Socialist Party -ultra-left bollocks in the NUT

[neprimerimye]

Not quite. Some history ...

IS, the precursor of the SWP, launched R&F organisations in the unions early/mid-1970s as rivals to the CP-controlled 'Broad Lefts' (which were not very broad, and not very left).

Some R&F groups were significantly broader than just the IS members, with R&F Teacher was perhaps the widest grouping of forces including the IMG's teacher fraction, at the time the largest of the IMG's union fractions.

In 1977 the IS launched the SWP, and decided to realign the R&F groups as the Party's fractions in the unions, carrying out the party line and with no independent decision making processes. Many of those people who were in R&F groups, but not part of the SWP, declined to have their activity determined by the Party's Central Committee with no democratic rights of their own. In the case of R&F Teacher, the IMG proposed a new organisation, the Socialist Teachers Alliance, controlled by the members and open to members of all organisations, including the newly launched SWP, and none. The SWP declined to join the STA and denounced it as a move to the right, but the majority of 'independents' as well as the IMG launched it, with more success than the rump of the R&F Teacher group. The two were rivals for some years but the STA maintained a core of activists despite the implosion of the IMG into the misguided 'turn to industry' (colonisation of factory and manual workplaces) that decimated its teachers fraction in the early 1980s. Some of the leaders of the current STA were member of the IMG in the 1970s, who left as a result of the 'turn to industry' but have continued as serious union activists with class based politics.

R&F Teacher was eventually wound up by the SWP in the mid-1980s and the SWP Teachers' Fraction joined the STA en bloc. Some of the R&F group were not happy with the abandonment of a syndicalist approach and set up the CFDU organisation as a more activist counter-balance to the more political and theoretical STA. Relations between CFDU and STA have varied but some people are members of both, and the two work reasonably together.

Geoff Collier has already corrected some of the many factual errors in your post but I feel that it ought to be pointed out that the IMG Teachers Fraction walked out of R&F simply because they were a minority. This was I note at a time when the IMG was pushing a Socialist Unity (sic) project so their split cannot be seen as anything other than sectarianism in that they placed the needs of their own group above those of the teachers as a whole. Had they truly wanted socialist unity then in the NUT they should have sought to win the leaderswhip of the R&F organisation rather than walking away from it. Despite a certain hyperbole in his article on the issue of R&F and the STA time has vindicated Hallas.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Geoff Collier has already corrected some of the many factual errors in your post but I feel that it ought to be pointed out that the IMG Teachers Fraction walked out of R&F simply because they were a minority. This was I note at a time when the IMG was pushing a Socialist Unity (sic) project so their split cannot be seen as anything other than sectarianism in that they placed the needs of their own group above those of the teachers as a whole. Had they truly wanted socialist unity then in the NUT they should have sought to win the leaderswhip of the R&F organisation rather than walking away from it. Despite a certain hyperbole in his article on the issue of R&F and the STA time has vindicated Hallas.

I don't know the exact blow-by-blow account of the developments in R&F Teacher but it is incontravertable that the transformation of what were originally quite broad based left caucuses to becoming fractions of the new party - the SWP - in the unions is as I described. Nothing anyone has said has contradicted this central line of argument - or do you view what was happening to the R&F groups at the time as being a good thing?

I was involved in the student movement at the time and the process of NOISS becoming SWSS and the squeezing out of other forces was also the same dynamic, and led to the departure of a number of independent activists from NOISS.

I also think you are confusing 'Socialist Unity' - an electoral project jointly launched with Big Flame in the Ladywood by-election in August 1977 (the IMG stood on its own in the Stechford by-election in March 1977, beating the newly launched SWP) - with a broader series of developments. The IMG at the time launched a series of left unity initiatives - including the Socialist Students Alliance which outgrew NOISS in the NUS, and Socialist Challenge as a broader newspaper than Red Weekly, and an invitation to the SWP to participate in the 1979 world congress of the FI (an invititation also extended to Thornett's WSL that resulted in "The Poisoned Well" submission).

The mistake the IMG made was to downplay the developments in the Labour Party at that time, the Benn development catching it unawares in 1980 (although the small IMG Labour Party fraction still existed and was involved in the launch of the Socialist Campaign for a Labour Victory in 1978.)

