UK

Vauxhall workers in Luton stage second day of protests

Stellantis, owners of Vauxhall, is closing down its Luton factory—but hundreds of workers are opposing the closure to save their jobs

Workers at Vauxhall factory protest Stellantis’ closure (Picture: Alan Kenny)


By Arthur Townend
Wednesday 18 December 2024

  SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2936

Vehicle workers held their second day of protests against the closure of the Vauxhall plant in Luton on Wednesday.

The Unite union members protested the day before and held a mass meeting outside the plant on Monday.

Workers are angry that parent company Stellantis wants to shut the plant with 1,100 job losses. That would have a devastating impact not just on Vauxhall workers, but the whole area.

Unite member Lewis told Socialist Worker, “Former CEO Carlos Tavares pursued an aggressive cost cutting strategy, repressing workers’ wages. We believe this is just another development of that.


“Our position is let’s close the book on that era. It’s a profit-making plant so let’s get Stellantis back round the table.”

When Stellantis announced the closure of the Luton plant in November, it gave workers an “HR1” 45 day redundancy period that will end in January.

Workers are demanding that Stellantis withdraws the redundancy period so they can negotiate over the future of the factory.

The Luton plant produced over 93,000 vehicles last year. But to reduce costs, Stellantis has started to close the factory anyway.

Lewis said, “What Stellantis has done, crudely, is put this HR1 in over the Christmas period when production is lower”.

He said that bosses hope this will make it easier to stop workers from organising a fightback and shut the factory down.

Unite automotive researcher Ben Norman told Socialist Worker, “Today, we have to make the industrial demand on the company to withdraw the redundancy period. Workers can’t make a decision over the future of the site with a gun held to their head.”

Norman said it was a “test of Labour” as Unite and workers were set to meet business secretary Jonathan Reynolds on Tuesday afternoon. “We have no illusions in Reynolds, but Labour needs to support a rescue package for the site,” he said.

Bosses want to slow down production and shut the plant as quickly as possible. A ballot for strike would take time, but this should not be an alibi for the union leaders not to hold one and call strikes.

The unions’ strategy of “social partnership” with bosses has failed—it has seen bosses squeeze more from workers in the name of “productivity”. That strategy of “partnership working” with bosses did not save jobs whether at the Honda car plant in Swindon in 2009 or Port Talbot steel works earlier this year.

The only alternative lies with using workers’ collective power to stop the bosses’ plans.

In Luton, the company still has to wind down production and offload 1,200 vans at the plant—which means a strike could still be effective. If there were picket lines up outside the plant, they could become a focal point for solidarity.

We saw a glimpse of this on Monday. As Unite members held a protest outside the plant, lorry drivers coming to pick up vans turned around, slowing down Stellantis’s plan. A strike by Vauxhall workers would encourage much more of this solidarity.

Rank-and-file members of Unite should push officials for an immediate strike ballot.

But time is running out and the trade union laws put up a plethora of hoops for workers to jump through before they can strike. And there is an urgency in taking action now.

Workers have occupied their factories to save jobs and force bosses into retreat. In 2009, for example, Visteon factory occupations forced improved redundancy packages from multinational giant Ford which had tried to sack workers on the spot.

An occupation of the Luton plant calling for nationalisation—coupled with solidarity from Britain and internationally—could save jobs.

Northern Irish police illegally spied on journalists exposing Loyalist crimes

The British state tried to protect Loyalists who murdered six people in the Loughinisland killings in 1994

A court ruling has slammed the illegal actions of the PSNI and British state (Photo: Joshua Hayes)

By Tomáš Tengely-Evans
Wednesday 18 December 2024    

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue 2936

The police unlawfully spied on two journalists who were making a documentary about a Loyalist massacre in Northern Ireland, a tribunal has ruled.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) chief constable Sir George Hamilton authorised surveillance against Belfast journalists Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney in 2018. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) quashed this decision on Tuesday and awarded damages of £4,000 each to the two journalists.

The spying operation tried to reveal the source of a leaked police document, which McCaffrey and Birney used in No Stone Unturned. The documentary revealed police had protected Loyalist gunmen who murdered six people in the Loughinisland killings in 1994.

Loyalists massacred people as they watched a World Cup Match at the Heights Bar, which was packed with mainly Catholic football fans. Police informants were involved in the planning and execution of the massacre.

Cops raided McCaffrey’s and Birne’s homes and offices and arrested the two men.

The PSNI was later forced to apologise and agreed to pay £875,000 in damages to the journalists and the film company that produced the documentary. That only came after a court had ruled that the police’s warrants were “inappropriate”.

Subsequently, McCaffrey and Birney asked the IPT in 2019 to rule where police had carried out any unlawful surveillance.

The tribunal heard earlier this year that a detective requested a directed surveillance authorisation (DSA) from Hamilton. The detective wanted to see if McCaffrey and Birney would reach out to their source after being released from custody.

Hamilton green-lighted surveillance of a civilian worker whom they suspected of leaking the document from the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, the tribunal looked at two separate police operations in 2012 and 2013. The PSNI unlawfully accessed McCaffrey’s phone data in 2012 and that the Metropolitan Police did so in 2013.

The tribunal quashed the authorisation for those two operations, but didn’t award any compensation in those cases.

On Tuesday, Birney said, “This landmark ruling underscores the crucial importance of protecting press freedom and confidential journalistic sources.

“We hope that the judgment today will protect and embolden other journalists pursuing stories that are in the public interest.

“The judgment serves as a warning that unlawful state surveillance targeting the media cannot and should not be justified by broad and vague police claims.

“The judgment raises serious concerns about police abuse of power and the law, and our case has exposed a lack of effective legal safeguards governing secret police operations.”

Mr McCaffrey told reporters, “For this court to have found that a Chief Constable has acted unlawfully, we think is a major embarrassment. It’s something that means there needs to be a public inquiry.”

The Special Branch intelligence unit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the forerunner of the PSNI—had informers inside Loyalist death squads. The police were determined to protect them and hampered investigations into the Loughinisland massacre.

In 2016, Northern Ireland’s former police ombudsman Michael Maguire said he had “no hesitation” in concluding that “collusion is a significant feature in the Loughinisland murders”.

The police’s treatment of McCaffrey and Birney shows the British state is still determined to hide its filthy role in Loyalist paramilitary murders.

The struggle of unemployed workers in Argentina against the state

Eduardo 'Chiquito' Belliboni is one of the national leaders of the Polo Obrero in Argentina. It’s an organisation of the Piqueteros movement, which organises mainly unemployed workers against neoliberal policies. It has faced intensified state repression, including a case against Belliboni himself, since far right president Javier Milei’s election. He spoke to Camilla Royle and David Karvala.

Eduardo “Chiquito” Belliboni

SOCIALIST WORKER 

Friday 20 December 2024

The Piquetero movement has existed since the 1990s and was known for forming pickets or blockades on roads. Could you explain the movement at that time and why people took this action?

At that time, I was a rail worker and was sacked for fighting against privatisation. The government at the time had a neoliberal policy of privatisation and mass layoffs.

More than 20 percent of the working population were laid off and without work, an enormous social crisis that generated unemployed workers’ movements.

