Unite left decides: it’s McCluskey
September 6, 2009 at 12:07 am (Champagne Charlie, Socialist Party, unions, workers)
I’m just back from the hustings in Manchester that decided upon the Unite union United Left’s candidate for General Secretary.
Already, a lot of inaccurate nonsense is being circulated about this meeting, so just for now I’ll set out the basic facts (more details will follow):
1/ It was circulated to all United Left members, a week before the meeting, that:
“The meeting is scheduled to commence at 12 noon. However the Chair and Secretary accept that registration may not be completed by this time. Once the Chair and Secretary are satisfied that registration is complete, registration will be stopped and all participants should enter the Hall. It will therefore not be possible for latecomers to be allowed entrance to the Hall once the meeting commences.”
2/ There were three prospective candidates: Len McCluskey (the existing Unite left’s favoured successor to Tony Woodley), Jerry Hicks (victimised militant, now unemployed, ‘Respect’ member), and Rob Williams (victimised and reinstated convenor of Linemar, Socialist Party member).
3/ At about 12.30, after the meeting had begun, someone shouted out that there were members outside the hall wanting to get in; Martin Mayer in the Chair ruled that they could not come in. Jerry Hicks and about 20-30 of his supporters then walked out. There was a row about this and eventually Martin Mayer allowed a vote which very narrowly went in favour of inviting Hicks and his comrades back into the meeting, and they returned. It was then put to them that only accredited delegates would be allowed to vote, and Hicks and Co walked out again!
3/ The meeting then proceeded, with Len McCluskey and Rob Williams putting their respective cases and answering questions from the floor. At the end of the meeting a vote was taken, with the following result:
McCluskey: 170
Williams: 49
The two candidates shook hands.
4/ It was a democratic, if rather shambolic, meeting. McCluskey won fair and square. The presence of Hicks’s people would not have made any difference to the final outcome. Williams conducted himself well, but his Socialist Party leaflet was terrible (full of crap, ultra-left nonsense), and made it difficult for non-SP people to support him.
Hicks will be standing, but has now exposed himself as an unserious, undemocratic shyster.
The left in Unite must now support McCluskey, however critically.
The fake-left “Workers United” group has already agreed their candidate: the thug (in both the political and literal sense of the word) Les Bayliss. A Bayliss victory would be a disaster for Unite and the British working class as a whole. So, comrades: by all means criticise McCluskey, but get behind him now!
Mark P said,
September 6, 2009 at 12:55 am
Jim, this report makes it sound as if you supported McCluskey, not just now that he has won a vote at this meeting, but beforehand. You criticise Hicks extremely strongly, you dismiss the politics of Williams stance (even though he would presumably be much closer to your formal politics) and you say nothing critical about McCluskey at all. Why don’t you mention his moderation, his close ties with the wider slightly “left” bureaucracy and the like?
Surely the fact that he’s the least desirable of the three prospective left candidates from a socialist point of view is worth mentioning?
Jim Denham said,
September 6, 2009 at 1:08 am
Mike: I , and the other AWL’ers present, all voted for Williams.
However, the following (from the Socialist Party leaflet distributed at the meeting) made it difficult for me and my comrades:
* for a democratic lay member-led union based on the branches (JD: no problems with that)
* for election of officers (JD: AWL majority would agree, but not most of the ex-T&G Broad Left)
* no to concession bargaining (JD: what the fuck does that mean, especially in a recession?)
* defy anti-union laws when necessary – no more repudiation letters (JD: ultra-left posturing)
*disaffiliate from New Labour – no more of our members money for the party of Blair and Brown (JD: wrong. wrong, wrong! And also makes it difficult for a lot of non-aligned people to support Rob)
* for a new mass wolrkers party that fights for union policies (JD: see above)
This sort of rubbish just gets the left a bad name amongst serious militants.
