Moving the deckchairs, new rules for the CEC election

Moving the deckchairs, new rules for the CEC election

The CEC also proposed to change the way in which its elected. This was done in a paper, “OUR RULEBOOK – A PROCESS OF CHANGE”. The current CEC is elected within the Regions, of which there are now seven rather than nine. The rule book review has been going on for a couple of months but in order to change the CEC composition, they needed to postpone the planned elections. Not changing the rules would have led to a reduction in size of the CEC which is probably a bad thing. Small committees are too easily dominated by leaderships.

They also took the opportunity to change the aims and objectives. They strengthened the Unions’, emphasis on workplace organisation, regulation of terms and conditions, international working class solidarity, the need for a political intervention and the accountability of GMB supported public officials to GMB policy. These are both welcome and overdue and represent an important restatement of the Union’s goals and focus.

So what changes are proposed to the composition of the CEC.

The paper proposed that the Union reduces the number of sections from three to two, and lets each Region define two additional industrial foci. One will have to work in these industries to represent them. I am concerned that allowing each Region to define their additional seats will cause a lack of certainty, illustrated by the creation of an additional seat in the Midlands Region for which only ~2,500 people can stand and a seat for the Irish members, and here I am unclear how many members would be eligible, but the number of members in Eire is very small.  I am also concerned that the definition of these new constituencies will be used to reinforce power within the union, not focus on growth.

All Unions have a problem in how to organize industrially and geographically. The CWU is probably the most industrially focused, the GMB are probably the most geographically focused. The proposals to have two additional industrial seats should help the union grow and organise, but again there needs to be more clarity as to how these seats are defined.

They are of course silent on the voting systems to be used in the few divisions that have more than one seat/winner. Using a form of proportional system would be of advantage to candidates from under represented groups; it’s easier to come second than first.

There are changes to the way that Conference delegates are chosen which should help women’s representation in big branches, but does not change the ultimate selection authority which is not the branch. Not all branches are represented at Conference, and disappointingly this has not changed.

It is also my view that moving the deck chairs on the top floor is not enough. The whole organisation needs to support these new representatives and industrial representation needs to be funded and democratically accountable to the members it seeks to represent. …

A hole in the wall?

A hole in the wall?

It was a strange day, the first day at Congress after lunch usually considers rules and internal issues which is what happened today, also the CEC has the right to produce special reports. One of its papers this year, was called, “GMB Taskforce for Positive Change Final Progress Report to Annual Congress 2023”. The Task Force was set up after the Monaghan Inquiry which found the GMB to be institutionally sexist. The Inquiry had been set up after sexual harassment complaints were made against the then incumbent General Secretary, Tim Roache.

As one might guess from the title, the report proposed winding-up the task force. Despite being only able to report completion of 11/27 recommendations with five yet to be started.

The rest of this article, below/overleaf looks at the arguments for and against winding up the task force, and reports on the debate to backtrack on Monaghan’s recommendation 3. …

How wrong was I four years ago?

How wrong was I four years ago?

I was tidying up my hard disk and came across the notes of a speech I gave GB 2019. I reported the speech on this blog but while many are saying that time moves on and things of changed, I feel the speech is prescient in its prediction of the failures of Brexit and the collective failure of much of the Trade Union movement to represent its membership. I wanted to say that the pusillanimous position of the CEC should be rejected as you can see in the speech. The 2019 European Parliament elections had just taken place showing the compromisers that the nation wasn’t willing to do that. It was make your mind up time. The Union leaderships allowed themselves to be captured by the Party. Anyway, this is what I planned to say, as they say on press releases, check on delivery.

President, Congress, Dave Levy, London Central General Branch, London Region, 1st time delegate, speaking in support of the CEC Special Report on Brexit

Brexit is poisoning politics and stopping us from addressing the issues that matter to people. It stops us talking about how a radical manifesto can heal the country from the ravages of both Thatcherite and 21st Century Tory austerity.

Not only do Labour’s promises of investment in infrastructure and education offer hope, the answer to low wages is labour marker reform, stronger minimum wage legislation, and to empower the Trade Unions and regulate management. It is not to blame migrants and to extend the hostile environment to another 3m citizens, our neighbours & fellow members and continue the Tory’s voter suppression, excluding them from votes to which they are entitled.

It has been clear since June 2016 and the failure of Leave.EU to articulate an exit model that there was always going to need to be a final say referendum. At the time, or shortly after I argued that the negotiations should be done by those that believe in it. That’s what happened but now we should be asked, all of us, those who voted leave,  those who voted remain, those too young to vote last time, citizens abroad denied their vote and EU citizens resident in the UK,  asked with humility if that is what is still wanted.

Constructive ambiguity is no longer an attractive position. It loses both remain and leave votes. This is proven to all except the most blinkered by last month’s EU Parliamentary results, the worrying subsequent polls and for those of us that have been out there, personal experience.

Labour lost nearly 60% of its vote, mainly to explicitly remain parties. In my home in Lewisham, despite the Council’s position of strongly supporting a 2nd referendum, the Mayor would be a LibDem. The inconvenient truth is that loosely aligned Remainers leant us their vote in 2017. We should also remember that most of labour’s members and presumably ours and voters want to remain.

While I can respect the voters who voted leave, the result is so criminally flawed that courts would have ordered a rerun if it had been deliberative. i.e. not consultative.

The CEC paper does not go far enough and while stating we oppose a no deal Brexit is welcome, that’s where we were in 2016 and yet we are now in an extension period and running out of time to get a satisfactory deal.

Imagine a worse case situation in the spring, a chaotic Brexit has led to queues on the M20, factory layoffs, food & medicine shortages and high inflation after a currency collapse. We will be telling people that all this is very terrible and should be fought, but, oops… if we actually facilitated Brexit, we won’t be heard. It won’t wash.

It maybe time to make up our mind if we want to alienate the majority or minority of our voters.

Labour’s Conference has been clear since 2016, on the basis of GMB motions that its position is to oppose leaving on inadequate Tory terms and now is the time to say that the Tory’s terms fail to meet our needs. Both May’s deal and No-Deal fails to meet Conference 16 policy; it fails to meet the six tests and fails to meet Conference 18’s thresholds. There’s no protection for jobs, employment rights, environmental protection or consumer rights. And no deal means the reimposition of a border in Ireland.

It’s time! We need a public vote and Labour should declare for Remain. There’s no other option on the table. I’d also urge delegates to look with favour on M xxx. . It’s not a London Region motion so we will listen to the debate before deciding which way to vote.

The picture is not of that speech, may equally not be the correct conference.  …

GMB agrees to “Oppose Refugee deportation to Rwanda”

My branch proposed an Emergency Motion on the Rwanda deportations, here is the debate, sorry about the sound,

and here are the words,

EM2. Oppose Refugee deportation to Rwanda

Congress notes that on the 14th April, Priti Patel announced that the UK and Rwanda would sign a deal allowing the UK government to send unprocessed immigrants to Rwanda. On the 10th April,  the High Court refused an application to stop the Govt’s planned removal of people seeking asylum by offshoring them to Rwanda despite the UN warning the Home Office off the likely illegality. This decision was unsuccessfully appealed on Monday 13th June 2022.

The move to offshore those seeking asylum is racist , breaches human rights and our international duties to welcome refugees which are embedded in  treaty commitments.

We instruct the CEC to raise awareness of the High Court’s decision on 10.6.22 ensuring our members working in detention centres and work ancillary to the detention centres are informed of the justice and rights of those in their care.

Congress agrees to support the actions of any members in the detention centres and other impacted businesses if they choose to refuse to perform work effecting the deportations

Congress calls on GMB sponsored MPs to campaign to reverse this programme, and for the Labour Party to oppose any parliamentary resolutions enabling this programme. They must recognise that many/most of the transportees are unprocessed asylum seekers fleeing threats of death and war.

London Central General

The CEC issued a qualification which is important to understand the position of the Union.  …

The finance debate

The finance debate

One of the key debates, at least as far as the platform was concerned was the debate on whether to freeze the subscriptions again. The CEC had made their task harder by deciding to reduce the branch capitation payments. Until earlier this year, branches by rule, retained 10% of the membership fees paid by their members. The CEC implemented a 25% cut to these payments. They proposed a special report confirming their actions and amending the rule to permit this to occur. The initial agenda had 19 motions critical either of the adjustment, or of the way it had been done and one in favour; it had seven motions calling for alternative subscription fee structures. By the time of the debate, the only survivors were the motion supporting the CEC, one removing regional committee discretion, one postponing it to later in the year and one criticising the way in which the CEC had behaved.

The article overleaf is quite long; the conclusions are that the CEC got their way but to my mind didn't tell the whole story, which they may come to regret.