The first demands of the movement were for the right to work.

But organisations began to see the need to socially assist the members of the unemployed movements, and that is how popular soup kitchens were born.

We fought to establish an organisation in the neighbourhoods to sustain a great movement of unemployed people, as the Black Panther Party did in the United States with the Free Breakfast Programme they ran for children.

We formed an independent tendency in 2000, the Polo Obrero (PO) or Workers’ Pole. The idea was to concentrate on a class-based program of demands and also a revolutionary demand for a government of the workers.

At first the Argentine ruling class fought the organisations militarily. There were many deaths, many Piquetero organisations bear the names of those who were killed such as Darío Santillán, Maximiliano Costecchi and Teresa Rodríguez.

The Cristina Fernández de Kirchner government of 2007-2015 instead tried to ​​co-opt organisations so that they would be instruments of welfare and not a factor in the fight against the state or against the capitalist regime. But we in the PO and other organisations remained independent of the government.

Could you talk about the kind of tactics that you use and whether those tactics have changed in 30 years?

The picket or blockade of streets is a tactic used by the Piquetero movement because it is mainly a movement of unemployed people. That’s because these workers do not have a factory and they can’t go on strike.

The effect of capitalism and the industrial revolution was to concentrate the workers in a factory, while the process of unemployment disperses them into the poorest neighbourhoods.

The worker does not stop being a worker because he or she does not have a job. It is a historical error of many currents of the Argentine left that say, “Well, I am no longer interested in this person because he or she has stopped being in the productive part of capitalism.” This is not true in any case.

The movement had to go to where people lived, and that’s where the pickets or roadblocks began.

Lots of people assume that pickets and blockades are something new for the working class. Do you know when the first picket was? It was with the construction of the pyramids. There was a picket because they were given very bad food. So it is a 3,000 year old tactic.

The first pickets in Argentina involved perhaps 300 or 400 workers, but they grew to thousands.

And then we began to build a network of organisations across the country. On the national days of picketing, they can involve 100,000 people or more.

In Europe and elsewhere a key question for socialists is how to defend migrants against racism. Is that also part of the Piqueteros’ programme?

Yes, of course. There is fierce racism here, especially against the Bolivian and Peruvian communities, who are very easily identifiable.

The contempt and racism are expressed today when the presidential spokesman announces that migrants will not have the right to health or education in Argentina. We strongly defend the right to migrate and the right to live.

There should be no borders in Latin America. Someone who was born in La Quiaca, a city on the edge of Argentina’s northern border, for example, can live next to someone who was born in Villazon, which is over the border in Bolivia. They are exactly the same.

For us as revolutionary socialists, the border is there between exploiters and exploited. The differences are of class—never of race, religion or place of birth.

What role do women play in the Piquetero movement?

About 70 or 80 percent of the Piqueteros are women.

They play a leading role in the neighbourhoods because they are the organisers of the daily fight against hunger. And they are the great organisers of the struggle in the neighbourhoods.

In the early days of the Piquetero movement, the most affected by the layoffs were the men.

Many men left their homes. So it was the women who had to shoulder not only the material support of life, but the organisation in each neighbourhood.

What we did was also give a gender content to the politics of the working class. We discussed the particular problems of the women comrades, the fight against domestic violence, the fight for the right to abortion, the fight for equal pay.

Could you explain how the kitchens are organised as well?

Well, a lot of food is distributed. But the kitchens have also been points of organisation for workers for their rights.

Teachers come to the neighbourhoods to help with educating the kids.

We also do sports and social activities that integrate the neighbourhood and put a barrier to drug trafficking. If not, it is the drug traffickers who influence the families.

When there are many unemployed people, the unemployed can try to sell their labour very cheaply to the capitalist.

We organised the fight against layoffs. We explained to all workers that the unemployed should fight so they don’t have to beg for a job at the factory gate, offering themselves at a lower price than those in work.

It is not just a canteen, but a political struggle for workers’ rights and for organisation against the capitalist state.

You have been very critical of the trade union bureaucracy. Do you think there is any opportunity to work with ordinary trade union members?

It is not only possible, we do it all the time. We have national assemblies of employed and unemployed workers, where rank-and-file workers come as well as some combative, class-conscious union leaders.

We have common struggles for things like public works, the paving of streets, water provision, services that are not available in many neighbourhoods and we form alliances with students to fight for public education.

We have a policy of a united front from below and not with the union leaderships, like those of the CGT and the CTA union federations. They have totally given over to government policy.

Could you summarise the situation after a year of Javier Milei?

The Milei government is an offensive, counter-revolutionary government against the workers. But not only because of the specific measures it takes, such as its labour reforms that have rolled back workers’ rights.

The government’s underlying principle is a counter-revolutionary reaction against workers’ organisations. Not only revolutionary organisations like us, but also those that are centre left, or social democrats.

He does not want any kind of workers’ organisation because he intends to wipe out workers’ rights to allow the capitalist class to restore its rate of profit.

That is why he is supported in parliament by Peronists. That is to say, right wingers not as extreme as him. Even without a parliamentary majority, Milei has managed to pass laws in favour of these brutal measures against the workers.

The capitalist class as a whole fundamentally supports all the measures that the Milei government is taking in favour of the capitalist rate of profit. It is a rabidly capitalist government.

It has been 11 months since the food was cut off to the soup kitchens, it’s not sending any more food. And its intention is to destroy the neighbourhood organisations.

How would you characterise Javier Milei’s politics?

Milei is a fascist. There are people around him who are fascists. But that doesn’t mean that Argentina is now a fascist state.

There are still roadblocks and huge mobilisations. They have not crushed the working class, which is one of the central aims of fascism, the crushing of the physical and organisational forces of the workers’ movement.

He has not been able to destroy democratic freedoms and he has not managed to install a regime of exception, although he has that intention.

The Milei movement attacks LGBT+ people and women. That is, it is a reactionary movement along fascist lines. But it has not managed to impose itself and we continue fighting.

How are you going to respond to the repression that you personally and the movement have faced?

There are two levels of response. One is the one that the government brings to us, which is a struggle at the legal level, in which we will appeal the accusations against us.

We have a legal fight, which is always unequal because justice responds to political power.

But then there is the social struggle, the fight against the Milei government, in which we have taken up the slogan, “Milei out.”

The harm that Milei is doing to this society is irreparable. According to the United Nation’s children’s agency Unicef, over a million children in Argentina go to bed without eating. Milk consumption is falling, while the exorbitant profits that milk producers have in Argentina increase. Argentina is a country of cows. But workers’ children go without milk.

If I were to say as a leader of an organisation, “Okay, we are not fighting anymore, we are making a pact,” all the cases against us would be dropped. But we are not going to do that, so we are going to fight judicially and we are going to fight in the streets.

Do you think there is a possibility of a general strike?

Today we don’t see it because the rank and file in the unions don’t have enough strength yet. And there is a pact between the main CGT union federation and Milei to maintain the status quo.

The conditions are there for a general strike—which is what could end Milei—but the bureaucratic obstacle is also very important.

What can socialists do internationally to support the movement?

First, to distribute information about the Piqueteros. Sometimes we call for protests at Argentine embassies. And well, of course, in a materialistic world like capitalism, all the resources they can gather. We are doing solidarity campaigns, gathering funds, because the charges against us implies hiring lawyers and experts and that all costs money.

It is the capitalist state with all its force against the organisations of the workers.

Socialists around the world must be more united than ever before at such a difficult time for the cause of the socialist revolution. We need to confront this reactionary offensive in the world, which we see an extreme case of here in Argentina.David Karvala is a member of the revolutionary socialist network in the Spanish state, Marx21.net

UK

Equity urges government to act as arts and entertainment sector GDP shrinks by 15%

Olivia Barber 

18 December, 2024 

Left Foot Forward


The performing arts union has called the decline ‘alarming’

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Equity has noted a “worrying decline” in business activity in the creative arts and entertainment industry, which it said has shrunk by almost 15% since the general election in July.

Analysis of new Office of National Statistics (ONS) GDP data by Equity found that economic output in the arts and entertainment sector has reduced by an average of 3.7% a month in the last four months.

In July, the arts and entertainment sector’s gross domestic product (GDP) decreased by 4.7%, with a further decline of 1.6% in August.

The sector experienced further drops of 4.5% in September and 4.6% in October.

Equity is calling on the government to take urgent action to address the decline and increase investment in the arts. The union explained that is also examining the factors contributing to the decline in business activity and working to understand the issue.

Research by the non-departmental government body Arts Council England identified that for every £1 of turnover directly generated by the arts and culture industry, an additional £1.23 worth of turnover is generated in the wider economy.

Responding to the ONS figures, Paul Fleming, general secretary at Equity, said: “The rapid and significant shrinking of the arts and entertainment industries since Labour took office is alarming”.

Fleming said the government must take urgent action and set out a roadmap to reach the European average of investing 0.5% of GDP in the arts, entertainment and culture.

He added: “But Equity will not be waiting for government – our claims for better pay, conditions and investment for our members will deliver the improvements creative workers need.”

“Investment in arts jobs and infrastructure, which focuses on the significant economic benefits that UK film, TV, live performance and productions bring to the whole country, will pay dividends.

“Across the UK we’re seeing mixed responses, with Holyrood making a welcome budget investment, but Wales not reversing significant arts cuts, and Stormont making their decisions early next year. With creative industries rightly identified as ‘growth driving’ sectors by the government, that’s just not good enough.”

Fleming said that “irrespective of trends in the GDP data” Equity will continue to push for improvements in pay, terms and conditions.

“Our members can’t wait for a serious industrial strategy from government – the only one of their key areas which has had no extra money committed to it.

“With AI threatening creative jobs, government must take action to boost our creative industries, ensuring well paid jobs exist in a thriving UK arts and entertainment sector which benefits the wider economy.”

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has been approached for comment.

Image credit: Equity

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

UK

 Police forces were ‘unprepared’ for far-right riots this summer

Olivia Barber 

18 December, 2024 
Left Foot Forward 

A police risk assessment before the riots described a ‘moderate increase in activity by “extreme right-wing groups” but graded the risk of violent disorder as “low”

Police forces were “unprepared for the scale of disorder” that occurred during the far-right riots that took place between 30 July and 7 August this year.

According to a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire & Rescue Services, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s decision to mobilise officers at a national level was “too late” and should have been implemented by 2 August.

The report also found that police intelligence assessments “didn’t predict the rising tide of violent disorder well enough” and underestimated the risks of disorder.

A public order public safety (POPS) strategic risk assessment (SRA), produced in spring 2024, highlighted an upturn in cultural nationalism and identified that anti-immigration views, and issues of asylum, were triggers for disorder.

The report said the SRA “described a moderate increase in activity by ‘extreme right-wing groups’. But this assessment still graded the threat and risk of violent disorder as ‘low'”.

The supposed catalyst for the far-right’s race riots was the tragic stabbing of three young girls, Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice Da Silva Aguiar, at a holiday club in Southport on 29 July.

In the days that followed, misinformation on social media fuelled far-right violence, leading to an estimated 29 anti-immigration demonstrations taking place across 27 towns and cities in the UK.

His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary Andy Cooke QPM DL said: “The loss of three young girls, Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe and Alice Da Silva Aguiar, in the knife attack in Southport was a tragedy beyond comprehension.

“Following this, we saw violent disorder spread quickly across many towns and cities. Officers displayed immense bravery in the face of this violence and kept the public safe.

“The national mobilisation of POPS resources, along with the quick identification and prosecution of offenders, was instrumental in ending the disorder and restoring peace.

Cooke said that: “With hindsight, the national mobilisation plan should have been activated earlier. Intelligence assessments didn’t predict rising violent disorder well enough; it is crucial that forces are able to better anticipate these threats so they can prepare effectively. The police service must enhance its plans so it can mobilise resources quickly and efficiently.

He also warned that police must “act quickly on our findings and recommendations. There is every possibility that similar violence and disorder could re-occur across the UK. The police service needs to be ready to respond.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

THATCHER PRIVATIZED UTILITY

Thames Water ordered to pay £18 million fine for breaking shareholder payout rules

Olivia Barber 

Yesterday

Left Foot Forward


The water company will still be able to hike its bills by 35% by 2030

Ofwat has told Thames Water to pay £18.2 million after finding it made £131 million in dividend payments that were “unjustified” due to its poor performance.

The regulator has also announced that Thames Water will be allowed to increase its bills by 35% by 2030.

The average annual bill will rise to £588 by 2030, Ofwat said, up from £436 this year, not taking into account inflation.

Thames Water, which has debts of £15.7 billion, had initially requested approval to increase its bills by 59% by the end of the decade, claiming that it would not survive otherwise.

Ofwat has stated that the average 36% increase in water bills across the sector will fund £104 billion in upgrades to supply infrastructure and efforts to reduce sewage spills.

On Thames Water’s “unjustified” dividends, in October 2023, the company paid £37.5 million in dividends to its parent company, Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited.

In March 2024, it paid another £158.3 million in dividends. As part of the payment, Thames Water transferred £131.3 million in tax losses to its parent company.

Ofwat said it also wants Thames Water to “claw back the value” of the £131 million by adjusting price controls to ensure that customers don’t foot the bill for these dividend payments.

The regulator also noted that Thames Water’s credit rating is currently below investment grade: “it is now in cash lock up and no further dividend payments can be paid by the company without first obtaining approval from Ofwat”.

Ofwat’s Chief Executive David Black said: “Ofwat’s £18 million penalty and clawing back the value of £131 million in unjustified dividend payments is a clear warning to the whole sector: We will take action against companies who take money out of these businesses, where performance does not merit it.”

Commenting on the water bill increases, Matthew Topham, Lead Campaigner at We Own It, a group campaigning for public ownership of public services, said: “It’s utterly disgraceful that after 35 years of bonus scandals, sewage spills, and huge dividends, water firms are set to be rewarded by Ofwat with huge inflation-busting bill hikes. It’s little more than government-sanctioned daylight robbery.

“Why should Brits have to cut back on food and other essentials, as many fear these hikes will require, to pay a privatisation tax to wealthy overseas shareholders?

