Martin Cavanagh (MC), a leading member of Left Unity (LU), recently made a number of posts concerning the Assistant General Secretary (AGS) and General Secretary (GS) elections.

Below we reply to his comments concerning debate and Palestine. In further posting(s) we will respond to his remaining points.

1. MC challenged us to “Engage in an honest debate”

John and Marion sought debate – LU candidates did not reply

We agree that debate should have been a key feature of these elections. Open hustings would have helped members to decide who they wanted to vote for in their branch nomination meetings and, afterwards, in the elections. They would also have enabled candidates to challenge any points made by rivals that they thought were incorrect, untrue, unfair.

At the outset of the election process, John Moloney, whose re-election to AGS we are supporting, and Marion Lloyd, standing for GS on a joint ticket with John, wrote to the LU candidates seeking their agreement to hustings, in which the candidates would debate each other in front of members, who would be free to ask questions and make comment.

LU candidates have avoided debate

Unfortunately, from the outset, Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor, the LU candidates for GS and AGS respectively, sought to avoid debate. They risibly claimed that it would be premature of them to attend hustings, because candidates needed to obtain fifteen branch nominations to get on the ballot paper and they would not know who the candidates would be until PCS formally published the branch nominations received by each individual.

The LU candidates knew full well that they, and John and Marion, would easily exceed fifteen nominations each. The LU candidates were just avoiding debate in front of members because, on the record and the arguments, their case is poor (Paul O’Connor did debate John Moloney at HMRC Long Benton but lost heavily). Instead, the LU candidates have sought to rely on the PCS machine, which they and their allies control, to boost their candidates.

In any event, Fran Heathcote and Paul O’Connor were candidates for branch nominations, competing with John Moloney and Marion Lloyd. But even after they were formally notified by PCS that they would be on the ballot paper, the LU candidates still avoided debating John and Marion in front of members. It is hard to have honest debate if the LU candidates will not enter the debating chamber.

These same LU candidates who cannot debate two other PCS representatives nevertheless want members to elect them to negotiate with Ministers and Cabinet Office officials. We respectfully advise members to doubt their capacity and to vote for John and Marion.

Debate and hustings obstructed

The London and South East Region attempted to set up regional wide hustings for the enormous number of members in that region. A single cross branch hustings meeting would have enabled members to hear the candidates directly irrespective of whether their hard pressed branch representatives had organised hustings (the vast majority had not) and boosted membership participation in the election. Any democratic Union leadership should welcome such an initiative.

Instead, the outgoing General Secretary, who is backing his LU allies and friends despite being the returning officer, refused to send out details of the proposed meeting to members. He said that the regional committee had no “locus” in the election process (by strange coincidence, Paul O’Connor has also used this phrase when replying to invitations).  The L&SE Region proceeded to build the hustings as best they could and it proceeded without the presence of the LU candidates. 

LU candidates claim celeb support but are silent on LU supporters who have given on them

Unable to claim the support of members gained in open debate, the LU candidates have instead claimed the support of…celebs! That is their idea of a mature approach to the AGS/GS elections and the key issues impacting members.

While avoiding debate and engaging in silly celeb stunts, the LU candidates choose not to talk about:

• The recent mass resignations from LU of long standing HMRC members who could no longer tolerate the incompetent and exclusive way the LU leadership run PCS.
• The resignations from LU of two longstanding Black NEC members, after being told “We Don’t Do Black for Blacks sake.” One of these NEC colleagues is advising members to vote for John  Moloney and Marion Lloyd.
• A former LU NEC member, who was made redundant, imploring members to vote for Moloney and Lloyd because of her woeful experience of their leadership.

 2. MC challenged us to “Talk about why your candidates seem more interested in the Ukraine than Palestine.”

Despite his use of the plural “candidates”. MC’s challenge was obviously aimed at John Moloney.

In the wake of his call for honest debate, we are compelled to note that his comment is an untrue, unsustainable, and obnoxious attempt to misuse for factional purposes the dreadful events in Israel/Palestine –  which, here in the UK, has seen a disgraceful rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia. This moment requires solidarity and principle from British trade unions.

John Moloney’s election address statement on Israel/Palestine crisis

In his election address, which was submitted before the Israeli invasion of Gaza had begun, John devoted 38 words to Israel/Palestine, compared to 21 words to Ukraine. John did so because he wanted every member to be able to understand his in principle position on the unfolding crisis.

John stated:

“I advocate an immediate halt to the siege of Gaza; condemn Hamas’ attacks; condemn collective punishment of Gaza and settler attacks in the West Bank; and champion an independent Palestine alongside Israel – for two states and equal rights.”

The siege having since turned into invasion, John has supported the calls for an immediate ceasefire. His call for two states is consistent with PCS policy.

The LU candidates election address (non) statements on Israel/Palestine

Neither Paul O’Connor nor Fran Heathcote mentioned Palestine in their election addresses, despite the horror that was unfolding at the time. We only comment upon this now because of the need to set the record straight after MC’s attack on John Moloney.

MC should “Talk about why his candidates seem disinterested in Palestine”

If MC is honest, consistent, and genuinely interested in Palestine, and was not just misusing the horror of what is happening to launch a dire but dim factional attack upon John, he would now publicly demand to know why the LU candidates did not show interest in Palestine in their election addresses or apologise to John. We invite him to do one or the other.

John and Ukraine

PCS has clear policies, established at the 2022 and 2023 Annual Delegate Conferences (ADC),  supporting the Ukrainian people’s right to defend themselves and Ukrainian trade unions.

Motion A55, moved by the NEC at 2023 ADC and overwhelmingly passed, instructed the NEC to send a solidarity delegation to Ukraine in cooperation with Ukrainian unions and the Ukrainian Solidarity Campaign. The NEC subsequently agreed to send John, in his official capacity as AGS, and NEC member Bev Laidlaw, to meet with Ukraine trade unions and deliver some resources. John and Bev Laidlaw duly carried out that task.

At no time has a single LU NEC member claimed that the NEC’s compliance with Motion A55 deprioritised PCS’ solidarity and work around Israel/Palestine. How could they, after submitting A55 to conference? Such a claim would be ridiculous and outrageous, except, perhaps, in the overly factionalised view of MC.