UK

Editorial:Corbyn's run in Islington North is a stand for socialism - and democracy itself

MORNING STAR
FRIDAY, MAY 24, 2024



Jeremy Corbyn speaks during a protest organised by the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) opposite Downing Street, London, over the proposed closure of railway station ticket offices, August 31, 2023

JEREMY CORBYN’S long-awaited announcement that he will run for re-election in Islington North, which he has represented since 1983, puts heart into socialists everywhere.

It is an important stand for democracy, worthy of support even from those who are usually sceptical of the value of standing left-of-Labour candidates, and a chance to show that the electorate that knows him best rejects both his character assassination by ruling-class media and his excommunication from the party he has served most of his life.

The decision to block the last Labour leader from standing again on a Labour ticket was an arrogant exercise of unaccountable power by the clique around Sir Keir Starmer, whose Labour credentials are thin by comparison.

Starmer likes to talk of “my Labour Party,” but was first elected as a Labour MP in 2015, when Corbyn had already been one for 32 years. In fact rules were tweaked to enable his selection as a Labour candidate that year, because he had not been a member of the party long enough to qualify.

His decision to join, therefore, was not because of any connection to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Labour people — the activists, canvassers, councillors who work so hard for the party — but because on leaving the Crown Prosecution Office he fancied a political career.

Multiple times since he has indicated his contempt for those ordinary Labour people. And the ban on Corbyn standing again reeks of that contempt.

It is contemptuous of the residents of Islington North, who have repeatedly elected him, most recently with a thumping majority of 26,188.

It is contemptuous of the constituency Labour Party, which has expressed unanimous support for Corbyn’s right to stand as their candidate again and have been cut out of the selection process entirely, and of the wider Labour membership, whose rights even to discuss Corbyn’s exclusion from the parliamentary party have been suppressed.

And it is contemptuous of the labour movement, with a big majority of affiliated unions expressing their strong opposition to the decision to block him, and several involved in negotiations aimed at restoring the Labour whip, which foundered on Starmer’s dishonesty.

That last point is crucial, because pressure will now be brought to bear by Labour to park any reservations about its conduct and offer blanket support in the name of sweeping away the Conservatives.

Unions whose concerns have been brusquely dismissed need not feel any obligation to campaign for the official Labour candidate against Corbyn.

Two once-affiliated unions, the transport sector’s RMT and the food sector’s BFAWU, have voiced support for Corbyn already.

Those which remain affiliated are understandably unlikely to do so, but that does not mean they have to lift a finger to back anyone against him.

There is no risk of letting the Tories in in Islington North. This will be a Corbyn versus token-Labour contest. Given the Labour Party nationally echoes Tory policies on public spending, crackdowns on protest rights and effective support for Israel’s brutal war in Gaza, the value of having a voice for peace and socialism who has never been afraid to challenge ministers, Tory or Labour, on their actions in Parliament is obvious.

It matters that we send the bullies and political fixers who dominate Westminster politics a message that they will not always get away with it.

It matters too that re-electing Corbyn, a nationally recognised figure, sends a national message that the socialist resurgence his 2015-20 Labour leadership represented has not been snuffed out.

Majorities consistently tell the pollsters they want higher taxes on the rich, more public spending, rail, mail, water and energy back in public hands.

A deeply undemocratic political system and a deeply dishonest and manipulative media are adept at obscuring that reality. Re-electing Jeremy Corbyn will make it that bit harder for them to do so.

 UK

Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington North constituents back his re-election campaign

Mr Corbyn has been suspended by Labour since 2020.

FORMER LABOUR PARTY LEADER JEREMY CORBYN (BELINDA JIAO/PA)

PA WIRE

NATASHA LEAKE

Jeremy Corbyn’s constituents have expressed their “love” for their MP after he announced he would stand as an Independent candidate in the General Election.

Speaking close to his home in Islington North, most voters spoken to by the PA news agency said they would support the former Labour leader regardless of the party he represents.

Mr Corbyn has been suspended by Labour since 2020 after he refused to fully accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s findings that the party broke equality law when he was in charge and said antisemitism had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons”.

Despite this, constituents said they “love” the way he represents the views of his constituency, including towards Palestine and Gaza, and would stand by him.

