Last week I had an e-mail from John Wiseman, a seriously hard-working trade unionist who is active in AMICUS Unity Gazette and a member of the LRC. John has just announced he will be standing for the NEC on a left ticket and I will be supporting him.Why? Because I think the "Centre Left" Grassroots Alliance is no longer particularly "left" and I also think we need more people of courage and conviction - rather than conpromise and consensus.
John's declaration has , I understand, annoyed some members of the CLGA and I can see it might be irksome to backers of the entire slate. But, ultimately, we are all free to vote for as many, or as few of the slate members as we wish.
To be frank, the inner workings of the Grassroots Alliance are a bit of a conundrum and are not transparent - nor have they been conducted in a particularly democratic fashion.
John Wiseman has been seeking advice from trade union branches and constituencies and he has every right to stand.He's honest, no-nonsense, a good socialist with his feet on the ground and we need more people like him. John is also PPC in Westmorland and Lonsdale.
Monday, 14 January 2008
TIME FOR GRASSROOTS ALLIANCE TO GET REAL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
I think I'll probably be supporting him as well. I'm not sure I could bring myself to vote against a socialist trade unionist, in favour of centre-right candidates, in an internal LP election. The whole situation, however, is a shambles. It is a stumbling block in the way of those of us trying to reclaim Labour as a democratic, labour movement based, party, and needs resolving soon.
Dear news from somewhere
I hope you will reconsider. As one of the CLGA slate, I will be voting for the..... slate. It's a proven formula for getting candidates elected to the NEC under OMOV, if not for the NPF or CAC or NCC - all of which are elected by delegates to Conference.
Susan is critical of the method of selection of CLGA candidates. So was I in the meetings that she and I attended. Now is the time for unity and discipline, otherwise the NEC elections will be a shambles and the risk of further setbacks for the Centre Left will increase.
Peter Kenyon
http://petergkenyon.typepad.com/peterkenyon/
Those are fair considerations. Hence my use of the word 'probably'. But I do think that there needs to be open and comradely debate around this issue on the Labour Left.
It does raise an interesting conundrum. John has every right to stand and I'm definitely tempted to support him myself (his platform is appealing, as is his experience, etc.) Tactically, of course, it could be an own goal - splitting the CLGRA vote and therefore letting a right-wing slate member in at the expense of someone from the slate (and there is no way of predicting who might lose from the slate, and no reason to assume it's one of those that Susan considers "no longer particularly 'left'". There is no reason why individual members shouldn't stand for the NEC, no reason why CLPs shouldn't nominate whoever they like, and no reason why members shouldn't vote for whoever they like. If members felt they had more ownership over the creation of slates, that might be an improvement compared with the current system. I agree with Peter that unity is strength, and there's no point having the alliance if each section of it decides only to support their own bit... But at the same time, as somebody who played no part in the creation of the CLGRA slate, where does the duty come from which says that I should be loyal and united to a slate, to the extent of preferring less appealing candidates over more appealing ones.
A really difficult issue. I'm discussing it with John elsewhere. I understand why he's standing - I'm still not 100% sure how I feel about it all.
John Wiseman? Is he a teacher in St Helens? I think I met him, thrice actually, once at a John McDonnell rally, then a PCS rally (my missus is a PCR union rep)and at the dep leadership campaign. He (and his dad) are really nice people, I hope he gets it. There was an LRC meeting in Liverpool but I missed it (slept in!!) Does anyone know when the next one is due?
Someone might argue: the only point in having a 'centre-Left' slate is to get centre-Left candidates onto the NEC, as part of a movement to reclaim the Party. If the slate is made up in such a way that some of the people on it aren't centre-Left, then there's no point in supporting it.
On the other hand, there's the converse argument that Peter and Dunc are making: supporting the slate might be a way of getting at least *some* (or even one) Left-winger on. I'm certainly glad that Christine Shawcroft is on the NEC, and it's not inconceivable that she wouldn't be there without the CLGA slate.
My current feelings are more from the gut than from the head. If I voted against a candidate like John, I'd simply feel like a scab.
Difficult one.
You are of course right. No one is obliged to support anyone, and the CLGA slate cannot, by virtue of existence and history, assume the support of the left.
But I do not understand what problem people have with the slate, and if they do, why they consider it so serious they would wish to split the left vote at this time. What is wrong with incumbents or Peter Kenyon or Fran Griffiths? The incumbents seem to me to have exceptional records. I don't know much about Peter or Fran.
I don't feel alienated from the process of selecting the slate. I am a member of CLPD and the exec reports to its members. I'm not a member of Save the Labour Party, but I have noted on the internet some details regarding the selection of Peter Kenyon. What is the mystery?
