Sunday, April 19, 2009

Outrageous sexism by United Left choice of NEC Candidates

Many thanks for the latest entertaining and upbeat video analysis offering by Comrade Mercader on the ongoing UNISON NEC elections. The Ultra Left (UL) dominated sect “United Left” are trying (surprise, surprise) to get elected their own central committee vanguard of “angry young men” (who are mostly in reality white middle aged blokes). While ignoring the fact that over 70% of UNISON members are actually women. So much for fairness or proportionality then?

Headphones/speakers and dancing shoes ON

I’ve just completed my ballot papers for my region (London) and my Service Group (Local Government).
I’ve voted (X) for –

GREATER LONDON REGION
FEMALE SEAT Vote for up to TWO candidates
Louise COULING X
Kim SILVER X

MALE SEAT Vote for ONE candidate only
Conroy LAWRENCE X

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE GROUP
GENERAL SEAT Vote for ONE candidate only
Carol LUKEY X

MALE SEAT Vote for ONE candidate only
Glen WILLIAMS X

FEMALE SEAT Vote for up to TWO candidates
Lynn POULTON X
Julie ROBINSON X

Check out this website Members in UNISON for other recommendations. (Please forward this but do not use UNISON resources to do so)

18 comments:

Keith said...

Interesting exchange on this over at Marsha 'convicted election fraudster' Thompson's blog in the comments section:

Jenny Fuller said...
I've seen a few comments about the United Left not putting up women to try and get more women into leadership positions. I'm not sure how you could have done that as the seats are male or female seats so it doesn't make sense, does it?

8:16 PM

marshajane said...
Indeed Jenny - it doesnt there are designated female seats - the general seats can be either male or female.

8:19 PM

It appears Marsha is only too keen to be completely disingenuous and ignore her own feminist principles and the sisterhood. She simply won't answer the question as to why the United Left put in ONLY men in seats she knows only too well could have had UL women candidates.

Keith said...

Meanwhile, over on Jon R's blog, he offers this comment:

"The United Left - and the broader left slate of which it is a part - chose candidates as a result of a process of dialogue and discussion following an entirely public meeting which took place last November."

Where exactly was this meeting publicised?

Did the publicity mention that the meeting would be discussing NEC candidates?

And who had the chance to take part in the 'dialogue and discussion' which took place FOLLOWING the meeting?

Paula said...

Oh dear, John.

Not just sexism I'm afraid!

Aside from the black members seats where they HAVE to put up black candidates, are they putting up any other black candidates?

This is serious stuff and must call into question their ability to represent the full range of UNISON's membership.

I'm not aware of a full slate of candidates representing a different political slant to the UL. However, looking at other candidates (not supported by UL) it is clear there are black members, women, disabled members, and LGBT members closer in proportion to our membership than the UL seem to be interested in supporting.

It's a very sad reflection on the extremist left that their candidates are drawn from so very narrow a demographic range.

Anonymous said...

This is fascinating in a "watch what you write doesn't come back to bite you on the arse" type way.

Here's what Marsha (and Nick Venedi) had to say about trade union organisation and its future back in 2006.

"The working class which we represent in London is highly diverse and differentiated. We are women and men, young and older, we are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight, we are of all races, some of us are disabled.

We believe that this diversity can be a strength, if we can build a trade union movement capable of building self-organisation from the bottom up...

...can only be built if workers can self-organise and define their own needs. Diversity is not window dressing. It is not enough for trade unions to appoint recruiters on the basis that "like recruits like" if the power to make real decisions is not in the hands of the "like" who are recruiting the "like".
I wonder what has happened since that has made her change her mind and simply back a predominately straight white able-bodied male slate of candidates for the NEC elections?

I dread to think what the UL slate would have looked like if there hadn't been seats restricted to only women or black members.

Jon Rogers said...

John, do you still publish anonymous comments then? "Keith" appears to be a link to a campaign website for other candidates in the UNISON NEC elections rather than a person as such.

I am disappointed to see you publishing anonymous comments which make personal attacks on other UNISON activists as in the inaccurate characterisation of MarshaJane by your commentator.

This reminds me of the sort of tactics favoured by Damien MacBride, and denounced most effectively today by Dave Prentis for their political consequences.

You should stop these petty personal attacks and not encourage them, particularly not when you appear to be attempting to make a serious political point, albeit in a fairly trivial way.

Incidentally, perhaps your previous commentator can tell us where and how - and by whom - other candidates were selected, and at which nominally "social" events in which branches this took place?

leftygirl said...

Great video - and better music too. A LOL moment definitely

Sandy said...

OK Jon - let's get serious.

What's your explanation for such an unrepresentative bunch on the UL slate?

How can the UL even consider laying claim to even being potential leaders of UNISON when they are unable or unwilling to put up more women and black candidates?

Garry Chick-Mackay said...