Yusra Ali, 31, an NHS administrator from Islington said she voted for Mr Corbyn in the last election, and plans to vote for him as an Independent candidate.

“I think he’s a genuine person. He stands for minorities like myself. He stands for the working class people – for people like myself who live in council houses. So I think he represents me and my family.

“I always see him standing with people of colour”, she added.

She said her message to Mr Corbyn would be: “Just to stay the way you are, we love you, you are really humble, down to earth. You support my people and my background and I just wish you all the best.”

Halimo Abdulle, 38, a stay-at-home mother who lives in Islington also spoke of her “love” for Mr Corbyn.

“You don’t feel he’s an MP or a big man, he says ‘hello’, he can talk to you nicely. I just love him,” she said.

Ms Abdulle said she voted for Mr Corbyn in the last election and plans to vote for him again, describing the news he is running as an Independent as “amazing”.

“I think it’s amazing and I actually think he can win,” she said.

“Every time we go to his office he treats us nice, he comes to every event we have. He actually keeps the community together.”

She said her message for Mr Corbyn is: “I hope you win for July.”

“Don’t stop. We really need you,” echoed Sam Borg from Islington.

Jeremy Corbyn’s days of influencing Labour are over, says Sir Keir Starmer

The Labour leader hit back at his predecessor after being accused of undermining democracy through the party’s selection process.

JEREMY CORBYN HAS ACCUSED SIR KEIR STARMER OF UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY (PA)

PA REPORTERS22 HOURS AGO

Sir Keir Starmer has said Jeremy Corbyn’s days of influencing Labour are “over” after the former leader was expelled from the party as he announced he is standing as an Independent candidate in the General Election

.

The Labour leader, who once served in Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, hit back at his predecessor after being accused of undermining democracy through the selection process for the Islington North constituency.

Veteran MP Mr Corbyn was blocked from standing for his own party but will seek re-election in the seat he has represented for 40 years.

Asked for his response to suggestions that he was “cherry-picking” candidates including Praful Nargund, who will stand for Labour in Islington North, Sir Keir told broadcasters: “Jeremy Corbyn’s days of influencing Labour Party policy are well and truly over. Jeremy Corbyn’s decision is his decision. What I’m intent on doing is putting first class Labour candidates in Islington North, which we have now done.”

Sir Keir defended his decision to ban Mr Corbyn from standing for Labour as part of his efforts to “tear antisemitism out of our party by the roots”.

The MP has been sitting as an Independent since 2020 after refusing to fully accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s findings that the party broke equality law when he was in charge.

He said allegations of antisemitism had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons”.

Shortly after he announced his intention to stand, a source told the PA news agency that he had been informed he is no longer a Labour Party member.

Mr Corbyn vowed to be “an independent voice for equality, democracy and peace”.

His candidacy will cause a headache for the Labour leader just as he is kicking off his campaign to replace Rishi Sunak in Number 10.

Campaign group Momentum, which strongly aligns itself with Mr Corbyn’s politics, accused Sir Keir of treating the people of Islington “with contempt” by blocking the former Labour leader and “driving out the socialist politics he represented, in favour of elite interests”.

 UK

Union threatens court action over council plan to cover social work strike

UNSION sends legal letter to Barnet Council claiming plan to bring in service to cover mental health practitioners is unlawful 'strike breaking' with external service, but authority maintains it is acting legally to manage risks to service

by Mithran Samuel on May 24, 2024 in Workforce

Credit: ldprod/Adobe Stock

A union has threatened court action over a council’s plan to bringing in an external service to cover mental health social workers during a nine-week strike over staffing levels in their teams.

UNISON has sent a legal letter to Barnet Council’s chief executive, John Hooton, stating that the planned move is unlawful ‘strike breaking’ and urging the authority to desist or risk court action.

However, the council has maintained that its action is both lawful and necessary to enable it to manage risk and meet its statutory duties during the strike by about 20 staff in its north and south mental health teams and its approved mental health professional (AMHP) service.

The law on covering strike action

Regulations prohibit employment agencies from supplying workers to an organisation to cover the duties of a striking employees or other employees covering those on strike, so long as the industrial action is legitimate (regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003).

However, guidance on the 2003 regulations stipulates that employers can cover a striking worker’s work by contracting out the service, which appears to be what Barnet Council is planning to do.

