The talk amongst my fellow bloggers is about the nomination process for the position of General Secretary. Thanks to the thousands of readers who do not read my blog and for the suggestion that I should stand but I made it clear that I am busy doing my hair most weekends and my mind is on other things right now (like where to put the many valentine cards I haven't got)
But to be serious the race has now finished with 3 clear candidates emerging. Dave Prentis of course is the hot favorite, then there is Paul Homes and then the Roger of Bannister. So lets look at who really has a chance of winning and who offers what?
I will make it clear from the start that whilst I know that Dave Prentis will win the election it is obvious that this will be his last term in office so the reality of what we are facing is not about whether Dave will win but who will be put forward as a likely successor next time around. I made my position clear on this before when I said that it is because of this factor that I favored an alternative but much younger candidate who will at least mark the election territory and be known in the future so I suggested someone in their 20's preferably a female so say Marsha Jane or if not female then someone like James Caspell who although very young is learning fast and could have potential. But the left of the left to the left have insisted in putting up Paul Holmes and Rogers Bannister. This in itself will of course split their vote which will presumably delight the Dave Prentis camp. But what do these other two candidates offer? Well they both make reasonably good speeches at conference and are well known within their own areas. The question must be whether that is good enough and whether members on a national level would vote for the 'alternative' well the answer is no they won't so....
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words.
Ironically, your "other half" (strictly in the political sense, of course ;-) ) thinks i'm "too old" to hold even a position in our Branch, being the ripe old age of 26 and all...
Can I claim my pension yet? :-D
Cheers,
James
Hello James,
ReplyDeleteMy 'other half' was being strict with interpreting the 'rules' and did what he thinks he had to do although he suggested a way out?
I have to say that in broad terms people in the branch have been too quick to criticise you and ignored the potential you have (sorry if this sounds patronising) There have been disagreements between us before but that was to do with you being a little impatient other than that I stand by what I have said in the last 6 months and say that if the union is to have a future (real time) then the older ones (don't iclude myself in that as I will always remain young..) must come to terms with encouraging younger activists to get more involved (meaning under 30) my argument on the local level is a simple one, if you want a good branch Secretary to take over at some stage then you must invest time in training and supporting that person and not piss him/her off. On the other hand you need to be careful of those who come over and simply do not have the potential. In terms of the General Sec position the left of the left have made a mistake here (again) by getting on the short term wagon (again..)
All the best
Is this the same James Caspel that you were criticising last year?
ReplyDeleteWhy would you think that those of us in our 30s are too old for the job? Do you have an issue with age?? Ability and skill are the factors to determine who does what and of course in a democracy the 'people' decide!
ReplyDeleteAnon 10.47
ReplyDeleteWhat?
Anon 12.49
ReplyDeleteI don't have an issue with age but have an issue with long term planning
Some of this is perhaps not a conversation that should be had on a blog...Lambeth UNISON, like most organisations, is only as strong as the weakest link. I believe that we have a strong union, but one that is not infallible. We should be careful of public disagreements. Can't we discuss these issues in-house?
ReplyDeleteIts a rule book requirement that you be 26 @ the end of the term of office for young members.
ReplyDeleteIf someone standing for that position firstly didn't check he met criteria before standing and 2 is dumb enough to want his branch secretary to bend the rules to let him remain in office in the current witch hunting climate in unison.
How on earth do you think he has the brain to run 4 GS?
I blame whoever admins the agm it should have been checked before he was allowed to be a candidate.
Incompetent
Anon at 9.03
ReplyDeleteAgree we should discuss these matters in house and in fact we do..
Hello Mary (not..) at 9.13
ReplyDeleteOnly one person I know uses the symbol @ when writing messages (you have done it a few times) so you have given your identity away? It will be better if you tell others who you are? Why are some people obsessed with some silly rule about age? 26 or 27 its still young and there is no one else to do the job? Reminds me of the titanic, the ship is about to sink and there are those who want to make sure the hair dryers and put on the boats too?? Call me old fashion but...
Amazing comments here. Is Mary suggesting that those who wish to stand should show their birth certificates? What next DNA samples? Get real.....
ReplyDeleteAnon at 21.26
ReplyDeleteI think Mary is suggesting that rules is rules and these should be followed. Now I know Mary quite well and she has been in constant rebellion since she was 4 so not sure why she is taking up this cause? Mary? (not real name by the way..)
I like the fact you want to keep things discussed in-house. Maybe you could speak to Jon of the Rogers about this and his decision to publish some very unhelfpul material (to UNISON)on his blog.
ReplyDelete"Mary"
ReplyDeleteI am not aware that I have asked anyone to bend the "rules" (which are totally inconsistent), and nor do I need to.
The rule book requirement is not that one "must be 26" at the end of one's year-long term of office. This would mean that only 25 year olds would be eligible to run.
The Branch Young Members Handbook, logically, does not bar 26 years olds from the office of representing under-27 year olds. This is quite a sensible, pragmatic and inclusive position.
It is the 76 page Code of Good Branch Practice imposed on Branches that, in practice, imposes a significant, ageist constraint on being able to organise young workers in a climate of relative disillusionment with trade unions.
If a condition of getting involved in a trade union is being instantly familiar with every top-down ruling imposed on Branches, then we might as well give up recruiting young members and activists altogether.
I am sure that nobody in our union would want that.
James
Maybe the rules around age in relation to young officers post needs to be looked at again? It all seems subjective and the age restriction not very logical? I thought our problem was to do with finding activists who want to do things not getting rid of them? Anyway..
ReplyDelete