You know, I find it pretty disgusting to find accusations made against one of the members I represent in a public forum by a so called colleague in Unison, particularly when that accusation has absolutley nothing to do with said members candidacy in the election you are discussing.

I note that comment moderation is on, and so you have chosen to allow that comment to be published. It says a lot more about you John, than it does about her.

Chesney said...

Jon - you say that Marsha was incorrectly characterised by Keith - so is she not then a convicted election fraudster?

Is she not the same person who appears in this news story?

http://www.newham.gov.uk/News/2006/March/electoralregistrationfraud.htm

Anonymous said...

John, interesting that the ultra left extremists are trying to deflect from thier crude sexism and discrimination by the usual abuse. they can dish it out "but they don't like it up em".

Anonymous said...

I don't understand Garry Chick-Mackay's comment. Is he really saying that if a candidate for election to highest office in our union is a convicted election fraudster that fact is irrelevant?

Just how far is he prepared to take that argument I wonder?

Sensible Left said...

Keith
I do not think you should have used such an emotive term.

Yet, it is perfectly legitimate for members to be aware of this relevant issue. This is after all about the democratic election of our union lay leadership. This is also about the leader of a grouping who want to take over this leadership role. So it is important and not a smear.

Both sides please stick to facts only.

Andrew said...

Why can't we hear from Marsha herself?

Andy said...

Long comment coming up:

As a previous commenter here has said, this is a very serious issue and one that has the potential to be extremely damaging to the United Left in the elections and in the longer term.

But we should not ignore their other attempt to drive a wedge into UNISON’s widely-respected attempts to build a union that is representative of its members in all their diversity.

Look at this year’s UNISON’s national conference agenda. Motion 7 calls for branches to be given more flexibility to choose their delegates to conference as they are too constricted by the current arrangements.

The current arrangements are as follows (sorry but this information is important):

SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS
1) Branches are entitled to one delegate per 1,000 members or part there
of.
2) If the delegation only comprises one full delegate, then this delegate
may be male or female.
3) The gender make up of the delegation must be based on the gender
make up of the branch.
4) Branches must include black members in their delegation in proportion
to the workforce profile of all the employers covered by the branch.
Branches with over 2,000 members must include one low paid, female
member in the delegation. Low paid members are those with a basic
hourly rate of £7.49 or less.
5) Branches with over 3,000 members must include one young member in
the delegation (ie. Age 26 or under at end of conference).
6) Branches can send two people, in any gender combination, to share
one of the delegate places. However:
a. If the entire delegation entitlement comprises of just the two
sharers, then at least one must be female.
b. if they are sharing the low paid seat, both sharers must be
female low paid;
c. if they are sharing the young members’ seat, both sharers must
be young members.
Ie. Sending one sharer to meet either the low paid or young member
requirement is not sufficient.
7) Branches should endeavour to include disabled members and LGBT
(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) members in the delegation.
8) Overall, branches should also consider factors such as the balance
between full time and part time workers, manual and non-manual
workers, different occupations and skills.
No-one is saying its easy for every branch to meet these criteria – but its not about being easy, its about trying to be representative. And if a branch cannot meet these delegate requirements they have a right of appeal, an option that is regularly taken up and in many – though not all cases - allowed.

Without such a scheme we would end up with the old white male conferences of the past.

But the point is the motion was submitted by Croydon branch – led by Malcolm Campbell of the United Left.

As far as I know there was no consultation with self-organised groups or young members or the NEC representatives of low-paid members before this was submitted, and I understand that these members are rather less than happy with the proposal.

I think we’ve got no option but to see this as part of a ‘toe-in-the-water’ exercise which - if it goes unchecked - would lead to more widescale attacks by the United Left on self-organisation and UNISON’s representative democracy.

We should be applauding UNISON’s attempts to ensure its democratic decision-making machinery is representative of its members, rather than leaving it open to manipulation by members of extremist groups led by straight, white, middle-aged men.

Anonymous said...

Fascinating to see Jon R over on his blog posting twice in 10 minutes today on anti-racist issues.

I wonder if it's supposed to be an attempt to make amends for the shoddily unrepresentative United Left slate for the NEC?

Anonymous said...

Interesting exchange of emails on the UL mailing list between 'tomorrows ultra leftist' and new to Lambeth Caspel (who was international officer for 3 weeks then resigned because no one noticed him) and brother Jon who is also ultra left but also Labour party member. Caspel accuses Rogers of everything under the sun and questions his politics in an open letter. Thought they were all getting on? Ah and the site the militants promote is now called something else? Not that anyone cares.Do we know more? I am confused!
Donald

Andy said...

This gets worse - on their campaign website the United Left have only allowed white candidates to publish their election addresses!

Yes, they say who they are backing (including their candidates for the black members' seats) but why have they refused to publish or just not bothered to publish the black members' manifestos?

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that the black candidates they are supporting didn't want to be part of the United Left in case it turned people against them!!!!