A question for the PCS SWP member on these boards

[dennisr]

The Socialist party has been forced to openly rebut serious allegations made by the SWP (a political statement from the SWP CC - as part of their pre-conference discussuions).

What is your take on this fella?

The link is:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/3872
"The PCS, the CWU dispute, and the struggle for public sector workers' unity"

it begins:

"New Labour's co-ordinated attack on the public sector has not, to date, been met by co-ordinated action by the public sector unions, despite the best efforts of the left-led PCS civil servants union.

PCS national executive committee member JOHN MCINALLY replies in a personal capacity to allegations published by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) that the PCS leadership blocked the possibility of public sector unity in the recent CWU postal workers' dispute.

...The allegation that Socialist Party members on the PCS national executive committee (NEC) 'pressured' the union's general secretary, Mark Serwotka, to back away from joint strikes with the Communications Workers' Union (CWU) - or indeed any other union - is not only offensive but also a barefaced lie."

So are the SWP liars or are the SP?
Why did one of the PCS NEC members (30 years membership of your party) resign from the SWP?
And what is your defense of the actions (or lack of them..) of CWU president and SWP member Jane Loftus during the recent CWU disputes? Do we 'misunderstand' her?
How do you feel about all this?

 

[dennisr]

ok, any other member of the SWP? Anyone??

nows your chance to 'set the record straight' *raised eyebrow*

 

[cockneyrebel]

I say both the SP and SWP are running dogs of the imperialists.

 

[dennisr]

I say both the SP and SWP are running dogs of the imperialists.

fair point (well made... )

 

[cockneyrebel]

In all seriousness it is quite a serious allegation to make. Do the SWP have any evidence? (although I'm still totally against the strategy that the SP took in the PCS, but I don't think they did it because they were sell outs, just think they were wrong politically)

Also considering the appalling role of Jane Loftus it seems a bit much. How can anyone in the SWP justify what Jane Loftus did (or more correctly didn't) do?

PS Going off on to the further reaches of the far left I was surprised to hear that Workers Power are calling for a vote for Ken Livingstone given everything that went on with the split in WP and their insistance on abstention in elections.

I also heard a rumour that only about 18 people turned up to the Revolution conference. I tell you, things have gone down hill since I hung up my skate board.

 

[Groucho]

"When CWU members spoke at solidarity meetings - many of them organized by us and our allies in Organising for Fighting Unions - it was a genuine revelation to them of the support they could tap. In a matter of weeks, due to pressure from below, the CWU leaders had to go from sneerily dismissing the idea of striking with the PCS to seriously considering it. But it didn't happen. The Socialist Party dominated executive of the PCS pressured Mark Serwotka to back away from such a move, and he felt he had to go along with them. We did not have enough influence in the PCS to force through united strikes".

This is what was quoted from an SWP pre-conference discussion bulletin. This one brief statement has led to a several page response in a SP publication.

The fact is that the CWU Gen Sec dismissed joint action only to then be overturned by the CWU exec. At this point he simply refused to properly co-operate with prospects for joint action. However, the later action called by the CWU provided enough time for PCS to call joint strikes. The leadership bottled it. It was clear that the SP on the NEC were too cautious to call action at that time. A SP member and PCS full timer spoke at my GEC. When we argued for joint strikes he was dismissive. The blame for not calling joint action lies primarily with the CWU leadership. However, PCS could have called a strike to co-incide but didn't.

 

[Groucho]

....

Also considering the appalling role of Jane Loftus it seems a bit much. How can anyone in the SWP justify what Jane Loftus did (or more correctly didn't) do?...d.

As CWU President her position was such that she would had to have resigned in order to publically oppose the majority decision, unlike an ordinary NEC member who could declare their opposition and campaign. Had she resigned she would not then have been able to campaign either.

She voted against and her view position was clear. What she couldn't do was tour the country to put forward her view. So do you tghink it was an issue to resign over in principle?

 

[cockneyrebel]

As CWU President her position was such that she would had to have resigned in order to publically oppose the majority decision, unlike an ordinary NEC member who could declare their opposition and campaign. Had she resigned she would not then have been able to campaign either.

She voted against and her view position was clear. What she couldn't do was tour the country to put forward her view. So do you tghink it was an issue to resign over in principle?

Yes.