Labour’s current fiscal rules prevent the investment sorely needed for public services

Mike Buckley

18 September, 2024 

Left Foot Forward

This week a group of eight senior economists echoed the unions’ warning, arguing that fiscal plans inherited by Labour will reduce investment spending as a share of GDP, repeat earlier mistakes, backfire and undermine growth.

Last week Keir Starmer was the first prime minister to address the TUC for 15 years. In different circumstances his recommitment to “the biggest levelling up of workers’ rights in a generation” would have brought down the rafters.

Few deny that this Government is different. Starmer’s presence was welcomed. The workers’ rights bill, championed by deputy leader Angela Rayner and business and trade secretary Jonathan Reynolds, goes further than many trade unions had dared hope for.

Much of the new deal is about enhancing individual workers’ rights but it will in addition create a historic opportunity by giving unions rights to organise in workplaces – something union leaders hope could mark a step change in union representation.

“The significance of the plan to make work pay and the employment bill cannot be underplayed,” said Mike Clancy, General Secretary of Prospect, “they are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve workers’ rights in this country.”

Last month’s above inflation pay awards – averaging 5.5% – for many public servants, including teachers and NHS workers, were welcome albeit essential to draw a line under strike action and tackle recruitment and retention issues.

But in the context of his and Rachel Reeves’ almost daily reminder that cuts are more likely than increased spending in this October’s budget, many present expressed concern that public services, already stretched to breaking point by 14 years of Tory austerity and mismanagement, will be pushed to breaking point if the Government does not act.

“What comes next?” asked Fran Heathcote, the general secretary of the PCS civil service union, who said her members are keen to see a “positive alternative” to years of public spending cuts. “We want to engage with the government to try and make that a reality – and some of this stuff is not boding well.”

It’s not just money. Many delegates expressed concern that Labour has not yet set out its industrial strategy, expected to focus on creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in green technologies, with more detail on steel in particular expected soon.

Some unions – particularly GMB and Unite, with members in energy and manufacturing – are sceptical about whether new jobs will be created in the right places and at the right pace to replace thousands being lost elsewhere.

GMB general secretary Gary Smith acknowledges the Government was handed a “hospital pass” by the Tories, but does not conceal his anger the promise of cuts and the delay to investment announcements in key industries.

“Thousands of jobs will go; entire communities will be hollowed out,” he said last week. “We’re allowing our manufacturing sector to shrivel and die, but we’re not reducing our emissions – we’re just outsourcing them. It’s bad for communities, devastating for jobs and makes no sense for the environment. Labour urgently needs an industrial plan to create jobs and hope for working class communities.”

Unions are right to argue for a robust industrial strategy, albeit they may need to give what is still a very new government more time. Some of the demands of GMB and Unite – for example that there is no ban on new licenses for drilling before a fully funded workers’ plan guaranteeing commensurate jobs for all North Sea workers is guaranteed – are unlikely to get agreement from Government given its commitment to swiftly reduce emissions.

This does not mean the Government will not be mindful of the need for replacement jobs, as evidenced by the fact that GB Energy is to be headquartered in Aberdeen, while the roll out of on- and offshore wind in being greatly sped up by Ed Miliband.

In calling for investment above cuts the unions are making common cause with unusual partners. This week a group of eight senior economists echoed the unions’ warning, arguing that fiscal plans inherited by Labour will reduce investment spending as a share of GDP, repeat earlier mistakes, backfire and undermine growth.

They argue that current debt rules create an “inbuilt bias” against investment, and that “to follow through on these plans would be to repeat the mistakes of the past, where investment cuts made in the name of fiscal prudence have damaged the foundations of the economy and undermined the UK’s long-term fiscal sustainability.”

One signatory, Lord Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister under David Cameron, argued on PM that while fiscal rules should be refined rather than ditched entirely, given a need to keep debt to GDP levels under control, the Government should make “transparent what the debt level is including public sector investment and without it.”

This, he argued, would send a strong signal to markets and private investors that the Government was committed to investment and, by extension, to growing the UK economy and fixing all too real drags on economic growth, including ageing transport and public infrastructure.

Rather than panicking markets as Liz Truss’ unfunded tax cuts did back in 2022, a Government making clear that it was investing now for long term growth later would give markets increased confidence in the UK economy, encouraging the inward private investment the Government knows to be essential.

Despite the promise of hard choices to come in the budget Rachel Reeves has given mixed signals on the permanence of current fiscal rules.

In response to this week’s letter from O’Neill and colleagues a Treasury spokesperson said Reeves “has set out her commitment to the current fiscal rules and will set out precise details at the Budget”.

However, in her Mais lecture in March this year Reeves highlighted both a lack of protection for capital spending and short-termism as issues with the current rules, suggesting she would adopt a new borrowing target that would only allow borrowing for investment.

We may get some indication of Reeves’ views in her Labour conference speech next week, although she will be loathe to give away too much detail ahead of October’s budget. But if she is to keep to current fiscal rules, widely regarded to prevent investment sorely needed for public services and the wider economy, she will need to silence critics from both unions and economics.

Majority of voters want another vote on Brexit ‘within five years’, poll finds

Among 11-24 year olds, which includes Gen Z, a total of 61 per cent would vote to rejoin. Only 28 per cent would vote to stay out.

Basit Mahmood 

18 September, 2024 
Left Foot Forward


A majority of voters want another referendum on Brexit within five years, a new poll has found, once more showing the public’s dissatisfaction with the vote to leave the EU.

The survey, carried out by Redfield & Wilton, and reported in the Independent, also found that if another referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU was held today it would result in Brexit being reversed, with a clear majority of all voters saying they would opt to rejoin the EU.

It comes as the Labour government seeks closer cooperation with the EU, although Keir Starmer has ruled out any reversal of the decision to leave.

According to the Redfield & Wilton poll, 56% of those asked said that they would vote to rejoin the EU, if another referendum were held today. To make matters worse for Brexiteers, that includes 1 in 4 of those who voted to Leave in 2016.

Among 11-24 year olds, which includes Gen Z, a total of 61 per cent would vote to rejoin. Only 28 per cent would vote to stay out.

The findings come at a time when the adverse economic impact of Brexit continues to grow, with economists warning this week that Brexit red tape on British businesses has caused goods trade between the UK and EU to slump and that the problem is getting worse.

Last month it was also found that a majority of Britons believe that the negatives of Brexit have outweighed the benefits.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

Nigel Farage backs Donald Trump’s conspiracy theory about immigrants eating pets

The claim has since proven to be untrue.

Basit Mahmood 

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward

LIVING UP TO HIS NAME



Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who is a keen supporter of Donald Trump, has repeated the Republican nominee’s ridiculed claim that immigrants in the US state of Ohio are eating cats and dogs.

Trump, who often pushes baseless conspiracy theories and has no respect for the truth, has found an ally in Farage.

Farage also flew out to the U.S. just days after being elected as an MP for Clacton, to show support with Trump following an assassination attempt on the former President.

During a debate last week, the former US president, who is running for re-election, said Springfield citizens “have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country”.

That claim has since proven to be untrue, with the Wall Street Journal proving that a pet owner at the centre of allegations later found their lost cat in the basement.

Springfield city officials have repeatedly debunked the claims. Mayor Rob Rue told the BBC that the conspiracy theories – and Trump’s pledge to “mass deport” migrants from Springfield – were hurting the town. The false claims have also led to security threats in the Ohio town.

During an appearance on Good Morning Britain, Farage was asked about Trump’s false claims and rather than refute them, the Reform UK leader repeated them.

Richard Madeley asked Farage: “You’re very loyal to Donald Trump.

“How difficult is that when he says things like ‘Springfield cats and dogs are being eaten by immigrants’ and saying that he believes it was divine intervention that saved his life?”

Madeley continued: “He can be pretty ridiculous, can’t he, isn’t that hard for you to stay loyal to?”

Farage said: “Whenever Donald Trump makes a comment which is ridiculed, it always turns out to be true. I refer that to the cats and dogs.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

BELFAST

Finally, a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane

SNadine Finch documents the long battle for justice by the family of the Northern Ireland solicitor that has led to this important step.

SEPT. 19,2024

On 11th September 2024, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Hilary Benn MP, announced that he would establish an independent inquiry into the murder of solicitor, Pat Finucane, which took place on 12th February 1989 in North Belfast.  There has been some adverse commentary from members of the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland. They continue to peddle the sectarian myth that Pat Finucane was a member of the IRA and question why his case, amongst others, has been selected for a public inquiry.

Both of these reactions underline just why it is so crucial to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 in its entirety and restore in full the elements of the Stormont House Agreement, which was reached by the Irish and British government and the majority of parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2014. This would ensure that human rights-compliant laws, as opposed to quasi-legal and weaker instruments, are implemented and respected by both individuals and those who work for the state. In Northern Ireland it has been a new generation of judges ensuring that historic inquests are listed, coroners who have questioned accounts given by state representatives and the lawyers bringing judicial review and advocating for legal inquiries that have ensured that justice has re-emerged as an option.

The murder of Pat Finucane typifies the anti- nationalist and often anti-Catholic nature of the state that existed in Northern Ireland at the time of his death and that still lingers in parts of government. His career and death also illustrate the extent to which the security forces were acting outside the law on a regular basis.

Between 1969 and 1998, a number of terrorist and paramilitary groups operated in Northern Ireland but recent and overdue inquests into a number of deaths, and also inquiries by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, have confirmed long held suspicions and accusations that the British security forces were also acting outside the law. For example, a recent inquest found that members of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment murdered ten civilians on the Ballymurphy Estate in West Belfast in August 1971. It was the same battalion that was responsible only a few months later for the murders of 13 civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday.

This was only one example of incidents where credible inquests were held only after lawyers had challenged the state by judicial review, applications to the Police Ombudsman and the European Court of Human Rights.  

Shoot-to-kill incidents by British soldiers and Royal Ulster Constabulary officers continued into the 1980s and beyond until the Human Rights Act 1989 incrementally gave the families of victims and their lawyers the necessary tools to ensure that inquests did not open and close on the same day and hand down open verdicts, as was the case in the initial inquest into Pat Finucane’s death.

It was Madden and Finucane Solicitors, the firm where Pat was a partner, who took up many of the cases of detention and arrest under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) and the Prevention of Terrorism Acts on behalf of individuals and their families. They represented a wide range of clients in criminal and civil proceedings, including individuals from the Loyalist community.

Despite this, the very fact that they were asserting that the security forces were acting unlawfully, was seen as support for the nationalist insurgency in a statelet where the security forces had been permitted to abandon many of the underlying principles of the rule of law.  In this context, a Home Office Minister, Douglas Hogg MP, was able to use parliamentary privilege to allege that there were a number of solicitors in Northern Ireland, who were unduly sympathetic to the IRA. This was on 17th January 1989, just a few weeks before Pat Finucane was gunned down by members of the Ulster Defence Association in his own home, while he ate Sunday lunch with his wife and three young children.

By this time, many legal norms were being ignored. Defendants accused of many criminal offences were tried in Diplock Courts without a jury. The Royal Ulster Constabulary often withheld or destroyed relevant evidence and military personal were sheltered from investigation and prosecution, as has been confirmed in recent inquiries by the Police Ombudsman and a number of coroners.

In addition, by the mid-1980s, the counter insurgency strategy deployed in Northern Ireland had been refined and the British Army, the RUC and the intelligence services were outsourcing many of their operations to paramilitary agents and informers. Pat Finucane was a prominent victim of this strategy, as previous limited inquiries into his death incrementally revealed.  

John Stevens, Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire, re-investigated Pat Finucane’s death and found that Brian Nelson, an agent who worked for the Force Research Unit of the British Army, was involved in the decision to target him.

Meanwhile, Geraldine Finucane had brought an action under the Human Rights Act and in 2003 the European Court of Human Rights had found that there had not been an inquiry into his death that met the requirements of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2 requires that states undertake some form of effective official investigation where individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force.

In 2004, Peter Cory, a Canadian judge who had been appointed to investigate the solicitor’s death, reported that his inquiry had been obstructed by the security services, including MI5. He went on to find that there were serious and perplexing questions concerning the extent to which the FRU had prior knowledge that Nelson had named Pat Finucane as a target for the UDA. He also concluded that MI6 failed to tell him that he was a target on three occasions and found that the security services and the RUC Special Branch prioritised the agent’s security over the protection of individuals in the community who were at risk. Justice Cory recommended that the British government establish a public inquiry into Pat Finucane’s death. This was not accepted.

Instead, Desmond de Silva QC was appointed to do a desk-top review. In 2012, he concluded that “a series of positive actions by employees of the State actively furthered and facilitated the solicitor’s murder and that, in the aftermath of the murder, there was a relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice.”

The Finucane family had once again to resort to the courts and in 2019 the UK Supreme Court found the inquiries held to date did not comply with Article 2. In particular, it found that they had not had the power to subpoena witnesses or identify who was responsible for the state collusion found by previous inquiries and admitted in part by the Government. The Court expected the Government to then set up an Article 2-compliant process, but it did not.

Further legal action was taken in the courts in Northern Ireland which resulted in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal deciding on 11th July 2024 that the British government had 28 days to establish a compliant process to investigate the relevant aspects of Pat Finucane’s death. The Government sought an extension to this deadline but has now committed itself to setting up an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

In his statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stated that he had considered whether to refer the case to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery established under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. He used the complex and legal history of inquiries into Pat Finucane’s murder as exceptional reasons for this not being appropriate.

But it is not accepted by leading human rights lawyers and community groups in Northern Ireland that there is any justification for retaining this part of the Legacy Act, when the Government has pledged to restore judicial reviews, civil actions, Police Ombudsman inquiries and inquests relating to the ‘Northern Ireland Troubles’.

It was these mechanisms that maintained accountability and legal rules when the state had departed from legal norms. Any delays in these processes were largely due to underfunding and obstruction by the security forces who destroyed or lost vital evidence.

The Commission has been given an initial annual budge of £22 million while financial resources will be much needed to restore the many inquests and legal actions brought to an end by the Legacy Act.

There are also questions to be asked about the impartiality of a Commission when its Commissioner of |Investigations was himself once Assistant Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and was a serving police officer for 32 years when many of his colleagues were part of the web of collusion.  The first report into the workings of the Commission also shows that only 10% of its employees identify as white Irish and of the mere 80 applications since May 2024, only eight have been selected for the investigation.

Nadine Finch is a former barrister who specialised in human rights law and is the author of several books on family, immigration and comparative law. She writes in a personal capacity.

Image: Belfast mural of Pat Finucane. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Belfast_mural_14.jpg Author: Zubro © 2003, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Union condemns Labour’s refusal to follow Scottish Government and lift the ban on prison officer’s right to strike

 

Labour Hub Editors

SEPT 18, 2024

The union representing over 4,000 prison officers in Scotland has hit out at the British Government following confirmation that they are refusing to reinstate the right to strike for prison officers in England and Wales.

Across the country Prison Officers are struggling to cope with rising numbers of prisoners in overcrowded jails. This is having a major impact on staff morale, health and well-being, resulting in rising sickness absence rates. But Prison Officers’ Association members are restricted in the actions they can take to force the government and Prison Service to address the crisis. 

Earlier this month, the POA wrote to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urging him to repeal legislation passed in 1994 that prevents most of its members in England and Wales from taking industrial action and to follow the lead of the Scottish Government which reinstated the right to strike in 2015. 

Phil Fairlie, Deputy General Secretary of the POA said: “The right to withdraw one’s labour is a fundamental human right that should apply to all workers. The Scottish Government recognised this in 2015 and changed the law to reinstate a prison officers’ right to strike. This was the right thing to do.

“POA members welcomed this move and have acted in a very responsible way since. This can be seen from the fact that there has not been a single day lost to strike action since.  

“The Labour Government should recognise this and end this discriminatory ban on POA members. They cannot claim to be introducing ‘a new deal for working people’ if a large group of people working in a highly pressured public service are excluded.”

Pressure is mounting on the new Labour government to reinstate the right to strike. The issue was raised at a fringe meeting at last May’s POA annual conference by General Secretary Steve Gillan. He pledged to tell the then Shadow Prisons Minister that “we want our right to strike back.”

Currently POA members can face prosecution for taking industrial action. Steve Gillan pointed out: “It won’t cost them a single penny to restore our trade union rights.”

Last week’s annual Trades Union Congress conference in Brighton, passed a resolution calling for the repeal of legislation that prohibits industrial action by prison staff.

Mark Fairhurst, National Chairman of the (POA, expressed frustration with how political parties’ have handled of the issue. He stated that Labour had previously supported repealing the legislation while in Opposition, but failed to include this commitment in their recent workers’ rights reform package.

Ministers currently reject calls to restore the right to strike to officers in England and Wales, despite union warnings that the decision would be seen as a betrayal. The POA wrote to Keir Starmer earlier this month, urging him to address a “demoralising” crisis by repealing the 1994 legislation.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak told the Financial Times that other emergency workers have the right to strike, as do prison officers in Scotland, so officers in England and Wales should be allowed “to exercise the same fundamental rights as everybody else”.

Image: Reading Prison. Source: : The prison, Reading – geograph.org.uk – 386266.jpg. Author: Andrew Smith, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

UK

Labour conference 2024: Campaigners’ anger after CLP motion for ‘humane’ immigration policy blocked

Daniel Green   

19th September, 2024,  

Campaigners have criticised Labour for blocking a conference motion demanding “humane immigration policy” on procedural grounds, amid criticism of the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with his Italian far-right counterpart Giorgia Meloni.

The Rushcliffe constituency Labour Party (CLP) proposed the motion that would commit the party to guarantee safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, give asylum seekers day-one rights to work, education, social security and family reunion and abolish NHS charges for refugees by the time of the next party conference in 2025.

The motion also called on the government to grant all UK residents equal voting rights, end immigration raids, detention and deportations, and introduce a simple process for all residents to gain permanent residency by the next general election.

However, the CLP received an email on Monday from the Conference Arrangements Committee (CAC), which said their motion would be referred to the National Policy Forum, rather than be included on the priorities ballot for conference, “as it does not meet criteria in that it covers more than one subject”.

Rushcliffe CLP has appealed the decision and, in an email seen by LabourList, said: “The motion addresses one overarching goal; to create a fair humane immigration system. The sub-points are strategies or actions aimed at achieving that single goal of reforming immigration policies.”

Lewis McAulay, chair of Rushcliffe CLP, criticised the decision as “clearly politically motivated” and said: “It is disappointing that, in the same week the party leader chooses to promote far-right populism in Italy, the CAC have chosen to block our motion in a clearly politically motivated move.

“The CAC has a responsibility to give conference the opportunity to discuss how they would like to see the party dealing with immigration and not block discussion which might embarrass the leadership.”

Dora Polenta, conference delegate for the CLP, said: “It is imperative for this conference to debate this motion now, particularly within the context of recent racist riots and migrants losing their lives as they take unsafe routes.

“Labour should be offering hope by standing for fair and humane immigration reform. The motion includes proposals to end detention centres, ensure family reunification, extend voting rights and dismantle hostile policies. We need to stand firm and debate these crucial issues on the conference floor.”

READ MORE: The full LabourList events programme, from karaoke to key panel debates

The Labour Campaign for Free Movement had encouraged CLPs to file motions calling on the government to implement a more progressive approach towards refugees and asylum seekers.

Ewa Pospieszyńska from the campaign said: “It is urgent that Labour has a full and open debate about its immigration policy. This week, a Labour Prime Minister visited Rome to congratulate the far-right Italian government for its brutal border policy. Keir Starmer promised members he would champion migrants’ rights, but is now mirroring the racist, dehumanising policies of the Tories.

“We know that the vast majority of Labour members and supporters oppose this slide towards the far-right, and the motion we have prepared is in line with this.

“Motions like it have been accepted onto the agenda every year since 2017, and it is not tenable to claim that they are now out of order. If the CAC fails to reinstate it, we urge trade unions and CLPs to vote in favour of a ‘reference back’ to force it onto the conference agenda.”

The Labour Party was approached for comment.

From Brazil to India to Europe, free public transport is gaining momentum

From Brazil to India to Europe, free public transport is gaining momentum

By Simon Pirani, Fare Free London

SEPT. 17, 2024

Free public transport has been introduced, with striking success, in cities around the world in the past three years. Activists will report on how it was done at an event in London on Sunday 29th September.

Brazil has seen an especially rapid expansion of zero-fares transport. At the latest count, more than 5 million people in 116 municipalities have access to it.

Many smaller Brazilian cities introduced free public transport, in response to a decade of motorisation, policy support for private cars and decline of public systems, Daniel Santini, a researcher at the university of Sao Paulo, points out.

At the 29th September event, organised by Fare Free London, Santini will give an update (on a video link).

Zero-fares policies always and everywhere win support as a social justice measure.

In June last year, the state government of Karnataka, India, introduced free public transport for women, in the teeth of right-wing opposition – and recently registered the 2 billionth free journey.

