NSSN votes to launch anti-cuts campaign

[Aurora]

Anti-Cuts Conference Success
I want to thank everyone who attended and helped organise yesterday's excellent NSSN Anti-Cuts Conference in Camden. Well over 500 shop stewards/workplace reps, community campaigners and students debated whether the NSSN should launch an anti-cuts campaign. It was a model of democratic debate with both sides having the same number of speakers and equal speaking time. After 2 and a half hours of discussion, the trade union delegates at the Conference voted to launch the anti-cuts campaign by 305 votes to 89. We then went on to elect a Campaign Committee. As we received 11 nominations for the proposed committee of 10, Conference agreed to accept the slightly enlarged committee, which will meet over the next couple of weeks.

We are now looking forward to working with all other forces fighting the cuts. We will especially welcome the suggestion in Matt Wrack’s letter last week for a Unity conference called by the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG). We will also follow through on the initial contacts made with the other anti-cuts organisations to see how we can work together more smoothly. Just before the Conference, the NSSN signed a letter along with Coalition of Resistance, Right to Work and others to the TUC offering our assistance to build for the biggest possible turnout at the demo in London on March 26th.

We will lobby on that march and in all other arenas for the unions to organise co-ordinated strike action to defeat the government's cuts. We also believe that the platform of speakers on the day should include those workers and students who are currently fighting the cuts. Our NSSN campaign has been launched on a clear 'Oppose ALL cuts' platform and will therefore call on Labour councils to refuse to implement the cuts . We will organise protests and support industrial action against them if they vote to pass the attacks onto workers’ jobs and services.

The character of the NSSN will not change as a result of Saturday’s decision. We will still play a crucial role in bringing together and developing trade union activists at the grassroots, which we hope and believe will help revitalise the trade union movement. The continuing attacks by the ConDems on trade union rights are clearly linked to trying to prevent workers fighting back against the cuts and the bosses’ offensive.

The next meeting of the NSSN Steering Committee will be on February 19th, where we can begin to discuss, amongst other things, the planning for the annual NSSN conference in the summer, as well as how the Network will continue to organise rank and file workers. We appeal to whole of the Steering Committee to recognise the democratic decision of the Conference and play a full part in the development of the NSSN. We are confident that the decision yesterday will actually bring us in contact with a whole new layer of workers as they confront this brutal cuts package.

Linda Taaffe (NSSN Secretary)
Thoughts?
I think the conference itself was pretty admirable in it's democracy, im hoping those members of the steering committee who supported motion 2 don't leave like they said they would, to leave an organisation just because you lost a vote is pretty ridiculous.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Thoughts?
I think the conference itself was pretty admirable in it's democracy, im hoping those members of the steering committee who supported motion 2 don't leave like they said they would, to leave an organisation just because you lost a vote is pretty ridiculous.
My understanding is that they did leave.

[Q]

The group Permanent Revolution reports a split (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/3253).

[Q]

Gerry Downing, independent Trotskyist activist, also reports a split (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004248).

[Lyev]

Gosh, seems somewhat messy. I don't fully understand why there is such fuss though. I want to hear from comrades who actually attended, though, before I draw a more fully-rounded conclusion. Most SP members I speak to are overzealous in there sectarian condemnation of SWP members. I guess SWP members and sympathisers did not vote 'yes' - were part of the minority - and now RtW will be working in competition with this new anti-cuts initiative. Perhaps this report from Linda Taaffe is not completely unbiased seeing as she an SP member/supporter.

[Aurora]

Damn it's a shame they split, i'm not sure i get their reasoning, they think it will split the left so they leave themselves? :confused:

and now RtW will be working in competition with this new anti-cuts initiative.
I hope they don't work in competition with each other as that would be classic sectarianism, putting the group interest above the class as a whole. I think theres quite a possibility of this though, the SWP internal bulletins JRG posted up a while ago showed that RtW was aiming to create anti-cuts groups in areas where others already exist.

Of course it's preferable to have one united anti-cuts campaign but it has to be organised on a democratic basis and around opposing all cuts which i think the RtW hasn't got right. I think this article is pretty good http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/10997/23-01-2011/nssn-anti-cuts-campaign-launched of course it's written by the SP but i'd be interested to know what anyone thinks about it, it also has a couple videos from the conference unfortunetly not all the motion 2 speakers yet although they have added more since i last looked at it.

Any SWP/RtW members want to comment on the conference outcome?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Damn it's a shame they split, i'm not sure i get their reasoning, they think it will split the left so they leave themselves? :confused:

I absolutely agree - although I am not in the UK, I have taken a close interest in developments in the NSSN.

My understanding of the split - and if I am wrong I will happily accept correction - is as follows -
The NSSN was established in an effort to rebuild nationwide shop stewards network to assist workers fighting cuts imposed by the government and employers.

Subsequently two anti-cuts campaigns were established - Coalition of Resistance set up by John Rees and his Counterfire split from the SWP and Right to Work set up by the SWP. Leading individuals within the NSSN participate in the establishment of both campaigns.

The difficulty for the NSSN arose because of the fact that both the CoR and the RtW campaigns facilitate Labour councillors who proclaim their opposition to cuts while at the same time imposing cuts on workers. They would inevitable lead trade unions and the NSSN into opposition to those councillors that both of the other campaigns are accepting as anti-cuts.

As a result some in the NSSN felt it necessary to establish an anti-cuts group that would be capable of assisting workers opposing all cutbacks including those being imposed by Labour councils. The basis for this is borne out by the following statement from the Central Committee of the SWP -
"We reject the sectarian argument that Labour councillors should be excluded because the last Labour government pushed through cuts, and planned its own if it had won the 2010 election. We do not agree that such councillors should be presented with an ultimatum that they can only be part of the anti-cuts movement if they sign up never to make any cuts in any circumstances."

The proposal from those within the NSSN, including the Socialist Party, RMT and FBU was to establish this campaign - not to compete with the other two groups - not to attempt to replace any of these two groups in any areas where they existed - but to have a campaign to assist workers in fighting cuts no matter where they come from. Some within the NSSN opposed the proposal to establish an anti-cuts campaign for different reasons - the syndicalists, for example, argued that the NSSN should focus solely on trade union work and leave the anti-cuts campaigns to the existing groups - the SWP didn't want opposition to their RtW campaign, despite the fact that they intent to attempt to establish new campaign groups where other anti-cuts groups already exist.

Those opposed to the proposal argued that the SP were attempting to impose their will on the NSSN - yet the SP stated that they would remain active in the NSSN whether their proposal was passed or not - while those opposed to the proposal stated they would split if they didn't win the vote. The SP has been accused of packing the meeting - yet the SWP could have used its own numerical strength to vote down the proposal if it so wished, it appears they were happier to see a split in the NSSN - something they will now facilitate at the RtW conference shortly.


I hope they don't work in competition with each other as that would be classic sectarianism, putting the group interest above the class as a whole.
The NSSN have made it clear that they have absolutely no intention of working in competition with the other campaigns and are arguing for united action and a full debate on the best way forward.


I think theres quite a possibility of this though, the SWP internal bulletins JRG posted up a while ago showed that RtW was aiming to create anti-cuts groups in areas where others already exist.
That appears to be the case


Of course it's preferable to have one united anti-cuts campaign but it has to be organised on a democratic basis and around opposing all cuts which i think the RtW hasn't got right. I think this article is pretty good http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/10997/23-01-2011/nssn-anti-cuts-campaign-launched of course it's written by the SP but i'd be interested to know what anyone thinks about it, it also has a couple videos from the conference unfortunetly not all the motion 2 speakers yet although they have added more since i last looked at it.
The SP was open, honest and direct in its intentions right throughout the debate within the NSSN - it accepted an ammendment to the initial proposal for the anti-cuts campaign not to endorse election candidates - and it facilitated the fullest possible debate within the NSSN and at the conference.


Any SWP/RtW members want to comment on the conference outcome?
I would like to see a response also.

[Q]

A further statement (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/3256) by the Permanent Revolution group:


NSSN: statement of officers resigning after SP stitch up

At a meeting immediately following Saturday 22nd January’s NSSN anti-cuts conference, the majority of NSSN (National Shop Stewards Network) national officers-all of those not in the Socialist Party- have resigned.

This is the statement of four of these officers: Dave Chapple, Bob Archer, George Binette and Becca Kirkpatrick:

“1.We are all NSSN national officers. We have decided that we cannot continue to be activists in an organisation that, following the conference decision on 22nd January, is now controlled by the Socialist Party.

