Teaching union faces legal action over appointment of firebrand leader amid anti-Semitism row as Jewish member says 'he doesn't represent us'
Matt Wrack, a hard-Left Jeremy Corbyn ally, was appointed uncontested as the General Secretary of the NASUWT despite being a former fireman with no teaching experience.
Now lawyers have launched an application for an injunction to have the decision rescinded.
They are acting on behalf of another would-be candidate, Neil Butler, who they say was unfairly blocked from standing against Mr Wrack.
At the same time, critics rounded on Mr Wrack yesterday for comments he made in 2016 about anti-Semitism in the Labour party under Corbyn's leadership.
He called the crisis 'the so-called furore about so-called anti-Semitism', implying it was part of an attempt to weaken Corbyn.
Luke Akehurst, Labour MP for North Durham, called his appointment 'disappointing'.
He told the Jewish News: 'I hope Mr Wrack does not drag the NASUWT into militancy aimed at undermining a Labour government or into… visceral anti-Zionism.'
Russell Langer, director of communications at the Jewish Leadership Council, added: 'Jewish teachers who are members of the NASUWT will be rightly concerned by a general secretary who played a leading role in downplaying anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
'At a time where Jewish teachers are dealing with a frightening rise in anti-Semitism in the workplace they deserve a union leader who will prioritise their welfare.'
One Jewish member of NASUWT said: 'Wrack's appointment is genuinely frightening. He does not represent us.'
It is understood there are 1,000 Jewish teachers in the NASUWT, which has previously been seen as a politically moderate union.
Mr Wrack was selected by the NASUWT's Left-wing national executive as their preferred candidate after he failed to get re-elected for his previous role leading the Fire Brigades Union.
Under NASUWT rules, anyone hoping to run against him – and force an election – would need the support of 25 local branches.
It is understood Mr Butler, the NASUWT's national officer for Wales, set about gathering this support but was blocked because he was not a union member.
This is despite him being a teacher and member for three decades, before giving up his membership to serve as staff for seven years.
Mr Wrack's supporters say no rule exists to stop non-members standing, and in addition they claim the union ignored legal advice that he was unfairly blocked.
Wrack would be the first leader in the NASUWT's history never to have been a qualified teacher or lecturer.
He has previously been criticised as 'overly combative' by ministerial sources, due to his penchant for strikes.
Daniel Pearn, a teacher and NASUWT member, told The Guardian: 'We know that [Matt Wrack] has never been a teacher, and for a teacher-led union that doesn't sit right with me.
'I feel that the person who goes to speak for us, and for our working rights, should be a teacher.
'In the past we've had general secretaries who have been in the profession, one way or another, as teachers or lecturers.
'It feels like a really odd appointment to me.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
New Zealand politician removed from parliament following comments in Palestinian debate
WELLINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) - New Zealand parliamentarian Chloe Swarbrick was ordered to leave parliament on Tuesday during a heated debate over the government's response to Palestine. An urgent debate was called after the centre-right government said on Monday it was weighing up its position on whether to recognise a Palestinian state. Close ally Australia on Monday joined Canada, the UK and France in announcing it would recognise a Palestinian state at a U.N. conference in September. Swarbrick, who is co-leader of the Green Party, said New Zealand was a 'laggard' and an 'outlier' and the lack of decision was appalling before calling on some government members to support a bill to 'sanction Israel for its war crimes." The bill was proposed by her party in March and is supported by all opposition parties. 'If we find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine, we can stand on the right side of history," said Swarbrick. Speaker Gerry Brownlee said that statement was 'completely unacceptable' and she had to withdraw it and apologise. When she refused, Swarbrick was ordered to leave parliament. Brownlee later clarified Swarbrick could return on Wednesday but if she still refused to apologise she would again be removed from parliament. New Zealand has said it will make a decision in September about whether it would recognise Palestine as a state. Foreign Minister Winston Peters told parliament that over the next month the government would gather information and talk to partners, which would inform cabinet's decision. 'We'll be weighing this decision carefully rather than rushing to judgement,' Peters said. Along with the Green Party, opposition parties Labour and Te Pati Maori support recognition of a Palestinian state. Labour parliamentarian Peeni Henare said New Zealand had a history of standing strong on its principles and values and in this case 'was being left behind.'
