LUGlasgow LU First National Meeting Docs

LU First National Meeting, May 11 2013
LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

st
Contents
Documents 1. Kate Hudson: Statement circulated by the organizing committee.....................................................................3 2. Nick Wrack/ Will McMahon Resolution..4 3. Nick Wrack: rationale for amendments/ resolution..4 4. Nick Wrack/Simon Hardy motion........6 5. Ken Loachs Speech..7 6. Election Results (Steering Committee).8
Reports 7. Stuart Watkins10 Comments on SWs report.12 8. Liz Gray..14 9. Micheline Mason....15 10. Pete McClaren...16 11. Tina Becker...19 Comments on TBs report...23 12. Adam Roden..25 13. Terry Conway27

st
1. Kate Hudson: Statement circulated by the organizing committee Europe is plunging deeper and deeper into crisis. Its governments are continuing with their failed austerity policies which are destroying the social and economic gains working people have made over many decades. The economic crisis has increasingly become a social and political crisis as people face poverty, hunger and even death, as a result of the catastrophic and government-imposed failure of health systems and social services. A further manifestation of this crisis is the rapid development of fascism in Greece, in the shape of Golden Dawn. However the people of Europe are fighting back. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political formations have emerged, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives, and challenging the capitulation of social democracy to neo-liberalism. Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but Labour is failing to pose a viable economic alternative. It embraces neo-liberalism and does not represent the interests and needs of ordinary people. A successful response to the rightwards move of Labour has not yet taken place, yet we have equal need of a new political formation which rejects austerity and war, advocates a greater democratisation of our society and institutions and transforms our economy in the interests of the majority. The strong support for Ken Loachs appeal to discuss the need for a new left party shows that many share this view. Discussions are ongoing but there is a strong desire for a new party of the left which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies would stand against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and fascism. Its urgent tasks would be to oppose austerity, defend the welfare state, fight to restore workers rights and advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class. Its political practice would be democratic, diverse and inclusive, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; the rejection of the corruption of conventional political structures and their frequent reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society. International solidarity is fundamental to the success of any resistance and the achievement of any political progress; such a new party will work with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally, to build coordination, strategic links and common actions. From this meeting today, we call on the national coordinating group to organise a conference of Left Unity groups and members this autumn to discuss the founding of a new Left Party, to facilitate commissions to outline the principles and policies of such a Left Party, and to outline a timetable for a Founding Conference in 2014.

st
2. Nick Wrack and Will McMahons resolution The working class in Britain and internationally is facing an immense economic crisis. It is a crisis of the profits system capitalism. The capitalist class and its political representatives are intent on making the working class pay for this crisis. No party in Britain represents the interests of the working class. We agree to proceed to a founding conference of a new party in 2014, preceded by a period of discussion and debate involving all those who want to join the process. The fundamental principles underpinning this project are: 1. The new party will be socialist. It aims to replace capitalism with a new society, based on the democratic, common ownership of the wealth, natural resources and means of production, with production for need not profit. 2. It will fight tooth and nail to defend the gains we have won in the past and to extend these reforms. 3. It will be internationalist. 4. It will be democratic. A fuller party programme will be elaborated through the discussion and debate and agreed at the founding conference.
3. Nick Wrack: What is the starting point for Left Unity? What is the starting point for Left Unity? On 11 May, Left Unity will hold its first national meeting, with people attending from many parts of the country. The response to the call for people to discuss the idea of a new party has been very encouraging. However, these are still early days. We do not know yet how many of the 8,000 or so who have signed up will participate further. We need to make sure that the process of discussion and debate leading to the formation of a new party is thoroughly democratic, involving as many people as possible and not taking decisions prematurely. At this stage some of those who will attend on 11 May will be representing local groups that have met once or possibly twice and who have been elected by their group. Others will be people who have volunteered to be local points of contact but where no local group has yet been formed. In addition there will be those of us who are members of the temporary organising group whose names were put forward at a meeting in London attended by about thirty people. In many ways, the members of this temporary organising group (myself included) have less of a democratic mandate than those elected at the local meetings. I believe that there is a clear case for forming a new party and have set out my arguments in several articles that appear on this website and elsewhere. I know that there are others who also support the call for a new party but disagree with my views. Thats the nature of the venture weve embarked on. Left Unity is bringing together people on the left with different experiences, different opinions and different ideas about what the new party should be.

st
Its for that reason that we need a longer period of discussion and debate to determine the programme of the party. However, if there is to be a statement agreed at the 11 May meeting, it should at this stage be no more than a succinct elucidation of some basic principles that could underpin the discussions and debates to come. In my opinion, the statement drafted by Kate Hudson, which has been sent out by the organising committee for consideration at the meeting on 11 May attempts to go further than is necessary at this moment. I propose, therefore, that the meeting on 11 May considers the following short statement that pretty much everyone should be able to agree as a starting point. The working class in Britain and internationally is facing an immense economic crisis. It is a crisis of the profits system capitalism. The capitalist class and its political representatives are intent on making the working class pay for this crisis. No party in Britain represents the interests of the working class. We agree to proceed to a founding conference of a new party in 2014, preceded by a period of discussion and debate involving all those who want to join the process. The fundamental principles underpinning this p roject are: The new party will be socialist. It aims to replace capitalism with a new society, based on the democratic, common ownership of the wealth, natural resources and means of production, with production for need not profit. It will fight tooth and nail to defend the gains we have won in the past and to extend these reforms. It will be internationalist. It will be democratic. A fuller party programme will be elaborated through the discussion and debate and agreed at the founding conference. The advantage of a short statement like this is that it would cause little controversy at this stage and allow us to proceed with a good idea of the general direction we are taking. It has the advantage of being short, direct and to the point. It is the bare bones over which we can grow flesh. Over a period of debate and discussion, an exchange of views could take place and there will be a clarification of opinion about the nature of the party we are going to form. At some stage the founding conference there will have to be a majority decision on these issues. At the organising committee on Thursday 2 May, I opposed the proposal to send out the statement for two reasons. I didnt agree with the process and I dont agree with the statement. Although an earlier version of the statement has been on the website since 2 March 2013, its content has never been discussed on the organising committee. This latest version was only sent out to members of the committee during the afternoon prior to the evening meeting, so many of us did not get it until we got to the meeting. Again, 5

st
its content was not discussed at the meeting on 2 May. I argued that it should not be sent out without having the opportunity to debate it on that committee first, otherwise it was simply a document from one individual; there was no reason why priority or preference should be given to this statement at the meeting on 11 May as opposed to any of the statements produced by the groups or individual supporters of the Left Unity project; there would be no time for the statement to be discussed in the local groups and most signatories to the call would not even have seen it. It pre-empts the discussion we should be having. As it is, the document is set to be the only document to be discussed at the 11 May meeting that will have been circulated in advance. If the document is taken, I will propose an amendment to it. Clearly, I would have started in a different place. There are some formulations in the statement that I have left in, even though I disagree with them. I have tried to keep the amendments to a minimum. In so far as the politics of the statement can be understood, it is a call for the formation of a social democratic party, which seeks to reform capitalism. This is a wholly inadequate and ultimately futile objective. Many of the formulations are vague and imprecise. Part of the debates we should be having over the next six months or so should address this very issue. Can social democracy in any of its forms (left or right) answer the questions posed by the present crisis? I argue that it cannot. It is not just that the Labour Party and other social democratic parties internationally have capitulated to neo-liberalism, they have historically always capitulated to the needs of capital, to the dictatorship of big business and the market. This was true even with the 1945 Labour government, as shown in Ken Loachs recent film. Compromises were made at the inception of the welfare state which worked to undermine those gains. Because society was not changed fundamentally, all the gains made are now being taken away. The implication from the formulations as they currently stand in the statement is that a retreat from neo-liberalism, i.e. unregulated capitalism and privatisation, would somehow be a solution to the crisis.
3. Nick Wrack/ Simon Hardy Resolution This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with: (1) the election of the new national coordinating group; (2) the process of debate and discussion; (3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference.

st
4. Ken Loachs speech Well done to everybody for organising today and coming along. Its brilliant that weve made this start. For some of us its a new challenge, for most of its the triumph of hope over experience. Some of us have been through left projects and have the scars on our back to show it. There has been an urgent need for a party of the left, a voice of the left, for as long as I can remember. Personally, I have been talking since the 1960s about it. I remember campaigning for Harold Wilson and the main conversation was How are we going to get him to move to the left? And of course he never did. And even before that an alternative was needed, as far back as Ramsey McDonald and the time of the general strike. The challenge has been there for a whole century. Its a colossal task were undertaking and the odds are probably against it, but nevertheless we have got to give it a go. One reason for giving is a go is there is a spectre haunting Britain and its called Nigel Farage. If you can imagine him being prime minister, then for gods sake, lets form a party to stop him. There is a huge amount of work to do. What brings us together is the opposition to austerity, its the mass unemployment, its the way every aspect of our civilised society is being stripped out of our world, whether its libraries, whether its facilities for the disabled, whether its council cuts. Theyre reversing all the gains that have been made since 1945. But, and this might be contentious and maybe its too early, but there is an important core political idea that sits at the heart of what I hope a new party will stand for. The way things are run now, this system will never provide a dignified life for us, never provide a safe future for our kids and will never take care of the environment. I could call this economic structure capitalism. Weve talked about language earlier on and its a word that some of us might shrink from. But there have been two centuries of people fighting to refine our language so that we can talk precisely about the world we live in. So I hope you find that the word capitalism is acceptable in order to talk about the tasks ahead of us. The core idea that I hope that sits of the heart of this party is the fact that we need a planned economy to get out of this mess. Of course, you cant plan what you dont control, so it needs to be an economy held in common, a democratically controlled economy. And we call that socialism. I hope that is acceptable to everybody here. That is a society where we are our brothers keeper, where we do look after each other and where we look after the sick and the old and where we give our kids a good education. That central concept is absolutely crucial. The corollary of that is that this party is not a version of a social democratic party, this is not a party that thinks we should scramble around the crumbs as they fall off the table and its not a version of a party that tries to pull Miliband a little bit to the left. In my mind, we are not here to build a social democratic party. But we have been through some bitter experiences and we need to learn from the past. 7

