Dear editor
As a famous socialist once wrote we have to deal with how things are and not how we might like them to be. The article "PCS general secretary election" in the October edition accuses Left Unity of "a short sighted hatred" of Barry Reamsbottom and the misnamed Moderate faction. This is a pretty amazing accusation in view of the record and nature of a secretly funded clique with links to the state who are fanatically pro Nato, pro business and aim to purge socialists from the union and civil service. As their key organiser, Reamsbottom's defeat would be an important advance for union members and have a significance for the wider movement.
The decision not to stand a candidate is based on a realistic assessment of our own prospects, important differences between Lanning and Reamsbottom (based on experience in the new union and policy commitments made by Lanning) and an appraisal of the potential damage to union members of a Reamsbottom victory. The election of Lanning will allow us to work in a more democratic union with greater freedom to organise in union branches and groups, challenge New Labour policies and extend the influence of socialist ideas at rank and file level. To suggest, as does the article, that there is no difference between the candidates is at best misleading. We have no illusions in either Lanning or his faction but this a tactical decision for a particular election that will help create a more favourable political environment for socialist ideas.
Unfortunately some elements who appear oblivious to the effect of Reamsbottom's re-election now hope to run a candidate who has no chance of winning. This gamble may well assist his electoral prospects and I am surprised the article was silent on this point. As Trotsky made clear in his timeless advice to US union activists in the thirties, we must avoid an "ultra leftist evaluation of the given situation" or subordinating ourselves to "disguised conservative cliques". There are no absolute certainties in electoral tactics but in what is admittedly a difficult tactical decision we start from the position that the overall interests of union members and the working class in general take precedence over any individual or factional interests. Our decision to give qualified support to Lanning is based on this important principle.
Comradely,
Chris Baugh
Socialist Appeal reply
by Rachel Heemskerk
PCS Branch Secretary South Essex ES (personal capacity)
The battle for the new general secretary of the civil service union PCS is certainly hotting up. On the 20th October, the deadline for nominations, Barry Reamsbottom, the present joint general secretary of PCS, announced he would not be standing.
Two candidates have received sufficient nominations to contest the general secretary election: Hugh Lanning, the union's assistant general secretary, who is supported by the right wing, and Mark Serwotka, a Sheffield-based activist who works in the Department of Social Security benefits division. He put himself forward as the independent left candidate after the narrow decision by Left Unity to back Lanning against Reamsbottom.
As we said in our last article, this election "should have been the perfect opportunity for Left Unity within PCS to take the fight to the members and show that there is a credible alternative to the right wing within the union." Unfortunately, Left Unity chose to back a right winger against another right winger. It was for them a question of the lesser evil, with the defeat of Reamsbottom the over-riding priority.
With Reamsbottom dropping out of the race, no doubt to take up a career in business, Left Unity has been left holding the baby. To get themselves out of this mess, they have been forced to drop their support for Lanning, who is now described as the "right wing candidate", and belatedly come behind Serwotka as the only left alternative.
The leaders of Left Unity, to cover up this mistake, have said that it was their initial support for Lanning that caused Reamsbottom to resign. Their stance has been vindicated! "You pays your money and you takes your choice".
Members of the so-called Socialist Party grouping have also been caught with their pants down. They withdrew their candidate in favour of Lanning, but now want Lanning and Serwotka to withdraw their nominations and re-run the election! It is a bit like the child who wants his ball back when the game is not going his way.
The reality is that if Left Unity's position had been adhered to, then the only name on the ballot paper at this time would have been Hugh Lanning. He would have become the new general secretary by default - with the endorsement of Left Unity.
Left Unity has now switched candidates and come out for Serwotka. This must be confusing for PCS members. Originally Serwotka was denounced by LU officials, while Lanning was heralded as a real step forward. As Chris Baugh stated in his letter: "The election of Lanning will allow us to work in a more democratic union with greater freedom to organise in union branches and groups, challenge New Labour policies and extend the influence of socialist ideas at rank and file level."
To portray Lanning now as the "right wing" enemy can only be described, at best, as switching horses in mid stream.
Trotsky was correctly against "ultra leftist evaluations", but he was also in favour of fighting for clear ideas and distinguishing between right and left. In apt advice to an American trade union official he stated: "Above all, one must tell the masses what's what. It's inadmissible to play hide-and-seek." We hope the lessons will be learned from this unfortunate episode.
The left in PCS have no alternative but to support Mark Serwotka in the election for PCS general secretary. He is the left candidate. Left Unity should have had their own candidate from the start. By now we could have been in a strong position to challenge the right wing for the leadership of the union.