UNISON – the biggest union in the public sector in Britain – is having an election for General Secretary in the immediate aftermath of the general election. The result is due be announced on June 22 writes TERRY CONWAY
This election, unlike the one the country faced on May 6, did not need to take place this year at all. The incumbent, Dave Prentis, was last elected in 2005 meaning a normal term of office would run until December 31 2010 and there would have been an election this year. However the law also states that a union leader within five years of retirement can stay on till they do retire – in 2013 in Prentis’ case.
But the last General Secretary to try to use this, UNITE’s Derek Simpson was in the end forced to have a ballot. Following an emergency National Executive Council on January 20, called at only 2 weeks’ notice, a ballot was triggered.
Of course it is a good thing that there is an election – but the timetable that the machine have imposed on the membership was engineered to try and maximise support for their candidate Prentis. Five years ago the election was initiated from a scheduled NEC in October – and certainly there was absolutely no reason this one could not have been called from the regular NEC in December.
Dave Prentis is a General Secretary who has presided over a depressing situation for UNISON members.
For example:
· Local government pay has been declining relative to other workers effectively since 1998
· Median pay in the health service has only increased fractionally in relation to other workers
· The “trade union wage premium” in the public sector fell from 29.9% in autumn 2001 to 22.5% by the fourth quarter of 2006 according to government statistics
· While union membership has grown – it seems by 3.2% though the figures aren’t very clear – union density has declined. In many workplaces density is below 50%
So the best you can say is that the union has been treading water. But actually it is worse than that.
Massive resources have been devoted not to fighting the bosses or campaigning against new Labour’s attacks on public services – but to witch hunting attacks on many of the best left activists in the union.
Holmes and Bannister – committed activists
The list of those who have been targeted is too long to deal with here in any depth. But while many of those involved have been members of either the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) or the Socialist Party, non-aligned left wing activists have also been targeted
And when all the major parties have made it clear that what we are facing is the biggest assault on public services ever faced by working people in Britain, the leadership have almost nothing to say. There is no attempt to gear people up for a concerted fight – rather the removal of those in the position to give such leadership on the ground.
So it is not surprising that activists on the left in the union want to see a challenge to Prentis – nor given the concertinaed timetable that three candidates quickly threw there hat into the ring.
Manchester Metropolitan’s Delroy Creary did not get enough (25) nominations by the time nominations closed on April 1. Two other left wing candidates – Knowsley’s Roger Bannister with 34 and Kirklees Paul Holmes with 58 did so.
Both Roger and Paul are committed socialists and activists with a good deal of trade union experience behind them. There is no doubt that to have either of them elected would be a massive step forward for the union. But there is also no doubt that for many UNISON members it will be very difficult to understand why there are two candidates with many similar policies.
The main difference between the candidates is on the question the relationship between the union and the Labour Party. Roger Bannister is a member of the Socialist Party which has a position of campaigning for trade unions to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. Paul Holmes is a Labour Party member and doesn’t agree. So why does Socialist Resistance support Paul Holmes?
It is self evident that the left needs to unite behind the candidate with the best chance of winning against the machine – and of using the campaign to build up the strongest network of campaigners on the ground to fight the assault on jobs and conditions which will ramp up after the General Election on May 6.
A lot of energy has been put into achieving such unity. Once the NEC agreed the election timetable, the left held a meeting to which all three rank and file candidates were invited. Given the shortness of the campaign, it was agreed that the best way to assess which candidate should be supported was the one that had the most nominations. It is difficult to see what other suggestion could have been made.
Paul Holmes immediately made clear that if he had fewer nominations than Bannister he would withdraw. Sadly the Socialist Party did not agree – but failed to make another proposal.
Reaching out
A well publicised meeting was called for April 3 – which despite being the Easter weekend was attended by around 40 activists from across the country. This was the only time the meeting could be held between the close of nominations and the deadline for any candidates to withdraw.
Roger Bannister and his supporters chose not to attend the meeting and had made it clear that they had no intention of withdrawing. While it is true that often Socialist Party activists in UNISON put forward views and policies that Socialist Resistance and the left as a whole supports, they tend to work in a sectarian way and not genuinely involve others in decisions. The meeting overwhelmingly supported Paul Holmes (with 2 people voting to support Bannister) and agreed to ask Bannister to withdraw. This didn’t happen and there will be two left candidates on the ballot.
