PENSIONS Position
Since Martin and I sent round our report of the NEC meeting of 21 October, I have read all the email comments in response, and also talked to a number of comrades, both inside and outside PCS.
At the NEC meeting, it was my view that Mark's account put us in a changed situation, where rejection without immediate mass action could mean losing the partial gains achieved that week.
Nevertheless, I do now accept that whatever the tactical considerations, we should not have voted in favour of the pensions deal because this was a clear matter of principle.
I was particularly persuaded by discussions with a long standing Manchester comrade (not in PCS) who reiterated the principle of solidarity between the generations, arguing in a letter from Manchester Trades Council to the TUC that:
-    What is proposed implies that the next generation will not only support us but wait longer before it can retire. Not only does this betray the next generation, it also raises the question 'How long can such an arrangement hold?' It introduces a form of the two tier workforce that, as in all such cases, is divisive and leads to the danger that a future government will renege on the agreement when it is confident that the lower tier will not defend its privileged colleagues in the upper tier.
Neil Davidson's email also impressed me strongly, when he said that:
-    We did learn that it was it was thanks to Mark that the proposals represented even a partial victory for union side, but surely our relationship with Mark is robust enough for us to express our recognition of his achievement while still voting against a deal which sows the seeds of future division?
-    I know this isn't easy, and I think it would be very difficult to persuade all but the most class-conscious civil servants to consider action on behalf of people who haven't even started working yet; nevertheless, I think we have the responsibility to do so - otherwise we're effectively conceding the legitimacy of different terms and conditions for the foreseeable future.
I do regret the position our vote left comrades in, and the significant implications for the left in other public sector unions. I can certainly assure comrades that I have no intention of breaking party discipline in the future. I hope that most of you know that I am no stranger to being in a principled minority at NEC meetings and that I always try to make judgements and decisions on the basis of clear socialist politics.
Taking things forward from here, what strikes me is the need for the party's PCS fraction to work more effectively together.
For example, it would have helped NEC comrades enormously if comrades and activists around us - such as those at the 2 meetings Keith mentions on the Tuesday & Wednesday - had done as SW and leaflets urged, and sent faxes & emails to union HQ, & copied to us, before the NEC met. An argument against accepting the deal would have come over as more concrete and less like the posturing of the sectarians if we could have referred to some messages sent in and which we could have supported in our arguments.
More generally, I would welcome looking at ways to overcome the isolation from the party we do experience.
NEC meetings take place every 2 months, and the rest of my time, when not involved in national branch negotiations, is spent either working on PCS equality issues, UAF, pay and international issues etc, or I'm on the road -meeting and talking to as many activists as possible in my own group and helping to build strong R&F organisation.
However, this lifestyle does make it difficult to go to SW meetings regularly, and I would find it helpful to have a discussion on 12 November on how to prevent this situation from happening again, looking at the collective organisation of the fraction & ways to work more closely & more effectively with comrades as we face forthcoming big battles over pensions, cuts and pay.

Sue Bond