Thursday, June 27, 2024

 

Act Now – Doing nothing is not an option!

Professor Matthew Johnson introduces an important new Report which was launched today

JUNE 27, 2024LABOUR HUB EDITORS

The Common Sense Policy Group (commonsensepolicygroup.com) comprises academics, policymakers, third sector leaders, community representatives, media figures and people with lived experience. We are all committed to creating a fair, equal and inclusive Britain through developing and influencing redistributive policy that addresses the inequality and exclusion that has come to define our nation. We present consensus on feasible, affordable and overwhelmingly popular evidence-based policies that can form the basis for a programme for progressive Government.

Chaired by Matthew Johnson at Northumbria University, the group includes: Danny Dorling (University of Oxford), Jamie Driscoll (Mayor of North of Tyne Combined Authority), Irene Hardill (Northumbria University), Cat Hobbs (We Own It), Elliott Johnson (Northumbria University), Neal Lawson (Compass), Jennifer Nadel (Compassion in Politics), Daniel Nettle (Northumbria University and Institut Jean Nicod), Kate Pickett (University of York, Health Equity North), Zack Polanski (Deputy Leader of the Green Party, London Assembly Member), Allyson Pollock (Newcastle University), Howard Reed (Northumbria University, Landman Economics), David Taylor-Robinson (University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Health Equity North), Ian Robson (Northumbria University), Graham Stark (Northumbria University) and Richard Wilkinson (University of Nottingham and Northumbria).

Key policy points

Act Now: A Vision for a Better Future and New Social Contract is a Beveridge-style report published by Manchester University Press (£9.99) this week ahead of the 2024 General Election.

It is directly aimed at providing a Beveridge-style programme for government to end our era of crisis. It is the bare minimum for national renewal and has been tested extensively for feasibility, affordability and popularity.

We have a feasible, affordable and demonstrably popular plan to rebuild Britain as successfully as the Beveridge-inspired reforms of 1945:

  • Basic income is the key distributive means of securing society that makes the rest of a new social contract possible, including by reducing pressure on health care and disruption caused by transition to net zero.
  • A properly funded Green New Deal, with a  quadruple lock to protect workers in carbon intensive industries, is fundamental to creating jobs and securing our future
  • Nationalization of energy and water are essential means of securing Britain and protecting the country against international volatility
  • Health and Social Care can only be cost-effective when nationally owned and operated
  • Early years and educational investments are critical to reducing pressure on our criminal justice system and increasing productivity as we transition to a new economy
  • We can build our way out of the housing crisis and gradually remove the state-led transfer of wealth to private landlords and speculators in the process
  • Our infrastructure can be transformed through targeted, regional control of transport
  • Democratic reform to control lobbying and corruption is in the interests of progressive parties
  • We can fund an expansive programme through wealth, carbon and corporation taxes, massively increasing our tax base and yield (£544.6bn) and productivity sufficiently to create a Britain that leads the world in quality of life, equality and security within ten years.

Failure to adopt such a popular programme and restore faith in politics will leave open the possibility of a right-wing takeover in 5 years’ time.

Costings, productivity and taxation

The policies in this programme have been costed using standard costing mechanisms. The reforms outlined have been analysed using a model of the relationship between gross value added (a measure of economic output) and public and private spending on services and investment at the regional and local levels in the UK and constituent countries. We assume that the capital spending commitments in our recommendations will have positive impacts on productivity via multiplier effects. We use multipliers estimated by researchers at the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) at University College London using data for a set of European countries between 1970 and 2016.  The IIPP estimates suggest that the multiplier for public investment in infrastructure after five years is between 2.43 and 3.12 (depending on the precise model used). We use the IIPP central estimate of 2.74 for the estimates in this book. A multiplier of 2.74 implies that an increase of £1 million a year in public spending on infrastructure produces an increase of £2.74 million in GDP.

The initial spending commitments in this book total approximately £377 billion a year, of which just over 80 per cent is current spending rather than capital spending. However, current spending also has multiplier effects. For example, additional spending on the NHS contributes to a healthier workforce with lower levels of premature mortality and morbidity and better mental health. Basic income also has positive multiplier effects on health. We assume that the multiplier impact of current spending is equal to one- third that of capital spending, that is a multiplier of 0.91. The estimated increase in GDP due to higher capital and current spending generates additional tax receipts from taxes on earnings and corporate profits, as well as receipts from consumption taxes due to higher spending. In line with the current share of tax receipts in UK GDP, we assume that tax receipts increase by an amount equal to 40 per cent of the increase in GDP.

According to our modelling, taking second-round productivity impacts into account results in an increase of just over £206 billion in tax receipts. This increases the total amount raised in tax from around £339 billion to £545 billion. This £339 billion in tax receipts is enough to fund the £308 billion of current spending commitments in our plans – including the starter basic income scheme (£182.8 billion) – with £31 billion left over. With an additional £206 billion of tax receipts after taking second round impacts into account, it is possible to fund basic income scheme 2 (that is, the ‘halfway to MIS’ scheme – an additional £210.8 billion compared with the starter scheme) with almost £26 billion to spare. Given longer- term positive productivity effects of this basic income scheme and the other spending plans in this report, there is every reason to think that the UK would be able to afford basic income scheme 3 – payments to all individuals in the UK at the Minimum Income Standard level (currently an additional £276.1 billion) – at some point in the not- too- distant future. This would be a huge and welcome achievement.

