I don’t disagree with this statement. However, it leaves out a lot. If this motion is lost, then those who push forward with allegedly authoritative decisions need to explain how representative those groups ‘delegated’ to the meeting are of the 8,000. My guess is that those who claim to represent local groups will constitute a tiny proportion of this 8,000. I have seen reports of groups where the behavior of some of these members repelled others. There has to be an expression of willingness to negotiate with TUSC asap. And why can’t the 8,000 who don’t make it to the meeting have access to discussions, to allow us to participate? Will mobile phones to removed to stop delegates tweeting what is going on, with hashtags allowing the 8,000 to offer feedback in real time? Can we be sure that someone is not secretly recording every word, to be released as a transcript in Socialist Unity or the CPGB’s website? If we know that is virtually an inevitability, then why can’t members of the SWP, SP etc send observers so they can hear what is being said about them at the time, then if necessary ask for the right to reply? Why must this option be ruled out so decisions are taken and only days later do we discover that votes were based on misleading information? We know Blairites and Thatcherites will get to read transcripts before too long. Why not keep them out while trying to let all socialists in? Isn’t that the raisson d’etre of Left Unity?
Response to Nick Wrack’s statement to today’s Left Unity meeting: http://www.facebook.com/tom.delargy.1/posts/304725079660252