Spgb takes over the unions!
- This topic has 29 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
According to the Times the SPGB (in alliance with the Trotskyoid Awl) is on the verge of taking over the teachers union.
unfortunately the times is paywalled
SPGB-AWL alliance to take over teachers' unions, claims this morning's Times… http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4132635.ece
Quote:Militant left plotting union takeover, teachers warned An ultra-left alliance of “Trots” is trying to seize control of Britain’s biggest teachers’ union from within, a former leader has warned. Fred Jarvis, a former general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, has appealed to teachers to fight back by voting for mainstream candidates. In a book to be published next week, he accuses a grassroots network of NUT activists of being a vehicle for entryism tactics similar to those used by the Militant group in the Labour party in the 1980s. A chapter on the politics of the NUT says its 45-member national executive committee is in the grip of a “hotchpotch of Trots”, but says it is important to distinguish between different left factions, some at odds with each other. His most serious criticism, however, is aimed at an alliance of left-wing teachers launched in Liverpool in 2012 to press for an escalation of industrial action against Michael Gove’s school reforms after the NUT called off one of its strikes. This grouping, the Local Associations National Action Campaign (Lanac), has tried to mobilise NUT branches and co-ordinate conference motions to call for more frequent strikes. Mr Jarvis said: “You have got this Lanac, which I have called in the book the NUT’s Militant Tendency because of what happened within the Labour party. You had groups that were trying to form a party within a party. That’s what the Lanac outfit boils down to.” Lanac has links to the two far-left groups, the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty. Its influence in the union, however, is limited. It claims to have eight supporters on the NUT executive and its call for four days of strikes in the autumn term was defeated at the annual conference in April. The NUT’s biggest hard-left grouping is the Socialist Teachers Alliance, with about 15 members on the executive. A smaller left faction, the Campaign for a Democratic and Fighting Union (CDFU), has about seven, while the more mainstream broad left has 15. Mr Jarvis, 89, who led the NUT from 1975 to 1989, said the power wielded by left and ultra-left factions within the NUT was fairly recent — “within the last six or seven years” — and said teachers had lost influence and respect as a result. “Up until then the so-called broad left had a majority on the executive,” he said. “Basically, they have lost that. They are still on the executive but they are no longer in the majority. Throughout my time we never had the extreme or ultra-left we have today.” Mr Jarvis added: “Within the conference, in my view, the general flavour at the moment doesn’t reflect the overall allegiance of the members. When you look at the population as a whole and opinion polls of teachers that have been held over the years, they have moved, to some extent, more leftwards but they have not moved that far left by any means.” His comments follow the re-election this week of Christine Blower, previously a leading figure in the CDFU, as the NUT’s general secretary.It is not the times which makes the claim, but a yet to be published book.This should still allow for a 'right to reply' ,from us.
The author of the book, Fred Jarvis, is stupid if he thinks the Socialist Party of Great Britain is involved with the 'Local Associations National Action Campaign (Lanac)' of NUT members. As Clause 7 states, 'the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.' As such the party does not get involved with other organisations, let alone deceptive fronts.The SPGB does not take over unions as trade unions themselves are in the best place to judge what economic concessions they can extract from their industry to improve wages of their members.
jondwhite wrote:The SPGB does not take over unions as trade unions themselves are in the best place to judge what economic concessions they can extract from their industry to improve wages of their members.But SPGB members can be union members (and officials) and their political beliefs may well be known within the union.In the Sunderland Shipyards, for example, there were union officials known to be members of the SPGB.It is up to the union membership to stand up against capitalist propaganda aimed at socialists within the union and yes even those claiming to be socialist. Unions have specific functions but they should not include targeting members for their political beliefs.Does the book or article refer to labourites, liberals or tories? Probably not.It will be a sad day when socialists and 'socialists' are not allowed to be members of or influence their trade union.