Mark P said,
September 6, 2009 at 1:25 am
Jim, you may think that the stuff about disaffiliation from New Labour is wrong, but it’s hardly “ultra-left” in the sense of being divorced from the outlook of ordinary union members. In the recent Unison executive elections left candidates who unambiguously called for disaffiliation did quite a bit better than otherwise equally good left candidates who did not. My strong suspicion is that amongst voters in the election support for disaffiliation would not prove much of a turn off.
By the way, Labour members aren’t “unaligned”. By definition they are aligned.
My view on this is that whether to stand a principled left candidate against a soft left is a tactical issue. It may well be the appropriate thing to do to get out of the way in the interests of stopping a right wing challenger. Or it may not be. I’m not on the ground and so don’t have a firm opinion from afar.
I’m glad to hear that you supported Williams, by the way.
Jim Denham said,
September 6, 2009 at 1:40 am
Mike: William’s “ultra-left”-ism wasn’t just the stuff about disaffiliation. It was also the stuff about “no to concession bargaining” (in a recession???), and “no more repudiation letters” (ie: just give the state your members’ money???). His platform is nonsense. Actually, “ultra-left” is too kind. It’s simply stupid and ignorant.
Donald Mc Dougall said,
September 6, 2009 at 2:11 am
I attended the meeting, heard the arguments and was shocked that people were excluded unless vouched for by what i can only describe as “Mc Cluskeyites”. This meeting was typical of the Jackson / Mc Kenzie era, where all meetings were highly controlled and loaded with the “correct people”. Why would any candidate fear rank and file members being admitted, indeed Mc Cluskey should have rose to the challenge and demanded they be let in. Of the motion put forward to allow those outside in, I was of the opinion that this was to take a full and open part in the meeting, only to hear the chairperson putting restrictions once again on those rank and file members. These people are all members of the left wing, and as such should have been allowed to take an active and complete part in the process. This Hustings was not democratic and in his adddresss before the vote the chairman proved it.
Donald Mc Dougall said,
September 6, 2009 at 2:22 am
Once again the establishment defends itself, as a United Left we are now supposed to suport “more of the same”, good old Len Mc Cluskey instead of good old Baylis, but really whats the difference, both good old dyed in the wool, loyal supporters of the UNITE machine. We att the grass roots are sick and tired of hearing the
Well turn new Labour
We cant do this its against the law
Officers who capitulate and side with the employer
Pay cuts to members while officials suffer none
Struggles being repudiated to “protect funds”
We provide those funds, we pay for this organisation, we employ all the officers, WE WANT CHANGE, Les Mc Cluskey is not that CHANGE. The mebership will decide at the ballot box, Mc Cluskey wiill not hack it, he does not inspire and will not inspire !!!!
Ian said,
September 6, 2009 at 6:47 am
Donald..
This meeting was a United Left meeting not a constitutional Unite meeting so no, not every member could turn up and participate. The process for entrance and participation of this meeting was agreed by the United Left structures long before hand. if Hicks had bothered to turn up to any United Left meeting in the South west, which he had been invited to on many occasions, he would have known this.
Williams and his supporters behaved impeccably and if Hicks had stayed behind he would have come third.
But speaking at engaging with the United Left is not Hicks’ intention. That was obvious yesterday. Hicks is going to stand anyway, so yesterday was as Jim quite rightly said a carefully orchestrated, stage managed affair.
McCluskey on the other hand DOES represnt change to use your words. Williams, as McCluskey rightly said, has a long important future in Unite. Hicks on the other hand showed himself up to be the oppurtunist charlatan he has become since his time as a class fignting convenor at Rolls Royce.
Jim Denham said,
September 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm
We stopped linking with ‘Socialist Unity’ some time ago, after its Poo-Bah Nooman called me a racist. However, it’s well worth going over there at the moment, just to follow the discusion on the Unite left meeting yesterday (and also a highly entertaining exchange of views on the Second World War). Someone’s already brought “Zionism” into the ‘Unite’ discussion and accused me of supporting the “blacklisting” of trade unionists…fortunately, there are also some sane voices. Like this:
*****************************************************************************************
“He is a candidate who can unite the left, last time round he came second…he can do better if we give him the necessary support.”
PMSL…
Jerry Hicks is a narcissistic egotistical loner. His performance yesterday was the antithesis of how a trade unionist should act. Hicks does not understand the most fundamental concept of trade unionism, the respect of the collective decision.
How Derek Wall can translate Hicks’ disgraceful behaviour yesterday, and his total disregard for discipline in the past, as qualities that will unite the Left is a mystery. Before yesterday’s meeting I was ambivalent about Hicks. His performance yesterday, which incidentally I was told two weeks ago was going to happen, proves that Hicks is the worst possible person to lead an organisation such as Unite.
Far from uniting the Left; the dance of fools Hicks’ performed yesterday will play right into Bayliss’ hands. Hicks will run against McCluskey; he won’t receive anywhere near the share of the vote he managed against Simpson; but, he could do enough damage to ensure that we get Bayliss for a GS.
At the GS winning party I daresay Bayliss will extend a special thanks to Jerry for his part in his victory.
Comment by Irenic — 6 September, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
*******************************************************************************************
Have a look for yourselves, here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4605
Matt said,
September 7, 2009 at 8:35 am
I’m not a member of UNITE and don’t know any of the candidates involved so don’t take what I’m about to say as necessarily a parallel but as an ex-PCS activist some of Jim’s reasoning at least seems a bit suspect.
In the 2000 PCS General Secretary election, the Left Unity (SP-controlled ‘broad left’) conference voted to support the ‘soft right’ candidate Lanning against the ‘hard right’ incumbent Reamsbottom. Again, there was much talk of ‘critical support for Lanning’, ‘what a disaster a Reamsbottom victory would be for the union’ etc. Socialist Caucus supporters in Left Unity, including AWL members, decided an independent left candidate should run against them both (Mark Serwotka who of course won).
There was no question of us holding back out of ” respect of the collective decision” that LU had made, we did what we thought was necessary for the union and its members. Of course the SP had a field day: we were sectarians who didn’t accept when we lost a democratic vote, we would split the vote and let the right back in, Serwotka was a maverick etc.
Whatever Serwotka’s subsequent trajectory, I still think we took the right decision.
Jim Denham said,
September 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
With respect, Matt, I don’t think your comparison with the PCS and Serwotka holds in the context of Unite, which has a very different membership and “culture” to that of the PCS and where tye “left” and “right” camps are much more homogenious, with little or no tradition of independent candidates (not successful ones, anyway).
Also, Hicks is not Serwotka: his platform and motives for standing seem very quirky and individualistic. And McCluskey, for all his faults and weaknesses, is not Hugh Lanning. He has a record of industrail militancy (on the docks) and sclear-cut socialist politics (ex-Millie).
Finally, I do not motivate my call for a vote for McClusky on the basis of a fear of “splitting the vote”: I motivate on the basis that he’s the most credible left candidate likely to stand. Hicks has completely discredited himself by his antics on Saturday (I overheard Dave Nellist saying exactly that, by the way, as Hicks walked out for the *second* time!).
Matt said,
September 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm
That’s fair enough Jim, i explicitly said that I knew nothing about any of the candidates and that I wasn’t drawing a parallel between UNITE and PCS, just outlining the general principles of what should – and should not – decide how we act in these situations.
Two things do concern me however: firstly, the idea that making the pledge that you will only take the average pay of the members is some kind of meaningless gesture as I’ve heard some comrades imply; secondly, the participation of full-time officers of the union in the election of lay officials is clearly a big deal however long-established a practice it is.
josh said,
September 8, 2009 at 11:00 am
Is it just Jim, or has the AWL moved so far to the right that they consider the SP’s social-democratic posturing to be ultra-left?
Voltaire's Priest said,
September 8, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I agree with Jim, both about supporting Williams in the first place and about supporting McCluskey now that he’s the duly selected candidate.
There are all sorts of reasons for my preferring Williams, not least that I don’t share Jim’s (or various ex-AWL members in UNITE’s) rather odd enthusiasm for retaining affiliation to the Labour Party. However equally it’s not true that McCluskey represents a continuation of the Ken Jackson years, as has been written above. Yes, he’s a bureaucrat in the sense of having a post and a political history within the structures of the union. And no, he doesn’t represent a diametric break with the past in the sense that Williams would have.
