Trump’s Return Poses a New Threat to Cuba – Bernard Regan, Cuba Solidarity Campaign

12th December 2024Leave a Commenton Trump’s Return Poses a New Threat to Cuba – Bernard Regan, Cuba Solidarity Campaign

“During the first Trump regime Cuba became a particular target for US imperialism. In the last few days of office in 2021 he imposed a series of vindictive measures which in total added 243 new orders intensifying the already vicious blockade imposed on Cuba”

By Bernard Regan, Cuba Solidarity Campaign

Donald Trump will be inaugurated President of the United States of America on Monday 20th January 2025. 

His return to the White House, just four years after his previous term of office which ended on 20th January 2021, does not augur well for Cuba or indeed for the countries of Latin America. His attitude towards Cuba and Latin America has been well documented. His overarching policy position was expressed during the period of his first Presidency when on 25th September 2018, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, he invoked the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, rejecting “the interference of foreign nations in this hemisphere”. This rejection of external interests was (and is) in reality code for the unfettered assertion of Washington-Wall Street ambitions. He has a Cold War view of the world seen through the prism of the primacy of USA economic interests, with China the new challenge replacing the former Soviet Union, although for senior USA figures Russia too remains a threat.

Trump has his eyes on ensuring that US capital is the determining force in respect of the continent playing a key role in the exploitation of the valuable resources of Latin America such as Lithium, oil and other minerals. His aim is simple – to prevent China, from developing its economic relations with the region. A challenge which is evidenced by the developing relations between Latin America and Chinese companies exemplified by the opening of the megaport of Chancay in Peru, which will become the largest deepwater port on the western coast of the continent.

During the first Trump regime Cuba became a particular target for US imperialism. In the last few days of office in 2021 he imposed a series of vindictive measures which in total added 243 new orders intensifying the already vicious blockade imposed on Cuba by successive Presidents. On 12th January 2021, days before he left office, he placed Cuba on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism – a move which places even more stringent limitations on Havana’s ability to pay for goods and services in the international market. It blocks Cuba’s access to SWIFT – the mechanism universally used to transfer monies between countries.  It makes it difficult for the Cuban government to buy and sell on the international market and gain necessary credits to develop the economy. 

The blockade is vicious – denying essential medical equipment for the treatment of cancer, cochlea implants for children, basic PPE equipment during the time of COVID and many other examples. The extraterritorial penalties placed on third-party countries are carried out in contravention of UN General Assembly motions and internationally recognised terms of trade between sovereign countries. In the opinion of a number of internationally recognised legal authorities, “no blockade has been as comprehensive, long lasting and brutal against a people as the one that the United States have maintained against Cuba.”  A view endorsed in at the UN General Assembly by a vote of 187 – 2 with 1 abstention.  Only the USA and Israel voted against the condemnation of the blockade.

Biden kept all of Trump’s measures in place. It was impossible to put a cigarette paper between the policies of the Republicans and the Democrats making people nostalgic for the “Obama days” even though he too retained the same strategic objective of overthrowing Cuba’s socialist revolution. 

The ostensible reason for placing Cuba on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list was its refusal to enact an extradition order by the Colombian government imposed on members of the ELN guerilla movement. The ELN members in Cuba were there to forward peace negotiations with the Colombian government.  Cuba was hosting these negotiations at the behest of the United Nations in conjunction with the Norwegian government. Needless to say Norway has not been put on the list of sponsors of terrorism! On 24th October 2024, the Colombian government itself agreed to an extension ceasefire with the ELN until 15th April 2025. The retention of this categorising of Cuba is the most vindictive sanction imaginable – at least to date.

Trump’s appointment of Senator Marco Rubio as Secretary of State signposts that his attitudes are not going to alter one iota in his second Presidency. Rubio, the Miami-born son of Cuban parents, who despite his attempts to rewrite history, left the island two years before the 1959 revolution, is a virulent anti-Cuba warrior when it comes to USA policies towards the island. 

Like Trump, he wants to establish hemispheric hegemony over Latin America and he sees Cuba as an obstacle to fully achieving that goal. One of Trump’s weapons will be the imposition of hard-line policies threatening the mass deportation of around 11 million (sometimes he quotes 21 million) non-documented migrants. Countries in the region, including Canada, are anxious about the consequences which, in Cuba, would impact on an already blockade-challenged economy.

The unity of progressive forces in Latin America will be important as will international solidarity.