It is no surprise to me that you agree with Hallas' line of 1977 - sectarians of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the support of the working class! - but you have to ask the question: "If Hallas was right, how come the "unstable" STA still exists as an important left organisation in the unions, thirty years later, while the genuinely sectarian R&F projects came to an ignominious end in the 1980s?"

 

[neprimerimye]

I don't know the exact blow-by-blow account of the developments in R&F Teacher but it is incontravertable that the transformation of what were originally quite broad based left caucuses to becoming fractions of the new party - the SWP - in the unions is as I described. Nothing anyone has said has contradicted this central line of argument - or do you view what was happening to the R&F groups at the time as being a good thing?

I also think you are confusing 'Socialist Unity' - with a broader series of developments.

"If Hallas was right, how come the "unstable" STA still exists as an important left organisation in the unions, thirty years later, while the genuinely sectarian R&F projects came to an ignominious end in the 1980s?"

The facts contradict your argument that the R&F groups were turned into SWP fractions. The fact is that in R&F Teacher the IMG teachers walked out rather seek to win the leadership of that organisation. It is also a fact that SWP fractions were organised seperately from the R&F organisations even after most non-SWP forces chose to quit them. This I recall from membership of both the Hospital Worker R&F organisation and the SWP health workers fraction.

For the record i do not support what happened in the varous R&F groups circa 1975 as a 'good thing'. In fact it was a negative development as was the launch of the SWP itself.

As for Socialist Unity (sic) i do not confuse that sorry episode but mentioned it only to contrast the IMG's proclamation of 'unity' appeals with its actual splitist method in the R&F organisations.

The STA continues to exist precisely because it acts not as a R&F organisation but as an unstable left caucus having more in common with the broad lefts of bygone years than with the Minority Movement. In periods such as the 1980's genuine R&F bodies are almost impossible to sustain.

 

[Geoff Collier]

The facts contradict your argument that the R&F groups were turned into SWP fractions. The fact is that in R&F Teacher the IMG teachers walked out rather seek to win the leadership of that organisation. It is also a fact that SWP fractions were organised seperately from the R&F organisations even after most non-SWP forces chose to quit them. This I recall from membership of both the Hospital Worker R&F organisation and the SWP health workers fraction.

If Fishergate still believes his unique version of history, perhaps he could cite some source for his belief. I've never come across the criticism anywhere else ever - and I've talked to many, many critics of the SWP in the past thirty years

 

[urbanrevolt]

Also the STA is an alliance within in a union- we should be for maximum discipline in action but in terms of an election if there are clear political differences between two candidates and one supports a fighting strategy for the union and the strengthening of rank and file control and militancy more than the other we should support such a candidate if standing in that election takes forward the struggle for rank and file control of the union.

The problem in this case is that MPD's stance so far doesn't really seem to fit this criteria and i still can't find any info on Roger King's stance including bizarrely in the SW coverage to which I sent the following coment:

"Is it possible to see what Roger's policies are?

That would be useful surely in garnering support for his candidature and of course the whole point of standing in elections is to gain support for the kind of rank and file militant policies necessary to make our union into a fighting force accountable to ordinary members- and of course as part of this to campaign for an immediate ballot over strike action over the pay freeze."

However, whoever we vote for- and it should certainly be one of these two and I presume STV means it doesn't split the vote at all- most important is to organise at the grassroots for union militancy and build a mood for strike action.

 

[mutley]

Also the STA is an alliance within in a union- we should be for maximum discipline in action but in terms of an election if there are clear political differences between two candidates and one supports a fighting strategy for the union and the strengthening of rank and file control and militancy more than the other we should support such a candidate if standing in that election takes forward the struggle for rank and file control of the union.

The problem in this case is that MPD's stance so far doesn't really seem to fit this criteria and i still can't find any info on Roger King's stance including bizarrely in the SW coverage to which I sent the following coment:

"Is it possible to see what Roger's policies are?

That would be useful surely in garnering support for his candidature and of course the whole point of standing in elections is to gain support for the kind of rank and file militant policies necessary to make our union into a fighting force accountable to ordinary members- and of course as part of this to campaign for an immediate ballot over strike action over the pay freeze."

