Thursday, November 19, 2009

Another one bites the dust: Jane Loftus, President of the CWU defies and resigns from SWP

Socialist disunity reports here "As I understand it, Jane Loftus, President of the CWU, and the SWP’s most highly placed trade union militant has resigned from the organisation, according to my source:

Announced at Brent postal workers’ support group last night that, asked to choose between keeping her union position or making a self-criticism of her recent vote for the “interim agreement”, Jane Loftus has decided to leave the SWP.

Don’t people know that the SWP demand that all their activists follow the party line rather that the interests of their trade union members? See here "Party decisions are binding on all, especially the CC and comrades playing leading roles in the struggle” (unions, united front’s etc).

How on earth can anyone be an independent trade union leader and a member of the SWP?

hat-tip Col Roi.

30 comments:

Jackson Jeffrey Jackson said...

Good thing there is nobody in a position of authority in UNISON or other unions who would ever put their loyalty to the Labour Government ahead of the interests of their own members.

Mike Law said...

JJJ makes a good point, and it got me wondering what you would have done if you'd found yourself in Michael Gavan's position back in 2006? [Here]

John Gray said...

Hi Jackson
I would like to think so. Of course the affiliated unions are constitutionally part of the Labour Party and share many common values and beliefs (not all and not all the time as with any family). However the idea that the Government or the Labour NEC instructs UNISON on how to act with regard to an industrial dispute is simply laughable. The very thought made me smile. Thank you.

Hi Mike
By co-incidence I was at that union meeting and I’ve just had a chat with Michael at congress hse.

BTW - How is brother Pearce?

Jackson Jeffrey Jackson said...

However the idea that the Government or the Labour NEC instructs UNISON on how to act with regard to an industrial dispute is simply laughable. The very thought made me smile. Thank you.

Well that isn't what I actually wrote, but I'm glad you find so amusing the idea that anyone in the the union hierarchy might let Labour Party considerations in any way influence the way they represent their membership industrially. No doubt you're correct and nobody would ever do such a thing. I shall sleep sounder tonight for your reassurances.

John Gray said...

Hi Jackson

"Well that isn't what I actually wrote..."

but sweet dreams!

Mike Law said...

Still doesn't answer my question...

What were your views on what was going on at that time?

Anonymous said...

My union before my party
everytime

Anonymous said...

Nice if the people calling for industrial action could actually get them out on strike

I challange any rep viewing this post to say they got even 50% of their council out on stike in the last set of Council strikes
Pensions, pay


Get your own members out before you accuse others of selling out

John Gray said...

Hi Mike

been there two times so far - last time http://grayee.blogspot.com/2007/10/hazards-at-work.html

Why have you not answered my very sincere enquiry about Brother Pearce?

Mike Law said...

John,

Have been through some of your old posts and I see that you supported Michael, rightly so.

However, did you actually get to the root as who wanted Michael off the Newham Council scene and why?

I get the impression that you take the line that it was Council management (i.e. senior officers) that wanted Michael gone.


Wasn't sure what you wanted me to say re Neal; I haven't seen or spoken to him for a while.

Anonymous said...

Mike

John took a principled stand over Michael Gavan as you see. There are plenty of people of principle in the Labour Party.

I guess we'll never know the details about Michael's dismissal... since, unaccountably, if my memory serves me right, it did not reach an industrial tribunal... One would think that, in such circumstances, an employer would have the confidence that their decision would stand up at a tribunal...

Labour Anon

Mike Law said...

@ anon 0:18

I cannot dispute that there are many in Newham Labour who are principled (nor would I want to) and I am proud to say that I can refer to some as good friends of mine.

It is evident that John took a principled stand on this issue, I'm just interested in his take on what was the motivation behind the action against Michael and who instigated it.

Obviously, John will have no first hand knowledge, I'd just like to know what John picked up on this issue.

For my own part, when I was a councillor I sat in on two informal meetings, and during the course of each it was made it very clear what the motivation was and who had instigated the action.

SP is just as bad said...

Look at what Mark Serwotka said he would do in 2000 compared to what he has done and what he has achieved!

