If, as reported, Roger Lyons made excessively merry at the Labour Party conference in his own inimitable way, it was probably because he saw new vistas opening up before him for plundering the union. He was about to renegotiate his contract to enable him to stay on as Joint General Secretary of Amicus until 2007.

In the run-up to the MSF-AEEU merger, a deal was struck that would have seen Lyons effectively retire next year when he is due to become chair of the TUC. The unexpected victory of Derek Simpson in the election for AEEU General Election upset all that and a new plan was cobbled together. The argument was advanced that an experienced hand was needed to guide the union through the delicate transitional rather than turn it over to the novice Simpson. Quite what qualifications Lyons had for this job are less clear as his experience consists of losing half the members, a large proportion of the union's fixed assets and tens of millions of pounds in debt repayments.

But the MSF NEC, supine as ever, agreed to the revised contract, despite rumours of some opposition within the right-wing faction MSF for Labour. By a quirk of the law Lyons can go through to his normal retirement date without having to face re-election. The same quirk enables Simpson to go to his normal retirement date in 2010 without having to stand for election again. This is likely to be the first opportunity that all the members of Amicus will have to vote for their General Secretary.

By that time MSF members should be exhibiting extreme democracy withdrawal symptoms. Lyons was first elected in 1991 and took office in 1992 when Gill departed. The next election was in 1997. The extra year between elections was crucial in ensuring that Lyons would not have to stand for election again before reaching his normal retirement date. This means that MSF members will go 19 years, from 1991 to 2010 with but a single election for General Secretary. This is not an accident but simply underlines the extent to which democratic accountability has been thrown out of the window in all the manoeuvring at the top of the union.

It should not be said that all MSF members are taking this lying down. The shortest resolution in trade union history has been circulating round the union and been picked up by a number of branches: "This Annual Conference invites Roger Lyons to retire forthwith." There would be little doubt what might happen if this reached a free vote on the floor of Conference. But more likely is that the flunkeys will conspire to rule it out of order on the grounds that it is not permitted for mere members to discuss the position of the General Secretary.

Lyons and Simpson begin to cohabit next January and bets are being taken on how long it will take before they stop speaking to each other. Certainly, the number of successful working relationships Lyons has had with people of ability can be easily summarised; it is zero. At this moment, it is not clear exactly how much the problem of Lyons has registered on Simpson's radar. But a little incident at a recent meeting in the South West should convince him that it is not going to be fun all along the way:

Simpson has been going round the country speaking to large and enthusiastic groups of members about his initial experiences. But some unexpected people have been turning up at the meetings as well. In the South West it was fulltime officer Arthur Taylor and NEC member Alastair Fraser. Taylor has form as a man who does Lyons' dirty work and he rose to the occasion by tape recording the proceedings unbeknownst to the people present! However, this came to light and he was forced to apologise to Simpson. No doubt detailed reports of all these meetings are going straight back to Lyons.

Evidently, this is setting the stage for a friendly and co-operative relationship.

The Amicus rule book will almost certainly be adopted at the June 2003 Conference and this will pave the way for elections for the new NEC. This will be a critical moment for the left if we are to build on Simpson's victory. At the moment discussions are going on about the selection of candidates and the portents are good that there will be a single, united left candidate in each of the seats.  Gains for the left in these elections are crucial if the reform programme on which Simpson ran for election is to be made good. This has got to be the major priority for the left over the next period; these elections will be the battleground for all the factions in the union. The left approaches it in much better condition than would have seemed possible six months ago.

Hugh MacGrillen

November 2002