It also demonstrates the fundamental importance of running Britain like a business. If we invest in the right areas, we generate wealth that cannot otherwise be generated. When we distribute that wealth effectively, we not only produce gains in those regions and among those communities and individuals that need it most: we grow radically as a nation. If we want Britain to survive and thrive, we must invest.

The programme in five minutes

We live in an era of permanent crisis. We have become accustomed to conditions that once would have felt life-threatening. Millions of people in work are unable to afford to heat their homes or pay their mortgages and waits for urgent hospital treatment are now often measured in years. Former Chancellor George Osborne was fond of saying that austerity was needed to fix the roof while the sun was shining. Instead, we are left with a national house that is close to being condemned.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. In the 1940s, with the country facing the devastation of the Second World War, Lord Beveridge proposed changes to public services that would transform the country for the better. Now facing our own 21st Century crisis, in this report we propose commonsense solutions to key problems in British life. From health and social care to transport and education, we show how we can make public services much better and the economy much more productive. We also show that we can do so without breaking the bank.

The authors come from different walks of life and have different political perspectives, but the policies presented here are based on evidence and can, and should, be adopted by parties across the spectrum. The findings of the report are just as compelling as those of Beveridge eighty years ago: we can solve our structural crises through evidence-based policies that are highly popular and that can create a better, wealthier future quickly. We must Act Now.

What do we propose?

We propose that we every national policy should be scrutinised on the basis of five principles:

  1. increase equality?
  2. promote freedom from domination?
  3. tackle the social determinants of health?
  4. build community wealth?
  5. level up places?

Social security: We propose reestablishing a social safety net that works for all of us by introducing a Basic Income for all permanent UK residents of £75 per week for adults and £50 for children, increasing to £185 per week for adults within five years (removing some conditional benefits) and a full Minimum Income Standard payment of around £295 per adult within ten years, which would remove most conditional benefits and housing benefit in particular. It is only an intervention with Beveridge-scale ambition that can secure those of us in as well as out of work and rebuild our country.

Green New Deal: We propose investing a minimum of £28 billion annually through a National Investment Bank in decarbonising and expanding energy supply and reducing expenditure and emissions, while ending new oil and gas licences, with a quadruple lock for workers whose industries are affected. We propose leveraging further private investment through tax incentives.

We also propose taking full social control over energy, water and transport networks, devolved to community level in line with the community wealth principle and regenerating the countryside and creating marine protected areas in the interests of nature. Finally, we propose investing in a National Building Service to support decarbonisation efforts in housing, making energy efficient development mandatory and placing the costs of disposal and waste on the producers.

Public Utilities: In addition to the Green New Deal policies, we propose bringing the energy network and production back into public ownership while banning new oil and gas extraction and transitioning to clean energy in three years. We also propose progressive billing where users get a guaranteed amount of energy paid for and heavy users pay more. We would also trigger the English water companies’ 25-year notice period to bring them back into public ownership, legislate to cut that timeline and take failing water companies into special administration, while punishing others that perform poorly. Once public, we propose investment in infrastructure at large scale to reduce leaks and waste.

Health and Social Care: We propose legislating to ensure that health and social care is funded and delivered publicly, including nationalising GP Practices, integrating social care into the NHS, free at the point of need, bringing all outsourced contracts back in house and ending private provision through NHS facilities. We propose reinstating funding back to real-terms pre-austerity levels, doubling the number of training places for doctors nurses and dentists as rapidly as possible. Establishing a National Pharmaceutical Service to ensure that publicly funded research benefits the public and the public purse and end the drug manufacture shortages blighting the NHS.

Early childhood: Although many issues would be addressed by introduction of Basic Income, we propose investment to expand free school meals to all, ensure that schools can support child health, improve secondary and post-16 funding and expand Family Hubs, health visiting and children’s centres. We also propose embedding impact assessments for all policies, use devolved Citizens Assemblies that include young people in policymaking and pass the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill to level England and Northern Ireland up to Welsh and Scottish standards.

Education: We propose increasing schools spending by 9%, sixth form by 23%, further education by 14% and higher education by 18% to return to pre-austerity levels. We also propose prioritising care, consideration and cooperation and reduce the cliff-edge implications of assessment that harm pupils’ health and wellbeing. We propose removing private school charitable status, prohibiting profit-making and merging public and private provision.

We propose granting Local Authorities direct control over admissions policy, ensuring a broad and balanced curriculum, introducing democratic structures in collaboration with experts, and ensuring that teachers are graduates with core academic capacities. We also propose removing further and higher education fees after five years and replacing the Education Maintenance Allowance during the transition.

