Once upon a time, the General Secretary would be provided with column inches in major newspapers like the Guardian and Independent to promote the interests of members and articulate the unions positions. Now, with the waning of our influence, the self-imposed collapse of our national dispute, the haemorrhaging of membership in the civil service and the lowest pay offer in the public sector, the relevance of our voice and the resulting offers of air time has dwindled.

It is somewhat telling, and not a little disheartening, that the end of his 23-year stint as head of the union is marked not by rallying calls to members and attacks on the government on TV and popular media, but by misleading claims about members’ pay and attacks on his own members in much smaller left-wing publications.

The most explicit example of this being this recent interview with the tribune magazine following the result of the pay strategy ballot.

More money from the government than in 40 years of the union?

In this interview, Mark attempts to justify shutting down the dispute on the basis that the 4.5% pay increase – the lowest in the public sector – was “more money from the government for the first time in 40 years”.

Of course, in purely percentage terms this is correct. However, the leadership mighty want to consider for a moment whether such a low percentage is something to be so publicly boastful of, considering they have been in control of the union for over half that time.

No, the obvious problem with this justification is that in real terms it’s a much worse settlement for members than in many of the last 20 years. Members are much worse off with the deal relative to the rise in the cost of living than in decades. Mark’s no fool – he understands how inflation works – but without a genuine reason for abandoning the dispute, obfuscation and spin that is well removed from the reality of the material conditions of his members, is the last refuge.

Not that Mark personally will have felt the pinch, after all, the subs of all members, including those who remain on the breadline, are contributing to his £100k salary and will continue to fund his significant pension well after he’s left.

“Being radical without representing the members”?

Whether prompted or not – we are convinced the former – the interviewer goes on to ask Mark why he’s supporting Fran Heathcote as his successor.

In a 7 paragraph response, which we can assume has been edited down, there is not a single reference to a policy or idea that Fran is putting forward to members.

Instead, it appears that the sole reasons for members to support Fran are 3-fold.

Firstly, that she’s a woman: But so is her opponent, Marion Lloyd.

Secondly, that she has shared responsibility for the state the union is currently in: a haemorrhaging density rate and the lowest % membership in the civil service in over half a century.

And lastly, that she is the joint architect of the strategy and outcome of the recent pay dispute – where, not to labour the point, the leadership won the worse pay deal in the public sector, nay entire economy.

In a nutshell, Vote Fran and Paul for more of the same. Are you not inspired?

With that taking up about 2 paragraphs, Mark spends the remainder of his answer to that question attacking his own members.

He talks about the “sectarianism from small elements… making the mistake of being radical without necessarily representing the people they’re there to represent”. Further stating that “the people in our union making the most noise hadn’t been on strike for a single day because they’d failed to get over the threshold”.

This attack line has been used previously by Mark within the union, but it’s the first time to our knowledge he’s been willing to publicly attack members.

Firstly, it’s demonstrably a lie. The author of this article was on strike, as were the overwhelming majority of Independent Left activists, in groups and branches which got over the threshold. But the attack is not only on Mark’s factional opponents.

There are many branches and activists who joined the PCS Say No campaign for example who were not connected to any faction, indeed there were activists who were members of the leadership faction, Left Unity who took part. We are aware of correspondence from these branches to Mark, left unanswered, raising concerns following huge members meetings on the direction of the dispute.

Entire regions of the union, notably the London and South East Region, with branches representing over 25% of the entire union membership, who organised the largest, most vibrant pickets and rally’s on strike days, voted unanimously at their AGM for a motion criticising the strategy of the leadership.

Attacking those branches and groups who failed to get over the threshold is equally irksome.

Obviously, we want maximum engagement with members, including in ballot turnouts. But the turnout threshold exists as part of Tory anti-union legislation meant to block unions from taking action. To valorise such legislation, which has prevented his own members from taking action, as a means to attack opponents is a right-wing attack line, more akin to the pages of The Sun and Daily Mail than the words of a notionally left-wing general secretary speaking to a left-wing publication.

Equally, the most disorganised areas of the union are not influenced by those Mark opposes, but those he supports. The Justice Group for example, long the base for Mark and Left Unity’s long-term allies, the PCS Democrats is an organisational basket case. Despite having some of the lowest paid, proletarian workers in the civil service, they not only spectacularly failed to get close to the threshold but have one of the lowest density rates at below 30%.

We are not gleeful about this situation, indeed we are supporting candidates who want to do something about it, but it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the attack-line. Where is the public criticism of his allies?

Why now?

With retirement in 3 months’ time, Mark has no incentive to maintain accountability. And without any significant policy deviation from the current leadership, it makes sense for them to instead rely on personal and ad-hominem attacks and slander against their opponents, hoping some of it sticks. We are dismayed but expect more of the same in the months ahead.

“If I had a regret if would be that it took us as long as it did to devise a strategy of industrial action that was finally effective”.

If members take away a single quote from this election period, if there is one sentence which will persuade you to vote for the alternative, it’s this one.

It is the closest we have got to an admission that over the past 20 years, the Independent Left were right about industrial strategy, and the leadership were wrong.

In the interview, Mark admits that both targeted action and the strike levy are key strategic choices which should have been used much earlier.

Both are things we have argued for years in branches and at conference, and each time were rejected by Mark and Fran and the Left Unity leadership.

The one-day strikes our members have taken for years – ineffective. The refusal to implement a strike levy until this year – ineffective. If we had been using effective targeted for decades we’d be in a much better industrial position. If we’d had a levy for decades, we’d have a war chest capable of supporting much more industrial action.

If our leaders are telling us they got the strategy wrong for so long and we have a choice to vote for those who got it right, we shouldn’t waste the opportunity.

If you agree, nominate and vote for Marion Lloyd for General Secretary and John Moloney for Assistant General Secretary.