For a real ULA conference in 6 months time

[bolshevik]

This is a motion I'm mulling over moving at the next Cork ULA branch meeting (scheduled for mid-January after the 4 Feb ULA national conference is formally announced) for discussion at that 4 Feb conference. Comments please:

Recognising the need to deepen the process of transforming the ULA from an electoral alliance into a party of the working class the ULA agrees to hold a proper delegate-based, and policy decision making, conference in approximately 6 months time. The next two months being focussed on creating internal communication structures to facilitate political discussion between all members after which a formal pre-conference discussion period will begin.

[antiestablishmentarian]

Excellent idea. The ULA has been in a half-life for the past six months, it's time moves towards building it as a party were made. What's the SP position at the moment on building the ULA as a party, are they still opposed on the grounds of prematurity?

[C. Flower]

This is a motion I'm mulling over moving at the next Cork ULA branch meeting (scheduled for mid-January after the 4 Feb ULA national conference is formally announced) for discussion at that 4 Feb conference. Comments please:

Recognising the need to deepen the process of transforming the ULA from an electoral alliance into a party of the working class the ULA agrees to hold a proper delegate-based, and policy decision making, conference in approximately 6 months time. The next two months being focussed on creating internal communication structures to facilitate political discussion between all members after which a formal pre-conference discussion period will begin.

There is discussion of similar motions in a thread here. Should the motion not also call for an in principle decision to found the ULA as a party, with the conference in 6 months time as the party's founding conference, that will agree its constitution and first programme ? That would give plenty of time for discussion in the branches, before the founding conference.

[unspecific]

I used something like this as an "example motion" in the first thread, I used the year anniversary date of the summer conference this year. Would that suit as a date?

[C. Flower]

I used something like this as an "example motion" in the first thread, I used the year anniversary date of the summer conference this year. Would that suit as a date?

Worth checking that it doesn't conflict with a major sporting event :D
and which day of the week it is.

[bolshevik]

I'd be cautious about using an exact date as that might give them a technical excuse to vote against the motion as a whole.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[bolshevik]

There is discussion of similar motions in a thread here. Should the motion not also call for an in principle decision to found the ULA as a party, with the conference in 6 months time as the party's founding conference, that will agree its constitution and first programme ? That would give plenty of time for discussion in the branches, before the founding conference.

I'm not sure about that. It is kind of implied in having a proper decision making conference but I am worried that the SP/SWP would say it was too soon and so hold us in the current limbo. Posing it in a more open way without committing them to thw formal launch of the new party might be a way of undercutting that opposition while getting some real movement in that direction which then could find them in a process which they couldn't stop any longer.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[C. Flower]

I'm not sure about that. It is kind of implied in having a proper decision making conference but I am worried that the SP/SWP would say it was too soon and so hold us in the current limbo. Posing it in a more open way without committing them to thw formal launch of the new party might be a way of undercutting that opposition while getting some real movement in that direction which then could find them in a process which they couldn't stop any longer.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

You are more in touch with the discussion going on in the ULA than I am.

It would seem a natural thing to me that it should be on the agenda for discussion. If it is not, it will still be the elephant in the room.

Putting a motion down would open the debate. Those who feel it to be premature would be able to put forward their views and take it to a vote, which they would surely win, if they represented the SP and SWP view.
They would be able to put forward their position on when and how a party should be founded. Hopefully, it would clarify things and help to move them forward.

[unspecific]

I'd be cautious about using an exact date as that might give them a technical excuse to vote against the motion as a whole.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Good point. Agreed. A window of a month so? How about "no sooner than Easter and no later than 2 weeks after the summer recess of the Dáil"?


I'm not sure about that. It is kind of implied in having a proper decision making conference but I am worried that the SP/SWP would say it was too soon and so hold us in the current limbo. Posing it in a more open way without committing them to thw formal launch of the new party might be a way of undercutting that opposition while getting some real movement in that direction which then could find them in a process which they couldn't stop any longer.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Also agreed. The desire for a party over an alliance is implicit in any suggested motion we make, in that it actually does the work of building the rudimentary structures of it. An explicit call for a party within the motion will be used to batt away any and all motions - no matter how reasonable or incremental - and could cause dangerous argument between SP, SWP etc.

Our calls should be as unpolitically-controversial as possible to give them a chance at even being brought forward for discussion/vote. I'd love for us to be able to pass a glorious visionary motion, but we're working with a bunch of extremely seasoned politicos in a dysfunctional setup who would sooner make us look like the irrationals, juveniles or some ridiculous term than take on the argument and weaken their own position.

I'm coming closer to see these as the motions we should pass

motion 1. a call for a full delegates conference within in a range of time
motion 2. a call for component party branches in the north to have a combined branch meeting with eachother once a month to provide assistance for their mutual campaigns and with the ambition of uniting their campaigns

[Apjp]

I'm with Sam Lord on this. nobody in the ULA, where it matters, is arsed. Conditions not right me arse.

[WestOfHere]

I agree with the substance of this proposal. However I reckon that it will need to include some provision for the election of a working group/committee to oversee the convention.

The motion should be something along the lines of


we should have a convention within x months
the convention should be comprised of x delegates per x members from each branch
branches may submit motions up to two-months ahead of the convention
elections to constitution working group shall be held at the convention
The election of a representative interim national committee shall take place at the convention
A convention working group, comprising of two delegates per branch selected by the branch, should convene, no more than two weeks from now, to discuss standing orders, procedure, logistics etc.


if all the secondary clauses are not included we may well find ourselves three weeks before promised convention being told by a steering committee that the format will be something like this..


Session 1: Building The Fightback Against Austerity: The Left Alternative
Session 2: The Crisis in the Euro and the EU Austerity Treaty
Session 3: Fighting the Household Charge: Building a Campaign that can win.
Session 4: Next Steps for the ULA: Building A Radical Force in Irish Politics

Also how will such a motion be proposed within the narrow, some might say straitjacketed, confines of the Feb 4th agenda?

[bolshevik]

I can see the point of trying to limit their wiggle room to bureaucratically slow things up but at the same time we need to avoid coming up with a motion that is so detailed that they are able to reject the whole idea on technicalities.

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in-between my more general motion and this more detailed one.

Of course the big problem we face is getting any motion discussed at all given the proposed framework for the "conference" coming from the steering committee. As it stands it is not possible to present any motions.

The Cork branch is meeting on Tuesday next week and we will be aggressively raising it there and we will get some better idea of their thinking by how the SP and SWP respond.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[C. Flower]

Welcome, Westofhere. Good to have you here. Hope you have a look around the rest of the forum, not just these interesting ULA discussions. :)

Perhaps a very short paper could be written (1 a4 sheet? :)) - titled "Towards a new Party" or similar - and brought to a fringe meeting for discussion and possibly endorsement ?

The Steering Committee could be asked in advance to allow it to be circulated within the Convention as an internal discussion document.

I would suggest it should focus on process, not on political policy.

The Steering Committee could also be asked to adjust the agenda to provide for motions by branches on the future of the organisation to be taken at the end of the Convention.

If you don't ask them, they will rightly just turn around and say "no one asked for it."