Daily Mirror
32 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
What political party do top football team fans support
Despite the historical strength of support for Labour in the city, the polling found Liverpool has the lowest share of supporters who say they intend to vote for Keir Starmer's party Liverpool has the lowest share of Labour voters out of the top football teams, while Manchester City has the highest proportion of Reform UK voters, polling shows. More in Common unveiled the findings this morning after carried out the polling of the Big Six teams, excluding Tottenham Hotspur. Despite the historical strength of support for Labour in the city, it found Liverpool has the lowest share of supporters - some 27% - who say they intend to vote for Keir Starmer's party. Chelsea supporters are the most likely to vote for the Conservatives at 27% of any of the Big Six clubs, but also the most likely to vote for the Labour Party at 34% - joint with Man City. It comes after England's Euro 2025 winners to lose a major chunk of prize money after return home. Across all the teams on average, Reform UK came on top with 29% planning to vote for the party. Of the fans of other clubs in the Premier League, Reform UK also came on top with over a third (34%) planning to vote for Nigel Farage's party. The party also came first in rankings among fans of lower league teams (33%) and among non-football fans (28%). Of the Big Six, Manchester City supporters (29%) are most likely to vote for Reform UK. But supporters of smaller clubs, even elsewhere in the Premier League, are far more likely to support Reform UK (34% versus 27% of Big Six supporters). The polling also looked into the spread of fan bases across the country. Manchester United remains the most supported team in Britain, despite their recent on-field challenges, and is even the most supported team among Londoners. Chelsea have the most local fanbase with 35% of their fans living in London, while less than a quarter of fans for the remaining clubs live in the same region as the club they support. Elsewhere polling of 18-40-year-old Britons has found that 38% of young Britons think racism in football is growing, while a further 36% say that the level of racism in football is not changing. Only a quarter (26%) think the problem of racism in football has improved. Chris Annous, Associate at More in Common, said: 'This research unpacks the surprising political leanings and geographical spread of football fans, revealing how loyalties often defy traditional narratives and expectations. "It provides crucial insights, demonstrating that fanbases, even among the 'Big Six' clubs, exhibit unexpected voting patterns, like Liverpool having the lowest share of Labour voters despite the city's strong Labour history. Fans and teams are often stereotyped, and these findings show that although supporters can be loyal to one football team, they can be much more varied and volatile when it comes to political support for a party.' Manchester United Some 31% of Man United fans intend to vote Labour at the next election, while 24% are leaning towards Reform UK, 20% the Tories, 11% the Lib Dems and 5% the Greens. Liverpool Some 27% of Liverpool fans are planning to vote Labour at the next election, with 25% favouring Conservative, 22% Reform UK, 15% Lib Dem and 6% the Greens. Arsenal Out of Arsenal fans, 31% are intending to vote Labour, 22% the Tories, 20% Reform UK, 13% the Lib Dems and 11% the Greens. The club has the highest share of Green voters out of the top teams. Chelsea Some 34% of Chelsea voters plan to vote Labour, the joint-highest of any of the clubs, while 27% plan to vote Tory, also the highest share. Some 19% of them intend to vote Reform UK, with 10% the Lib Dems and 6% the Greens. Man City Out of Man City fans, 34% plan to vote Labour, the joint-highest of any of the top clubs. Some 29% plan to vote Reform, the highest of any of the top clubs, with 18% favouring Reform UK, 8% the Lib Dems and 5% the Greens. Other Premier League fans Of the fans of other clubs in the Premier League, over a third (34%) are planning to vote for Reform UK. Some 24% are intending to vote Labour, 13% Tory, 12% Lib Dem and 6% Greens. Lower league fans When it comes to fans of lower league teams, Reform UK again comes out on top, with 33% planning to vote for Nigel Farage's party. Some 18% favour Tory, the same proportion intending to vote Labour, while 13% are planning to vote Lib Dem and 8% the Greens. Non-football fans Out of people who don't support a football team, 28% are Reform UK voters, 22% are Labour, 19% are Tory, 16% Lib Dem and 8% Greens. More in Common conducted their surveys between 20-23 June and 18-20 July, with sample sizes of 2,004 and 2,153 respectively.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What Baroness Debbonaire gets wrong about Clive of India