Extracts from his first election address (when he defeated Hugh Lanning -The Left Unity candidate

“Should provide legal representation, when requested , to members and activists at Employment Tribunals” - Not achieved

“We must return to equal rates of pay for work of equal value” except for the Prison Service which had nothing to do with Serwotka and NEC - Not achieved

“PCS must reject all forms of Performance Pay” in fact Mark Serwotka has endorsed dozens if not hundreds of pay settlements that have included some form of performance pay Not achieved

“The rate of pay for the job is the maximum. I therefore reject any pay system that does not allow all members to achieve this in five years” - Not achieved

“Many members have to claim Working Families Tax Credit. This is an indictment of PCS.” If anything more members than ever have to claim benefits. Is this an indictment of Serwotkas leadership? Not achieved

“We should attack the cause of ill health not let the employer attack members who are too ill to come to work.” Now Mark Serwotka claims he defended the attack on sick pay. However, the numbers of members attacked by the employer has increased massively and led to hundreds if not thousands of members losing their jobs Not achieved

“The threat we face from privatisation is worse now than under the last Government.” The threat we face from privatisation is worse now than under the last General Secretary. More privatisation has taken place under Serwotka than previous General Secretaries combined Not achieved

“If elected I will campaign for the return of an Annual Conference and annual election of the National Executive Committee.” Achieved

“I also believe all senior full time officers of the union should be elected annually….” Five yearly elections for AGS and DGS, not annual. Elections of other full time officers despite conference policy ignored and buried. Mark Serwotka has had the opportunity to put himself up for election every year but hypocritically chose not too. Partially achieved

“I pledge to you that if elected I will not accept the full salary of over £60,000.” The amount Mark Serwotka has donated back to PCS has shrunk in both actual size and as a percentage of his ever inflating salary. He now takes far more than a £60,000 salary. Not achieved

Besides the pensions deal, Mark Serwotka has signally failed to achieve the improvements he promised or even to defend what he inherited. 100,000 job cuts spring to mind. The failed and botched pay campaign is another classic example. Yes the Government are to blame for their attacks, but Mark in his 2000 election address when referring to his opponents and their leadership of the union stated … are responsible for its failings. Mark is responsible for our failings and it on that basis that I and I know many others are voting for Rob Bryson.

Anonymous said...

Mike
Presumably you can't provide further details on your cases any more than John or anyone else can - for obvious reasons - i.e. Britain's libel laws...
Labour Anon

Mike Law said...

@ anon. 19.17

I have no problem with passing on the fact that one meeting was between Wales and myself and no-one else was present and the "attendees" at the second meeting were Wales, Richard Crawford, the mayors political advisor at the time and myself - it wasn't a meeting as such, I was in the mayor's office to discuss a local issue and the other two happened to be there.

At both meetings Wales made his feelings about Gavan very clear...

As far as I know, the truth is not libellous.

Mike Law said...

@ anon 19.17

Just re-read your comment again - are you saying that fear should prevent someone posting a comment especially if that comment is a speculation based on what they know?

Anyone in the Labour Party at that time who attended any meeting that Wales attended would have become aware of Wales' feelings about Michael Gavan.

Taking into consideration the autocratic nature of the governance system now in place at the Town Hall it is fair to speculate that Sir Robin may have been instrumental in initiating (or at the very least supported) the action against Michael.

That speculation would be further fuelled by the fact that the sitting Labour Administration made no attempt to intervene but just sat back and watched the fireworks.

Anonymous said...

so did he stay loyal to the workers and fight his corner ?

or smell the cash on offer and was off ?

Didnt this happen in Manchester as well ?

so much for principles !!!!!!!

Workers should fight to keep their jobs on the shop floor not sell out for 30 pieces of silver


Better to fight ion an ET and lose than sell out and take the employers money

Its called ethics

Anonymous said...

Anon 00.20

I think that's very unfair indeed. Put yourself in their position. It's very wrong to blame one worker who appears to many to have been treated unjustly. If there had been better union support, including from the UNISON leadership?, it would have been a very different matter. And, as I've pointed out, John Gray behaved most honourably in this.

Mike
I have no direct evidence upon which to base any allegations against individual. We can all speculate, but it's not evidence.

The truth is not libellous, but you can still defame, which is presumably why you choose your words carefully. If you have hard evidence of course then go ahead and produce it.
Anon

Mike Law said...

