point about German and Reece being employed by the COR gave me a cold shiver down the back. Its unusual for someone who is on probation to be given the job of a Chief Executive!

    Like

  35. I’ve just discovered that the same Saturday the Bradford Peoples Coalition, which is affiliating to CoR held a conference of 100 people. CoR on Saturday was just the tip of the iceberg… which means that we have to direct our efforts to all the people who are concerned and want to do something, not the small number of oh-so intense left-wingers.

    Like

  36. ‘TRUST US’ said Andrew Burgin at the end.

    We shall see.

    I wholeheartedly agree that we need to get fully away from the great and good formula of meetings and conferences.It’s time for a change

    Conferences / People’s assemblies need to be organised in a way so that they are far more open, non hierarchical and more like CONVENTIONS OF THE LEFT and much more allowing for those present to actually participate and speak instead of having to listen to team Stop the war/cuts drone on and on and on……….and on and on and on and on……..and on.

    I’m sick to death of the great and good and as people say this fetishising of people like Tony Benn has become so boring and tiresome.

    Representative democracy has completely failed and is wholly discredited when there are literally two Left MP’s left who speak out against the cuts..Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnel

    Big questions need to be asked of the Labour party, Labour councils and Labour councillors in relation to the cuts and their almost unaminous agreement with them and the closely related machinations of the predominatly right wing trade union leadership and bureaucracy preventing and blocking trade union members fighting against the cuts.

    Like

  37. Pete said ” The real “elephant in the room” though was the total absence of any mention or discussion of the role of the Labour Party and labour Councils in relation to the cuts”.

    Pete I too was at that worksho[p and made the point clearly from the floor that we must support Labour councillors refusung to support any cuts but if they vote for cuts then we oppose them.

    As to the point re the LRC, the COR conference has been announced sometime ago and invites to all and sundry made. At least the RTW has agreed to have a rep on the COR national cttee and made a similar invite to COR. This follows the successful links with Peoples Charter and other groups.

    Now is the time to build the maximum unity whilst openly debating tactics and strategy. In the meantime, whether we like it or not a spontaneous mass movement is emerging and this requires a non sectarian approach.

    Yes there are areas for change and developments within COR and for further links to be established with the NSSN. There is also a need for seperate discussions within this for anti-capitalist Left unity.

    Like

  38. `As to the point re the LRC, the COR conference has been announced sometime ago and invites to all and sundry made. At least the RTW has agreed to have a rep on the COR national cttee and made a similar invite to COR. This follows the successful links with Peoples Charter and other groups.’

    What a carve up. Why not just wind up CoR and join RTW? The working class won’t forget being stitched up by the sects like this. The sooner a mass movement sweeps this shower away the better. Let’s hope it does so before any of these sect fronts can do to much damage or are able manoeuvre themselves into a position to squash the real movement.

    Like

  39. Bit confused why people ate talking about NSSN as if its a competitor for COR, surely as it is for union rep’s its a different, a complementary, project. Unlike RTW which seems to have almost exactly the same remit and strategic orientation.

    Like

  40. Who puts themselves forward to head movements such as the one beginning to organise against the draconian cuts, sweeping privatisation and destruction of the welfare state we are facing in Britain? Campaigns and protests are urgently needed and heartwarming to see. Co-ordination will be useful. But what happened at last Saturday’s planning conference in London? Why did the proposal from Women Against the Cuts that the National Council of the Coalition of Resistance consist of 50% women – a demand which is not only fair in principle in terms of gender equality but would recognise that women are being disproportionately hit by cuts – disappear at the plenary session, with attendees being told erroneously that the women’s workshop had merely asked for this to be discussed, not voted on, and that 37% was ‘enough’? Indeed, speaking of fairness, why were workshops held in upstairs rooms which disabled people could not access? Why was there no creche? After decades of second-wave feminism and disability rights activism, how could this happen? A true coalition would presumably involve democratic representation from a number of grassroots organisations and groups, right across the spectrum, including e.g. Black people, disabled people, women etc etc, with delegates mandated to operate as spokespeople or be put forward for election. Could it be the case that people or organisations hoping to control this movement are extending their resistance to such ideas? Is there a culture of entitlement amongst left-wing groups that gives rise to the idea that certain amongst them are automatically leaders, who present the rest of us with whatever they decide as fait accompli? Who knew?

    Gloria Spicer
    Freelance Journalist

    Like

  41. Alf, wrote “As to the point re the LRC, the COR conference has been announced sometime ago and invites to all and sundry made.” If this is your response to what I wrote: “.I’m afraid I even heckled Paul Mackney when he declared from the platform that `the Coalition of resistance works closely with the labour Representation Committee’, pointing out that the LRC had never once been approached by the CoR”, then you are either being disingenuous or worse. No invite was ever sent to the LRC, and even if it had been, that is rather a long way from the claim to work closely with……

    As to the fact that the question of Labour Councils/councilors was discussed in various workshops, good, but that does now get away from the rather bizarre nature of the workshop on “what should political representatives do?” leaving it to indivuals to raise is not an answer.

    And, by the way, when are we to be told who is on the National Council and what the amendments are to the statement?

    Like

Leave a reply to prianikoff Cancel reply

Trending