“The public desperately want a champion to step in and defend them. The government’s own papers suggest they could save enough through public ownership to keep bills steady while boosting investment — using an approach last deployed by Blair to protect rail passengers.”

On Tuesday, the High Court granted Thames Water approval to pursue the next phase in securing a £3bn emergency loan. Before the hearing, campaign groups including We Own It gathered outside the High Court to oppose the bailout plea and call for the company to be taken back into public ownership.

Photo of Chris Weston, CEO at Thames Water. Image Credit: Stewart Turkington / Thames Water

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

UK

Amazon executives squirm over questions about worker injuries at select committee

Olivia Barber 

Today

Left Foot Forward

‘Most employers don’t have to call ambulance 1,400 times in five years’

TweetShareWhatsAppMail


Amazon executives tried to dodge questions as MPs grilled them over worker safety issues at the multinational and the lack of up-to-date data on injuries.

“Most employers don’t have to call ambulances 1,400 times in five years,” said Liam Byrne MP, chair of the business and trade select committee.

Byrne also cited a recent report from the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which, in the words of Senator Bernie Sanders, found that “Amazon accepts injuries to its workers as a cost of doing business”.

In the evidence session examining the government’s new Employment Rights Bill on Tuesday, the select committee questioned HR directors at Amazon, Jennifer Kearney and Stuart Morgan.

Responding to Byrne’s comments, Kearney said: “I want to point out that we employ 75,000 employees over 100 locations across the entirety of the UK.”

Byrne quashed her argument, stating: “There are 50,000 people who work in the Palace of Westminster each day. We don’t call ambulances 1,400 times over the course of five years.”

Morgan said he hadn’t yet had chance to read the senate report. “At this point in time I’ve not had the opportunity to go through the details of that,” he stated.

However, he went on to say: “For Amazon, safety is our number one priority. It always has been and always will be.”

He also claimed that “Amazon is 50% safer than other businesses in the sector”.

Byrne pointed to 2022 data showing 531 injuries per 100,000 people, emphasising that these are the most recent figures available and have not been updated since.

The select committee chair asked Morgan when up-to-date figures will be made available, to which the Amazon executive said the data “is in the process of being updated”.

He also defended the 2022 data, explaining that 77 million hours were worked that year, and added that up-to-date figures, which are being processed, show “that’s actually one incident every 132 years”.

Kearney said Amazon is “a great place to work”, based on a survey of workers at the BHX4 Coventry warehouse.

In response, Lib Dem MP, Joshua Reynolds, questioned: If Amazon is such a great place to work—as you have said, that is what you hear time and again from your team—why have your team in Coventry gone on strike so much?”.

He repeated his question a further three times, stating that Kearney had not properly answered it.

Labour MP Antonia Bance highlighted that workers at BHX4 have staged 37 days of industrial action so far.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Ten UK universities ban fossil fuel companies from recruiting at careers fairs

Olivia Barber

Today

Left Foot Forward


New analysis has found that universities established after 1992 are leading the way on sustainability

More universities are committing to banning fossil fuel companies from recruitment fairs, new analysis from student activist network People and Planet has found.

An annual survey of sustainability and ethics in higher education revealed that ten universities have banned fossil fuel companies from participating in graduate fairs this year, a 30% increase compared to last year.

Six universities have also divested from companies that engage in the detention, deportation, use of force and surveillance of migrants.

However, regarding working conditions in higher education, the survey found that only 49% of universities are Living Wage Accredited, and just 52% of universities have more than a quarter of their academic staff on fixed-term contracts.

People and Planet found that just 13% of universities have a plan to ban UK mainland flights as part of their strategy to reduce aviation emissions.

The analysis shows that universities granted status after 1992 are leading in sustainability, with seven of them ranking in the top ten in People and Planet’s sustainability league table this year.

People and Planet said “These institutions have often been early adopters of actions like ending recruitment links with fossil fuel companies and divesting from the border industry.”

Laura Clayson, Campaigns Manager for Climate Justice at People and Planet, said: “Only 55% of UK universities have exclusions for fossil fuel extractor companies in their ethical investment policies, despite 78% having made public commitments to go Fossil Free.”

Clayson added: “We look forward to the sector aligning their policies with their proclamations”.

Josie Mizen, Co-Director for Climate Justice at People and Planet, stated: “As the climate crisis escalates, more and more universities are realising that climate justice can only be achieved by cutting ties with the fossil fuel industry.

“There’s still much more work to do: we need more universities to commit to ending their relationships with oil, gas, and mining companies – but with a growing student movement standing up against these corporations infiltrating their campuses, we know it can be done.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Climate change is a class issue

DECEMBER 19, 2024

A new free-to-download book,Climate change is a class issue, by activists Sarah Glynn and John Clarke.

“In the end, climate change impacts everyone,” argue the authors of this useful new book. “So why claim it is a class issue?”

First, the top 1% produce most carbon dioxide. They have bigger homes and more cars,  go on more flights, have more possessions and throw away more things. Their wealth is based on businesses and investments that produce carbon dioxide and boost consumerism.

Second, those at the bottom feel the effects first. This is especially true globally, with climate change impacting both food supplies and people in precarious environments.

Thirdly, elites use the crisis as an excuse to squeeze the rest, just as they did with the 2008 economic crash. “Every disaster has been used as an opportunity for the wealthy to take back more of the world’s resources, and environmental collapse is no exception.” An example: “Failure to meet modern insulation standards has been used as an excuse to demolish social housing and sell the land to private developers.”

Fourthly, countries that pollute the least will suffer the worst. Poorer countries are often least protected from rising sea levels and the extreme weather conditions resulting from climate change. Historic colonial exploitation and more recently privatisations imposed by the World Bank have left them without the infrastructure needed for coping with mass disaster.

But, above all, the system that exploits the planet to destruction is the same one that depends on class exploitation. Likewise, the changes needed to bring the world back from the precipice are the same that would end this class exploitation – and the agents of this change will be the working class on whom the functioning of the economy depends.

Sarah Glynn is a writer and activist.  She played a central role in establishing and running the Scottish Unemployed Workers’ Network and now works for the Kurdish Freedom Movement and writes a weekly column on Kurdish news. Here she sets out a manifesto for change, outlining how services can be run to meet the needs of local communities and how increased public involvement in the economy would also allow everyone to be given a guarantee of a job doing socially useful work at a decent wage and with decent conditions, with progressive taxation geared to cutting inequality.

John Clarke helped to form a union of unemployed workers in Ontario in the 1980s and in the !990s became an organiser with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty. He now teaches a course for union and community activists at Toronto’s York University.

Here he explains the necessity of class struggle to tackle the impending climate catastrophe, as workers face ever more severe climate impacts. Justice for Migrant Workers, for example, which organises migrant farm workers in Ontario, Canada, is demanding that the provincial government implement emergency measures to protect farmworkers from extreme heat – farmworkers are 35 times more likely than the rest of the population to die of heat exposure.

Other workers are taking similar action. The International Labour Organisation reckons that “more than 2.4 billion workers (out of a global workforce of 3.4 billion) are likely to be exposed to excessive heat at some point during their work.”

“The worsening climate crisis will require decisive community-based resistance as well,” argues Clarke. An estimated 33 million people lost their homes, land or jobs in the 2022 floods in Pakistan and, with little state support, families are still dealing with the disastrous consequences. Meanwhile, as elsewhere, the government is imposing austerity on its population at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, in order to pay the interest on a punitive loan. The world’s poorer countries are forced to allocate 38% of government revenues to debt servicing, 54% in the case of African countries.

The conclusion of this book is stark: “Capitalism’s inability to create a sustainable relationship with the natural world is having devastating and rapidly worsening consequences for the bulk of humanity. Left to their own devices, those with economic and political power won’t address the factors that are driving the crisis, or deal properly with the now inevitable climate impacts. The class struggle that we take up must be based on an active solidarity for survival and the goal of a rational and just society. In the face of the existential crisis that we are now confronting, there is simply no other way forward.”

This book is free to download here.

Nigel Farage helps launch UK arm of US climate denial group

Olivia Barber 

Today
Left Foot Forward

Liz Truss also attended the launch earlier this week

NO WORD IF THE LETTUCE SHOWED UP

Nigel Farage was the “special guest of honour” and keynote speaker at the launch of the UK branch of US-based climate denial think tank, the Heartland Institute, on Tuesday.

In posts on X, the institute also thanked former prime minister Liz Truss and Dan Wootton for attending the event.

Wootton was forced to leave GB News earlier this year after laughing at derogatory comments that Reclaim Party’s Laurence Fox made about a female journalist on his show.

In the press release about its new London branch, The Heartland Institute described itself as “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change”.

President of the Heartland Institute, James Taylor, said: “During recent years, a growing number of policymakers in the UK and continental Europe have requested Heartland establish a satellite office to provide resources to conservative policy makers throughout Europe.”

He added that with its UK and European launch “we aim to fulfill this requested impact throughout Europe, championing the principles of liberty and economic prosperity in an era of increasing regulation and anti-growth policies.”

The organisation was involved in the Project 2025 agenda to elect Donald Trump for a second time.

According to the environmental journalism platform DeSmog, the Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from oil major ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2007.

In the lead up to the UK general election, Farage called for a referendum to abolish the UK’s target of reaching net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, which his party then adopted as a manifesto pledge.

Speaking at Heartland’s 40th anniversary fundraising event in September, Farage encouraged the institute to set up branches in Britain and Europe. He also urged the US to re-elect Trump and “drill baby drill” for more fossil fuels.

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Opinion

Elon Musk potentially donating millions to Reform UK is a symptom of a broken system which allows big money to dominate our politics

Tom Brake

Today
Left Foot Forward

When it comes to political donations, Musk is not the problem

Elon Musk is not the problem. At least, to be more precise, when it comes to political donations, Musk is not the problem. The problem is the framework of law that would allow any foreign citizen living abroad to make a multi-million pound donation, via a UK company, to a UK political party.

This is worth spelling out up front because – as I found during a recent media appearance – concern at the prospect of Musk’s donation is too easily politicised. This is not about Musk, the man. The politics and politicians he promotes, whatever one’s own views, have no less right to seek funding. At issue is the extent to which big money has been allowed to dominate our politics.

Let’s be clear – Musk would not be taking advantage of a loophole. The rules as they stand would allow him freely to donate as much money as he wants through the UK arm of one of his companies, most likely X. This would even be true for a company that – unlike X – registers no profits and pays no tax in the UK.

Transparency International (TI) recently revealed that from 2001 to 2024, £115 million in political donations came from dubious or unknown sources, including companies that have never recorded profits. £48.2 million was linked to donors accused of seeking influence or honours, and £42 million from individuals suspected of corruption, fraud, or money laundering.

Existing regulation and legislation are clearly not fit for purpose, a situation compounded by recent policy changes. The previous government’s decisions to raise spending limits and the threshold for registering donations – while blocking an amendment to the National Security Bill that would have mandated anti-money laundering checks on political donations – has hampered transparency and tilted power further in favour of those with the deepest pockets.

Unincorporated Associations (UAs) are especially problematic. These groups, the sources of whose funding can be shrouded in secrecy, funneled over £38 million into the system in just over two decades, according to TI. Little wonder the Committee on Standards in Public Life described UAs as a “route for foreign money to influence UK elections.”

Countries across the democratic world are having to grapple with the dual risk of foreign manipulation and, as Radek Sikorski, Foreign Minister of Poland and someone intimately familiar with fighting Russian interference, told The News Agents podcast, “the oligarchisation” of politics. We should listen when he says “big money in politics is not good for democracy.”

It should not have taken the political threat posed by Elon Musk’s possible donation to push the government to strengthen donation rules, but better late than never. Nonetheless a narrow focus on tackling foreign interference would be a mistake if it leaves big money donations from wealthy UK donors untouched.

A single £4 million donation from Musk – with speculation it could go even higher – would be an undeniable game-changer in British politics. But the same would be true – at least on the financial level – of a UK citizen doing the same. Filings to the end of Q3 show Reform UK has taken a little under £4.5 million in donations this year – already a sixteen-fold increase on where they were in 2023. £100k+ donors make up around 85% of their income. It strains credulity to believe that Musk – or any of these big donors – would not want anything in return for their investment.

This problem of political capture, either by wealthy mega donors or malign overseas interests, is the cost of unlimited donations. Capping donations, Unlock Democracy recommends at £5,000 annually, whilst insufficient on its own to eliminate the risk entirely, is now unavoidable.

It’s pleasing that the new anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge, has expressed support for a donations cap, as well as greater transparency in respect of political donations. “For example”, Baroness Hodge recently told peers, “for all donations over £200, we should know the identity of the donor.”

We agree. Lowering registration thresholds for donations is another key plank of what must be a comprehensive package of reform. Mandatory anti-money laundering checks on all political donations would also enhance scrutiny of their true origins and weed out dark money.

In line with the principle of no foreign interference in UK elections, the government should legislate to ban foreign organisations or individuals from funding non-party campaigners or buying campaign advertising in the UK. Private donations should also be restricted to UK citizens living in the UK.

If the government won’t adopt our strict cap of £5,000 for genuine UK company donations, corporate donations should be limited to businesses with a demonstrable record of trading in the UK, capped at the company’s net profits after tax from the previous two years. And, perhaps most complicated of all, the rules around Unincorporated Associations need a major revamp to ensure illicit and inappropriate funding cannot seep into our politics.

At this time of year, I am reminded of Latin lessons as a boy. Ex umbra in solem: from the shadow into the light. Christmas celebrations, Christian or secular, are perfused by light. It’s too late now to wish for wholesale political finance reform for Christmas, but the government’s proposals, when they come, could do worse than channel the Christmas spirit. Let in the light.

Tom Brake is Director of Unlock Democracy

Image credit: Daniel Oberhaus – Creative Commons

Elon Musk says only far-right AfD party 'can save Germany'

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM AN AFRIKANER


Protesters are shown demonstrating against the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany in Hanover, Germany, on Dec. 2, 2017. American billionaire Elon Musk on Friday tweeted strong support for the party, which has been classified by German authorities as a right-wing extremist group. File Photo by Filip Singer/EPA-EFE

Dec. 20 (UPI) -- U.S. billionaire Elon Musk on Friday said "only" the far-right Alternative for Germany party, currently running second in German polls with about 19% support nationwide, can "save" the country.

