Introduction: why this consultation is important for you
Annual Delegate Conference 2010 carried motion A40 on political campaigning. The NEC was instructed to consult branches on detailed proposals for standing or supporting candidates in elections. This page explains how your branch can submit its view to the consultation.
This consultation comes at a time when members’ interests are under greater attack than ever from this new Coalition Government and its programme of cuts. Already the proposals announced amount to – in the words of the Institute for Fiscal Studies – “the longest, deepest, sustained periods of spending cuts since at least the Second World War”. Every major political party is arguing that cuts are necessary to solve the national deficit, but we know there are alternatives. The consultation is part of this campaign, by adding another campaigning tool to our union.
In this period, the union is seeking to build alliances – working with other trade unions and community campaigns – to fight the cuts consensus. Our political campaigning is an essential part of that struggle. Standing or supporting electoral candidates could be a useful tool in some circumstances – enabling us to build alliances and making us better-placed to raise the alternatives.
This consultation looks at some of the detailed practical questions about our union standing or supporting candidates in national elections, which we would like members to discuss in their branches, groups, regions and equality networks.
This consultation is therefore different to the consultation on motion A72 last year, which asked for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the principle of standing or supporting candidates. We are now asking branches to discuss how we might stand candidates in practice, as part of our overall campaigning strategy, and how some of the issues and concerns raised through the A72 consultation might be dealt with.
Responses to this consultation will inform proposals to ADC 2011. If the ADC approves these proposals, they would then be put to PCS members in a full membership ballot. We have sought to engage members throughout this process – and it will be members that decide whether PCS, like many other unions, has the ability to stand or support candidates.
The proposal has always been that PCS would only consider standing or supporting candidates in constituencies where no other candidate supported our aims, and where it would benefit our campaigns. In practice, this means that PCS would not seek – either alone or in conjunction with others – to run candidates in every seat, but to have the option to stand where it would extend our campaigning to benefit members’ interests.
There are no implications for members’ subs from these proposals. Any funding required would be drawn from the Political Fund – and membership subscriptions would not increase to fund the standing or supporting of candidates.
Mark Serwotka Janice Godrich
General Secretary President
Background: The need for a political campaigning approach
PCS has built a reputation among members and the wider movement as an effective campaigning organisation. We campaign to advance the core interests of PCS members in protecting their terms and conditions, their rights at work, and to defend the welfare state and public services generally.
Our campaigning takes different forms: from local leafleting and using petitions with the public to using the national media, lobbying MPs and other work in the political arena.
We engage in political campaigning because MPs and Ministers take the decisions which determine members’ pay, jobs, pensions and working conditions, as well as the public services we both deliver and use. By getting involved in such work we are able to fight much harder to defend our basic interests.
Political campaigning is not a separate agenda, but a tool to advance our aims in the workplace – to support our industrial strategy, to help us in bargaining situations, and to give us a campaigning voice to argue for alternatives.
Political Fund
In 2005, members voted 80% in favour of establishing a Political Fund. This permitted PCS to engage in campaigning that is perceived to be ‘political’. When campaigning to defend jobs, pay and pensions we wanted to be able to use every possible weapon in our armoury. The overwhelming ‘yes’ vote for a Political Fund enabled us to break free of the legal constraints we faced and step up our campaigns.
Today, our political campaigning includes the ongoing work of our Parliamentary Group, our Make Your Vote Count (MYVC) campaign, and our anti-fascist campaigning.
The rules of our Political Fund make clear that the funds will not be used to affiliate to any political party – and there is no intention to change that. We campaign politically, but we remain politically independent, driven by our members and their priorities. Our only loyalty is to members.
Working in Parliament
Our parliamentary groups in Westminster, Scotland and Wales have been working on members’ behalf for several years now. We also work with members of the legislative assembly in Northern Ireland. Reflecting the fact that PCS is not affiliated to any political party, we have members of all political parties in our groups. They ask questions, meet Ministers, and initiate debates on behalf of members.
