Is the London UL seen as too hardcore?

I wasn't surprised to see all the United Left candidates in London lose the election at the AGM on the 8th but I was expecting an improvement in the vote given the amount of work and effort many in the UL have put into the pensions dispute.

Comments on some other blogs would make us think that this is a major defeat for the forces on the left and one blog describes the UL as nothing else other than a subsidiary of the SWP. That is of course not true and any one person who wants to analyse the reasons for the situation in London would need to look at the process in place and how it all works or doesn't.

Delegates in London gather once a year from all over the region to do the business of the AGM. They represent the members who continue to vote UL candidates such as Jon Rogers on the NEC so where there are straight forward elections based on the principle of one member one vote the UL does not do badly at all.

A long term solution to the regional situation would be to introduce the one member one vote method where everyone who is a member gets to vote. They do so for any national elections so why not for the region?

My take on why the UL will not win an election in the region is to do with perceptions. Perceptions about how hardcore and on the left the UL are are somewhat exaturated.

The majority of those in the UL (and I did join for a year in 2005) are Labour party members who are very involved with constituency Labour party politics. But some delegates who attend AGM once a year seem to get information about who and what the UL are and what they do and of course they do NOT want to see their Regional Secretary either directly or indirectly attacked. This is a major and fundamental mistake made by the Politburo of the UL they should not be seen to be attacking the regional Sec at every opportunity? Or standing against the General Sec when the chances of winning are 0.01%?

I worked very closely with Linda Perks for 4 years and the assumptions about her method and style of managing are incorrect. We had main disagreements but we dealt with each other with understanding and respect. Organising the ESF was a major test for this and she did nothing to undermine my efforts to ensure that it was adequately resourced. So the UL could, if they chose to, have worked with her but of course they were used to handling Chris Humphries and Nick Wright differently. This has been a mistake. London delegates want an assertive Regional Secretary and they will feel threatened if she is attacked for things that do not matter to them.

So the reality is that a small majority of delegates to regional Council vote against the UL rather than in favor of anyone else. The challenge is to change the system to ensure that every member gets to chose and that can only be achieved if we had one member one vote! The overall situation is tragic for London as there are some charismatic and dedicated activists who are leading members of the UL they should be in leadership position but they never will unless they tone it down a bit?

I know I won't be making many friends following my comments but this is what I think and I always said what I feel! London deserves better leadership!