st
We absolutely need to be a democratic party and I support the principle of one member, one vote. Weve had groups trying to take projects over, weve had manipulations behind closed doors and we dont want that again. Just like we dont want one dominating group, we dont want any charismatic leaders. I wont name names now. Its also very important that we turn out to all those campaigning groups who are leading the fights for the disabled, to save the NHS, against council cuts and every group that is suffering particularly at the moment. These are our natural allies. And while we might not speak the same language, we certainly are fighting the same fight and we need to turn outwards. One more thing: We desperately need materials and analysis on the economy, on housing, the health service and I really hope the new committee can organise this. It s a colossal project and its a long road ahead of us, but I really hope youll stick with it.
5. Election Results: Steering Committee These are the results for the ten directly elected places on the new Left Unity National Co-ordinating Committee. At our first national meeting we agreed the procedure for electing the NCC The procedure is: Local group reps elected by the local groups, one per group, where the group has at least 5 members and has had at least one minuted meeting. As groups develop they will be added. 10 people elected by the meeting Those 10 to comprise at least 50% women Below is the report on the election for the 10 elected at the meeting. Each ballot was counted by two Left Unity supporters who were not standing for election. The count team was Chris Stafford, Jenny Ross, Soraya Lawrence and Barbara Segal. A total of 29 candidates stood and 99 Ballots were cast in the election for the new Left Unity NCC. Delegates were asked to pick a maximum of 10 candidates though not everyone listed 10. We did not need to alter the result to ensure the committee would be half comprised of women as six women and four men were elected. The first 10 are elected to the new committee. 1. Kate Hudson 71 votes 2. Andrew Burgin 69 votes 3. Bianca Todd 62 votes 4. Salman Shaheen 61 votes 5. Tom Walker 54 votes 6. Merry Cross 53 votes 8

st
7. Terry Conway 49 votes 8. Felicity Dowling 48 votes 9. Guy Harper 41 votes 10. Chris Hurley 36 votes 11. Katheryn Burdon-Manley 35 votes 12. Micheline Mason & Iram Awan 31 votes 14. Ally McGregor 24 votes 15. Will McMahon 23 votes 16. Rebecca Allan 21 votes 17. Leander Jones & Sam Doherty 20 votes 19. James Youd & Tina Becker 19 votes 21. Don Quinn & Stephen 17 votes 23. Liz Grey 15 votes 24. Dave Isaacson 13 votes 25. Dave Stockton 11 votes 26. Carlos Hudson & Pete McLaren 9 votes 28. Andy Higson 8 votes 29. Roy Sandinson 5 votes

st
REPORTS 7. A report from yesterdays first national meeting of Left Unity local group representatives. Stuart Watkins. Leamington Spa group. Back in March of this year, the film maker Ken Loach issued an appeal in The Guardian newspaper for a new party of the left one that would fill the gap in Britain that leaves us without a political party committed to defending the welfare state and transforming the economy so that it meets the needs of ordinary people. The response to the appeal was by the standards of previous such calls and considering the weakened, divided and demoralised left, not to mention the general population a success. To date, more than 8,000 people have signed the appeal and more than 90 groups have sprung up around the country. Some of those groups, like ours in Leamington Spa, have just a small handful of members. Some are even one-personbands. But others are already very healthy and lively and growing the Brighton group, for example, has over 200 participants. This Saturday marked the next step forward Left Unitys first national meeting, convened by a provisional organising committee, to discuss and agree how to take the project forward, and to elect a new committee to organise the groups day to day affairs prior to a founding conference. Prior to the meeting, there was a lively discussion on the groups email discussion list, and, as well as many positive contributions, and a feeling of excitement and possibility about the new group, there was also a lot of fear, anxiety and distrust partly about the scale of the task facing us, partly about the history of previous such projects weighing like a nightmare on the brains of the living. As it turns out, the excitement was more than justified; the anxiety and fear, to my mind at least, assuaged. The meeting started with good introductions by the chair, Bianca Todd, and Kate Hudson, one the original groups main movers, emphasising the scale and seriousness of the tasks facing us. Then there was open discussion from the groups around the country that had been able to send representatives about 55 groups sent representatives, and, of the 8,000 people signing the original appeal, about 1,000 had so far been in contact with a local group. The reports from the groups representatives were all hugely inspiring and uplifting and, to a large extent, mirrored the experience and the views of our own group. Some of the people attending the groups were already members of existing left parties; some were campaigners, old and new, active and inactive, who were prepared to give the whole unity thing another roll of the die; others were entirely new to politics, including many especially from the north of the country, and the disabled who had been thrown into it by the viciousness of the governments attacks on them (and there is much more viciousness to come). All were full of enthusiasm for the new project, but many were also wary: the majority of the meeting did not want yet another left 10

st
project that was a stitch-up between the existing sects, or that could be dominated and destroyed by a group that used the project for its own purposes before pulling the plug, or that was democratic in name only. After lunch, this discussion continued for some time before moving to the first motion. The meeting had originally been called partly in order to agree a statement of the groups broad intentions and aims and principles, and many amendments and alternative statements had been proposed. But the first motion discussed by the meeting called into question the real democratic nature of our opening gambit. Most groups were newly formed, most had not had time to consider or discuss let alone vote on the statement, most had not seen at all any of the amendments or proposed alternative statements. Some of the representatives at the meeting could properly be considered democratically elected delegates of groups, others were just individuals, or had come from a group but with no mandate for voting. And, of the 8,000 people who had signed up to have a discussion about the new party, most had still not said a word or seen a single document. What democratic right did the meeting have to decide anything? To that end, it was moved (as amended): This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with 1) the election of the new national co-ordinating group [to be dissolved and replaced with a properly elected body at the first conference] 2) the process of debate and discussion 3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference and 4) the principle that the new organisation should be based on one member, one vote. This passed by majority vote, and, to my mind, was a heartening start to the whole project. We would not start out by pretending to represent more people than we really did, we would not take any decisions out of the hands of future or indeed present members of the local groups, and the new party would be based on individual membership, with every member having equal power over decision-making. These last two points were especially important in assuaging fears about takeovers or undue influence and interference from existing groups and sects. A member of a left sect in the meeting moved that the new committee should invite observers from all existing left groups; others argued that existing groups should be allowed some kind of affiliation or group membership. On the basis of past experience, such notions were rejected by an overwhelming majority of those present. Members of existing groups would be welcomed as individuals, and their views would be treated with respect and given due consideration. Invasions by groups and parties with agendas of their own would not be. The debate on this question and the subsequent voting got at times fairly heated, and, in the absence of previously agreed structures and mechanisms, pretty chaotic. It even perhaps teetered on the brink of disaster. But this was in itself pretty inspiring stuff. Its what real democracy is like: it aint always pretty, it can sometimes descend into aggression and frustration, and it can be very hard work. But the results are worth it: a decision is eventually reached that satisfies most people if not everyone, and that has authority on that basis. After a debate and a vote like that, there is a certain quiet satisfaction in a job well done if the vote goes your way; a humble acceptance if it doesnt. At least there should be.
11

st
Then followed a short speech by Ken Loach that soothed frayed nerves and reminded us why such hard work was necessary. It was a lovely, quiet, considered talk, that laid out in very few words his vision of what the new party should be. It should be anticapitalist. (Here Ken semi-apologised for his use of what can often seem to the uninitiated confusing or alienating language. But as he rightly pointed out, this is the language that we on the left have developed so that we can talk accurately about the world we live in and what needs to be done. We should be against a world in which human needs are only met if doing so nets a profit to private individuals. Thats what capitalism means.) It should be socialist. (The only alternative to the chaos of capitalism is a planned economy, and an economy can only be planned if we collectively own and control it. Thats what socialism means.) It should also, on the basis of painful past experience, be fully democratic, and do without charismatic leaders. Of course, thats just the vision of one man. What the party will actually be like and stand for is the point of the national discussion, which is ongoing, and will be decided at the groups founding conference in November 2013. For what its worth, Kens basic vision is also mine. The meeting then proceeded to vote for the provisional organising committee that will organise the founding conference, and we, the representatives of the Leamington Spa group, voted for those people who had been on the first committee, as they all came across as lovely, decent, committed people, who had clearly done a great job so far; otherwise, for others who had made good contributions on the day and spoke in way that revealed they were committed to democracy; but mainly and specifically for no one who was a member of a current far-left sect. We came away from the first national meeting feeling more exhilarated and excited about politics than we had in a decade. Of course, the sheer scale and seriousness of the tasks lying ahead of us would be enough to calm anyone down from their high and sober them up. But we return to our local group in Leamington Spa full of hope for the future, and inspired to begin as soon as possible the hard work of deciding what we want a new left party to be, how we can work to make it a success, and how to win people to its banner in defence of their own interests, those of humanity, and of future generations. Comments on Stuart Watkins report Pete Mclaren May 12, 2013 at 7:05 pm Having been to the meeting yesterday, I would like to make a couple of comments on some of the above observations. No decision was taken to exclude left organisations or to include them! The only decision was to eventually accept the Procedural Motion moved by Nick Wrack and Simon Hardy as included in Stuarts report elect an Organising Ctte, continue the debate, plan for a further national meeting followed by a Founding conference, and to adopt the principle of One Member One Vote (OMOV). Yes, that is not a federal structure, but it does not mean left organisations will not be able to be part of 12