However, whoever we vote for- and it should certainly be one of these two and I presume STV means it doesn't split the vote at all- most important is to organise at the grassroots for union militancy and build a mood for strike action.

First Roger is the official STA candidate, and I have no idea if he has (or is planning) his own website, but the STA website can be taken as standing for him.

Second, the point here is that the STA decided, without opposition from the SP, to agree with the CDFU that both organisations would stand one candidate each. The SP have sabotaged that, which will make it harder for the STA to talk to the CDFU in a meaningful way in the future.

The danger is that now the left vote will split three ways when there are two seats up, and let the right in. Hopefully the SP will get fuck all and the STA and CDFU candidates will win.

I have heard that the SP are actually leaving the STA, perhaps their members on here, who seem reluctant to engage in discussion about this, could confirm that?

 

[urbanrevolt]

But I've checked the STA website and can see no evidence there either of King's program.

As for splitting the vote is it not on a single transferable vote? However, as there is no clear militant strategy from MPD or the SP on this issue I am reluctant to endorse Martin's candidature until I see King's and then only if it is really crap.

More importantly rather than waste too much time debating this why don't we get on with organising on the ground, in the STA and other networks for strike action and other actions to strengthen union members and working class communities' confidence- such as anti-academy campaigns

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I have had a report from someone at the meeting.

The SP have now left the STA and clearly began a detachment at the NUT conference.

A large number of SWP members (around 20) attended the national meeting on 12 May, including several who do not attend their local STA branch regularly but had presumably been asked to go to the national meeting. They were the majority present and had clearly made some effort to mobilise/pack the meeting.

It was unanimously agreed to stand only one candidate for the two posts of VP and to support the CFDU nominee for the other post (Gill Goodswen). There were 3 nominated candidates. An ISG member proposed Roger King, a black independent EC member who has been active on pensions issues and Palestine; the SWP had proposed one of their members but withdrew in favour of Roger King; the SP proposed Martin Powell-Davies, who stood for the general secretaryship some years ago against the STA-backed candidate Ian Murch. Voting was about 30-odd (20 SWP and about 10-12 independents/ISG) for Roger King; 6 for MPD (3 SP and 3 independents).

Even had the SWP not mobilised so strongly, Roger King would have still been the clear winner over Martin Powell-Davies.

The full joint STA/CFDU slate is:

Roger King and Gill Goodswen for V President
Ian Murch for Treasurer
Alyson Palmer and Ken Cridland for Examiner of Accounts.

The election statement of Martin Powell-Davies apparently completely omits any reference to international or environmental issues, despite these being major issues of debate within the union.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

If Fishergate still believes his unique version of history, perhaps he could cite some source for his belief. I've never come across the criticism anywhere else ever - and I've talked to many, many critics of the SWP in the past thirty years

There are documents from the period on the internet from likes of Hallas and Birchall, bemoaning the fact that IS/SWP had to take the burden of running the Rank and File organisations/'movement' because the 'independents' failed to take up a role. This is put down the period of downturn in militancy rather than the modus operandi of the IS/SWP within the R&F group and unions.

There is also an interesting document from Hallas concerning the early period of the CPGB, that talks about 'party fractions' in the unions in the context of the R&F movement and the lessons of the Minority Movement in the 1920s.

I'll try and paste the references some time.

Hallas' hostility to Thornett's candidature for the TGWU secretary in 1977, when Thornett was one of the most recognised left wing workers' leaders in the country (and led genuine mass mobilisation of TGWU members) is especially indicative, given the subsequent demise of the R&F. Although the IMG had important disagreements with Thornett at that time, they were still prepared to support him as the serious left candidate in that election, against the R&F candidate.

The IS/SWP clearly intended to have 'independents' within the R&F organisations, but in practice this was only so long as they were prepared to follow the same line - representatives of other currents were clearly not welcome. The same thing happened in Women's Voice and Flame (the SWP's foray into the black afro-caribbean communities at the time); they increasingly became party organisations. The Right to Work Campaign and Anti Nazi League were ostensibly independent organisations with a wide range of sponsors ranging from football managers to bishops and a few principled left wing labour party figures like Ernie Roberts; however anyone who attempted to get involved with these organisations on the ground will know that they were rigidly controlled by the IS/SWP with no room for anyone who did not want to be a cheerleader and passively accept the line from on top.