Bernard Regan is speaking at a solidarity event organised by Arise Festival and the Labour Friends of Progressive Latin America tonight (12 December) at 6.30PM: Trump – Hands Off Latin America!

• You can follow Bernard on Twitter/X here; and follow the Cuba Solidarity Campaign on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.

With Trump & Rubio on the way, US blockade tightens its grip on Venezuela

12th December 2024Leave a Commenton With Trump & Rubio on the way, US blockade tightens its grip on Venezuela

“Rubio, picked by Trump as the next head of the State Department, has long been a fanatical hawk for tougher sanctions against Venezuela.”

By Tim Young

Early signs of what the incoming Trump administration in the US has in store for Venezuela were revealed in mid-November with the approval by the House of Representatives of a new Bill tightening the existing blockade against Venezuela.

The Bill, which still requires Senate approval, is entitled Banning Operations and Leases with the Illegitimate Venezuelan Authoritarian Regime Act, known by its deliberately offensive acronym, the Bolivar Act.

The Bill was introduced by two representatives from Florida — Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Republican Mike Waltz, nominated as Trump’s national security adviser, who has said that the Bill “sends a powerful message to Maduro that there will be no appeasement.”

It is also endorsed by Florida senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, who supported an earlier version in 2021. Rubio, picked by Trump as the next head of the State Department, has long been a fanatical hawk for tougher sanctions against Venezuela to achieve the long-held US objective of “regime change.”

The new Act aims to convert into legislative norms the executive orders that have underpinned US policy of applying illegal coercive sanctions against Venezuela over the past 10 years. This will limit the US executive branch’s ability to temper or eliminate sanctions in the future.

The Act also expands the scope of sanctions by employing a wide definition of those at risk of penalty, covering individuals, private entities, governmental bodies and their extensions. This is aimed not just at US domestic targets but those anywhere in the world who might or currently trade with Venezuela.

Under the first Trump administration, the initial wave of sanctions introduced by Barack Obama was ramped up into a series of increasingly severe measures against individual government members and the country as a whole, despite this being illegal under US and international law and treaties that the US has signed.

Starting in 2017, Trump barred the Venezuelan government from borrowing from financial markets, blocked assets, and prohibited US businesses from dealing with Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA, the state’s largest source of revenue.

The disruption to Venezuela’s reliance on oil exports, by cutting PDVSA off from international markets and blocking it from servicing debt, cost Venezuela billions of dollars in revenue.

Under threat, too, foreign companies started pulling out, disrupting supplies of essential goods. Foreign banks became reluctant to handle transactions involving Venezuela.

Estimates put the resulting catastrophic drop in Venezuela’s Gross Domestic Product —in terms of what the economy stopped producing between 2015 and 2022— as equivalent to $ 642 billion, with predictable results for Venezuelans, especially the poor, elderly and infirm.

The overall effect was summed up in 2021 by Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur on universal coercive measures, thus: “Sanctions have prevented revenues and the use of resources to develop infrastructure and carry out social support programs; they have had a devastating effect on the entire population of Venezuela and have undermined the very foundation of social life and the enjoyment of human rights.”

Food and medicine have been targeted by sanctions. The blocking of financial transfer meant Venezuela was unable to access vaccine supplies, leading to vaccination coverage for several diseases falling, with predictable results.

In the case of food, in January 2017, for example, several international financial institutions refused to process of payment transactions, made by the government worth $297 million, to implement the National Seed Plan, seriously affecting the country’s food production.

The obstruction of food imports continued. The US financial system directly blocked the transfer to Venezuela of 18 million boxes of subsidised food for the Local Supply and Production Committees (CLAP) programme in September 2017.

The extraterritorial impact of the US’s sanctions regime induced the Swiss bank Hyposwiss to close the account of the company shipping 90 thousand tons of soybean cake worth 15.9 million euros to Venezuela in October 2018. The same month, the Colombian government blocked the shipment to Venezuela of 400 thousand kilos of food destined for the CLAP programme.

An early report on the effect of US sanctions by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in 2019 estimated that they had caused more than 40,000 deaths from 2017 to 2018, by depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food and other essential imports.

As Trump ramped up the sanctions programme into a blockade akin to that imposed against Cuba since the 1960s, the poor and most vulnerable continued to suffer the most harm, while over seven million Venezuelans were forced as economic migrants to leave the country.

It has taken nearly a decade of sustained effort to bring about recovery in Venezuela’s economy. On the trading front, this has involved Venezuela engaging with BRICS members to mitigate the impact of sanctions and diversify its commercial options.

Recognising this, the new misnamed Bolivar Act aims to significantly expand the extraterritorial reach of the US’s secondary sanctions in an attempt to further choke Venezuela’s economy and disrupt its trade dynamics. Regime change is still the US’s objective, no matter what the cost to ordinary Venezuelans.

As a major online event this week showed, the solidarity movement in Britain must be prepared to defend Venezuela’s right to self-determination against US interference in its affairs, including any renewed offensive of economic aggression by Trump when he assumes the presidency in 2025.

• Tim Young is on the EC of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. You can join the VSC here.

Ian Lavery – Class Politics Needed to Defeat the Reform UK Threat

13th December 2024Leave a Commenton Ian Lavery – Class Politics Needed to Defeat the Reform Threat

“The working class know through years of stagnating living standards that the current system is unfair and needs changing.”

By Ian Lavery MP

I have on numerous occasions given credit to the Leadership of the Labour Party for citing the need to redress the unequal balance of power between workers and employers when explaining the reasons behind the current Employment Rights Bill.

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who has responsibility for this policy area, has said that Trade Unions representing workers need to be given more power to rectify the unfair disadvantages they have had since the Trade Union Acts of the Thatcher era. This is a clear message of the Labour Party acting in the interest of the people it was founded to represent. Unfortunately, it is not one of the Leadership’s primary messages (some even seem a bit embarrassed by it).

The working class of this country know through years of stagnating living standards that the current system is unfair and needs changing. They feel they have no voice and that nobody recognises their frustrations. This is proving to be good politically for the hard right populist Reform Party who articulate working class feelings of disenchantment, whilst dangerously pointing the finger at vulnerable people and those who seek to defend them as being the source of their problems. Reform’s message to the working class is that Labour and its supporters amongst the urban progressives and so called cultural elites only care about immigrants and other minority people; it no longer care about the more longstanding working class communities who had traditionally voted for the Party. There have been a number of recent polls that provide disturbing evidence that this messaging is gaining traction with support for Reform growing rapidly.

The Populist Right use an effectively simple deplorable message. Labour should counter it with an equally straightforward response by declaring that the working class is hurting because the current economic system benefits the super rich who have seen their wealth skyrocket since the financial crisis on 2008-2009 at the expense of rest. Labour should loudly proclaim that its goal is to right this injustice. For instance, Labour should state that the super rich have benefited from Thatcher’s laws that weakened Unions, which even the International Monetary Fund states has led to wage stagnation and household indebtedness, and that the Employment Rights Bill is a first step to putting this right.

The NHS and other public services are on their knees because of decades of low rates of taxes on the very wealthy and Labour’s simple message should be it will rectify this by a Wealth Tax and other similar methods. Labour can prove its support for all working class people by clear messaging and policy implementations based on the politics of class.

With my history of trade union activism, one would not be surprised by my use of this argument, but I am pleased to say that others not usually associated with the Labour Left agree with me. Polly Toynbee, writing in “The Guardian” on 3rd December 2024, urges in the strongest of terms for Labour to attack wealth inequality in order to fund the policies needed to improve the lives of ordinary people. She illustrates the recent grotesque accumulation of wealth by the richest in society gained mostly through inheritance, postulating that taxing that wealth is essential if Labour is to fund the policies required to satisfy the working class demands for fairness.

Toynbee writes that taxing wealth is a good message “if Labour tells that with fiery class war radicalism so that people understand”. Instead, Prime Minister Starmer and the Chancellor say they have a stance that is equally “pro business and pro worker”, which is leaving both sides feeling unsatisfied. Business leaders say Labour’s support for them in weak when raging against the recent increase in the employers’ National Insurance contributions, whilst many working class people point to measures such as the abolition of the pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance to build on the perception that Labour no longer cares about them. An unambiguous message that Labour’s primary mission is to rapidly improve all working class lives, regardless if they are in urban communities or in the former deindustrialise Labour heartlands, whilst offering support for business on the condition that workers are treated fairly and that wealth inequality drastically diminishes, would be politically more effective.

Polly Toynbee’s recent article is an indication that there are people in many sections of the Labour Party who understand that Labour must quickly change its message and policies to counter the rise of Reform and that the core of that new message has to be the need to lessen inequality in the UK. Concentrating on a technocratic, managerial approach to Government I fear will fail, opening the door to right wing extremism. Polly is right: “fiery class war radicalism” is always worth a try.

---

• Ian Lavery is the MP for Blyth & Ashington. You can follow him on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X.
• 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.

 

UK Education unions warn Starmer Government against more austerity

13th December 2024Leave a Commenton Education unions warn Starmer Government against more austerity

“The Government must not cut schools’ spending power any further, because after 14 years of austerity England now has the largest class sizes in Europe, the highest secondary class sizes on record & more than a million pupils in classes of more than 30. ”

From the National Education Union (NEU)

Today four education unions – ASCL, NAHT, NASUWT and NEU – have written to the Secretary of State, Bridget Phillipson, outlining their concerns about the inadequate and underfunded pay recommendation outlined in the Department for Education’s evidence submission to the School Teachers’ Review Body, published on 10 December. 

The text of the letter is as follows: 

Dear Secretary of State 

Teacher and school leader pay 

We are writing to you jointly to express our concern over your evidence to the School Teachers’ Review Body for the 2025-26 pay award.  We strongly feel that the proposals set out in your submission would further damage teacher recruitment and retention in England, and lead to more school cuts. 

The unions have been clear that the 5.5% September 2024 pay increase must be only the first in a series of fully funded, above inflation pay increases needed to correct teacher and school leader pay.  The value of teacher and school leader pay has been cut by over a fifth against RPI inflation since 2010, even after taking account of the above-inflation September 2024 increase.  Our submissions to the STRB set out the overwhelming evidence on the impact of the pay cuts on living standards and on the competitiveness of teacher and school leader pay.   

We were therefore deeply disappointed to see that in your evidence to the STRB you propose a pay increase of just 2.8% for teachers and school leaders in September 2025.  Current predictions for RPI inflation from the OBR show that such an increase is likely to represent yet another real terms pay cut.  Anticipated pay growth in the wider economy next year means that it is also likely to represent a further hit to the competitiveness of teacher and school leader pay. 

Your letter to the education workforce set out the Government’s aim to build a fairer society and to deliver the best life chances for every child.  You also reiterated the Government’s commitment to recruiting 6,500 new teachers.  In your remit letter to the STRB, you set out a commitment to “supporting teachers to stay in the profession and thrive” and to raising the status of the profession.     

All of these objectives will be undermined if the Government continues with the failed Conservative policy of cutting or failing to restore teacher and school leader pay. 

Alongside excessive workload, the pay cuts have contributed to the recruitment and retention crisis that is doing such damage to our education service.  Recruitment targets are being missed by huge margins and we are losing many experienced teachers and school leaders.  Teacher shortages across the school system are damaging pupils’ life chances.    

The recruitment and retention crisis will not be solved until and unless the Government provides the investment needed to properly value, recruit and retain teachers and school leaders.  Pay cuts are the ultimate false economy, because they guarantee the continuation of severe teacher and school leader shortages and undermine the crucial role of our education service in economic prosperity.     

In your letter to the STRB, you accepted that most schools will not be able to fund the pay award of teachers without making “efficiencies.”  Senior leaders already go through a rigorous process of examining every budget line every year, and the reality is that any further “efficiencies” are likely to equate to cuts to provision.    

The recent DfE report looking at school finances found that just 3% of primary schools and 6% of secondary schools described themselves as “financially secure.”  The report showed that schools had responded to financial pressure by not replacing staff; reduced hours for teaching and support staff; appointing Early Career Teachers whenever possible; teachers returning to maximum class teaching allocations and middle and senior leadership team restructures.  Forcing schools further down this road will reduce the quality of education; increase teachers’ workload and further add to the difficulties with staff recruitment and retention.  We are further concerned that the publication of your proposals will result in schools making premature decisions that could adversely affect the jobs of teachers and support staff and provision for pupils. 

The Government must not cut schools’ spending power any further because after 14 years of austerity – England now has the largest class sizes in Europe, the highest secondary class sizes on record and more than a million pupils taught in classes of more than 30. 

We recognise that decisions on public spending are collective Government decisions and we would value the opportunity to discuss with you further how we might work with you to make the case for education to the Treasury and the Prime Minister.  We are committed to working in collaboration with the Government to achieve the best possible outcomes for children and young people and we very much hope that we can find a solution to the issues highlighted in this letter. 

Yours sincerely 

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, NEU 

Dr Patrick Roach, General Secretary, NASUWT 

Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary, ASCL 

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary, NAHT

---

• This was originally published on the NEU’s website on 12/12/2024.
• You can follow the NEU on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X and TikTok, and their General Secretary Daniel Kebede on Facebook, Twitter/X and TikTok.
• You can follow the NASUWT on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X, and their General Secretary Dr Patrick Roach on Twitter/X.
• You can follow the ASCL on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter/X, and their General Secretary Pepe Di’Iasio on Twitter/X.
• You can follow the NAHT on Facebook and Twitter/X, and their General Secretary Paul Whiteman on Twitter/X.

Sixth form college strikers fight pay injustice

Strikers blasted Labour for not including sixth form colleges that aren't academies in this year's 5.5 percent pay award

Sixth form college workers are taking on the Labour government (Picture: Guy Smallman)

Over 2,000 workers at 32 sixth forms across England struck on Friday—their third day of strikes over pay.

Labour snubbed teachers at sixth form colleges that haven’t been turned into academies by excluding them from a 5.5 percent pay rise.

One NEU union member told Socialist Worker that they’re fighting “an injustice” from the Labour government.

Around 20 people attended a picket line in City and Islington College in north London. “There is a reason why most people voted Labour,” Bogdan, a geography teacher, told Socialist Worker.

“They expected a change but Labour turned out to be just as bad as the previous government.”

Workers have already struck for three days—and plan further action in the New Year. Mike, who works at the college, told the picket line, “The pay review body told us to call off our strikes as the government is moving on our issue.

“But our national negotiators refused to call off our strikes. The January strikes are an important part of our strategy—our actions need to be maintained and rock solid.”

Pippa, NEU Islington joint branch secretary, echoed that determination. “We have to stay solid,” she said. “We can’t get cold feet, although we might have cold feet on this picket line. Unless they give us 5.5 percent we have to stay out.”

Trade unionists also gathered outside of chancellor Rachel Reeves’ constituency office in Leeds on Friday.

Another striker said in a speech, “The money to solve the dispute is £15 million. That’s tiny for the government. For them it’s not about the money but political will. It’s about the message Labour wants to send to markets and businesses—that it won’t bend to workers’ demands.”

Striker Marc told Socialist Worker, “The mood among the staff is as determined as ever. I’d like the union to escalate the dispute but the union might be timid.”

Rick, a politics teacher, said, “Politics is about justice and fighting for what is right. Now is not a time to compromise—our strength comes from our unity. We have real power. Sometimes it might not be obvious but if we join up with other teachers then we grind the system to a halt.”

Another striker said, “It feels great to be out on the picket line with comrades. It brings me a lot of joy to act collectively.”

She added, “It is a gesture of hope being out here. Optimism is a political act and you have to act like you can change the world.”

East London school strikers take on ‘dismissive’ management

Strikes at Selwyn Primary School and Connaught School for Girls in Waltham Forest

NEU union members on the picket line

By Thomas Foster
Thursday 12 December 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2935

Workers at an east London school are taking on management over workload, safeguarding concerns and how it behaves towards them.

NEU union members at Selwyn Primary School in Waltham Forest struck on Wednesday and Thursday—and plan to strike again for three days from Tuesday next week.

One striker told Socialist Worker that management’s style is “very dismissive”. “We don’t get answers or support,” she said.

“Teachers and teaching assistants have been covering classes and are expected to do extra duties on top of that. Management keeps on changing what they want from us and telling us things at the last minute—they think we can do everything.”

The striker argued that the school “needs more support workers—ideally one per class but at least one per year—to help with safeguarding children”.

A teaching assistant (TA) on the picket line told Socialist Worker, “I’m covering classes a lot, some weeks doing more teacher cover than being a teaching assistant.”

This is harming education for children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send). “I’m supposed to support a number of Send kids but I’m being pulled out to teach—it affects the consistency that Send children need,” she said.

The TA described feeling “let down by the school”—and another worker on the picket echoed this. “Send children are struggling as they just come into class and sit in the corner. One teacher can’t handle a whole class and a number of Send children,” they said.

“Plans to support Send children aren’t being met. For example, if a plan says a child needs one-to-one support, it often isn’t happening.”

Another striker attacked Labour’s recommended pay rise of 2.8 percent next year for teachers and health workers.

The government said that schools would have to make “efficiency savings”—cuts to existing budgets—to help pay for it. She said, “We have made all the efficiency savings we can. We’ve cut back on resources and gone for cheaper things whenever we can.

“If you are saying we should praise teachers, give us what we need”—and that’s a proper pay rise.

One teacher said that Labour’s announcement made her “so angry”. “If you have money for wars, don’t tell me you don’t have money for schools,” she said.

She called on the NEU education union to take action nationally. “We are tired and squeezed at the moment. The NEU and all teachers’ unions should get together and fight for better funding and better conditions.”

The workers have also felt intimidated at times by management. After hearing that the NEU union members were striking, management went round asking the school workers if they were striking or part of the union.

“Some staff felt intimidated by that and so decided to go in,” one person told Socialist Worker.

Tony Phillips is treasurer of the local trades council, which brings together different trade unions in the borough. He said, “I’m here to support workers fighting back over any issue in these times of escalating austerity.

“I’m a parent myself and think it’s important that people are out here defending the quality of education.”

There was a lot of support from parents on the picket line, with many coming by to offer solidarity. One parent said, “You hear it everywhere about excessive workload. I think it’s a big problem.

“Too often workers are squeezed by management. It’s what you would expect from an academy chain.”

Strike at Connaught School for Girls

NEU education union members at Connaught School for Girls in east London struck on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The workers in Waltham Forest are fighting management’s failure to fulfil a commitment to reduce workload.

“They have been incapable of fulfilling their commitments to reduce workload and stress,” said a statement by Waltham Forest NEU.

NEU members have said that management has been undermining them.

“Instead of managing a school effectively they have chaotically squandered tens of thousands of pounds on agency staff due to weak attempts at harassing members,” the statement read.

“More time should be spent on reducing workload, not thinking of how to increase it.

School workers are set to strike on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week.

Hackney strikers say ‘trust teachers to do their job’

School workers at Haggerston School in east London struck on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of last week.

They are fighting against bosses’ attacks on working conditions after the school was taken over by an academy chain.

Workers are planning to strike again in January. NEU education union members at the east London school released a statement about their strike.

It said, “Before Community Schools Trust (CST) took over Haggerston School it was a popular choice for parents, carers and families in our local community due to our unique and creative character.

“We were promised that this would be preserved but we are concerned that this promise is being broken.

“Our English, Maths, and Science curriculums have been scrapped and replaced with those from CST—without any consultation—and we are worried this may be extended to all our subjects.”

Strikers also say that teachers are being encouraged to change their working style and aren’t “trusted” to use their judgement with their classes.

They also say that CST are only listening to management and ignoring the concerns of classroom teachers.

The statement continued, “We have been assured that CST are committed to reducing workload but in practice workload has increased at Haggerston since it became part of CST.

“New initiatives are still being introduced, which increase workload.”

And Socialist Worker has seen a letter signed by over 100 parents to the school’s board.

It said, “There have been very significant and swiftly introduced changes to curriculum and behaviour policies in particular, without consultation with parents.

“These changes have had a demonstrably negative impact on the school community.

“Whatever changes are made should build on the experience and expertise of current teachers.

“We are all interested in academic attainment and improvement, but not at the cost of a positive, nurturing and empathetic learning environment.

“The recent curriculum changes that have been made are also contrary to many explicit assurances from the school prior to becoming an academy.”

2.8% is not enough

 11 December, 2024 - 

Author: Ollie Moore

WORKERS LIBERTY

Pic from Labour Hub

The government has submitted evidence to public-sector pay review bodies that they should not raise public sector workers’ pay by more 2.8% for 2025-6.

Whilst marginally above the Office for Budgetary Responsibility’s predictions for CPI inflation for 2025 (2.6%), the figure is below the current rate of RPI, which was 3.4% in October 2024. Years of pay freezes and below-inflation “increases” mean that public sector pay is, in real terms, still below where it was in 2010.

And if Donald Trump's USA carries through its pledge of higher tariffs even partially, probably pushing other governments into higher tariffs in response, inflation is likely to be higher than the OBR predicts.

Major unions Unison and Unite have made oppositional noises, although neither has yet suggested anything like industrial action ballots. The union claims and submissions to those pay review bodies are mostly yet to be formulated.

The strike wave throughout 2022-3 led to higher settlements for workers than those initially offered, but those settlements were still considerably below the extremely high rates of inflation during those years.

During that strike wave, the workers who did best were those who launched sustained or indefinite strike. Workers who struck only sporadically for a day or two at a time ended up with poorer settlements.

Rank-and-file activists in public sector unions who want to win an improved offer will need to organise towards the kind of sustained action that could force concessions.

