Monday, November 24, 2025

 

222 Years of Haiti’s Victory at Vertiéres



Guillermo R Barreto | 





Today, when US imperial arrogance threatens the entire continent with its military power, we must remember that powerful imperial armies have been defeated time and again by the Caribbean peoples. The Battle of Vertières is a historical milestone that has been rendered invisible by hegemonic historiography.


The Battle of Vertières. Photo: wiki commons

This year marks the 222nd anniversary of the Battle of Vertières. It took place on November 18, south of Le Cap, in what was then known as Saint Domingue. In that battle, which lasted five hours, Napoleon Bonaparte’s elite troops were defeated by battalions of former slaves led by Jean Jacques Dessalines, who consolidated the independence of what would henceforth be called Ayti or Haiti.

Haiti is always mentioned in the media in connection with misfortune. The poorest nation in the hemisphere, famine, cholera, violence. What is not mentioned is the cause of poverty or famine or the cholera epidemic or violence, consequences of centuries of colonial and neocolonial domination. At this moment, the situation is particularly serious, especially in the capital Port-au-Prince and in the Artibonite Department. In fact, a series of heavily armed gangs have taken control of large areas, unleashing unprecedented violence that has claimed more than 5,000 lives this year and caused the internal displacement of more than 1.3 million Haitians to safer areas of the country. The situation of children is particularly alarming. According to reports from UNICEF, 680,000 children have been displaced from their homes, 300,000 have interrupted their studies, either because schools have been destroyed or are being used as shelters, and 288,544 children under the age of 5 are at risk of malnutrition. It is important to note that displacement places children in a vulnerable situation, including health risks due to poor hygiene in shelters, malnutrition, and even forced recruitment by armed gangs. A recent report by Catherine Russell, Executive Director of UNICEF, estimated that 30 to 50% of gang members were minors, who are used as messengers, kitchen workers, sex slaves, and even forced to participate in acts of armed violence.

It is important to note that these gangs have destroyed vital infrastructure, including 38 hospitals, six universities, and libraries, and have forced more than 1,000 schools to close. All of this, and the resulting demobilization of the population that this violence entails, calls into question the idea that these are simply conflicts between criminal gangs. These gangs regularly receive weapons and ammunition from the United States, and this action indicates a project that seeks to make the functioning of a nation unviable. But this attack on the Haitian nation is not recent. Haiti has been under siege by imperial powers since its independence.

The island of Haiti was invaded by Christopher Columbus on his first voyage in 1492, establishing the first European settlement in Our America. The entire island became a colony of the Castilian, then Spanish, empire. In 1697, the Treaty of Ryswick between France and Spain granted the western part of the island to France, henceforth to be called Saint Domingue. The island was rich in resources, and Europeans, in need of labor, brought in millions of Africans who were kidnapped and enslaved to work in mines, plantations, and estates. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was this wealth that provided the economic basis for the development of imperial France. In 1789, the year of the Storming of the Bastille in Paris, the colony had 793 sugar plantations, 3,150 indigo plantations, 3,117 coffee plantations, 789 cotton-producing units, and 182 rum distilleries. With a population of 40,000 whites and 28,000 free mulattoes, production was sustained by the slave labor of 452,000 Africans and their descendants, who made up 86% of the total population.

Control of the colony was characterized by unimaginable cruelty. Rebellions took place from the very beginning of the conquest of the territory. I highlight here the ceremony of Boïs Caiman in 1791, when Dutty Boukman and the voodoo priestess Cécile Fatiman managed to gather 200 slaves and, in a ceremonial cry, swore to fight for their freedom. That same year, a massive uprising began with the burning of plantations and the killing of settlers. It was Toussaint L’Overture who managed to organize an army and defeat the occupiers, declaring freedom for all. L’Overture trusted revolutionary France with its ideals of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, but that same revolution betrayed him, and he ended up dying in a cold prison in eastern France.

