Ten tips

Tips for conducting yourself in trade union (and other workers' movement) meetings.

1. Wait your turn to speak.

2. Don't forget you are there to listen as well as talk.

3. Remember that a 'point of order' and 'point of view' are two different things.

4. If you have contributed to a discussion, it is courteous to remain in the room to hear others' contributions to the same discussion.

5. Remember that swearing may be OK, but it is not a measure of how militant you are.

6. Similarly, confidence is good, but it does not follow that the more confident you are, the more correct you are.

7. Remember that other people in the meeting may not be as confident as you are, and think about the impact that your contribution might have on their willingness to contribute.

8. If you put your hand up to make a point, then someone else makes the same point, you do not have to go ahead with your contribution and repeat the point.

9. When you slag off some campaign or strategy or decision, it is handy to mention what your alternative would be.

10. If other people stray from these guidelines, you may wish to object.

PS. I freely admit that these are tips to myself as well as to others!

Dissolution Dishonours (The Abstractions of Democratic Reform - Part 2)

I should probably have posted this earlier, but the internet connection at the Booth/Leach residence is knackered ...

The latest Honours List has prompted my usual tutting, sneering and giggling. The 'Dissolution Honours' includes such names as John Prescott, John Reid, Michael Howard and Ian Blair. Floella Benjamin enters the Lords after a career in children's TV, though I'm not sure whether that is Big Ted and Jemima sat next to her on the leather benches or her fellow LibDem peers. And ex-student activists of a certain age will titter at the entrance to aristocratic honour of one Maeve Sherlock, past President of the National Union of Students.

Funny, I thought that it was now a matter of political consensus that an unelected chamber of Parliament is an undemocratic anachronism which should be replaced by an elected body. But while our elected politicians drag their political feet in actually implementing what they say they believe (presumably because cuts in public services absolutely must be the priority), there is an unholdy rush of those who apparently don't believe in seats of unelected power giving unelected seats to their political allies who also do not believe in seats of unelected power. What a sickening spectacle.

My late Uncle Albert refused a seat in the Lords after he lost his seat in the Commons, for the simple reason that he did not believe he should have power without having been elected. Down the years, a fair few labour movement luminaries have taken the same stand. But evidently, the acceptable alternative is to say one thing, and do the complete opposite.

The Abstractions of Democatic Reform - part 1: Fixed-term Parliaments

A lot has been spoken about electoral and political reform since the general election, following a fair bit of talk during it. Sadly, a lot of that talk has been disingenuous.

Is the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments a democratic reform? Yes it is. It was one of the demands of the Chartists. It is undemocratic, indeed absurd, that when a General Election is our only chance to replace the government, the government that does not want to be replaced chooses when it takes place, self-evidently picking the date on which it reckons we are least likely to vote to replace it!

However, setting that fixed term at the current maxiumum term of a Parliament minimises the democratic improvement it offers. Genuine democratic reform would mean setting the fixed term at, say, four years, three, or better still, adopting the Chartists' proposal of annual Parliaments.

Unpopular governments do not tend to call elections short of the five-year maximum, but to do the opposite - to struggle on for the longest possible time with their fingertips clinging to power. Look at New Labour in power, first elected in 1997. In its first term, its honeymoon period, it called a General Election after four years, in 2001. Its second term, still popular, also lasted for four years, with a general election in 2005. Only when its popularity crashed in its third term did it stagger on for five years. Its Tory predecessor did similar: calling its first two General Elections after four years (in 1983 and 1987), thereafter going for the full five years, somehow managing to win the 1992 General Election and going for the five years again. Yes, such a government still gains an advantage by choosing the exact date and giving only a month's notice, so yes, a fixed-term Parliament is a democratic reform, but now only a small one.

Now we have a further twist from the ConDem coalition government. Not only is the marginal advance of a fixed term nailed at a full five years, but Parliament itself can only get rid of a government if more than a majority of MPs vote to do so! The definition of "majority" - 50% +1 - is no longer good enough for the proud democrats who now run the country; it has to be redefined at 55%.

And, entirely coincidentally, the percentage of non-Tory MPs in the current Parliament is ... 53%! Aha - that's more than 50% but less than 55%! See what's going on here - eh? eh? It's the worst bloody stitch-up since my Caesarian.

The best way to dramatically improve political democracy is for the working-class movement to mobilise and reassert itself, to push itself back into the political arena. The impact of this would be far greater than any marginal improvement to the political process. But improvements, even marginal ones, should still be welcomed rather than dismissed. The ConDems' proposals, though, gut democratic reform of any positive content, even marginal.