@ anon 21:30

I'm not carefully choosing my words, just passing on what I know; I totally accept that it is impossible for anyone to be able to verify what happened at a meeting between myself and any other individual (with the exception of that individual).

However, I work from the premise that what I write is at least taken into consideration by those who read it and they weigh it with what they already know about the subject.

It still worries me that Newham Labour is in thrall to a small cabal, and I do wonder if it will ever change.

With regard to hard evidence - as it happens I have a fair bit and slowly, slowly various bodies, organisations and journalist are starting to show an interest - it took me nearly 3 years to get outside bodies to look seriously at the fiasco that was the parks constabulary.

Sadly, there isn't too much interest in Newham (the Newham Recorder just isn't interested in anything that might upset the current regime).

Mike Law said...

@ anon 21:30

Sorry, forgot to ask - how can you defame with the truth?

I don't get that.

Anonymous said...

Mike

The truth is the truth, but it's also on occasion interpreted by the courts who might be called upon to make a judgement in any instance. It's also possible that any settlement in the particular case was subject to a gagging clause, so unless someone has hard evidence - documentary or well attested, witnessed, evidence, all you, John, or anyone else can do is speculate in a fairly empty way.

The Parks Police was another matter of course and I know you were one of the people highlighting a very important matter.

The Newham Recorder is, in my opinion, not a great campaigning paper - much of the local press is in dire straits as we know and local journalism is in a dismal state, unfortunately.

Whether 'Newham Labour' (which doesn't exist constitutionally of course) is 'in thrall' to a small cabal, is very doubtful. You well know the situation. But I don't think the ordinary members are 'in thrall' to anyone.

Labour Anon

Mike Law said...

"The truth is the truth, but it's also on occasion interpreted by the courts who might be called upon to make a judgement in any instance. It's also possible that any settlement in the particular case was subject to a gagging clause, so unless someone has hard evidence - documentary or well attested, witnessed, evidence, all you, John, or anyone else can do is speculate in a fairly empty way." - I'm not sure what you're getting at by mentioning a courts interpretation of the truth; in fact I'm not even sure why you mention the courts. This does seem to be getting a bit off course - I was curious to know if John had any insight as to what is generally perceived to be the background to the action against Michael Gavan. I am quite prepared to offer up my opinion that Wales was involved (he had to be, he's the Mayor for goodness sake) and I base this on what I had witnessed in my time as a Labour member and a Newham Councillor. Not all speculation is empty.

"The Parks Police was another matter of course and I know you were one of the people highlighting a very important matter." - this is a great example. Initially, I was the only elected member who had any concerns with regard to the unlawful deployment of this council service. When I raised my concerns I was threatened by both the Chief Executive and the then Leader of the Labour Group (I was still a Labour member) with the Standard Board and legal action. Bear in mind that it should have been the case that the Leader of Group should have been defending my actions, all he could was to report to me how pissed off Wales was and that Wales was going to report me to the standards board. The wind was knocked out of his sails when I told him that I'd already reported myself to the standards board and was told that what I was doing was perfectly correct for an elected member. I passed on the name and number of the officer I spoke to at the standards board and was prepared to give a copy of the letter I had received.

"The Newham Recorder is, in my opinion, not a great campaigning paper - much of the local press is in dire straits as we know and local journalism is in a dismal state, unfortunately." - too true.

"Whether 'Newham Labour' (which doesn't exist constitutionally of course) is 'in thrall' to a small cabal, is very doubtful. You well know the situation. But I don't think the ordinary members are 'in thrall' to anyone." - I’m sure you know full well what I mean by "Newham Labour". Yes, maybe I've over egged it a little and Newham Members are not in thrall to anyone, but can you say that Newham Members have a full and democratic say in the way the party selects its local candidates and in the formation of the party's local manifesto and political agenda? If I'm wrong on this, then things really have changed over the last four years.

Anonymous said...

Mike

As I recall, the Mayor denied any involvement in the actual suspension of MG. It would of course be improper for a politician to be involved in a disciplinary matter.

A number of Party members expressed their concern over this affair internally and then publicly.

I think it is a shame that you left the party and joined the Tories. Your pursuing of the Parks Police issue was right. (This matter was also taken up within the Party as you are probably aware).

