Amicus Unite elections update

Wiseman Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Dear all

Please continue to vote in this important election.  Don't waste your vote.  follow the link below

http://www.unitenecelections.com/Leaflets.htm

Thanks

John Wiseman

Amicus Unite 2A/0538 Branch






tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Amicus Unite elections update | 38 comments (38 topical)

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#1)

by daisycutter on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM GMT

As I have said on these pages before, several of these candidates are members of the SWP and others are their fellow travellers. My advice would not be to vote for this group if you are a Labour supporter in Unite.


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#2)

by Just Labour on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:25:29 AM GMT

Daisycutter is absolutely right. I encourage Labour party members and others in Unite to NOT vote for this slate.


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#3)

by alexhilton on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:18:44 AM GMT

May I ask which of the candidates are members of SWP?


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#4)

by e10rifles on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM GMT

Can I also ask what it matters whether they are members of another party if you share their views on internal union matters?

Voting for an SWP member because you think they're a good shop steward, branch secretary or NEC member is not the same as voting for an SWP candidate against Labour in a general election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#5)

by alexhilton on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 12:23:51 PM GMT

I would default to the Labour member in most cases, if only to keep secure the Labour link.

I also, specifically, tend to disagree with SWP on matters of political strategy, so I'd generally vote against them on that count.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#6)

by e10rifles on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM GMT

Even if you thought they were a rotten candidate likely to run the union down and sell you out to employers?

Not that any LP member would ever do such a thing, of course...


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#7)

by alexhilton on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM GMT

You have to take party membership as a kind of shorthand to a person's values. If I knew a Labour candidate for any post - even public offices - to be unsupportable, I would not support them.

But if I knew little about the candidates, I would default to supporting the Labour candidate.

If I'm not the Labour core vote, who is?


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#8)

by e10rifles on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM GMT

It's quite common to have LP members on opposing slates in union elections.

Frequently the rightwing slate will have members of the LP, CPB, CPB(M-L) and other parties or no party at all.

And frequently the leftwing slate will have members of the Labour Party, SWP, SP and other parties or no party at all.

Who would you vote for? Labour Party members from both slates?

One concerning thing about Daisycutter's post is the (hypocritical) suggestion that one should not vote for LP members if they are on a Broad Left slate, just because some other BL candidates are in other parties.

These elections should and will be decided in most cases not by what party a candidate is in but where they stand on the issues confronting the members.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#9)

by grimupnorth on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM GMT

Hear, hear. Certainly  the case  in  our union the NUJ


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#10)

by daisycutter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM GMT

E10 I am not being hypocritical, in fact I am sure there are some good candidates on that slate. But Wiseman is asking for blind loyalty to that slate, and people may be voting for a candidate without knowing that they belong to a trotksyist group who wish to see trade unions fail so that they can fill the gap. Furthermore that even non-swp members in that group will be bound by caucus decisions they must then take through to the Unite executive, decisions which may run contrary to the best interests of democratic socialism, whether industrial or political.  Any group such as this that is overly influenced by the SWP must be kept at arms length.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#12)

by alexhilton on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:57:15 PM GMT

I would be inclined in that case to vote for the Labour candidates from whatever slate and then consider which of the other candidates looked useful.

there enough forces against the Labour movement


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#11)

by daisycutter on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM GMT

SWP members in PCS were censured last year for voting the PCS Executive against SWP policy and agreed line. Which demonstrates that what they decide is not in the best interests of members, it is in the best interests of the SWP. They oppose every progressive move that unions make -including mergers to give unions greater influence - and they wil do everything to break the link between the unions and the Party.  As this is a Labour -based website, I assumed that people here generally support Labour and so would not want to support candidates who actively work to undermine that party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#13)

by abc123 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:39:06 AM GMT

daisycutter is spot on.

Unions are part of the Labour Movement and so is the Labour Party. The link between the two is fundamental. Why would a Labour Party member, especially one on the left, in a trade union support a candidate who would want to break that link.