Politicians And Their Consciences

As the latest Emybrology legislation approaches the floor of the House, there is a renewed flurry of excitement about MPs and their consciences, and more than a smattering of calls for MPs to be allowed a free vote in the name of the aforementioned consciences.

Explain to me, please, how it is that a conscience seems to come in to play for politicians' views only on a certain limited range of subjects. Embryo experimentation is, apparently, a matter of conscience. As is abortion rights (or lack of abortion rights). Down the years, LGBT rights have caused a tremble in the conscience department too. But war? Civil liberties? Privatisation? Cuts in public services? How are these issues not a matter of 'conscience'? What is the point of your conscience if it lets you deport people to their deaths, or sell the council housing from over their head, or fluff the nests of the rich while others live in poverty?!

Some tell us that on certain matters, their consciences must tell them what to do not their party whips. For some of these, such as Ruth Kelly and others, the 'conscience' appears to take the form of their chosen religious affiliation. So the Labour whips own your politics but the Pope or his Cardinal own your conscience?

For over a century, socialists have fought for independent working-class representation in politics - for the election of representatives who will take the democratically-decided policies of the workers' movement into Parliament and elsewhere. The problem with today's Labour whips is not that they over-ride the precious conscience and make people toe a soulless party line, but that they exert their authority to pressure MPs to break labour movement policy and toe a government line that usually contradicts it.

PS. Sorry for the long gap in blogging. I've had a bout of flu leading to a secondary infection of the chest from which I am still suffering (I've always been a martyr to my chest). On top of that, I've had a sudden and massive increase in workload with my union job the details of which I won't go into until the rather explosive dust has settled.

Consultation, Hackney Council style

At the end of last year, Hackney Council consulted tenants about rent increases. The 'choice' the Council offered them was a 5% rise, 10% rise or 12% rise. What a fabulous choice! Between rises that you can't afford, really can't afford, and really really can't afford. It's a bit like the local burglar consulting you on whether s/he should rob some of your stuff, most of your stuff, or all of your stuff.

The result of the survey? 62% responded in support of the 5% rise. Hackney Council's Cabinet then took a long, hard look at the survey results, concluded that 62% was 'just over half' (?!), and voted to increase rents by 6.7% (a figure not even included in the consultation)! Blimey, if we'd know we could go for figures not mentioned in the consultation, everyone could have written '0%' on the form.

Lucky tenants have just received a letter from Councillor Laing telling them the good news.

That is what is so marvellous about 'consultation'. It's a different beast from 'democracy' or even 'negotiation'. The consulting body seemingly feels free to ignore any result that it does not like. Trade union reps will already be familiar with this phenomenon. As are Hackney people who were 'consulted' about the Homerton becoming a foundation hospital. And Hackney residents who were 'consulted' about whether we wanted our homes taken over by an ALMO.

Seems like another small patch of forest has been sacrificed in vain.

Drowning In Sleaze

Whether it's cash-for-honours, employing yer lad on a big wodge to do nowt, or forgetting to mention that many-thousand-pound donation that some generous-but-anonymous geezer gave you, we appear to be drowning in a sea of sleaze. But while party leaders appear to find this embarrassing - and certainly do blush at some of their own MPs' more cringeworthy gaffes - I wonder whether, in the great scheme of things, they are doing themselves a favour.

Thing is, lots of people seem to be saying to me stuff like "They're all the same" ... "You can't have politics without sleaze" ... "There's nothing we can do about it", and so on. And an electorate which feels powerless to do anything other than select the least awful option on those rare occasions when the ruling party decides they should have a vote mightily suits those with their snouts in the trough of power.

So it seems to me that the left must assert that we CAN do something about it, and raise some key democratic demands, such as:

• MPs should be paid the average wage.
  
• No second jobs for MPs.
  
• Constituents should be able to recall their elected representative - for example, a certain number of signatures on a petition should trigger a by-election.
  
• The best way to do away with cash-for-honours is to do away with honours.

Moreover, the labour movement has a particular responsibility to keep its own representatives in line. Perhaps those parties whose job it is to represent the ruling class have an excuse - the people they represent are parasitic sleazebags permanently on the take, so why shouldn't their representaives be?! But the labour movement? That's supposed to represent ordinary people who live off a meagre return for their own labours.

It used to be a staple of the left that a workers' MP should be on a workers' wage (and ditto for trade union bureaucrats). But it is one of many principles that have fallen off the radar. Let's have it back.

PS. What are the chances of Respect renewal taking up these demands?! More interestingly, what are the chances of SWP-Respect taking up these demands now that they have split from their main reason for rejecting them?

Why HOPI should be accepted for membership in StWC

I thought I would stick my tuppence h'alfpenny regarding this debate around HOPI (Hands Off People of Iran).

To put my own cards on the table, Andrew Murray of StWC is wrong to decline membership to HOPI.

I hope this ludicrous decision is overturned soon. There is sabre rattling regarding an attack on Iran and another country to be targeted by the imperialist west.

"The main focus of StWC is, however, on challenging the policies of the British government in respect of the war, which includes respecting the rights of all peoples to self-determination.."

I am an anti-imperialist. Regime change has to be from within by the self-determination of the Iranian people. But why can't HOPI join? I think the arguments used by Murray are red herrings esp. One argument being that HOPI being a front for the CPGB. And I can't see how HOPI really counterposes the politics of StWC either.

There are probably other fronts…and many groups do indeed have more fronts than the average sea side town! But a coalition (yes, the word, “coalition”) should accept them. Unless if it is a deliberate attempt to smash and disrupt your group up then yes, you would bar them.

But this doesn't seem to be the case with HOPI as there are people involved who are consistent principled anti-imperialists. You politically argue your points by NOT barring them, or the specious argument that “the CPGB are a collective pain in the arse” is nonsense… Reality check here, name me a group that isn’t?

This decision should be overturned as it will give StWC a very bad name along with the anti-war movement overall. It will start an unhealthy precedent and attacks democracy. If we are gonna get picky about political affliliations and picking and choosing then what’s Andrew Murray’s group again, many people think StWC is an “SWP front” and so on… glass houses, throwing stones come to mind as well.

If this is a "front" by the CPGB then they are utterly clever in hoodwinking comrades. The list of names include some I have known for years and have been around the political block for years and would know a "front organisation" if they saw one.

If also we use this bizarre logic of denying HOPI membership then why are Labour lefties allowed? I mean, we are members of a pro-war, pro-imperialist party. Murray's argument falls to pieces. It shouldn't be allowed any gravitas.

I think Charlie Pottins is correct in asserting: "If Hands off the People of Iran was really just set up as some devious CPGB stunt, they have been clever with it. The supporters' list includes some well-known figures whose standing in the anti-war, labour and> progressive movements few would doubt (e.g.John> Pilger, Ken Loach, Naomi Klein, MPs John McDonnell and Harry Cohen, and Green MEP Caroline Lucas...).


I think it boils down, partly, to people disliking the CPGB and that is pretty subjective and apolitical. There's are many groups on the Left that I find annoying and narksome but I don't think, hey, lets bar 'em. I work with them, argue and engage with them. HOPI has other groups/individuals involved including Organisation of Revolutionary Workers of Iran, and Workers Left Unity Iran, so let them have membership.



The treatment of HOPI will fuel the fires of the pro-war "left" while rubbing their hands in glee something which coulda/shoulda been avoided.

Thoughts On The SWP Expulsions

This has been widely reported on other blogs already, but below is the SWP's explanation for its expulsion of three leading members:

Party discipline

Last weekend 3 SWP members - Rob Hoveman, Kevin Ovenden and Nick Wrack were expelled from the SWP.

Kevin and Rob

Kevin and Rob are SWP members working for George Galloway. However, recently this situation has become increasingly difficult. The party leadership has come to believe that it was impossible to have two comrades working for someone who has openly attacked the SWP in recent months. This was a position several leading members of the SWP articulated at the recent Party Council. Also over the last year there have been a number of meetings between the CC and Rob and Kevin.

At these meetings the CC raised major concerns with the way both these comrades worked in Respect. We believe that they were more concerned with promoting George Galloway's line in Respect than the SWP's position.

More seriously, they have denounced the SWP to individuals and organisations outside the Party.

Two members of the CC met with Kevin and Rob last week, they were asked to resign their posts in George Galloway's office. Kevin and Rob have subsequently written to the CC refusing to stop working for George Galloway despite the party's concerns.

Nick

The recent Respect NC voted to create a new position of National Officer. The SWP believed that the post was created to undermine Respect National Secretary John Rees. However, after some changes to the way the post was defined, the SWP agreed to setting up of the post. George Galloway then suggested that Nick did the job. Nick said he would seek various people's opinions.