This approach – combined with members lobbying their political representatives – has enabled us to save workplaces from closure and privatisation, and to defend our members’ terms and conditions.
MYVC campaign
Our MYVC campaign began in 2007 in response to the growing political consensus among the major political parties for civil service job cuts. MYVC has boosted our campaigns and our profile as a union.
MYVC aims to involve as many PCS members as possible in asking their candidates at election times where they stand on the key issues that affect our members. We then publish the candidates’ answers locally and on our website ahead of the elections so that members can use the information when they cast their vote.
This process has often been effective in making politicians aware of our concerns, but it has also exposed the lack of real choice often faced by our members and others at election times as the consensus over cuts in civil and public services prevails. We also know that some politicians will say one thing before an election, but act differently after the election.
Anti-fascist campaigning
In our MYVC we exclude parties of the far right, like the BNP, because they are opposed to our fundamental commitment to equality. PCS members, and the union nationally, have worked with local anti-fascist groups and supported national initiatives run by Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism to oppose the far right.
Consulting with members about Political Campaigning
Annual Delegate Conference (ADC) 2009 carried motion A72 on political campaigning (see Appendix 1). The motion instructed the NEC to consult branches on the question of supporting trade union candidates in elections, and on the question of PCS candidates standing in elections, and then report to ADC 2010.
The consultation with branches took place from December 2009 until the end of February 2010. As reported to ADC 2010, the A72 consultation responses showed a majority of branches (about 64%) in favour of standing or supporting candidates in elections in certain circumstances.
However, the A72 consultation also raised a number of detailed questions about how this would work in practice – both from branches who voted in favour and against the proposal.
The NEC considered these issues, raised in the A72 consultation, and drafted motion A40 (see Appendix 2) to ADC 2010. A40 calls for a further consultation within the union about how standing or supporting candidates might work in practice – examining all the potential problems that were raised through the A72 consultation.
Delegates at ADC 2010 passed A40 on a card vote by 153,470 (64%) to 86,799 (36%), and so this consultation continues the process of consulting with members about this proposal.
We are asking branches to respond to this consultation by 22 November 2010.
After the NEC has analysed the responses, they will consider a new resolution to be put to ADC 2011. If the resolution supports the idea of standing or supporting candidates in elections – and if delegates back the motion – then the whole membership of the union would be balloted to decide whether we wish to proceed.
The political situation has of course changed since motion A72 was passed in 2009, and branches were first consulted. We now have a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in government and a programme of devastating spending cuts before us.
We believe it is more important than ever that our political profile is raised and alternative voices are heard. This consultation takes forward the proposals to stand or support candidates and seeks to give us another way in which to challenge the cuts consensus.
A40 consultation debates:
There are several issues that were identified in the A72 consultation on Political Campaigning that require further and more in-depth discussion within the union.
Below is a summary of the debates that emerged from the A72 consultation, about which this consultation seeks to hear members’ views:
The Issue: Candidate Selection process
What’s in question? How the process of candidate selection works: what is the role for local members and branches; and what role for the NEC, as the ruling body of the union
NEC comment: We believe that local members must have a say in choosing the candidate for their area.
However, the decision to stand in the first place is a strategic one and would need NEC approval for the candidate to be recognised as PCS-backed. We would seek to stand in constituencies where we could advance members’ interests as part of our overall strategy. While the NEC would take the final decision on this, it would need input from local members and branches to inform its decision.
The NEC supports the idea of consulting local members and branches, since it would be local members who would be needed to support the election campaign on the ground.
As we seek to work with others (i.e. other unions or community campaigns) in supporting or standing candidates we cannot be too prescriptive. However, any candidate selection process would have to be consistent with the union’s democratic principles.
The issue: Civil Service Code
What’s in question? PCS members are prevented from standing for Parliament by the civil service code. Members working in the civil service would have to resign their jobs before standing without any guarantee of re-employment after the election campaign.