st
LU and, as I argued yesterday, i really hope we find an acceptable way to encourage socialist, left environmentalist, feminist, trade union, tenant and community groups etc etc that support the project theres the key to come on board. We just need to build in mechanisms to prevent what happened with the original Socialist Alliance in 2001 when the SWP used their numerical majority within the SA to take it over. Surely we can find ways to prevent anything like that happening again and remain inclusive. We should strive for One Party of the Left as Stuart mentions and that really must include all the left if we do not ourselves want to appear sectarian. Those few hundred in each left group many less than 100 will quite rightly not be prepared, especially at this early stage, to abandon their traditions and backgrounds, and nor should they. And i confirm there was no vote to exclude Dave Nellist the Organisers kept (wrongly in my view) to their strict policy of not allowing anyone else to address the meeting. That was a wrong decision, I feel, because Dave was there in his role as National chair of TUSC, and we do need to work with TUSC in a collaborative way if the left is to contest elections as well as campaign year round, again as I argued yesterday. We can not, and should not, pretend other left organisations dont exist. TUSC is a Coalition, not a P{arty, set up to provide a socialist voice at elections. It should be encouraged to become part of the LU as it develops Finally, as important as theory is, it is only some people who want to study it and develop it. I hope LU will be broader than a Marxist party, but develop as a Party where marxists are welcomed. By all mean organise political education sessions/groups for those who want them. Richard Brenner May 12, 2013 at 7:13 pm Just to clear up a small but important misunderstanding. There was no call at the national meeting for existing socialist groups to be given privileges or for anything other than one member one vote. The proposal, made by Tina Becker, was for the socialist groups that support the Left Unity project to have nonvoting observers on the incoming national coordinating group. That is not a demand for a veto or a vote and nor, as the article above suggests, did it apply to all groups, just those that back LU. I voted for that because I want LU to reach out to the rest of the left. Nevertheless the proposal was defeated and, since personally I think minorities should respect majority decisions, I think that decision should stand. However, there was discussion about the existence of two other large socialist groups. Clearly we need to coordinate with them in the struggle against the Tories and at elections. The incoming National Coordinating Group, which incidentally includes a member of another existing socialist organisation (Tom Walker of the International Socialist Network), should consider how best to pursue this. Terry Burns May 14, 2013 at 2:34 am Brief Points, numbered so I can keep control of thoughts 1. In the hope of being transparent a brief outline of my political background Ex Lab Party, Militant, SLP, ; presently Tusc/ISN (independent socialists linked toTusc) LU 13

st
signed up, IWW. Not speaking for anybody but myself. 2. Welcome this and other reports of the national meeting,hope others are posted. 3. From what I have read so far seems to have been a useful event that is helping to clarify what LU is, where it hopes to go etc. One problem that has taken up more space than it warrants is that around Comrade Dave Nellist, a mistake in my view not to have just let him in but lets not build it up to a status it doe not deserve. 4. The meeting was correct it not making major decisions but restricting itself to some, if my reading of the event are accurate, general points and basic ideas of policy and programme plus some structure and organising issues to see LU through to a National Confence that is representative of a membership that has been able to involve itself, I for example could not be a delegate as we have yet to meet locally. But I welcome the holding of the national meeting on the basis of striking while the ironis hot. 5. The attitude to the organised left is something that needs careful thought. Exclusion of organised groups/parties may be the best way to go in terms of structure, avoiding parties within parties etc. But the development of factions, some based on these groupings/parties will be inevitable (should they wish to join as individual members) and any attempt to stop factions forming will lead to discussion/effort/energy being wasted on internal structure issues and policing them rather than the real task of building a party able to challenge the Tories blue and yellow and what now calls itself Labour. 6, I was optimistic when I joined the SLP but it was thrown away in the struggle by the Leader to retain central control, which was achieved but the result was infanticide with the corpse being dragged out at election time. I am once again optimistic as I always am at the prospect of a new vital force being created on the side of the workers. Our task is support all the things that wrk toward that end. 7. For me that is the creation of a mass party based on the active participation of working people and others from the downtrodden and marginalised. It will need a programme/policies that is able to generate maximum support, while maintaing a honest approach. 8. Liz Gray from Leicester Left Unity on yesterdays national meeting The morning began with introductions and what you might broadly call statements of attitude and belief: it was interesting to hear where people were coming from and what they wanted from the group, where they thought it should go and what they might bring to it. If I had been in charge of this session I think I might have given half an hour to small-group discussion and then feedback as some people began grandstanding and making speeches. What was crystal-clear, however, was a widespread determination to avoid the mistakes of the past and crucially, to prevent socialist groups from hijacking the party (if it becomes a party). Speaker after speaker said the same thing: that we must not allow Socialist Workers or Militant or any other special-interest group to take us over. I found that encouraging, if a little startling that so many people seemed to have had bad experiences in this regard but forewarned is forearmed and I think our strength will lie in quite simply the numbers of ordinary, unafilliated people and our determination to avoid takeover. The debate did get rather bogged down at one point and I left the room for a few deep breaths as people started to bang on about what we could and couldnt decide on, since we 14

st
hadnt been properly and democratically constituted. Its this kind of debate, seething with Points of Order, which tends to make me lose the will to live and I did leave the room at one point in order to breathe and recite a few mantras. However, we soon got back on track and were all heartened by the appearance in our midst of Ken Loach (for it was he!) Yes, God bless him, the man himself had come among us and after lunch he gave a short and very inspiring speech which I think focussed us all on why we were there. I was struck by the differences in style of many of the people there and how, whilst some, like me, are simply frustrated former Labour voters, others clearly come from more political backgrounds where they are used to doing things in a certain way and wanted to keep doing them in that way. One of the bones of contention was whether groups should be allowed to affiliate to Left Unity, which might (as I understand them) give those groups such as Trades Unions etc more sway in the form of a block vote. There was widespread opposition to this and it was eventually voted down as we decided overwhelmingly to adopt OMOV ie One Member One Vote. The meeting ended with a sense that we had got back on track and made some worthwhile decisions, including to hold a conference in November where ideas can be ratified and a committee established. In the meantime I have put my name forward for an interim organising group and I am waiting as we speak for the results of the vote. There were some great people there: apart from Ken (with whom I had a brief chat hes a really ordinary bloke; quite shy really) there was Kate Hudson, Chair of CND and some other really interesting and personable people.
9. Micheline Mason, Wandsworth Left Unity I am so pleased to be part of this adventure, right from the beginning. I felt more at home in that lovely, warm, messy, slightly chaotic gathering than I have felt in any kind of political forum for a long time. I also believe this is the first attempt to create a political party which includes the contribution of disabled people in an equal and inclusive spirit from its outset. I was delighted to see Merry Cross from DPAC was re-elected to the organising group. This is all very hopeful to me. One contribution I hope to bring to the table is born from my experience as a woman, as a disabled person and as someone who was raised in a working class family none of whom, including myself, went to university. None of these identities mean we cant think for ourselves or have many ideas of our own about what is wrong with the world, and possible solutions which would make things better for everyone. It may mean we need help to articulate them. What has put me off joining things even when I share the values and goals of the group, is being met with a tirade of words, presumptions about my empty head, my need for guidance, motivation and theory, somehow believing I could be talked into action. I couldnt get away fast enough! The problem was that no one ever asked me what I thought. I think this has been one of the fundamental misunderstanding behind some of the difficulties trying to organise a mass movement with diverse membership. People actually need a good 15

st
listening to in order to explore their own experiences and thinking, especially women, working class people and minority groups of all kinds, before they can feel committed to a group identity of any kind. It did seem to me that some people at the meeting on Saturday, and maybe amongst the local group organisers too, were desperate for LU not to become a talking shop and to be active campaigners straight away, but my suspicion is that this might be because they have been part of groups where, in Bob Dylans words There were 10.000 talking and no body listening which does indeed become tedious, repetitive and unproductive. I think LU members should join in any existing campaigns where they can to help pressurize the current parties to ease up on their War on the Poor, but Ken Loachs appeal was for a DEBATE about whether we should create a completely new form of leadership to rise like the phoenix out of the ashes of capitalism to build a new, sustainable, compassionate, peaceful society which can meet real needs rather than the artificial needs of the global market. Because it does not yet exist it will require us to do that difficult thing called creative thinking, and this will take time. If we are serious about what we are doing, and I am for one, then we will eventually be responsible for the well being of billions of people. - thinking about what democracy really means, piecing together a manifesto based on expertise, developing a representative leadership who may serve in our Government, helping to design a steady-state economy that could work on a global scale is a very different task to walking about the streets waving a banner to advertise an idea. This can help build a movement, yes, but building a party is not to be rushed.
9. Pete McClaren, Rugby Left Unity Group The first national Left Unity meeting had been organised by an ad-hoc Organising Committee for up to two representatives of each of the 80+ local Left Unity (LU) groups. It followed the call for people to sign up to discussing the need for a new Left Party, supported by, amongst others, film producer Ken Loach. Around 60 local LU groups were represented. It was quite a mixed audience a handful of ISN/TUSC supporters, a few members of Workers Power, the CPGB, SR, the SP, SA, the former SWP ISN and other socialist activists, a few former SWP members and many relatively new campaigners with a healthy ratio of women delegates. Bianca Todd from Northampton chaired the first session, which rather bizarrely began with a debate about whether or not minutes should be taken. Kate Hudson then made an introduction and explained why there was a need for a new Left Party. Reports and general comment were requested from local groups, and there was a clear divide between those of us who wanted to welcome left organisations as part of the project, and those who clearly didnt. Everyone who spoke was positive about the Left Unity project. I was eventually able to explain, as part of my contribution from Rugby LU, that TUSC had approached Ken Loach and was now formally writing to the Organising Committee to call for collaboration, despite having been informed prior to the meeting I could not speak for TUSC! The following were amongst other points made in the discussion: 16

