DAVE CROWTHER, delegate from Warsop Main colliery, Socialist Action about the proposed rule changes.
Two main arguments agalnst une rule changes have been put forward. The first is the simplistic argument of Lynk and the rest of the Notts leadership.
Their line is that the rule changes will turn the NUM into some kind of totalitarian dictatorship in which Scargill wil be able to do anything he wants. It is a line designed to play on judices not worth discussing.
The second argument is that the rule changes will strengthen bureaucracy witnin the unon. more power to national officials and area full-timers, taking decision-making out of the hands of membership level.
These criticisms deserve to be properly discussed. It is important that we are able to discuss the objections without seeming to line up with Lynk in any way.
Two arguments can be put up in favour of rule changes. The first is simply that the national leaderforwarduting the cationas forward, national leadershin is a good leadership, therefore the changes should be ported.
This argument boils down to blind loyalty to the national leadership. That might be OK in some circumstances, but doesn't deal with the issue. North Derbyshire spoke to the national unior.. The rule also designed to help protect the union fran legal attack by the courts. It will indemnity all actions taken by N'M officials in line with union policy.
Some argue that this will mean making Ine leadership less accountable to the membership. But this misses the point.
The rule changes don't make the leadership any less accountable io the membersnip sure that the union is not accountdole lo une courts. The membership has a say indemnification of NUM officials refers specifically to acts carried out in the course of fighting for these policies. Policy The same goes for the Scargill's casting vote that he won't have to comply with Tory anti-union laws and stand for re-election. For a start, this 'change' is .E, with decisions of the 1983 NUM conference. It protects the 1983 decision from interference by the courts but the real issue is not the question of Scargill as an individual.
Again it is a question of protecting the policy of the union.
we mus get away personalities and look at policies.
Those who attack the THE NOTTS COLLIER is the paper that supports