UK

Starmer: New NHS deal with private sector puts ‘patients before ideology’

James Moules & Tom Belger   

6th January, 2025

Photo: Number 10/Flickr

Keir Starmer has said he won’t put “ideology before patients” as he unveiled a new relationship with the private healthcare sector to get NHS waiting lists down.

In his first major policy speech of 2025, the Prime Minister said more private facilities would be available for NHS use under the partnership. The government’s newly published NHS plan promises patients choice of more providers via the NHS app, “including in the independent sector”.

Bringing down 7.5million-strong NHS waiting lists is one of the government’s flagship pledges, but use of the private sector is likely to prove controversial on the left.

Starmer said: “I know some people won’t like this, but I make no apologies. Change is urgent. I’m not interested in putting ideology before patients, and I’m not interested in moving at the pace of excuses.”

One political journalist said to Starmer that “some people watching might be worried about backdoor privatisation of the NHS”, and asked if he would be open to going further.

He said later the priority was waiting lists, but he was “not ideological” and implied he was open to expanding private sector involvement further if there was capacity.

He also said NHS use of the private sector is “not new”, and the deal was to ensure it was done better, stopping “cherry-picking of cases”.

Labour’s wider plans for the NHS

The plans announced today to bring down waiting lists also include an expanded use of Community Diagnostic Centres to allow more people to access tests 

It is one of the government’s milestones to reduce waiting lists to have 92% of NHS patients treated within 18 weeks.

Starmer added: “Politics can be a force for good, and we can unite the NHS behind a plan for reform, an NHS that’s faster, easier and more convenient, with waiting times, cut, patients in control, technology at your service, and outstanding care in your community.”

UNISON’s head of health Helga Pile said: “Ministers know that all the extra appointments and other ways of increasing capacity won’t happen on their own.

“Health workers have been taken for granted for years by governments and little they’ve heard from the Prime Minister on his plans will encourage them to feel differently.

“Getting decisions right on pay, and recruiting and retaining skilled, experienced workers must be at the heart of any recovery plan for the NHS.”

Starmer defends his record on grooming gangs against Elon Musk attacks

Meanwhile the Prime Minister was also quizzed by journalist on X owner, Tesla founder and incoming presidential adviser Elon Musk’s remarks about British politics – including an allegation Starmer was “complicit in the rape of Britain” in reference to scandals around child sexual exploitation.

But Starmer defended his record as Director of Public Prosecutions, adding that “those that are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible, they’re not interested in victims.”

He said he wanted to “call out” politicians calling for an inquiry who had previously “sat in government”, and were now jumping on the “bandwagon of the far right”, without naming Kemi Badenoch.

One BBC journalist called Starmer’s response over grooming gangs “perhaps the most impassioned Starmer has ever been in his time as prime minister.”

Right-Wing Watch

The legacy of the Capitol Hill riots

The embracing of a man who incited a dangerous and deadly insurrection as he refused to accept the result of a democratic vote - akin to a three-year-old refusing to accept his bedtime - risks pushing Britain further down a dark and dangerous path, eroding the very values that have long defined the nation.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

4 January, 2025 

Left Foot Forward 

On January 6 2021, a violent and heavily armed mob of Donald Trump loyalists stormed the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Five people were killed, and hundreds injured.

The attempted coup was not a spontaneous act but had been planned for weeks, encouraged by elected officials and, most notably, the former president himself, who had spent weeks stoking baseless ‘big lie’ conspiracy theories about Joe Biden’s win. On that day, Trump urged the crowd to march to the Capitol and “fight.”

Now, four years later, the man identified by the House of Representative’s January 6 Committee as having “lit that fire” of insurrection, is about to return for a second presidential term. Trump has promised to pardon many of the rioters. In an interview with TIME magazine, he said that pardons could start in “the first hour… maybe the first nine minutes” of his presidency.

It’s the stuff of nightmares, representing a chilling turning point, not only for the United States but for democracies worldwide. Inevitably there are those who are emboldened by the events of January 6, who believe that there are few consequences, perhaps even political rewards, for inciting violence. Four years later, the ripple effects of that day continue to reverberate, manifesting in increasing displays of hate and extremism worldwide.

And Europe is no exception, where, sadly, news of tragic far-right violence is never far away. Germany has witnessed a surge in far-right, racist, and antisemitic violence, reaching unprecedented levels in over a decade, where violence against politicians dominates the headlines.

The European Liberal Forum (IPS) highlights how these attacks are often driven by transnational networks of far-right extremists, particularly through online communities. In their 2022 Policy Paper, they wrote:

“Each new attack serves as a motivation to do the same or even more. Despite these networks being decentralised, international links are maintained, particularly between the US and Europe…. Asylum seekers and ethnic minorities are often the primary targets.”

Intensifying divisions

On the first anniversary of the Capitol Hill riots, scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies reflected on the long-term impact of January 6. Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, warned that the insurrection was the “gravest assault on American democracy since the Civil War.”

“[But] rather than providing a sobering lesson of the dangers of political polarisation, the insurrection seems only to have intensified our divisions, and the willingness to contemplate or condone the use of violence,” said Diamond.

He pointed to a Washington Post survey from 2022, that showed a third of Americans feel violence against the government could be justified in some circumstances, a sharp increase from 16 percent in 2010 and 23 percent in 2015.

Diamond’s concerns are compounded by the fact that many politicians have not been chastened by the near “constitutional catastrophic” events of January 6.

“The “Big Lie” that Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 election retains the support of most Republicans and a substantial proportion of independents. Around the country, Republican legislatures have been introducing, and in many states adopting, bills that would give Republican legislatures the ability to reverse or sabotage legitimate electoral outcomes, and other bills that make it more difficult for people (especially Democratic-leaning groups) to vote,” he continued.

A hint at the UK’s future?

The UK watched in horror at the chaos unfolding on Capitol Hill four years ago. Images of rioters scaling government buildings, desecrating offices, and beating officers were a reminder of what democracy shouldn’t look like, and, at the time, we believed such an insurrection could never happen here.

Yet a dangerous undercurrent has been brewing in Britain, where US-imported adversity to diversity and inclusion has made its way across the Atlantic, fuelled, sadly, by a right-wing media. Outlets like the Daily Mail and the Sun, repeatedly stoke fears about the “Islamification” of Britain, presenting Muslims as a threat to British values, while pushing an agenda that is highly critical of progressive movements, using the term ‘wokeism’ pejoratively to present a perceived overemphasis on political correctness and identity politics.

Senior Tories embrace Trump

Despite his role in the January 6 insurrection and his regular use of violent language to describe his opponents, high-profile Tory figures in Britain laud Trump. Liz Truss claimed – absurdly – he will make the world safer. Robert Jenrick said if he was an American citizen, he would “be voting for Donald Trump,” while Boris Johnson praised him for ensuring a “peaceful transfer of power” despite the coup attempt in 2021. This embracing of Trump shows just how far to the right the Tory party has fallen.

Farage and Reform

Then there’s the growing influence and popularity of Reform UK and Nigel Farage, who dismissed the Capitol Hill riots as a “ramshackle gathering of people.”

In the 2024 general election, Reform secured 4.1 million votes, marking the largest vote share ever for a far-right party in Britain. The party’s growing popularity among voters parallels the rise of far-right in the US, where formerly ‘moderate’ Republicans coalesce around Trump and his overt racism. A Politico analysis found that more than 20 of Trump’s presidential campaign rallies and campaign events demonised minority groups. The supposed threat of migrants was the core part of the former president’s campaign, promising that he’s the one who can save the country from a group of people he calls “animals,” “stone cold killers,” the “worst people,” and the “enemy from within.”

This perceived threat of migrants was also the cornerstone of Reform’s election campaign. Farage even said the general election “should be the immigration election,” promising a “freeze” on non-essential immigration, which he blamed for NHS waiting lists and the housing crisis, saying other parties “would rather not discuss it.”

Nigel Farage has made it clear that Trump is his dear, dear friend, having abandoned his constituents in Clacton multiple times so he can attend Republican events in the US.

Hope not Hate warns that the rise of Reform is a threat to communities, spreading division and pushing far-right ideas. “If we don’t act now, we risk seeing their influence grow even further in future local, mayoral, and general elections.”

Far-right riots

Sadly, the magnitude of the far-right ‘anger’ flared up this summer, following the tragic stabbing of three young girls in Southport. While the incident sparked shock and disbelief across the UK, a false narrative emerged online, claiming the attacker was a Syrian Muslim asylum seeker. This fuelled outrage and riots among groups of anti-immigrant protestors, who targeted mosques.

In a bid to quell the violence, a judge made the unusual decision to reveal the identity of the attacker – a 17-year-old British national from a Christian family originally from Rwanda. Yet the damage had been done.

So-called “pro-British protestors” engaged in violent acts, throwing bricks through mosque windows, chanting anti-Islamic slurs, setting cars on fire, attacking residents and police, and even attempting to burn down a hotel housing asylum seekers.

As the violence escalated, right-wing figures and apologists for the rioting spread a myth that white far-right “protestors” were the victims of a “two-tier” policing system that discriminated against them based on race and politics. The hashtag #twotierkeir trended.

The narrative was pushed by figures like Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, and Nigel Farage. Farage, in particular, claimed that the perception of two-tier policing grew from the “soft policing” of the Black Lives Matter protests.

The recent tragedy in Germany, when a driver crashed into a Christmas market and killed at least five people, ignited a similar firestorm of far-right fury. When the suspect was identified as a man from Saudi Arabia, leading right-wing figures from the Netherland’s Geert Wilders to Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen in France, seized on the harrowing attack to push an anti-immigrant and anti-Islam agenda. Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who’s now a key adviser to Trump, also weighed in, blasting the German chancellor Olaf Scholz as an “incompetent fool.”

It subsequently emerged that the arrested man is a Saudi refugee Christian working as a doctor with some connections to the far-right who may have been protesting at either German treatment of refugees, or the Saudi regime, or against Islam. He was known to the authorities and clearly presents a more complex case that the likes of Musk would acknowledge. The right never deals with complexity of nuance though, preferring to live permanently in the nursery rhyme world of Simple Simon.

US interference in UK politics

Seemingly unable to keep his nose out of other country’s politics, Musk also led the ‘two-tier’ policing charge in the summer. He tweeted that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK, in response to a post claiming that “open borders and migration” had led to the protests.

Musk also tweeted in support of those attacking officials for arresting people believed to have posted offensive comments online, promoting a “free speech absolutist” stance he has long pushed. He posted a meme of a cartoon character strapped to an electrocution chair and likened the scene to the punishment people would face for posting their views online in the UK by 2030.

“Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?” he asked in yet another tweet.

But these claims are easily debunked. BLM demonstrations in Britain were mostly peaceful, as are the protests against Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza.

Musk kicked off 2025 as he ended 2024, calling for the release of the jailed far-right activist, Tommy Robinson. He tweeted that authorities should “free Tommy Robinson” — and said a deeply controversial documentary by the English Defense League co-founder was “worth watching.”

As if Musk’s rants on the social platform that he owns (and has reportedly manipulated to artificially boost his content) weren’t bad enough, reports suggest that the billionaire is considering a $100 million donation to Reform, despite residing in the US.

“It will be a fantastic endorsement of our policies to save Britain and get Britain growing again,” said Reform’s deputy Richard Tice in a recent interview.

The hypocrisy of Farage and Tice’s acceptance of the foreign donor after having previously kicked up such as fuss over the Hungarian American billionaire investor George Soros donated £400,000 to the pro-EU campaign, Best for Britain, did not go unnoticed.

Dark money from the US to UK

But dark money has long crossed the Atlantic. Influential right-wing UK think-tanks, with ties to politicians, have received millions in donations from the US. As of 2022, the Taxpayers’ Alliance, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), Policy Exchange, the Adam Smith Institute and the Legatum Institute had raised $9m from American donors since 2012.

From voter suppression to attacks on abortion rights, to an almost apocalyptic disdain for ‘woke’ leftists and the incessant peddling of culture wars, dangerous ideas from the American right have steadily gained ground in Britain.

And now with the dawn of Trump 2.0, we must ask: after turning our back on the EU, was landing in America’s lap always an ambition for some on the right?

A shocking headline in the Telegraph last week suggests it was:

“It’s time to become the 51st state of the US.”

“We need to get Brexit done properly. Let’s finally face up to reality and put our Maga hats on,” the author argued

This embracing of Trumpism, and the man who incited a dangerous and deadly insurrection as he refused to accept the result of a democratic vote, akin to a three-year-old refusing to accept his bedtime, risks pushing Britain further down a dark and dangerous path, eroding the very values that have long defined the nation. America is about to embark on the most important political experiment of the post war years. Will the agencies of the democratic state – the law courts, the legislature, the media, the devolution of power to the states – be robust enough to withstand the excesses of Trumpism? While here at home, will the Labour government have the courage, the political nous, and above all sufficient success, to withstand those who will be pressing to plant Trumpism in our own soil. That seems to be the fundamental question as we enter the new year.

Right- wing media watch – Rage against Khan – Sadiq’s knighthood triggers Tory media meltdown

Sadiq Khan has been handed a knighthood in the New Year Honours, prompting a right-wing media meltdown. “Reward for failure,” they’re calling it.

“Leading Tories pointed to his ‘track record of failure’ in the capital, including over tackling knife crime and dramatic hikes in council tax, congestion charges and emissions levies,” bemoaned the Daily Mail.