st
The SP and SWP were already involved in local Left Unity groups, and we need to find a way of all working together LU must make sure it is not controlled by left groups we must avoid being taken over as happened with the Socialist Alliance We should allow left groups to affiliate, and we must respect their traditions. We need to allow factions or platforms to form It was vital to offer supporters membership We must be campaigning and not only work around elections We must quickly become an individual membership organisation whilst allowing left groups on board. If we have large numbers of individual members, including individuals from left groups, left groups would not be in a position to take over Accessible language was important Our class is being battered, with no real opposition, hence the need for a new left party Democracy and openness are vital within a new party, which must also be inclusive We should welcome all on the left as individuals, not as representatives of parties We need to open up dialogue with all left groups to establish ways of working together whilst encouraging them to become a full part of LU with safeguards/mechanisms in place to prevent groups dominating or taking over LU has already moved left organisations to discuss its presence We must discuss ways of encouraging trade unions, tenants and community groups to become part of LU. We want One Party of the Left The Organising Committee should be congratulated for the start that has been with over 8,000 supporters and nearly 100 local LU groups in less than 2 months The afternoon session began with Andrew Burgin describing the process and importance of setting up local LU groups. The following were amongst points made in the discussion which followed: Our attitude to the SP and SWP is crucial it must be a positive one A One Member One Vote (OMOV) organisation would give people the confidence to join We will need to negotiate with TUSC over elections We are agreed about the need to set up a new left party: we must differentiate ourselves from the Labour Party and the Green Party There is lots of student support for LU, but caution about parties At this point Nick Wrack motivated his Procedural Motion not to take decisions today on most of the Statement sent out by the Organising Committee, any amendments to it, or other resolutions submitted, as they had mostly/entirely not been available to local LU groups. The only parts of that Statement kept in by the Procedural Motion were the election of a new Organising Committee, the process of debate, and need for another national meeting and a Founding conference for a new Party. In motivation, he outlined how most of the 23 motions and amendments had been seen for the first time that day. Few local LU groups would have had any discussion on them, or on amendments to 17

st
the Statement sent out by the Committee. During the debate, it became clear there had been a divide within the Committee. The following were amongst additional points made: We need a statement of intent something must come out of this meeting The danger of rushing is we could undo the achievements so far Some local LU reps present were unelected local organisers with no mandate The Organising Committee had decided by a two thirds majority to send out its Statement: it was sour grapes not to want to put it to the meeting The Organising Committee did not discuss the content of the statement, let alone take a view on it An amendment was moved that a commitment to the principle of One Member One Vote within Left Unity be added to the Procedural Motion. Nick Wrack accepted the amendment In reply to the debate, Simon Hardy confirmed the Organising committee had not endorsed the Statement. The amended Procedural Motion was put to the vote, and after two counts, was agreed by 51 votes to 36 with 12 abstentions and a few not voting at all. What was agreed was as follows: This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with 1) the election of the new national co-ordinating group [to be dissolved and replaced with a properly elected body at the first conference] 2) the process of debate and discussion 3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference and 4) the principle that the new organisation should be based on One Member, One Vote. The session ended with an address by Ken Loach. He joked that it had been good to see democracy in action. It was vital to get our act together to combat UKIP, he continued. We did not need another Social Democratic party. The new Left party must be anti-capitalist, socialist and democratic adopting OMOV was vital- and it did not want charismatic leaders. We needed to become experts on all social issues such as housing, education and health. We needed words, organisation and agitation, he concluded it would be a colossal project. The meeting then proceeded to vote for the national Organising Committee that will organise the next national meeting and plan for the Founding Conference. ISN members Will McMahon, Pete McLaren and Ally Macgregor were amongst those nominated. After some discussion the following proposal on the composition of the new Group was agreed: Local group reps elected by the local groups, one per group, where the group has at least 5 members and has had at least one minuted meeting. As groups develop they will be added. 10 people elected by the meeting 18

st
Those 10 to comprise at least 50% women A proposal to delete point 3 was rejected. There were 30 nominations Those elected were: Andrew Burgin (M), Terry Conway (F), Merry Cross (F), Felicity Dowling (F), Guy Harper (M), Kate Hudson (F), Chris Hurley (F), Salman Shaheen (M), Bianca Todd (F), Tom Walker (M) Tina Becker, CPGB, proposed that the socialist groups that support the Left Unity project have non-voting observers on the Organising Committee. This was defeated. In conclusion, I felt the positives outweighed the negatives, but it was hard going at times. There is a real dislike, in some quarters, of left organisations, and it is interesting that only one of the ten elected to the Organising Cttee is a member of a left group as far as I am aware (Tom Walker ex SWP now ISN). At times, the meeting was more like a convention of youth workers (no disrespect to youth workers I have been one and my brother still is!) in the sense that it was a little jolly, twee and somewhat bourgeois one of the chairs referred to all men who spoke as Sir! However, what mattered was that a general degree of unity was shown and some positive decisions made. In many ways being there felt like a breath of fresh air. A relatively positive start has been made, but there is a long way to go. (Although Pete attended Saturdays meeting as a delegate from the Rugby group, he has also submitted this report to the Independent Socialist Network/TUSC.)
10. Tina Becker, Sheffield Left Unity/ CPGB About 100 people attended the first national gathering of Left Unity on May 11 in Londons Ambassador Hotel. The gathering certainly succeeded in its conscious aim to be different from the various other left unity projects that have emerged over the recent 15 years or so the Socialist Alliance, Respect, Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, etc. No one organisation or group of people dominated proceedings; opposing views were heard; plenty of time was allocated to air arguments and on a number of occasions the conference (or internal meeting, as Kate Hudson insisted in an exchange with the CPGB) voted against the wishes of the interim steering committee that had convened the gathering. That is to put a positive spin on things. A very positive one. In reality, in terms of moving the organisation forward (clarifying its politics, for example), the day was a bit of a shambles. Left Unity is totally underorganised and underprepared. Kate Hudson and Andrew Burgin (important driving forces behind LU) would have liked the proceedings to have gone differently. After all, the Stop the War Coalition and Respect organisations both comrades were prominent in were far more choreographed. But, ironically, bureaucratic coherence in fronts like these was provided by the likes of the Socialist Workers Party, part of the organised left to which LU is to a great extent a reaction. The politically decrepit Socialist Resistance the one insider group is no substitute. The keynote political statement by Kate Hudson was circulated three days before conference; a proposal for the electoral procedure to the national coordination committee was sent out 20 hours before conference; the chairs seem to 19

st
have been pre-chosen on the basis that they had no previous experience of handling big meetings (one chair was actually introduced as someone who had never attended a political meeting before). No wonder that quite a few times people in the room (the chairs including) did not actually know what exactly they were voting on. It was pretty chaotic, in other words. This was also reflected in the rather uneven attendance. Local LU groups were supposed to send two delegates each, but where more people expressed an interest in coming, they were advised by the interim leadership to simply divide their group into smaller parts. For example Manchester comrades all sitting together in the same meeting, in the same room selected five delegates from different areas of the city. In other areas, groups had not even met yet. Andrew Burgin admitted that about half of the 90 or 100 local groups exist only in so far as that one person had volunteered to be the local contact. So the reality was that pretty much anybody who wanted to come to the conference could come. Unless, of course, you happened to be a representative of a political organisation. The interim organising committee had decided to ban existing groups from even sending observers apart from a representative from the Red-Green Alliance from Denmark, who showed up halfway through the meeting. Obviously it would have been a little harsh to send this poor comrade packing after he had made such a long journey, presumably on a well-informed hunch. Nevertheless, the organised British left was there, of course. Apart from two CPGB members, I identified about four Workers Power comrades, six from Socialist Resistance, one from the Alliance for Workers Liberty and two members of the Socialist Party in England and Wales. The less organised left was there too: about half a dozen each from the Anti-Capitalist Initiative and Richard Seymours International Socialist Network. While the ACI was led by ex-Workers Power member Simon Hardy, no leading member of the ISN was present. Those ISN members who did attend did not seem to have that clear idea what they were doing there. There were also a fair number of people present that I had last seen during the days of the Socialist Alliance: Will McMahon, Pete McLaren, Dave Church, etc. The rest (probably the majority of attendees) struck me either as having been exmembers of various left groups or those who had been burned some singed, some third degree - by the organised left in one forum or another. Banning the groups? In fact, the question of what role political organisations should play in LU dominated the conference from the start. In the first and longest session of the day (which was billed local report-backs) it became clear that most local groups had only just been formed, so there was not a great deal to report. People used the opportunity to talk about the relationship between the LU and the existing left - or, more precisely, how to keep the buggers out. There was a distinct air of anti-sectarian sectarianism about proceedings, with many people arguing for safeguards against an SWP or SPEW takeover. One ex-SWP member argued that new members should be vetted to make sure they 20