 

[Geoff Collier]

There are documents from the period on the internet from likes of Hallas and Birchall, bemoaning the fact that IS/SWP had to take the burden of running the Rank and File organisations/'movement' because the 'independents' failed to take up a role. This is put down the period of downturn in militancy rather than the modus operandi of the IS/SWP within the R&F group and unions.

There is also an interesting document from Hallas concerning the early period of the CPGB, that talks about 'party fractions' in the unions in the context of the R&F movement and the lessons of the Minority Movement in the 1920s.

I'll try and paste the references some time.

Hallas' hostility to Thornett's candidature for the TGWU secretary in 1977, when Thornett was one of the most recognised left wing workers' leaders in the country (and led genuine mass mobilisation of TGWU members) is especially indicative, given the subsequent demise of the R&F. Although the IMG had important disagreements with Thornett at that time, they were still prepared to support him as the serious left candidate in that election, against the R&F candidate.

The IS/SWP clearly intended to have 'independents' within the R&F organisations, but in practice this was only so long as they were prepared to follow the same line - representatives of other currents were clearly not welcome. The same thing happened in Women's Voice and Flame (the SWP's foray into the black afro-caribbean communities at the time); they increasingly became party organisations. The Right to Work Campaign and Anti Nazi League were ostensibly independent organisations with a wide range of sponsors ranging from football managers to bishops and a few principled left wing labour party figures like Ernie Roberts; however anyone who attempted to get involved with these organisations on the ground will know that they were rigidly controlled by the IS/SWP with no room for anyone who did not want to be a cheerleader and passively accept the line from on top.

You're probably right about Thornett, although he and his organisation, was still displaying traces of its WRP origins. I do recall though that we had friendly relationships in some areas though - e.g. Hull University IS Soc supported a WSL member standing for some union position. However I suspect that the nearer you got to Oxford the less likely this was.

But on the main question you've conceded defeat. You admit "The IS/SWP clearly intended to have 'independents' within the R&F organisations". Whether we were cack handed or not is a different question. But clearly you agree that the launch of the SWP was *not* conceived of as incorporating independents into membership against their will.

And can you name a single bishop who supported the Right to Work campaign?

 

[Geoff Collier]

I have had a report from someone at the meeting.

The SP have now left the STA and clearly began a detachment at the NUT conference.

A large number of SWP members (around 20) attended the national meeting on 12 May, including several who do not attend their local STA branch regularly but had presumably been asked to go to the national meeting. They were the majority present and had clearly made some effort to mobilise/pack the meeting.

It was unanimously agreed to stand only one candidate for the two posts of VP and to support the CFDU nominee for the other post (Gill Goodswen). There were 3 nominated candidates. An ISG member proposed Roger King, a black independent EC member who has been active on pensions issues and Palestine; the SWP had proposed one of their members but withdrew in favour of Roger King; the SP proposed Martin Powell-Davies, who stood for the general secretaryship some years ago against the STA-backed candidate Ian Murch. Voting was about 30-odd (20 SWP and about 10-12 independents/ISG) for Roger King; 6 for MPD (3 SP and 3 independents).

Even had the SWP not mobilised so strongly, Roger King would have still been the clear winner over Martin Powell-Davies.

On these figures, even if there had been no SWP presence at all, the result would have been the same.

 

[neprimerimye]

There are documents from the period on the internet from likes of Hallas and Birchall, bemoaning the fact that IS/SWP had to take the burden of running the Rank and File organisations/'movement' because the 'independents' failed to take up a role. This is put down the period of downturn in militancy rather than the modus operandi of the IS/SWP within the R&F group and unions.

There is also an interesting document from Hallas concerning the early period of the CPGB, that talks about 'party fractions' in the unions in the context of the R&F movement and the lessons of the Minority Movement in the 1920s.

I'll try and paste the references some time.

Hallas' hostility to Thornett's candidature for the TGWU secretary in 1977, when Thornett was one of the most recognised left wing workers' leaders in the country (and led genuine mass mobilisation of TGWU members) is especially indicative, given the subsequent demise of the R&F. Although the IMG had important disagreements with Thornett at that time, they were still prepared to support him as the serious left candidate in that election, against the R&F candidate.

