Matt Wrack plans to stay in post as teaching union's general secretary
The head of a teaching union has said he plans to stay in post despite a 'ludicrous' and 'coordinated' attempt by political enemies to undermine his position.
Matt Wrack, whose appointment as general secretary of the NASUWT led to a week of legal challenges and the reopening of nominations for the post, said he would stand in a new election as the nominee of the union's executive.
He also claimed 'there is some coordination' in a number of media 'hatchet jobs' from senior Tory figures, including the former ministers Michael Gove and Damian Green.
In his first interview since the row was dragged into the courts last week, Wrack also:
Dismissed claims he does not have enough experience to lead a teaching union, saying 'neither do many secretaries of state or senior civil servants'.
Reassured members that he would not merge the union with the National Education Union and denied claims that he was friends with the NEU's general secretary.
Said he had never downplayed antisemitism, as claimed by reports, saying: 'I'm not a Zionist but I believe in a two-state solution.'
Amid speculation that he could stand aside, Wrack told the Guardian he would remain the official candidate of the union's ruling body. 'I've simply been informed by the national executive that I remain the nominee of the national executive,' he said.
Wrack believes that senior Conservatives have jumped into the row in an attempt to damage trade unionism. Gove, a former education secretary, told a Spectator podcast: '[Wrack] is not a teacher, he is a former firefighter and a former member of the Militant tendency.' Damian Green, the former Home Office minister, told the Telegraph that Wrack was a 'frightening 1970s socialist'.
Wrack said: 'I've never met Michael Gove in my life, but he seems to not like me. Damian Green, he seems to not like me. There seems to be quite a determined effort to portray me in a certain way, which I think is because I am an effective trade unionist.
'In 2022 the fire service was one of the few bits of the public sector that did not take action and achieved a pay settlement without a strike, through collective bargaining. So the idea that I simply want strikes is ludicrous and, frankly, a bit daft.'
Wrack suspects there has been 'some coordination' in the media criticism. 'It's about trying to do a hatchet job on me because they don't want effective trade unionism,' he said.
In April, Wrack was appointed as general secretary to Britain's second largest teaching union – a surprise because for the last 20 years he was best known as the leftwing leader of the Fire Brigades Union, whose politics contrasted with the more moderate positions of the NASUWT.
Critics pounced on the fact he had never been a teacher and his appointment meant he did not have to contest an election.
This week his position was thrown into doubt by a legal challenge, amid claims that his appointment was a 'fix' by the national executive that unfairly excluded potential candidates.
Facing an injunction, the union was forced to backpedal and said it would reopen nominations and hold elections if other candidates were nominated. The high court ruled that the union had to pay costs of £78,000 for the legal challenge, with its own legal costs pushing the bill well over £100,000.
Wrack said he could not comment on either the legal challenge or the upcoming re-election contest for fear of breaching the union's rules. 'I will not be discussing [the legal case against the NASUWT], that's not appropriate, and nor will I be discussing the NASUWT election,' he said.
Some NASUWT members say they fear that Wrack is too close to Daniel Kebede, the NEU general secretary, and wants to see a merger between the two unions.
Wrack dismissed the reports, saying he would not argue for a merger. 'The NASUWT conference took a very clear position on [a merger]. That's the decision-making body of the union, and whoever is the general secretary has to respect that decision. So I'm a bit bemused as to where this story has come from,' he said.
'I have spoken at, probably, I don't know, one or two meetings with Daniel over the years. I've been around the trade union movement for a very long time and on the TUC general council for 20 years. I know most people in senior positions in the trade union movement.'
Wrack has been accused of being too close to Jeremy Corbyn and of downplaying antisemitism in Labour. Wrack said the claims were wrong, saying he was criticised at the FBU for working with cross-community groups in the UK and Israel.
'I wouldn't describe myself as a Zionist but I support a two-state solution in the Middle East … the FBU supported a position that is exactly the same as the TUC, which is to support a boycott of products from the occupied territories, but not a broader anti-Israeli boycott,' he said.
Wrack, who went to a Catholic grammar school in Manchester and studied with the Open University before doing a part-time master's degree at the London School of Economics, said his lack of teaching experience was irrelevant.
'It strikes me that people seem to be able to be the secretary of state for education without any teaching experience,' he said.
Asked if he had done the right thing by standing to be general secretary of the teaching union so soon after losing an attempt at re-election as FBU general secretary, Wrack said: 'I've made my decisions. I stand by them. The process will be what the process will be. And none of the criticisms are going to affect my personal outlook on life or on politics.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Why the death of the Tory Party has been greatly exaggerated
Has the death of the Tory Party, like that of Mark Twain, been greatly exaggerated?There are good reasons to think that after nearly 200 years, it has breathed its last as a major force in British politics. The failure to properly address voters' concerns during a decade and a half in government led to a catastrophic collapse in public faith and electoral annihilation. With the Tory brand badly tarnished, the party languishes in the polls behind Labour and Reform UK. No wonder some have read it the last rites. And yet, under Kemi Badenoch there are encouraging signs the party is flickering back to life. She is a thoughtful leader who is determined to do the right thing – insofar as the Westminster circus will allow. She is also a politician of substance, rather than soundbite. It is understandable she wants to take time to put a coherent policy platform together, rather than indulging in knee-jerk politics. Her review into the European Convention on Human Rights, which enables activist judges to prevent the deportation from Britain of foreign criminals and Channel migrants, is a case in point. Like many, the Tory leader increasingly believes that you can faithfully adhere to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court, or have an elected Parliament that responds to the wishes of voters, but not both. But it's right she looks at all the issues involved in leaving. One reason for such huge disillusionment with the Conservatives is that in power they repeatedly promised one thing and then did another. This shabby habit has been taken to new heights by Labour. Does anyone seriously believe the Government, led by a die-hard human rights lawyer, will keep its word and legislate to restrict the abuse of the ECHR? With the comprehensive spending review due next week, another claim made by Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor will take a bashing: That Labour is fiscally responsible. Before the election, their mantra was never to 'play fast and loose' with the public finances. In fact, Rachel Reeves has made an unholy mess – awarding excessive public-sector pay rises to placate the unions, hiking taxes on businesses and letting borrowing go through the roof. She toyed with reining in the out-of-control welfare budget only to blink at the first signs of disgruntlement among Labour MPs. Then there is Nigel Farage. For all that he is a charismatic politician, with a gift for tapping into the concerns of ordinary Britons, his policies so far lack credibility. His plan to increase the tax-free allowance to £20,000 a year is a wonderful aspiration, but it would cost an eye-watering £80billion. And when one of the UK's biggest problems is the unsustainable rise of the welfare bill, his baffling pledge to end the popular two-child benefit cap would make things worse. Frequent damaging rows also erupt within Reform UK. Has the party the experience and temperament to run the country? As Sir Keir and Mr Farage try to outbid each other with extravagant promises, Mrs Badenoch has an opportunity. While re-energising the Tories, she must communicate vigorously that they represent common sense, law and order, fiscal restraint and controlled migration. She has an impressive team of shadow ministers. Could their talents be utilised more? It would be absurd to defenestrate Mrs Badenoch after just seven months. Anyone who thinks her party can suddenly jump to the top of the polls is delusional. But as Sir Keir's popularity sinks lower by the day, she is beginning to hit her stride.
