Readers of Tribune who have been following the correspondence which followed the exposure by that paper of the activities of the very misnamed *Labour Progressive Group! will not need to bo told of tho existence of a strong right wing machine in U.S.D.AeWee Since the death of Alan Birch, tho general secretary, the pross and various right wing organisations have been using all kinds of methods to ensure the election of a right winger to take Birch's place.
The Guardian, in a most overt article, spoke of the disastrous consequences if Seabrook,the left wing candidate for the post, were to win; arguing that this would holp to undermine the whole right wing position in the trade union because of U.S.D.A.W. boing one of the 'big six' unions. lioreover U.5S.D.A.W. has a reputation for setting the tone of the round of annual union conferences.
Nottingham comrades had an experience in this fight which brought out some interesting lessons. At a poorly attended meeting the question of who the branch in question should nominate came up. Caught unawares the left were not able to prevent the decision to nominate the leading right wing contestant. But at the next mesting which was much bettor attended the question arose of how the branch vote should be cast. After a vigourous debate, it was decided by one ° vote to support Seabrook, When this decision was taken the sccretary said that he refused to sign the branch's voting paper which meant the vote could not he cast. The secretary explained that he considered that it was against union principles to nominate ono man and vote for another. He also said that he had written to the right wing candidate to tell him that the branch was supporting him (whether this has anything to do with the openly admitted ambition of the secretary to get a full-time union job is a matter of opinion). A deadlock was reached because the union branch was unwilling to remove the secretary because of the difficulty of replacing hin, This was broken when a supporter of the sccretary pointed out that strictly speaking the meeting had not beon called according to rule. It was therefore decided to postpone the matter until the next meoting which would be properly constituted.
The period betwosn the two meetings was one of groat activity by both sides - to give one example — a new momber who supported Seabrook was, without consultation, declared not to be a member. He had beon appointed to ons or posts as delegate, the organisations concerned were written to and told he was not cligible as a delegate. He discovered this by accident. The place of the meeting was changed and strangely enough the man who moved the motion to support Seabrook did not get a notice of the meeting and would have gone to the wrong place had not other members told him of the change. Steps were taken by the left to counter all these moves, tho membor referred to above was reinst— ated and every effort was made to get a good attendance.
When it came to the vote from a position of a majority of one for Seabrook it moved to a two to one majority for Seabrook. It was not just a case of the left getting more people, some changed or abstained (in one case by not attonding the meeting) because they were disgusted by the tactics of the right. The discussion was to the point and one of the leading right wingers got so exicted he had a heart attack and had to be taken home. Tho left argued on class tines - if the press,owned and controlled by the class which the unions have been created to fight,back one man against another, there must be something wrong with the man they back.
This small victory, which will not materially effect tho result of the elvction, was won as a result of the united front by various sectors of the left — Communist Party members, left labour and Fourth Internationalists, of particular importance is the fact that the Communist Party members have the closest working relations with the Fourth Intornationalists, despite the warnings thoy have recoived.