st
are serious about LU. Another ex-SWP comrade, Tom Walker, stated that we cant stop them from joining, but we can stop them from trying to split LU or recruit to their own organisations (though he did not elaborate on how that could be done). Worse, I have been told that there are local LU branches who have banned SWP members. Though there have been reports that in other parts of the country SWP and SPEW members have been attending local meetings. I would guess that about half of those present were implacably against any involvement of the organised left in any form. The other, more sensible, half, however, at least recognised that we cant pretend that the rest of the left doesnt exist; we cant just go around them, as it was put. One comrade ironically asked: So let me get this straight: were going to be the only nonsectarian group on the left? Dont you think all the groups we criticise think exactly that of themselves, too? Most of those people seem to agree that groups of likeminded people should be able to get together to form political platforms. I was surprised, actually, by how many people echoed this demand. However, without even a membership structure in place yet, this healthy sentiment could not be enshrined as a founding LU principle, as it were. The next national gathering in September will undoubtedly revisit the issue. We need to make sure it does. A number of comrades argued that one member, one vote would be an effective guard against any one group taking the project over. This is an illusion. The SA and Respect organised on that basis and were dominated by the SWP. And why not, in one sense? SWP comrades were the majority and majorities, like minorities, should have rights. OMOV could not prevent an organisation like the SWP dominating LU unless the new initiative implements a regime of bans, prescriptions and witch-hunts from its inception. And down that road lies madness and Arthur Scargills Socialist Labour Party. We argued for an individual membership structure. But we also urged an honest, open and active engagement with the existing left. Surely, the massive task of building an alternative to the capitalist system requires the unity of as much talent, energy, experience and commitment as we can muster cadre, in other words. Unfortunately, our proposal to invite political organisations who are interested in building left unity to send one observer each to the newly set up national coordination committee was defeated, with only Workers Power, ACI and a few individuals supporting the CPGB amendment (the two SPEW members voted against it, while Nick Wrack abstained). The motion got a relatively decent 19 votes. Workers Power also pushed for political organisations to be allowed to affiliate, though it did not concretise this in a motion and no-one seemed to support the idea anyway. One of the SPEW members bravely called for a federal structure. I spoke to the comrade later and it became clear that he had not been sent there by his organisation, but just happened to be involved in LU locally and thought a just federal structure would be a good idea. Needless to say, his suggestion went down like a lead balloon. Kate Hudson had written a statement for the conference, which was intended to clarify our politics. There is a real need for this. Apart from Ken Loachs 21

st
very short appeal, LU has nothing like a political platform. Unfortunately, comrade Hudsons statement clarified little. Or, as comrade Carmen from Manchester put it, I like the fact that the statement is so broad. Everybody can interpret it any way they like. Which is actually a problem, rather than a strength. Despite its vacuous nature, the statement sparked controversy even in the nonelected interim committee. Without the time to discuss it, the committee nonetheless decided to officially circulate it to members and local groups for discussion. Most LU signatories did not see it before Wednesday May 8 three days before conference. So, there was no time to discuss it in any detail (or at all). A few groups managed it and 20-odd amendments from a handful of them had been sent in, but these were only distributed on the morning of conference. Correctly recognising the democratic deficit of this process, comrade Nick Wrack moved a procedural motion to the effect that the meeting should not vote on the statement (and the various amendments to it). After a long debate, his motion won a relatively strong 51 for, with 36 against and 12 abstentions. Good stuff. The statement was pretty awful and would have required major surgery. There was neither the time nor the political will at this gathering. Strangely though, Workers Power voted against the procedural motion. Leading member Richard Brenner cajoled us that While were spending hours discussing the process here, the Tories are dismantling the welfare state. (One can only wonder how impatient this Bolshevik comrade would have been with the months and years the Russian Marxists spent in programmatic discussions while the tsar was being generally rather unpleasant to workers and peasants.) Apart from having the no vote motion go against them, comrades Hudson, Burgin and their supporters in Socialist Resistance must have been especially annoyed to spot Ken Loach, no less, raising his hand for it. Immediately following this vote, he gave a brief speech, which he opened with the sentence, Its really great to see democracy in action. His speech was a little confused, but, compared to some of what was on offer, quite encouraging. We should not be afraid to use leftwing terms, he said (one exSWP member had said that we should not use left language, as people dont understand it. I was a member of the SWP for years and I dont understand it thats the SWP for you, comrade, not the language). Comrade Loach argued that we should openly fight against capitalism, for a planned economy and for socialism: We dont want a social democratic party, we dont just want to pull Miliband a little bit to the left. I am reliably informed that his speech was a conscious dig at Hudsons soft statement on the one hand and Socialist Resistance on the other the latter had actually been arguing against LU becoming a socialist organisation. Hudson and Burgin were obviously not happy bunnies: they sat stony-faced through Loachs speech, not laughing when others did and clapping him rather limply when there really was no alternative. Clearly, people in the audience felt somewhat railroaded by the lack of 22

st
democracy and debate in the run-up to this meeting. It was not a stitch-up la various SWP and SPEW fronts. But it was more than just a reflection of the lack of any real organisational structure. Of course, it is true that a key problem is LUs lack of reliable and resilient cadre that, ironically, the SWP or SPEW could provide. Organisations like Greeces Syriza or Germanys Die Linke (both quoted approvingly by Hudson and Burgin throughout the day) took off because existing left groups set them up and continue to run them. The main organisation in Syriza is Synapsismos, a substantial organisation with roots in Greeces official Communist Party. And Die Linke is run by the former Party of Democratic Socialism (the successor to the official ruling party of East Germany). While not everybody in the room knew of that background, the ones peddling these illusions Burgin and Hudson are surely fully aware of it. There seems to be some development on that front, though. I am told that the Socialist Party is currently involved in an internal discussion to reconsider its aloof attitude to LU (Peter Taaffe has unfavourably contrasted it to the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, which apparently offers the best hope for furthering the process of creating a viable new mass workers party)1. Dave Nellist actually came to the conference venue to have a meeting with Ken Loach (of course, he was not allowed to come in).2 One wonders what those two were discussing an anti-aggression pact for any future electoral work, perhaps? A brutal truth is that given the current composition and nature of the left LU has very little chance of taking off without the SWP or SPEW coming on board in some form. (Of course, the CPGB and the Weekly Worker are very much aware of the political problems that these groups will bring with them when/if they come). Another aspect of the same brutal reality is that without a coherent political platform, the LU interim committee has little to cohere it other than hostility towards the organised left. This might have kept people in the same hall on May 11 - but it is recipe for pretty rapid disillusionment and disintegration in the medium term, I fear. ACI member Simon Hardy (until recently a member of Workers Power) pretty much summed up the problem with this rather sectarian comment in the aftermath of conference: I was told at the recent Tusc national meeting that the SP were dismissive, borderline hostile to Left Unity. Frankly I think we are better off for now without loads of sects hanging around trying to intervene in the new organisation.3 Yes, let us keep the more substantial, and much more serious, working class sects out of LU, so that smaller, less coherent groups like Hardys ACI or Socialist Resistance can loom all the larger. The problem of sectarianism in our movement has to be confronted head on, not bypassed. Notes 1. www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/759/16429/03-04-2013/april-2013-tory-cutsblitz. 2. https://twitter.com/davenellist. 3. Facebook.com.
23

st
Comments on Tina Beckers report Dan O May 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm A few points: (1) Any grouping that genuinely seeks to commit to LU should strive not to caucus inside the formation. (2) Any grouping who operates in a sectarian manner and self evidently caucuses will tend to isolate themselves. (3) Any grouping that genuinely seeks to commit to LU shouldnt insist on a weighted role on leadership bodies. While affiliated groupings should be given a set number of seats on leadership bodies Paul Demarty May 14, 2013 at 4:07 pm Dan, your three conditions are self-evidently incompatible with the participation of groups within LU. (1) Any grouping that genuinely seeks to commit to LU should strive not to caucus inside the formation. If a group does not caucus and agree and approach to a given action (be it a meeting or a demonstration or whatever), then in what sense is it a group? It would be better off to dissolve. (2) Any grouping who operates in a sectarian manner and self evidently caucuses will tend to isolate themselves. Yes, groups who operate in a sectarian manner will isolate themselves. In other news, dog bites man, pope shits in Vatican. I am concerned that by sectarian manner, what you really mean is maintaining a factional profile and platform autonomously from LU as a whole which again, is exclusionary. Does caucusing isolate you? No. It allows you to present a clear political line to a meeting, which will no doubt be unattractive to some people, but could well attract others to your ideas. As for point three, we have one member one vote, not affiliations. This is how it should be. What we in the CPGB want is a recognition that LU should actively seek to engage with the existing left groups, not dismiss them as irrelevant sects at best, or a malignant threat at worst. Comrade, if the SWP wants to take LU over, it will do it. Its bigger and crucially better organised than all the non-group comrades put together. Piling bureaucratic rule upon bureaucratic rule will simply result in yet another sect, only with less political and organisational coherence than its competitors. Dan O says, Any grouping that genuinely seeks to commit to LU should strive not to caucus inside the formation. That is Kinnockite witch hunting. If that is Left Unitys position, then I am off. The entire project will crumble to bits immediately. Dan O says, Any grouping who operates in a sectarian manner and self evidently caucuses will tend to isolate themselves. Couple of points about this. Firstly, I agree with this as far as it goes. This is the real safeguard against takeovers by sectarian groups. They will dissolve at the margins as their individual dissidents have somewhere to go other than walk off into the wilderness. Participating by SWP and SP and other groups will help revitalise democracy inside those groups. Additionally, to the extent such groups try to win influence by engaging in a noisy monologue with the non-aligned 24

st
comrades, the latter will just roll their eyes and refuse to vote for their members to leadership bodies and also deny them the right to represent Left Unity as parliamentary candidates (including at MSPs, MEPs, councilors). This response to sectarianism by any of the groups will additionally give the less sectarian groups a cutting edge which will increase their votes at every level of Left Unity, and it will give them an edge when it comes to recruitment to their individual groups. By giving all the groups an incentive to behave themselves, and engage in a constructive, fraternal debate with the non-aligned comrades, everyone in all the groups and all the non-aligned comrades are gifted with more socialist activists sharpening their arguments with each other, which will obviously pay dividends when we have to face the likes of Andrew Neil. By denying any of the groups any justification for standing outside Left Unity, we undermine any prospect of any competition for the left-of-Labour vote. Respect, the SLP and others will see their votes dwindle as Left Unitys went from strength to strength. But only on the basis of bringing all the groups in from the cold. The SWP and SP and all the rest have to be welcomed as part of this process. This should be obvious to every genuine supporter of left unity. Dan O also says, Any grouping that genuinely seeks to commit to LU shouldnt insist on a weighted role on leadership bodies. While affiliated groupings should be given a set number of seats on leadership bodies. Personally, I completely agree with this. That sets me apart from the majority opinion of TUSCs supporters. But this can be settled by negotiation by TUSC and Left Unity. I would also call for exceptions to be made for trade unions. I would argue alongside the rest of TUSC supporters for seeing trade unions as exceptional. If we can help re-enfranchise them, we pull the rug out from under Ed Miliband. This is absolutely key for the further progress of the left-of-Labour vote. But how this problem is tackled should be via negotiations between representatives of TUSC and Left Unity. Richard May 14, 2013 at 6:07 pm New approaches (usually) require the involvement of new sorts of people, with different ways of doing things, talking and thinking. No offence Tina but I felt your post was tired, negative and actually missed the point. If LU is to succeed it has to be different from all those failed sects that have had their chance. I hope LU will develop into a broad-based, democratic, radical party that is rooted in the community and green-socialist politics. To do so it will have to offer a genuine alternative that people find convincing, not just opposition to cuts and the promise of some socialist utopia at some time in the future. The Huddersfield group has made an attempt at this see the post titled Stuff we can unite around? This is a first attempt and aims to get a positive discussion going and no doubt much if not most needs changing. But at least it is presented in a positive spirit. Like many people in LU I was involved in a sect for years, helped try to set up SLP, Socialist alliance etc. From this experience I learnt that any Leninist party that claims to be the vanguard of the international proletariat and have a monopoly of a pure Marxist faith are ultimately destructive. Because deep in their bones is an undemocratic core with centralised decision making, a selfperpetuating central clique/committee and even permanent leaderships who 25

st
have lasted for decades. Opponents of the CC are of course expelled or made unwelcome. The relentless activism is too much for most ordinary people who balance jobs, kids, hobbies etc. Most people, however passionate about politics believe it should be only one part of a fulfilled life and not expand to drive everything else out. So as many have said on these posts before, to allow the leadership of these groups a decisive influence is to give power to people who simply dont want the LU project to succeed. After all, that would mean leaders of the sects would lose members and control.
12. Adam Roden, Llanfairfechan Left Unity Well, weve had the first National Meeting of Left Unity it was bleedin marvellous! It was the first time Ive ever attended a proper political meeting, and while I may have contributed to the near-chaos of the second session with my inexperienced co-chairing(!) it was thoroughly heart-warming to see democracy in all its heartfelt action in future Id like to see all meetings that intense part of the disconnect so many of us feel with politics is down to the modern fashion of polished pre-rehearsed output, and seeing how clumsy and organic democracy is in reality was an eye-opener we need to bring that feeling of being part of a democratic process to as many people as possible. Terrifying as it was, Id do it again in a heartbeat! My only disappointment for the day would be that I wish more of the Left Unity group members could have been there too but this was just a small introductory meeting of representatives, and as a starting point and as an introduction to the process it was uplifting, a word Im not prone to using. As I say, this was my first meeting, and as such there were a number of eye-opening moments. For example, Id never considered the possibility that one of the threats to Left Unity project would come from other existing groups of the left in my nave, isnt-all-this-lovely-and-new way I just had an assumption they would welcome a new group on the left that embraced normal previously apolitical people like myself. At the time, as the debate raged on whether to allow non-voting observers from other groups into the meetings, as comrades described how other larger groups may seek to infiltrate and close down Left Unity, I thought to myself that this all sounded a little paranoid. However, having seen some of the blog posts and blog comments by some members of these other groups since our meeting, Im now beginning to think theres something in it in fact Ive been shocked at the level of vitriol displayed in some of the comments. I can only assume that some of the downright hostile things Ive read about the meeting written by people who havent joined Left Unity and werent even at the meeting, people who have misreported what was said (and by whom) that somewhere along the line, Left Unity has started to rattle the cages of some people and organizations that must now consider us a threat. I think that, whatever their reasoning, their hostility is sad and a shame. Left Unitys greatest strength is in the fact it is pulling in the previously unpolitical, those people whose capacity to ignore what is going on around them has been worn down to the point where they have to do something and as a result these people who are signing up are, on the 26

st
whole, unaffiliated. That is what threatens our attackers, theyre fine with hope, as long as they started it and it comes from their particular brand of leftism. Well thats just mean, man. I founded the Left Unity Llanfairfechan group as a way of linking up like-minded people who were spread out, isolated and feeling unrepresented. So I ask these groups who now criticize us in our infancy where were you when I needed you? Where were you? Another eye-opener was my first ever experience of a full-on Blokey Bolshevik & Bovver Boots rant, complete with ear-fuzzing volume escalation it was brilliant, something I thought only existed on telly programmes set in the 70s, but there it was in front of me in all its impassioned glory! Its a tick on my list of experiences, and was glad to be in a room where that level of feeling could be displayed and applauded. While I might not have agreed with all that was said by everybody, I agreed with their right to say it, even if exercising that right may have massively overcomplicated things at points. But its all to the good, and all part of finding our feet. We must try not to do things in certain ways just because thats the way things are done, so the clumsiness, chaos, energy and passion are our test-bed of what actually works in practice I also realise that weve probably opened a number of cans containing a number of worms at this opening meeting, but thats a good thing. If this is to work in the longterm, and with the greatest number of people, we have to do whats right, not whats easy or proven. I read somewhere that a revolution shouldnt clothe itself in the garbs of the past, and I think thats what were doing weaving new cloth of our very own. What started out as one mans questioning appeal is turning into a real force in its own right. That man, Ken Loach, was there at the meeting too, and I got to meet him the sort of thing that would have scared me stiff in any other situation, but seeing as I was about to co-chair a meeting for the first time, meeting a man off the telly was a breeze! It was good to meet him, but if Im honest it was more exciting meeting all of the people from the other groups who Id previously only talked to through email it is these people Ill be working with in future to grow what Ken Loach sowed. I think Ken Loachs appeal struck a chord because he is a cultural figure making a political point, and therein lies the handle for a long, long time people have defined themselves by their cultural choices not their political ones, and for an equally long time culture and politics have been completely separate worlds. Anthony Gormley recently said that we live in a post-ideological world. Yeah, right Mr. Gormley, trying telling that to a Syrian or Palestinian civilian, try telling that to someone just about to hang themselves because the bedroom tax is going to ruin their life, either financially or by making them leave their lifelong homes our culture, if it is not politically engaged, cannot improve peoples lives it can only entertain them. But if politics is not culturally engaged, it cant improve peoples lives or entertain them, which is just one of the ways the current crop are getting away with what theyre doing keeping all those parts of our lives separate, lest we see them complete and whole as the horrors they are. We must all remember to stay active participants in the culture around us and not get sucked into a world dominated only by politics it is through our shared cultural references that we have a way of engaging the most amount of people, and tying back together what has been artificially separated by those who seek to monopolise and 27

st
commercialise our decision making abilities. We all need to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and in all the clumsy, organic ways we have at our disposal to gather together the 99% of us who make up this society. They the 1% are not of our culture, they are invaders and parasites, and they wont be happy till theyve taken everything they can away from us and sucked us dry! In short, it was a pleasure to meet all involved and join in (specific thanks of course to Chris Hurley, who actually chaired the second session while I stared straight ahead like an innocent political bunny-wabbit caught in the red-headlights of comrade Nick), and I cant wait to get the opportunity to meet the wider Left Unity community. To the future! To individual membership! To the people of Left Unity!
12. Terry Conway: Member of the interim Left Unity co-ordinating group elected on Saturday. Over a hundred people from fifty five local groups, as well as members of the day-today organising group, met for the first national meeting of Left Unity in London on Saturday, May 12. The first session, chaired by Bianca Todd from Northampton and Jake Whitby from the Manchester Youth Group, was opened by Kate Hudson from the organising group. Kate set out the fantastic response that there has been to the call for a discussion for a new party of the left since Ken Loach launched his appeal in the middle of March. She situated the response with more than 8000 signatures and more than 90 local groups beginning to be set up in the context of similar processes taking place in other parts of Europe: a point that was further underlined by the warm message of support the meeting received from the two MEPs of the Portuguese Left Bloc. The first session was planned as feedback from local groups as to what they had been doing to get the word out about Left Unity in their communities; local views on the appeal for a new party; the issues they have been campaigning about and the questions that they wanted answered by the national meeting. A number of speakers in this session and the early part of the afternoon gave valuable reports of what was happening, from Brighton to Bristol, from Leeds to West London and many other places. At the same time, a number of other contributions in these sessions also added, or in some cases exclusively focused on, making more general political points about how Left Unity needed to be constituted. It was no surprise that many sisters and brothers who had been through the experiences of the Socialist Alliance, Respect, the Campaign for a New Workers Party and/or TUSC, wanted to draw out what they saw as the lessons of those discussions. The conclusions varied. Dave Church from Walsall, for example, made a powerful contribution as to why Left Unity needed to be based on individual membership, avoiding the power that federations handed over to larger organisations of the left and 28

