Joint Meet of MSF for Labour and AEEU United 16.03.03

The leadership of MSF for labour (MSFfL), far from thinking that they might be swallowed up by AEEU United, which might have been their concern at the tune of the merger, now see themselves as the germ of the new broad right. The organisers of the meeting clearly viewed the meeting as a foundation conference of the merged union’s new broad right (‘progressive forces’). The ‘all-star’ (well, it’s a matter of opinion) line-up indicates that this was an important event for them and in fact it was the first sizeable meeting for a while.

There were about 50 activists at the meeting. At the beginning every member of the meeting was required to give their name, workplace, and position, in turn. Two interesting things that I noted at this point were 1) that the MSF contingent had a large number of fulltime union staff and 2) the AEEU contingent wasn’t there! In other words there were very few AEEU members present.

The agenda was as follows:

§ Addresses

- Bill Jordan,

- Roger Lyons

- Lord (Doug) Hoyle

§ Contributions from the floor

§ Lunch

§ Business

- The Name of the new broad right

- Election of a joint steering committee for MSFfL and AEEU United.

- Date of the next meeting

Jordan came in first. He made all the usual points in his political contributions. He talked about preserving Britain’s engineering union for the future generations. What he meant was keeping it out of the hands of the left. He said that there are ‘very powerful, and persuasive groups in our union who know where they want to get to, but that is not in the interests of the members’.

After lambasting the left for their ‘ideologically charged’ views, he put forward his own ideologically bankrupt ones. He talked about globalisation, and the systematic breakdown of trade barriers as a progressive force that lifts people around the world out of poverty. ‘Today’s multinationals, bigger than entire national economies, are wandering nomads in the world economy, who carry with them $25 billion of investment. We cannot turn our noses up at that!’ He then put forward his position on the question of partnership, and flexibility, which obviously is the same as that of Jackson et al.

He accused the left of day dreaming about bringing back the past, and said that the MSF broad left, and the AEEU broad left have one common bond; ‘old ideological ideas, and total opposition to any change’.

He said that the members’ interests must come first, so we need a non- ideological leadership, prepared to work with government to achieve well-paid jobs, with good conditions etc.

Next of the speakers was Roger Lyons, who was more ‘hands-on’ in terms of the tasks. Lyons talked of the new union as a ‘force for good’, and pointed to the UNIFI merger as a very important step forward in consolidating the union movement. He warned that it would be dangerous to leave a political vacuum that could be filled by the ‘ideologically challenged’.

He dismissed the Gazette as a bunch of ‘Trotskyists, and other assorted head bangers’, who want to pull us out of the Labour Party. But he is clearly worried that, as he puts it, the Gazette is ‘really going for it’, mobilising to take over the union in the coming EC elections. He had copies of the latest Gazette bulletin, along with the agenda for the last Gazette meeting in Preston. He read items from the agenda, specifically the appeal for finance, which mentioned the plans to build membership contributions, and bring out standing order forms for this purpose. He also pointed to the new masthead saying: they have changed their name to Amicus Unity Gazette, which shows that the left is consolidated into a single organisation. Lyons also knows about the Gazette meeting in Preston planned for April 27th, and that the slate will be finalised by this date; this hovered like a spectre over the whole meeting, as members continued to refer back to this meeting the whole way through with some awe.

Lyons talked of the need for a united union after the merger; he went on to hint that he has some hopes of coming to an ‘agreement’ with the left. Although he was obviously also pointing to the need for unity with the forces of reason (right- wing) in the Amicus. He went on to point to three main areas to which the right should devote attention:

1. The selection of a slate to contest the EC elections which, he said, should be done at a regional, and local level - i.e. without the assistance of the national organisation MSFfL.

2. That the new broad right should elect a joint steering committee composed of members of both MSFfL, and AEEU United.

3. That the members of both groups (MSFfL and AEEU united) should work together to achieve maximum unity in the new union.

After speaking Lyons had to dash off because he was participating in a special celebrity quiz show based on University Challenge - apparently it was Union Leaders vs. Tax Collectors. I think that Roger might have had the competition sewn up because I saw him run off at lunchtime with a big bag of cream cakes for the judges.