In a post on his wholly-owned social media platform X, the world's richest man gave the full-throated endorsement for the AfD while reposting a video by Naomi Seibt, a German right-wing social media influencer.

Germans are expected to vote in snap elections on Feb. 23. A conservative coalition headed by the Christian Democratic Union's Friedrich Merz is leading in the polls with about 32%.

"Only the AfD can save Germany," Musk wrote over Seibt's video, in which she blasts Merz for being "horrified by the idea" that Germany should follow the examples of Musk and Argentine President Javier Milei in espousing right-wing populism.

Related

Germany's far-right AfD secures 'huge success' in eastern state elections

Merz "staunchly rejects a pro-freedom approach and refuses any discussion with the AfD," Seibt wrote.

Friday's post is not the first time Musk has expressed support for the AfD, which is classified by German domestic intelligence authorities as a suspected right-wing extremist party.

In June, the close adviser to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump wrote that he did not view the AfD as an extremist organization. Those remarks came after reports circulated that AfD representatives met with extremist groups in which they discussed the mass expulsion or "remigration" of foreigners and Germans with migrant backgrounds.

The AfD quickly amplified Musk's statement on Friday.

"If you also want to save Germany, then join in and fill out the membership application right away," the party posted on X, while AfD leader Alice Weidel wrote in English to Musk, "You are absolutely right," and blasted what she called the "Soviet European Union" and labeled former conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel a "socialist."

Musk's intervention into German politics elicited a cautious reaction from the lame-duck government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who told reporters in Berlin that while freedom of speech applies to billionaires such as him, that freedom "also means that you can say things that are not right and do not contain good political advice."

Harsher criticism came from other German political figures.

Matthias Miersch, secretary general of Scholz's Social Democrats, called the remarks "election interference," telling the news portal T-Online Musk's remarks are an "alarming signal" and declared, "We are clearly opposed to that. Germany needs neither foreign influences nor Trumpism. Stay out, Elon."

The head of the CDU's workers' wing, Dennis Radtke, told the German newspaper Handelsblatt it is "threatening, irritating and unacceptable that a key figure in the future U.S. government is interfering in the German election campaign," adding that Musk is becoming more and more of a "threat to democracy in the Western world" and has "converted X into a disinformation machine."

Anger after Musk backs German far right


By AFP
December 20, 2024

Elon Musk has weighed in on German politics again on his platform X - Copyright AFP ULISES RUIZ

Sam Reeves

A post from Elon Musk on his platform X claiming that only the far-right AfD party can “save Germany” sparked accusations Friday that he was seeking to interfere in the country’s upcoming election.

The billionaire, set to play a key role in US President-elect Donald Trump’s administration as “efficiency czar”, posted the message over a video commentary about the leader of Germany’s centre-right CDU party Friedrich Merz.

The video criticised Merz, on course to become the next chancellor after February elections according to polls, for his refusal to work with the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), currently polling in second place.

The German government was at pains to avoid any strong comment, but lawmakers from across mainstream parties, which have all ruled out cooperating with the AfD, reacted with outrage to Musk’s comment.

“It is threatening, irritating and unacceptable for a key figure in the future US government to interfere in the German election campaign,” Dennis Radtke, an MEP for the centre-right CDU, told the Handelsblatt daily.

Germans are set to go to the polls on February 23 after the collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s coalition last month in a row over the budget.

Radtke called Musk a “threat to democracy in the Western world”, accusing the world’s richest man of turning X, previously called Twitter, into a “disinformation slingshot”.

Alex Schaefer, a lawmaker from Scholz’s centre-left Social Democrats, said Musk’s post was “completely unacceptable”.

“We are very close to the Americans, but now bravery is required towards our friend. We object to interference in our election campaign,” Schaefer told the Tagesspiegel daily.

Former finance minister Christian Lindner, from the pro-business FDP party, said that some of Musk’s ideas had “inspired” him but urged the Tesla boss not to “rush to conclusions from afar”.

“While migration control is crucial for Germany, the AfD stands against freedom, business — and it’s a far-right extremist party,” tweeted the politician, whose fallout with Scholz triggered the coalition’s implosion.

Scholz himself was restrained when asked about Musk’s comments, noting: “We have freedom of expression, which also applies to multi-billionaires”.

He added that this “means that you can say things that are not right and do not contain good political advice”.

– Musk meddling concerns –

For its part, the AfD warmly welcomed Musk’s praise with co-leader Alice Weidel thanking him in a video message, and saying her party was “the one and only alternative for our country”.

At a regular press conference in Berlin, a government spokesman avoided commenting directly on Musk’s post, reiterating Scholz’s point that Germany respects freedom of expression.

But she added the government was worried about “how X has developed in recent years, especially since Elon Musk took over”.

Despite such concerns, the government had decided not to close its accounts on the platform as it remained an important channel for reaching out to people, she said.

It is not the first time Musk has weighed in on German politics.

Last month he tweeted in German that “Olaf is a fool” after the collapse of Scholz’s government — with the chancellor responding that the comments were “not very friendly”.

And last year Musk said Berlin-funded migrant rescue operations in the Mediterranean could be seen as an “invasion” of Italy.

Tesla has a factory outside Berlin, and Musk visited Germany ahead of the last national elections in 2021, meeting with Armin Laschet, who was then the candidate for the CDU/CSU bloc to become chancellor.

Laschet went on to lead the conservatives to their worst-ever results at the polls.

There have also been concerns in Britain that Musk is taking a close interest in the country’s political scene, appearing to cosy up to hard-right firebrand lawmaker Nigel Farage.

UK

Labour’s drift to the right could risk Keir Starmer being a one-term prime minister


Opinion

Prem Sikka

Today

Left Foot Forward.

The government's honeymoon has been short lived.

After 14 years of Conservative rule, on 5th July 2024 Labour Party formed the UK’s government under the premiership of Sir Keir Starmer. It came to power on the back of anti-Tory sentiments rather than any specific radical policies. Due to quirks of the first-past-the-post voting system it secured 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons on the back of 33.7% of the votes cast, giving it a simple majority of 172.

The government’s honeymoon has been short-lived. By November, Labour lost over 40% of local council by-election seats that it was defending. Some might dismiss this as the wobbles of a new government, but is more than that. The party’s vote share has fallen in 80% of local authority by-elections, and in almost half, its vote share fell by at least 10%. By December an opinion poll reported that that 70% of the voters are dissatisfied with the government, and 61% are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister’s performance, and only 26% intend to vote labour.

What has gone wrong? Labour fought the election with the incessant promise of ‘change’ but so far voters have mainly seen continuation of Conservative policies, or even worse with the party moving to the right of Tories on many issues. Vast majority of the population has seen no positive material change to their economic circumstances.

Labour didn’t come to office with a radical or redistributive agenda. It quashed people’s hopes for change by continuing with the Conservative two-child benefit cap, which prevents parents from claiming child tax credit or universal credit for more than two children. Some 5.2m children, 36% of all children, live in poverty; and 55% live in families with three or more children. The abolition of the two-child benefit cap would have cost the public purse between £2.5bn and £3.6bn in 2024/25 and lifted about half a million children out of acute poverty. The government chose not to do so.