Housing: We set out a fair Proportional Property Tax, introducing taxes on second homes, holiday homes and empty commercial property, and ending the spare bedroom tax. We propose enhancing the existing ‘right-to-stay’ into a ‘right-to-sell’, giving mortgagors the right to become tenants rather than face eviction. We propose using the previously mentioned National Building Service funded by the National Investment Bank to build as many publicly owned houses as capacity permits. We propose increasing the Basic Income payment and public housing availability enough that housing benefit can be withdrawn over time so that private landlords can no longer profiteer from public funds. We propose introducing rent controls and eliminating leasehold. We propose making squatting only to seek shelter a civil, not criminal, offence once again, while making illegal actions by landlords and bankers that deprive people of their home and shelter criminal, rather than civil, offences, since their actions demonstrably harm life. And we propose standards to build new homes that are planned to last for centuries, both for sustainability and value for buyers.

Transport: We outline a transformative programme of democratic control that turns government obsession with road building on its head. By fully funding from land value capture, salary sacrifice and pension investment in a Total Transport Network (TTN) of buses, trams and cycleways, with powers devolved to Combined Mayoral Authorities, we can eliminate the traffic jam and all the associated dead time.

Democratic reform: We set out forms of electoral and Parliamentary reform that increase competition and the ethos of public service and reduce in-built incentives for careerism and unwillingness to take risks for the public good. We argue that increasing consistency of administrative bodies across the UK while devolving greater powers to nations and regions is essential to making policy that is responsive. We specifically propose adopting Alternative Vote+ for the House of Commons and Single Transferable Vote for an Assembly of the Nations and Regions, as well as 500 constituencies with 150 top up seats allocated proportionally by Combined Mayoral Authorities across the UK. We also propose moving Parliament out of London to parts of the UK on a five-yearly basis in each location, ensuring that political candidates live in a constituency for two years before becoming eligible for election, and introducing a uniform structure of Scottish style Local Authorities and English style Combined Authorities across the UK.

We also propose  banning second jobs, paid lobbying and all foreign lobbying. We also propose funding political party work in the public interest through expanded Policy Development Grants, while banning donations to political parties by profit making organisations and individuals . We suggest tying politicians’ pay to the national median wage via a wage ratio of a maximum of 2 and introducing an independent Integrity and Ethics Commission.

Shifting the tax burden from work to wealth: The policies we outline throughout this report require significant funding, and we show that providing it through responsible capital investments and taxation on wealth, carbon emissions and profits advances a new economy that serves the interests of the vast majority of us and stimulates inward investment. The taxes we outline reflect public preferences and point towards viable, productive means of making the economy work for us. We use complex, cutting-edge microsimulation modelling to show the impacts of these reforms on measures of performance linked directly to our everyday experience, providing an overwhelming economic argument for the policies we set out above.

We want to run Britain as a business. By this, we do not mean running a country based on unsustainable pay ratios and offshoring labour that leaves most of us in a perpetual state of personal indebtedness and zero-sum competition for work. Rather, we mean a collective endeavour in wealth creation in which investments lead to an overall increase in resources and a distribution of those resources to those parts of our society that need them most to function. By addressing the historical anomaly of viewing income tax on work as the sole means of funding Britain, we set out a fairer and popular means of advancing each of our five principles of reform through our new economy.

We dispel the myth that smaller state spending produces growth and argue for investment in the structure of Britain in the same way as every business has to invest in order to generate wealth. We propose simplifying and limiting tax increases on income from work given the declining value of that income tax passive wealth and close the fairness gap by ensuring that income from work is no longer taxed at a higher rate than income from dividends. We would increase fundamentally affordable taxes, such as corporation tax, which is paid on profits, not overheads. We propose disincentivising through new taxes carbon-producing corporate activities that cost us more in the long-term than leaving the resources in the ground. We also suggest removing the enormous number of badly targeted or damaging tax reliefs.

Popularity: In our survey of Red Wall residents, we found an average level of support for the whole programme of 70.8%, with 61.7% among Conservative and 82.8% among Labour 2019 voters. Nationally, approval was 73.9%, with 51.3% among those intending to vote Conservative, 78.5% among those intending to vote Labour and 68.3% among those who don’t know who they will vote for or who don’t intend to vote at present. There is no appetite to do nothing!

Act Now has been widely endorsed. John McDonnell MP, former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: “This is coherent, radical, and feasible manifesto for government. Given the chance, it would ignite enthusiasm, win the young back to politics, and enable people to enjoy security and freedom in their life with one another and with the powers that be. It calls us back to a realistic image of the good society.”

Matthew Johnson is Professor of Public Policy at Northumbria University.

Main image: Professor Matthew Johnson speaking at the launch of Act Now. Image in text: Other members of the Act Now team at the launch. Images c/o Labour Hub.




A real manifesto for change

Mike Phipps previews at Act now: A vision for a better future, by the Common Sense Policy Group, published today by the Manchester University Press.