In the consultation, some branches recommended that the union should campaign to change the civil service code to allow members to stand.
NEC comment: In some departments, there are agreements in place whereby non-elected candidates can return to their jobs after an election campaign. However, such agreements are not in place across the whole civil service.
As a union we are opposed to political restrictions on members, which are an undemocratic assault on their civil rights. We will campaign and negotiate for their repeal. This should not however be a generalised problem since we would only ever be seeking to stand in a handful of constituencies, and so would not require a huge pool of candidates. We are also seeking to work with others (e.g. other trade unions or campaigning organisations) and so it will not necessarily be the case that a candidate is a PCS member.
The Issue: Backing candidates from other parties
What’s in question? Whether the union backs candidates from existing parties where they have supported PCS campaigns and policies or whether we should only back independents / candidates as part of a one-off coalition
NEC comment: In the consultation the question was raised as to whether the union might give funding to the election campaigns of individual candidates who are members of political parties (e.g. Labour MP John McDonnell).
We will not seek to affiliate to any political party. The union’s Political Fund rules states that:
Rule F4: No payments shall be made from the fund in respect of the affiliation by the union to any political party, save where such affiliation has been approved by the members of the union in a ballot held in accordance with the union’s rules.
Other non-affiliated unions such as the FBU and RMT do back individual candidates or one-off coalitions in elections without giving any money to a political party centrally.
The main focus of moving towards a policy of standing or supporting candidates is to give voters a choice where none currently exists, and to get a wider audience for the union’s policies.
This would mean our prime focus would be to support or stand candidates where there is no choice, although members may wish to support existing candidates in exceptional circumstances.
The Issue: the BNP
What’s in question? Some have argued that standing in areas where the BNP is strong could split the vote and let the fascists in, while others suggest that standing candidates in exactly these places gives us the opportunity to argue more directly against the BNP.
NEC comment: The NEC values the anti-fascist work members do in support of Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism. Our anti-fascist work is done in consultation with other unions and anti-fascist organisations.
The NEC would therefore make an assessment of the situation in the constituency before deciding on standing or supporting candidates in any area where the BNP was strong.
The issue: Electoral platform
What’s in question? Motion A72 from ADC 2009, mentioned the debate on standing or supporting candidates “on the basis of opposition to privatisation, closures, and attacks on workers’ rights”. However, in the subsequent consultation many respondents thought the platform must be wider than this encompassing other issues such as equalities, international policy, etc
NEC comment: As a predominantly public sector trade union, our main spur to standing or supporting candidates would be where no candidate supports the direct interests of our members on job security, pay, pensions, etc. The MYVC campaign identified that in some areas no candidate was standing up for public services, and opposed to privatisation. That is the gap that standing or supporting candidates seeks to fill.
A commitment to the union’s equality policies would of course be non-negotiable for any candidate seeking our support. Other policies as part of the electoral platform would depend on what is a topical issue at the time of the election.
As we seek to work with others (i.e. other unions or community campaigns) in supporting or standing candidates we cannot be too prescriptive. However, any campaign supported by PCS would have to be consistent with the union’s principle rules and policies.
The issue: Standing in ‘list system’ elections (of particular interest to members in Scotland and Wales)
What’s in question? In Scotland and Wales, the national elections use the Additional Member System (AMS). This means that as well as the traditional constituency seats being contested, there are also so-called ‘top-up’ seats elected under proportional representation from a wider area, by party lists. Electors therefore have two votes: one for a candidate in their constituency and the second for a party list in their region.
NEC comment: Motion A72 from ADC 2009, asked for the consideration of whether to “stand candidates on the basis of opposition to privatisation, closures, and attacks on workers’ rights”. We believe that local campaigns are the most effective in highlighting local office closures and campaigns – and evidence shows that there is higher media coverage of contests in constituency seats than there is on list candidates.
