Workers' Liberty

On the PPP, yes, what a dreadful decision it was, thanks Bob Crow and EC member John Leach.

I intended the comment more on the recent pay dispute, it is relevant what EC candidates, Brian and Olly said and did but what about the actual EC member John Leach? What did he do or not do? An examination of this would be useful to prevent repeating the same mistakes.
Further, TW only seeming comment on this latest debacle is that the unions strategy was "risky", what strategy? and that's all that needs to be said ?! very polite but totally useless to tubeworkers.

Bobby Law's favoured candidate Olly is "politically principled and trustworthy" on the basis of his record, the record of the regional council leadership! "we don't agree with everything he does" (understatement?)but so what we will recommend a vote for him anyway because/despite? - "You're right, the case for Olly doesn't convince me much either, but as the vote approached, supporting neither just seemed too much of a cop-out" hang on though "I seriously considered supporting neither. (I'd comment here that this can be reasonable view to take on an election, rather than an abdication of analysis or leadership)"

This is just all over the place, TW has liquidated itself in a bizarre fashion. That TW has sunk to such dumbed down lowest common denominator "regional councilism" is shocking but not surprising.

Not directly concerned with this election, so apologies for being off-topic, but this is relevant to a lot of the themes that have come out in this discussion.

Janine - What is incoherent is claiming that TW represents an alternative to the "RMT left" and then recommending a vote for one of the worst examples of that group, "nice" as he may be.
What is also incoherent is stating that: it is not a cop out not to recommend a vote for either candidate, that you are not convinvced by Olly but that as the election was nearly over it seemed like a good idea to recommend a vote for Olly as not doing so would be a...cop out.
Yes, that's right Olly is Bobby Law's favoured candidate, is he 100% a puppet? I didn't say that but I would say that he can be relied on 100% when push comes to shove.There's lots of room for different opinions when they're on secondary issues.
"Guilt by association"? - who's backing who and what each camp represents is important. There's a reason why Olly's main base is in the full time release reps, because he represents the conservative lower rungs of the bureaucracy.

"Bobby Law's favoured candidate Olly is "politically principled and trustworthy" on the basis of his record, the record of the regional council leadership!"
Well yes or no? Is Olly politically principled and trustworthy? Here's your chance to clear it up unequivocally... and please don't forget the CATP.

Smokescreens? The activists are largely with Brian it is those in the regional officers camp who "couldn't trust or support Brian"

"No difference in assessment of the regional council leadership?" Do me a favour, why is TW backing such a conservative, bureaucrat's choice then? Only the regional council's clique are fit for office,and on their record? What else is this but political liquidation when it comes to challenges to the leadership?

At a time when there is the potential for a real sea change for the better in the region at all levels it is really shameful to see TW lining up on the wrong side.

Tubeworker - My comment was not on every issue of TW over the last year but on the issue reviewing the dispute where you might reasonably expect a balance sheet of that dispute.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7767

All proportions guarded I stand by what I said. No, I reconsider, not totally useless perhaps but, completely inadequate.
Thus "Tubeworker said last year that its (RMT's)'waiting game' strategy was a risky one"
Why have one set of standards for the behaviour of union "lefts" and another for right wingers? If the right had sat on their agreements twiddling their thumbs like the RMT has done you'd never hear the end of it. If the "RMT lefts" do the same it becomes a "waiting game strategy" now how's that for spin? Why is TW alibing inaction? A risky strategy? there was no risk whatsoever of it succeeding and even less danger of mobilising the membership.

Martin
your arguments started well and were reasoned. There is an air of desperation about your last item. Why is it that we spend all our time fighting for people to be elected and once in office all our time slagging them off.
THERE MUST BE SOME MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE CAN UNITE ROUND BEFORE WE BRING THE WHOLE UNION TO ITS KNEES!
We have one of the strongest unions in the country. Lets be proud of that and build on it.
Rick Grogan

Rick et al,
All good discussion, as it should be.