France decided to send an expeditionary force of 84 ships with 25,000 soldiers to regain control of its most precious colony and placed a sinister character in command: Donatien Marie Joseph de Vimeur, Count of Rochambeau. In his novel Estela, Emeric Bergeaud describes him as follows: “his small stature, his angular features, his haughty gaze, which complement the approximate portrait of his moral ugliness.” Rochambeau committed atrocities from the moment he landed in Saint Domingue, including the use of dogs trained to hunt and kill. In a letter to his commander Ramel dated May 6, 1803, he writes: “I am sending you, my dear commander, a detachment of 50 men from the Cape National Guard, commanded by M. Bari; they are bringing 28 mastiffs. These reinforcements will also enable you to complete your operations. I will not let you ignore that you will not be paid any rations or expenses for feeding these dogs. You must give them blacks to eat.”

Rochambeau did not count on the determination of a people fighting for their freedom. L’Overture did not die in vain, and the flags he waved were taken up by Jean Jacques Dessalines, who led the resistance and heroically defeated the most powerful army in Europe at Vertières 222 years ago.

Dessalines assumed power as emperor, as Napoleon Bonaparte would do that same year. But unlike Napoleon, Dessalines promoted a constitution for a nation of free men and women. Slavery was abolished forever, freedom of worship was established, and divorce was permitted. Likewise, respect for the self-determination of peoples was established, without this preventing Dessalines from supporting revolutionaries such as Francisco de Miranda or, later, Alexandre Pétion and Simón Bolívar. The latter not only obtained ships, weapons, ammunition, and combatants. Bolívar obtained a political project from the Haitian revolution, and from there the Liberation Army would become a popular army that would end Spanish colonial rule from the Caribbean coast to the Andean highlands. Haiti was a beacon of light on the continent.

Today, when US imperial arrogance threatens the entire continent with its military power, we must remember that powerful imperial armies have been defeated time and again by the Caribbean peoples. The Battle of Vertières is a historical milestone that has been rendered invisible by hegemonic historiography. The Haitian feat must be studied, discussed, and understood. Haiti was a beacon of light that today succumbs to the interests of the Global North but carries within it the seed of rebellion, just as the Caribbean peoples who inherited that seed. Today, in the face of the military threat from the United States in the Caribbean, we remember the Battle of Vertières and what peoples are capable of when they are determined to decide their own destiny.

Guillermo R Barreto is Venezuelan and holds a PhD in Science (Oxford University). Retired professor at Simón Bolívar University (Venezuela). He was Deputy Minister of Science and Technology, president of the National Science and Technology Fund, and Minister of Ecosocialism and Water (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). He is currently a researcher at the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research and a visiting collaborator at the Center for the Study of Social Transformations-IVIC.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CLR JAMES


LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for BLACK JACOBINS



Posted by at No comments:

 

Industry is Biggest Barrier to Tackling Ultra-Processed Food Harm


Ana Vračar | 





Researchers and activists warn that the UPF industry exerts a powerful chokehold over global food systems, urging urgent action.



Source: Wikimedia Commons

A new series of articles published in The Lancet examines the influence of the ultra-processed food (UPF) industry on today’s food systems, identifying it as a central driver of an increasingly urgent public health crisis. Researchers and activists from around the world warn that despite strong scientific evidence on the harms of UPF-dominated diets – and despite the availability of policies that could address them – UPF producers and their allies continue to obstruct reform.

“We propose that the key driver of the global rise in UPFs is the growing economic and political power of the UPF industry, and its restructuring of food systems for profitability above all else – especially by the business practices of its leading corporations – in an increasingly financially-driven, capitalist world economy,” the authors of one article write.

Between 2009 and 2023, global UPF sales rose from USD 1.5 trillion to USD 1.9 trillion. This growth has benefited not only corporate giants headquartered in North America and Western Europe, such as Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and Mondelez, but also their suppliers, marketing firms, and affiliated researchers. The article notes that the industry’s model rests precisely on profit maximization. UPF manufacturers rely on cheap ingredients and industrial processing to keep production costs low compared with traditional and local food systems; this allows them to create food-like products using inexpensive compounds, while simultaneously driving consumption through aggressive advertising and the engineered palatability of these products.