The IS/SWP clearly intended to have 'independents' within the R&F organisations, but in practice this was only so long as they were prepared to follow the same line - representatives of other currents were clearly not welcome. The same thing happened in Women's Voice and Flame (the SWP's foray into the black afro-caribbean communities at the time); they increasingly became party organisations. The Right to Work Campaign and Anti Nazi League were ostensibly independent organisations with a wide range of sponsors ranging from football managers to bishops and a few principled left wing labour party figures like Ernie Roberts; however anyone who attempted to get involved with these organisations on the ground will know that they were rigidly controlled by the IS/SWP with no room for anyone who did not want to be a cheerleader and passively accept the line from on top.

Stop blustering and admit that your statement that the SWP turned the R&F groups into party fractions was untrue.

The article from Duncan Hallas you refer to is on my blog http://neprimerimye.blogspot.com/ together with some discussion of it by me. Certainly the SWP made mistakes and engaged in petty sectism but the fact remains that it was the IMG which undemocratically split the Teachers R&F when it found itself in a minority.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...

And can you name a single bishop who supported the Right to Work campaign?

No, I never said they did, read the sentence again. The bishops supported the Anti Nazi League actually. Do you deny that?

 

[urbanrevolt]

I didn't know the SP left the STA, though there mutterings about it at conference. What is urgently needed is a rank and file network of activists acorss the union to organise and co-ordinate action against privatisation, the pay freeze, job cuts, school closures.

The STA is far from being such an organisation though it- and the SP- could form part of a nuclus but we have to engage far more education workers and parents- this is where the debate and action should be in my opinion and leadership contests are only relevant as a way of mobilising support for grassroots action. i think this one will be a distraction, though currently I would advise activists to vote for King or MPD as 1 and 2 or MPD as 1, King as 2- it doesn't matter as far as i can see, though voting against the right is still just about worth the effort- what's imperative is to organise meetings and action on grassroots matters
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1386

 

[Geoff Collier]

No, I never said they did, read the sentence again. The bishops supported the Anti Nazi League actually. Do you deny that?

You wrote "The Right to Work Campaign and Anti Nazi League were ostensibly independent organisations with a wide range of sponsors ranging from football managers to bishops..." without making any distinction between the two.

Of course I wouldn't deny that some bishops sponsored the ANL as did Brian Clough. He was the only football manager I can recall offhand and his support lasted only until School Kids Against the Nazis did something he found offensive. And I don't think their support made much difference to what we did on the ground.

 

[Mallard]

What's sad and predictable about all this is the fact that active workplace reps and association council members have absolutely no idea what's going on with the 'argument in a phone box brigade' whose ideological arguments seem to move in ever decreasing circles. Shame as we're by far the best and only union fighting for teachers at the moment.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Yes and we need to involve far more of those active workplace reps and association committee members in a fighting rank and file movement to make the NUT a members' led union. Of course some of us who are in the STA and in the left are also activists - probably most- but the active reps etc go far beyond our ranks and networks.
The thing is though that whilst I agree I think we should mainly focus on what do in the NUT rather than endless deabte and comeplaint about two left candidates. Presuming Roger's policies are at least or nearly as good as Martin's then if that's the case I think it may be slightly regrettable that there are two candidates (even though single transferrable votes make two candidates in theory oK I think in practice they still give the impression of a split and may lead to less of a left vote). But elections are not primarily where it's at- it's about using the elections and anything else to build up rank and file strength.

How can we do this? Share good practice about successful campaigns on both a workplace level and association level, form public sector committees with Unison and PCS activists here possible, lend full support to anti-privatisation, job cuts and school closure campaigns, public meetings on these issues, an e-mail network of rank and file activists. Any other ideas welcome. Here's another article from www. permanentrevolution.net just in case anyone's interested.
http://www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=1387

Comments on how we can build the union from the bottom up most welcome and in the elections so far I'd just say vote for either left candidate and put your second preference for the other. if both sides campaign for second preference for the other and co-operate on the ground that'saway to begin to hela the rift. Whatever the case we need a rank and file led union with decisions made by ordinary members.