We are also explicitly not proposing to either form or support parties, and therefore do not believe we would stand candidates under list systems.
The referendum on electoral reform
The proposed referendum on electoral reform for Westminster elections is on the Alternative Vote (AV) system. AV keeps single member constituencies, and is not a proportional system. PCS policy is in favour of proportional representation (PR), and so it is disappointing that the coalition government has ignored calls for PR.
Under AV, if no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate's ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next preference on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among the remaining candidates.
The result of the referendum will have little impact on the proposals in this paper. However, there would be some who would see AV as a significant change as it would enable them to use a second preference vote as well if they felt torn between two options or could vote for a least worst option to keep out a candidate or party they did not want.
The referendum on whether to change from the current ‘First-past-the-post’ system to AV will take place in May 2011.
How this might all work in practice
To assist branches in their discussions, we have set out below some possible scenarios about how the process might work in practice – referring to the issues raised above. These examples are given to prompt debate and raise ideas about what issues might arise when considering standing or supporting candidates:
Scenario 1
A by-election has been called where the MP has resigned due to ill health. In the same constituency a local public service has been earmarked for closure. PCS members and members of the public have been campaigning locally to keep the office open and have been lobbying the relevant ministers, to no avail. The three main political parties and their candidates are not supportive of the local campaign – all finding good reasons in their minds for the service to be closed.
A leading PCS member of the campaign is happy to stand as a candidate on a defend public services platform. They accept that they will have to quit their job to stand as they have an agreement with their employer to return to their job. Local members back the candidate standing, and widespread support is built up locally. Following a recommendation from local branches, the NEC agrees to back the candidate.
Scenario 2
A by-election has been called in a constituency where an MP has died. In the constituency there has been cross union public service alliance work taking place in defence of a local sorting office and against the closure of a small hospital. A wide range of union members, together with local community groups and members of the public have been working together to publicise the proposed cuts and closures.
A member of a local community group decides to stand in the election on a ‘no cuts’ platform. Labour affiliated unions locally cannot formally support the standing of the candidate, but many of the local members do support the candidate’s election campaign. PCS and the local community swing behind the election campaign. The campaign is focused on the local hospital, but there are wider statements in defence of public services.
Scenario 3
A prominent government minister, responsible for widespread cuts is standing for re-election at a general election. Opponents from the major political parties are not campaigning against the cuts that the minister has made. Local trade union members and activists groups come together to select an anti-cuts candidate who will stand and whose campaign will highlight the case against cuts and for well-funded public services.
Scenario 4
An unpopular Minister is standing for re-election. The Minister does not have a record of supporting public services, and will not sign up to the PCS MYVC pledges. The opposition parties are also supporting cuts. A fascist party is also standing and has an outside chance of winning the seat. One local PCS branch is in favour of standing a candidate while another is not.
The NEC consults with branches and with anti-fascist organisations and decides that it would be the best use of resources to fund the local anti-fascist campaign with specific pro-public services materials.
Scenario 5
An MP is standing for re-election to Parliament. The MP in question has worked tirelessly on behalf of PCS members, supported our campaigns and joined our members on picket lines – they also pledge to continue this work in the future.
The NEC and local branches call for the MP to be backed in recognition of the work the MP has done in not only defending our services, but voicing an alternative to cuts.
How to respond
Please discuss the issues in your Branch. Then answer the consultation questions and respond:
By email: A40consultation@pcs.org.uk or
By post:
A40 consultation
General Secretary’s Office
PCS
160 Falcon Road
London
SW11 2LN
A40 consultation
General Secretary’s Office
PCS
160 Falcon Road
London
SW11 2LN
The deadline for receipt of responses is 22 November 2010
What happens next?
The NEC will consider the results of the consultation and submit a motion to ADC 2011. If ADC 2011 decided to proceed with the idea of standing or supporting candidates then there would be a full membership ballot to endorse or reject this proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment