08.11.2001

Unison United Left

Significant advance

Around 120 Unison members attended the founding conference of the union?s United Left. This marked a significant advance - a single body, incorporating all the main left groups, as well as Labour Party members and unaffiliated comrades, has now been established. Hopefully we will be able to build a rank and file movement capable of challenging the bureaucracy.

However, the agenda was tightly packed and many of the motions were only presented just minutes before proceedings began. Copies of some were in short supply, which meant that voting was often a matter of trust. Nevertheless, some positive decisions were taken, and a working constitution agreed.

The conference opened with reports on industrial action in opposing New Labour?s privatisation drive. Speakers representing a number of disputes outlined their strengths and weaknesses. But the first real debate of the day was on the war. To save time this was taken together with the racism debate, originally scheduled for later in the day. Comrades were presented with three motions - the first from the national committee, which condemned both the attacks of September 11 and the assault on Afghanistan by US imperialism, aided and abetted by Blair. Unfortunately the debate featured calls by some comrades for opposition to the war to be conducted through appeals to uphold international law.

Yunus Bakhsh (Socialist Workers Party) presented the national committee?s motion on racism. After linking the increase in attacks on muslims with the events of September 11, the comrade stated that anti-racist work in the union had been given a boost with the formal backing for the Anti-Nazi League - first at Unison?s black members? conference and then at national delegate conference - by Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary.

The debate on these issues revolved around routine attacks on racism and the war, together with anecdotal reflections on the opportunities for big demonstrations and meetings. Whilst welcoming this increased activity, Lawrie Coombs (CPGB) commented that deferring the conference - initially fixed for October 13 - had been a mistake, since momentum had been lost in a crucial period: ?Demos are not the only form of struggle against the war,? he said. Gatherings of militants from Britain?s largest public sector union are every bit as important, and changing the October 13 date so that a few dozen could attend the London march alongside 50,000 other demonstrators was a mistake.

Criticism was also forthcoming over what was not in the motion against racism. Yunus had rightly condemned the local authorities for banning the ANL carnival. However, the point was made that calling on the state to ban fascist events will inevitably lead to similar measures being taken against us.

Roger Bannister (Socialist Party) led the criticism of the Unison national executive?s position on the war - support for Bush and Blair swathed in humanitarian platitudes. Comrade Bannister condemned the NEC for cosying up to their New Labour bedfellows and called for the presentation of the socialist case against the war.

The most politically thought out motion came from Alliance for Workers? Liberty comrades. The motion condemned islamic fundamentalism along with US imperialism. This created the main friction of the day, with SWP cadre stepping up to slap down the motion, moved by Kate Aherns. CPGB supporters spoke in favour. Eryk Karas, a supporter of both the CPGB and the Revolutionary Democratic Group, pointed out that the SWP, in refusing to challenge islamic fundamentalism, was failing to push for an independent working class position. Socialists need to provide answers for every political phenomenon and should never bury their own politics in a vain attempt to appeal to a particular audience. Yes, the main enemy is at home, said the comrade, but that does not excuse us from the task of presenting a rounded analysis.

This contribution much vexed comrades from the SWP, who insisted that we must concentrate our fire exclusively on imperialism, particularly the US variety, and made farcical allegations that the expression of opposition to islamic fundamentalism as a political phenomenon would lead to muslim women being ?forced off? anti-war demos for wearing scarves - ie, showing their religious attachment. Apparently opposing the islamicists would call into question the intifada and even lead to the growth of the BNP.

The AWL motion was lost, one third of the meeting voting for - including the Socialist Party contingent. Comrades were then asked to vote on a motion put forward by the SWP which was not available at the start of the conference and very few copies appeared to have been circulated. It was overwhelmingly carried, as was the anti-racism motion tabled by comrade Bakhsh.

The anti-privatisation debate, opened by Labour Party member Kenny Bell, featured a succession of speakers involved in fightbacks all around the country, from Plymouth to Kirklees. All members of the United Left were encouraged to ensure a mass turnout for the November 24 anti-privatisation conference. One comrade was uneasy about some of the contributions. We need not only to criticise the union bureaucracy, but to look to our own shortcomings in failing to generate a rank and file fightback.

This is correct: while it is important to challenge the leadership through contesting union elections, it is of far greater importance that we build a militant rank and file movement within Unison - and beyond, possibly looking towards a 21st century Minority Movement. Rather than carping on about how bad the leadership is, we need to develop a positive strategy to transform our working class organisations into combat battalions for the struggles to come.

Four motions and at least one amendment on the political fund were presented on the day. The debate was rushed and comrades were given insufficient time to reach a measured position. The United Left may come to regret this, as each of the motions contained valid points and would have benefited from a compositing process. This would have avoided the impossible situation where complex points were argued in pinched, quick-fire speeches. The Socialist Party comrades appeared to get themselves into a bit of a muddle, with Roger Bannister putting an amendment to the motion from his SP comrade, Glenn Kelly. The amendment was a convoluted one, calling, in addition to the two current Unison political funds, for the establishment of a third, which could be used for backing non-Labour candidates. This was defeated, with only Socialist Party members voting in favour.

At the end of the day a motion was passed which called for the union?s funds to be democratised, allowing the possibility of candidates other than Labour Party members to be sponsored.

All of the issues debated were important and it was correct that sufficient time was allocated for discussion. But this meant that the final items of the day were squeezed into an unrealistic time frame, not least those concerning the United Left?s constitution and the election of its national committee. .

Eryk Karas and Lawrie Coombs