The NSSN was established to become a strong independent organisation of trades union activists, with trades council and trades union branch affiliates.

Its meetings cannot function as independent voting bodies if all major decisions are to be taken beforehand by the Socialist Party.

None of our trades council or trade union branch affiliates can continue to be linked to the NSSN on that basis.

2. 22nd January’s NSSN conference decision to set up a separate NSSN-led anti-cuts campaign - the third such organisation that exists - is a major strategic mistake for our part of the trade union movement.

It makes unity of the national anti-cuts movement harder not easier.

The essential NSSN anti-cuts task, of stiffening the resolve of the trades unions, locally and nationally, to fight cuts through co-ordinated strike action, will be set aside or de-prioritised.

It will ensure that the regional and local SSN groups - already weak and struggling in the main - will wither as they transfer time and energy to establishing - or duplicating - local anti-cuts campaigns.

At the Steering Committee of December 4th, six national officers and EVERY NON-SP STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER voted against this proposal, yet the Socialist Party has ignored this feeling despite our further appeals, knowing full well that our continued participation in the NSSN would be intolerable.

3. Ninety NSSN activists met after the end of that Saturday’s conference and unanimously decided to continue the work of trade union activists’ solidarity on an organised national basis. Please get in touch.”

Dave Chapple, NSSN Chair; George Binnette, NSSN Treasurer; Bob Archer, NSSN Communications Officer; Becca Kirkpatrick, NSSN Affiliations Officer
[email protected] 01278 450562

[Q]

Related to the subject, the "Coalition of Resistance" (about which SPEW doesn't say a word, all attacks are pointed at RTW) is the "biggest show in town" reports Tina Becker (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004250). I've added some emphasis in bold-italic to stuff relating to the NSSN.


A tad more radical

Tina Becker was at the Coalition of Resistance steering committee meeting

http://cpgb.org.uk/images/1004250.jpg

The Coalition of Resistance, whose steering committee meets every week in London, is continuing to build support. In the unfortunate myriad of anti-cuts campaigns, it is clearly the main show in town. It can boast of a range of regional and national trade union affiliations and big-name supporters like Tony Benn, Bob Crow, Ken Loach and John Pilger. It is by far the most publicly visible campaign and for the moment puts its two main rivals, Right to Work (run by the Socialist Workers Party) and the National Shop Stewards Network's All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign (run by the Socialist Party in England and Wales), in the shade. The coalition, led by John Rees's group, Counterfire, has recently made a conscious move to 'open up' - a welcome decision. The weekly meetings of the steering committee are open to representatives of different organisations and are run in a relatively democratic manner. COR regularly sends calls for unity to the other national anti-cuts campaigns - undoubtedly a crucial task: nationally agreed and enforced cuts and attacks on the working class cannot be defeated through local action. It needs national, united action if it is to be effective.

The SWP does send representatives to the COR steering committee (and vice versa with the RtW), but the atmosphere between these former comrades is decidedly frosty - despite the near identical politics of the two groups. SPEW, on the other hand, boycotts COR and continues to bank on the left of the trade union bureaucracy giving its imprimatur to the All-Britain Anti-Cuts Campaign.

The only trajectory towards unity seems to be happening between COR and the People's Charter (a rather uninspiring, minimalist 'manifesto' dreamed up by the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain and backed by surprisingly wide sections of the trade union bureaucracy).

That points, of course, to its own set of problems: COR bowing to the trade union bureaucracy, just like its former comrades in the SWP. If the unions do not raise a particular demand, we should not either - that is the motto that has been repeated by Counterfire and SWP comrades up and down the country. However, Counterfire seems a tad more radical than the SWP in this respect, but it is only a question of nuance.

The other problem COR is suffering from is the lack of reliable activists. The Counterfire comrades on the steering committee (led by John Rees, Lindsey German and Chris Nineham) still talk and behave as if they had hundreds of members at their disposal who could be sent out to run regular stalls, give out thousands of leaflets or build local meetings. In reality, though, unlike the SWP COR is a loose network, where local components do their own thing.

Unfortunately, no attempt is being made to arrive at political clarity. What lies behind the crisis? Can a general strike defeat the government? Should we encourage the formation of credit unions, as voiced at the COR steering committee? If these are inadequate responses, what kind of action can defeat the government? Such questions remain unanswered.