To my mind there are only two type of people who want to break the link - those on the right of the party who see it as damaging the party, or those hard left socialist outside the party who want to break the link so their parties can be supported.

Wiseman's support of candidates from in other parties who want to break the link has just confirmed to me what I always thought. The LRC / GRA people in the party would be better off outside of the party, as they seem to have no loyalty to if, even on a touchstone left issue such as maintaining the link between unions and the party. Their self hatred of the party leads then into pacts with people who would want to destroy the the vitally important trade union link.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#14)

by e10rifles on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM GMT

I presume this is satire? You'd like to see the LRC booted out, presumably including the four trade unions which are affiliated to both it and the Labour Party?

Nobody in the party has been more vociferous and active in defending the union link than the LRC.

Believe it or not, the link is not the only nor even the primary issue in the way people vote in internal elections.

As a Labour Party member I would have no hesitation in voting for a member of another party if I thought they were the best candidate for a position in the union.

I know plenty of other people feel the same, including many who do not share my politics.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#18)

by abc123 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:36:27 PM GMT

No this is not satire.

I know the LRC position is to support the link. But, and this is my point, if the LRC members are prepared to support TU  NEC candidates who are members of other parties who want to break the link, their position is muddled at best. And downright damaging at worst.

I would agree with you that a party member could support a member of another party for a trade union position if they though they were the best person for the job. But I would make two points. Firstly, if the person they supported was a member of a party that wanted to break the link then I'd argue this counts very heavily against them being "the best person." And secondly, it;'s one thing to support a member of another party for a more grassroots union post ion such as a local rep or convener; it's clearly another thing to support them for the much higher office of being an NEC member.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#21)

by e10rifles on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM GMT

I don't think that many union members vote for a candidate based on their party affiliation. They vote based on their record and their address. And far too many Labour Party members in senior positions in the unions have collaborated in the attacks on our members over the last ten years for there to be much automatic loyalty left among the membership.

I notice you didn't say whether you want the LRC-affiliated unions kicked out of the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#15)

by Wiseman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM GMT

If it helps

95% of these candidates are labour party members and two are ex respect or swp.  If you want I can list them.  The others are active CLP delegates, but from the centre-left or left of the party, so I would get your sources correct.  I can even list them the CLPS if you wish.

If you want to know any details of a sector or regional candidate, let me know.  The problem is that the centre is voting for this slate in the union and it is getting up the right wingers nose.  Daisy cutter, please tell the sector and region your in and I well tell you if they are in the labour party, but is the case a number of these people are GRA or LRC members actvists and some are in compass, so we have mixed bag to appeal to the whole of the party and trade union movement, so we have a broad coalition.

John


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#17)

by daisycutter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:27:23 PM GMT

Well John I disagree that the SWP does not have a strong influence on the group, but anyway I am in voluntary sector in London. Tell me who the candidates are and which CLPs they're in. And in disagreement with a previous post, I am on the left of the party and I think that GRA and other groups are pretty representative of my own views. I just have no time for trotskyites and their fellow travellers.

Daisy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#20)

by Wiseman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM GMT

It is fair to say that the strongest area for our comrades in the SWP/Respect candidate wise is London, but this doen't take away the representation they can give.  They are all trade unionists.  The gentlemen you are after is John Barr Voluntary and non for profit and Ray Morrell (london), one is Labour party and the other is respect.

Regards

John


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#23)

by daisycutter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:26:51 PM GMT

I have now checked up on the other candidates in London. One is a man I have never heard of. The other is centre left wandsworth councillor Leonie Cooper. And you would rather I vote for Ray Morell (SWP, not Respect - let's call a spade a spade) than left leaning Labourite Cooper? This is crazy.