JUNE 25, 2024

LABOUR HUB 

Common sense is an important feature of any election narrative. One of the ways in which Labour’s brilliant 2017 manifesto was able to dominate that electoral campaign and deprive Theresa May of her majority was to emphasise its common sense credentials – that austerity wasn’t working, that the definition of insanity was sticking with it and hoping for different results and that it was time to try something new.

This obvious point allowed Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour to rightly appear as the purveyors of common sense democratic socialist solutions and portray the Tories as swivel-eyed ideologues wedded to the stale dogma of failed neoliberal economics. By 2019, the Tories had swapped austerity for Johnson’s boosterist and ultimately fraudulent ‘levelling up’ agenda and Labour’s tactic of continuing to attack austerity was less effective, to put it mildly.

Keir Starmer may present himself as a common sense politician but you don’t have to delve too far into the Labour manifesto to realise its solutions fall short. Its main aim seems to be to make Labour as inoffensive to vested interests as possible. As a result, the ‘solutions’ presented to the multiple crises Britain is facing have been diluted and triangulated to such an extent that they barely scrape the surface of the problems we face.

Today’s new Report, compiled by a prestigious team led by Northumbria University’s Professor Matthew Johnson and including the prolific Professor Danny Dorling, North of Tyne Mayor Jamie Driscoll, We Own It Director Cat Hobbs, Compass Director Neal Lawson, health campaigner Professor Allyson Pollock and a dozen other academics and activists, has some excellent suggestions to fill this vacuum. These include:

  • A basic income for all that would provide an essential safety net, an idea supported by nearly 70% of the population.
  • A properly funded green new deal and nationalisation of energy and water, essential to producing national wealth. Two-thirds of the public support a green new deal and over 78% favour pubic ownership of utilities.
  • Health and social care made cost-effective by being nationally owned and operated. Social care in particular saw local authority spending fall by half between 2010-11 and 2016-7, with poor quality care and low pay rife in the dominant for-profit sector. The Report also calls for an end to NHS outsourcing, private provision and subsidies. These ideas, along with the reintegration of social care into the NHS are also overwhelmingly popular.
  • Early years and educational investments which are critical to reducing pressure on the criminal justice system and increasing productivity to support the transition to a new economy. Beyond funding, the authors also emphasise  a balanced curriculum, democratically accountable structures and a level playing field in Higher Education, pointing towards free provision for all.
  • A national building programme to tackle the housing crisis – overwhelmingly popular – while gradually removing the state-led transfer of wealth to private landlords and speculators. Ending Right to Buy is central to this, and it should be noted that in Scotland and Walkes where this policy has been introduced, there has been no backlash at all.
  • Infrastructure transformed through targeted, regional control of transport. Three-quarters of voters favour this policy.
  • Democratic reforms to control lobbying and corruption. These included a fairer electoral system and a second chamber that would represent the nations and regions of the UK.
  • An expansive programme of change through wealth, carbon and corporation taxes, increasing the tax base, yield and productivity sufficiently to carry through the programme outlined.

The authors believe the scale of the problems the UK faces requires a response which matches the ambition of the 1942 Beveridge Report. This tackled the five evils of idleness – through a programme of full employment; ignorance – by universal, free, compulsory secondary education; disease – through the establishment of the NHS; squalor – by a massive council housebuilding programme; and want – by a comprehensive benefits system.

Today all these achievements are undermined by the deliberate return of mass unemployment, the underfunding of schools and increasing costs of higher education, the relentless part-privatisation of the NHS, the selling off of public housing and swingeing benefit cuts.

To challenge this, the Report envisages a changed role for the state as a representative of the people rather than the interests of capital and a new emphasis on equality and community wealth building.

Greater equality is central to this endeavour, as recent studies reviewed on Labour Hub repeatedly underline. The Report states: “All of the ways in which children in the UK are worse off than children in other rich countries are strongly associated with the high level of income inequality in the UK.”

To address the scale of Britain’s economic decline, something which the Labour manifesto palpably fails to do, the authors propose a new economic approach on a fully costed and funded basis. At the heart of these reforms are a new National Investment Bank, a fairer tax system including a wealth tax and a combination of Basic Income and Universal Basic Services.

Will the Labour front bench listen to any of this? Probably not voluntarily. But the evident impatience of voters for drastic change stands in stark contrast with the timidity of Keir Starmer’s team, so any honeymoon an incoming Labour government hopes to enjoy is likely to be very short. As the leadership’s remedies to tackle the climate, cost of living and public services crises fall short of what’s necessary, the ideas in this Report can form a basis for united campaigning by trade unions and other social movements seeking real solutions to the mess we are in.

Mike Phipps’ book Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: The Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn (OR Books, 2022) can be ordered here.

 UK

Labour and academies

Kevin Courtney proposes some reforms to school structures that an incoming Labour government should introduce.

JUNE 26, 2024

LABOUR HUB 

An incoming Labour government has to decide what to do about the school structures that they will inherit. Many schools are now in multi-academy trusts (MATs), but more remain in local authorities. 