As to whether members of the Labour Party in West Ham CLP and East Ham CLP will have a democratic say in the manifesto and the selection of candidates - I very much hope that we will.

The Labour Party has had a long and proud democratic tradition. The overwhelming majority of members wish to see the Party continue to live up to that locally and nationally. It is no secret that Party members are campaigning for this at various levels - the blogosphere is full of such campaigning.

If you wish to rejoin us I am sure there are members who would support your application to return to the fold... After all, Conservatives have been welcomed with open arms into the Parliamentary Labour Party after crossing the floor. And Gordon Brown appointed Digby Jones to his cabinet - so it can't be wrong.

Anonymous said...

and the SWP took cash from a PFI big business to pay for a shop stewards course

so.............

Mike Law said...

“As I recall, the Mayor denied any involvement in the actual suspension of MG. It would of course be improper for a politician to be involved in a disciplinary matter..” – Of course it would, and as if Wales would do anything improper.

You state the parks constabulary issue was taken up within the party – not while I was a member. I had a meeting with Len Duvall who was Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority at the time, the issue should have set off all sorts of alarm bells for him. He said he’d look into it and get back to me; I’m still waiting. It’s all old new now, but the constabulary was still acting outside its remit for a good two years after I was a councillor and I don’t recall any public condemnation from the party. I think the real death knell for the constabulary was when the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government became aware that the Council had copied Met stop and search forms and issued them to the constabulary (they had no powers to stop and search).

My experience of the Labour Party in Newham from 1998 to 2005 does not fit in with a description as having a proud democratic tradition. I’ll give you an example: when I was Secretary of Poplar and Canning Town CLP it was decided by the GC that all sitting councillors for the CLP should submit brief reports about their individual performance (number of surgeries - that sort of thing). Every Tower Hamlets’ councillor complied; not one Newham councillor did. Wales was a councillor in a Canning Town ward at the time and Leader of the Council; he totally ignored the requests for information. So, imagine my surprise when, during his first term as elected mayor, he was keen to implement a system of performance monitoring of councillors (wholly undemocratic as it is the councillors' role to monitor the performance of the Executive and the Authority, not the other way around). His argument was that it would give him a measure to assess the performance of his Mayoral Advisors – I laughed for a week.

Yes, and Newham Labour has welcomed Alec Kellaway, and I‘ve been told by former Chairs of East Ham and West Ham Conservatives that Wales had, in the past, invited both of them to meet with him to discuss policy issues; I admit that this really burned me as I knew just how difficult it is for Labour Party members to have some input on local policy.

Thanks for the thought, but I have no intention of re-joining Labour (even if I wanted to, I doubt it would ever happen – not only would Wales and his cronies oppose it, I was told by Ken Clark when I crossed the floor that I would never be accepted back in Labour as long as he had a say in it). I’m afraid my view of political parties has become very jaded – to quote George Washington: “However combinations or associations of the above description [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion

Anonymous said...

Mike

I sincerly regret your leaving of the Party, though in view of what you report I can understand your decision. (It's harder for me to understand your joining the Conservatives).

Thanks for the great quote from George Washington. Of course parties developed in the US just as everywhere else. How we reconcile parties with democracy is the challenge of course.

David Cameron appears to be trying to centralise control of the Conservative Party in a similar manner to the way Blair weakened democracy in the Labour Party - undermining the control of local parties over selection of candidates for example. I hope the Conservative Associations are more successful in fighting this than the Labour CLPs were...

Labour Anon

Anonymous said...

no real worker sells their job for 30 pieces of silver

Mike Law said...

@ Labour Anon,

Thanks for the sentiment. I have explained why I joined the Conservatives elsewhere on John’s blog.

I thought you might appreciate the Washington quote – I’ve always had a soft spot for the Founding Fathers.

As I said, I’ve moved away from political parties; I couldn’t improve on Washington’s reasoning in explaining why.

Anonymous said...

Mike

I suppose the paradox is that the very people who move away from political parties are often the sort that democracy most needs.

I was looking into Bollingbroke recently. Although a Tory he also understood that an effective opposition was essential to the quality of democracy.

Labour Anon

Mike Law said...

And he had an unusual private life!