Dan - I agree with you, really. My problem is that, in the event of an appealing candidate standing from outside the slate, should I remain 'loyal' to the CLGRA slate or vote for the best candidate (from my perspective). It is not - as far as I'm concerned at any rate - an attack on any of the slate members, just a comparison. And I don't know the answer yet! And I appreciate, Dan, that if I wanted to have a greater say in the workings of the CLGRA I should join the CLPD or STLP (or one of the other constituent parts - I've even lost track a bit of who makes up the CLGRA these days - does Labour Reform still exist?)
John has said that he wants people to support him and the GRA slate - the problem of course is - were we to follow his advice - that means choosing a member of the slate not to support! I've been keeping out of this for a few days... Now wishing I'd kept out of it for a few days more!!!
Sorry I forgot Mohammed Azam, presumably because he is not a 'new' candidate and has served on the NEC before, and is a sound guy.
The problem with the Grassroots Alliance is that it is not a cohesive force for the left of centre. Largely because it is more "centre" than left.I am not going to get into discussing individuals but I will certainly vote for the candidates (and incumbents) whom I consider have championed the issues of party democracy, accountability and so on. Walter Wolfgang is standing down. A trade unionist like John Wiseman will be able to pull in support from a fairly wide spectrum. I could not vote for a centrist supporter of Gordon Brown over a socialist. Simple as that.
John Wiseman is indeed a teacher from St Helens and was/is a supporter of John McDonnell.He also did his best for Jon Cruddas in the Deputy Leadership campaign. He is, if anything, a unifier rather than a splitter.
At the next NEC elections we must ensure there is a left-of-centre slate which is what it says on the tin. That might mean organisations like Compass and the LRC getting involved. We also nmeed to campaign for the NPF, like the NEC, to be elected via OMOV
The major problem, of course, is that the CLGA is an anomaly. There is one organisation which is clearly the biggest, and most representative, of the Labour Left - that is the LRC. The issue is that the CLGA predates the LRC.
Daniel, what are your criteria for 'soundness'?
I think we can all agree that whatever happens this year, and however we each decide to vote, it will be sub-optimal. Everybody needs to work very hard to make sure that this balls-up isn't repeated. Personally, I'd like to see the CLGA wound up and a LRC-Compass slate in its place.
While certainly the LRC and Compass are now the two main representative groups of the left and centre-left, I think there would be a stronger argument for incorporating them into the current structure (or vice versa) rather than a year zero approach. And, as you say, that doesn't impact on this year.
I've posted on this on Labour Home - I think John should stand and we should get behind him. The idea that we should just be expected to vote for a slate which isn't as far as i understand it - unless someone explains to me otherwise - isn't selected democratically seems to me absurd when we want to support candidates who will champion party democracy and accountability!
The 'no year zero' point is understood. My issue is this: who do groups like 'Save the Labour Party' actually represent? I don't mean to be uncomradely, but I don't see why they should have a place at the table by right unless they can show themselves to speak for significant currents within the party.
Sorry, I should point out that I am 'News from Somewhere'!
sound guy - i meant good politics, good record, good thought processes.
can someone tell me what is wrong with the slate?
OK, the Grassroots Alliance Slate is basically comprised of candidates from fairly small pressure groups within the Party. A couple of hundred apiece at most. It was set up at the onset of New Labour to try and counter the forward march of "top-down" management by the leadership. The CLGA has had some remarkable successes - and excellent people. But I have come to believe, like Simon, that its time is up.
Next time, we need a broad left alliance between the LRC - currently 1000 members with affiliations from trade unions as well - the centre left in Compass - and natural supporters of the campaign For labour Party Democracy.Plus active left trade unionists. Working together.......
Last year's conference showed that the old strategy just won't work any more.We cannot have an "us" and "them" attitude between the CLPs and trade unions. It's only by bringing the left trade union branches onboard and working together that we have a hope in hell of clawing back Party democracy. That hasn't happened with the CLGA, however worthy its aims. The curent slate is a mish-mash with no strategy and we need a proper open democratic process to make headway. None at all has been made in the last 2 years. Indeed, we have gone, to coin a phrase, back not forward. New momentum is needed.Well-meaning people working in isolation just won't do it.
Agree with Newsfromsomewhere and, for the most part, Susan, though share some of Dr Dunc's trepidation.
The idea of a Compass-LRC team-up is a really important one: it would take a fair bit of effort and courage and a rebuilding of the trust between elements in the two that has been eroded in the past year, but none the less these two organisations probably have a wider reach and remit, and are better know outwith party activist inner cirlces, than CLPD or STLP. Not that I'm denigrating either of those, but we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of where we are now, in the light of the shifted sands of the past couple of years.