The COR founding statement, fronted by Tony Benn, might include the idea of drawing up an "alternative budget" and the commitment to "develop and support an alternative programme for economic and social recovery" (sounds a bit like the CPB's Alternative Economic Strategy, doesn't it?). But no work has been done on that front. In fact, we were told there has been a deliberate decision not to carry this out - instead, there are a number of documents and blog entries available for download on the COR website.

COR has made a good start. But clearly much more is needed if we want to have a fighting chance of not being bled dry by the coalition government.

COR plan of action



There will be a week of action against the cuts, starting on February 14 and culminating in a national day of activity on February 19. All anti-cuts campaigns and groups are encouraged to organise stalls, public meetings or other activity to build for the March 26 demonstration in London, in which COR wants to highlight its opposition to all cuts and not just 'fair cuts'. If you can organise a public meeting that week, let COR know by calling 07939 242229 or emailing [email protected]
February 5 is 'National day against library closures'. If you can organise read-ins, occupations and protests, please inform COR.
COR will participate in Right to Work's People's Convention Against Cuts on February 12.
A 'Carnival of Resistance' is being planned for April.
There is talk of an 'activists forum' in May.
A decision-making conference is being organised for early July - in all likelihood July 9.
A 'European conference' will take place in London in the autumn (to roughly coincide with the European Trade Union Confederation day of action on September 29). An appeal to "unions, progressive forces and anti-cuts campaigns" will be sent out soon.

Affiliate to COR



Individuals: £15 (£5 unwaged)
Local organisation £25
Trade union or trades council £50
National organisation £100

Affiliate online (www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk (http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk)) or send cheques, made payable to 'Coalition of Resistance', to:


COR, Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX.

In combination with the other statements, I think we can get a picture to how successful the renewed NSSN campaign will be in relation to the other anti-cuts campaigns and the rest of the left.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Thoughts?
I think the conference itself was pretty admirable in it's democracy,

Really? I'm assuming you've considered the fact that the SP packed it out to ensure they would win the vote and the steering committee now consists mainly of SP party hacks.


im hoping those members of the steering committee who supported motion 2 don't leave like they said they would, to leave an organisation just because you lost a vote is pretty ridiculous.

No it isn't. The SP has taken control of it now and those who voted for motion 2 wanted an independent organisation.

[Aurora]

Really? I'm assuming you've considered the fact that the SP packed it out to ensure they would win the vote and the steering committee now consists mainly of SP party hacks.
Assuming it's true I don't see how the SP 'pack[ing] it' is an argument, surely you want an organisation with a high level of participation and if you consider it such an important vote (which i do)then why did the other groups not try to get their supporters there? im not sure of the numbers of SP members in NSSN but i have a feeling they couldn't pack the conference with 305 people surely?

The reason the steering committee now has a large amount of SP members is because the others left, hardly the fault of the SP if the opposition leaves.


No it isn't. The SP has taken control of it now and those who voted for motion 2 wanted an independent organisation.
The vote wasn't on the SP or the leadership of the organisation or whether to remain independent it was about launching an NSSN anti-cuts campaign, something which was completly distorted by some motion 2 speakers and the SP hasn't 'taken control' the leadership was given to them and the RMT by the motion 2 leadership leaving!

For the record the SP would have remained in the NSSN if motion 1 was defeated, they wouldn't have claimed the SWP or PR or whoever was now in control and the NSSN had lost it's independence.

I could understand a principled split like if the NSSN decided to field anti-cuts candidates that would be the NSSN turning in a diferent direction(a wrong one in my opinion) and a split by those who oppose electoralism would be understandable but that's not the case.

[Jolly Red Giant]

some clarification is needed here -

Really? I'm assuming you've considered the fact that the SP packed it out to ensure they would win the vote and the steering committee now consists mainly of SP party hacks.
The SP sent the delegates they were entitled to - the SWP and others could have done the same thing and defeated motion 1. They didn't - which to me indicates that the SWP were more interested in splitting the NSSN (because they did not have control of it) than in defeating motion 1 and maintaining the status quo.