Such is the anger over the London mayor’s knighthood that it threatens to “overshadow the list,” claim the reports.

The Telegraph felt compelled to make the PM’s ‘reward for failure’ its lead frontpage story.

“Starmer accused of putting party before country as he hands honours to ‘cronies,’ the article continued.

The “reward for failure” smear seemed to have originated from shadow home secretary Chris Philp, who was quoted by the Telegraph saying: “Londoners would be “furious” at Sir Sadiq’s knighthood, which amounted to “rewarding failure.”

Oh dear, are these the same Londoners who voted for Khan in landmark third successive term win as mayor in May? Despite a nasty and relentless smear campaign by his main rival, Tory candidate Susan Hall, which was backed up by much of the Tory press, Khan won 1,088,225 votes – 275,828 more than Hall.

Surely if Londoners were so against him, he wouldn’t have bagged what was the second-largest majority in the history of the London mayoralty process?

Alongside Angela Rayner and Ed Miliband, Sadiq Khan is one of the Tory media’s most loathed figures. In their rants about him “waging war on London’s drivers,” “capitulating to unions over tube strikes,” and “presiding over rising crime rates,” there’s no mention of the many strides he’s made in improving the lives of Londoners. Such as presiding over free school meals for all state primary school pupils, council homebuilding hitting a higher level than at any time since the 1970s, the freezing of rail fares as national fares continue to rise, standing up for renters, more police officers on the streets in the face of huge Tory cuts, and so on.

What is especially nauseating about the right-wing media’s reaction to Khan’s knighthood is its glaring double standards. In their rage against Khan, they also forget that Shaun Bailey, Khan’s Tory rival in the 2021 mayoral election, was nominated for a life peerage in 2022 by Boris Johnson – a fat lot of good Bailey’s done for London. But then again, when we think of the knighthoods given other mediocre right-wingers like the long-standing Eurosceptic John Hayes, peerages to Russians, not to mention that almost a quarter of those ennobled in 2020 were party donors and ex-associates of Boris Johnson, Bailey might be one of the better ones.

If Starmer was going to knight anyone, I’m so pleased he choose Sadiq Khan. Not only his many great achievements in London, but because it clearly grated on the nerves of the right-wing press.

If there’s one thing we can count on, it’s the predictability of the Tory media. The one thing they cannot abide is for political success to be found in left-wing or even mildly progressive policies. Despite Atlee’s massive rebuilding of Britain after the war, the social transformations enabled by the Wilson government, and even the restoration of public services achieved by the first Blair government, the right-wing narrative has to be one of left failure.

Smear of the week – Tory press seize on Tulip Siddiq ‘embezzlement’ smear

Sadiq Khan wasn’t the only one who found themselves targeted by a right-wing smear campaign over Christmas.

‘Keir Starmer’s corruption minister Tulip Siddiq and her family are probed over claims they took £4 billion in bribes for Putin-funded nuclear power plant,’ is a dream headline for the Tory press. And, predictably, it was the Daily Mail that had the ‘exclusive.’

It’s a sensational story that the tabloids are eager to milk, but the truth behind Labour MP Tulip Siddiq’s involvement in alleged embezzlement, is far more complex and opaque.

The allegations stem from a 12-year-old event. In 2013, Siddiq, whose family’s native country is Bangladesh, was photographed with Russian President Vladimir Putin and her aunt at a signing ceremony for a deal between Russia and Bangladesh.

Siddiq faces allegations that she was involved in brokering the deal, and Bangladesh’s Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is investigating her for embezzlement.

While Tulip Siddiq has long been involved in the Labour Party, having joined them at 16 and becoming Camden’s first Bangladeshi female councillor in 2010, she did not become an MP until 2015.

She has also firmly denied any wrongdoing, calling the claims politically motivated and a “hit job.”

Saddiq’s aunt, Sheikh Hasina Wazed, was ousted as the country’s prime minister in August after 15 years in power. She began her political career as a pro-democracy icon, but, in recent years, had been accused of turning autocratic and clamping down on any opposition to her rule.

The inquiry into the Labour minister was opened as part of a wider investigation by Bangladesh’s anti-corruption commission, which is looking into crimes and corruption that took place under Hasina’s rule.

Keir Starmer’s spokesman confirmed that the prime minister has full confidence in Siddiq, who continues to serve as economic secretary to the Treasury and City minister. Asked about any potential conflicts of interest, the spokesman said: “I can’t speak to events that happened prior to a minister’s time in government,” adding, there was a “very clear declaration process” for ministers, which had been followed.

But Conservative politicians and their supporting press are using the allegations to score political points, demanding that Siddiq “comes clean.” Matt Vickers, Conservative home affairs spokesman, said: “The British public deserve a government that is focused on their priorities, not distracted by yet another scandal.”

The more liberal press has reported the story with greater balance, acknowledging Siddiq’s denials and confirming that her discussions with the ethics team were part of a standard fact-checking process, not a formal investigation.

As the Guardian reports, it is understood that Bangladeshi authorities have not yet contacted Siddiq as part of the investigation, which was based on allegations raised by Bobby Hajjaj, who was in opposition under Hasina’s rule.

But, sigh, being female, Muslim, and a Labour MP, Tulip Siddiq is an easy target for the gutter press, never mind the fact that this smear is built on a 12-year-old photo and politically motivated claims.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

UK Government urged to prioritise refugees’ lives after ‘deadliest year’ for Channel crossings

'The journey across the English Channel in a small boat has always been perilous. But in 2024 it became more deadly.'

Olivia Barber

 2 January, 2025 
 Left Foot Forward

The Refugee Council has urged the government to prioritise saving refugees’ lives and increasing safe and legal routes into the UK, after a record 69 people died crossing the channel in 2024.

According to the charity’s new report, 2024 was the deadliest year for English Channel crossings in small boats, with the 69 deaths surpassing the 59 recorded between 2019 and 2023.

The report stated that while the government seems to have accepted that enforcement action against the smuggling gangs has made the crossings more dangerous, it has not announced any measures to improve search and rescue in the Channel.

The report, Deaths in the Channel: What needs to change, noted: “The journey across the English Channel in a small boat has always been perilous. But in 2024 it became more deadly.”

The increase in deaths is in part attributed to an increase in the average number of people per boat and boats being “increasingly unseaworthy”.

The organisation suggested that the increased risk is likely due to the UK and French governments’ enforcement measures aimed at disrupting the criminal gangs profiting from these dangerous crossings.

The Refugee Council also pointed out that the government does not publish official data on the number of people who die trying to reach the UK.

It called for the government to begin publishing quarterly figures on deaths during Channel crossings in small boats.