However speaking of discussion, Rick, I totally agree with you that there should be common ground that we all should unite around. In my opinion there is common ground around which all sane and sensible members of the RMT in this region and nationally can gather around. It concerns one of the most outrageous events in the history of the union in this region and that is the alleged assault on another union member by the Regional Organiser and his suspension by the RMT.

Bro. Munro nailed his colours to the mast immediately by calling for an urgent, open and speedy investigation into the despicable events which followed the last Regional Council meeting.

However it must be noted that Bro. New was conspicuous by his silence on the matter ! Why was this I wonder?

I am not accusing anyone of guilt, I was not there and I will await the findings of the investigation before I make my own judgement but I have to say that the silence from the New camp was deafening. I am fully aware that investigations should not be prejudiced and rightly so, however it cannot be considered prejudicial to openly express revulsion at the fact that one of our members was viciously attacked after a union meeting.

The common ground we should all share is utter revulsion and condemnation of violence from wherever it comes and a clear determination to eradicate it permenently from our midst.

United we stand

What an excellent discussion !

Totally agree with Sean South and Martin vis a vis the election debate, there is only one contender and that is Brian, as has already been said Olly is an excellent rep and a brilliant ambassador for the union but he is not the person for the EC at the moment. We need someone who will fight hard and talk hard but also someone who will stand up to the bullying that is all too common in this region at the moment. The last post which mentions the disgraceful antics at the regional council just about sums it all up. It is time for a change from the old guard, it is time for rank and file to have their say and not be bullied by those who think they know best by virtue of the fact that they have clung to 'power' for so long. Lets face it there are a lot of new people out there who Do know better than the old guard and it is time to let them in to create a new dynamism within this region. Yes Rick we need to gather at the middle ground but we also need to allow those who are outside because they are not of a certain cliqúe into the fold so that they too can contribute to a revitalised region and a stronger force for the future. We can start that revitalisation by getting someone like Brian on the EC.

Peader Ó Sheírdon

Peader, I can see that you would have to be in he gutter to get out but not how you have to be in it to enter it. That does not make sense.
DO we have any actual witnesses to this incident? I would dearly love a ballanced debate looking at all the information available. I deplore violence but love justice. Both sides must be heard. I know the Regional Organiser and the other party well and am sick at this break down between them. We all watched the ASLEF debacle as their Union was ridiculed in the press and media and I am afraid that our great Union could go down the same path.
Please lets hear from the people that were on the ground at the time of incident.
If you were there please write in and give us an eye witness account.
Rick Grogan

Rick for your information the Bakerloo Branch agreed the following resolution a week after the March Regional Council:

"The Bakerloo Branch fully endorses the trade union principle that “an injury to one – is an in injury to all”. We wholeheartedly support the union’s policy that violence against our members is unacceptable and we fully endorse the RMT’s continuing campaign for our members safety in all walks of life. We also accept that our union must be democratic: discussion and debate free from bullying, intimidation and violence must be the norm otherwise the union will descend into gangsterism and thuggery. In this climate we will never be able to achieve our stated object – “to work for the supersession of the capitalist system by a socialistic order of society”.

Following the complaint by Finsbury Park Branch that their member ____ ________was violently assaulted by the Regional Organiser _____ ___ after the March Regional Council, the Bakerloo Branch supports the General Secretary’s decision to suspend the Regional Organiser.

We note with grave concern the views of many activists in the Region that they will leave the union unless this issue is dealt with properly.

We believe that to try to avoid bringing our union into disrepute that this must be dealt with swiftly and thoroughly. If it is found that the Regional Organiser did assault Bro ________ then the strongest action must be taken by the union."

I agree with the principles of the resolution in full.That is the branches right and proper way to air its concern.
Rick Grogan

Indeed. It is time that the London region got it's act together. For too long it has been stumbling along like a drunk on a Saturday night. The yobs who claimed to lead the region up till now are yesterdays men and women. Now is the time to reclaim the region for all those members who KNOW and BELIEVE that the RMT is the only true transport union (even with the regional troubles we are faced with)

United We Stand

Well done on your win Olly. Now let's get on with the business of working together to further the cause of transport workers in this region and let's put all the squabbling behind us.

Seánsouth

Sean South
your sentiments do you proud as always. You are quite right the time has come to stop the squabling and work for Unity. With our minds centered on the real enemy without internal division we can beat them every time.
Unity is strength!
Rick Grogan

I mirror the sentiments expressed above, well done Olly. Obviously someone had to win and on this occasion Olly brought home the bacon :)

As Seansouth rightly said it's time to work together now. The region is in what is probably the most difficult and dangerous, not to mention precarious position in its history. Personally I would not like to be in Olly's shoes at this time. There are some extremely difficult decisions to be made and some very painful discussions to be had. As I have said before I have known Olly for many a year and I firmly believe that when push comes to shove he will make the decisions which are in the best interests of the region, the members and our proud union as a whole, a union which we all want to remain proud of.

Again, well done Olly.

Peader

It would appear that my belief was overestimated !

I believe there was a CoE meeting on Friday which was Olly's first.
I understand Olly voted to take NO ACTION over the recent assault scandal involving the regional officer.
Would TW like to make a statement of some kind on their "politically principled and honest" candidate and his (in)actions?

As I understand it, you have heard wrong.

There was a proposal to make further investigations before taking action. Olly voted for that. It was defeated, and there was then a vote on referring the people involved in the incident to disciplinary action, including charging the regional organiser with gross misconduct. Olly voted for that.

It's not the way that Tubeworker would have voted (on the first vote), but it is most definitely not voting to take "no action".

As previously in this discussion, Martin, the situation is not as cut-and-dried as you believe. Perhaps you have been the victim of dishonest rumour-mongering?!

By the way, Tubeworker did not say that Olly is "politically principled and honest", but that he is "more principled and trustworthy" than Brian! Sadly, attempts to get you to respond to points about Brian's record earlier in this discussion (eg. by TB) have not prompted a reply from you.

We also said that "We don't agree with everything [Olly] does". Sometimes, your perfect candidate just isn't standing in an election - not matter how much you delude yourself that they are.

Come on TW. That level of spin is worthy of the great (sic) Alastair Campbell. The first vote was to have further investigation, for "further investigation" please read "delay the vote until";

A; The accused has time to garner support to win a future vote.
B; The prole's forget that there is an enquiry and it's swept under the carpet.

Let's not forget that the investigation was carried out by a senior RMT representative, any vote to carry out further investigation would have undermined his investigation. The first vote was nothing short of a vote to protect the suspended D.O. by those misled by their historic loyalty and friendship.

Unfortunately Olly has let down those who voted for and trusted in him to do the right thing. I think that Peader's comment above that his "belief was overestimated" is an extreme understatement, Olly has sold out those who believed he would do the right thing once he was in a position of some power within the RMT and not just fall back to saving his campaign Manager.

Let us hope that if and when this case goes to a disciplinary that the outcome is the right one otherwise the RMT will suffer greatly not just in London but across the country.

Seansouth

Forgive me for being blunt easthammer but your first line mentions "facts" then you talk about "keeping this in house". That, in my opinion is exactly what Olly and his supporters, not to mention the D.O. would love to happen. Keep it in house and under wraps. That is what was attempted at the first C of E discussions on the matter. Well in my opinion and that of most other decent members of the union in the London region that is just not acceptable any more. I am not willing to accept a bullying intimidator as my D.O., I am certainly not willing to accept someone who will injure another member of my union in such a fashion as my D.O. You have to understand that times are changing, gone are the days when members can be intimidated, and brow beaten or humiliated into towing the line. Members are running this union now and have been doing so since Bro. Crow took over and turned this union into the democratic and slick organisation that it is universally recognised to be. The tactics employed by the D.O. and his ilk are a thing of the past and rightly so. Welcome to the 21st century and welcome to union democracy.

