Against a centralised power

26th April 1996 at 01:00
Your articles on the National Union of Teachers' conference (TES, April 12) imply that the rule changes proposed by the executive would have given members more rights and more say and made the NUT more democratic.

Those at conference who opposed the changes did so because they would have made the union less democratic. The decision about which issues should go to ballot and what material should be sent out with voting papers would, on the evidence of recent ballots, be taken solely by the general secretary. There would have been a centralisation of power in the union.

What conference agreed (in the motion on union democracy which I moved) was that these and all related issues would be discussed by a working party; that we would seek a consensus in the union on the way forward. It will be interesting to test the democratic credentials of the executive and see whether in nominating members for this working party it is prepared to allow both majority and minority views to be heard.


Coventry NUT

116 Rosslyn Ave



Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now