Could there be some confusion with, The Socialist Party formerly known as Militant Tendency, and the SPGB?In the quoted piece, Militant Tendency is mentioned. I can't imagine any SPGB members in any union would be seeking to organise a "takeover", with an aim to using unions as futile, political battering rams.It's just not socialist cricket, old chap, now is it?
"But SPGB members can be union members (and officials) and their political beliefs may well be known within the union."As the Communist Manifesto puts it "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims."Yes i think it is very likely that it is a misunderstanding….Socialist Party of Great Britain for Socialist Party of England and Wales. But we should make the most of the mistake to follow up to have a correction made and if possible include part of our attitude toward trade unionism. I would make no mention of SPEW but take the claim at face-value to deny. Let them explain their own reason for the error.
Nevertheless it is good publicity for the S.P.G.B. from an unexpected source. Perhaps you could ask the teachers union if you can send speakers to clarify the S.P.G.B. position, rather than letting some misguiding wannabe writer scribble about the S.P.G.B. with his poisoned pen, unopposed.
In 1974, the common market adopted a" Resolution on the right of reply [res. (74) 26].You could always inform the Times, you wish to exercise that right !
northern light wrote:In 1974, the common market adopted a" Resolution on the right of reply [res. (74) 26].You could always inform the Times, you wish to exercise that right !http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/cm/res%281974%29026_EN.asp
One for our media dept then. Perhaps the trots concerned will change their name back to Militant to avoid getting confused with us. I'm sure the AWL too will be shocked to be accused of being associated with us. One of our members who is in the NUT I talked to didn't think much of the Leftwing caucuses in it. He said they weren't really representative of the membership.
I think that may only refer to individuals
Further down, they define 'individual' :-4. In the above principles:i. the term "individual" is to include all natural and legal persons as well as other bodies irrespective of nationality or residence, with the exclusion of the state and other public authorities;at the bottom, there's this :-APPENDIXMINIMUM RULES REGARDING THE RIGHT OF REPLY TOTHE PRESS, THE RADIO AND THE TELEVISIONAND TO OTHER PERIODICAL MEDIA1. Any natural and legal person, as well as other bodies, irrespective of nationality or residence, mentioned in a newspaper, a periodical, a radio or television broadcast, or in any other medium of a periodical nature, regarding whom or which facts have been made accessible to the public which he claims to be inaccurate, may exercise the right of reply in order to correct the facts concerning that person or body.2. At the request of the person concerned, the medium in question shall be obliged to make public the reply which the person concerned has sent in.3. By way of exception the national law may provide that the publication of the reply may be refused by the medium in the following cases:i. if the request for publication of the reply is not addressed to the medium within a reasonably short time;ii. if the length of the reply exceeds what is necessary to correct the information containing the facts claimed to be inaccurate;iii. if the reply is not limited to a correction of the facts challenged;iv if it constitutes a punishable offence;v. if it is considered contrary to the legally protected interests of a third party;vi. if the individual concerned cannot show the existence of a legitimate interest.4. Publication of the reply must be without undue delay and must be given, as far as possible, the same prominence as was given to the information containing the facts claimed to be inaccurate.5. In order to safeguard the effective exercise of the right to reply, the national law shall determine the person who shall represent any publication, publishing house, radio, television or other medium for the purpose of addressing a request to publish the reply. The person who shall be responsible for the publication of the reply shall be similarly determined and this person shall not be protected by any immunity whatsoever.6. The above rules shall apply to all media without any distinction. This does not exclude differences in the application of these rules to particular media such as radio and television to the extent that this is necessary or justified by their different nature.7. Any dispute as to the application of the above rules shall be brought before a tribunal which shall have power to order the immediate publication of the reply.(my bolds)So, the local British Law should allow a reply, if the above hasn't been superceded.
norm_burns wrote:i. if the request for publication of the reply is not addressed to the medium within a reasonably short time;This may be a problem as the party is not renouned for its rapid response
Can't be as bad as this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55fqjw2J1vISorry about that, just couldn't resisit it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.