At the close of the year, we find ourselves in the aftermath of a conference that voted through a watered down plan of action and a decision by the Executive to compromise with the government. The NEU Left has largely failed to act as an opposition within the union. It is divided over questions of national action and support staff rights. It largely does not exist outside of an infrequent bulletin and a faction of the Executive. Without a wider organisation, when the NEU Left is divided or faces significant pressure from the right, they capitulate as they have no forces on which they can rely.

Our aim is the establishment of an organisation of rank-and-file members that can exert pressure on, and provide political leadership for, the Left in the NEU. It should be developed to a level that it is capable of acting independently when necessary of the NEU leadership.

We face three barriers.

• The low level of organisation and politicisation amongst the rank-and-file of the union;

• The absence of a clear programme to fight for; and

• The combination of strength, size, influence, and weakness of the NEU Left.

The first is the hardest to overcome. We will not be able to raise the level of organisation or politicisation of the rank-and-file without going out and organising and engaging in political fights within the union.

The second is already being chipped away at. The recent rs21 article is a great start. “The Four 20s” have emerged organically from the struggle in education, but we should tie them to wider reforms of the education system (abolition of academies, Ofsted etc.), reforms to the structure of the NEU (support staff rights, elections and term limits for officers), and clear political commitments (Palestine solidarity, democracy etc.). This would give the organisation a clear focus on the different fights that take place within the NEU and (hopefully) prevent it from breaking-up/running out of steam when a given campaign is a success or failure. It could enable coalition work on issues where we align, without subordinating ourselves to terrible politics in other areas. Hopefully drawing them into the organisation in the long run.

The final barrier is the existing organisations on the left. First, the SWP. It is the main force behind Educators Say No and the NEU Left. They have significant numbers of activists, but a flawed strategy. Educators Say No is a prime example, it now largely exists to share “good news” of union victories and to campaign for turnout in national ballots. There is no attempt to encourage political interventions by its members. The NEU Left organises in a similar way but instead focuses on the Executive. Their bulletin is infrequent and it is unclear how a member of the NEU Left would write for it. The division between the NEU Left and Educators Say No points to the bad strategy of those behind both initiatives. A single organisation with one strategy and programme, with seats on the Exec. and roots in workplaces, would be much stronger. However, even if this were to happen, they still lack coherent politics. The organisational division makes them susceptible to external pressure from the bureaucracy, the lack of clear strategy and politics makes them susceptible to internal pressure from their own right wing. The Socialist Party (as well as other smaller groups) have pursued a strategy of building a periphery of supporters and sympathisers within the NEU. This has its strengths. The SP has a far clearer strategic vision, and in areas where they are well organised are capable of pursuing agendas independent of the bureaucracy. However, they frequently suffer from a sectarian attitude to the NEU Left, treating them as enemies to be defeated and mistrusted. There is no real attempt to win the membership of the NEU Left and Educators Say No despite these being the biggest left groups in the NEU. This limits their ability to recruit widely and unnecessarily isolates them. By associating themselves primarily with an external organisation, as opposed to a program of action and reform within the NEU, they alienate many activists who might agree with their views on most things within the NEU because they disagree with their approach “outside the union”. They have no strategy to deal with the fact that the SWP exist and are the largest section of the left in the NEU. They simply hope this will change.

Neither a front group with no political unity nor a sectarian group with a small periphery will build a rank-and-file organisation that is large enough, rooted enough, and politically coherent enough to win. Furthermore we cannot start from scratch and pretend these other groups don’t exist or that they don’t represent significant sections of activists that must be won over. Therefore any new organisation must unite elements of the left that already exist in the NEU, behind a common programme for action. This would avoid the problem of isolating ourselves, as it would demonstrate the ability for different groups to work together, bringing in more independent activists. It would also avoid the problem of a front group without politics as the basis for the existence of the organisation would be a commitment to fight for a series of demands and reforms within the NEU, not just a nebulous “Say No” or “Left”.

To summarise, what is necessary in the NEU is an organisation that unites a significant section of the left of the rank-and-file, the lay bureaucracy, and eventually Exec. members behind a common programme of action and union reform in order to hand more power to rank-and-file members over their leadership. This organisation should do this by encouraging action by rank-and-file members and engaging them in programmes of political education and encouraging them to write and publish their views on politics and union strategy.