Former fireman elected head of teaching union – without ever working in schools
Matt Wrack secured the role of permanent general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) after a ballot in which less than 5 per cent of eligible members voted.
The hard-left former head of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) beat his rival Neil Butler, the NASUWT's national officer for Wales, by 5,249 votes to 3,126.
The union had originally announced that the 63-year-old had been elected unopposed in April but the appointment was put to a ballot after Mr Butler launched a legal challenge.
The vote for a successor to Patrick Roach, who stepped down in April, was the union's first contested leadership election since 1990.
'Immensely honoured'
Mr Wrack, who led the FBU for 20 years, said he was 'immensely honoured' and wished to thank those who had placed their trust in him.
He said: 'NASUWT is a proud and powerful voice for teachers, and together we will make that voice even stronger. Now, our priority is unity and action.
'Teachers have endured years of underinvestment, overwork, and undervaluing of our profession. We urgently need the Government to invest in education – that means fair pay, manageable workloads, and safe, respectful working environments for staff and students.
'I will work tirelessly with our executive and activists across all nations to secure the conditions and respect teachers deserve. This is a critical moment for education, and NASUWT will lead the way in fighting for our members' rights.'
His challenger had initially been blocked from standing because he was not a union member at the time of the nomination.
Alongside Luke Lockyer, president of the Welsh NASUWT, Mr Butler sought injunctive relief to force a full election, with the union later agreeing to reopen nominations and pay £65,000 towards his legal fees and VAT to avoid a High Court battle.
The union announced in June that the leadership election would go ahead after both candidates met the threshold of being nominated either by the NASUWT national executive or by a minimum of 25 local associations.
Mr Wrack, an ally of Jeremy Corbyn, has previously been accused of seeking to downplay allegations of antisemitism which undermined the Islington North MP's tenure as leader.
At the FBU conference in Blackpool in 2016, he said: 'The so-called furore about so-called anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, in reality not at all about anti-Semitism; it is about an attack on the left, and it is about an attempt to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.'
A report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission later identified failings within the party that 'at best did not do enough to prevent antisemitism, and at worst could be seen to accept it'.
The FBU voted to re-affiliate with the Labour party under Mr Wrack.
Wayne Broom, the union's national president, congratulated Mr Wrack on his election, adding: 'This election engaged our members up and down the country, and the result reflects their confidence in his leadership.
'Matt will play a vital role in the next chapter of the union's work on behalf of teachers across the UK. The national executive and I look forward to working closely with him as we continue our mission to put teachers first.
'We also want to thank Neil Butler for standing in this election and for his ongoing service to NASUWT – his dedication exemplifies the strength of this union's democracy.'
Just 4.7 per cent of the NASUWT's 178,306 eligible members took part in the vote.
No history of working in education
This is the first time someone with no history of working in education has been appointed to the job.
A teacher, who wished to remain anonymous, previously told The Telegraph that putting Mr Wrack forward was 'a bonkers decision', adding, 'given his age, it is entirely plausible that the last time Matt Wrack was in a school was over 40 years ago'.
One long-term minister who served under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown previously told this newspaper that there had been a 'mixture of conspiracy and incompetence at play' in the wake of Mr Wrack losing out to Steve Wright in the FBU vote earlier this year.
'Matt had lost his election [at the FBU]. It was a very contentious election and he was from the ultra-Left, with a strong affiliation with Labour, and someone wanted him in the role,' they said.
Mr Wrack has been approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Senior judge says he would apologise to IPP prisoners he jailed
Senior judges who imposed indefinite jail terms, known as IPP sentences, have expressed regret over their role in the 'injustice' that has left thousands of inmates trapped in prison for minor offences. Former High Court judge Sir John Saunders stated he would apologise to IPP prisoners he jailed, while former recorder Simon Tonking says he feels driven to rectify the system that he was part of. Over 2,500 prisoners remain incarcerated under IPP sentences, which were abolished in 2012 but not retrospectively, with cases including people serving nearly two decades for mobile phone theft. The judges are backing proposals from the Howard League for Penal Reform, advocating for IPP prisoners to be given a release date within a two-year window at their next parole hearing, alongside mental health support. Prisons Minister Lord Timpson said the IPP sentence was rightly abolished and support has improved, but said further reductions in prisoner numbers will only occur in a way that protects the public.
The Sun
14 minutes ago
- The Sun
Labour must come up with a deterrent that makes migrants worry their money won't get them what or where they want
Boats sailed WHEN will the Government finally get the message on illegal immigration? Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's announcement of 300 extra National Crime Agency officers to tackle people-smuggling gangs is welcome, of course. 1 Anything that disrupts this evil trade is a good thing, in the same way that a crackdown is needed on profiteers who employ the migrants on the cheap — no questions asked — when they get here. But if this £100million investment is the Government's grand plan to 'break the business model' of the crooks then it is doomed to failure. When the risk-versus-reward equation is so much in their favour, the smugglers and the illegal migrants will always find a way. The incentives are too great: millions of pounds for the smugglers, for little effort; hand-outs, accommodation and black market jobs for the migrants, with virtually no chance of being deported. The only way to break the business model is to come up with a deterrent which makes the migrants worry that their money — and the dangers they will face — won't get them what they want. Or where they want. A deterrent like the Rwanda scheme, which was already beginning to work but which Labour couldn't wait to ditch. The soaring number of Channel small boats is the inevitable consequence. Jobs shame THE number of young people facing unemployment is one of the most heart-breaking results of the Chancellor's job-wrecking tax hikes. A million Neets — youngsters Not in Education, Employment or Training — is a disaster for the economy as well as a tragedy for them. Migrant boats are carrying 'bad people' REJECTED by other NATIONS says Trump At a time in their lives when they are desperately trying to find their place in the world, a job — or the skills to get one — gives them purpose and a sense of who they are, just as surely as being dumped on benefits crushes that. The Skills Tax Relief proposed by more than 100 business chiefs would be a vital boost to apprenticeships and vocational training, offering young Brits a route into the workplace. If Rachel Reeves isn't swayed by the thought of saving so many from the scrapheap, then she should be swayed by the £10billion of welfare savings it could bring over the next five years. It's not the water temperature that puts them off but the sewage dumped in it. What a blow for our coastal communities and seaside resorts.
The Sun
43 minutes ago
- The Sun
Starmer must find REAL ways to solve migrant crisis – not pathetic sticking plaster ‘solutions' voters will see through
THE Home Secretary's plans to fast-track the asylum appeals process are, on the face of it, a welcome development. Because asylum seekers awaiting the results of appeal are entitled to state support, including both a weekly allowance and accommodation in the infamous hotels, it means any delay in processing claims is a direct cost on the taxpayer. 4 Yet there are good reasons to doubt that it will provide anything more than a short-term palliative to a chronic, structural problem with the asylum regime – and perhaps not even that. One of the biggest challenges facing the Home Office has long been deporting people whose claims are rejected. Even if their country of origin is deemed 'predominantly safe', as Yvette Cooper put it, some governments make it very difficult to return their citizens. In other cases, deportation is made extremely difficult because asylum seekers often destroy their passports. Rejected asylum seekers have to be housed and supported by the state, just like those awaiting appeal. This creates a very obvious incentive for politicians to turn any fast-track scheme into a rubber-stamping exercise, 'clearing the backlog' by waving people into the country. It wouldn't be the first time politicians and campaigners have resorted to interpreting a problem over-literally in order to pretend to have solved it. Just a few months ago, the Labour Government proposed to fix the problem of putting asylum seekers up in hotels . . . by having the Home Office buy up private rented housing instead. Then there are those who suggest 'safe and legal routes' as a solution to Channel crossings — a proposal that hinges on the idea that the problem is people coming here in boats rather than their coming at all. If that were the case, we could simply stop searching the lorries at the Channel Tunnel! Moment bus full of asylum seekers are 'snuck into' 4-star London hotel under cover of darkness despite UK-wide protests I don't want to sound like a partisan Tory here. The previous government's efforts to tackle the crisis were in much the same spirit. Whatever the merits of the Rwanda scheme, it was never going to accommodate more than a small fraction of the volume of illegal arrivals (although it nonetheless did seem to have some impact on the number of people trying to cross). Left or Right, when it comes to illegal immigration the motto seems to be: 'look busy'. Ministers keep tinkering around the edges of the problem, but nobody seems willing to confront the deep, structural pull factors which make Britain such an attractive target for migrants. Some of these, such as our language being so widely spoken, cannot be helped. But others, especially our non-contributory welfare system and the ease with which people can work in the black economy, could be tackled. That, however, would require fundamental and far-reaching reform, not least of the welfare state. We could also legislate to make deportations easier. The Home Secretary has pledged to tighten the rules around 'exceptional circumstances', which is a good start. TIED IN KNOTS But the Government could go a lot further, in particular on restricting appeals under Article 8 of the ECHR — the ' right to family life ' — which underpins many of the most egregious decisions made by asylum tribunals. For all the debate around whether or not the UK should quit the European Convention on Human Rights, we don't actually need to. Under the British constitution, the ECHR only applies if given effect by domestic law, and Parliament can legislate as it pleases. Labour should know this well: it was none other than Tony Blair who defied Strasbourg to refuse prisoners the vote. Sir Keir Starmer is unlikely to be enthusiastic about such measures. Lord Hermer, his friend and hand-picked Attorney General, has written to ministers rejecting the very idea that Parliament could legislate in any way that breached international law. But the Prime Minister should learn from the fate of his predecessor. 4 Like Starmer, Rishi Sunak promised the nation he would stop the crossings. He and his team were also — again like Starmer — unwilling to change or challenge any of Britain's existing legal or treaty commitments. The result was that they tied themselves in knots trying to make the Rwanda scheme compliant with the ECHR, only to fail — and paid a historically heavy price at the ballot box the following year. Labour MPs are already worried the same fate may befall them. They are right to worry: while the Government's majority is huge, this is actually the most marginal parliament since 1945 in terms of seat majorities. It would not take a big shift in public opinion to unseat dozens, or even hundreds, of Labour MPs at the next election. So which is more important to Sir Keir: the future of his government or the good opinion of the Attorney General? For so long as Hermer remains in post, the odds of this Government finding a lasting solution to the crisis are very small indeed. MY Conservative Home colleague Tali Fraser opened our editorial meeting yesterday with the claim that 'too many HENRYs are leaving the UK'. Now I quite agree that you can never have enough of us, but this wasn't merely an effort to please the boss. 4 'HENRY' apparently stands for 'high net worth, not rich yet' (I wish) and according to new research by the Adam Smith Institute and Onward, this country is developing a serious problem persuading young, well-educated Brits that they have a future here. No fewer than 28 per cent of 18- to 30-year-olds are either actively planning a move overseas or seriously considering emigrating, according to the report The Prosperity Package. That's very bad news. At present, only about a third of British adults are net contributors to the Exchequer. If the next generation of high earners are driven off by stagnant wages and a sky-high cost of living, that will only deepen our dependence on immigration. It also raises important questions about our focus on 'net immigration'. Yes, subtracting emigration gives a better picture of the raw numbers being added to our population – but it has perhaps made us too complacent about who is leaving.