This was followed by the abolition of the universal winter fuel payments (WFP) of between £100 and £300 to retirees receiving the state pension. Even the Tories didn’t adopt such a policy. Some 10m pensioners have lost the right. In general, the WFP is now only given to pensioners receiving pension credit (PC), which is available to a single pensioner with weekly income below £218.15, or less than £332.95 for a couple. Before the abolition, 1.4m pensioners claimed PC and another 880,000 were eligible but did not claim as they could not cope with the bureaucracy. Despite the increase in applications for PC, over 700,000 are expected to miss out. Then there are pensioners trapped between the income ceiling and poverty line and will miss out on WFP. Altogether, thousands of pensioners will be worse-off, just when energy prices are rising.

Women born in the 1950s have long claimed that they were e not properly informed of the increase in state pension age from 60 to 66. In March 2024, an ombudsman’s report concluded there had been maladministration and injustice by a government department during the years of the last Conservative government. It recommended a public apology and compensation. In December 2024, the Labour government issued a public apology but has refused to offer any compensation, alienating millions of women.

The less well-off were hit with further disappointment by the government’s adherence to Conservative tax policies. In 2021-22, the Conservative government froze income tax thresholds. Tax free annual personal allowance was frozen at £12,570. With the effect of inflation, the real tax burdens increased and more people became liable to pay income tax. With 16m people living in poverty, the Labour government could have alleviated poverty by changing the tax thresholds, but the October 2024 budget did not. The Chancellor said that from April 2028, just before the next general election, these personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation”. In 2021-22, some 31m people paid income tax. By 2028-29, that number is expected to surpass 40m.

Household budgets have been depressed by corporate profiteering. Corporate profiteering is rife. Since the pandemic, electricity and gas supply companies increased their profit margins by 363%, oil and gas companies more than doubled their margins. Profit margins at Centrica, owner of British Gas jumped from 0.8% before the pandemic to 60% in 2022. Energy bills continue to rise. Some 3.7m households in England are living in fuel poverty. Labour has done nothing to curb profiteering.

Household budgets in England and Wales have been hit hard by privatised water companies. They have hiked bills in real terms and neglected investment. Around one trillion litres of water a year are lost in leaks, and sewage is dumped in rivers for 3.6m hours. Instead of investing in infrastructure they have paid over £85bn in dividends, mostly financed by borrowing over £65bn. Around one-third of customer bills are swallowed by debt and dividend payments. Most water companies are teetering on the edge of financial bankruptcy, but the Conservative government refused to renationalise water. Labour has continued with that policy even though 82% of the popular opinion favours nationalisation. The Water (Special Measures) Bill, essentially a Bill drafted by the last Conservative government, enables the government to restructure the industry and hand it back to the private sector. Shareholders are reluctant to invest. So, customers are being forced to bailout companies. Ofwat, the regulator, has hoisted average water and sewage bill increase of 36% (£157) for the next five years.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto promised to bring rail passenger services back into public ownership. However, that isn’t quite what the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 delivers. A publicly-owned company will operate passenger services but it will not own rolling stock, which will continue to be leased from private companies. The three leading rolling stock companies make over £1 billion a year profit and this would be guaranteed by the government, reducing resources available for other areas.

It isn’t just in financial and public service matters that the Labour government has embraced right-wing policies; it has done so in other arenas too. For example, through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and other laws the Conservative government began a new phase of deregulation of the finance industry, effectively reversing the reforms introduced after the 2007-08 financial crash. This included dilution of consumer protection, requiring regulators to promote growth of the industry, ending the bonus cap and reducing capital requirements. Labour has accelerated deregulation and the Chancellor has told regulators to tear up rules and encourage more risk-taking even though regulators have warned that deregulation will attract more criminals and sharp practices to the City.

People judge the success or failure of a government by assessing its impact on their disposable income. Early impressions are important and lasting. The Starmer-led government has alienated women, families and pensioners by depressing their incomes. The cost-of-living crisis continues as the government has made no attempt to curb corporate profiteering, possibly under the mistaken belief that this will somehow revive economic growth. On tax, water, rail and the finance industry, its policies are not that different from the Conservatives.

Labour promised ‘change’ but has adopted too many Conservative policies. This is set to continue with a promised fraud, error and debt bill, effectively a revival of the Conservative Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. It will enable the government to 24/7 snoop on the bank accounts of anyone receiving benefits administered by the Department of Work and Pensions. The snooping will not require any court order and people will have no right of appeal. The Bill assumes that all recipients of benefits are criminal and will have no right to financial privacy.

In principle, Labour’s drift to the right can be checked by debate but the leadership is authoritarian and has closed spaces for discussion. During the last Labour government’s term in office from 1997 to 2010, no MP had his/her whip withdrawn for showing dissent. All that changed within the first three weeks of the Starmer-led government even though it has a huge majority in the Commons. Seven Labour MPs had whip withdrawn for opposing the two-child benefit cap. Left-leaning candidates were purged before the July 2024 election. Since the election, experienced left-leaning MPs have been removed from parliamentary committees and replaced with newcomers towing the leadership’s line. Local party branches are emasculated. Critical motions at party conferences carry no weight and are ignored by the leadership. In such an environment, there is little critical evaluation of the government’s policies. There is a real danger that without a major change in policies this could turn out to be a one-term Labour government.

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.

Image credit: Simon Dawson / Number 10 – Creative Commons

How Justin Trudeau Alienated Canada’s Working Class

By  Aidan Simardone

12.20.2024 

JACOBIN

Canada, like the US and other countries, is grappling with acute political dealignment. Plummeting working-class support for center-left parties highlights the failure of liberal policies and the appeal of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s populism.

Justin Trudeau on the third day of the G7 Summit on June 28, 2022, near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. (Sean Gallup / Getty Images)

With Justin Trudeau’s cabinet in revolt, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre will likely be Canada’s next prime minister. Liberals and leftists lampoon him for his dorky anti-charisma, fearmongering about crime, and plans to overthrow the constitution. And yet his polling numbers are so high — nearly double Trudeau’s Liberals — that even a large sampling error will not stop him. Among his supporters are large swaths of the working class. Why are they flocking to him?

Squeezed between a center left that ignores the cost of living and a pro-business Conservative Party that presents itself as the champion of the ordinary people, many working-class voters are choosing the latter. After nearly a decade of Trudeau’s leadership — propped up by the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP) from 2022 until their recent withdrawal of support — voters feel they gave the Liberals ample opportunity to improve their lives. Instead, they got higher rent and stagnant wages. Frustrated, they are now willing to overlook Poilievre’s regressive policies in hopes of change.

The Liberal Honeymoon

The Liberal renaissance began in 2015. After a decade under Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, voters sought a center-left alternative, fueled by climate change protests and indigenous rights movements like Idle No More. Liberal leader Trudeau appealed to urban, socially liberal demographics with promises of decolonization, proportional representation, and drug reform. While most of these promises were broken, those that were fulfilled — such as marijuana legalization and support for refugees — boosted his popularity. His charming smile and a housing market in which the average Canadian home cost less than half a million dollars also played a role.