“These are functions of [London Borough of Barnet (LBB)] and we assume that LBB will remain accountable for their delivery. It is therefore not the case that LBB is outsourcing a service; rather, it is procuring workers to provide the exact services normally provided by its own workers during a period of strike.

“Therefore, should LBB procure strike cover as described in this letter, it would be procuring the services of an employment business, Regulation 7 of the regulations would be breached and a criminal offence would be committed under the Employment Agencies Act 1973.”

Legal threat

While any such offence is committed by the employment agency concerned, UNISON said the authority itself may thereby be guilty of offences relating to encouraging others to commit a crime.

The union urged Hooton to confirm in writing by 28 May that the authority will not seek to procure external workers to provide cover for striking employees, adding that it reserved its “right to notify the relevant authorities of any potential criminal offences and also to seek relief via the courts, including injunctive relief through judicial review proceedings, should you fail to provide the requested confirmations and agreements by 28 May 2024”.

‘We are acting within the law’ – council

However, in response, a council spokesperson said: “We are acting within the law to ensure we can keep residents safe and deliver our statutory responsibilities through the strike.

“We are now at the point where the industrial action has significantly reduced our ability to respond to residents’ requests for support with their mental health. This outsourced service will be needed imminently to manage the risk and to enable the council to effectively respond to urgent referrals in a reasonable timeframe during UNISON extended nine-week block strike action. This service is lawful and would provide a minimum level of cover to ensure we meet our statutory responsibilities.”

What union is calling for

The union is calling for staff on the three mental health teams to receive a 10% recruitment and retention payment on top of salary to tackle what it describes as a “staffing exodus”, with 25 social workers due to have left the teams over the course of 22 months, including currently planned departures.

This is a drop from its original claim of a 20% payment.

However, the council has rejected the premise that there are recruitment and retention issues specific to the three teams and has instead offered a 5% payment to all social workers, occupational therapists and senior practitioners in adult social care – about 200 staff. According to UNISON, the council has admitted this is more expensive than the union’s claim.

‘A justifiable and fair offer’

However, the council spokesperson added:  “UNISON’s claim for a 10% recruitment and retention payment to just three out of six mental health worker teams is not justifiable under the council’s policy. We have made a justifiable and fair offer of 5% for all social work staff, and this offer is still open.

“If UNISON suspends the strike, then we are more than willing to continue to sit at the negotiating table, including to discuss minimum service levels needed to keep residents safe.”

UNISON’s branch secretary, John Burgess, said it was “deeply disappointing that we are where we are”.

“I am still hopeful that someone in a Leadership position in Barnet Council will approach UNISON about meeting us halfway to end the dispute and try and restore stability within the mental health social work teams,” he added.

UK Law surrounding pet theft changing thanks to Keele lecturer’s campaign

24 MAY 2024

Pet abduction is to become a specific criminal offence in England and Northern Ireland thanks to a campaign led by a Keele academic informed by their research.

Dr Daniel Allen has spent the last seven years calling for a change in the law as one of the founders of the Pet Theft Reform campaign, urging ministers to make the abduction of pets a specific offence under criminal law.

Previously pets were treated as property in the eyes of the law, meaning those found guilty would face relatively minor punishments such as community service or a fine, if they were convicted at all.

But the passing of the Pet Abduction Bill means that those found guilty of pet theft in England and Northern Ireland will now face much stricter penalties.

The Bill is due to receive Royal Assent later after passing through both the House of Commons and Lords earlier this year, meaning it will be enshrined in law within just a few months.

Dr Allen’s evidence-based campaign and his research on the issue of pet theft, and its impact on families, was the catalyst that led to the Pet Abduction Bill being written, and he is now lobbying for similar changes to legislation in Scotland and Wales.

Dr Allen said: “Pet Theft Reform is about family. With victims at the heart of the campaign, we recognise the importance of the human-animal bond, the devastating impact that animal abduction has on people and pets, and the need for pet abduction as a specific offence. Having campaigned since 2018, we are really pleased the Pet Abduction Bill recognises this. The new law will undoubtedly help many families across the country.

