08.10.2008
Make Your Vote Count - how exactly?
Dave Vincent comments on the Public and Commercial Services union's campaign
I agree with Ben Lewis’s article, in which he criticised Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, for appearing to suggest support for non-working class politicians such as Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party (‘What sort of representation’, September 18). I note, with concern, the interest of some other unions in copying the PCS Make Your Vote Count campaign - from which the possibility of backing the likes of Salmond arises. I would like to add my observations as a long-serving PCS activist.
A relevant fact is that the Socialist Party dominates the PCS national executive and Make Your Vote Count (MYVC) is certainly strongly supported by the SP - it may have been an SP idea originally.
What is this campaign supposed to be about? The basic aim is that ordinary PCS members should write to their MPs and all candidates standing in local government and general elections. All branches have been sent well produced campaign packs containing briefings on how to organise letter-writing exercises, suggested questions to ask candidates, advice on the organisation of public hustings or visits to MPs to put them on the spot. Members should then report to their branch members details of any responses.
The main emphasis is on asking election candidates about their stance on PCS policies, such as a return to national collective pay bargaining, anti-privatisation, better pay and so on. Ordinary PCS members can then look at the answers given and make their mind up on who they should vote for (presumably for candidates who claim to support the union’s aims on various issues - but this is assumed, not stated). PCS claims that members getting actively involved in all this is good for engaging them in the political process, for holding politicians (and aspiring politicians) to account and making candidates think about their stance and how civil servants will vote, given the answers received.
The real aim I think, is to wobble Labour candidates into thinking that they had better support PCS members’ concerns - even those against government policy, or face losing their seat - especially in constituencies an area with a high number of civil servants.
PCS has recently publicised this exercise in a double-page spread published in the monthly PCS View (sent to all members direct). This lists the main parties, sets out questions asked and answers given in ‘read across’ columns. However, there is no comment, let alone analysis of the answers - for example, on whether they were considered satisfactory policy commitments or (more likely) just disingenuous guff. And there is certainly no advice from the PCS leadership as to how members should vote as a result.
Which takes me back to Ben Lewis’s article. I was staggered to read his report of Mark Serwotka’s remark at a TUC fringe meeting that “there are pretty good people in other parties”. Such as who, Mark, and why no mention of them in PCS View?
But the campaign raises a number of concerns. Where is the evidence that PCS members are getting involved anywhere in sufficient numbers to make any difference as to who gets elected and what they will be committed to? Suppose a candidate simply tells the PCS activists what they want to hear? Do activists then suggest to their members who they should vote for?
In my own branch we did actually give this a go. Two members went to visit their local MP, who represents a very safe Labour seat, and experienced arrogant disinterest in PCS policies and a clear resentment at being questioned by members.
Other activists organised a hustings event in Manchester. I decided to go along and show my support. Not all the candidates standing for election turned up (including the Labour candidate) and those that did outnumbered the PCS members there to question them! I recall the Lib Dem candidate being present, together with a Green and two left types (I think Respect and some sort of socialist supporter of the Liverpool dockers). So a bit of a flop then.
At PCS conference in May of this year I dared to submit a motion questioning how much PCS was spending on MYVC and suggesting it be wound down to be used just in marginal seats. The monies saved would have been used to finance strike pay. Bear in mind that in 2007 I had put a motion forward trying to open up our political fund to the local membership, so that money could be allocated locally to candidates supporting PCS policies on anti-racism, anti-war, anti-privatisation, etc. In both 2007 and 2008 I was strongly opposed by Socialist Party members.
During the 2008 debate up popped a young woman to oppose my motion and she, with much fire, defended the MYVC campaign (in the usual SP style of great and thunderous indignation) and told us all how much her members in her branch got involved with it and that without the campaign we would not be able to oppose the BNP. Eh? Isn’t PCS affiliated to Unite Against Fascism (as a result of another of my motions actually) - the vehicle for opposing the far right, including during elections?
Her speech was angry stuff, but unreal. No-one else claimed that members were politically engaged due to MYVC or even attempted to offer any evidence that the campaign was having any electoral effect. Nevertheless, if the SP is against you, you lose. So I did - but a quarter of conference was with me. I never did get an answer on how much PCS had spent so far on the campaign.
I cannot understand how SP members (tailed by Socialist Workers Party comrades), despite sponsoring the Campaign for a New Workers’ Party, can argue the MYVC campaign “involves members in political discussion” and “engages them in the political process”, whereas opening up our political fund to provide actual backing for left candidates would not.
I cannot understand either how the MYVC can make any difference if candidates can say what they like (even lie in some cases and pretend to support union policies), while the PCS leadership just leaves it to members to vote how they choose, offering no recommendation, no guidance, no comment.
Where then is the political discussion - rather than just giving publicity to the mainstream pro-capitalist parties? No left alternative was ever proposed (and now Respect and the Scottish Socialist Party have split anyway). As for Mark Serwotka praising arch-opportunist Alex Salmond - on a ‘look at their policies, not party colour’ basis, I am speechless.
Where will this campaign go if the Tories get in at the next general election - will PCS hope members will then vote Labour back into office when their strategy thus far has been to expose its hypocrisy, whilst not offering any alternative (electorally or politically)? What is PCS’s stance in Scotland regarding the SNP and Scottish independence?
You can see why a number of Labour-affiliated unions would relish adapting their own version of the PCS MYVC campaign - in order to urge a Labour vote both at the next general election and after if Labour loses. You can be sure such unions will not ask Labour candidates, ‘Why should our union give your party millions of pounds of our members’ money when you attack their job security, pensions, pay and the services they provide?’
Unison, Unite and the GMB sanction industrial action against the SNP government when it attacks their members’ jobs and pay, whilst in England and Wales they break the united public sector fightback - unanimously agreed at the TUC Congress just two weeks earlier, to save a Labour government which is also attacking their members.
Finally, the SP is spending large amounts of PCS money on supposed electoral activity with no proof of any beneficial effects - while claiming the union cannot afford to fund paid selective action and opposing even paying some of the monies wasted on this glossy literature into our hardship fund.
Does the ‘revolutionary’ SP believe the only way to change society is through voting in, and fostering illusions in, parliamentary democracy? That would appear to be the sum total effect of the SP-dominated NEC strategy.
I have argued that PCS View ought to carry articles about our trade union and political working class history, so we can educate our members on how all their employment and civil right benefits had to be fought for and encourage them to demand more societal benefits from the fourth richest nation on earth. We should be promoting in members an awareness of their class interests and the confidence to stand up for themselves - not directing them to look to parliamentary careerists and opportunists and just vote once every five years.
Not one article has so far appeared along these lines under a union in the control of a left (SP-dominated) NEC. No doubt they think we should all buy The Socialist if we want to read anything political.
The one question that remains unanswered by the PCS Make Your Vote Count campaign is: How exactly? At a time when millions of voters are rightly questioning the credibility of parliamentary parties and the integrity of MPs - and deciding not to legitimise their lies by voting for them - PCS is suggesting they do!