No it isn't. The SP has taken control of it now and those who voted for motion 2 wanted an independent organisation.
This to be honest is absolute cr*p. The setting up of a NSSN anti-cuts campaign in no way impinged on the running of the NSSN. The SP were in a minority on the NSSN steering committee and would have continued to be a minority after the conference - except a majority of the steering committee resigned. If the motion 2 supporters wished to ensure that the NSSN did not have a majority of SP members and remain an 'independent organisation' then all they had to do was remain on the steering committee.

Those that have resigned from the steering committee argued that their opposition to the establishment of an anti-cuts campaign should have been taken on board and the idea scrapped - however this poses the following question - is the steering committee the supreme decision making body of the NSSN or is the conference? If the SP had rammed the decision through without reference to a conference then some of these arguments could have been made. However, the SP proposed that the decision should be made at an open, democratically run conference where all sides were given ample notice in the run up to and during the conference to argue their case and mobilise support for their point of view.

Update -
From Linda Taaffe (NSSN Secretary)



Anti-Cuts Conference Success
I want to thank everyone who attended and helped organise yesterday's excellent NSSN Anti-Cuts Conference in Camden. Well over 500 shop stewards/workplace reps, community campaigners and students debated whether the NSSN should launch an anti-cuts campaign. It was a model of democratic debate with both sides having the same number of speakers and equal speaking time. After 2 and a half hours of discussion, the trade union delegates at the Conference voted to launch the anti-cuts campaign by 305 votes to 89. We then went on to elect a Campaign Committee. As we received 11 nominations for the proposed committee of 10, Conference agreed to accept the slightly enlarged committee, which will meet over the next couple of weeks.

We are now looking forward to working with all other forces fighting the cuts. We will especially welcome the suggestion in Matt Wrack’s letter last week for a Unity conference called by the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG). We will also follow through on the initial contacts made with the other anti-cuts organisations to see how we can work together more smoothly. Just before the Conference, the NSSN signed a letter along with Coalition of Resistance, Right to Work and others to the TUC offering our assistance to build for the biggest possible turnout at the demo in London on March 26th.

We will lobby on that march and in all other arenas for the unions to organise co-ordinated strike action to defeat the government's cuts. We also believe that the platform of speakers on the day should include those workers and students who are currently fighting the cuts. Our NSSN campaign has been launched on a clear 'Oppose ALL cuts' platform and will therefore call on Labour councils to refuse to implement the cuts . We will organise protests and support industrial action against them if they vote to pass the attacks onto workers’ jobs and services.

The character of the NSSN will not change as a result of Saturday’s decision. We will still play a crucial role in bringing together and developing trade union activists at the grassroots, which we hope and believe will help revitalise the trade union movement. The continuing attacks by the ConDems on trade union rights are clearly linked to trying to prevent workers fighting back against the cuts and the bosses’ offensive.

The next meeting of the NSSN Steering Committee will be on February 19th, where we can begin to discuss, amongst other things, the planning for the annual NSSN conference in the summer, as well as how the Network will continue to organise rank and file workers. We appeal to whole of the Steering Committee to recognise the democratic decision of the Conference and play a full part in the development of the NSSN. We are confident that the decision yesterday will actually bring us in contact with a whole new layer of workers as they confront this brutal cuts package.

Linda Taaffe (NSSN Secretary)

[Crux]

Related to the subject, the "Coalition of Resistance" (about which SPEW doesn't say a word, all attacks are pointed at RTW) is the "biggest show in town" reports Tina Becker (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004250). I've added some emphasis in bold-italic to stuff relating to the NSSN.

In combination with the other statements, I think we can get a picture to how successful the renewed NSSN campaign will be in relation to the other anti-cuts campaigns and the rest of the left.
So Coalition of Resistance wishes to compete with the NSSN anti-cuts campaign even though the NSSN anti-cuts campaign explicitly states it is not set up to compete with the other campaigns? And all this because COAR (which has indeed been written about by the SP, comrade) and RtW feels threatened by campaign that does not wish to align itself with Labour councillors who are making cuts?
Q, why are you on the wrong side here?

[Q]

Q, why are you on the wrong side here?
Since when has this become a loyalty test?

I thought it was only fair to give both sides of the story and to me it looks like our English comrades have alienated all other NSSN forces from "our side". Instead of questioning loyalty, I would be worried if a mistake has been made by this move.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

some clarification is needed here -

The SP sent the delegates they were entitled to - the SWP and others could have done the same thing and defeated motion 1. They didn't - which to me indicates that the SWP were more interested in splitting the NSSN (because they did not have control of it) than in defeating motion 1 and maintaining the status quo.

That's not true. I have talked to an attendeewho told me that the turnout was larger than any other national conference before and commented on the inflated numbers of SP members there.

Furthermore:

The 305-89 was among "workplace delegates". To be a "workplace delegate" at the conference you did not need to be delegated by your workplace group or union branch; you simply had to sign in as having some union position. A large number of extra people signed in as from "anti-cuts committees" or as observers, and the crowded hall contained many would-be speakers who couldn't get the floor.

(I don't sympathise with the politics of AWL but this is good info)
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/01/22/sp-sets-its-own-anti-cuts-movement#comment


This to be honest is absolute cr*p. The setting up of a NSSN anti-cuts campaign in no way impinged on the running of the NSSN. The SP were in a minority on the NSSN steering committee and would have continued to be a minority after the conference - except a majority of the steering committee resigned. If the motion 2 supporters wished to ensure that the NSSN did not have a majority of SP members and remain an 'independent organisation' then all they had to do was remain on the steering committee.

Those that have resigned from the steering committee argued that their opposition to the establishment of an anti-cuts campaign should have been taken on board and the idea scrapped - however this poses the following question - is the steering committee the supreme decision making body of the NSSN or is the conference? If the SP had rammed the decision through without reference to a conference then some of these arguments could have been made. However, the SP proposed that the decision should be made at an open, democratically run conference where all sides were given ample notice in the run up to and during the conference to argue their case and mobilise support for their point of view

Update -
From Linda Taaffe (NSSN Secretary)
[/FONT][/COLOR]

It's not crap. The NSSN was set up as an organisation which brought together independent trade unionists. That can no longer be said to be the case if the SP now controls meetings and makes decisions beforehand. As others who were against motion 1 have said the NSSN was fighting cuts already, and it's goal was to do this through co-ordinated strike action. Now these goals will have to be sidelined to set up, duplicate local anti-cuts groups. Furthermore the SP, harking back to their days as Militant proposed the Liverpool Labour Council of the 80's (controlled by Militant) as a model for their anti-cuts campaign. The All Britain anti-cuts campaign will be a dead end.

[Lyev]

But how do people get elected to the NSSN steering committee? Are they not just voted on? - in this case, I'm not sure what the contention is, if SP were just democratically elected. Although, maybe it is telling that all the 'yes' votes - I think - were CNWP or SPEW folks. I have heard that, especially compared to national CoR meetings, that the NSSN coference in general was a lot more open and democratic.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Since when has this become a loyalty test?{/quote]
I would agree - issues like this need to be considered carefully. If the CWI in england have acted in an inappropriate fashion then they should be told so. In my opinion the CWI in England have been correct in the position they have adopted in the NSSN.

[QUOTE=Q;2007129]I thought it was only fair to give both sides of the story and to me it looks like our English comrades have alienated all other NSSN forces from "our side". Instead of questioning loyalty, I would be worried if a mistake has been made by this move.
Giving both sides of the story is necessary - however the split in the NSSN is being used as a big sectarian stick to beat the CWI with little or no basis for the accusations.

We have entered a period of intense class conflict and the political positions of organisations and the political debate within organisations is coming into sharp focus. The CWI members (and the RMT) within the NSSN saw a difficulty with the approach of the NSSN, specifically in relation to the fact that council workers (some of whom would look to the NSSN for support) are being faced with attacks by LP councillors who are getting left cover from the CoR and the RtW campaigns. This issue had to be addressed and the best way of addressing it was to propose that the NSSN form an anti-cuts campaign that would oppose and campaign against the cuts from all councils and specifically point the finger of responsibility at those LP councillors who claim to be against cuts and yet vote to impose them on workers (150,000 council jobs are on the line).