Susan how do you explain the fact that LRC has never wanted to join the CLGA? Similarly Compass has not sought to engage in that area of party activity.
If LRC wants to get involved in standing candidates for NEC elections, why doesn't it communicate that to CLPD/STLP?
Seems the CLGA has been very successful in ensuring those who question the rightward drift of the party have been elected to the NEC.
The NPF is totally different - different electoral process.
1. It is not the case that the LRC has not been interested in the CLGA
2.The combined membership of CLPD /STLP ( currently the twin planks of CLGA) is about 300 .LRC mmebership currently stands at about 1000. The CLGA is hardly a mass force of activists and, even worse, undemocratic.Slate members from CLPD are "chosen" by small committee not elected by CLPD mmebers.Incumbent slate members do not have to be re-elected - utterly wrong.
4.I know NPF is utterly different process. We should campaign for it to be OMOV in interests of stoppi ng rightward drift
We have to be careful not to conflate two issues here. I think there is an undoubted case for overhauling the grassroots alliance in time for next year - involving the LRC and Compass just makes straightforward common sense. But that shouldn't impact on the question of John Wiseman's candidacy.
Dear All
In the interests of openness and accountability, Susan was a candidate for the CLGA slate in the STLP all-members postal ballot. As a member of the STLP national committee, she was invited to and attended the meetings convened for CLGA member organisation, which discussed and subsequently decided the slate for the 2008 NEC Election.
According to the Scrutineers' Report Susan came 3rd after Ann Black and myself.
It was agreed, albeit reluctantly, by STLP not to press CLPD to conduct an all-member postal ballot if its members. This was a pragmatic decision not to interfere in the constitutional arrangements of another organisation.
I think it would be reasonable to say that there will be renewed efforts to ensure that all member ballots take place across the membership base of all CLGA member organisations in future.
If we can remain civil, united and disciplined, the first opportunity for that show of centre left unity will come quite soon.
I will be posting on what STLP thinks is involved on my own blog.
What on earth is the problem with re-electing those sitting members with a good record?
I've just read John Wiseman's post on Labourhome and, regardless of the pros and cons of slate-backing (I'm mulling it over), John's post is a good'un, in a going-for-the-gut-feeling way. Plenty of party members, who know little of the procedural machinations of slate selections and the like, are going to read that and consider voting for John. Whatever people settle on, the CLGA candidates are going to have to give it a bit of welly in the same way. The key is reaching out beyond our own ranks.
I think E10 Rifle is spot on. I just read Wiseman's statement and thought, 'this is what I think'. I suspect many Labour Party members will do likewise.
In the interests of openness and accountability, I did not receive ANY ballot papers for the CLGA slate.So I was unable to vote for anyone....... I put it down to Royal Mail cock-ups and accepted the decision.
The point is those on the slate have either a) been elected by a very small number of activists or b) chosen by a small clique.I will still vote for the majority of CLGA candidates as they are a buffer against New Labour but despite the best of intentions let's not pretend it's made a substantial difference to the Party 's rightward drift(unfortunately) We need a fundamental re-think.
I'm going to vote for John Wiseman because his platform is one I absolutely support. I will also vote for the CLGA candisates who i know have consistently opposed Blair/Brownite policy which has led to the serious erosion of Party democracy. There were only 2 CLGA members , for example, who supported a move to lower the leadership threshold to enable an election.They were Christine Shawcroft and Walter Wolfgang.
There's a bit more on this over at Labour Left Forum
Have not seen the slate though I know Walter is not re-standing but I am fairly likely to vote for all six myself.
Wiseman I have come across of course. At McDonnell's launch in Manchester he pledged union support (Gazette) during the meeting itself.
But afterwards he picked a fight with some independent lefties saying they would not be allowed to join or rejoin the party, introducing himself grandly as a member of the Regional Board. As McDonnell's strategy was to try to get people to rejoin and as the people concerned were not making a fuss I thought that was a rather horrifying incident actually.
If neither Wiseman nor the 2nd/3rd man in the CLGA slate gets elected, splitting the vote, then this splittery would be getting its just deserts.
Clearly many people don't tend to vote for the whole slate. The third man and woman tend to get only around half the vote of Christine and Peter as I recall. But that still puts them in the mix with Peter Wheeler etc for places.
Will it still do so if there is a seventh left/centre left candidate?
I just think it's a crying shame that firstly Wiseman wasn't given the chance to stand for election to any slate - and secondly that he's being subject to character assassination by supposed left wingers for daring to stand anyway.
I wouldn't mind if there'd been elections to the slate - but how was Wiseman supposed to get onto the slate if it was just chosen in some arcane process?
Genuine left wingers will be voting for him. And only for him.