Daisy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#16)

by Wiseman on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 12:12:54 PM GMT

The candidates for North West Region

http://unitenwneccandidates.blogspot.com/

Thanks

John Wiseman
North West Editor
AUG


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#19)

by maybin on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:07:11 PM GMT

Just thought i'd let you know that I'm standing in this election and am both on the Gazette list and a Labour Party member. I am currently in the Canning Town and Poplar CLP however the new boundary will mean me being in West Ham.

Please take the time to have a read of my address on the aforementioned website.

I do truly believe that i would make a good NEC member so am interested in any comment you may have.

Cheers....P


Don't vote for the SWP et al (#22)

by grayee on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:05:47 AM GMT

I am a member of UNISON and not Amicus and personally I don’t think that other trade unionist should directly comment on the democratic elections of other trade unions. 

 

However, for what it is worth this is my pennyworth on what I think that people should remember when considering who to vote for in Labour Movement elections.  The big picture is that the SWP and nearly all Trotsky groups see the world that we live in, in very different terms than most of us.  They honestly believe that we live in some sort of nasty, brutish, quasi fascist police state that absolutely deserves to be overthrown by any means necessary.  Revolution Now! Is the preferred tactic to bring down this awful society.

 

This means that the SWP and similar organisations will put the interests of whatever they think will progress the revolution first, second and third.  How the revolution will be best progressed is generaly decided by their central committees of their great and the good. They believe that revolution will only come about by encouraging strikes and civil discord whenever possible.  Remember the ends justify the means.

 

Since revolution is the ultimate aim if any member fails to follow the central committee orders they will be expelled as naughty counter revolutionaries.

 

This means that no matter how good a particular SWP steward may or may not be at a local level, you must remember that their primary loyalty is to their central committee and the revolution, not to the union or to an individual member.  

 

That is why I honestly think that you can not vote for any Trotskyite candidate and any slate that includes them.


Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#24)

by e10rifles on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM GMT

What about Trotskyist members of the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#25)

by grayee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:37:52 AM GMT

same for them as well


[ Parent ]

Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#26)

by e10rifles on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM GMT

So much for the broad church.

I for one would never vote for a red-baiter like you.


[ Parent ]

Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#27)

by andycharlwood on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM GMT

Yes we are abroad church, but we are democratic socialists. Revolutionary socialists should worship somewhere else.


[ Parent ]

Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#28)

by e10rifles on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:57:17 PM GMT

Another one advocating the expulsion of all Trotskyists from the Labour Party?


[ Parent ]

Re: Don't vote for the SWP et al (#31)

by grayee on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:53 AM GMT

is that a promise? Please say yes!


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#29)

by Wiseman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:51:57 PM GMT

no

we are a broad church, and some people need to remember this, because if they don't they will fail in the party.

Thanks

John Wiseman


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#32)

by Ernesto on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:03 AM GMT

John, I am sure we all appreciate the advice here. Please clarify what you are saying. Are you an advocate for having revolutionary socialists in the party? How do you see that playing in marginals outside of the heartland seats? Do you believe that it would be to our electoral advantage in the heartlands? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#30)

by writingwrongs on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:00:35 AM GMT

What a thoroughly depressing discussion. Not one post about the actual issues and problems in the workplace that confront ordinary trade union members in this country, but loads of bitching and sectarian character-assassination.

As a Labour leftie, I'm not that worried about the SWP's apparently insurrectionary revolutionary talk - they're not going to achieve any of it. They're hopelessly not up to that task. But some of their members are good union reps and are good at representing ordinary members, so may be worth a vote in some circumstances.

If we REALLY want to keep the Labour-union link strong and viable, the best way to do it is to make sure it achieves some demonstrable benefits to trade union members, rather than propping up an often neoliberal anti-union agenda much-loved by too many people in government and beyond.


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#33)

by Redflag85 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:43:24 PM GMT

"What about Trotskyist members of the Labour Party?"

