What Are The Lessons For The Left?

After the NUT general secretary election:

What Are The Lessons For The Left?

SINNOTT’S VICTORY was assisted by the sizeable backing that he could rely
on from within the union hierarchy. He has had years in which to build support
and amass considerable financial resources to publicise his campaign.

He was, despite his claims to be the Unity candidate, backed by the
right-wing "Broadly Speaking" grouping in the Union. Of the other candidates,
Ian Murch eventually had the support of the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance (STA),
the Campaign for a Democratic and Fighting Union (CDFU) as well as the
Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP).

John Bangs was backed by the outgoing General Secretary, Doug McAvoy. Bangs
had the advantage of having most of the media appearances for the union handed
to him by McAvoy over the last year or so.

In contrast, our campaign had only a few months to build support for
Socialist Party member Martin Powell-Davies, a candidate standing for election
for the first time and without the national profile held by his opponents.

Without any comparable "machine" behind him, Martin was expected to
struggle even to win enough nominations to get on the final ballot paper. But
his result of 6,482 first-preference votes saw him hold his own and more.

His result is a testimony to the way his stand as a teacher in touch with
the pressures teachers endure struck a chord with many NUT members.

His vote translates into nearly 500 votes per nomination – a far higher
ratio than his opponents. Even taking account of the respective membership of
the nominating NUT Associations, only John Bangs’ vote compares favourably.

Connecting with teachers’ concerns

ALTHOUGH A majority of teachers may never have seen Martin’s campaign
materials there is no doubt his programme and platform connected with the
concerns of classroom teachers.

When Martin’s campaign had the opportunity to put its case, more often than
not, we won the support of those teachers attending the meetings not
previously committed to any candidate.

The campaign slogans – "break with past failures, time to start winning"
and "a teachers’ leader on a teacher’s salary" – summed up the mood of
thousands of NUT members who felt let down by a union leadership that had
failed to stand firm against the intolerable pressures teachers face.

Leading figures in the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance (STA) – like Bernard
Regan and Alex Kenny – dismissed these slogans as "populist". But Regan, the
SWP and others who attack Martin’s campaign fail to understand how a
successful Left campaign has to mobilise teachers by offering something
politically distinct from the failed old guard.

Martin’s call for tougher guidelines to allow overworked teachers to
enforce a real work/life balance always went down well. He also made clear
that he stood for "unity in action with trade unions prepared to stand up to a
government that cannot be trusted", not least over government threats to
teachers’ pensions and to bully support staff into "teaching on the cheap".

Every candidate could list the problems facing teachers but Martin’s
campaign also had a clear programme about the action that could solve them.
Unlike the other candidates he didn’t shy away from raising the need for
collective action and he was the only candidate to mention Iraq in his
election material.

In contrast, Ian Murch was quoted in The Times on 22 June: "I don’t think
we can win on the remodelling agenda by industrial action"!

[Remodelling is the government’s plan to introduce ‘teaching on the cheap’]

Low turnout

THE MOST significant statistic is the overall turnout of less than 22%.
It’s a clear indication that most NUT members were not convinced that the
result of the election would really make a difference to their working lives.

Of course, the NUT leadership’s own failures are the main cause for that
disengagement from the union. But to combat it the Left must engage with
ordinary teachers and enthuse them that we’re worth voting for.

Yet, whilst the turnout was, at least, an improvement on the 16% in the
National Officers election last year, unless more teachers can be persuaded to
overcome their distrust and lack of confidence and be inspired to vote for
change, the right-wing bureaucracy’s machine is likely to remain in charge of
the union.

The Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) have shamefully argued that by standing
Martin split the Left vote and allowed Sinnott to win. But, a close scrutiny
of the voting figures refutes those arguments – the vote for the Left’s
candidates was not enough to overhaul the votes of Steve Sinnott and John
Bangs.

Unfortunately, rather than learn from Martin’s campaign, groups like the
SWP rush to condemn it for "allowing" Sinnott victory by not uniting behind
one candidate.

Of course, having a single opposition candidate can have clear advantages.
But as Ian Murch’s previous defeat in the National Officers’ election shows it
is no guarantee of success. What is critical is having a programme and
approach than can engage with discontented teachers and build an enthusiastic,
united campaign.

And as those in the STA and others who backed Murch found out you can’t
artificially create enthusiasm for a candidate. This was especially the case
after Ian Murch imposed himself as a candidate on rest of the Left – failing
to be selected at a joint meeting in Nottingham last year. Following that,
many expressed doubts about his programme and how accountable he would be if
elected.

Nor did he acknowledge his membership of the CDFU in his election address,
saying he was "not controlled by any party or faction"!

If the same mistakes are not to be repeated, the Left within the NUT need
to learn from the way that, at least where its voice was heard, Martin’s
campaign struck a chord.

After the National Officers’ election, Socialist Party members believed the
Left needed a candidate who was more in-touch with the problems facing
teachers and with a fighting programme and campaigning record. That’s why we
urged Alex Kenny, the convenor of STA and the candidate selected in
Nottingham, to stand.

When Alex withdrew, some on the Left even then threw their weight behind
John Bangs – yet they haven’t been subject to the same vilification as those
who decided to support Martin but clearly called for a transfer to Ian Murch!

Martin’s campaign put pressure on Ian Murch to sharpen his programme and
pulled the election debate to the left. Unfortunately, Ian Murch’s low-key
campaign was not able to convince enough teachers to vote for a change. In
contrast, Martin demonstrated a commitment and built an authority, which
provide a good platform for him to stand again in future elections.

At a fringe meeting at the NUT Conference this Easter, Ian Murch boasted,
with PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka a guest speaker sitting alongside
him, that the NUT had the most articulate and organised Left in any trade
union!

But, unlike the PCS Left, this result shows that the NUT Left still has a
long way to go in building its base amongst local Association officers, school
reps and classroom teachers looking to build a fighting union. Martin
Powell-Davies’ campaign showed how an enthusiastic campaign could be built
with a welcoming approach and a clear programme for change. Now that must be
built upon to build a thriving Left to ensure a fighting leadership for the
NUT in future.

NUT general secretary election result

Candidate Round 1 Round 2  Round 3
John Bangs  10,109 11,190  
Ian Murch  15,360 18,643 22,134 (45%)
Martin Powell-Davies   6,482    
Steve Sinnott  20,359 21,533 27,287 (55%)

Turnout: 52,310 first-preference votes – 21.7% (900 votes were not
transferred on the first transfer and over 2,000 votes were not transferred in
the final transfer).