The golden years soon melted away. Before the 2019 election, Trudeau was faced with the SNC-Lavalin Scandal, in which he pressured the minister of justice and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to halt the prosecution of a corrupt construction company. A few months later, a photo of him grinning in blackface surfaced, smudging his progressive image.

Two opposing social movements helped Trudeau survive the fallout. On the Right, Maxime Bernier, after losing the Conservative leadership election to Andrew Scheer, formed the People’s Party. Its climate denialism and xenophobic platform earned only 1.6 percent of the vote, but this small share split the Conservative base, costing the party seats. On the Left, over one million Canadians joined the global climate strike just weeks before the election. Despite the Liberals’ pro-pipeline policy, they leveraged the moment’s momentum to emphasize their carbon tax plan. While carbon taxes are flat consumption taxes and therefore not inherently progressive, the Conservatives’ attacks on the policy alienated many suburban voters.

The Liberals narrowly won reelection but were reduced to a minority government. Months later, COVID-19 swept the world. In the face of mass fatalities and economic devastation, the Liberal’s decisive response stood in sharp contrast to President Donald Trump’s downplaying of the COVID threat and the scandals surrounding UK government officials partying during lockdown. Voters rallied behind their government and the Liberals skyrocketed in the polls. Hoping to regain a majority, Trudeau called a snap election in 2021. However, many voters thought it was unnecessary, and his popularity again declined.

Once again, Trudeau benefited from division on the Right. Conservative leader Erin O’Toole opposed mandatory vaccination, but refrained from outright denial of COVID’s severity or vaccine efficacy. In contrast, the People’s Party embraced COVID denialism and anti-vaccine rhetoric. Although they won no seats, their vote share tripled, again splitting the right-wing vote. The Liberals’ share of the vote declined, but they gained seats, thanks to the fractured opposition. Without the People’s Party, Trudeau’s tenure could have ended in 2021.

Poilievre’s Rise

After winning three elections in a row, it seemed nothing could stop “Teflon” Trudeau. But trouble was brewing. House prices had been rapidly rising for decades, culminating in one of the worst affordability crises in the world by the early 2020s. Home prices had already spiraled out of control, but COVID-19 exacerbated the problem further as rents outstripped wages and supply chain disruptions stalled new construction. Inflation further strained household budgets, and corporations took advantage of the situation to raise prices on essentials like groceries. The pandemic claimed nearly 60,000 Canadian lives.

Against this backdrop, Trudeau’s progressive image was losing its shine. In addition to his inability to do anything about the housing market and extortionate grocery costs, he failed to meet his government’s own climate targets, pushed pipelines through sovereign indigenous land, and maintained staunch support for Israel.

Poilievre was quick to turn the situation to his advantage, rhetorically sympathizing with the working class, while maintaining pressure on Trudeau. First, he had to unite the Right. He publicly supported the Trucker Convoy, shaking hands with protesters that shut down Ottawa. Promising to help Canadians “gain control of their lives,” he won back right-wing voters while appealing broadly to those suffering from high unemployment and inflation. His message resonated so strongly that he secured two-thirds of the votes in the Conservative leadership race, the best result in over two decades.

Poilievre built up a mass following through viral, clickbait-style videos. In one, titled “Two homes. 20 minutes apart,” he contrasts a small house that costs $570,000 with a much larger one that costs $210,000. The difference? Standing at the border in Niagara Falls, the former is in Canada and the latter is in the United States. The video has nearly a million views.

Of course, viral videos alone do not guarantee success. But they do underscore the resonance of Poilievre’s populist rhetoric. At times, his language sounds less like his neoliberal idol Friedrich Hayek and more like Bernie Sanders. Trudeau is “taking from the have-nots to give to the have-yachts” he claims, railing against “a government of elites and self-serving snobs who look down on ordinary working-class Canadians.” He has also asked, “Shouldn’t our working class be better off today than it was forty years ago?”


Neither Trudeau nor the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh have effectively countered this messaging. While Trudeau has acknowledged that the economy could be doing better, he has defended his record, touting the government’s low deficit. Singh has condemned the housing crisis, but the NDP’s support for the Liberals has tied the two parties together in voter’s eyes, resulting in low support.

Working-Class Vote

Poilievre exemplifies a wider trend of political dealignment in the West, with working-class voters moving away from left and center-left parties and toward the Right. In Canada, dealignment began as early as 2004, when Harper united the Right and became prime minister.

A recent poll found Poilievre’s Conservative Party leading across all income classes, with only an 8-point difference between the lower- and upper-income support. The same pattern holds for the Liberals. Only the NDP’s support drops significantly as income increases. Notably, Poilievre also leads among union members.

Critics might point to Poilievre’s anti-worker and anti-union record as evidence that working-class voters are acting against their own interests. But this raises a key question: Why now? Why have things changed? Why is the working class withdrawing its historical support of center-left and left-wing parties?

The answer lies in the failure of those parties. Over the past two decades, the Liberals have consistently failed the working class, while the NDP has drifted to the center, abandoning its socialist roots. From 2022 to the fall of this year, the NDP supported the Liberals through a supply and confidence agreement, achieving only modest victories, like the gradual rollout of national dental care for Canadian households earning less than $90,000 per year.

It’s not that voters are enthusiastic about Poilievre; like all party leaders, Poilievre has a negative net approval rating. Many working-class Canadians are so disillusioned that they’ve stopped voting altogether, contributing to declining turnout. But those who do vote hear Poilievre’s message clearly: reject the status quo and stand up for the working class. They may not like him or fully trust him, but lacking better options, they are willing to give him a chance.

Stopping Poilievre

Liberals and leftists have tried to counter Poilievre’s rise by fact-checking his statements. Others note that Poilievre is not a populist outsider, but a career politician. But as with Trump, fact-checking and denunciation will likely have little effect. As long as Poilievre rails against a status quo from which working people have seen no benefit — and as the Liberals and the NDP continue to fail the working class — frustrated voters will turn to Poilievre.

A better strategy is to expose Poilievre’s faux populism. Poilievre is right about how bad the housing crisis is. But his solution — cutting taxes — will benefit investors while leaving everyone else behind. His plan to tackle unemployment is to spur economic growth through tax cuts so everyone gets more of the growing pie. In other words, he is offering warmed-over trickle-down economics disguised as populism, blaming the Bank of Canada for inflation while letting corporations off the hook.

But exposing Poilievre is only half the battle. To defeat him, a socialist alternative is needed. This means advancing economic policies that directly address working-class interests, promoting working-class candidates to reshape party policy and platforms, and revitalizing the labor movement to build a mass working-class politics.

These solutions won’t come easily or quickly. The first step is to clear the deck for meaningful action by acknowledging that, while Poilievre may be a liar, his message resonates because liberal social progressivism has done very little to improve the lives of most working people. With an actual alternative in place, Poilievre’s message will no longer seem radical but rather a farcical attempt to protect the rich.

Contributors
Aidan Simardone is an immigration lawyer and writer. His work is featured in Counterpunch, the New Arab, and Canadian Dimension.