On the question of the relationship between UNISON and the Labour Party, Paul Holmes has made clear that he would argue for democratizing the political fund and balloting the whole membership. Bannister stands on the basis of disaffiliation now but has no answer to the questions of how he would bring this about and how he would relate to the third of the membership who still pay the affiliated political levy – many of whom will be vital allies in the battle to defend jobs and services whoever is in Downing Street.
Without arguing it clearly, the Socialist Party are implying that Bannister should be supported because of what happened last time round, when the United Left candidate Jon Rogers got more nominations, but Bannister got considerably more votes.
2005 results
Dave Prentis 184,769 (76%).
Roger Bannister 41,406 (17%).
Jon Rogers (United Left) candidate 18,306 (7.48%).
Turnout 16.6% (membership entitled to vote 1,476,488).
Glen Kelly argued in The Socialist that “ Paul Holmes does not have a genuine chance of beating Prentis and we do not believe that he would secure a better vote than Roger Bannister.” It is true that Bannister beat Rogers – but the most significant thing in that election was turn out – at less than 17%. There is a potential to significantly increase the anti-Prentis vote – but this potential is seriously undermined by a divided left. And Paul Holmes nominations reached into parts that the left has not been traditionally strong – and he has a serious base in his area. Finally Paul is prepared to work in a way which builds the left as a whole and not just put one organisation first
For these reasons Socialist Resistance supports Paul Holmes
5 Comments
This is a sensible balanced article. If the priority is to develop an opposition to Prentice, clearly a united left candidate must take a priority of specific factional interests. Given that each did have the opportunity to have their support ‘tested’, why Bannister should step aside to allow Holmes to challenge Prentice.
[...] UNISON election – Paul Holmes is the candidate who can build a left wing : Socialist Resistance: F… socialistresistance.org/?p=925 – view page – cached UNISON election – Paul Holmes is the candidate who can build a left wing Tweets about this link Topsy.Data.Twitter.User['left_news'] = {“photo”:”http://a1.twimg.com/profile_images/685557650/428px-Red_flag_II.svg_normal.png”,”url”:”http://twitter.com/left_news”,”nick”:”left_news”}; left_news: “UNISON election – Paul Holmes is the candidate who can build a left wing – http://left-news.com/xab81/ #comrade ” 40 minutes ago view tweet retweet Filter tweets [...]
I doubt if Paul Holmes’ own mother thinks that he’ll get a bigger vote than Bannister. Bannister has – due to sectarian silliness on the part of some – repeatedly faced other left challengers, and has always received a multiple of their vote. He’s simply much better known across the union than any other left figure. Given that reality, it’s folly for Holmes to stand.
[...] An article arguing support for Paul can be found here. [...]
Local Government Cuts
UNISON was aware before the year 2000 there were going to be huge changes in local government.
Following the Data Protection Act, Cheshire County Council commenced group meetings across the county and I am fairly positive, due to the nature of these meetings, had to go across the country.
I was a member of the group in Chester, there were approximately fifteen of us and apart from speakers there was no staff member higher than a secretary. One of the people attending was the UNISON steward KC employed by the council in their finance department. We attended these meetings approximately every two months, over a four year period. It was our role to take back the upcoming changes. It was clear from the nature of the very first meeting they should have been attended by management, not clerical workers. I cannot speak for any other team, but the Adults with a Learning Disability Team, was not going to take notice of information and handouts I brought back but it was obvious that managers were well aware of the contents but refused to discuss them.
When I complained about poor social work practice. The council threatened me four times with prosecution for misuse of computers. Obviously I was concerned because I could not remember and replied each time regretfully they would have to prosecute me. Following the first threat UNISON convenor John Feeney, was very difficult to contact and correspondence “went missing”. He then conspired with the council against me with the knowledge and support of Keith Bradley and Frank Hont.
No matter what region you are in the fact is Dave Prentis condones the way the above named conduct themselves in the Northwest which is why I firmly believe UNISON is in the council’s pocket.
I sincerely wish you well with council’s across the country but I do not believe UNISON with Dave Prentis at the head will be of use to you and if you know of an equivalent to John Feeney, Keith Bradley and Frank Hont, you would be well advised to oust them.
Best Wishes
Mavis Jones