The SWP made it clear that we didn't think Nick should accept the job because he had publicly disagreed with the line being put by the party about Respect. This would have created confusion in the Respect national office. Nick met with two members of the CC and agreed to accept party discipline and not take the post. Several days later his name was put forward by a member of International Socialist Group for the post. When asked, Nick refused to withdraw his name saying he had changed his mind and now wanted his name to go forward.

Despite a further meeting with two members of the CC and several phone calls, Nick refused to withdraw from standing for the post. There are occasions when the CC may ask a comrade not to take a post, perhaps a full time trade union position, or promotion to a job that puts someone in an untenable position. Nick was therefore expelled because he refused to work under the direction of the SWP leadership and reneged on the agreement he made with the CC.

It is important to make one thing clear, the three comrades have not been expelled because they disagreed with the Central Committee. It is because they failed to accept Party discipline and worked against the nationally agreed SWP line.

Expelling comrades is not something the CC does lightly, but in all three cases we felt we had no choice.



Of course, this is the latest in a long and appalling history of the SWP purging its ranks. It may claim not to do so 'lightly', but the very large number of expelled SWP members could testify otherwise. Even if the SWP insists that these three members were not expelled simply for expressing disagreement, there is certainly a long long line of people who have been chucked out for just that.

The statement is notable for its lack of any description of the process by which the comrades were booted, whether or how they have the right to appeal etc. I was expelled from the Labour Party by letter; I suspect I would not have had any better treatment from an SWP-style regime.

However, I think it would be wrong to present this simply as a matter of SWP Central Committee tyrants oppressing the brave and principled dissenters.

Firstly, I feel an urge to note that although explusion should not be carried out with the frequency and method by which the SWP does it, it is not on principle, in all cases, wrong. No socialist organisation should expel members just for disagreeing, or even for disagreeing in public, but surely no-one would deny a socialist organisation the right to expel someone for, say, crossing a picket line, voting Tory, or physical violence against another comrade. Between these two extremes lie many acts which may or may not warrant discipline.

Secondly, the three expellees have actually done somthing quite gross - shacked up with George Galloway and refused to give up their cosy bag-carrying jobs with His Gorgeousness. Yuck. I wouldn't want someone in my own group (Workers' Liberty) who did that.

But what strikes me most of all about this is that the SWP is swimming around in a cesspit of its own making. Expelling people for schmoozing with Galloway?! That's been your organisation's entire perspective for the last few years!

Surely all Nick, Kev and Rob have done is take the party line too literally. When lots of us said that Galloway was an unprinicipled, fat-cat, egomaniac, bigoted pal of some of the world's worst tyrants, the SWP both defended him and denounced us for saying so. But really, they knew that it was true - and just said what they said to protect their latest opportunist turn in the hope of recruiting from Galloway's orbit. Perhaps the expelled trio believed what their party said and forgot what they should have known to be true.

By the way, my comments may or may not be the Workers' Liberty 'party line', but if they are not, I sure won't be expelled for making them.

Is this the end...?

Gordon Brown got what he wanted and railroaded through changes to Labour Party democracy. Around 84.5% voted in favour of Gordie's reforms. And no protest from the unions.

Well, as John McDonnell said: if Brown "forces his proposals through, could the last Labour party delegate leaving the Bournemouth conference hall turn off the lights please, they will be the lights of democracy".

The GMB union and Remploy workers were angry as their 12 motions opposing factory closures had been ruled out of order for debate this week. And a motion on the possible attack on Iran was removed.

This is the things to come... Democracy, Gordon Brown style.

Union Futures and Grimmer Up North have posts on RIP LP conference.

Au revoir Labour Party democracy...?

Well, the union leaderships were against the radical changes to Labour Party democracy but hey, a week is a long time in politics. So guess what? The bureaucrats have capitulated.

What made them change their mind? Was it a free bag of crisps...? A year's supply of Ferrero Rocher....? A Blankety-Blank cheque book and pen? Or couple of gongs sent next-day-delivery?

Whatever it was, the union bureaucrats are now saying they have won some "major concession" where the procedures will be reviewed in two years.

Way hey... so in other words in 2 years time there will be the so-called review and probably more proposals to eradicate party democracy overall. Brown and Co. will continue the attacks and the union bureaucrats have helped to achieve this.

And what is the betting that party conference will be reduced to a rally where everything will be scripted and properly choreographed. This is the start of the death knell for LP democracy.

Being an old misery guts (it is a standard state of mind on the Left...) to say the Left is weak is an understatement. It is going to be an uphill struggle for whichever strategy you choose in terms of orientation towards the LP (inside or outside). But what is obvious, there needs to be a fight in the unions.

Grimmer Up North has a post on this as well.