Labour has said it doesn’t want to concentrate on school structures but on other matters directly relevant to the classroom.  But it’s worth noting that the school system in England is very much an outlier amongst education systems in the developed countries. 

State schools here exist in a much more marketised system than elsewhere – even than in the United States. This doesn’t mean a private market where schools are run for profit, but a system of market-type incentives that have been built into the school system in England.

This development started under Margaret Thatcher with the introduction of SATs and league tables alongside the notion of Local Management of Schools and money following individual pupils.

This system has been around so long it almost feels natural. But it’s unlike the system in most other comparable jurisdictions. 

And that market-type system has had rocket boosters put under it by the introduction of academies, free schools and multi-academy trusts.

Think about this. How do you improve the standard of education in a school?

There is lots that can be done from outside the school – introduce Sure Start, fund the school better, reduce unemployment in the vicinity of the school. All those would be likely to improve the exam results in the school.

But what about measures at the level of the school? What steps could you take that would improve the exam results?

Well, very broadly speaking, there is a hard way and an easy way.

The hard way is for example: investing in Continuing Professional Development, supporting your teachers, involving them in improving teaching and learning, working together on improving behaviour, etc.  There is a whole literature and lots of experience about such methods of ‘school improvement’.

That’s the harder way to improve exam results. What’s the easier way?

Change the children! Find ways to remove children who are from disadvantaged backgrounds and replace them with children who are better off. This lifts the results at your school.

But just to emphasise the point, this doesn’t raise standards of education overall. The disadvantaged children are now at a different school and you’ve got the advantaged children from another school.

So overall standards haven’t risen. But you got results to go up at your school. You moved up the league table. You got a better Ofsted result.

And maybe – you used these facts to make an argument that as a multi-academy chief executive you did a good job and you deserve a pay rise?

Now, you can change your pupil population in a variety of ways. Set a catchment area carefully to exclude a working class estate. Set a ‘fair entrance’ exam and advertise it heavily in middle class areas. Hold quiet conversations with parents saying, “this school is too academic for your child, they would be better off down the road.”  Pitch your home school contract to dissuade parents who are a bit less engaged. 

Is this just speculation? Aren’t there ways of stopping schools off-loading disadvantaged children?

Well, according to the Education Policy Institute, “Our research in this area has found that larger MATs (those with at least ten schools with secondary pupils) all have above average rates of unexplained exits. “

And, “Nationally, the latest figures indicate a very high rate of exits from schools: as many as 1 in 10 pupils (10.1 per cent) in the 2017 cohort experienced exits at some point during their time at secondary school that cannot be accounted for.”

These are very real effects from school structures that have these negative effects.

But there are some suggestions for immediate changes that Labour could make which would make the system more coherent, reduce wasteful duplication, reduce teacher losses and make education for children better.

Clearly there are other things to address over Ofsted, tests, curriculum and improvements in teacher and support staff pay and conditions. But here are some suggestions that Labour could implement quickly, mostly without legislation.  What do you think?

National rules and freedoms

Freedom

All state-funded schools should have significant autonomy over their curriculum. The national curriculum should be a core entitlement curriculum.

Regulation 

All state-funded schools (including academies and independent special schools that are funded through taxpayer/council tax-payer) should follow national terms and conditions; these should include terms and conditions for executive heads and Chief Executives.

Local rules and freedoms

Freedom 

Local authorities should have authority to build new schools, which can be local authority schools.

Regulation 

Local authorities should control the admissions, exclusions and appeals process for all state-funded schools in their geographical area, including in schools that are parts of a MAT which covers a wider area. Local authorities should provide facility release for elected trade union officers to represent members in all schools in the district.

School-level rules and freedoms 

Freedom 

Academy schools will have the freedom, following governing body resolutions and full consultation with parents, to revert to local authority status or to leave the MAT that they have been placed in.

All schools should have the freedom to have their own governing body.

 Regulation 

There should be increased regulation and guidance on state funded schools contracting with organisations that have strong relationships with governors or senior staff at the school.

MAT-level rules and freedoms

Freedom

All schools in a MAT should have the freedom to have their own governing board.

Regulation

MAT boards should elected by those governing boards.

Each MAT should provide facility release for union reps from recognised unions to representative staff in negotiations with the MAT.

Kevin Courtney is a former joint General Secretary of the National Education Union and writes in a personal capacity.

Image: Teachers marching through London, March 15th 2023, c/o Mike Phipps

 UK

Voting for Welfare not Warfare – CND

“Money spent on war and nuclear weapons is money not invested in real human security…. we should be demanding an industrial strategy built on peace, and socially and ecologically useful work.”

By Sam Mason, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)

As the UK heads to the polls on 4th July, the election result looks all done bar the shouting. Minor, albeit important, details need to be decided such as the number of seats for parties or independent candidates outside Labour and Tories, but odds are on for a Labour victory. But how favourable will this victory be for peace, economic, and social justice?

Unfortunately, rather than looking forward to a new dawn committing to a nuclear-free world, we will be confronted with Labour’s “unshakeable” commitment to NATO, an “absolute” commitment to a nuclear deterrent, and being “fully committed” to AUKUS.

Labour has set out commitments to a triple lock for nuclear weapons including the construction of four new nuclear submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent, and delivery of all future upgrades needed for those submarines.

This goes alongside plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and a new defence industrial strategy. All wrapped in a flag of national security and jobs.

But what about the investment desperately needed to tackle the cost of living and welfare crisis, the health and social care crisis, food insecurity, housing, education, and the climate crisis? Investment into public services and jobs are essential to the fabric of society and real security which were applauded just a few years ago during the height of the Covid pandemic.

In the BBC Question Time leaders special on 20th June, Keir Starmer was asked how he could increase spending on the NHS, the care system and defence without raising taxes. In response, he said “we will always make the money available for defence”.

Therefore, tight fiscal rules for socially useful things but which don’t apply to increasing militarisation of our societies and nuclear weapons spending, actually make us less secure. This is out of step with how the public define their security. A survey from Rethinking Security found that when unprompted, people are “much more likely to be concerned about their own wellbeing and socioeconomic conditions than about external threats”.

The ramping up of political rhetoric for war, also belies public support for our politicians leading us into a “pre-war” world, as current Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has called it. Analysis by the election expert Sir John Curtice shows a deep mistrust of politicians to serve people’s interests, and linked to a declining vote, implies whatever the size of the parliamentary majority for the Labour Party, they will not be going into government with a massive share of the overall popular vote.

Trade unionists, like many, want to see the back of the Tories and along with it, austerity and the cost-of-living crisis. But we cannot accept a government programme that says there is a magic money tree for war and nuclear weapons, and certainly not at the expense of investment in areas such as public sector pay, financing of health and social care, welfare including for children and disabled people, and tackling the climate crisis, among others.

The latest report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons “Surge: 2023 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending” showed a global increase of $10.7 billion on nuclear weapons, with nuclear armed states found to be spending the equivalent of $2,898 a second. For the UK, “spending was up significantly for the second year in a row with a 17% increase to $8.1 billion”.

Money spent on war and nuclear weapons is money not invested in real human security. While some trade unions support increases in defence spending, and back nuclear weapons for jobs, we should never be part of the drum beat to war. Instead, we should be demanding an industrial strategy built on peace, and socially and ecologically useful work.

The CND Trade Union Advisory Group believes we urgently need to develop strategies to confront this within our movement. For this reason, we are calling on all trade unionists within CND to join us after the election for an online meeting on July 10th at 7pm to start the discussion on how we can build the case against nuclear weapons and war in our unions.


 UK

FEATURED

The urgent case for expanding Free School Meals – Daniel Kebede, NEU

“With the cost of living hitting family budgets, and hitting school budgets too, it is high time for a rethink on free school meals. We need a plan which provides a true leveller for all.”
Daniel Kebede, National Education Union General Secretary

By Daniel Kebede, National Education Union (NEU)

Let’s start with a simple premise: poverty limits children’s futures. It holds children back in school and cuts off their potential at the very start of their lives. Food poverty embeds issues of class inequality and social isolation in school.

If we accept all of that, then why are we falling so far short of addressing poverty in this country?

According to Child Poverty Action Group, in every class of 30 there will be 9 pupils who are living in poverty. And after fourteen years of Conservative rule, we now have hundreds of thousands more children growing up trapped in poverty.

The latest TUC analysis shows that the number of children growing up in poverty in working households increased by 44% between 2010 and 2023. That’s a jump of 900,000.

And why is it that we accept hunger? Children attending school are unable to concentrate due to hunger. Fatigue like this is not conducive to good learning. It is also demoralising for pupils.

A majority of children can take for granted a healthy, hot school dinner, but this is not an automatic entitlement for all.

The current means tested approach is failing families. For most children in England, the eligibility criteria for free school meals require them to live in a household that is in receipt of universal credit and has a total annual income (before benefits) below £7,400.

£7,400. That is astonishing.

That number is regardless of how many earners or children are in the household. Worse still, that number has not changed since it was introduced in 2018, meaning the threshold has harshened through inflation.

Even for those who meet the criteria, the onus is on families to work this out for themselves. Families, with salaries below £7,400, often face barriers of technology, language and stigma. Sometimes they are not even aware of eligibility.

The end result is that one in three children living in poverty in England are considered “too well off” to have a free school meal. An estimated further 200,000 children meet the criteria but are not getting the meals they are entitled to. As they enter the classroom each day, these children, already some of the most vulnerable, now have the added hurdle of an empty stomach.

Creating divides between children based on measures of their families’ wealth undermines the notion of a comprehensive education system. All the associated challenges – children missing out, teachers plugging gaps, families unable to get support – are a result of means testing. Ultimately, it isn’t fair.

With the cost of living hitting family budgets, and hitting school budgets too, it is high time for a rethink on free school meals. We need a plan which provides a true leveller for all.

That is why the NEU has been campaigning for Free School Meals for all primary-aged children.

It is why we support Mayor Sadiq Khan’s initiative in London since 2022 to do just that. In 2020, Scotland pledged to provide free healthy dinners for every child in primary school. In 2021, Wales promised children the same.

And why wouldn’t we support that? It makes sense for health, for education, and for a better society.

But children in the rest of England are still waiting and this makes no sense.

Don’t believe me? Then listen to teachers and support staff. In our annual State of Education survey, NEU members told us that the best solutions they would like to see from Government to properly respond to the rising levels of child poverty are things they are so far not doing. 89% called for a strengthening of rules to ensure school uniforms are affordable, 78% a dedicated technology budget to combat the digital divide, while 79% believed that free school meals for all children who attend primary schools in England and Wales would go some way towards helping.

Strikingly, this last statistic rises to 87% among members working in the areas of England with the highest levels of deprivation.

They should know.

And if you don’t want to take our word for it, then ask parents. When our No Child Left Behind campaign commissioned a poll from Survation back in February, a staggering 88% of parents and carers outside of London said they would like to see universal Free School Meals extended to all primary school children in England. Two thirds (66%) supported this ‘strongly’.

Better still, ask children. Half of the London children in Years 4-6 polled by Survation – and beneficiaries of Mayor Khan’s initiative – said that universal FSM meant they and their classmates now had better concentration during lessons. A quarter said they can now eat and be together at lunchtime.

The last government trial investigating the impact of providing universal free school meals, as opposed to means tested school meals, found that pupils on the universal scheme made four to eight weeks’ additional academic progress compared to their peers.

And it doesn’t only make educational sense. It makes economic sense too. The respected accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers concluded that for every £1 invested in universal free school meals, the economy would make back £1.71. The Government point to the need for a strong economy, but we won’t see a strong economy until we start to invest in our children.

It is a heartless Government that would choose to ignore these voices, and the clear benefits to children and their learning, from universal meals. In his most recent Autumn Statement and Spring Budget, Jeremy Hunt did next to nothing for schools.

Expanding free school meals is a no brainer. If the next Government truly believes in the wellbeing and potential of all young people, as teachers do, then they will make it happen.


  • Daniel Kebede is the General Secretary of the National Education Union (NEU).
  • You can follow Daniel on Twitter/X here; and follow the NEU on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.
  • If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.


A picture of a crown of fire fighters with FBU flags.

Starmer faces “emergency” of underfunded fire service

“The UK is dangerously underprepared and under-resourced when it comes to keeping communities safe from fires, floods and other disasters. To turn things around, we will need significant investment.”
Matt Wrack

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) says that the UK is “dangerously underprepared” for responding to fires, floods and extreme weather events, and has called on Keir Starmer to rapidly invest in the fire and rescue service when he enters Number 10.  

The Fire Brigades Union has warned that responses to national emergencies and major incidents including wildfires, heatwaves, and flooding have been impeded by a lack of resilience over the past two years. 

The Firefighters’ Manifesto sets out the FBU’s vision for the future of the fire service. It advocates investment to address a crisis caused by a lack of resources, deregulation and cuts. Firefighters are calling on all parliamentary candidates to pledge their support for the manifesto.

Across the UK, 1 in 5 firefighter jobs have been cut since 2010. 82 fire stations and 17 control rooms have been closed down.  

Fire and rescue services frequently fail to meet their own targets for fire cover. The average response time for fire brigades to arrive at the scene has risen to a record nine minutes and 12 seconds across England. This is an increase of more than a minute across the last 10 years.

Several fire and rescue services across the UK have adopted a new policy of sending firefighters out in crews of three instead of the minimum of five firefighters needed to respond to incidents where lives are at risk. They are forced to wait for additional crews to arrive before tackling a serious incident, wasting crucial time needed to save lives. 

On 19 July 2022, as temperatures soared, the London Fire Brigade had its busiest day since the Second World War and ran out of fire engines to respond to incidents. But 39 fire engines sad idle in fire stations because there were not enough firefighters to crew them.  

In the wake of flooding caused by Storm Babet in October 2023, a record 72 calls went unanswered or were deferred in Northamptonshire alone as resources ran out.  

Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary said:  

“When Keir Starmer enters 10 Downing Street, the crisis in the fire and rescue service will be one of the most important things in his in-tray.”

“The UK is dangerously underprepared and under-resourced when it comes to keeping communities safe from fires, floods and other disasters. To turn things around, we will need significant investment.”

“Under the Tories, 1 in 5 firefighter jobs have been cut, as has 30% of central government funding. This has led to the worst response times in history, and a hollowing out of national resilience.”

“Firefighters are regularly pushed beyond safe limits. Every day, public safety is put at risk because of a lack of resourcing.”

The incoming government must face the emergency.”


  • This article originally appeared on the FBU website on 25 June 2024

 Lenin

Lenin & the struggle for peace, land & bread 100 years on

“Lenin is popular amongst 40% of Millennials (those born between 1981-96) in Britain.”

By Logan Williams

2024 marks the 100-year anniversary of the death of Lenin. Both a revolutionary leader and one of the foremost political theorists of crisis and social change, this centenary is a good time to reflect on his contribution to the struggle of workers across the globe.

This is especially important as – even a century later – more and more activists within labour, international justice, and social movements begin to acknowledge that we are living through a global economic, social, and political crisis on a scale unprecedented in many of our lifetimes.

Just as today we grapple with multiple intersecting crises, so, too, did Lenin. Then, the slogan ‘peace, land and bread’ drew together the political threads necessary to win a majority to the cause of revolution – tackling head-on the crises of war, cost of living, and property relations facing Russian workers and peasants.       

As then, a defining feature of today’s crisis is the relentless drive of the ruling-class towards an era of permanent wars, but now we see it led by the US, supported by weaker imperialist countries (including Britain).

There is no clearer confirmation than the horrifying events in Gaza, which, since October, has seen at least 34,568 Palestinians killed, with 77,765 injured. All of this is enabled by weapons from the US, UK, and elsewhere – fuelling super-profits for arms manufacturers and other parts of the capitalist class.

But the assault has seen an immense response from a global mass movement, and is a lightning rod for anger at the whole system. As recently noted by Labour Outlook, “we have seen demonstration after demonstration nationally for Palestine on an unprecedented scale. There have been 13 national marches since October, with a total attendance of over 4 million.”

The demands for an end to arms sales to Israel and for boycotts of companies such as CAT, JCB, and Barclays who profit from the oppression of Palestine, show that millions understand the roots of Israel’s aggression, and its imperialist nature.

Even when not taking part in direct ‘regime change’ wars –  for example, in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere – the US, UK and other imperialist powers fuel coups, sanctions, and other interventions – as in the dozens of examples furnished by Latin America. The resistance is clear that all these interventions are driven by the wish to make more profit, as exemplified by the 2003 anti-war movement’s slogan, “no blood for oil.”

Demands such as these – alongside those for “welfare not warfare” – resonate deeply in Britain, where historic economic decline continues, with millions suffering from the cost-of-living emergency.

The economic crisis is the result of decades of failed neo-liberalism, and is illustrated by news stories about the disastrous effects of privatisation of key industries, including water and energy, a part of a decades-long drive to ever-increasing profit.

People suffering from “the cost-of-greed crisis” aren’t idiots. They know the solutions – all polling suggests the majority of people understand public services and utilities need to be run for people not profit.

Alongside permanent war and economic crisis, we are confronted with a new crisis once again caused by the insatiable drive for profit – the climate emergency.

When asked in a recent Guardian survey where the blame for the climate crisis fell, a ‘lack of political will was cited by almost three-quarters of the respondents, while 60% also blamed vested corporate interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.’

They were right. The polluters and profiteers are causing the climate catastrophe, while their representatives in the Labour and Tory parties stand by.

To tackle each of these crises, we must actively seek to understand the world we live in and help support progressive movements in their bid to do the same. Already, millions are making the connection between the economic crisis, climate catastrophe, and spread of war, and the capitalist system.

This is especially true for younger people, as illustrated by a 2023 poll from the Fraser Institute that found nearly a third of people aged 18-34 think that “communism is the ideal economic system”. Last year, YouGov surveyed views on well-known figures, including Lenin. Astonishingly, the Russian revolutionary is popular amongst 40% of Millennials (those born between 1981-96) here in Britain!

Within the wider context of multiple crises, it’s no wonder that so many have found a renewed relevance for this central figure in the history of 20th century politics. As issues of war, imperialism, and rampant social crises top the political agenda, we can learn from Lenin’s ideas, developing a guide to action in our present conditions. As Lenin himself said, ‘without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement’.

To give just one example, his important work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, remarkably illuminates economic processes such as monopolisation, which continues today.

In it, he writes, “Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism.”

What better description of the system that has given Israel carte blanche to prosecute a genocide against the Palestinians as arms sales flourish; that allows food prices to soar as the bosses register record profits; or that rewards fossil fuel companies as the world burns?

So, whilst Lenin lies in a Moscow tomb – his teachings reviled by ‘mainstream’ politics 100 years after his death – it is worth returning to his demands of ‘peace, land and bread,’ and the analysis behind them. That is the motivation behind our new Lenin 100 series of events – we hope you can join us to discuss these ideas and their relevance in the fight for socialism today.


  • Logan Williams is one of the volunteers for the ‘Lenin 100’ series of events. Follow on X here
  • Register for the ‘Lenin 100’ series here.
  • The first event is Lenin Lives! The Struggle for Socialism – 100 Years On – online, Sunday July 7, 3pm. Register here. Paul Le Blanc, author, ‘Lenin. Responding to Catastrophe,’ will – in the words of the organisers – “take us through Lenin’s dynamic revolutionary thought, how he worked as part of a larger collective, how he centred the labour movement & his radical understanding of democracy – & look at how this can help transform our activism today.”