I think Olly was wrong to vote for the first proposal (to do further investigation before taking action). He got it right the second time, voting to refer the Regional Organiser to disciplinary action on a charge of 'gross misconduct'. He could have voted against this (as another member of the Executive did), but rightly chose not to.

For Martin to present Olly as voting for NO ACTION (in capital letters, no less) is just inaccurate, and Tubeworker was right to pull him on this. Tubeworker's response was not 'spin' but clarification. It is not helpful to reasoned debate for Martin to present things with such casual inaccuracy.

Olly got it wrong on the first vote, right on the second one. I'm not confident that he will "do the right thing" on the ongoing issue of the Regional Organiser's alleged violent conduct. I am not in the business of defending Olly. I voted for him, but that does not mean I'm going to defend everything he does.

I'll presume (correct me if I'm wrong) that everyone taking part in this discussion voted for Bob Crow for General Secretary. Does that mean you'll defend everything he's done since? Not just the good stuff but, say, the mishandling of the Network Rail Operational dispute, or the parking of the fight to defend the Railway Pension Scheme into a 'commission'?!

Sean South
As you know I welcomed Bob Crows election and believe in full democracy in our Union and for its membership. ALL OF ITS MEMBERSHIP. Keeping this in house was not meant to keep it from the members. I clearly stated that I believe a statement from the General Secretary putting both sides of the story was the best way to address the membership.
I am fully in favour of giving the membership all of the facts as you know from the amount of information given out when I was on the Functional Committee. I firmly believe that the membership should have all of the facts and not a one sided tirade aimed at biasing any enquirey.
The slagging campaign on the companies e-mail system was a totaly reckless and unapropriate way of airing your displeasure with the Regional Organiser.
I do not and will never support violence as a way of forwarding an argument but I believe that the restraint shown by the Regional Organiser by not entering the gutter to reply to the campaign to discredit him shows his understanding of the Proper way to conduct Union Bussiness.
Rick Grogan

Can I take it then, Rick, that you have not seen the letter putting Bobby's Law's side of the story that was sent out anonymously to loads of Regional Council activists? Its content, its tone, its snide attacks on others in the region, the fact that it was sent out anonymously, the issue of where the sender(s) got people's names and addresses from ... That was way further into the gutter than anyone else has descended in this appalling affair.

The proposal for further investigation when an investigation had just concluded was transparently a bureaucratic and dishonest attempt to derail the disciplinary action and buy time for the campaign of disinformation that has now ensued.
Thus the attempts to raise utterly secondary issues around e.g. company email use to obscure the hospitalisation of an RMT member allegedly by the Regional Officer.
If the vote had gone Olly's way then the whole process would have been kicked into touch.
If anything it was being generous to describe this as voting for no action (capitals or not!)
This is not "casual inaccuracy" it is a matter of political judgement and looking beyond surface appearances.
Whether his second vote was tactical I don't know.

Janine above - "I'm not confident that he (Olly) will "do the right thing" on the ongoing issue of the Regional Organiser's alleged violent conduct"
Yet Brian would have, 100%, but Olly was still the right candidate? how's that for judgement?

I felt sickened reading the anonymous letter mailed out apparently using the regional council mailing list. There should obviously be a proper investigation by the union and the Regional Organiser should be given a chance to repudiate the contents.

I didn't respond to tb's earlier comments because I felt that there was a law of diminishing returns operating...however if you insist...

The CATP reference was maybe a bit obscure. I was referring to the incident when an AWL supporter was threatened with serious physical violence in the middle of a CATP meeting, Olly must have heard because the threats were shouted in Mark's face before he was hounded out. I arrived later and was treated to being voted to be excluded from the meeting, I got off lightly, I suppose!
When I raised what had happened, with Olly, his response was that it had beeen a provocation for Mark to attend and that "we know why he was really there" therefore it was his fault.
Paralells with the present scandal are interesting to say the least.

On Brian's record, Brian resigned as R.C. secretary over interference by the R.O., prior to that in as much as he was part of the leadership he is as culpable as any other member of that leadership.
Without wishing to labour an obvious point Brian broke with the R.C. leadership while Olly is clearly still embedded up to his neck.

Janine, you took the words out of my mouth !

Incidentally Rick it is my understanding that if one is to "enter the gutter" then one has to leave it in order to do so.

Peader

Perhaps a bit of lateral thinking required Rick !

Anyway I think Janine is correct in that there are other equally important discussions taking place on this and other forums. From a personal perspective I have spent enough of my time and energy on this sad topic. I have expressed my opinion as have others and I hope the eventual outcome is one which satisfies and is of benefit to the members out there. Either way there are a lot of battles to be fought and fight them we must. Fighting them together will be immensely easier, let's hope that common sense prevails.

I am glad that Tubeworker has finaly nailed its flag to the mast.
Olly New was always the best candidate for the job. He may not come accross as loud and flash but to me that it a bonus. Olly is a thinker not a shouter. He is close to membership and listens to what he is told before comming to decissions. He has more experience and a better understanding of trade unionism tham Brian. Olly will always put the interests of the membership before personal gain. His honesty and integrity are reknown.
It is a bit late in the day but there are still people out there that have not voted. lets get behind Olly and get those votes.
Rick Grogan

Ha! Clearly the massed ranks of the union have spoken. So at least Janine, Rick and Bobby Law are at one on this. You keep good company.

Brian - Was that supposed to be a constructive comment? Or maybe an attempt to persuade people to vote for you instead?

You're going to have to come up with something better than sarcasm and 'guilt by association', because that does not impress anyone.

I have been an avid reader of Tubeworker for years and I have always agreed with virtually everything that has been written in it. I find myself in the sad position of totally dissagreeing with the choice of candidate to back in the EC elections. I have known Brian and Olly for a long time and like and respect both of them. Having said that it is clearly the case that we need someone who is going to shout from the rooftops whilst on the EC to defend the hard fought for pay and conditions we have acheived down the years, what we don't need is an intellectual who is going to spend his time "thinking" instead of doing. Yes there may come a time when we need a thinker on the EC but that time is not now, not when we are faced with attacks from privateers and American anti trade union bas***ds, not to mention a scab Mayor and a whole host of other threats.
Olly is a fantastic rep and a first class ambassador for the RMT but he is not the right person for the EC job at this time, Brian quite clearly is the right person at this time, yes he does sometimes rub people up the wrong way, yes he can occasionally shoot from the hip but that is what we need now, strong decisive action to face down those who would love to see us fall. I would urge all those who want action from the top of the RMT to vote for Brian munro.

I'd take a different tack than Rick. I do think we need someone belligerent, and I wish Olly was more so.

But there is more to fighting than shouting, and I can't see that Olly's record on such things as strikes, workplace organising etc is any worse than Brian's.

Moreover, an Executive rep also needs to be principled, democratic and honest. And I think that Olly has it hands down over Brian on those.

As both candidates have notable strengths and weaknesses, I considered for a while backing neither of them. But following the end of the pay dispute, and the circulation of election materials, it became clear that there was actually little between them bar the shouting in terms of their approach eg. neither advocated holding strikes over pay, which I think we should have done; both talked about fighting management in their election addresses. So the choice came down to one of trust. And based on their records going back many years, I trust Olly more.

I agree with Tubeworker's assessment in the article above that Brian came over much better in the hustings in branches because he came across as a lot more passionate. On one level I'd quite like to vote for Brian, because the way he presents his campaign is quite close to my way of thinking. But you have to judge a candidate on everything you know about them, not just on how they present themselves. I fully understand why some decent rank-and-file activists are backing Brian, but I fear that if he is elected, they could be sorely disappointed.

I think there are a number of different issues here and it's best to address them separately.

Timing
I congratulate Tubeworker(TW) on finally expressing an opinion (more on the opinion later). I along with many RMT members and activists received texts from both candidates asking for support on the 27th November. We then have to wait FOUR MONTHS for TW to comment (electronically). The candidates have been campaigning since the start of the year, branches have nominated, discussions have been and gone in the workplace, most of the votes have been cast and ...nothing from TW, not a word. A question, what have AWL members or TW supporters been doing or saying for the past four months? Vows of silence suit religious orders better than workplace militants.
If TW hopes to be taken seriously by tube workers then the first necessity is to take important issues seriously, this delay makes a mockery of any pretensions to offer either analysis or leadership.
I reluctantly point out that the latest printed TW (27/3)does not actually call for a vote for anyone, but invites readers to "join the debate on the blog"!
You would almost think the comrades were ashamed!

Brian Vs. Olly

Above a number of questions have been raised:

Experience
"Please vote for this experienced candidate" is a common branch advert for candidates in RMT news. Of course experience is important but there are any number of time servers out there whose only claim to fame is the length of time they have clung to full time release posts (I do not refer to Olly or Brian here).
The point surely is that a certain level of experience is required, at different levels and roles, which is amply met by both candidates. Olly is more "experienced" in that he has only a few years to retirement, which raises a query for me, why now? As I texted Olly back on being asked to support him "You should have stood years ago" Why now indeed? I suppose there is a generational issue here but we would be wise to look beyond the stereotypes - the silver fox vs the young gunslinger

Intellectuals?
I wouldn't say there is any great difference here, Brian and Olly can both think about the issues and both have a history in socialist politics. Thinking is an underrated talent.

Shooting from the hip Vs The General?
Rick mate,you should watch out for analogies if they are stretched too far they can mislead instead of illuminating.
However, Olly as "the General"? we've had plenty of being marched half way up the hill and half way down again as a stage army by various Generals over the years. Generals don't generally take their orders from the rank and file and that's what we need more of.

The real issue
The real issue for me is which candidate is most likely to be responsive to the views of the rank and file and most likely to be able to withstand pressure from Unity House (an example: standing up to a regional officer who is a control freak)
Who is more likely to stand up for democracy and the rank and file?
There can only be one answer - Brian.
If people honestly believe that Olly would be willing to, comfortable or capable of doing this then I say that flies in the face of reality.
Olly has many strengths and the union is lucky to have him as a rep but as EC member? You might say he's better than some of the donkeys we've had in the past, and I wouldn't disagree, but there is a better choice available this time.
Brian is a stronger character, is more militant and is not part of the little Regional Council leadership clique in the way Olly is.

Smears?

Janine above -
"Moreover, an Executive rep also needs to be principled, democratic and honest. And I think that Olly has it hands down over Brian on those"
and again-
"And based on their records going back many years, I trust Olly more"
And again-
"I fully understand why some decent rank-and-file activists are backing Brian, but I fear that if he is elected, they could be sorely disappointed".(and there's no danger in being sorely disappointed in Olly?)

You really need to back this up with chapter and verse, otherwise it sounds too much like personal dislike masquerading as "analysis"

The Regional Council record
Olly is the candidate MOST closely associated with the record of the regional council leadership dating back to Company Plan. TW has argued against that leaderships positions over a multitude of issues. What does this belated endorsement of Olly then mean? An admission that really TW was wrong all along? What then is the point of TW?

A vote for Olly is a vote for more of the same. Is this really what TW is serving up these days ? thin gruel indeed.

TW could have come up with a set of demands and judged the candidates against those. You could believably say to Brian - "Prove yourself then, any real militant would back these demands where do you stand?" Could you in all seriousness say that to Olly?

I would caution against backing or not backing EC candidates for personal reasons and then making the politics fit afterwards. Bitter experience teaches that road leads nowhere.