 

Irish Election: Irish Unity is a Hidden Winner

12th December 2024Leave a Commenton Irish Election: Irish Unity is a Hidden Winner

“Compared to where it was ten years ago Sinn Féin has made remarkable progress. That it is now, in terms of seats, the second largest party in parliament would have been unimagined a few years ago.”

By Geoffrey Bell

The final tally of seats for the top three in the Irish general election was Fianna Fáil 48, Sinn Féin 39 and Fine Gael 38. There were, however, different winners than any of these three. One was Ms/Mr Apathy. That non-candidate received twice as much support as any of the top three: just under 60 percent bothered to vote.

The other winner, though not as apparent, was the advocacy of Irish unity. But before that is explained some, more general, background is useful.

The roots of both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael illustrate the permanent effect the British-imposed Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 continues to have on Irish politics. The Treaty outlined the conditions Britain placed on giving the Irish a limited form of self-government at the end of the 1919-21 War of Independence. These included instituting the partition of Ireland, the northern parliament remaining subservient to the British, members of the southern Irish parliament declaring an oath of allegiance to the British monarch, and allowing British access to Irish ports.

The southern Irish split over these terms, with what became Fianna Fáil rejecting the Treaty and what became Fine Gael accepting it. A civil war followed with the pro-Treaty side emerging victorious. 

The restrictions placed on sovereignty in the southern state have been long since overturned.  Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have also evolved to the extent that both can now be classed as “centre-right” parties, and accordingly find it easy to co-exist in coalition governments – the most likely outcome of the latest election. And yet traditional political loyalties linger among many in the electorate: the bitter civil war remains in the collective memory bank of generations since that conflict. Accordingly, neither of the two parties who have dominated Irish politics can be easily swept aside.

There is no doubt that Sinn Féin, which can now be classed as left social democratic, is making progress in doing that. It is true the party suffered a decline in popularity, compared to where it was in opinion polls a year ago. That may be in part because of its uncertainty and somewhat contradictory attitudes towards the immigration issue. 

Nevertheless, compared to where it was ten years ago Sinn Féin has made remarkable progress. That it is now, in terms of seats, the second largest party in the Irish parliament would have been unimagined a few years ago. It is also true that other leftist parties made gains in the election. Most notably the Irish Labour Party which increased its seats from six to nine. 

As to the growth in apathy in the election, that can be interpreted as disillusionment with all the main parties, but it can also be seen as evidence that there are people out there looking for a lead: that despite the continued traditional appeal of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael those old loyalties are being questioned more than ever.

Where then do aspirations for the reunification of Ireland – to right the final outstanding crime of the Treaty – fit into all of this?

It is true that Irish unity did not feature in the election: even Sinn Féin does not appear to have regarded it as such a vote winner that it could place its championing of that cause to the forefront of its campaign: instead, the issues of housing and health were, quite rightly, prominent.

But there is also the argument that the cause of Irish unity significantly advanced in the course of the election and before it. This has been pointed out in a commentary by historian Brian Feeney in the Irish News, Belfast’s daily pro-nationalist newspaper. He noted that: “What went largely unreported is that for the first time all the major parties produced manifestos with sections on the north [of Ireland] devoted to Irish unity (…) an indication of the growing discussion about reunification since Brexit and the dwindling electoral fortunes of unionism.” 

Feeney went on to record that even Fine Gael, the original pro-Treaty party, stated that unity should be “an objective rather than an aspiration.” As to Fianna Fáil, who are likely to be the largest party in the new government, Feeney also reported that it said unity “remains a founding value and objective”, thus harking back to its anti-Treaty roots. It even promised two to three million Euros to promote a “Shared-Island Agenda”. 

Feeney concluded: “What is important is that all the parties felt obliged to address reunification as an objective: that’s a first.”

This shared objective and these promises are a consequence not just of the prominence Sinn Féin has given the unity goal over the years, but importantly the work of organisations such as Ireland’s Future, who have promoted the unity debate in Ireland, north and south. That cause is today not the property of one political party but of many. And that is a worthy winner for any Irish election.

---

• Geoff Bell is a regular contributor to Labour Outlook. His most recent book is The Twilight of Unionism (Verso). He is on the executive of Labour for Irish Unity.
• 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.

We will continue fighting for a better future – Mary Lou McDonald

14th December 2024Leave a Commenton We will continue fighting for a better future – Mary Lou McDonald

“Hundreds of thousands of people voted for Sinn Féin (…) in the hope that the lives of the many would be prioritised over the privilege & wealth of the few.”

Mary Lou McDonald, President of Sinn Féin

From Sinn Féin

Sinn Féin has been returned as the second largest party in the Irish General Election, with a breakthrough number of 39 TDs elected.

Following the election results, Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald TD said that it is regrettable that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael look set to return to form a coalition government:

“We are standing here with the largest team of Sinn Féin TDs in over 100 years; a team of 39 TDs with the energy, determination and commitment to deliver for working people.

Sinn Féin went into the election campaign with a positive message to make politics work for all.

We asked people to vote for Sinn Féin candidates who will work hard in councils every day to deliver on the issues that matter to them.

Hundreds of thousands of people voted for Sinn Féin and for real change.

They voted in the hope that workers, families, and communities would come first – their needs, their interests, their futures; that the lives of the many would be prioritised over the privilege and wealth of the few.

Regrettably, the numbers are clearly there for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to return to government.

We believe this would be the worst possible outcome for the people of the country, and that Irish people cannot afford another five years of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government.

It would be disastrous for people who need housing, for people who are on hospital trolleys, for people who are suffering with the cost-of-living crisis, for young people who are considering leaving Ireland because they see no future here.

That is why Sinn Féin has reached out to the other parties and individuals elected on a mandate of change to look at how we deliver for the people who want to see the housing crisis fixed, tackle the cost of living, advance Irish reunification and ensure that our young people have a future here in Ireland.

We will continue to work hard on behalf of the communities we represent, and for all those citizens who have been failed and let down by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government.

Sinn Féin was elected on a mandate of change, and we will continue to lead in bringing forward credible solutions to the many issues our people face.

We will continue to have the back of all those people who voted for us and deliver our vision for a united Ireland.”

---

• This article was originally published in Sinn Féin‘s December 2024 International Bulletin.
• You can follow Sinn Féin President Mary Lou McDonald on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

France appoints new PM, but political crisis deepens

The political crisis accelerated after former prime minister Michel Barnier lost a vote of no confidence

GCT union federation members on the march in France

By Thomas Foster
Friday 13 December 2024  

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2935

France’s neoliberal president Emmanuel Macron named centrist politician Francois Bayrou as the prime minister on Friday. He is the fourth prime minister this year, as the French political system plunges further into crisis.

As Bayrou doesn’t have a majority, he has to rely on “moderate” politicians from left and right—and authoritarian measures in the constitution.

Right wing Tory Michel Barnier had to resign after opposition parties brought him down in a no confidence vote last week.

But workers are gaining confidence—and an escalation of strikes could force out Macron, Bayrou and their rotten system.

Industrial workers in the CGT union federation struck on Thursday with up to 120 rallies across France in response to bosses threatening up to 300,000 jobs. Michelin, a flagship French manufacturing company, has confirmed the closure of two sites by 2026 threatening more than 1,200 jobs.

This is at a time when the company made two billion euros in profits and paid 1.4 billion euros in dividends.

Rail workers have been on a continuous national strike since Wednesday over the breaking up of the publicly-owned freight train company.

Dock workers struck nationally earlier this week on Monday and Tuesday amid an ongoing dispute over pensions.

Teacher Nicholas told Socialist Worker that since public sector workers struck on 5 December “there has been a lot of debates in our workplaces”.

The crucial debate has been “whether it is necessary to continue to strike because of the collapse of the government”. “Some are saying that, because there is no government, there is no use to strike,” he said.

“But in other places, such as in my workplace, many thought it was necessary to strike.”


‘Look to the streets and strikes as French government collapses’

Nicholas warned that “a lot of unions are being moderate about the strike”. Many “have no confidence” in whatever new government is formed. But when “the top of the unions are waiting”, it has an “impact on the confidence of people”.

“Those who think the strike should have stopped because the government resigned are wrong,” he said.

“The new government will do the exact same thing. The feeling that there are no solutions from above is growing. This means people look to something else and the alternative is trying to build from below.”

The CGT is also backing the day of action on Saturday “calling for a united mobilisation to defend the rights and dignity of migrants”. The federation demanded the end of racist migration policies and full rights for undocumented workers.

This is a positive development, but Nicholas said that as a whole “unions aren’t doing enough to tackle the far right”.

“What they denounce the social and economic programme of the fascist RN, the union leaders never insist that the RN is racist,” he explained.

The hope lies with workers’ strikes escalating, combining economic and political demands against Macron and the bosses. And to stop the RN benefiting out of the crisis of the centre, it requires an explicitly anti-racist response in the working class