The charity also recommended that the government introduce a pilot refugee visa, allowing 10,000 people from countries with higher rates of asylum approval to travel to the UK for their claims to be processed.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, said: “The record number of deaths in the Channel this year should serve as a stark reminder that the current approach is not working. Smuggling gangs are profiting from men, women and children forced into life-threatening conditions, and enforcement measures alone are not enough to address this.”

“More safe and legal routes are needed to provide a lifeline for those fleeing war and persecution. The success of the Ukraine schemes shows that when safe alternatives exist, refugees use them and don’t resort to incredibly dangerous journeys across the Channel.

“The Government also has a responsibility to invest in better search and rescue operations, in partnership with France, to prevent yet more deaths. Every person who lost their life in the Channel this year was someone with a story and loved ones – like 7-year-old Sara, who died boarding an overcrowded boat with her family.”

Solomon added: “These deaths are not inevitable. The government needs to take a different approach if it is to ensure everything possible is done so that 2025 does not see a repeat of last year’s devastating loss.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Successive UK governments have done ‘precious little’ to stop people dying in the Channel, this must change – activists warn


‘We cannot allow this loss of life to become normalised.’

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward

On December 29, at least three migrants lost their lives when attempting to cross the English Channel from France to Britain. Approximately 50 migrants were rescued from the freezing waters.

The tragedy followed the rescue of more than 100 migrants by French authorities on Christmas Day, when at least 850 people reached the UK in small boats.

Stricter immigration rules and border controls have left many desperate people, fleeing persecution, poverty and war, with few options but to rely on people-smuggling networks and unsafe routes.

Since last January, at least 77 migrants have died or gone missing in the Channel, making 2024 the deadliest year on record for such crossings. Tens of thousands of migrants have reached Britain, nearly 36,000 arriving in small boats over the course of the year.

According to the Red Cross, many migrants are drawn to the UK because they speak some English and have family members already living there whom they hope to join.

Following the tragic loss of lives over Christmas, migrant charities and human rights organisations have ramped up calls to the UK government to provide safe crossing routes for people to reach the UK.

Care4Calais CEO Steve Smith said that Keir Starmer must fulfil his promise to deliver change for those seeking safety in the UK.

“2024 has been the deadliest year on record in the Channel… The government can end the deaths in 2025 overnight, if they so wish.

“By introducing safe routes for the survivors of war, torture and persecution to claim asylum in the UK, they will end crossings and save lives.”

Sabby Dhalu, co-convenor of Stand Up to Racism, warned how successive British governments have done “precious little” to stop people dying in the Channel.

“We cannot allow this loss of life to become normalised. We call on the government to immediately implement safe passage to Britain for refugees whilst their asylum claims are processed.

“That’s the only way to stop this horrific loss of life.”

Fizza Qureshi, CEO of the Migrants Rights Network CEO, noted how the recent deaths, like all those before them, were “entirely preventable.”

“Migration is constantly framed around numbers, rather than people. Successive cruel government policies focused on deterrence force people — largely black and brown people — into making these dangerous journeys.

“We renew our call for the government to reverse its plans to increase cruel deterrence and enforcement measures, and implement safe routes for people of all nationalities to come to the UK.”

The Refugee Council is also urging the government to prioritise saving refugees’ lives and increasing safe and legal routes into the UK. The charity is recommending that the government introduce a pilot refugee visa, allowing 10,000 people from countries with higher rates of asylum approval to travel to the UK for their claims to be processed.

“The government needs to take a different approach if it is to ensure everything possible is done so that 2025 does not see a repeat of last year’s devastating loss,” said Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council.

UK 

Unions slam proposal to trade higher salaries for lower pensions in bid to avert public sector strikes

'Like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.'

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead 

Yesterday

Left Foot Forward 

Plans are reportedly being considered which could see millions of teachers, nurses and civil servants offered higher salaries in return for lower pensions.

The proposed reform is aimed at retaining public sector staff and averting future public sector strikes over pay. But it has been criticised by unions, who have labelled it “dangerous.”

Richard Munn, Unite’s national health officer, said: “This is nothing more than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The real issue is about providing more investment in public services. Lower pensions would force workers to work even longer, when too many are already being forced out of the health service before reaching pension age due to illness.”

The National Education Union (NEU) warned that the model would force public sector employees to choose between “poverty now or poverty in retirement.”

The British Medical Association (BMA) said it would have “serious concerns” if doctors’ pensions were being considered.

In December, the government began setting salaries for 2025/2026, with chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing that most public sector workers would receive a maximum pay rise of 2.8 percent, just 0.2 percent above projected inflation.

In response, unions have threatened further strikes unless the proposal is revised.

A decision on the pay and pension reform has not yet been made and former chancellors are reportedly sceptical of the idea. But it has the backing of former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell, who argues it is a ‘win-win’ which would save the Treasury money. He said:

“If you increase a civil servant’s pay by £1,000 you could reduce the net present value of their pension by more than £1,000, which makes debt more sustainable but would also be a trade-off that makes sense to the civil servant because having that money upfront will mean a bank gives them a mortgage.”

Disputes over pay have led to recurring strikes in hospitals and schools. Thousands of NHS nurses leave the UK each year for better-paying jobs abroad, while more than a quarter of state school teachers abandon the profession within the first three years.

Cat Little, secretary at the cabinet office, is reviewing “the balance between pay and pensions,” and has started discussions within the government about offering staff more flexibility.

But Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, warns that while a pay rise in exchange for pension cuts may appear cost-neutral, it “brings forward costs” for the government. Since no money has been set aside for pensions, any savings would only not happen until today’s workers retire, while the additional cost of higher wages would be felt immediately.

How our democracy has been hijacked by corporations and wealthy elites

The only effective remedy is to ban all private donations, or bribes, to political parties.

Prem Sikka 

3 January, 2025 

Left Foot Forward 

‘Free and fair elections’ is the slogan of liberal democracies. But when did we have free and fair elections?

The slogan obfuscates the power of corporations and wealthy elites in shaping public choices. People merely rubber-stamp the policies already decided by political elites and their financial backers. Some crumbs are occasionally thrown to the masses but the rich and corporations always win because they control the means of production and public information, fund political parties and threaten to cause chaos if their wishes are ignored.

It is hard to recall any mass social movement calling for cuts in real wages and benefits; ever-lengthening queues for hospital appointments; profiteering by corporations; tax abuses by corporations and the rich; substandard housing, lousy pensions, inadequate social care, bailout of banks and energy companies; subsidies for corporations, or rivers full of sewage. Yet these things have happened because governments bow to the power of corporations and the rich to buy the political system. Governments indulge them with tax cuts, lax laws and poor enforcement whilst condemning most of the voters to misery and premature death.

Political donations are a sport for the rich. The richest 50 families hold more wealth than half of the UK population. The top fifth of households have 63% of the country’s wealth, while the bottom fifth has only 0.5%.The bottom 50% of the population have 5% of wealth, and the top 10% a staggering 57%. Whichever way you look at it, only the rich have the resources to fund political parties, get access to policy makers and sway government policies.