I'll certainly not be voting for the other "Grass roots" alliance slate members. I may even vote for some of the harder working right wingers to send a message.
I hope we elect wiseman to send a message to the arrogant and out of touch GRA stitch up merchants.
Just on the point of Compass engaging in the CLGA slate. Compass is a policy organisation and pressure group that operates inside and outside the Labour Party. This raises a number of issues in engagement in the slate:
1. The NEC is not the prima-facie policy making body, that is the NPF.
2. Compass is a broad based membership organisation incorporating members on all wings of the party and outside.
3. Compass members have stood on both slates and as independents for the NEC.
I am not speaking in behalf of Compass or its Management Committee just bringing up issues why it might be difficult for Compass to engage in this process.
Also if Compass did engage and Neal Lawson was 1 of the candidates How would Susan react, she has been very publicly negative of him in the past. This is just a theoritical for Susan rather than furthering any of the points I make above.
Thanks
Alex Sobel
Yorkshire and the Humber Organiser for Compass
"Genuine" left-wingers should also vote for Christine Shawcroft as for years she has waged a brave struggle against the new Labour apparatchiks.... other than that I won't comment on the slate individuals.
Alex, If Neal Lawson were to stand he would arguably be a little to the left of at least one slate member. And that's the problem...
And I don't know why Chris Paul is having a go at John Wiseman. He came to our LRC meeting in September and everyone I know thought he was a genuine bloke who speaks from the heart. In a Party still dominated by New Labour, that's a pleasant change
I'm not "having a go" Susan. Why are you so argumentative and personal? I'm reporting an actual series of events that actually happened that I think are interesting and telling. I found these disturbing and memorable.
The whole "Regional Board" sctick was very off putting as was contradicting McDonnell's welcome to independent left. He's not the only one round here who picks fights with independent trots.
But I have no idea why Wiseman didn't plan ahead and seek a place on the slate and if unsuccessful accept that. Is he going to stand as an independent somewhere if he doesn't get a Labour seat he likes as a PPC?
As far as I'm concerned CLGA and most of the constituents of it have their problems but having LRC-competitors to a supposedly LRC-backed slate is pretty clearly undesirable.
A bit of a PS. the point of a slate between the Left and the Centre Left (in LP terms) is each element has their candidates backed by the other element with success all round. Getting four or five people on has been the result of late.
Whatever John's merits voting for him detracts from the philosophy and practical politics. Campaigning for him openly seems incompatible with involvement in any of the components.
This is not a unifying move however you slice it.
If there has been a character assasination of Wiseman I haven't noticed it.
I for one don't know him at all. Someone I trust said to me on the phone this week that he was a good bloke though.
I know loads of people in the Labour Party who would make fantastic members of the NEC. That doesn't mean that if they stood I would vote for them. I want to get a slate of candidates elected, and that is what the Grassroots Alliance is for.
Interested (and not surprised) by Alex's point about Compass. Separately though I think he is quite wrong in his premise because every member of the NEC is member of the NPF, and as combined section its a significant proportion, and so it does matter on a direct policy level who is elected to the NEC.
As far as I'm concerned good on John Wiseman for picking a fight with the trotskyist left. This is what good trade unionists do. This makes me more not less likely to vote for him.
A
Alex's point is interesting. If Neal Lawson had been a candidate on the slate this year it would have made life very easy for me: I'd vote for John Wiseman and not Neal Lawson. However, the idea of incorporating Compass into CLGA is, presumably, to also change the process. If I had been involved in a process that arrived at Lawson as a candidate alongside the likes of Christine Shawcroft, etc. then - in the original spirit of the GRA - I'd support Lawson despite my gut feeling that he's an unprincipled, undemocratic hack.
Daniel,
I know that all NEC members are on the NPF. Their primary role however is as members of the executive engaging in oversight of the party officers and general good governance of the organisation. It's also true that the 6 constituency members of the NEC represent a very small part of the NPF. Ordinary Labour Party Members can get elected to the NPF at conference (4 per region) and at their regional conference or through their regional board (2 per region). These represent a far larger percentage of the NPF and can affect the policy making process, while the 6 members of the NEC cannot.
If Compass as an organisation primarily foccussed on policy rather than party organisation were to enagage in grassroots Labour Party organisation it would be on the NPF.
Daniel I understand that you have a different view, but at least give me credit for understanding the structure of the Labour Party.
Duncan, I am glad that you understand collective reponsibility in organisations where you hold a position, I do too and sometimes we have to make compromises with people who we don't always agree. I recall I spent my entire time in student politics in this position.
Lots of comments about Labour, does anyone know when the Party will reform, because right now all I see is New Labour.
Post a Comment