Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

19645Re: What Bob Gould fails to mention

Expand Messages
  • Ed Lewis
    Jul 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Nick, I ignored your questions the first time because they were a
      corny attempt at a diversion, and I thought it would be kinder to you
      to let them pass, but now that it's fairly clear that the DSP doesn't
      have a position on the transfer of powers, and since you insist, here
      goes.

      1. >>If you had any involvement in any organising body involved in
      any of the protest meetings (as we might agree to call them), would
      you have supported moves to ensure there was discussion and the
      possibility of moving amendments and alternative motion, against the
      specific orders of Unions NSW? If not, how would have argued against
      this, that such things are irrelevant, counterproductive, or what?
      Would you have also followed the wisdom of John Robertson Thought
      for the May 27 delegates meetings, which had the same strictures,
      unlike in other states? Would you have opposed a street march
      following the July 1 meetings, opposed by Robertson until days before
      Friday?>>

      Do I think democratic meetings are good? Yes. Are street marches
      okay? Yes. When did I stop beating my mother? The week before last, I
      think. These questions are as phoney as a $3 note, Nick.

      2.>>At the May 27 meeting in Lismore the convenor, an ASU organiser,
      former national union leader and ALP member, openly said the
      restrictions on debate were best ignored and he facilitated an
      enthusiastic discussion, etc, etc. The aforementioned ASU organiser
      (who's very much part of the upper Unions NSW loop), was very open
      about the big fights going about these tactical questions all through
      June (such as sharp debate at the Teachers Fed Council about a stop
      work etc, etc.>>

      Are you telling me there's argy bargy at Unions NSW, Nick, and there
      were different opinions on how to organise the protests, whether
      there should be stopworks, etc? And here I was thinking Labour
      Council heavies sat around holding hands and sipping cups of herbal
      tea.

      Of course there were differences of opinion. That's not evidence of
      any lack of democracy, but of reasonably democratic (although far
      from perfect) processes at work. I might not agreee with exactly how
      all those discussions turned out, but that's no reason to demonise
      people who in the end led a pretty effective beginning to a long
      campaign and who for better or worse will probably be there
      throughout the campaign.

      It looks to me like you've picked up a bit of static from a few
      people who were involved in those discussions and you've blown that
      out of all proportion. I'd be taking more notice if some of the
      people who were involved in the rough and tumble were going public
      with their views, but I haven't noticed anything like that. The
      whining on this list a few days ago struck me as very short-sighted,
      although the coverage in Green Left was slightly more balanced.

      Finally, I noticed someone or other whinging about the protests in
      NSW being held at indoor venues and some workers being angry that the
      venues were too small and they couldn't get in. A leadership that
      organised outdoor meetings in the middle of winter during a week of
      heavy rain also would have copped some flak. Of course, the day of
      the meetings turned out to be the first dry day for a week, but no
      one could predict that with any confidence.
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic