26.09.2007

Time to unite our fractured ranks

Dave Vincent (secretary of the Greater Manchester DCA branch of the PCS and is writing in a personal capacity) looks at the divided left in the PCS

It can be very confusing to try to present an overview of the left in the Public and Commercial Services Union, as the PCS was formed from a number of mergers of separate civil service unions over the last 10 years - some with their own left groupings.

The most relevant is the group that came together in the 1980s under the banner 'CPSA Broad Left', which was dominated by the then Militant Tendency. In 1984 there was a split with a group walking out because of the stifling domination of Militant and a huge row over industrial strategy. The split, known as BL84, was to the right of Militant.

Fast-forward to the PCS in 2007, when the PCS National Left Unity saw a walkout by a grouping calling itself Independent Left (IL) "¦ because of the stifling domination of the Socialist Party and a row over industrial strategy. In contrast to BL84, however, IL is to the left of the SP (or at least, in this very new organisation, the creators see themselves as such).

I am someone who has attended CPSA/PCS national conferences for over 20 years and am one of the few independents who oppose the electoral bloc between Left Unity (LU) and the PCS Democrats - the Democracy Alliance. I feel the left-dominated PCS national executive committee sold out our future members over the pensions deal and have opposed that same NEC over several other issues. But I am still a member of LU, although I have been invited to join IL.

The first act of the newly created IL was to mount an electoral challenge to the Left Unity/Socialist Party-dominated NEC in the elections held in April earlier this year. Of the four factions contesting the NEC - two left, two right - IL came bottom (only one in nine PCS members bothering to vote).

I had feared IL would split the left vote, handing power back to the right wing. However, Left Unity issued a mailing condemning IL and actually got their supporters to deliver a higher vote for the Democracy Alliance electoral pact.

One unfortunate consequence of the IL NEC challenge was the loss of the two NEC seats won by Socialist Caucus members. (PCS Socialist Caucus - a grouping half in, half out of Left Unity and half in, half out of the Labour Party - has not yet been wound down in favour of IL. One motion for the IL conference to be held on September 29 in London proposes just that and urges those SC members still in LU to leave and join IL.)

To compare the electoral strengths of the four factions we can look at the 2007 ballot results for the position of PCS president. Janice Godrich (SP and LU) won with 14,347 votes, ahead of Jake Wilde of '4 the members' (a rightwing breakaway from the National Moderate Group), who came second with 9,599. Stuart Christie of the National Moderate Group itself came third with 5,838 votes, while Christine Hulme (IL) picked up just 3,158 votes.

In the NEC elections IL stood 15 candidates for the 30 NEC places and its best results were 59th, 60th and 62nd. Successful candidates typically got 12,000 votes, but IL's best result was 6,400 votes, while its worst was 3,665. Another motion for debate at Saturday's conference calls for IL to stand again for the 2008-09 NEC, but makes no mention of whether the aim is to go for overall control. Interestingly there appears to be some support for supporting the better LU candidates - something I argued IL should have done in the first place.

Independent Left was invisible at the 2007 national PCS conference in May. Perhaps IL delegates were excluded from being called up to speak on the major issues (possible, as the president is in the SP and has no love for IL). Or it might be that IL has few 'big hitters' able to establish the faction before an audience of 1,200 delegates (who are usually branch secretaries/chairs crucial to delivering members votes in NEC elections).

Saturday September 29 will be IL's first real conference. PCS members can attend and can join on the day, but only IL members will be able to vote. The numbers attending will be a significant indicator of whether IL is growing. I await the outcome of its conference (and attendance figures) with keen interest.

One of the issues debated will be the fact that PCS has just held its "biggest ever consultation of members" on the next steps to be taken to fight Gordon Brown's 2% pay rise limit, compulsory redundancies and job losses. Members are to be balloted soon, although details of any proposed strategy are as yet unclear.

IL is arguing:

1. For coordinated industrial action with other public sector unions affected by the pay cap.

2. That PCS "step up the legal and political challenge" (it is not explained what this means - not to vote Labour perhaps?) to the government over pay.

3. For a voluntary national levy and full strike pay for those taking selective action.

Much of the arguments used by IL in support of the above seem fair enough. However, such strategies have been argued for at previous PCS national conferences and defeated when Mark Serwotka and the SP oppose them.

The IL newsletter gives arguments against the SP line on why selective action cannot win. It correctly states that the way selective action was used (same offices out for months at a time) was the problem, not the selective action weapon in itself.

Writing in the Weekly Worker, Alan Stevens said this about the breakaway from Left Unity: "The Socialist Caucus in the PCSU were probably right to break from the main left grouping dominated by the collaborationist politics of the SP, but programmatically they are all at sea. Greater militancy may work in small sectional disputes or even in whole departments, but they are very prone to being picked off. They also, like every other section of the trade unions, have no real fighting capacity in terms of cohering and leading the membership in a systematic way" (February 1).

I think that analysis still stands up. For me, major factors will be whether other public sector unions talking about strikes will hold ballots, and, if won, will actually act upon them. Will they will agree to coordinate joint action with fellow unions or hope to do a deal with Brown for their own members? They talked tough over pensions before cutting their own sectional deals.

If PCS takes another day of action on its own I fear it will not have the support delivered in January and May and that will cause mass demoralisation. The NEC will not call for all-out action (or even pose the question for discussion) and will not allow paid selective action, it seems. It is unlikely to sanction unofficial action, as taken by the Prison Officers Association. If other unions (most are affiliated to the Labour Party and will not want to embarrass Gordon Brown, remember) will not take coordinated action, where will that leave PCS?

I quite by chance recently came across a 1985 CPSA edition of Broadside, where 22 years ago the Militant-dominated Broad Left was arguing for a united public sector fightback over pay - and for CPSA to affiliate to the Labour Party! Today the first aim has still to be achieved and the second aim dropped - in favour of ...?

So it is not for the first time that I am amazed at union activists pushing for militant action who also support the Labour Party. You cannot represent the interests of PCS members fighting job cuts, pay caps and privatisation and then urge them to vote for a government making those attacks.

This is the time to challenge Brown before he claims a mandate in a general election to launch the planned further attacks on workers, especially those in the public sector. Just the threat of using our collective voting power could stop the Labour government, but neither the SP nor IL will take such a position.

I moved a motion at PCS national conference urging the union to allow some of the monies in its political fund to be used by ordinary members to support parties/candidates to the left of New Labour after union meetings called for the purpose. Such candidates would have to be in support of major PCS policies such as those against war, racism and privatisation. No-one from IL supported me and the SP opposed my motion.

There are no motions about any stance to be taken on parties/individuals to the left of New Labour at the IL conference, nor any mention of socialism. (Worthy of support, however, is the policy for annual election of full-time union officials, to be paid the average worker's wage.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, most of the motions to be debated at the IL conference are about internal organisation, accountability, membership, 'what we stand for', finance and so on - which is what you would expect from any new organisation. Surprisingly, though, given the politics and solid union service of some of those behind the creation of IL, few motions are political. Nevertheless, if the conference is well attended and IL goes on to attract new members, it could really challenge Left Unity.

I have long-running difficulties with where Left Unity is going and its SP-dominated culture and practices. But I also have problems with left groups constantly splitting into ever smaller, ever less influential factions. So when do you stay in and fight and when should you leave?

For all my expressed concerns, IL's motives are well intentioned - they are certainly striving for a real democratic culture.