There has been quite a response to last week's insion and debate Socialist Outlook is always keen to talk to others on the left, even if we do not agree with all their positions.
We do not think, for example, that Geoff's decision to break from the Campaign for a Fighting Democratic Union is the right one, nor did we support Rodney Bickerstaffe in the election for General Secretary. I READ the interview with Geoff Martin with some interest. Whenever I meet UNISON lefts of one sort or another, they usually pay credit to the vote gained for me as the CFDU candidate in the UNISON General Secretary election, yet Geoff Martin apparently remains unconvinced.
This is despite the fact that the CFDU has emerged as a credible force on the left in the union, intervening successfully at the Health Service Group Conference, bringing lefts together on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, preparing interventions at the Annual Delegate Conference and looking towards building the defence of Self Organisation.
It is simply not true to brand the CFDU as ex-Nalgo. Throughout the General Secretary election I was overwhelmed by active the support that I received from Shop Stewards from all former partner unions. If my membership of Militant was such an issue for Geoff, why did he not seek to nominate a Labour Party member to take on the right wing in the union?
It is easy to be wise after the event. as Geoff is now about the intervention of Peter Hunter, but at no point prior to Hunter declaring his candidacy did Geoff refer to this "danger". The real issue is Geoff's support for Rodney Bickerstaffe, not his opposition to the CFDU campaign. Rodney opposed UNISON's policy on the Minimum Wage being taken to the TUC, he supports the witch hunt of left activists in the Liverpool branch and opposes defiance of the Tory anti-union laws. If the CFDU had not raised its banner against him in the election, it would have been saying by default that these things are not important, thus ing the strongest standing aside from the predominant mood of left activists.
Roger Bannister isation in the union. CFDU campaign motivated by "Bickerstaffe's failure to give any sort of lead" vote for a socialist candidate election of union officials, opposipledged to oppose those policies. tion to barring UNISON members Meantime the CFDU has a job from standing for elections in the to do in building its base and mak- APF and the fight against the possible chal- witchhunt against UNISON memlenge to UNISON's right wing. bers in Liverpool, who face expulThe general secretary campaign sion for fighting racism and taking was a welcome part of that process. industrial action.
T Nelson, Netherton But what surprises me is that Socialist Outlook is completely unAlthough Bickerstaffe is certainly one of the better union eaders, we believe that part of the role of the left in the union is to promote action in defence of jobs and conditions. Bickerstaffe does not not share this approach. Similarly the issue of Labour Party membership is not the decisive criteria in deciding on a General Secretary. Socialist Outlook supports the CFDU. It is the best way of drawing together activists in the broadest possible left organGiven that Socialist Outlook mem bers are currently active within the CFDU, indeed, the National Treasurer is an Socialist Outlook member, what are Socialist Outlook nowsaying about the CFDU? Do they support the setting up of a rival left organisation that Geoff Martin is trying to organise in secret at the moment? Is there a contradiction as to what the Socialist Outlook members in the CFDU are saying and doing, and what the organisation is saying or not saying in its paper? HULL Militant Labour member kay Dunil wnies ( 101) mat the Hull City Council Labour Group voted against co-operating with the workfare scheme Proiect Work for fear of "election defeat" in a by-election in which Militant stood a candidate.
Readers outside North Humberside might have the idea that the election result was a close-run thing between Militant and Labour. The reality is that the Militant candidate came fifth with 66 votes and the Liberals came second. The electoral threat to Labour came from the Liberals not Militant.
Why then did the local Labour council come out against Workfare? The answer is not verv dra. matic but is important. Last summer, following a Hull Trades Council public meeting on the Job Seekers Allowance (JSA), local CPSA members in the Labour Party fought and won opposition to JSA in the Hull Labour Party. This paved the way for the same activists to win opposition to Project Work along with the initiatives of the Trades Council in winning support for a boycott amongst local chames The significance of this episode is that activists still need to fight within local Labour Parties and affiliated unions for support on such issues as Project Work. Militant comrades face a contradiction. They have supported the Deputy Leader of the City Council speaking at Hull Trades Council'srecent demonstration against Project Work. However, they now appear to believe that the Labour Party is a straightforward bourgeois party.
If that's true, they should have thought tooth and nail against a bourgeois party. If that's true, they should have fought tooth and nail against a bourgeois party speaking on the platform of a left-wing trade union organisation. The reality is that the class nature of the Labour Party has not changed and that all local campaigns should aim to win over local Labour Party organisations.
Glenn Kelly National Secretary CFDU Hull hath no fury...
Keith Sinclair, Hull Socialist Outlook