The EU and the FTC at GMB22

The EU and the FTC at GMB22

I moved Motion 194, from my branch, on the Future Trade & Co-operation Agreement. This motion called for five reforms in the FTC, calling for relaxation of the agreement on freedom of movement, rejoining Horizon Europe, the mutual R&D programme, to enhance inward investment, rejoining Erasmus+ to continue youth and educational exchanges, mutual reciprocal voting agreements to allow citizens of the UK and of the EU to vote where they live, and to ease trade friction particularly in the context of the Northern Ireland Protocol. I have clipped my moving speech, and Joanne Rust's seconding speech. The CEC supported with qualification, and the motion was carried. If you use the 'read more' button, you can see the video of the debate, the words of the motion and my notes on the speech ...

Rachel Reeves at GMB Congress

Here are my notes from Rachel Reeves speech to GMB Congress. It comes as a surprise to me that she’s a member of GMB, I thought she was in Unite, but possibly like so many MPs , she’s in more than one. The full speech and Q&A session is available online. Some of what she said, I have heard before, but interestingly she promised the biggest programme of in-sourcing in history. Some might call this nationalisation!!!

Another slogan I picked from the speech is having a buy British first policy, admittedly the options are much narrower after Brexit as so many European suppliers now choose not to sell to us because the cost of delivery is so high.

She highlighted the Tories shrinking of the UK’s gas storage capability which is one of the prime causes to the volatility of the level of prices.

Labour will increase SSP, although no targets announced. They will introduce sectoral collective bargaining, starting with social care and prohibit the use of scab agency labour.

She announced that new Infrastructure Bank will only lend on the basis of a jobs/wages contract. She will also ensure that there is a worker director on the board. This was very popular but the jobs contract is the more important promise.

There were a number of questions raised.

London Region asked a question on the WASPI women, while RR condemned the Tories for  letting the problem arise, her promises to put this right were harder to find. Perhaps the question should have covered all the Tory pension theft some of which is much more hidden.

In reply to a question, she announced the end of Tebbit’s Rule, defending people’s right to make a home and the government’s duty to have a comprehensive levelling up programme which brings high pay, high skill jobs to the whole country. It’s a task when one considers that many communities in the UK are the poorest in Europe.

One delegate got the cheer of the week asking why Starmer couldn’t support the rail workers. Reeves did not answer although spoke of her own committent to the Union movement and the labour link. She was very unsure in her reply to this question. She was strong on strikes, less so on Kier on which she was silent.

It’s GMB so I have to report on the question on domestic nukes and hydrogen. We want’em, and she’ll give them to us. …

Fair Votes

I have been in correspondence with “Make Votes Matter”. There’s more to be said, but I think it’s how we need to go; we need a House of Commons based on a proportional “Additional Member System”, like the GLA and the devolved nation assemblies. Their model motion text pasted, and they say, “… below is taken from our website. There’s some strong claims in it, so we also a one-pager of supporting evidence available here.”

Conference notes that the UK is one of only three major developed countries to use a First Past the Post voting system for general elections.

There is consensus among experts that First Past the Post has a strong right wing bias wherever it is used, leading to parliaments and governments that are on average much more right wing than the voters.

This corresponds exactly with the UK’s experience. Most votes went to parties to the left of the Conservatives in 18 of the last 19 general elections, yet the Tories have been in power for 63 per cent of this time. Instead of building a society “for the many”, this has created one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, with some of the most restrictive trade union laws.

Conference believes we need a Labour government to reshape society in the interests of workers and our communities. But it is imperative to realise that the current voting system offers no protection against later Conservative governments tearing up these hard fought gains as they have in the past. The world’s most equal and progressive societies all use forms of Proportional Representation which prevent rule by a right-wing minority and lock in the hard-won victories of their Labour movements.

Conference therefore resolves:

– To adopt a policy of opposing First Past the Post and instead supporting moves to explore, select and introduce a new voting system for the UK.

– To call for the Labour Party to do the same and to commit to including the voting system for general elections in the remit of its planned constitutional convention.

I moved this at my Union branch last night. The meeting decided to drop the second and third paragraph and to weaken the firsts resolves.

The motion will not be sent to Congress due to the 3 motion limit. We decided to send something else. …

Trade Unionists oppose Brexit

YouGov have run a poll, on behalf of the People’s Vote Campaign asking Trade Unionists some questions about their opinions on the EU & Brexit, this was done on 20th-23rd June and it reports on the GMB, Unite & Unison, the top three by size. It makes sobering reading for Labour’s “Lexiters”, as all three samples would vote to Remain by significant margins and that ~35% would be more likely to vote Labour if it supported a 2nd referendum, with Remain on the ballot.

69% stated that they would vote remain in a referendum held tomorrow.

Other articles my focus on the General Election implications but I am glad that the GMB adopted this position at their Conference earlier this month. …  …