st
that allowed them to manipulate a broad party in their own sectarian interests. Pete McLaren from Rugby, on the other hand, while arguing against affiliates having the right of veto, argued that it was nevertheless important to allow other organisations to affiliate, suggesting that this way we could draw in community groups and trade unions, not just left groups. Some comrades commented on what they had experienced as the negative role of left organisations particularly, though not exclusively, the larger ones. All of this is, of course, completely legitimate territory for an exchange, but it was frustrating that in some cases there was no sense of whether the person was speaking as a result of a collective discussion, or merely expressing their personal opinion. Further, it wasnt clear to me whether aspects of this thread would have been comprehensible to those Left Unity representatives who hadnt been through any of these previous attempts to create an organisation to the left of Labour. What was clear from the discussion and further underlined by several proposals the meeting went on to vote on later in the day was that the majority was in favour of an organisation based, at least at this stage, on individual membership. Members of far left groups should be individually welcomed, but ways had to be found to protect the organisation and its members from the manipulation that has happened on previous occasions. In my view, Left Unity can best do this by building itself in an outgoing way, reaching far beyond the members of existing radical left groups. It needs to adopt structures based on individual membership, rather than affiliations. At the same time we need, as Doug Thorpe from Haringey pointed out, to create a culture where we appear on the streets primarily as Left Unity, rather than as a plethora of different paper sellers. After the conclusion of that discussion in the first part of the afternoon, Chris Hurley and Adam Roden in the chair turned out to have the hardest jobs of the day. This session had been planned to take procedure on electing the national co-ordinating group, plus a number of resolutions from local groups, on topics from the Peoples Assembly to council housing (there were 11 motions and amendments tabled for the session). In fact, late the night before the meeting, a procedural motion was submitted by Nick Wrack of the Independent Socialist Network and Simon Hardy of the Anticapitalist Initiative, which proposed the following: This meeting resolves not to take any votes on any of the statements, resolutions or amendments except for those, or those parts, which deal with: (1) the election of the new national coordinating group; (2) the process of debate and discussion; (3) the dates of the next national meeting and the founding conference. The motion was accompanied by a longer motivation which essentially said that the material before the conference had been inadequately discussed by the groups and therefore any decisions would be open to challenge. In moving the motion, which was rightly the first and in the end almost the only 29

st
matter voted on in the session, Nick Wrack made forceful reference to the fact that many present were shuffling through their pieces of paper, to see what they were being asked to decide on and that much of this had not been discussed by any local groups and all of it by no groups. It was not an inaccurate point to make and it was not surprising that, despite valiant attempts by IS Networks Tom Walker and others to explain why passing this motion would create at least as many problems as it would solve, the meeting voted to support it, albeit with an amendment that we should also discuss the question of one member, one vote. What soured the discussion a little was the very partial account, given by the supporters of the procedural motion, of why the statement circulated by the day-today organising group 8 days prior to the national meeting had not been discussed and therefore wasnt endorsed the group. Worse, some commentators since have suggested that the supporters of the statement had sought to hide this nonendorsement from the meeting. In fact the reality is much more complicated. The day-to-day organising group on April 18 had decided that such a statement should be drafted and delegated this to the conference organising group. Kate Hudson and Nick Wrack were asked by that group to write something up together following a political discussion. Wrack did not participate. The content of the draft statement was not discussed because the meeting spent all its time discussing procedure and Kate Hudson was subject to an unacceptable and inaccurate personal attack. The information that went to local groups asking them to discuss and amend the statement did not imply it had been endorsed by the day-to-day organising group. No one can know whether the group would have endorsed the statement if it had prioritised making that time. I voted against the procedural motion at the national meeting, because I think that both local groups and the national co-ordinating group would be in a stronger position to move forward and build Left Unity with a political framework agreed by this meeting. For all its imperfections, the Nay 11th meeting reflected wider discussions and wider democracy than anything we had previously. I would have supported a further motion from East London Left Unity, which argued that any decisions on any statement agreed would be provisional and that local groups then be asked to have further discussions on this. This, I think, would have best reflected where we are in this complex process of building a political alternative to the left of New Labour. The national meeting didnt agree with me, which is fair enough, but I think its important to continue discussions amongst Left Unity supporters about both politics and process. The afternoon session ended with an address by Ken Loach who had joined the meeting after lunch, having made it clear to the conference organisers that he wanted to listen to some of the discussion before he spoke. Ken argued that: 30

st
The core idea that I hope that sits of the heart of this party is the fact that we need a planned economy to get out of this mess. Of course, you cant plan what you dont control, so it needs to be an economy held in common, a democratically controlled economy. And we call that socialism. I hope that is acceptable to everybody here. That is a society where we are our brothers keeper, where we do look after each other and where we look after the sick and the old and where we give our kids a good education. That central concept is absolutely crucial. The corollary of that is that this party is not a version of a social democratic party, this is not a party that thinks we should scramble around for the crumbs as they fall off the table and its not a version of a party that tries to pull Miliband a little bit to the left. In my mind, we are not here to build a social democratic party. Other than agreeing with whichever sister who shouted what about women when he made the point about being his brothers keeper, I agree with what Ken Loach said. I dont think social democracy has ever been committed to making a fundamental challenge to the system based on profit under which we live and I certainly dont think that, given the depths of the economic crisis, there are going to be any crumbs falling off any tables. But at the same time, I think that for Left Unity to blossom into its full potential it has to include people who may not agree with Ken or me, or those who may not have thought through their approach to these questions. People have signed up who have not had any involvement in organised politics before, while others, with decades of Labour Party membership, have joined Left Unity because we are standing firm against austerity. I want to be in a political organisation with them, as well as with people who became politically active through Occupy; with those whose primary identification is as environmentalists, as feminists, as campaigners for civil liberties, as well as those who have a more far left analysis and practice. I want this because I think that, only by gathering together the energy and the experience of all of us, do we have the chance to really begin to win at least some small victories in the class struggle, after being battered by these decades of defeats. I also think that by creating a party which has such political breadth, so long as it is one that not only fights elections but appears in community and trade union campaigns and has a vibrant internal life, that people will learn from each other. Certainly, I dont go into the process thinking I have all the answers: I am sure that I have things to learn from other comrades in Left Unity. This is always my expectation and has often been my experience in the past, in previous attempts to build alternatives to the left of Labour, but also in trade union discussions, in the womens liberation and LGBTQ movements, in single issue campaigns and within Socialist Resistance. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The statement circulated by the organising committee read as follows: 31

st
Europe is plunging deeper and deeper into crisis. Its governments are continuing with their failed austerity policies which are destroying the social and economic gains working people have made over many decades. The economic crisis has increasingly become a social and political crisis as people face poverty, hunger and even death, as a result of the catastrophic and government-imposed failure of health systems and social services. A further manifestation of this crisis is the rapid development of fascism in Greece, in the shape of Golden Dawn. However the people of Europe are fighting back. In Greece, France, Germany and elsewhere, new political formations have emerged, drawing together a range of left forces, posing political, social and economic alternatives, and challenging the capitulation of social democracy to neo-liberalism. Here in Britain we face the savage onslaught of the coalition government, destroying our hard-won gains, but Labour is failing to pose a viable economic alternative. It embraces neo-liberalism and does not represent the interests and needs of ordinary people. A successful response to the rightwards move of Labour has not yet taken place, yet we have equal need of a new political formation which rejects austerity and war, advocates a greater democratisation of our society and institutions and transforms our economy in the interests of the majority. The strong support for Ken Loachs appeal to discuss the need for a new left party shows that many share this view. Discussions are ongoing but there is a strong desire for a new party of the left which will present an alternative set of values of equality and justice: socialist, environmentalist and against all forms of discrimination. Its politics and policies would stand against capitalism, imperialism, war, racism and fascism. Its urgent tasks would be to oppose austerity, defend the welfare state, fight to restore workers rights and advance alternative social and economic policies, redistributing wealth to the working class. Its political practice would be democratic, diverse and inclusive, committed to open dialogue and new ways of working; the mutual respect and tolerance of differences of analysis; the rejection of the corruption of conventional political structures and their frequent reproduction of the gender domination of capitalist society. International solidarity is fundamental to the success of any resistance and the achievement of any political progress; such a new party will work with other left organisations and movements in Europe and internationally, to build coordination, strategic links and common actions. From this meeting today, we call on the national coordinating group to organise a conference of Left Unity groups and members this autumn to discuss the founding of a new Left Party, to facilitate commissions to outline the principles and policies of such a Left Party, and to outline a timetable for a Founding Conference in 2014. Looking at the different alternative statements, amendments and the individual 32