“It has taken seven years of campaigning alongside the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance (Sampa) for pet abduction to be formally recognised as a specific offence in England and Northern Ireland. Thank you to everyone who supported Pet Theft Reform in this time.”

Anna Firth MP, who sponsored the bill through the House of Commons, said: “Our pets are part of our families. They comfort us when we are down and give us a huge amount of laughter, energy and joy when we are up—and, in fact, all the time. They make a house a home. That is why it is so heart-breaking when any one of our beloved pets is snatched away from us, and it is also why the taking, abducting or detaining of someone else’s beloved pet is such a sick and cruel crime.

“As a nation of pet-lovers, it is vital that the law recognises the emotional impact that theft of a pet can have and brings the perpetrators to justice that correctly reflects this. Pets are not merely ornamental in our lives – they are sentient beings, and it is not right that the law didn't recognise this.”

UK

What will it take to deliver an apprenticeship guarantee for young people

A new report shows those who say such a guarantee can’t be delivered in an employer-led system underestimate appetite for change



Lizzie Crowley
Skills adviser, CIPD
25 May 2024,


Earlier this week we released a report, working with Youth Futures Foundation, calling on the next government to introduce an apprenticeship guarantee for young people up to the age of 24. The guarantee would ensure that a Level 2 or Level 3 apprenticeship place is available for every qualified candidate. This was previously set out in the 2009 Apprenticeship Act but was later repealed.

One of the main barriers to overcome in implementing an apprenticeship guarantee is ensuring the availability of sufficient opportunities for young people. Critics have previously contended that in an employer-led system this would not be possible, unlike in other parts of the education system where government is simply able to just expand places.

Yet, while we recognise this critical delivery barrier, our research suggests that there is both significant employer support for the introduction of such a guarantee and willingness to provide additional youth apprenticeship places under one. Nine in ten employers (89 per cent) would support an apprenticeship guarantee for young people, and 60 per cent of employers would be able to offer an additional apprenticeship opportunity for a young person.

However, it would be unrealistic to rely on the goodwill of employers alone and further action would be required to unlock more apprenticeship opportunities for young people. In particular, to boost the provision of apprenticeship places in small and medium sized businesses, who are much more likely to provide apprenticeships for young people, as well as provide apprenticeship places at lower levels.

Our research has highlighted the concerning drop in SME engagement in apprenticeships since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and other reforms to the system, which have driven the overall collapse in starts as well as the fall in intermediate apprenticeships. Restoring SME apprenticeship starts to pre-levy levels and unlocking additional opportunities would be required to realise the vision of an apprenticeship guarantee.

To do this the next government should shift to demand-led youth apprenticeship funding, for SMEs, and introduce targeted financial incentives for both small employers and apprenticeship providers to boost youth opportunities.

The next government should shift to demand-led funding

Alongside enhanced funding and targeted financial incentives there is also a need to build the appetite and capability of small firms to engage in apprenticeships and skills investment more broadly, as well as to help them navigate a complex skills system.

To do this we need enhanced partnerships and business support at a local level. Combined authorities can play a leading role here, while Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs) have the potential to be a key actor but require long-term and sustainable funding if they are to fulfil this potential and make the required impact.

As well as action to boost SME engagement the next government should reform the apprenticeship levy into a flexible skills levy with at least half of the levy money ring-fenced for young people and the remainder for wider workforce skills needs.

Our research also highlighted that 54 per cent of those that pay into the levy admitted to rebadging existing training schemes as apprenticeships as a way to claim their allowance. Establishing a more flexible skills levy would remove the incentive for employers to reclassify training as apprenticeships. Additionally, it would enable the provision of accredited training choices that better suit the skill development needs of existing employees.

Finally, as part of a guarantee, there is a need for additional support for those young individuals who are not yet ready to embark on an apprenticeship programme, restoring a crucial initial step on the path to opportunity.

That is why we are calling on the next government to introduce a dedicated pre-apprenticeship programme which should include a weekly bursary, similar to that offered in Wales, to boost participation.

While a youth apprenticeship guarantee would be challenging to deliver, our research has clearly demonstrated an appetite and a willingness by employers to rebalance the apprenticeship system towards young people.

We need the next government to match this ambition with the necessary vision and funding to transform the apprenticeship and wider skills system so that it delivers much better outcomes for learners, organisations and the economy.