An activist from Karnataka will also speak at the London event (by video).

Closer to home, in France, 2 million people have access to 38 zero-fares schemes counted by the Observatory of Cities with Free Transport. Montpellier, with a population of half a million, became the largest fare-free city in December last year.

Jerome Serodio of the National Coordination of Collectives for Free Public Transport in France – which sees public transport as “a common good, fighting isolation and individualism” – will address the London event, too.

That is not all. Fares have also been abolished in two European capital cities (Tallinn, Estonia, and Luxemburg), and cities in the USA, China and elsewhere.

In 2021, researchers at the Rapid Transition Alliance attributed the international shift towards free public transport, in part, to a bounce-back from the Covid-19 pandemic, when health authorities had advised against using public transport.

Politically, free public transport is embraced by community groups and environmentalists who oppose the intensification of car use on social, health and climate grounds.

We launched Fare Free London in February, with the support of groups such as the Stop the Silvertown Tunnel coalition, Greener Jobs Alliance and Tipping Point, who have campaigned against road-building and for public transport investment, as a way to tackle climate change.

Once we started campaigning, we found common cause with people who are already demanding action to cut the exceptionally high cost of public transport in London (for example, £15.90 for a Zone 1-4 day travelcard).

Citizens UK, for example, are calling on City Hall to grant free bus travel to asylum seekers. In meetings with refugees, Citizens UK asked what their priority needs were: free transport came second to food for families.

“Mothers and young children have to walk long distances to go to primary school,” as children travel free by bus but their parents do not, the group reports. “People who are unwell have to walk long distances to access healthcare because of the cost of travel,” and English language classes have become inaccessible for some.

Extortionate fares are also an issue for students: a survey conducted last year by the student union at the University of the Arts in London found that the high cost of accommodation has driven students to live outside the city and commute – which costs £71 to100 a week.

As part of its cost of living campaign, the union has called on the university to fund 16-25 railcards for new students.

Unemployed people and other claimants are also trapped by high fares, a representative of Haringey Claimant Justice told a public meeting on the zero fares campaign, organised in July by the Haringey Solidarity Group.

Fare Free London has won the backing of trade union bodies representing workers on London Underground. The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union’s London transport regional council voted in May to support the campaign for free public transport; so did RMT branches covering the Bakerloo line and the eastern section of the Central line.

Not only would free public transport open the city to all, regardless of income. Combined with effective policies to reduce car travel, it could strengthen London’s efforts to tackle air pollution and reverse its setbacks in tackling greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

In 2022, London’s Labour mayor Sadiq Khan announced that the volume of traffic, measured by vehicle-kilometres driven, needs to fall by at least 27% to meet climate targets.

Climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change research and Imperial College argue that this reduction is clearly insufficient, even if it is a step in the right direction.  

Transport researchers have long insisted that, to decarbonise transport, free public services are the logical complement to measures that discourage excessive driving.

Fare Free London hopes to popularise that argument. And we hope to continue building links with campaigners elsewhere in the UK, which lag behind London in terms of investment in public transport and the level of services.

Since launching our campaign in February, amid the overwhelmingly positive responses, we often get asked: “how would you pay for that?”

Our short answer is: if the political will is there, the money can be found. After all, most of the world’s big cities rely far less on fare income than London does, to fund public transport: they use corporate taxes and levies to make businesses pay for systems that effectively subsidise them.

The longer answer, set out in our campaign briefing, is that there are sources of funding (i) that could be raised now by the London mayor, if he so decided, and (ii) that could be added with the support of national government.

Potential sources of funding in London listed in the briefing are: road user charging; land value capture (for example, the Community Infrastructure Levy used to finance the Elizabeth line); other property taxes; and a payroll tax similar to the one that provides about half of the Paris transport system’s revenue.

Measures national government could use, the briefing argues, include: legislation to widen local government’s revenue-raising powers; ending the freezing and cutting of fuel duty (which the Office for Budget Responsibility says cost the Treasury £80 billion in 2010-23); wealth taxes; and a clampdown on corporate tax evasion.

Now we have a Labour government, with a fiscal policy that looks like Austerity Mark Two, our battle over investment in public transport, and the potential to make it free, will merge with other battles about funding public services, and funding effective climate policies.

Let’s unite, and mobilise around these issues.

The Winning Free Public Transport event on Sunday 29th September is open to all, and free to attend. 11.0am-4.0pm at the Waterloo Action Centre, 14 Baylis Road, London SE1 7AA, and on zoom. Please register here.

In addition to the international speakers, we will hear from Lisa Hopkinson (Transport for Quality of Life); Daniel Randall (RMT, London underground, in a personal capacity); Ellie Harrison (Get Glasgow Moving); Drew Pearce (co-author of key article in Nature on London transport sector decarbonisation); and activists from Fare Free London, trade unions, community groups and others; plus plenty of time for discussion.

Simon Pirani is honorary professor at the University of Durham, and writes a blog at peoplenature.org.

Main image: c/o author. Inset images: First: Montpellier Tram. Author: Zairon, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Second: Luxembourg, tram. Author: GilPe,  licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Share this:

UK

Keep up the pressure on Starmer and Lammy – end all arms sales to Israel!

Labour Hub Editors

By Matt Willgress, Labour & Palestine

At the time of writing, Israel’s military assault on Gaza has killed over 45,000 Palestinians, injured more than 70,000 and displaced over 75% of Gaza’s population. The illegal war has destroyed – and is every day still destroying – housing, hospitals, schools and universities.

This is the context to a major development at this year’s TUC Congress in September, when delegates took the historic decision of unanimously passing a motion that reveals in its entirety the utter inadequacy of the new government’s approach to Israel’s illegal war.

In particular, the union movement further upped the pressure on an issue where public campaigning has already led to limited moves from the Government, namely that of arms sales to Israel – by calling for an end to all licenses for arms traded with Israel.

This was a welcome and much needed rebuke to the decision of Foreign Secretary David Lammy to suspend just 10% of arms export licenses – a decision which also, as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) pointed out, crucially excluded indirect exports of components for the F-35 combat aircraft known to have been used to massacre civilians.

The motion also recognised Israel’s war on Gaza amounts to a plausible case of genocide and  should be met with a principled foreign policy, that under the Genocide Convention requires all steps be taken to prevent genocide and punish those responsible. It called for sanctions against individuals and entities that have incited genocide. Again, the PSC commented that this was in “marked contrast to Labour’s position of treating Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as a key ally.”

The motion further recognised Palestinians are subjected to a system of apartheid. As was the case with South African apartheid, this requires a concerted effort from the labour movement to dismantle it. The TUC therefore called for sanctions and building boycott and divestment campaigns.

This is an opportunity to further ramp-up our amazing Palestinian solidarity movements. This means that those who support Palestinian rights within and beyond the Labour Party should now echo the concluding calls of the motion on the British Government in their entirety, namely calling on the Government to:

“a. immediately recognise the State of Palestine, contributing to a two-state solution

b. end all licences for arms traded with Israel, meeting international law

c. demand a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages and Palestinian political prisoners

d. ensure safe access to essentials including water, electricity, and food, and restore funding to UNRWA

e. following the ICJ and ICC statements, impose sanctions upon individuals and entities who have made statements inciting genocide against Palestinians

f. revoke the 2030 Road Map for UK-Israel bilateral relations.

g. ensure decent work and quality public services are embedded in the reconstruction of Gaza.”

We will not rest until Palestine is free.

• Sign the petition for a full arms embargo on Israel at https://bit.ly/armsembargo

Central Liverpool venue. Saturday September 21st, 16.30. Register here

With the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK: H.E Husam Zomlot. Plus: Richard Burgon MP, Kim Johnson MP, John McDonnell MP, Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Hugh Lanning (Labour & Palestine,) Fraser McGuire (‘Arise,’) Jess Barnard (Labour NEC member,) Maryam Eslamdoust (TSSA General Secretary,) Mick Whelan (ASLEF General Secretary) & Matt Wrack.(FBU General Secretary.)

On the eve of Labour Conference, join us in-person in Liverpool in solidarity with the Palestinian people and discuss the next steps in building our movement and putting our demands on the new UK Government.

Hosted by Labour & Palestine, with Arise – a Festival of Left Ideas. Refreshments provided. Sponsored by over 200 individual donations – thanks to all! Free event but solidarity donations essential to hosting costs.

• National March: End the Genocide in Gaza – Stop Arming Israel

Saturday 21st September – 12pm – Liverpool: St. George’s Plateau (Outside Lime Street Station). Coach details here.

Image: David Lammy and Keir Starmer. https://www.flickr.com/photos/190916320@N06/53188920677 Creator: Labour Party | Credit: Labour Party Copyright: Labour Party. Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

UK

Industrial action works – Mick Whelan, ASLEF #Lab24

18th September 2024Leave a Commenton Industrial action works – Mick Whelan, ASLEF #Lab24

“The truth is that strikes do work. They always have. And they always will.”

Mick Whelan describes how strong unions continue to defend workers’ rights.

Strikes work

Strikes, they say, don’t work. Well, that’s what the Tories – and right-wing commentators in papers like The Sun, Daily Mail, and Daily Telegraph – would like you to believe. But the truth is that strikes do work. They always have. And they always will. That’s why employers – and the Tories that stand behind the bosses – don’t like them.

Our dispute with 16 train operating companies began back in June 2022 when we first balloted our members for industrial action because they hadn’t had a pay rise since April 2019. It was only six and a half months later and, more pertinently, after six oneday strikes that the train companies finally made us an offer. Then Secretaries of State for Transport Grant Shapps, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, and Mark Harper have all walked through the revolving door at the Department for Transport in the last two years and the Rail Minister, whether Wendy Morton, Kevin Foster, or Huw Merriman, kept parroting the party line that ‘ASLEF should come to the table’. Well, we did. But the table was bare. The companies put nothing on the table until we showed our collective determination to win a rise by going on strike.

It’s that solidarity – collective action – which employers hate. Because, at heart, many bosses are Victorian mill owners who would like to hire and fire as they see fit. They love the idea of the foreman walking along the wharf in the morning saying, “You, you, and you are hired. There’s no work for the rest of you.” They don’t like the ‘burden’, as they see it, of employing men and women. Of paying proper wages. Taxes. National Insurance and pensions. They love the gig economy, false self-employment, and zero hours contracts which the Labour Party in its New Deal for Working People has promised to ban. Bosses like to claim that ‘Zero hours contracts offer workers flexibility.’ But not decent terms and conditions, employment rights, or proper, and secure, jobs.

Fighting MSLs

Because our strikes were successful – in bringing the railway to a standstill – the Tory Government rushed through its Minimum Service Levels (MSL) Act at the end of last year. It had nothing to do with providing a minimum service to the public and everything to do with providing maximum problems for trade unions. Threatening us with fines if we put a foot wrong and, fundamentally, trying to undermine the effectiveness of industrial action and our ability to protect our members.

That’s why we fought so hard – and, so far, so successfully – against the implementation of MSLs on the railway. When LNER said it intended to issue work notices to members, for the day we were due to strike, we immediately put on another five days of strikes – more industrial action, as we have promised, to ensure the same effect – which prompted the company to see sense and back down.

We did it not just for train drivers, but for every worker here in Britain. Because we don’t believe in forced labour. We believe in the right to strike. And that strikes are effective.

Earlier this year, the train operating companies reached out to us for ‘talks about talks’ to try to resolve our pay dispute. They would not have done that if we had not taken industrial action. Yes, that’s right. Strikes work.

Time to repeal anti-union legislation

The tectonic plates of British politics shifted on 4th July with the Labour landslide, and the opportunity to give hope, inspiration, and aspiration to millions cannot be underestimated. There is, of course, a massive task, with 14 million in poverty after 14 years of Tory economic incompetence.

We now need to make sure this Labour government will make work pay, grow the economy, and give ordinary people their voice back after the headlong rush to authoritarian autocracy.

We look forward to the railways being brought back into public ownership – a manifesto pledge which the new Labour Government is already intent on delivering – and we look forward to Keir delivering A New Deal for Working People (see p8). That means MSLs will be gone, ‘fire and rehire’ will be gone, zero-hours contracts will be gone, agency workers will be gone, political fund ballots will be gone, and workers will have employment rights from day one, and the right to organise that is so important in a democratic, civilised, and socialist society.

---

• Mick Whelan is General Secretary of ASLEF, the train drivers’ trade union, a member of the Labour Party NEC, and Chair of Labour Unions.
• This article was originally published in CLPD’s Campaign Briefing Newsletter. Read it in full here.
• You can also read Labour Outlook’s 2024 Autumn Conference bulletin here.