Next to speak was Doug Hoyle. He didn’t say that much of interest, except to say that they must recruit more young members in order to campaign effectively. By young he obviously meant under 40, looking round there were very few people of that age. The majority were in their late 50s, and a large number of them were retired. They seem to have a shortage of good activists who are in work; the younger elements seem to be union officers and assorted careerists, and the older ones are mainly washed out has-beens. Hoyle spoke on the need to build a democratic structure, ‘we must never be afraid of democracy, it doesn’t matter if the dial moves to the left or the right, as long as we have sensible leaders - after all if it goes too far in one direction it can be easily remedied’. He elaborated saying that the most important point is that we have unity within the union, and that a Labour government is the only way forward.

At this point they opened to contributions from speakers.

The first speaker was called Terry, an MSF member from Birmingham. He asked a number of interesting questions:

§ Where are we going with our policy of appeasement with the Gazette?

§ In the EC election slate to what extent can we do deals with Derek Simpson nationally?

§ What is the relationship between Les Baylis, Derek Simpson, and the Gazette?

§ Will we be able to do deals on this question locally, in areas where it is possible?

He also echoed Lyons by saying that it is imperative that the divisions within MSFfL itself are subordinated to the main task, which is winning the election.

The Chair, Dan Smith, replied to some of these points. He said that he did not know about the possibility of doing deals, but in any case that the slate must be decided on a local and regional level.

The Secretary said that he wrote a letter to Derek Simpson after the election, congratulating him, and suggesting that ‘it might be mutually beneficial for them to meet for a discussion’. However all he received back was a letter of acknowledgement. Again he approached Derek Simpson at the Labour Party conference, and asked him for a meeting, Derek Simpson said he was too busy. No attempt has been made on the part of MSFfL to contact him since then, and they seem to have no knowledge of any such attempts by anyone else. He went on to say that Derek Simpson does not seem open to deals because he is ‘in bed’ with the Gazette. On the question of local deals, this will have to be decided in line with the strategy of allowing local and regional areas, and work groups choose their own candidates for the slate.

The next contribution came from a slightly built man with a Glasgow accent. He did not give his name but I think he is an MSF EC member.

He said he was meeting with representatives from AEEU United in the coming week to discuss the question of the slate, and how they are going to divide it. This must be on an unofficial basis, because it was news to all the members present, including the chair and secretary.

He said that it is the intention of the left to ‘hide their intentions’ by fighting a non-political campaign. He said that the Gazette will wage a campaign centred around the conflict between the AEEU and the MSF. I suppose reading between the lines that he thinks that we will frighten the AEEU members with the prospect of a take-over by their bosses and foremen’s union.

He said that the campaign should be based on the ‘real issues’ which will be of concern to the members. They must reach the activists on the ground and faithfully represent the member’s interests.

He also argued for no carve-up, between the left and right, of EC positions. He has personally had no discussions in relation to this, and he thinks that there would be no mileage in discussions with the left, especially with certain individuals.

Another contribution from a man called Bob, who didn’t say much of interest, but said that we cannot rule out making deals with the left.

A woman called Pam said we have to be more co-ordinated, we should look on ourselves as the national grouping, there is a shortage of time and we must pull things together before the election. ‘I have never run away from a fight, but it would be a mistake to fight unless we need to.’

Tim, from Birmingham, I think he is a Regional Official for the AEEU in the Midlands spoke. He is quite fat, bald, 45-55. He said that the EC elections were not the only task confronting us, we also need to consider the balance of forces within the union. He was concerned that they seem to be withdrawing from organising a base for their ideas in the industrial sectors. This is an area where he said that the Simpson vote will be strong and where he will have his most sympathetic national officers. There is no point in maintaining the EC under right control if the EC members and national officers in the key sectors are in the Simpson camp.

Chris Ball, from the non-profit sector said a process is needed for the nominations to the right slate. The left have already got a good idea of who their candidates will be. He predicts that the non-profit sector candidate will be Sharon Allen. The problem that the right have, he says, is that they have ‘no names in the frame’ for many of the posts.

He said that the slate nominations should be co-ordinated on a national level rather than being left to the local areas to muddle through. He said that names should be recommended at this meeting, and a later recall meeting be arranged to endorse the slate. He said that he is worried about the lack of preparation on their part.

The Chair, Dan Smith, came in to reply to this point. The merger of the two broad rights had been slower than they had planned, or would have liked. The Gazette will be announcing its slate in April and we must not be far behind that. But on a regional level [and evidently even to some extent on a national level] the MSFfL & AEEU United members are not talking. He says that they are as much as 9 months behind where they wanted to be in terms of consolidating their forces, and that their slate should be agreed by May, or June at the very latest.