The opposition to the CWI position came from a divided group of individuals - those who supported the CoR - those who supported the RtW (namely SWP stewards) - and those who adopted a syndicalist approach to organising the NSSN. The opposition to the CWI proposal came from different directions and none of the opposing positions were, in my opinion, valid. The CoR and the RtW didn't want what they saw as opposition to their campaigns (despite the fact that they have a less than friendly relationship with each other). The syndicalists appear to have wanted the NSSN to focus solely on grassroots trade union propaganda work. What is more - it appears that the strategy of the SWP was that because they couldn't get control of the NSSN they would split it. Their opposition was specifically based on splitting the NSSN rather than opposing the anti-cuts campaign. Their strategy is to attempt to establish the RtW as a rival group in every area irrespective of whether there is already an anti-cuts group in place. This is actually in contrast to the position that exists with the new NSSN anti-cuts campaign.

Final point - about 80 delegates walked out with the claim they will establish a new rival shop stewards group. I suspect that within a matter of weeks the Counterfire supporters will end up as the shop steward wing of the CoR, the SWP supporters will end up as the shop steward wing of the RtW and the syndicalists will be left to paddle their own canoe.

I hope and indeed expect that the NSSN campaign will get significant support from council workers fighting to defend their jobs and conditions - particularly in areas controlled by the LP.

[Jolly Red Giant]

That's not true. I have talked to an attendeewho told me that the turnout was larger than any other national conference before and commented on the inflated numbers of SP members there.
1. The class battles are gaining momentum - it would be a bad sign if the NSSN conference hadn't increased in size since it last met. When it met in June 2008 over 300 people attended. It would have been pretty inept it it could go to 500 last week in the teeth of the ConDem attacks

2. - And I made the point already - if the supporters of the CoR and RtW wanted to defeat the motion they could have mobilised their supporters to vote against motion 1 - if that had happened the SP and the RMT would ahve accepted the vote and continued to work within the NSSN. The fact that the SWP particularly did not make any effort to mobilise and clearly had a strategy to split the NSSN -

The NSSN discussed the RtW campaign when it was established and listed its concerns at the time -
http://www.shopstewards.net/news.6.htm



(I don't sympathise with the politics of AWL but this is good info)
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/01/22/sp-sets-its-own-anti-cuts-movement#comment
And the point has also been made that the same procedure has been in place for four years since the foundation of the NSSN - it wasn't an issue up to now - but its an issue now because the minority lost the vote and walked out.



It's not crap. The NSSN was set up as an organisation which brought together independent trade unionists. That can no longer be said to be the case if the SP now controls meetings and makes decisions beforehand.
The only reason the SP 'controls' the steering committee meetings is because the rest of the committee resigned. As the NSSN continues to grow and develop the SP's dominance will reduce accordingly - and I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

As regard 'independent' trade unionists - many of those opposed to motion 1 were memebrs or supporters of Counterfire or the SWP - hardly independent. Many trade union activists will be independent of left organisations - many more will be members or supporters. The question to be posed is this - is the democratic process in the NSSN better or worse than in the CoR or the RtW? (most of those who walked out will end up in one of those two campaigns).


As others who were against motion 1 have said the NSSN was fighting cuts already, and it's goal was to do this through co-ordinated strike action. Now these goals will have to be sidelined to set up, duplicate local anti-cuts groups.
The industrial activites of the NSSN has not and will not change because of the decision of the NSSN conference. The SP's proposal made it clear that it was not intended to set up rival anti-cuts groups (unlike the SWP) and that it would focus on working towards unity where possible and defending council workers against LP councils who were being given left cover by the other two campaigns.


Furthermore the SP, harking back to their days as Militant proposed the Liverpool Labour Council of the 80's (controlled by Militant) as a model for their anti-cuts campaign. The All Britain anti-cuts campaign will be a dead end.
This is an important issue - Local councils in England have two choices 1. implement cuts or 2. refuse to implement cuts and set a deficit budget, mobilising the council workforce, the wider trade union movement and the local community to campaign for the necessary funding.

If you have an alternative strategy for defeating council cuts then please outline it.

[Crux]

Since when has this become a loyalty test?

I thought it was only fair to give both sides of the story and to me it looks like our English comrades have alienated all other NSSN forces from "our side". Instead of questioning loyalty, I would be worried if a mistake has been made by this move.
A mistake would have been walking out if the RMT/SP proposal had not won the vote. A mistake would have been acting as a cover for Labour (and Green" councillors who carry through cuts but wish to give lip-service to the anti-cuts movement. I think we both are about as well read into this issue, Q, given that none of us actually attended the conference. I think the political issue itself is quite crystal clear. The CoR and SWP supporters were those who chose to split from the NSSN.