All major parties are for sale to the rich and corporations. Tories received £10m from Frank Hester’s firm Phoenix Partnership. Hester was famously locked into a racist tirade and said that Diane Abbott – Britain’s first Black female MP – made him “want to hate all Black women” and that she “should be shot”. Companies linked to Tory donors received £8.4bn in public contracts since 2016.

We all remember how former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair bent the rules and exempted Formula One racing from a tobacco advertising ban to secure a £1m donation. Subsequently, due to public uproar the money was retuned. Prior to the 2024 election Labour received £4m from Cayman Islands -based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms and £2m by Ecotricity, owned by Dale Vince, the green energy tycoon. Labour’s biggest individual donor was Lord David Sainsbury, who gave the party £2.5m.

Businessman Zia Yusuf was the second biggest Reform UK donor, providing £200,000. Since the election, he has become the party’s chairman. ‘Cash for honours’ has been a recurring theme in UK politics as parties nominate donors for peerages, knighthoods and other honours.

The UK’s political elites have been content with the sale of the political system to the highest bidder, but are now stirred by revelations that the right-wing US billionaire Elon Musk is funding Reform UK MPs and is considering handing $100m (£78m) to Reform, pushing the UK closer to the right-wing policies preferred by the incoming US President Donald Trump.

To prevent foreign money from shaping UK politics, some have proposed bans on foreign donations, financial limits on donations by corporations and donations. The head of Electoral Commission has said that corporate donations must come of profits made in the UK. Such suggestions assume that ‘foreign’ and ‘profits’ can easily be defined and policed. There is no central enforcer of company law. Many donations are routed through small companies which enjoy exemptions from numerous disclosures. The UK’s electoral policing system relies on the voluntary disclosures by donors and recipients and has no capacity to act swiftly. The above reforms can easily be bypassed and won’t achieve the desired objectives.

The only effective remedy is to ban all private donations, or bribes, to political parties. This can be supplemented by state funding of political parties with strict limits and public accountability.

Currently, the UK’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires that donations or loans must be from “permissible sources”. These include: individuals registered on a UK electoral register, UK-registered unincorporated associations, and UK-registered companies which are incorporated in the UK and carry on business in the UK. An unincorporated association doesn’t need to register with the Electoral Commission unless it makes political contributions exceeding £37,270 in a calendar year – and even then, it doesn’t have to reveal how it raised the money. Secrecy is embedded within the legislation. Since 2020, more than £13m has been donated to political parties through “unincorporated associations”. Nearly two thirds went to the Conservative Party.

Prior to the Elections Act 2022, British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years could not vote in the elections and were therefore not on the electoral register and could not fund political parties. The Act changed that and enabled the tax exiles with no intention of living in the UK, to vote and fund parties. Thus, it is impossible to prevent foreign money from entering UK politics and swaying elections. How will any election regulator know whether the money donated by tax exiles is clean?

The idea of restricting donations to Individuals on the UK electoral register cannot prevent foreign or even dirty money from funding political parties. An election law expert gave the hypothetical example of a Russian oligarch’s wife, who is a British citizen registered on the electoral roll in London, making a donation in her own name. “The authorities will just accept it without investigating, because they say, ‘Well, she’s on the register, and she says it’s her money’.”

If Elon Musk’s friends and associates are on the UK electoral register and make political donations, nothing will appear to be abnormal, and no questions will be asked.

Companies registered in the UK are permitted to make donations. Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has corporate presence in the UK and can therefore make political donations. He also controls Tesla UK, Starlink Internet Services UK and other companies and they can make donations too. Each can create hundreds of subsidiaries and as legal persons they can make donations. The distinction between domestic and foreign is not always clear-cut. For example, a Dubai-based Investment Fund, which owns right-wing broadcaster GB News, has made a £50,000 donation to a faction of Conservative MPs. This could have been routed through GB News. Is this a domestic or a foreign donation? Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Police have the capacity to investigate the origins of political donations.

In July 2021, a report by The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that “donations should only be made from profits generated in the UK”. However, there is no watertight legal definition of profit. Profit has no physical appearance and is calculated by applying accounting rules made by the private sector. The accounting rules or standards are pliable. The profits of a company can be manufactured with intragroup transactions.

Tax exiles have long used shell companies and complex corporate structures to circumvent political donation laws. None of this has received any challenge from the Electoral Commission. Even if there were some new financial limits on donations, they can be funnelled through numerous subsidiaries and affiliates to violate the spirit of the law.

The only effective measure is to ban all political donations, and the giving and receiving of such donations a criminal offence. Such a ban would force political parties to compete and develop publicly acceptable policies. The successful parties would attract more members and membership fees. Those unable to do so will wither.

Political parties already receive funding from the state. It is called ‘short money’ and is available to opposition parties under strict rules. The financial support assists an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business, travel and associated expenses and running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office. The principle could be extended to provide state funding for elections related spending, subject to strict rules. Some will object to state funding of political parties, but the alternative is the current corrupt situation where politics are hijacked by corporations and the rich.

The possibilities of a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” are stymied by corporations and the rich. They fund parties to shape public choices and prevent emancipatory change. A total ban on political donations is needed. Parties will have to rely upon their membership fees. This will reduce the money available to the parties and they will need to spend it wisely, possibly by eliminating misinformation. State-funding, subject to strict controls, can also be considered. Corporations and political elites are dependent upon each other for advancement of their power and interests, at the expense of people. Ending that dependence is a necessary precondition for possibilities of democracy.

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

Elon Musk turns on Nigel Farage and calls for Reform UK leader to be replaced

It’s all turned sour so quickly...

Basit Mahmood 

Today

Left Foot Forward 

It’s all turned sour so quickly. It was only last month that Farage was boasting about his meeting with Elon Musk, with talks that the tech billionaire would be making a game changing donation to Reform UK, the biggest in British political history.

And yet just weeks later, Musk has turned on Farage, taking to his X platform to call for him to be replaced as Reform UK leader saying that the arch Brexiteer does not have ‘what it takes’.

Farage and Musk have been in disagreement over Musk’s support for the far-right Tommy Robinson. The Trump appointee has called for Robinson’s release in a number of posts in recent days, while Farage has condemned Robinson, telling GB News that Mr Musk “sees Robinson as one of these people that fought against the grooming gangs”.

“But of course the truth is Tommy Robinson’s in prison not for that, but for contempt of court,” he said.

Farage added: “We’re a political party aiming to win the next general election. He’s not what we need.”

Musk has posted a number of misleading posts in recent days about a series of aspects of UK politics, appearing to endorse Rupert Lowe. He also called Labour MP Jess Phillips a “rape genocide apologist”.

Responding to Musk’s post calling for him to be replaced, Farage posted on X: “Well, this is a surprise! Elon is a remarkable individual but on this I am afraid I disagree. My view remains that Tommy Robinson is not right for Reform and I never sell out my principles.”

The latest incident is particularly embarrassing for Farage given that just hours earlier on Sunday, the Reform UK leader used an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg where he heaped praise on Musk and called him ‘a hero’.

How progressives reacted to Elon Musk turning on Nigel Farage

'Well, that was fast. How’s riding the tiger, Nigel?'

Basit Mahmood 

Toda

Left Foot Foryward

Only last month, Farage, the leader of Reform UK who has been desperate to secure the support of Elon Musk, was boasting about how successful their meeting had been amid reports that the owner of X was considering making a huge donation to Reform.

However, yesterday Musk turned on Farage, claiming that the MP for Clacton does not have what it takes to be leader of Reform UK.

The pair have had a disagreement over the far-right former leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson. Musk has called for Robinson’s release in a number of posts in recent days, while Farage has condemned Robinson, telling GB News that Mr Musk “sees Robinson as one of these people that fought against the grooming gangs”.

“But of course the truth is Tommy Robinson’s in prison not for that, but for contempt of court,” he said.

Farage added: “We’re a political party aiming to win the next general election. He’s not what we need.”

Many couldn’t quite believe how quickly the relationship between the two has deteriorated.

The Daily Mirror’s Associate Editor Kevin Maguire posted on X: “Doctor! My sides hurt from laughing.

“Elon Musk says Nigel Farage must go hours after Reform boss calls him a ‘hero.”

British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan posted on X: “Wow. Musk just turned on Farage over Tommy Robinson. Imagine living in a world where even Nigel Farage has more principles and common sense than Elon Musk. That’s just how far right Musk has gone.”

Political editor of the New European, James Ball, shared the news with the words: “Hahahaahah, well, that was fast. How’s riding the tiger, Nigel?”

Labour MP Diane Abbott posted the story on X with the words: “When thieves fall out…”

Nick Lowles from anti-extremism group Hope not Hate, reacted to Musk’s dumping of Farage by asking: “How long before @elonmusk begins funding a new Tommy Robinson led party???”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

Who is Rupert Lowe? Elon Musk voices support for the MP as potential Reform UK leader

‘I have not met Rupert Lowe, but his statements online [...] make a lot of sense’

Olivia Barber 

Today

Left Foot Forward 

Reports had suggested a $100 million donation was on the table for Reform, with meetings taking place at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Nigel Farage even referred to Elon Musk as a ‘hero’, despite stating that the £80m donation figure was somewhat “overexaggerated”.

However, just when things seemed to be going swimmingly between them, over the weekend, the tech billionaire stated that Farage “doesn’t have what it takes” to lead Reform UK. Farage has suggested that this was due to a disagreement over Musk’s support for far-right activist Tommy Robinson.
Why is Elon Musk talking about Rupert Lowe?

Despite not having met Rupert Lowe, the Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, Elon Musk has now said that he could make a good leader for the right-wing party.

In response to a post on an X account asking about Lowe taking over, Musk replied: “I have not met Rupert Lowe, but his statements online that I have read so far make a lot of sense.”

Responding to Musk, Lowe said: “I thank Elon for his kind comments.

“I just want to do what is right for my constituency and my country – that is my only interest. Nigel is leader of Reform.”
Who is Rupert Lowe and what are his views?

Rupert Lowe was elected as Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, in the July 2024 general election.

A farmer owner himself, Lowe has been Reform UK’s Business and Agriculture spokesperson since 2023.

Lowe has multiple jobs in addition to his role as Great Yarmouth MP. He is a director of pharmaceutical company Biopharma Process Systems, which received over £140,000 in taxpayer-funded furlough money during the pandemic despite the company making almost £8 million in profit.

He is also a director at Alto Energy and Dripping Rock, a freshwater fishing company, as well as at three sports companies. He also owns a company called J Brand Limited, which offers data-related services.

A pro-Brexit MEP

Rupert Lowe is a staunch supporter of Brexit and served as a Brexit Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the West Midlands from 2019 to 2020.

Lowe has said that Labour’s pledge to reset ties with the EU is “a ploy to drag us closer to the EU” and has said that the chancellor Rachel Reeves “needs to respect the British people’s decision in 2016”.

The Great Yarmouth MP has recently posted on X claiming that “multiculturalism has failed Britain”, adding that “if foreign nationals want to live in our country, they need to live by our laws, speak our language, and integrate into our society”.
Grooming gang national inquiry

Lowe has joined Elon Musk in calling for a national inquiry into the grooming gang scandal, suggesting a link between ethnicity and child sexual exploitation cases.

This comes despite 2020 Home Office research highlighting “significant limitations” in drawing conclusions about ethnicity’s connection to such offenses. The research also found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white.

Regarding Tommy Robinson, Rupert Lowe posted on X when the far-right activist was arrested in July last year after organising a demonstration in central London.

The Reform UK party MP Rupert Lowe, responding to the arrest, tweeted: “Is this action proportionate and in line with how the streets of London have recently been policed? More details are urgently required.”

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was also due to appear in court the following week on separate charges of contempt of court for repeating libellous allegations against a young Syrian refugee.

He is currently serving an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court due to these false claims.

UK

Starmer hits back at Elon Musk over attacks on Jess Phillips

‘When the poison of the far-right leads to serious threats ... in my book, a line has been crossed.’

Olivia Barber 

Today
Left Foot Forward

Keir Starmer has defended Jess Phillips after Elon Musk made comments attacking both the safeguarding minister and the prime minister’s record as director of public prosecutions (DPP).

Musk recently shared posts on X claiming that Phillips “deserves to be in jail” and calling her a “rape genocide apologist” for opposing a call for a national inquiry into historical child grooming in Oldham.

The prime minister said that “those that are spreading lies and misinformation, they’re not interested in victims, they’re interested in themselves”.

Without referring directly to Elon Musk, he also said that people who are “cheerleading Tommy Robinson aren’t interested in justice, they’re supporting a man who went to prison for nearly collapsing a grooming case”.

Starmer said that he is proud to call Phillips a colleague and friend, and said she has done “a thousand times more” to protect victims of sexual abuse than those who are attacking her “have even dreamt about”.

Starmer emphasised: “I am prepared to call out this for what it is […] when the poison of the far-right leads to serious threats to Jess Phillips and others, then in my book, a line has been crossed.”

The owner of X has spent days attacking Starmer’s stint as DPP, stating that he was “complicit in the rape of Britain”, and even calling for him to be jailed.

During a press conference in Surrey this morning, where Starmer was outlining his plan to tackle NHS waiting times, he said that as chief prosecutor at the Crown Prosecution Service, he tackled child sexual exploitation “head on, because I could see what was happening”.

Last week, Musk called for Tommy Robinson, the founder of the now-disbanded English Defence League, to be released from prison.

He claimed that Robinson had been jailed for speaking the truth about grooming gangs, despite the fact that the far-right figurehead is serving a prison sentence for contempt of court for repeating libellous claims about a Syrian refugee.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Class Dealignment Has Devastated the Italian Left

In Italy, blue-collar industrial workers are abandoning the Left. As in other countries, they don’t represent the entire working class, but their loss of support should still deeply trouble the Italian left.


A construction worker in Milan, Italy, on October 2, 2023.
(Emanuele Cremaschi / Getty Images)

ByJacopo Custodi
12.31.2024
JACOBIN

“We defend workers better than the caviar left!” Campaigning for November’s regional elections in Emilia-Romagna and Umbria, Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni was sure to emphasize her party’s connection to ordinary people. She argued that her coalition is “rooted in the heart of society, far from VIP salons and the radical-chic left’s lobbies.” While TV panel shows might make it seem like the so-called “salon left” is influential — Meloni told her supporters — any politician visiting a street market will see how “the people” support her government.


This rhetoric is not new: Italy’s far-right politicians have often used it in their culture war against the Left. They portray themselves as defenders of a supposed traditionalist hardworking people who stand against an elite in its progressive ivory towers. This elite, in their narrative, ranges from the moderate center-left Democratic Party to far-left activists and squatted social centers. In this way, the Italian right developed its own language of class politics, defining it in terms of cultural preferences rather than relationship to production. Terms like “caviar left,” the “salon left,” “ZTL left” (referring to the pricey historic city centers where restricted traffic zones, or ZTL, are enforced), “Rolex communists,” and “radical-chic left” are widely popularized through far-right rhetoric, from Meloni to Lega leader Matteo Salvini. These expressions were so ingrained in their rise to power that they are now familiar in Italians’ everyday language.

This is, without doubt, propaganda. It is a calculated and effective narrative crafted by the far right to present itself as fresh and appealing, adopting the customs, language, and culture of everyday Italians, to appear as though they are “one of them.” This image, however, stands in stark contrast to the reality: Firstly, the current government enjoys excellent relations with Italy’s capitalist elite (and foreign counterparts as well, as Meloni’s friendly ties with Elon Musk indicates). Secondly, under Meloni’s government, the material conditions of Italy’s working class have continued to decline, along with the quality of public services that primarily benefit them, such as public transport and the health care system.

Yet, as is often the case with political narratives, no matter how much they exploit, distort, or alter facts, they are nonetheless rooted in them. Stripping away all the hypocrisy and misleading framing reveals a real and pressing issue: class dealignment. Simply put, this describes the growing tendency of working-class individuals to move away from a political alignment with the Left, despite its historical role as the political voice of this same class. If the Right has been able to develop a culture-based class narrative, this is precisely because left-wing class politics retreated.

This issue has sparked increasing attention and debate among the Left in various countries, from France to the United States. It gained renewed prominence during the recent US elections, where Donald Trump further expanded his support among low-income voters. As Jared Abbott aptly noted, class dealignment for the Left represents “the defining political challenge of our time.” In Italy, too, this is a major challenge: the Left has increasingly distanced itself from its historic working-class electoral base over the last decades, leaving a disoriented electorate that the Right has been partially able to win over.Terms like ‘Rolex communists,’ and ‘radical-chic left’ are widely popularized by far-right rhetoric, from prime minister Giorgia Meloni to Lega leader Matteo Salvini.

However, this issue tends to receive little attention within Italy’s activist-left circles. Some are quick to deny this reality by focusing on minor segments of the working class that remain left-leaning — such as precarious knowledge workers, as we will see shortly — or by emphasizing specific instances of synergy between the militant left and radicalized factory workers. While these examples, like the case of the former GKN factory, are significant and commendable, they hardly reflect the broader national picture.

Others may not deny class dealignment outright, but they still consciously or unconsciously avoid engaging with it. This is likely because the Left’s disconnect from the working class has become a rallying point for the Right that successfully seized and framed it. It is no coincidence that, while the term “class dealignment” itself lacks an established equivalent in Italian language, right-leaning expressions describing this phenomenon are, as we have seen, not in short supply. This may have created a growing reluctance on the Left to engage with the topic, as it now evokes a narrative dominated by right-wing talking points and values.

Unsurprisingly, some figures with a leftist background have gradually shifted to the right precisely by internalizing this pervasive right-wing narrative. A prime example is Marco Rizzo, the former leader of a small Communist Party (one of multiple contenders for this name), who is now allied with minor far-right groups and ultraconservative Catholic figures, in the name of a supposed popular hostility toward the progressive elite.

The Left is right not to buy into the right-wing’s distorted narrative on class dealignment and to distance itself from those who did buy into it, such as Rizzo. However, this should not lead to the comfortable overlooking of class dealignment, simply because it has been popularized in a way that sounds right-wing. Even worse, it should not result in self-consoling denial based on praiseworthy but unrepresentative counterexamples.

In other words, while it is wise to avoid being trapped by the Right’s framing, the Italian left cannot afford to deny or ignore the problem altogether. Class dealignment is a real and pressing issue that demands strategic reflection from those on the Left who aim to build broad working-class support.
The Invisible Vote

Akey element of this story that the Right consciously forgets, is that the working-class votes lost by the Left do not necessarily shift to the Right; more often, they result in abstention. For example, in the 2022 Italian general election, 49.4 percent of individuals with a “low” economic status (1 on a scale from 1 to 5) either did not vote or refused to make a choice (submitted a blank ballot), compared with only 27.5 percent among those with a “high” economic status (5 on the same scale). In the 2024 European elections in Italy, this nonvoting by those with low economic status reached an astonishing 75.7 percent. Rather than abandoning the “woke, elite-centered left” to rally behind the “concrete, people-centered right,” as their narrative suggests, low-income workers simply — and dramatically — abandoned politics altogether.

One of the great strengths of left-wing class politics was its ability to empower workers by fostering a forward-looking sense of class power. This was rooted in its success in achieving collective reforms that improved workers’ lives and in its capacity to build associations and organizations shaped by working-class life and its worldview. While the Left has largely lost this ability, it is not something the Right has succeeded in replicating, nor does it appear willing to pursue.One of the great strengths of left-wing class politics was its ability to empower workers by fostering a forward-looking sense of class power — something that the Right has not succeeded in replicating.

As mentioned earlier, in November 2024, regional elections were held in Emilia-Romagna, a historically left-wing region, and Umbria, which had been governed by the Right. In both cases, Meloni’s candidates were defeated, challenging her campaign claims of ever-mounting popular support. However, what is particularly striking is the voter turnout: 46.4 percent in Emilia-Romagna and 52.3 percent in Umbria. This represents a decline of 21.3 percent in the former case and 12.4 percent in the latter compared to the respective previous elections. This happened even despite a change to let people vote across two days — a longer window that typically favors higher turnout. While specific data on voter demographics is unavailable, it is not difficult to imagine which part of the population stayed home.
A Left for the Educated?

When discussing class dealignment, we must consider an additional, crucial factor: education level and the distinct cultural capital it provides. Education has emerged as a key predictor of voting behavior, with higher levels of education increasingly linked to left-leaning preferences in many elections in Europe. French economist Thomas Piketty even coined the term “Brahmin Left” to describe a Left increasingly reliant on highly educated, culturally elite individuals. Education is not necessarily a good proxy for income or class, and equating them can result in misleading conclusions. Contemporary stratification systems feature weaker correlations between hierarchies, meaning that high cultural status does not always align with economic wealth — and vice versa.

This was evident in the first round of the 2024 French elections. Among low-income individuals (those earning less than €1,250 per month), Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) scored slightly better than the left-wing Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP), but the margin was narrow: 38 percent for RN versus 35 percent for NFP. Both did better among low-income voters than among the general electorate (34 percent for RN, 28.1 percent for NFP). However, when we look at education level, the difference becomes striking: among individuals without a secondary education (baccalauréat), RN support soared to 49 percent, while the NFP’s dropped to 17 percent. In contrast, among those with a bachelor’s degree (bac+3), NFP not only led with 37 percent of the vote but did so with a substantial 15-point lead over both RN and Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble, each at 22 percent.

In Italy, right-wing parties collectively outperformed left-wing ones among low-income voters in the June 2024 EU elections, if only barely. Among voters in the lowest economic bracket, the broad right-wing camp secured 48 percent of the vote compared to 47 percent for all left-wing parties. Only in the low-middle economic bracket did the Right have a major advantage: 52 percent against the Left’s 42 percent. However, the differences become much wider when looking at education. Among those without secondary education, the Right had a 59-37 percent advantage. Conversely, among individuals with a university degree, the Left dominated, garnering 61 percent of the vote against the Right’s 34 percent.

What emerges, then, is not only a decline in the Left’s ability to attract working-class voters but, more significantly, a deepening divide in electoral preferences within the working class itself, along educational lines. Manual and low-skilled workers are increasingly leaning toward abstention or right-wing parties, while knowledge workers largely support the Left.Today the ranks of left-wing activists include a disproportionately large number of well-educated but downwardly mobile individuals compared to their representation within the working class.

This issue is also closely related to activism and candidate profiles. Today the ranks of left-wing activists include a disproportionately large number of well-educated but downwardly mobile individuals compared to their representation within the working class. The same trend is evident among candidates, as those with higher education overwhelmingly dominate many contemporary left-wing parties.

For example, based on my estimates from the resumés of all candidates for Italy’s left-wing coalition Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra (AVS) at the 2024 EU elections, 80.6 percent hold a master’s degree or equivalent (five years of university education), while only 14 percent of Italians overall do so — a figure that would likely drop further if focusing solely on Italy’s working class. This disparity clearly highlights a serious problem with the representation of the working-class electorate the Left aims to engage. Unsurprisingly, in the European election, AVS got 11 percent among those with a bachelor’s degree, but only 3 percent among those without a school leaving certificate. Yet it seems obvious that the Left’s candidates should represent the working class in all its diversity, not just its most educated segment.
Common-Sense, Progressive Universalism

Education thus complicates the strategic questions around class dealignment. The challenge is not only to build a left-wing politics with working-class appeal, but also to ensure it resonates with its diverse members, across educational backgrounds. This requires focusing on issues shared across the broader working population — despite the differing life experiences shaped by varying education levels — such as job insecurity, rising rent prices, declining public services like health care, and wages that don’t keep pace with inflation.

While the era of left-wing populism in Europe may have faded, one crucial lesson endures: much of its electoral success came from its ability to foster a common identity around clear, shared progressive goals that transcended inevitable differences among the people. Regardless of the policies concerned — including those that primarily benefit particular minority groups — it seems crucial to frame them from a unifying, universalist perspective, i.e., as proposals that contribute to the improvement of society as a whole. That means fostering a sense of shared identification that transcends particular differences, even without denying their existence.

To craft a message that resonates across the entire working class, regardless of education level, it seems essential to use a language and a way of framing things that draws on common sense and is accessible to everyone. If a left-wing project leans too heavily on theory-laden rhetoric, complex linguistic registers, and political etiquette, then it will only reach individuals who have a handle on this vocabulary and these manners.

This creates barriers for people who lack the cultural capital to navigate such specialized cultural codes and conventions. Clearly, this does not imply that we should stop producing deep political reflections or complex analyses. It simply underscores the obvious: the language and cultural register should always adapt to the collective context and the audience. An academic conference is not a political rally, and vice versa.There are exceptions to class dealignment around Europe, from which Italy’s left can learn — both from mainstream center-left parties and more radical-left movements.

Such a discussion about language, aesthetics, and symbols also highlights the importance, for the Left, of drawing on culturally resonant, nationally rooted references — what Antonio Gramsci called the “national-popular” — in a progressive way. This is no simple task, and in recent years Italian right-wingers have excelled at appropriating national identity and belonging, infused with their own traditionalist and exclusionary values. Yet, however challenging, this remains an important strategic objective, since the popular classes, especially those with lower levels of education, tend to be more “nationalized” in their culturalization process. This means they are more responsive to the nation’s symbols, codes, and references, compared to individuals with higher educational backgrounds, who tend to be more culturally cosmopolitan.

Class dealignment is an issue that needs confronting head-on, with particular attention to the challenge posed by different educational backgrounds. There is, however, reason for hope: there are also exceptions to class dealignment around Europe, from which Italy’s left can learn — both from mainstream center-left parties and more radical-left movements. For instance, Spain’s center-left has highest support among lower-income brackets, without the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party being a “culturally conservative” force. The same holds true for the rising star of Europe’s radical left, the Workers’ Party of Belgium, whose support grows in low-income areas and drops in higher-income ones.

The Left urgently needs strategies to more effectively communicate with the entire working class and to represent all its segments within its ranks. This must be achieved without succumbing to the right-wing narrative that creates a false divide between conservative common people and privileged progressives. While this is no easy task, it is a critical one. Such efforts could halt class dealignment and pave the way for winning back working-class voters from abstention or the appeal of the Right.
Share this article

Contributor
Jacopo Custodi is a research fellow in political science at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Italy and an instructor at Stanford University and Georgetown University. His most recent books are Un’idea di Paese: La nazione nel pensiero di sinistra and Radical Left Parties and National Identity in Spain, Italy, and Portugal: Rejecting or Reclaiming the Nation.