“In capitalist economies,” the authors write, “where investments flow to the most profitable firms and industries, this drives the structural transformation of food systems in favor of ultra-processed diets.” This dynamic creates a vicious cycle where the UPF industry depletes food systems worldwide yet is rewarded financially, including through shareholder payouts. Between 1962 and 2021, the article suggests, more than half of the USD 2.9 trillion in shareholder payments linked to US food production came from the UPF sector, further boosting the industry’s appeal.

But internal profit logic is not the only factor behind the industry’s rise. Major UPF corporations – notably Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever, PepsiCo, Danone, Mars, Mondelez, and Ferrero – have mirrored tactics long associated with the tobacco, alcohol, and fossil fuel industries. These include lobbying governments, shaping policy language and models, and hijacking public debate. This kind of political activity, the authors argue, “is the most important barrier to the implementation of effective public policies to reduce UPF-related harms.”



Circle size shows how many links each group has in the UPF industry network. Colors indicate different types of organizations: corporations, business associations, advertising groups, CSR and multi-stakeholder initiatives, food and beverage industry associations, infant nutrition groups, agribusiness organizations, and industry-funded science and consumer groups. Lines show declared memberships drawn from publicly available disclosures. Source: “Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilizing a public health response”. Baker, Phillip et al. The Lancet, November 18, 2025

Crucially, these corporations do not operate in isolation. The articles series identifies around 200 interconnected interest groups, ranging from manufacturers’ associations to advertising and agroindustry lobby organizations, through which UPF producers organize their influence. Through this web of relations, the industry is able to impose its agenda, undermine progressive public health regulations, and sideline independent research.

Just like in the case of other harmful industries, governments in the Global North remain deeply influenced by UPF actors, often advancing their priorities through institutions such as the World Trade Organization. Yet the articles insist that today offers an important opportunity to change course. Despite industry pushback, scientific understanding of UPF-associated harms is expanding, and some countries have already introduced meaningful regulations. “Successes in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa show that effectively regulating UPF production, marketing, and consumption is possible through multi-component policies, even in the face of strong industry resistance,” the authors note, citing progress in Mexico and Ghana, among others.

Still, they argue, fully transforming food systems requires far more coordinated action from policymakers, civil society, and activists, including broad coalitions capable of countering corporate pressure and advancing a just transformation of food systems. The series adds that such a transformation must be grounded in food sovereignty and adapted to local contexts, ensuring that workers currently employed in the UPF industry are not left behind. Potential policy solutions leading to this outcome, according to the articles, include stricter regulation of marketing, adequate taxes on actors profiting from UPF production and sales, but also – importantly – public investment in collective food provisioning such as school meal programs and community kitchens.

People’s Health Dispatch is a fortnightly bulletin published by the People’s Health Movement and Peoples Dispatch. For more articles and to subscribe to People’s Health Dispatch, click here.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch

Posted by at No comments:

New report suggests refugees could bring major economic benefits

Placard reading Refugees are human beings.
Leave a Commenton New report suggests refugees could bring major economic benefits
“This report provides positive solutions, not divisive decisions which continue to fan the flames of hate.”

By the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS)

The London School of Economics (LSE) report, commissioned by PCS and Together With Refugees, has officially launched in Parliament.

Welcoming Growth – the case for a fair and humane asylum system is a new policy report, supported by PCS. The report reveals that every refugee accepted into the UK would contribute over £260,000 to the UK economy if the proposed changes within the report were adopted. This includes a net benefit to the public purse of £53,000 each.

The four key policy changes within the report include:

  • Asylum claims to be processed within six months
  • Legal assistance at all stages of the application process
  • English language support from day of arrival
  • Employment support from day of arrival.

Speaking ahead of the launch in parliament, PCS general secretary Fran Heathcote said: “Today we are witnessing the government neglect its own plans for growth by taking a harder line against some of the most vulnerable people who come to this country, fleeing war, persecution and violence. To threaten refugees with the removal of their only belongings to pay for their cases is frankly a line I would expect from Reform.

“Our report shows that through embracing a humane and fair approach to asylum, we could assimilate refugees into our communities whilst ensuring they can contribute and support themselves. This report provides positive solutions, not divisive decisions which continue to fan the flames of hate.”

Other key findings within the report include:

Overall economy – The four changes to the asylum system would mean a contribution to the UK economy from every refugee of £265,788 over 12.5 years from arrival.

Accommodation – The changes to the system would result in a net saving in accommodation costs of £42,000 per asylum seeker over a 12.5-year period from arrival. This equates to a 34% saving in the total cost of accommodation for asylum seekers over the period (from £144,000 to £79,000). This is because by expediting the application process to six months, people can be self-sufficient sooner – meaning housing costs would be paid by the individual, rather than the state, a year earlier.

Public Purse – The four interventions in the model would benefit the UK exchequer by £53,000 per refugee over 12.5 years from arrival. This includes a net contribution of £7,000 for every refugee to the public purse just by expediting the asylum application system to six months and providing legal assistance throughout the process. This financial benefit takes into account all the associated costs of supporting asylum seekers from arrival, as well as the expense of creating and implementing the four proposed changes to the asylum system.

Employment – Every £1 invested in English classes and employment support from day one results in £9 in increased salary–over the 12.5 years from arrival. This equates to a 76% increase in total employment income, reflecting the cumulative effects of faster processing, language training, and employment support. This, in turn, means significant benefit to the economy and public purse.

Posted by at No comments:

UK


The Wrong Prescription – Why Labour Must Rethink Its Approach To Asylum

 


HubMP2012

NOVEMBER 21, 2025


By Rathi Guhadasan

The Socialist Health Association condemns the asylum reforms announced this week by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, which represent a deeply concerning erosion of fundamental health and human rights protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

A Betrayal of Health Equity Principles

The proposal to make refugee status temporary, subject to regular review every 30 months, and to extend the pathway to settlement from five to twenty years creates a system of prolonged insecurity that is fundamentally incompatible with public health principles. People living in limbo for two decades will face chronic stress, mental health deterioration, and barriers to accessing preventative healthcare. Refugees and asylum seekers have complex health needs, influenced by experiences in their home country, during their journey or after arrival in the UK. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that they use NHS services disproportionately – in fact, migrants to the UK use fewer resources than their native counterparts.

By removing the statutory duty to provide housing and financial support to asylum seekers, the government is creating conditions that will drive vulnerable people into destitution, homelessness, and exploitative situations. These are precisely the circumstances in which infectious diseases spread, mental health crises deepen, and people present to emergency services in extremis—at far greater cost to the NHS than preventative support would require.

Ignoring the NHS’s Reliance on Refugee and Migrant Workers

The Home Secretary’s rhetoric frames refugees as a burden while conveniently ignoring the fact   that many refugees and asylum seekers have been, are, or will become essential NHS workers. Our health service has long depended on the skills, dedication, and compassion of doctors, nurses, care workers, and other health professionals who came to the UK seeking safety.

From doctors fleeing persecution to care workers rebuilding their lives, refugee communities have filled critical workforce gaps and provided culturally sensitive care to diverse patient populations. To treat people seeking asylum as unwelcome whilst simultaneously relying on migrant workers to sustain our health system is hypocritical and short-sighted.

Rights-Based Concerns

These proposals violate the fundamental right to health, which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the WHO Constitution and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all of which include the UK as a signatory. Moreover, the NHS constitution states that the NHS “is available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status. The service is designed to improve, prevent, diagnose and treat both physical and mental health problems with equal regard. It has a duty to each and every individual that it serves and must respect their human rights. At the same time, it has a wider social duty to promote equality through the services it provides and to pay particular attention to groups or sections of society where improvements in health and life expectancy are not keeping pace with the rest of the population.”

Potential impacts of the proposed asylum reforms include:

  • Discrimination in access to care: Removing guaranteed support will create a two-tier system where asylum seekers’ ability to maintain their health depends on their circumstances, not their needs.
  • Family separation: Removing automatic rights to family reunion tears apart support networks essential for mental and physical wellbeing, particularly for children and survivors of trauma.
  • Unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors misclassified as adults: As withcurrent so-called “scientific methods” of age assessment, concerns have been raised about proposals to use AI-based Facial Age Estimation. This technology, which cannot take into account ethnic differences and  visible aging from trauma, grief, sun exposure or malnutrition, could lead to vulnerable teenagers under 18 years being denied protection, placed in dangerous situations at risk of abuse and even deported.
  • Return to unsafe conditions: Forcing people to return to countries deemed “safe” ignores ongoing health infrastructure collapse, persecution of minorities, and the specific vulnerabilities of individuals—especially those with chronic conditions or disabilities.
  • Barriers to integration: The 20-year pathway to settlement prevents refugees from fully participating in society, accessing training, and contributing their skills—including in healthcare professions where we desperately need them.

A Race to the Bottom

The government’s boast that it is modelling these policies on Denmark—one of Europe’s strictest systems which it has previously called racist and in breach of human rights law—reveals a troubling willingness to abandon compassion in favour of deterrence. This is not evidence-based policymaking; it is an attempt to outflank the far-right by adopting their framing that refugees are a problem to be managed rather than people with rights to be protected.

As health professionals and public health advocates, we know that punitive asylum policies do not deter desperate people fleeing war, persecution, and torture. They simply ensure that people arrive here more traumatised, more vulnerable, and in greater need of healthcare intervention.

We call on the Labour government to:

  1. abandon these regressive reforms and return to a rights-based approach to asylum,
  2. recognise refugees’ contributions to British society, including to our NHS,
  3. invest in properly resourced, humane asylum processing that prioritises health and dignity,
  4. consult with health organisations, refugee communities, and frontline workers before implementing any changes to asylum policy, and
  5. acknowledge that protecting refugee health rights is not only a moral imperative but a public health necessity

This is not about politics; it is about humanity, evidence, and the kind of society we want to build. A healthy society is one that protects the vulnerable, not one that competes to treat them more harshly.

The SHA stands in solidarity with refugees, asylum seekers, and all those working to defend their rights.

Dr Rathi Guhadasan is Chair of the Socialist Health Association.

Image: Banner on the Make Them Pay demonstration in London on September 20th, c/o Labour Hub

BFAWU stands with migrant members amidst government attacks

Leave a Commenton BFAWU stands with migrant members amidst government attacks

“We stand for the principle that everyone who works here, who contributes here, deserves to be treated with respect and given secure rights.”

By Sarah Woolley, General Secretary, BFAWU

The BFAWU Executive Council is alarmed by the Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday, and by the direction it signals for the UK’s asylum system. The government’s statement that refugee status will become temporary, that the pathway to settlement will be significantly lengthened, and that support for people seeking safety may be withdrawn raises profound concerns about fairness, human rights, and the functioning of our economy.

In her statement, Shabana Mahmood said the current system is “out of control” and that the UK must move to a “core protection” regime where leave to remain is reduced (from five years to around 30 months) and where permanent settlement will only be available after a much longer period (potentially up to 20 years). She also proposed removing the automatic duty to provide accommodation and financial support for some asylum seekers, particularly those who can work but choose not to, or who break rules.

We welcome the government’s stated aim of reducing exploitation and safeguarding decent work, but we strongly reject the notion that migrating workers, including those who arrived as asylum seekers, are a “problem” to be solved by shrinking their rights and pushing them into precarity.

We make the following points:

  • The food industry, like many other sectors, relies heavily on migrant labour, including people who first came as asylum seekers. Without them, production, processing, distribution and retail would face serious disruption.
  • Many of our members are migrant workers. They perform essential roles, pay taxes, and contribute to our communities. To treat them as disposable, or condition their status on arbitrary deadlines and support-withdrawal, is both morally wrong and economically unsound.
  • The Home Secretary’s statement that refugee status will be temporary, subject to review, and that home countries will be deemed “safe” for return after short periods without guaranteeing genuine safety or protection is deeply troubling from a human-rights standpoint.
  • We deplore the language of “illegal migration” used to sweepingly characterise people seeking safety. As the BFAWU has consistently said: there is no such thing as an “illegal person”, only a status which the state determines.
  • The risk is that these reforms will create a two-tier workforce: people with insecure status who are vulnerable to exploitation, fear of deportation, and denial of rights. This undermines the fight for decent work, proper pay and safe conditions that unions champion.
  • From a union and broader labour movement perspective, the focus must be on rights, dignity and stability, not on temporary, conditional entitlements that can be removed on a whim.

We call on the government to:

  1. Recognise the real contribution of migrant workers, a number of whom arrived as asylum seekers, to the UK economy and to sectors such as food production and allied industries.
  2. Refrain from reducing protections or creating instability in workers’ rights in the name of migration control.
  3. Guarantee that those granted asylum or protection are treated with dignity, given secure status and rights comparable to other workers, not condemned to limbo or fear.
  4. Prioritise enforcement against labour exploitation rather than penalising people exercising the human right to seek safety.
  5. Adopt immigration and asylum policies rooted in solidarity, human rights and economic realism, not in rhetoric that undermines workers, divides communities and endangers the dignity of working people.

The BFAWU stands with our migrant members; we stand for the principle that everyone who works here, who contributes here, deserves to be treated with respect and given secure rights. We reject any policy that says “you are welcome” but only temporarily, under threat, or only if you can meet ever-shifting conditions.

Posted by at No comments:

UK Education staff wellbeing drops to lowest level since 2019 – NEU

Leave a Commenton Education staff wellbeing drops to lowest level since 2019 – NEU
“This is a system in crisis. Seventy-eight per cent of education staff are stressed, and more than one in three have experienced a mental health issue in the past academic year.
Daniel Kebede, National Education Union

By the National Education Union (NEU)

The teacher wellbeing index 2025 shows that education staff wellbeing has dropped to its lowest level since 2019

Commenting on the annual report, which shows that staff wellbeing across the education sector has dropped to its lowest since 2019, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said: 

“Teachers and school leaders are overworked, under-supported, and increasingly exposed to stress, anxiety, and burnout. No wonder there is a significant retention issue in the education workforce. 

“This is a system in crisis. Seventy-eight per cent of education staff are stressed, and more than one in three have experienced a mental health issue in the past academic year. Eighty-four per cent of senior leaders reported high stress, and 77 per cent of staff experienced symptoms of poor mental health caused by their work.  

“Teacher wellbeing must be a workforce priority. Union representatives should be involved in monitoring workload and wellbeing, and schools need adequate funding and staffing. It’s time to redefine teacher support, ensure proper funding, and protect teachers from stress and burnout.”

Posted by at No comments:

 UK

Poverty rises whilst companies post record profits – Brian Leishman MP

Leave a Commenton Poverty rises whilst companies post record profits – Brian Leishman MP
“Even when it is inconvenient, even when it comes at a personal cost, we must stand up for real Labour values.”

By Brian Leishman MP

Disagreements are inevitable in any movement worth its name. 
  
The Labour Party has always been a broad church and that is exactly where its strength lies. 
  
Our diversity of thought, range of experiences and willingness to argue passionately for what we believe in are the lifeblood of a truly democratic party. 
  
The reality of politics is that we will never agree on every single policy or every vote. 
  
Unity is not necessarily about uniformity – ours lies in our shared values of fairness, equality and the demand for social justice. 
  
These are values larger than any one faction or any single personality – and larger than temporary disputes that often seem to dominate the headlines. 
  
They are the very values which built the NHS, which fought for and delivered workers’ rights and which continue to inspire people across the UK to believe in a better future.  
 
I make no apology for opposing austerity and welfare cuts which punish the disabled or those who need our help the most. 
  
I make no apology for standing up for workers at the Grangemouth refinery or for speaking out against injustice at home and abroad. 
  
Even when it is inconvenient, even when it comes at a personal cost, we must stand up for real Labour values. That is what it means to be part of a movement rooted in principle rather than calculation. 
  
With the whip restored in the Parliamentary Labour Party, I will continue to fight for those values. 
  
Nothing has changed my purpose in politics – I am not here to climb the ladders of public life or to gain favour with the powerful. 
  
I came into politics to fight for the working-class, ordinary people who have been badly let down by Tory austerity and SNP mediocrity over the past decades. 
  
Communities have too often been ignored, and governments have forgotten that compassion must be the light that guides everything they do. 
  
We face stark challenges today. Poverty continues to rise while the largest companies are posting record profits to the satisfaction of greedy shareholders. 
  
No longer is food security a fringe issue – it is a daily reality for many families who cannot afford to put a proper meal on the table. 
  
Energy bills and housing costs are spiralling while wages stagnate. 
  
These are all political failures, which must be fixed through political courage. 
  
Change will not come easily, it requires us to reject failed dogmas, to invest in people and to realise that the capitalist markets will not deliver justice. 
  
It will require us to remember that politics is not a game of numbers that must be balanced every budget, but a matter of human lives. 
  
My commitment is to maintain that courage in Westminster, fighting for change rooted in compassion. 
  
I will continue to stand with workers, families and communities who deserve better than managed decline. 
  
I will continue to be a force that reminds colleagues that Labour’s purpose is not to simply win power, but to use that power to transform lives and deliver change in society. 
Posted by at No comments:


‘Taxing private jets can help the rest of us soar’


: Private executive airplane with limousine Rolls Royce Phantom luxury car shown together at international Heathrow Airport. VIP service at the airport. Business-class transfer
©Shutterstock

Amid all the speculation about the contents of the red box on 26 November, it’s worth restating: Rachel Reeves inherited financial chaos from the Conservatives. Building an economy that creates growth, safeguards and improves essential services, and builds on the successes we’ve managed so far in waiting lists, free school meals, and the delivery of GB Energy is a big task. Doing so in the face of volatile global headwinds is a challenge.

Part of that challenge lies in finding new revenue sources and ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders carry the greatest burden. One idea that’s gathering steam at home and internationally is taxing emissions from private jet flights.

The UK is currently the private jet capital of Europe, accounting for 15% of European private jet emissions. Despite this outsized environmental impact, the majority of private jet flights pay no VAT or fuel duty, and many even pay the same low rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) as passengers on commercial flights or none at all. 

This is a bizarre anomaly, meaning that, in effect, a working parent driving to the supermarket for the weekly shop pays more in tax and duty than a billionaire flying to the Caribbean. 

Levies on private jets would be genuinely progressive in their impact.

Our commitment to increasing the higher rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) on private jet flights was a welcome first step. But Rachel should go further. Even after the proposed increase, the higher rate of APD on the longest private jet flights will only be £1,141 by April 2026. For a billionaire, this is a negligible sum, often less than 2% of the total cost of the flight vs on average 43% of the total cost of an economy ticket on a passenger plane – there is clearly room to increase this much further to raise significantly more revenue and ensure greater fairness between private and passenger flight taxation.

We should also ensure that all private jets are paying the highest rate of APD, closing a loophole that currently sees half of flights paying a lower, standard APD rate, and over a fifth paying no APD at all.

Analysis from Green Alliance shows that taxing private jet kerosene fuel at a modest £1 per litre could raise up to £200 million per year. This single measure could, for example, more than cover the cost of extending the successful £3 bus fare cap, making travel easier and greener for working people across Britain. 

Private jet demand is increasingly price inelastic, particularly for leisure travel. A significant tax uplift is highly unlikely to impact the decisions of the super-rich. This means it poses minimal risk to the government’s growth agenda, while providing a crucial source of additional revenue to help achieve our mission of national renewal.

It would also give us the opportunity to show global climate leadership by joining, or aligning with, the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force’s (GSLTF) Premium Aviation Coalition. This is a growing group of countries, including our neighbours France and Spain, which have formed to raise revenues from premium travel to be spent on sustainable, efficient economic growth. 

Earlier this month, Keir Starmer attended COP30, the global climate conference, in Brazil – a clear indication of how seriously Britain, and the Labour Party, takes climate action. While levies were not specifically on the agenda at COP this year, working with other nations to identify effective funding for climate action is going to be critical in the years ahead – and aviation should be a part of those discussions. 

Right now, private jets release huge amounts of emissions into our atmosphere, while their super-rich passengers shoulder almost no financial responsibility for the impacts of their behaviour. 

Higher levies on private jets aren’t about making it harder for everyday people to fly for work or holidays. It’s about the tiny minority who can afford luxury at the expense of the planet carrying their fair share of the burden, and helping raise the revenue the country badly needs.


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)