However, is he essentially a “clean hands” candidate? Yes. Does he have a relatively good track record? Yes. And would I support him rather than Bayliss or (presumably) Gerard Coyne, rising star of the right? Absolutely.
Sean said,
September 9, 2009 at 5:47 am
Jim
Why did you vote for Williams at the UL meeting given you describe, in post 4, his platform as nonsense, ignorant and stupid?
Jim Denham said,
September 9, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Sean: I take your point. But Williams’s record of struggle at Linemar and solidarity with all other recent major disputes is arguably more important than the shortcomings of his programme, considerable as they are.
ray said,
December 25, 2009 at 8:31 am
The group name unite left are a joke
If not how come some people were excluded?
Who decided who would be allowed in and what method was used? The silence will be deafening on this
Was this meeting set up purely to start Len’s band wagon rolling and good old Jerry Hicks came close to throwing the spanner in the works
This election appears to be purely about personalities not politics in Yorkshire we are seeing some of the most right wing officials on board the Lens team.
charliethechulo said,
December 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“ray”: I was present at the hustings; I voted for Williams; put your complaints into coherent form and I’ll be happy to answer you.
ray said,
December 27, 2009 at 9:00 am
1 Who decided who would be allowed to enter the meeting
2 Some people were refused entry why
3 How many people walked out
4 if I have got it right you needed to be known to the local co-ordinator is this correct?
5 Who is the local Co ordinatoer (yorkshire ) and when did any if any meeting take place
ray said,
January 10, 2010 at 11:46 am
The silence say it all
Jim Denham said,
January 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm
OK, Ray:
1/ There wasn’t (at the time of the meeting, anyway) a definitive membershp list for the United Left. Both the old T&G Broad left and the old Amicus Unity Gazette had suffered splits and had involved new people on an ‘ad hoc’ basis over many years. The elected leadership of the new United Left decided that the fairest way to decide who should be allowed into the meeting (and -in order to prevent the kind of “packing” that had gone on in the Gazette group – who *wouldn’t* be allowed in) was to leave it up to the (elected) regional organisers on the door on the day. They would know and recognise genuine United Left supporters and be able to challenge questionable individuals. Not an ideal arrangement, I agree. But that was what was agreed. The only workable alternative would have been a completely open (to all Unite members) meeting: this suggestion had been overwhelmingly rejected at regional and national meetings of the United Left.
2/ About a week before the manchester hustings, the United Left leadership had circulated an email to all known supporters outlining the arrangements for the meeting (as described above): the email stressed that people arriving at the hall after 12 noon might not be admitted. To the best of my knowledge *everyone* who arrived before about 12.30 was admitted; the people who were excluded (including some McClusky supporters, btw) were people who arrived after the doors were closed at about 12.30.
3/ I think (from memory) it was about 30 -40 people: nor enough to have effected the final outcome.
4/ Yes (see #1, above).
5/ I don’t know, but will happily find out for you.
OK?
woodlandian23 said,
January 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Ray
Scroll down the right of this blog (http://www.unitedleft.org/) and you will find links to regional UL contacts
WTF? « Cactus Mouth Informer said,
February 23, 2010 at 8:24 pm
[...] Lindsey German resigns from the SWP. Here’s another one about the SWP shrinking. Here’s one supporting Len McCluskey for GS of Unite and, what a surprise, here is one criticising the same [...]
Is Len McCluskey the right man to lead Unite? « Though Cowards Flinch said,
March 18, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] Jim explained over at Shiraz, supporters of Respect member Jerry Hicks were concerned about the way the selection was organised. [...]
Unite: McClusky’s campaign launched « Shiraz Socialist said,
May 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm
[...] Amicus Unity Gazette groups. He won the overwhelming support of United Left activists at their hustings in Manchester in September last year. Also present were two other prospective left candidates, Rob Williams of the Socialist Party and [...]