st
resolutions which related to the general political approach Left Unity should take, they fall into two different categories (and sometimes an approach from one individual or group covers both). There were a series of discussions people wanted to raise about language: should we talk about working class or working people, should we name capitalism and so on. I dont think we should shrink from using the term working class, though I would also defend a broad definition of what this means. It should encompass all those who have to sell their labour power to survive, rather than a narrow version, that only seems to include those in manual jobs. On the other hand, I think we need to be sensitive to the fact that people from different political traditions (and none) relate to language in a different way. I certain ly dont think that using the term working people is a sign of capitulation to social democracy! Then there is a more fundamental discussion which I think is best crystallised around Nick Wracks and Will McMahons resolution, which read as follows: The working class in Britain and internationally is facing an immense economic crisis. It is a crisis of the profits system capitalism. The capitalist class and its political representatives are intent on making the working class pay for this crisis. No party in Britain represents the interests of the working class. We agree to proceed to a founding conference of a new party in 2014, preceded by a period of discussion and debate involving all those who want to join the process. The fundamental principles underpinning this project are: 1. The new party will be socialist. It aims to replace capitalism with a new society, based on the democratic, common ownership of the wealth, natural resources and means of production, with production for need not profit. 2. It will fight tooth and nail to defend the gains we have won in the past and to extend these reforms. 3. It will be internationalist. 4. It will be democratic. A fuller party programme will be elaborated through the discussion and debate and agreed at the founding conference. There are two fundamental problems with this motion. I personally agree with the fundamental principle of the first bullet point. I have defined myself as a revolutionary socialist for almost four decades. But Left Unity cant succeed if it only involves the revolutionary left. We cant do this on our own and we havent made such a good job so far, neither of getting rid of capitalism nor even of preventing the devastating defeats the ruling class in Britain, in Europe and internationally, have inflicted on working people. Further, their statement of principles does not mention that 52% of the population of the planet, and of the working class, are women, or that women suffer disproportionately from all blows of austerity and often spearhead resistance. This makes it a very narrow vision and one not likely to win support from those we need to involve to make another world possible. A statement of principle that ignores the existence of racism, in the weeks after UKIPs successes in the local elections across Britain, is not likely to persuade black people that they are welcome in Left Unity. A statement that makes no reference to the fact that the left itself has often not been 33

st
welcoming to LGBTQ people, to disabled people as well as to women and black people, is not one that tries to develop a vision of socialism for the 21st century. Finally, a statement that ignores the reality of climate change, and the challenge that poses for building a society built on need not greed, wont be likely to involve the thousands who have come into political activity because they have understood that a real defence of the environment is incompatible with a society so wedded to the profits of the energy corporations and the governments who kowtow to them. I think the statement drafted by Kate Hudson, on the other hand, is much more inclusive. I wasnt convinced that it should have started from the situation in Europe: although I am a committed internationalist, I think it should have started from the attacks the coalition is meeting out on people in Britain. But I think what it says about the European dimension is important and, in particular, I think the reference to other left parties in other parts of the continent is a welcome break from British isolationism. I think there is lots we can learn, for better and for worse, from the attempts comrades in other parts of Europe have made to build to the left of social democracy. I would like the draft statement to say more about the environmental crisis and to say more about the position of different oppressed groups. I would certainly have supported including a reference to the rise of UKIP. But fundamentally I refute the idea which Wrack makes central to his written motivation for his short statement (see http://www.independentsocialistnetwork.org/?p=2118) that Hudsons draft attempts to go further than is necessary at this moment while his would cause little controversy, for the reasons I have argued above. Wrack also characterises the draft statement as a call for the formation of a social democratic party, which seeks to reform capitalism which again I think is incorrect. He doesnt even cite which parts of the statement he believes make such an error. He talks about needing our own Clause 4, but ignores the fact that Hudsons draft talks about redistributing wealth to the working class and transforming our economy in the interests of the majority. When it meets, the national co-ordinating group of Left Unity will need to discuss how best to continue these discussions. One of my pleas will be that we concentrate on explaining positively what we think and why we think other formulas are wrong, rather than making generalised characterisations which can fall into caricature, in order to undermine those with whom we disagree. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx By the time the final session of the May 11 meeting started, chaired by Tom Walker and myself, the meeting had given itself a very difficult task. Despite deciding not to vote on a whole series of things, we hadnt agreed not to discuss them. Further, we had decided to discuss and vote on how the national co-ordinating group should be elected, what the timetable should be for future national meetings and on the question of one member, one vote all in one and a half hours. 34

st
First, we addressed the question of the national co-ordinating group. On the table was a 3-part resolution from the day to day organising group, of which the last part, that the seats elected nationally should be at least 50% women, was controversial on that body. Louise from Bristol ably moved the resolution, concentrating on the final clause. In the debate from the floor, Soraya Lawrence from Southwark argued that she found such provision patronising, while Merry Cross from Reading made the contrary argument: that working class women were less likely to put themselves forward without such reserved seats. The meeting voted overwhelmingly to support the clause (10 votes against 11 abstentions?). In the subsequent elections, the meeting voted for 6 women and 4 men. Some have drawn the conclusion that this meant reserved seats werent necessary. Im not sure this is right. On the one hand, we had a good gender balance in the room, because most local groups had respected the request from the day-to-day organising group, that at least one of two delegates should be women. Second, having the discussion on gender balance just before people completed their ballot papers meant that the issue was at the front of peoples minds. I dont think redressing discrimination inside our organisations should be left to chance. We need conscious measures to redress the impediments capitalism puts in the way of the most oppressed. There was then an amendment from Tina Becker of the Communist Party of Great Britain (who also described herself as a volunteer from Sheffield Left Unity) which said we should invite political organisations that are interested in building left unity to send one observer each to the newly set up national coordinating committee. After debate this was overwhelmingly defeated with 17 votes in favour. Andrew Burgin then motivated the draft statement making some of the points I have outlined above and the session went on to discuss, with the clock ticking rather rapidly, the timetable for a launch conference for Left Unity. The proposal was for a further national meeting in September, which would set up policy groups and move to a launch conference in February. The motivation for what might seem, on the face of it, rather a long timetable was the need to involve the maximum number of people in such a discussion, given the current unevenness of different local groups. The meeting, however, voted to hold a launch conference in November 2013, something which I think poses a real challenge for the incoming national co-ordinating group, but one which I think it will be able to rise to. I think this decision, which I opposed, represented a healthy wish on the part of those present to get on with the job of creating a real living national political alternative: a sentiment which I completely share. My difference is rather one about what we actually need to put in place first, to create the best possible conditions for doing this. Finally in less than 15 minutes, the meeting attempted to return to the question of one member, one vote. Huddersfield Left Unity had submitted the following resolution Significant decisions regarding the structure and policy of a new party should be made by party members on a one member, one vote basis. This could be through a 35

st
majority ratifying a particular proposal, or most popular choice from a series of options. In the current situation where, due to the party not yet being established, there are no members, these decisions should be made by signatories to the Left Unity appeal. There was a a longer motivation which talked worryingly about what I would describe as plebiscite methods: that is, people voting in the isolation of their own homes. My longstanding concern about such an approach had been heightened in the days leading up to the meeting by the intervention of Mark Perryman on the national organising group elist. There, he not only argued against the May 11 meeting voting on any statement but even discussing it. His alternative proposal was as follows: The very first stage should be a survey both quantitative (ie demographics, etc) and qualitative (opinions on a number of key issues including political self-definition) of all 8000 signatories. It is on that basis which we should then proceed. In my opinion, such an approach would be a disaster. We need collective discussion, within which people can respond to new proposals, to nuances of approach, can listen to each other and learn from a shared discussion. We need to explore ways of using technology to compliment face-to-face meetings and to offer real inclusiveness for those disabled people who might find the challenge of travelling to a meeting (never mind going through it) too much at this point in their fluctuating condition. The same applies to shift workers starting at 9pm every night, who cant make a meeting which finishes after that miles from their workplace, or to those with caring responsibilities or people who are the only Left Unity supporter (currently) in their areas. There are probably others who have attendance difficulties for reasons I havent thought of. Thinking about it, perhaps we should set up a virtual branch or several where people in these sort of positions can talk to each other. Local groups should think about skyping from their meetings so that those who cant physically get there can still participate Im absolutely in favour of creativity, but I refuse to give up the principle of collective organising to attain it. It would have been impossible to make any of these points on May 11, even had I not been in the chair, given the serious lack of time. In the closing minutes of the meeting, Kate Hudson moved an amendment to delete all but the first sentence of the motion. This was accepted by Huddersfield, while Nick Wrack explained that he was still opposed to the motion because of what was implied. The meeting voted in favour, I think because what people wanted to express was the idea that Left Unity should be an organisation of its members. I abstained, both because of the concerns I have expressed above, and because I thought that sentence on its own either didnt mean anything, without qualifying that this should be through participation in local branches, or was taking us in a dangerous direction. So. with the clock some minutes past five the meeting had to close, after what had been a chaotic, sometimes contradictory but overwhelmingly positive day. I agree 36

st
with those who have made their written assessments faster than me that real democracy, especially when put together by people without the experience of working together, is going to be messy. Inchoate but exhilarating. I think we were wrong to agree the sentence from Huddersfield, to fix the launch conference for November and to decide not to vote on a political statement (and in practice not to even discuss it). I was very enthusiastic that we agreed to a national coordinating group where the 10 places elected nationally should be at least 50% women with the rest comprising elected local group reps. I enjoyed listening to Ken Loach, but most of all, I enjoyed hearing from and getting to meet so many sisters and brothers from across Britain with so much enthusiasm to build Left Unity. The task before us is an enormous challenge together I think we can meet it.
37

LUGlasgow LU First National Meeting Docs

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LUGlasgow LU First National Meeting Docs

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

LU First National Meeting, May 11 2013

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

LU 1 National Meeting: Docs and Reports

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi