Coalition of Resistance national council meets, attendees learn cuts are bad

Submitted by AWL on 16 January, 2011 - 11:55

The first meeting of the Coalition of Resistance National Council did not indicate a particularly bright future for the campaign. The main political blocs on the Council (which is made up of over 100 people - everyone who stood, in fact, given the unilateral announcement at the founding conference that there was “no time” for elections) are Counterfire (the key animating force behind CoR), Green Left and Socialist Resistance. Apart from myself, there is a handful of SWPers, a few from Workers’ Power, individuals from smaller left groups (including one Permanent Revolution sympathiser and two Feminist Fightback supporters who work with the AWL) and a scattering of independents.

The Council’s main business was to discuss and vote on the amendments remitted from the conference, and decide an ongoing structure for the Coalition. On this last issue, the outcome was unsatisfactory but expected; the existing “ad hoc steering committee” (elected by no-one but sold to the meeting on the basis that “this group of people has been working really hard and working together really well since May”) was acclaimed with a few additions. A proposal that CoR bases itself on a delegate system where local anti-cuts groups are invited to send delegates was rejected.

The meeting was, on the whole, little more than a talking shop. The first session consisted of speaker after speaker (many of whom had obviously prepared speeches, as the chair frequently called them by saying “I think [whoever] wants to make a point on this”) making long, windy speeches that reminded us all that cuts were bad and that we needed to fight back. One or two heated contributions in the session immediately following lunch which expressed sharp dissatisfaction with the way the opening session was conducted suggested I wasn’t the only one who hadn’t liked it much.

On policy, my proposals that CoR support the National Campaign Against Fees & Cuts was voted down. I had sought to remove a line from CoR’s founding statement which committed CoR to calling a conference “to establish a united national campaign” on the issue of free education. This could easily be interpreted as an attempt to replace or replicate existing campaigns – hardly in the spirit of CoR’s aim to “supplement, not supplant” existing networks. But leading Counterfire member Lindsey German opposed the amendment and insisted the proposed conference would go ahead. The situation is made all the more surreal given that Counterfire students, including ULU president Clare Solomon, have been prominently involved in NCAFC activity. Do they support NCAFC or don't they? And if so, why the ambiguous wording that makes it sound as if they intend to set up a separate campaign?

An amendment that would’ve committed CoR to helping facilitate discussions about a united left challenge to the NUS leadership was also defeated, as it was apparently “not in CoR’s remit.” A mild proposal from Workers’ Power on working independently of trade union leaderships where necessary was also defeated. Following the national affiliation of Unite, it seems that a concern not to ruffle too many feathers in the left bureaucracies is the order of the day for CoR’s leadership.

Procedurally the debate failed to meet even the norms of labour movement best practise. First we were told that we couldn’t amend amendments, then that we could, then finally that we couldn’t. Then we were told they could be taken in parts (something that even the most right-wing union branch will normally allow), and then that they couldn’t. One consequence of this is that my proposal to remove a line from one particular amendment calling on CoR to look to “Lambeth and Liverpool” as positive examples of how councils could resist cuts was not put. So CoR now has this sorry tale as its historical inspiration... The debate was chaired so aggressively that one participant left in tears after she was shouted down by the chair. Speakers making points that the presidium disliked were interrupted, speakers making points against them were allowed as much time as they liked. Not a very auspicious beginning.

There was an enormous emphasis on building for the March 26 TUC demonstration. Fine – it needs to be built for. But the emphasis at times tipped over into fetishisation. Many labour movement bureaucrats are using that demo, and the period around it, as an excuse for not organising any action immediately. The left cannot let them off the hook.

There also seemed to be a degree of confusion, never properly resolved, on exactly what CoR’s role was. One speaker proposed giving a free license to anyone to “badge” any local group or activity as a CoR group/action, whereas others were more cautious about the risk of treading on the toes of existing local campaigns. In some places, CoR supporters (mainly Counterfire members) have already set up separate CoR groups. There seem to be a variety of different conceptions of what CoR is for; some see it as a body that effectively seeks to coordinate and lead struggles nationally, others as a loose coordinating centre that can help give a national echo to local struggles. Perhaps others still would like it to remain the talking shop its first NC meeting suggested it will be. AWL believes the movement needs a single, united anti-cuts campaign; CoR will have to resolve its own identity crisis before it can play a useful role in bringing such a campaign into existence.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.