PCS Left Unity
The Socialist Group in PCS

NEC elections – urgent action needed

We are now in the run-up to Branch General Meetings, where nominations for the National Executive Committee can be put forward. These meetings will take place against the background of the ballot for national action. At the time of writing the outcome of that is not known. However Left Unity members have been working hard for a ‘yes’ vote. Hopefully Branch AGMs will also take place after successful national strike action, with further action either under way or planned.

The right wing “4 the members” group have shown their colours by calling for a ‘no’ vote in the industrial action ballot. Activists can see where a victory for them in the NEC elections would take the union. It would be a disaster. Left Unity members should ensure that they nominate our candidates. We need the maximum possible number of nominations. The number of nominating branches is shown on the election addresses. A large number shows that active members have confidence in those candidates. So every single extra Branch nomination will help us win the elections. If your Branch has nominated our candidates, it also makes it easier to issue a Branch leaflet asking members to vote for them.

This year, this is even more important than before. There is a possibility there could be some alternative ‘left’ candidates who could reduce our vote and help the right wing get elected. Last autumn we informed members the Socialist Caucus group (who we shall refer to as Caucus in this article) had voted by 15 votes to 13 to split from Left Unity. Since then, Left Unity’s national officers have been exchanging correspondence with them, and seeking a meeting, to try to persuade them not to split away. After several requests from us, suggesting meetings last year, we finally met them on 13 January. Although Caucus are not a large group, any split is potentially damaging. We think Left Unity members will want to know what is happening, and what the national officers are doing to avoid a split.

Left Unity approached the meeting with the aim of building bridges, seeking common ground, and finding a way back for Caucus. We deliberately tried to focus on how we could go forward together, rather than exchange points on issues where we knew from the correspondence there was no agreement. We also kept in mind that Caucus are not a monolithic block of people with identical opinions. We feel that many Caucus members will not support the views their representatives put to us. We comment below on what we would like Caucus members and other Left Unity members to do to help us avoid a split.

We invited Caucus to set out what advantages they saw for themselves and PCS’s membership from a split. We asked them to explain for us why they had split now, after participation in Left Unity for many years.

They were reluctant to do either, asking instead that we explain why we thought the split would be damaging. So we did that. We explained that:

  • Caucus, like every group in PCS, obviously wanted to win a majority in PCS for their policies and for candidates who supported those polices;
  • The best reps and active members in PCS were members or supporters of Left Unity;
  • Being in Left Unity enabled Caucus to argue their position with those activists;
  • Being in Left Unity did not prevent Caucus from putting any different policies to PCS Conferences and in the wider union, on issues where they did not support the majority view in Left Unity;
  • A split on the left would encourage the right wing within PCS.

On the other hand:

  • Leaving Left Unity would cut Caucus off from the mainstream of left wing opinion in PCS;
  • They ran the risk of activists seeing them as helping the right wing in the union if they stood against the agreed left candidates in elections.

Caucus accepted they had been able to argue different policies to Left Unity, both in the Left Unity debates and in the PCS. They accepted that, where their members had stood for the NEC as part of the left slate, they had been able to put their own position. However they felt the national election material had reflected the agreed policies of the alliance, and not the separate views of Caucus. They felt the only way they could more prominently campaign for their views was by standing independent candidates.

We asked them why this was the case now, after so many years of standing with us. They responded that the response of the union and Left Unity to the attacks on PCS members had been so poor they could no longer be identified with it. We feel that few PCS activists, even in Caucus, will support that view. On the contrary, PCS has actively fought back against the attacks and continues to do so.

Despite failing to convince Caucus on these issues, we outlined in more detail why we thought standing against the left candidates in the NEC elections would be damaging for PCS members and for Caucus itself. We argued that:

  • Caucus had no chance of winning a majority on the NEC;
  • The most likely outcome was that they would win a small vote;
  • However, any candidate would attract some votes, and Caucus candidates would inevitably take some votes from Left Unity;
  • Since Caucus would not do well, they would not be the main beneficiaries of the votes they got. The right wing would benefit from the split left vote.
  • Unfortunately, the more votes Caucus took, the more rightwingers would be elected.
  • In the worst case scenario, Caucus could take enough votes for the right wing to win a majority on the NEC.

No group could be expected to publicly admit they had no chance of winning an election. But it was clear from the discussion the Caucus representatives did not contest this analysis. However they did not accept these were valid reasons for not standing. When we asked them to reconsider their decisions to split from Left Unity and split the left vote, they made an astonishing counter-proposal. This was that if we were concerned about the right wing winning back the NEC, we should stand down and let their candidates have a free run.

You may be wondering if this was a debating point, but it was not. The Caucus representatives put this forward as a serious proposal on three occasions. It is worth spelling out what this proposal is: Caucus are suggesting that the likes of Janice Godrich, Sue Bond, Kevin Kelly and Dave Bean do not stand for the NEC this year. Instead, we should rely on Caucus candidates, most of whom would be hardly known at all outside their own Branches and Groups. Those Caucus candidates would be standing on polices that have been crushingly rejected by members at mandate meetings over the past few years. Clearly this would be handing the union back to the right wing on a plate. We would hope the majority of Caucus members could see that.

Obviously, Left Unity is bitterly disappointed the Caucus representatives have taken this stance. However, all is not yet lost. Caucus did agree to take our proposal that they do not split from Left Unity back to a further national meeting of their members at the end of January. Left Unity sought to discuss with them the other main issue they had raised, which was that Left Unity conducted its internal debates in an undemocratic manner. We had argued in correspondence that Caucus had been given every democratic opportunity to put their views inside Left Unity. However we said again at the meeting that if they had specific complaints, we would listen to them and consider them. Caucus said they did not wish to discuss those issues. We are none the wiser about what their concerns are. However we made clear that if their meeting did decide to reverse their decision, we would like to discuss those issues with them.

What we would like Socialist Caucus members to do:

Left Unity believes that a split and an alternative list in the NEC elections will damage the interests of PCS members. We think Caucus could continue to argue for their position, where it differs from that of the majority, without endangering the left wing majority on the NEC. We would like Caucus members who share those concerns to:

  • Make their views known within Socialist Caucus;
  • Attend the Caucus national meeting and vote against a split, and against splitting the left vote;
  • If Caucus do confirm their decision to split, refuse to support it;
  • Nominate the agreed left slate in the NEC elections, and continue to argue their views both within Left Unity and within PCS where they wish.

What we would like other Left Unity members to do:

  • If you have contact with Caucus members, discuss these issues with them in a friendly manner and try to convince them not to split away, and not to split the left vote in the elections; We appreciate most Left Unity members won’t have the opportunity to do this;
  • If you have received this by email, do what you can to share it with Left Unity members who don’t get the emails. The postal circulation always takes longer and time is short.
  • Make sure that you put the agreed left slate up to your Branch AGM, so we get the maximum possible number of nominations for our candidates. That will also lay the basis for you arguing the BEC should recommend that your members vote for the candidates the Branch has nominated.

In this crucial period of a major battle on jobs, pay and services, PCS members could do without this potential problem. Left Unity’s officers will continue to do what we can to avoid a split or limit the damage it could cause. Please do your best as well.

Left Unity National Officers,

January 2007