An old MSF activist came in to add a dampening note. He pointed out the lack of youth in the room, saying that the majority of people there were retired members, and asking how could they expect to win when they had few people on the ground. He also spoke about the lack of links with the AEEU right, bemoaning the fact that there were only a few AEEU members, and no full-timers in the room. ‘The new organisation, whatever it looks like, must have a base within the MSF and AEEU sections; it must have fresh young blood, and must have a base on the shop floor.’

Margaret Wall (MSF) came in to say that she could see that there was worry and fear among the AEEU United because they did not know what to make of MSFfL, she said that they fear a take-over of their organisation by MSFfL. [At the national conference of the MSF last year at an MSFfL fringe meeting the shoe was on the other foot, because they did not know where they stood with Jackson, and they were clearly worried that they would be swallowed by AEEU United.]

Roger Wall said that the MSFfL people have not seen the draft rulebook, however he knows that it has been widely circulated among the left. He attacked the leadership of the MSFfL saying that they do not keep the members informed of current debates within the union. He suggested that they provide the members with a regular summary of what is being debated.

Dee from Norwich MSF, works for Norwich Union. She attacked the situation within MSFfL, the lack of structure, the lack of strategy and the lack of high calibre candidates for the EC election. She went on to criticise the lack of youth at the meeting.

The Chair, Dan Smith, tried to bring in Khalid Mahmood (AEEU sponsored MP for a Birmingham constituency). But he thanked the meeting and said he was just there to ‘listen to the contributions’.

Terry from around Birmingham; who seems to hold the honoured position of Head Sandwich Maker, since his main job in the MSFfL is supplying the sandwiches for the meetings; came in with the wonderfully profound one liner: ‘Bill Jordan hit the nail on the head; he is famous for putting the members first - and the politics last.’

He said that he knows many national and regional officials of the AEEU, and he agrees that a lot of them are worried about their jobs, and their position in the broad right. The impression he gets is that many AEEU United officials seem to think that they can win the elections without the help of MSFfL.

MSFfL, he said, have always managed to hang on to the MSF EC, but he admitted that they had a hell of a job controlling the broad left in the last conference.

He believes that the former left of the MSF is now controlling the Gazette, which explains their good organisational abilities. He therefore predicts that the main struggle in the EC elections will be waged by a coalition of MSFfL and AEEU United, up against the former MSF Left Unity under the new banner of Amicus Unity Gazette.

Two people came in with contributions:

A man from the Midlands stressed that democracy is all-important in the new union.

Bill, from the north-east, said that it is crucial that we get the AEEU United and MSFfL together, or we risk splitting the vote, and the left will ‘sneak in down the middle’.

Bill Jordan then intervened with a very authoritative tone from the platform to clear up some points. He said that the AEEU people (meaning the right bureaucrats) are worried for many different reasons. He said that the MSF (MSFfL) must meet with them, and open a dialogue to ease their worries. He also warned against trying to do deals with the Gazette, ‘there is no time for feeling the enemy out, we must stand up and be counted.’ He talked about a leftwing conspiracy, ‘the left are born conspirators -conspiracy first’, and ‘they always stab Labour in the back!’

He said that the way forward is to develop the organisation of the union’s progressive forces. He spoke of the last Gazette meeting in Preston: ‘form, function, and determination came out of Preston’, he said. He thinks MSFfL must develop these things, which go hand in hand with building organisation, promoting their identity and setting out policies.

Jordan has been speaking to ‘the electricians’ [those are the words he used], and he said that they are worried about their situation, they are not sure about MSFfL. Jordan then said that the meeting must send delegates to meet with the leaders of the EETPU, and demand a meeting, he added that he would help matters at the other end by urging them to meet.

Nasar Hussain, MSF NEC [not the cricketer!], then intervened to criticise the lack of long term planning. He said that they need to have a timetable for drawing up an EC slate, for the conference intervention, and for the long-term strategy of the MSFfL.

Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe, an MSF Regional Officer in London, stepped in to echo the need for better planning.

Dave, from Liverpool, MSF member in insurance industry, talked once again about the rulebook - apparently nobody in the room had seen it. The rumours that are flying round about the rulebook are disillusioning the MSFfL traditional supporters. He said that it would be useful if they could get a copy of the rulebook.

Michael - he came in saying that he had been sent as a representative of AEEU United. He was told to come along as an observer, and would be reporting back to ‘the EC’, this week. He tried to rally the MSFfL members by saying that his report back would be favourable, because there is no difference in our values, and aims. ‘We do not want Simpson to rule the roost!’

He said that Simpson cannot get anywhere on the current EC, whatever he tries they are able to block him, and they want this situation to continue.

Doug Hoyle came in quickly to say that there were terrible problems associated with the merger that created the MSF itself. They had difficulty merging the ‘progressive’ wings of the unions involved. But it all worked out in the end! Clearly Hoyle was there because of his experience in this process.

Lunch

After lunch we started the business session. Quite a number of people had gone home.

The first point on the agenda was to decide on the name for the new broad right. Various alternatives included, Amicus for Labour, Amicus first, Amicus United/or Labour.

A 20-minute argument ensued on what the new name should be. Some people wanted to keep Labour in the name because they think this issue of the Labour Party differentiates them from the left, there were murmurs of agreement [clearly MSFfL wrongly assume that this is the case in the Left].

Others chipped in, in favour of putting off deciding on a name because it might be taken the wrong way by AEEU United, who would see it as MSFfL trying to enforce their agenda. Other points were made which tried to accommodate both of these views; they wanted to establish a working title that could be changed later.

There was a bit of frustration from the floor; it mainly seemed to come from the younger MSF full timers. One woman came in to say ‘Let’s move on! Can’t we at least agree on something - just for once?’

The conclusion to the argument was that nothing would be done, so after 20-25 minutes they had still not decided on a provisional name.

The next point on the agenda was the election of a joint steering committee for the new group, however the chair set out by saying that this would now have to wait until the next meeting, or until such a time as there was a decent number of AEEU United leaders and members present. So that mater was also unresolved.

An activist came in to say that it is essential that they get a copy of the left slate, when it emerges from the Preston meeting of the Gazette in April, because when they have it they will be able to use it to push the AEEU United on board - in other words, frighten them into overcoming the petty squabbles of the right. The current steering group of MSFfL is elected every year at an AGM in October, the current committee is:

Alice Anderson

Dan Smith

Bob Braddock

Dave Tomlinson

Sue Sharpe

Kevin Coyne

Rachel Maskell

Roger Lyons

Andrew Miller MP

There are some others on the steering committee but the Secretary could not remember who and had left his notes at home!

There were some tensions within the meeting around the question of how the AEEU United leaders would be brought onto the committee, with worries that they might swamp it and take over. This shows that there are also some fears that the AEEU right might still take them over.

The first two points on the agenda achieved no resolution. The next point was the date of the next meeting. The chair said that the next meeting would be a rally, probably before conference, but they have not decided when or whether it will happen. There will be a rally at the Blackpool conference, Saturday 21st June. The Secretary had forgotten where it was to be held!

There was some talk of the coming elections in the MSF. This is the list of candidates:

President - Jack Warner

Vice President - Michelle Evans

SOC - Suzanne Bradford, Dave Cook, Barrie West, Jo Westerman

Trustee - Chris O’Donahue, not decided whether they are going to contest this post.

They mentioned that Dave Nellist is standing, from the left, for the post of President.

In conclusion it is fair to say that the national organisation of MSFfL is weak and disorganised, and has few links with AEEU United. They seem to be oblivious to the various splits that have taken place from AEEU United, as none of these were even mentioned at the meeting. They are wary of the AEEU United, who some of them think might have an agenda of taking over MSFfL; while ironically another section of the room suspect that the AEEU United are fearful of being taken over by MSFfL. The two organisations do not seem to be talking much even on a national basis let alone on a local basis. Yet they have a conscious policy of democratically allowing the areas and regions to handle all preparation for the EC elections and for the selection of a slate. More than one member criticised this lack of direction and national planning.

MSFfL with their current leadership are short-sighted, narrow minded, and without perspective. However Jordan, Lyons, and Hoyle, and therefore perhaps the MSFfL steering committee must know the real situation within the AEEU right. They are therefore trying to rise above these concerns and rally members around the MSFfL organisation as a united front of the right.

The main policies were those set out by Jordan, and will be a pale reflection of Ken Jackson’s bankrupt ideas which the membership have already rejected. They are going to stress the point about maintaining the Labour government as the only alternative to the Tories and maintaining the links with the Labour Party, which, they imagine, is their trump card.