The Labour Party was formed to represent working people in Parliament. Revolutionary socialists believe this type of reformism to be useless, save for purposes related to their own propaganda.

They have no reason to be in the Labour Party; those who are are only there to a) use it for their own propaganda purposes b) prove that reformism must fail by making policies radical to the point of unelectability - I'm sure everyone who lives under Tory governments will thank them for that c) persuade people to leave, and join their own parties.

As such, they shouldn't be in Labour in the first place.

That said, I agree with some of the posters above who make the point that the neoliberal attacks on trade unionists are the biggest priority. Fighting this must come first. But...

Why can't we elect a left slate to pressure the govt. away from neoliberalism; but one without revolutionaries who are opposed to the fundamental and historical goals of the party, and less electable within unions?

What we need is a LABOUR LEFT. Not movements which oppose either the 'labour' or 'left' bits.


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#34)

by Wiseman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM GMT

My home for these elections is that we have over 2/3 of the seats on the NEC (certainly a possibility).  Again they are part of a broad left of activists mainly labour party but including repsect and cp members and the fact is outside of that little world of London, most of these people work together in trade councils, campaigns such as anti-war, the peace movemen, trade unions, remploy.  I wish people would stop living in a bubble.

The truth is that the Labour party needs support and affliations money.  To start with we need the re-affliation of the RMT and FBU, as well as the NASUWT and NUT with political funds on board.  Then this will lead to people who are in the SWP and RESPECT, rejoining the Labour party, swell our numbers and then we can become a broad church.  Another fact that a stronger labour party existed, when a strong communist party existed.

Wiseman


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#35)

by Ernesto on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:04:25 PM GMT

John, do you really think it to our electoral advantage having avowed Trots inside the tent? Sorry, but this is fantasy. Also can you back up what you say about a "stronger" labour party co-existing with a "strong" CP? When was this? how do you define "strong" in your terms? It all seems a bit sweeping to me and ignorant of what happened in the past. 
These people are not interested in democratic socialism, they are interested in revolution. Do you believe the glorious day will still come?
I agree that our comrades in disaffiliated unions would be better served back inside, as would the party.   


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#36)

by Wiseman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM GMT

I am glad we agree on something, on the cp many of them usually support us in the Labour party.  I am on the left of the party and I am not ashamed of that, I do know comrades and friends in the CP, and work with people in RESPECT/SWP.  The facts is in reality if we all don't work together, we are stuffed and the best hope is with the Labour party

John


Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#38)

by Ernesto on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM GMT

John, this is naive. I also have friends on left outside of the Party. They despise what the Labour party stands for and would happily see it destoyed. Once again, you advise us all to take your view point and what the "the facts is in reality........" without an ounce of depth to your generalisations. You always make pleas to stick to policy in debate, but then make sweeping statements and tell us all how it is. I have asked you for an analysis of how you see it to our electoral advantage by having fellow travellers back in the tent. All you have offered is "if we dont work together, we are stuffed......." what does this mean? I am asking you again to please define your terms. I am genuinely seeking to debate this with you, please dont dismiss this request with more rhetoric. Give us your reasoned argument.


[ Parent ]

Re: Amicus Unite elections update (#37)

by writingwrongs on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:42:19 PM GMT

"To start with we need the re-affliation of the RMT and FBU, as well as the NASUWT and NUT with political funds on board."

Indeed we do, so how might we go about getting them back in? How about we actually adress issues that the more right-leaning participants in this discussion seem to be avoiding. Namely that the union link is really hard to sell at the moment, because of the policies of our government. In turn, that makes even union membership quite hard to sell when people respond: "they just give their money to Labour for sod all in return". I've had this sort of stuff from people who are by no means politically radical, let alone "Trots".

This in turn means that Labour-affiliated union leaders might have to do a bit more to show their commitment to Labour and the link than undemocratically capitulate to the party leadership in backroom deals.


Amicus Unite elections update | 38 comments (38 topical)