Baroness Debbonaire, addressing the Edinburgh International Book Festival, has called for the removal of the statue of Clive of India, Baron Clive of Plassey, the site of one of his most famous military victories, from its prominent place adjoining the Foreign Office, at the end of King Charles Street, looking out across St. James's Park from what are known as Clive Steps. Clive was a founder of British imperial power and control over India. Twice governor in the mid-18th century, he was a brilliant military commander, a determined administrator and an opponent of corruption, though he himself became rich on the profits of empire. He fought warlords by becoming one of them himself. Subjected to waves of criticism for the way he governed from both the conscious-struck and jealous, and subject himself to bouts of depression, he may have taken his own life in 1774. His statue was erected much later in 1912, and like Clive in his own lifetime, was controversial and contested. The statue of Edward Colston, the Bristol slave trader, was also erected just before the first world war and also commemorated someone who lived much earlier. It's relevant to this new, confected controversy over Clive because Debbonaire was a Labour MP for Bristol until the last election, a veteran of the rancorous debates in that city over the Colston monument until it was pulled down by a mob in 2020. We might have hoped that the Baroness would have learnt the obvious lesson that disputes of this type set communities against each other and undermine social cohesion. Nobody wins, and society loses, in a culture war. We might also have hoped that instead of demanding the removal of an artefact of which she disapproves, the noble baroness would have used her speech to call for a new work of public art beside the Foreign Office representing the values she holds dear. She could put herself at the head of a committee to raise funds for such a work. But speech-making, removal and perhaps destruction, are always easier (and more psychologically revealing) than working to win broad support for the commissioning of a new piece of art. This prominent corner of official London is a work in progress. On one side of Clive is the entrance to the Cabinet War Rooms, Churchill's headquarters in the Second World War that have been preserved for posterity. On the other side is a new monument to the victims of the Bali bombing of 2002. The area is rich with British history, its victories and tragedies, its heroes and villains. But the subtle and complex nature of the past is lost on Debbonaire who thinks it her right to judge for the rest of us. She complains that on Clive's statue, the frieze running around the base depicts 'tiny, tiny little Indians' as subservient. The common practice of sculpting, in miniature, key moments or themes in the life of those commemorated may be unknown to her. Does she also disdain the frieze running round the Albert Memorial, depicting great cultural figures, or the allegorical sculptures of Africa and Asia at its corners? Or the panels depicting the lives of ordinary people at the base of the statue known as The Meeting Place at St. Pancras Station where two lovers embrace high above scenes of everyday life, again captured in miniature? (The statue is disdained by our cultural elite, as it happens, but highly regarded by those same ordinary people.) Debbonaire's greatest mistake is to complain that Clive's statue taints and distorts our relationship with India today. Wrapped up in the cliches of contemporary anti-colonialism, she is unaware of India's profound interest in the British colonial past and respect for the legacies we left behind. She might spend some time reading the splendid essays by the Sri Lankan scholar Rohan Fernando, published by History Reclaimed, on the cultural and scientific inheritance from the Raj and its reception in contemporary India. The British founded dozens of museums across India; established scientific institutions such as the Indian Meteorological Department and the Archaeological Survey of India (whose Director, John Marshall, discovered the Indus Valley Civilisation exactly a century ago); mapped India's terrain and geology; built canals and railways. All of these achievements are acknowledged and celebrated by an authentic Indian culture which is ever more at ease with its British past. Debbonaire is not alone in her ignorance of these legacies, of course. University College, Oxford has decided to criticise its greatest son, Sir William Jones, who in the late eighteenth century first identified the family of Indo-European languages, wrote codes of Hindu and Muslim law, and began the study of Indian archaeology. A panel recently placed next to the great monument to him in the college chapel, sculpted by John Flaxman, confects a charge sheet of the usual offences. But Jones is revered by Indians as the founder of the study of their cultures: his grave in Calcutta is the site of regular commemorations and he even adorns a recent Indian postage stamp. An Oxford college dishonouring a great scholar dishonours only itself. Baroness Debbonaire does greater damage, pitching us all into unnecessary disputes based on faulty history and imagined grievances.
