Nominations open today in the election to replace Dave Prentis as UNISON General Secretary, presenting quite a conundrum to serious socialists in UNISON’s ranks. My starting point is that serious socialists want to see UNISON achieve its potential for its members and the wider movement – and this poses the dilemma of how best to use our votes (and before that, any influence we may have over the nomination process) to achieve this objective.
I don’t think that the dilemma includes any question of support for Assistant General Secretary Christina McAnea, clearly the “continuity” candidate in this election – her online statement in support of her candidacy, whilst referencing her twenty-five years’ experience as a national negotiator, does not so much as hint at any criticism of the status quo in UNISON.
Nor, I regret, do I think that the candidacy of my former fellow London Region lay activist, now UNISON’s National Black Members’ Officer, Margaret Greer, will long detain many of those looking for a candidate with a transformative agenda who can win the election for General Secretary. (I was going to link to her campaign website but it seems to be down at the moment).
Whilst another former fellow London Region activist, Hugo Pierre (who was the last ever NALGO Branch Secretary at the Inner London Education Authority until its abolition in 1990) certainly has a transformative agenda for the Union, I also think that serious socialists will disregard his candidacy.
Hugo’s fellow Socialist Party member, Roger Bannister, a well-respected, and now retired, UNISON activist who has been a candidate in every previous UNISON General Secretary election saw his peak share of the vote twenty years ago (at 32%) (as explained in greater detail in my earlier blog post).
When originally indicating that he might stand, Hugo said that he aimed to be “the candidate of the left” – and he addressed a hustings organised by UNISON Action Broad Left, alongside Karen Reissmann and Paul Holmes, following which the Steering Committee of the Broad Left decided, by a large majority to support Paul’s candidacy.
I am afraid that this is an example of what an informed observer of the Socialist Party has described as “prestige politics.” The Socialist Party know that it is quite impossible that “their” candidate can win the General Secretaryship, but they hope that, trading upon the reputation of their previous candidate, and relying on the commitment and enthusiasm of their small but hard-working membership, they can garner more votes than any other “rank and file” candidate.
This brings us to the candidacy of my friend and comrade, Paul Holmes, whom I supported as General Secretary candidate ten years ago. Paul couldn’t break through in 2010, coming in third behind Dave Prentis and Roger Bannister, but with the (broader) support of UNISON Action Broad Left, Paul is not alone in believing the he could be the first rank and file member elected to lead UNISON.
Paul Holmes is a first-rate Branch Secretary and a totally principled and committed socialist, and he will gain support from many UNISON activists who feel strongly that our General Secretary should be a rank and file activist. The fact that Paul is currently suspended by his employer and by UNISON itself, could be turned to his advantage, if his campaign uses this opportunity to expose the long and sorry history of misuse of UNISON disciplinary procedures (and – sometimes – of collusion with employers).
Many serious socialists will be backing Paul Holmes. A strong case can be made that socialists should throw in our lot with the candidate who best expresses our beliefs about what UNISON should be and how it should be led, particularly if one believes that (with no incumbent candidate for the first time in twenty years) a rank and file candidate could “come through the middle” between two Assistant General Secretaries and win the election.
However, other serious socialists in the Union have already made the decision that, a rank and file candidate being unlikely to win sufficient support (particularly if the “spoiler” candidacy of Hugo Pierre can secure enough nominations to get on the ballot paper and split the vote of those who want to see a rank and file General Secretary), they will support the “change” candidacy of Assistant General Secretary Roger McKenzie.
Roger, who has picked up support across the Union, is clearly standing to change UNISON, albeit his criticisms of a status quo in which he has served in a senior position for the past ten years are mostly implicit – and far more muted than those of the rank and file contenders.
Roger wouldn’t turn the Union upside down as Paul would (he hasn’t for example – as far as I know – pledged to sell off our expensive London headquarters building – a.k.a. “the Great White Elephant of the Euston Road”) but if his commitment to turning UNISON into a genuinely “organising” union was given effect then I think that would count as transformative.
A socialist case can therefore also be made for supporting Roger McKenzie to achieve the most change that is practicable – if that is what one believes. A UNISON led by Roger McKenzie would certainly be a far less hostile environment for socialist activists than has been the case in the past, and would be a force on the left within the Labour Party.
As I hope regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Blogger) will appreciate, your humble blogger is undecided as to which camp of serious socialists I belong in (others will doubt that I should be described as “serious” at all…)
At this point there will be serious socialists who will argue for support for Paul Holmes and others who will argue for support for Roger McKenzie.
As the nomination process proceeds, illuminating (to a limited extent) both the relative strengths of all the candidates and the number of candidates likely to make it on to the final ballot paper, many of those serious socialists may well revisit their decisions. I shall certainly do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment