UK Trans person took life outside hospital after ‘screaming for help’ – inquest



Matty Sheldrick moved to Hove with their rescue dog Lola before their mental health deteriorated and they hanged themselves outside Royal Sussex County Hospital in November 2022 (Family handout from Inquest/PA)

By Anahita Hossein-Pour, PA

Today 

A 29-year-old trans person who felt “dismissed, ignored and lied to” by mental health workers took their own life outside a hospital despite “screaming very loudly for help to stay alive”, their mother has told an inquest.

Matty Sheldrick left A&E and hanged themselves in the grounds of Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton having “lost all hope” on November 4 and died on November 22, 2022.

Mx Sheldrick was autistic and had ADHD. They moved to Hove in November 2021 with their rescue dog Lola, hoping to live an independent life and did so “with so much hope” that with the right support, they could live a happy and productive life, their mother Sheila Sheldrick said.

All that was required was kindness and compassion. The actions and non-actions of both trusts contributed to Matty’s decline in mental health and his deathSheila Sheldrick, Matty Sheldrick's mother

But after a decline in their mental health, they were admitted to the short-stay ward at the hospital for suicidal thoughts on September 5 2022, where they stayed for more than three weeks.

Ms Sheldrick told Horsham Coroner’s Court that Mx Sheldrick “reached out for help that did not appear to exist”.

She described how on the ward, Mx Sheldrick was yelled at by a mental health nurse, threatened with being discharged when they said they felt unsafe and held down and sedated when they were having a meltdown.

Ms Sheldrick said the sedation began their distrust of the mental health professionals at the hospital, who worked as part of Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust.

In contrast, she said they spoke fondly of health care assistants and security staff at the hospital, working under University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust.

“All that was required was kindness and compassion,” she said.

“The actions and non-actions of both trusts contributed to Matty’s decline in mental health and his death.”

The inquest heard how Mx Sheldrick’s mental health deteriorated and they tried to kill and harm themselves while in hospital.


They were discharged on September 30 before calling an ambulance with further fears of suicide on November 2 to return to A&E, where they were assessed under the mental health act and a decision was made not to detain them.


Matty Sheldrick, with their dog Lola (Family handout/PA)

Dr Robert Sparks, who did the assessment, said that it is well known that hospital environments such as short-stay wards can make a person’s mental health deteriorate.

“Every attempt should be made not to have people in hospital, particularly in that sort of environment,” he said.

Dr Sparks also said there was no hospital that Mx Sheldrick could be sent to, and that “mental health services are in crisis” but in hindsight, he would have detained them.

Ms Sheldrick said Mx Sheldrick’s family are “beyond heartbroken” at their death and that their “journey in life was so hard” and “suffered so much when reaching out to those he thought would support and protect him.”


She added that Mx Sheldrick told his brother: “He didn’t want to die, he wanted help.”

Mx Sheldrick’s GP Dr Sam Hall from WellBN told the hearing there is a “massive gap” in crisis provision relating to mental health, which is a system issue across the country.

“There is a gap people are falling into and I feel we’re all just fighting fires trying to keep people safe,” Dr Hall said.

The doctor also highlighted that people who are trans and have neurodivergence are often misunderstood and misinterpreted.



Matty Sheldrick was described as a ‘kind, bright, creative, sensitive, gentle soul’

 (Family handout/PA)

“Someone like Matty needs constant companionship to be able to navigate the world,” Dr Hall added.


Asked about describing Mx Sheldrick as a vulnerable person, Dr Hall said: “I would say that about anybody that is autistic, ADHD and trans.”

Mx Sheldrick, originally from Surrey, was described as a “kind, bright, creative, sensitive, gentle soul” and had “great hopes for the future, he really wanted to use all he had learned to help others”, according to their mother.

They performed spoken word and flooded social media with their artwork, Ms Sheldrick added, and began illustrating for a new group with the Clare Project in Brighton, a support group for trans and non-binary people, while living in the area.

Ms Sheldrick recalled Mx Sheldrick saying: “I really feel I have found my people here.”

The inquest continues.

– The Samaritans can be contacted on 116123 or email jo@samaritans.org

LAST MENS ONLY CLUB, NO MORE 

Judi Dench among first woman members of UK's Garrick Club: report

Agence France-Presse
July 2, 2024 

Britain's King Charles III speaks to actress Judi Dench, who has become one of the first female members of the Garrick Club (Andrew Matthews/AFP)

Veteran actors Judi Dench and Sian Phillips have become the first woman members of London's esteemed Garrick Club after it voted in May to allow women to join, the Guardian reported Tuesday.

Founded in 1831 for actors and "men of refinement and education", the Garrick was one of the last such clubs not to allow women in, except as guests of men.

But following a bitter row, the club opened up its membership in May and fast-tracked the actors' applications during its annual general meeting on Monday, according to the Guardian

Oscar-winner Dench, 89, is recognised as one of the UK's best ever actors, starring on stage and screen, notably as "M" in eight James Bond films.

Phillips, 91, is best known for her theatre work, and was nominated for a Tony Award and Olivier Award for her performance as Marlene Dietrich in "Marlene".

The club's membership is a closely guarded secret but is known to include leading figures from the civil service, the law, journalism, publicly funded institutions and the arts.

Several high-profile members had reportedly threatened to quit the club if the proposal to allow women was rejected.

In March, the head of Britain's spy service Richard Moore resigned after a list of the club's membership was made public for the first time.

Moore sent a message to MI6 employees acknowledging the reputational hit that news of his membership posed to the service -- in particular the risk of it undermining its work to attract more women to join MI6.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's most senior policy adviser, the civil service leader Simon Case, also quit his membership.

A petition launched in 2021 backing the admission of women attracted the support of Cherie Booth, a leading barrister, whose husband is former prime minister Tony Blair.

She recalled that in 1976 as a trainee lawyer she was left standing outside while her future husband was allowed in for dinner.

Organizers of the petition said the large number of judges and senior lawyers who were members deprived women of networking opportunities in a profession in which women were under-represented, particularly in the higher echelons.

The Garrick, located in Covent Garden in central London, offers members overnight accommodation, a restaurant, bars and a library.

Other high-profile figures reported to be members include "Sherlock" star Benedict Cumberbatch and senior minister Michael Gove.

The Energy Transition | Commentary suggests the UK is on its way to becoming a 'global solar superpower'

Published on 2nd Jul 2024

Welcome to our top picks of the latest energy regulatory and market developments in the UK's transition to net zero.

This week we look at: the UK's potential for becoming a "global solar superpower", the announcement of the first "ectogrid" low carbon network and Centrica's progress in redeveloping the Rough reservoir for storing hydrogen.

Commentary suggests the UK is on its way to becoming a 'global solar superpower'

Recent commentary from Atrato Partners has suggested that that the current levels of solar deployment in the UK mean that the country "has the potential to rival the world’s sunniest nations like Australia". 

The asset management group notes that the record energy costs seen in the UK in recent years have shifted the focus towards prioritising energy security and domestic renewables, including through solar deployment. While sunnier countries such as Australia have economically utilised solar energy for many years, the UK's lower rates of irradiation mean that it has taken more time for the domestic cost of solar to reduce to economically deployable levels. However the decreasing costs of solar energy, alongside increased investment, regulatory frameworks and innovation, mean that the UK solar industry is rapidly increasing. The UK currently has 15.8GW of solar deployed, with a target to achieve 70GW by 2030.

While UK solar energy has experienced particular growth in the residential sector, the commentary suggests the country's "sheer potential to capture commercial rooftop solar is what will put the UK on the global stage as a solar superpower". Notably, there are nearly 2.5 billion square metres of south-facing commercial rooftops in the UK which could be utilised to further these aims. The investment power of solar energy was also noted for businesses, allowing for them to reap the benefits of a cheaper and cleaner UK energy while improving the reputation of the UK as a whole, and placing the nation as a world superpower in renewable energy.

E.ON announces UK's first 'ectogrid' low carbon network

Energy company E.ON has announced that it has signed an agreement with real estate developer Lendlease to develop a low carbon energy network system at Silvertown in East London.

The 760,000 sqm Silvertown site will be the first development in the UK to implement E.ON’s "ectogrid" system, an energy sharing heat network based on heat pump technology. The ectogrid proposes to provides heating and cooling across the development's buildings, utilising existing local energy sources such as air, water or ground. Each connected building sends excess heating or cooling to others as needed. Additional energy is then supplied when none remains within the network, or if the grid is unable to extract energy from renewable sources that exist within it. The development is underpinned by cloud-based software, utilising machine learning technology to forecast energy patterns, allowing for greater precision when predicting energy patterns.

The project aims to serve 6,000 homes and businesses at Silvertown. According to E.ON, the ectogrid technology could save approximately 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – a carbon emissions figure 88% lower than traditional gas boilers.

The ectogrid is currently already in use across Europe, specifically in southern Sweden and Italy. When completed, Silvertown will be the largest ambient heating and cooling network in the UK, according to E.ON.

Centrica awards contract to redevelop the Rough reservoir for storing hydrogen

Centrica, a major energy firm, has awarded a front-end engineering design (FEED) contract to consulting and engineering firm Wood for the redevelopment of its Rough gas storage facility for hydrogen storage.

The Rough reservoir, located in the Southern North Sea, has been used for the safe storage of natural gas for over three decades. According to Wood, the facility has the potential to meet more than 50 percent of the UK's hydrogen storage needs. The project forms part of the UK's efforts to transition towards renewable energy and achieve the net zero target.

The FEED contract awarded to Wood includes new pipelines, a new unmanned installation, and onshore injection facilities at the Easington gas terminal. This marks the initial step in preparing the field for hydrogen use. The contract is expected to create approximately 50 new jobs in the UK.

Centrica had shut down the Rough reservoir in 2017 due to issues with the wells used for injecting and withdrawing gas. However, in response to the energy crisis, a decision to reopen the site was made and last year, Centrica received approval from Ofgem to operate the facility until 2030.

Last year, Centrica announced its ambition for Rough to become the largest long-duration energy storage facility in the world. However, a final investment decision for the project is still dependent on a government support model that would underpin gas storage investment in the UK. As we previously reported in March, the House of Lords science and technology committee has urged the government to decide by the end of 2024 whether to provide financial support for the project.

Martin Scargill, managing director of Centrica Energy Storage, said, "We have huge ambitions for the future of Rough and our partnership with Wood is an important stepping stone on the path to realising those ambitions."

Digital twins solution applied in transforming UK's emergency services

A government-funded project has recently been launched to make the UK's emergency services more energy efficient through the use of zero emission (ZE) technology. Funded by Innovate UK under the government's Net Zero Mobility programme, Project RESPONSE (Robust Emergency Services Performing Operations in Electric) is designed to address key obstacles preventing ZE operations in emergency service planning and dispatch systems.

RESPONSE, led by Flexible Power Systems (FPS), a provider of software and charge point services, involves the identification of additional data sources such as the range of electric vehicles (EVs) and charging locations. These sources will then be integrated into a data-sharing platform, Operate, to efficiently inform emergency dispatch system about how to better accommodate ZE response vehicles.

The project involves key stakeholders from both the UK and the Netherlands, including NHS England, Southwest Police Service, Kent Police, Essex Police, and Ambulancezorg Nederland. An independent non-profit research and consultancy organisation, Cenex, will leverage its experience in the visualisation of vehicle journeys and charging needs and coordinate these stakeholders to provide insights into the current dispatch systems and potential adaptations for ZE vehicles.

This article was written with the assistance of Khushal Thobhani, Luke Hopper, Hannah Bradley, Jessica Sawford and Charlotte D'Arcy, trainee solicitors.

Breaking down barriers with a new guide to LGBTQ+ language

Tuesday, 02 July 2024

A glossary of words, defined by young LGBTQ+ people in England, has been created by a University of Nottingham academic, to help people better understand the language used to describe their lives.

Words We Live By: A Guide to LGBTQ+ Language has been produced by Dr Lucy Jones, a sociolinguist who studies language and society in the School of English, and has been working with LGBTQ+ young people, aged from 12 to 20, to find out about their experiences in school and within the family.

The guide features words – all chosen and defined by the young people – including identity labels (such as pansexual and non-binary) and important concepts (like misgendering and pride). It has been produced as both an online resource, and in print form as an A2 poster that folds out in the style of an Ordnance Survey map. Although available as a resource for the public, it has been developed primarily as a tool to help teachers, social workers, clinicians, charities, and other public facing services who interact with young people.

It evolved from research Dr Jones has conducted with LGBTQ+ youth groups in the North and Midlands since 2018, funded by the British Academy. By understanding the day-to-day encounters of the young LGBTQ+ participants in the project, Dr Jones has been able to analyse their talk from a linguistic perspective and observe how they are using language to position themselves in society.


During my research, young people have told me that they often feel misunderstood by the adults in their lives, even when they’re trying to offer support. If we don’t understand the words young people are using to describe their experiences, communication can break down and make it harder to help them. It became clear that we all need a better understanding of the language young LGBTQ+ people use to define themselves; this includes learning about the different labels they use and understanding the importance of not making assumptions about their gender or sexuality.”Dr Lucy Jones, School of English

In her research, Dr Jones was a participant observer in youth groups and through interviews conducted with the young participants, she learnt the importance of language to their sense of self.

Words we live by: a guide to LGBTQ+ language

One 15-year-old participant explained how it felt when teachers and other school staff addressed them with the wrong pronouns: “We’re already stressed out just about being us, and with this added on, it just doesn’t help!”

Language constantly evolves and words that young people are using now – like gay or queer – may have a very different meaning to 10 years ago, or not have existed at all. And in another 10 years’ time, they could have a different meaning again.

Dr Jones added: “The glossary shows the words that are being used by young people today, but Words We Live By isn’t meant to be definitive or forever. My hope is that it will start a dialogue about why language is so important to our identity. And even though it keeps changing and evolving, why it’s important, particularly for adults working with potentially vulnerable young people, to make the effort to get it right. If you want to be an ally you need to understand the language.”

The guide can be seen as part of a free installation at the National Justice Museum in Nottingham until 29th September 2024, where visitors can pick up a print copy and contribute their own words to an evolving online LGBTQ+ glossary. The installation launches at Notts Pride on Saturday 27th July and Dr Jones will be there between 10-11.30am to answer questions about the project. You can also follow the Words We Live By project on Instagram, X and Facebook by searching for @LGBTQwords.

Story credits

More information is available from Dr Lucy Jones, Associate Professor in Sociolinguistics, via lucy.jones@nottingham.ac.uk

Children have been ignored in election campaigns, major charity warns

The UK is ‘not a country for children’, warns England’s oldest children’s charity


4.3 MILLION CHILDREN LIVE IN POVERTY
PA ARCHIVE

ANNA DAVIS @_ANNADAVIS

Evening Standard 

The head of England’s oldest children’s charity has warned that the UK is “not a country for children” and blasted political parties for ignoring young people in their general election campaigning.

Carol Homden, chief executive of Coram, said children have been “conspicuous by their absence” in the campaigns, despite life getting worse for them after decades of progress.

She said there has not been enough focus on children in the run up to the election, despite 4.3 million children living in poverty, record numbers of children in care, soaring mental health problems and huge pressure on childcare.

She warned: “The UK in 2024 is not a country for children and young people. This must change.”

She added: “With just one day to go until the general election, children and young people have been conspicuous by their absence in the campaign to date as the parties have traded blows over their respective programmes.

“For most of my time as CEO of Coram the big decisions made by government have rarely put the impact on the lives of the younger generation at the forefront of the decision-making process.

“Both our own direct experience of delivering services to meet growing demand as well as a wide range of data suggest that, for many, life for children and young people today is getting worse after decades of progress.”

Dr Homden’s intervention comes after Coram, which was established in 1739 as the Foundling Hospital, called on the new government for financial and policy commitments to benefit children, at a cost of up to £17.7billion.

This “triple key” of investments for children would give them the economic security the “triple lock” on pensions gave to older people, she said.

Speaking on Tuesday, Dr Homden said: “Is the goal that we educate, feed and nurture our children and young people and ensure their rights are upheld too much to ask? Or is it the minimum that a civilised society should be offering its next generation to safeguard our future?”

Coram has also released data showing that the vast majority of councils across England are not confident they can deliver all of the promised free childcare places pledged by the government in its huge expansion of childcare.

Research published by Coram Family and Childcare found that just 11 per cent of councils in England are confident they will have enough places to meet demand by September 2025, which is when working parents have been told they can get 30 hours free childcare for children aged nine months and above.

Three quarter of councils said their biggest concern is recruiting enough staff.

Dr Homden has also warned that London will become a ghost city if more is not done to make life more affordable for families.

She told the Evening Standard that London is not a child-friendly city and said more must be done to stem the exodus of families, who are under more pressure from the cost-of-living crisis than those elsewhere.

In a blog post published today Dr Homden said: “Coram’s own YouGov polling shows that the majority of the public understand the need for a greater focus on our youngest citizens and that this crosses lines of party and age.

“Substantial majorities are in favour of more support for children in care, free school meals and the reforms necessary to deliver a first-class early education and childcare system.”

Abolishing the two-child limit is just the start for tackling child poverty

Kitty Stewart
Ruth Patrick
July 2nd, 2024

LSE

While Labour has avoided pledging to end the “two-child limit” on means-tested benefits, which has been shown to worsen child poverty, it has committed to a broader child poverty strategy. Kitty Stewart and Ruth Patrick consider the significance of this manifesto commitment and explain why abolishing the two-child limit is crucial, but only the start of what is required.

Much noise has rightly surrounded Labour’s decision not to commit to abolishing the “two-child limit” (sometimes known as the two-child benefit cap) – a policy that since 2017 has limited means-tested financial support from the state to the first two children in the family only. The cap has received considerable attention over the past year, with evidence showing its growing reach and its negative impact on child poverty. There is no question of the urgent need to scrap it. But to really tackle child poverty, Labour’s policies need to go much further than that.

Our own project has underlined the devastating implications of the two-child limit for children. Our research highlights the multiple ways that children are missing out as a result of the policy, from adequate food, heating and clothing, to school trips, extra-curricular activities, family outings and social life.

The policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment.

We also find that the policy is failing to meet its apparent aims of reducing births and increasing parental employment. There has been negligible impact on fertility in potentially affected families, and no evidence that parents with more than two children have increased their employment as a result of not receiving the extra benefit. Our qualitative interviews have helped to make sense of the absence of any effects, illustrating the complexity of people’s lives (many families in receipt of benefits had their children when times were better), as well as the barriers to paid work parents in many affected families face due to their caring responsibilities. In fact, we find that the cut in financial support can even make paid work feel more out of reach, because of the difficulty of meeting upfront childcare costs and because of the impact of financial worries on mental health and mental bandwidth.

Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship.

Given the weight and urgency of this evidence base, it is surprising and disappointing that Labour has not come out clearly against the policy, although their position has appeared to soften in recent weeks. Any Government committed to tackling child poverty head-on must be able to stand up and condemn a policy that is explicitly designed to create hardship. This has been a failure from Labour in opposition, one which they will hopefully rectify very soon after taking office.

One indication that they will do so is their manifesto pledge to “an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty”. This in fact has the potential to be a much more significant and wide-reaching commitment than a promise to eradicate the two-child limit alone – depending on how it is translated into practice.
A serious child poverty strategy will have to abolish the two-child limit

There is clearly no way to tackle child poverty effectively in the UK without getting rid of the two child limit (or introducing an entirely new benefit which mitigates it – as the Scottish Child Payment goes some way towards doing north of the border). Children in larger families, those with three or more children, are at much higher risk of poverty, in part because of higher family needs and in part because of greater barriers to employment. Reducing the support they receive makes no sense at all. This is why the two-child limit has been described as the worst social security policy ever. And it is why a serious anti-poverty strategy will have to abolish it.

However, what is needed to reverse recent rises in child poverty and ultimately go further goes well beyond lifting the two-child limit. While the debate has crystallized around this policy, a child poverty strategy will need at least three other central planks.
Removing the two-child benefit limit is only the beginning

First, there are a series of other holes that have been cut into our social security safety net over the last decade. A key one is the ‘benefit cap’ – distinct from the two-child limit (though families can be affected by both), this cap limits the total amount a family can receive in state support (including for housing) if no-one in the family is earning a given minimum amount. Among our study participants was Lucy, whose family of five lives on £65 per week after housing costs because of the benefit cap. At our last interview with Lucy, her family were about to be evicted as she could no longer find a way to cover the private rent for their damp and rat-infested home, and the landlord was threatening a further rise.

Action on housing costs and quality is the second essential component of a child poverty strategy. The last Labour Government had more success in reducing child poverty ‘before housing costs’ than ‘after housing costs’. Since then, a series of cuts to housing support (e.g. reforms to Local Housing Allowance) have exacerbated the situation. While landlords can set rents as they please, and families like Lucy’s have almost no chance of finding a home in the social rented sector, millions of families will be left struggling to make ends meet. Further, damp, overcrowded and insecure housing itself damages children’s health and development.

Third, we need a wider joined up approach that pulls in other key services. The 2010 Child Poverty Act required local and national government and key services like schools and the police to work together to reduce child poverty and its impact, and there is evidence that this was making a difference before the Act was dismantled. One example of what is possible is the work the Child Poverty Action Group does to reduce the cost of the school day, aiming to ensure that even where home finances are strained, this doesn’t impact on children’s experience in education.


There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time.

Finally, there is a role for policy that makes it easier for parents to find flexible and well-paid work with good chances of progression. This includes policy on childcare, but also on pay and employment quality. But there is a big caveat to watch out for here: while facilitating parental employment is important, and can make a real difference to any individual family, our work has shown clearly that it is not the central answer to child poverty. There will always be families for whom full-time paid work, or indeed any paid work, is difficult at a given time. As more parents move into work or extend their hours, this in fact creates more rather than less need for redistribution to those who are not able to contribute in this way at present. Until this is understood, child poverty will continue to be with us.
One to watch


Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.

Those concerned about Labour’s refusal to eradicate the two-child limit can take some comfort in their manifesto commitment to a child poverty strategy. It is after all a far-reaching child poverty strategy that we need, not just the abolition of one particularly damaging policy (although we certainly need that too). But the commitment to a strategy is admittedly loose and non-specific. If Labour forms the next administration, we should soon have a better idea of how seriously it can be taken. A key test will be whether the strategy includes significant action on social security, housing, and the role of wider services. Relying on employment alone to deliver child poverty reductions will not deliver the results needed. And – as the 4.3 million children living in poverty and their families would tell any politician willing to listen – results are needed, and fast.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: Ralf Geithe on Shutterstock.


About the author

Kitty Stewart
Kitty Stewart is Associate Professor of Social Policy at LSE and Co-Investigator on the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Her co-authored guide to ending child poverty in the UK was published by the Child Poverty Action Group.

Ruth Patrick
Ruth Patrick is Professor of Social Policy at the University of York and the Principal Investigator of the Benefit Changes and Larger Families research programme.

UK

 Let’s ensure there’s no honeymoon for Starmer

History shows the need for strikes, protests and campaigns to redouble under Starmer's Labour

By Charlie Kimber
Tuesday 02 July 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER

Protests for Palestine have called out the support for Israel from Keir Starmer’s Labour Party (Picture: Alisdare Hickson)

What happens after Keir Starmer closes the door of 10 Downing Street on the cheering crowd assembled to celebrate his success?

As the street sweepers tackle the mound of “Change” placards and fizzy wine bottles, Starmer will seek to implement his carefully—prepared programme to boost British bosses.

There will be three positions in response. The large majority of Labour MPs and many trade union leaders will say that Starmer has to repair the wreckage left by the Tories.

They’ll claim he needs time and understanding to do this. He should, they will say, be defended from criticism and praised to the skies for any small improvements he delivers.

Calls for big wage rises, a shift in policy over Palestine or major funding for the NHS are traitorous because they will destabilise “our” government.

Another small group of Labour MPs and some union leaders will say that there has to be specific and limited agitation around particular issues.

Labour must be pushed to deliver, for example, on its pledge to repeal some anti-union laws and recruit more teachers.

Then there will be those, including Socialist Worker, that say we need to recognise Starmer’s government is an enemy of the working class.

A government that will seek to squeeze workers to bail out a capitalist system in turmoil.

It is not an errant friend, it is not a potential ally, it needs to be fought over specifics and in general.

People can fight back in many ways—over racism, environmental degradation, trans+ liberation and lots of other issues.

But there will be a particularly sharp debate inside the trade unions because of their leaders’ links to Labour.

It’s not inevitable that workers’ struggle dies down now. That’s a question of politics and leadership rather than something decided in advance.

Struggle might be held back or burst out in an explosion of justified demands as the Tory boot lifts.

Between 1964 and 1970, with Labour’s Harold Wilson as prime minister, the number of strikes and strike days rose every year. In 1964 there were 2,277,000 strike days.

By 1969 that was 6,846,000— and headed upwards. Workers did not accept they should knuckle under Labour’s demands for “sacrifice” as economic slowdown accelerated.

They ignored union leaders who tried to enforce “loyalty” to Wilson. And they broke Labour’s 1969 attempt to impose anti‑union laws.

The militancy of the late 1960s was the run-up to the explosion of struggle in the 1970s under the Ted Heath Tory government.

It was a different story under the Wilson and the James Callaghan Labour governments from 1974 to 1979.

Labour won the election on the back of a miners’ strike that destroyed the Conservative government. It was determined to revive profits and that meant breaking strikes.

Ministers unveiled the “social contract”—a deal with union leaders to keep wage increases low.

In an early sign of what was to come, the government sent in troops to break a strike by Glasgow refuse drivers and other workers in March 1975.

A leaflet distributed at the time by the Glasgow International Socialists, forerunners of the Socialist Workers Party, pointed out that Glasgow council bosses were “determined to defend the Labour government’s social contract.

“It is no use waiting for senior trade union officials to give a lead, they too are party to the social contract. Rank and file trade unionists must strike when the troops move in.”

Labour could not control the bosses, the International Monetary Fund or even its own Treasury officials.

But the “Social Contrick”—as workers soon called it—gave it dominance over the union leaders.

It took real effort to subdue workers’ resistance. The week after soldiers smashed the Glasgow strike, Socialist Worker’s front page reported on eight factory occupations over pay and jobs.

At Ford in Swansea, 1,000 workers sat-in at the plant for two days to save one job—and won. In July 1975 the government imposed a fixed flat-rate wage increase of £6 a week.

The £6 amounted to about 10 percent of average wages at the time— while the rate of inflation was 24.2 per cent.

The TUC union federation leaders accepted this massive cut. And Labour chancellor Denis Healey celebrated.

He told parliament, “The most impressive thing has been the speed with which members of the TUC have themselves reached a voluntary agreement on a limit to pay which will mean some reduction in real take home pay for the majority, though by no means all of its members.”

Inflation was still at 16.5 percent in 1976, but trade union leaders agreed to a limit of 4.5 percent—another huge cut in real terms.

In 1976, the seafarers’ union threatened pay strikes. The TUC general secretary Len Murray told them, “By god, we’ll make sure no union supports you. We’ll cripple you.”

The firefighters began an eight-week strike for a 30 percent pay claim in November 1977.

Labour mobilised all its forces against them—including the use of troops. Despite wide public support, Labour defeated the strike.

Union leaders serving a Labour government deliberately and systematically crushed the fantastic feeling of unity and militancy built up in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Persuaded that this was “their government” they made scabbing respectable for sections of workers.

When shipyard workers at Swan Hunter in north east England refused harsh new conditions linked to a large Polish ship order, the Govan yard scabbed on them.

Jimmy Airlie, Govan’s Communist convenor, had led the famous Upper Clyde Shipbuilders occupation to save jobs in 1971. He asked at that time, “Are the other shipyards going to accept our orders and let my men starve?”

But in 1978, serving Labour’s strike-breaking, he disgustingly said, “If Newcastle are losing six ships through disputes, we will build them. If not us, then the Japs will.”

Eventually the union leaders couldn’t hold back the revolt over pay. Mass strikes in 1978 broke out in what became known as the “Winter of Discontent”.

The alienation from Labour because of its betrayals helped Margaret Thatcher win the 1979 election. Tony Blair became prime minister in very different circumstances to the 1970s.

The level of strikes was low. And it took a long time before there was any sort of revival.

Blair’s government attacked workers and unions, moaning in private that the minimum wage was set too high.

Blair hated even the most loyal union leaders, complaining they had left “scars on my back”.

Privately, after meeting the Unison union leaders, Blair said “they can just fuck off” and that transport union officials were “stupid and malevolent”.

It was five years—and another Blair victory—before there was a small rise in strikes.

These strikes, combined with the beginning of the millions‑strong movement against the Iraq war, produced a political crisis for New Labour.

The anti-war movement then produced electoral challenges to Labour and deep bitterness among large sections of the working class.

It won’t be five years before the fight starts under Starmer. He comes to office with the economy in a much weaker state than in 1997 and with the British and international system in turmoil.

Blair could combine his pro-boss and pro‑imperialist policies with some small reforms that kept union leaders and Labour MPs mostly quiet.

Between 1997 and 2007 NHS funding grew by nearly 6 percent a year. Much of the cash was drained off by private firms but Starmer offers nothing even approaching what happened under Blair.

One lesson from the history of previous Labour governments is that we have to fight now for every possibility of strikes— national if possible but local if necessary.

And resistance doesn’t just take the form of trade union action. We need to combine action on all fronts against all forms of exploitation and oppression.

We need resistance against imperialism and war as well as over pay and public sector funding.

And anti-racism will be central because of the way racists have always tried to gain from the disillusion of Labour supporters as the reality of a Labour government becomes clear.

This is what we mean by fighting Starmer from day one—and it will also mean confronting union leaders who are obstacles to the fightback.

P3 TO DRIVE WELSH ECONOMY



Author: Dan Benn
Job Title: Journalist
Company: Public Sector Executive
Published: July 2nd 2024

Welsh Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Energy and Welsh Language, Jeremy Miles, has called for increased collaboration between the private and public sectors to drive the economy.

Speaking at an event, the secretary outlined the importance of the private and public sectors working together to meet increasing demand in the construction industry, which will play a pivotal role in economic growth in Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary said:

“The construction industry has a huge impact on our economy and society. It creates jobs, drives economic growth, and offers solutions to social, climate and energy challenges. We are already doing a lot of things right in Wales, with many countries looking at our efforts to transition to a prosperous, sustainable future with fair work at its heart.

“That is not to say we do not acknowledge the challenges construction employers face, the creation of a future talent pipeline, the identification of key projects and the need to support innovation are issues that need further backing. My messages to the sector in North Wales is clear: whether through building vital infrastructure for a greener, more sustainable future or maximising opportunities presented by Free Ports and Investment Zones, the construction industry is crucial to shaping the Wales of tomorrow.”

As part of his vision to ensure that rapid growth and improvement is achieved within Wales, Miles set out a number of priorities. These include:
Ensuring that the education system meets the needs of employers, with courses that address specific skills gaps
Creating more employment spaces and investment-ready sites through direct intervention and grants
Making sure that both the public and private sectors use the tools available to them for addressing recruitment, retention, training and supply chain challenges

Alongside these measures, a focus will also be put on the decarbonisation of social housing, with this ensuring that homes are made to be sustainable, high-quality and affordable to heat. This will be done through the new Welsh Housing Quality Standard programme.

Cabinet Secretary for North Wales and Transport, Ken Skates, added:

“Part of my role as Cabinet Secretary for North Wales is to champion the interests of our communities, businesses and institutions. It’s about ensuring our policies reflect the circumstances, challenges and opportunities in the North.

“We can achieve so much more by working together and with exciting developments across the region, this is an exciting time for the sector.”

UK

Why I’m standing against Keir Starmer in his constituency

Starmer is offering more of the same. I’m fighting for an economy that works for people, not corporations

Andrew Feinstein
2 July 2024

Andrew Feinstein Campaigns For General Election |
Mark Kerrison/In Pictures via Getty Images

The UK’s electoral system creates a two-party race between Labour and the Tories, with smaller parties and independent candidates sidelined and largely ignored by the media. openDemocracy is platforming some of these candidates so you can hear what they stand for. Articles published do not necessarily reflect our editorial stance.

Would you rather have austerity delivered by somebody in a red tie or a blue tie? That’s the choice the UK faces at Thursday’s general election.

Because while Labour leader Keir Starmer has claimed his party won’t return us to austerity, he has also refused to rule out public sector spending cuts.

And while he and his shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, often talk about the need for economic growth, they can’t explain how it will be achieved given their refusal to support a wealth tax.

The fact is that Labour is promising more of the same on every issue this country faces. ‘Growth’ is just a cover for more privatisation of public services, more austerity for working people and more freedom for Labour’s billionaire backers to go on accumulating money as though the vast majority of ordinary citizens don’t matter.

We simply can’t suffer another decade of this. That’s why I’m running against Starmer as an independent candidate in Holborn and St Pancras in north London.

I recently visited the plush offices of Camden Council, a Labour-run local authority in the constituency, found just behind Kings Cross station. It’s an area that bears absolutely no resemblance to how it was when I first moved into the area 22 years ago. The distinctive brick warehouses and small independent businesses have long since made way for huge glass office blocks, luxury apartments and overpriced chain restaurants and cafes.

Last year, Camden Council removed the tents and belongings of a small number of people experiencing homelessness who were sleeping directly outside its offices in the hopes of getting help. Instead, they were cleared out and replaced by bike racks and pot plants, their tents crushed in bin lorries.

You might expect a politician who heads a council that destroys the tents of vulnerable human beings to be made to step down. Instead, Camden Council leader Georgia Gould has been rewarded with a Labour safe seat, having been chosen to run as the party’s candidate for Parliament in the new north London constituency of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale.

The decision is as indicative of Starmer’s Labour as Camden Council seeking to maximise its income by greenlighting office and retail space while more than 7,600 households in the borough are stuck on a waitlist for social or council housing. The move risks pushing the poorest members of our community out of it altogether.

This is emblematic of everything wrong with our politics. Billionaire donors and the needs of mega-corporations are prioritised over the ordinary people in this constituency whom Starmer is supposed to represent.

For a representative democracy to work, the people elected have to be of the community, we have to see them in our community, and they have to represent our community. If Starmer is failing to do that in Holborn and St Pancras, what do we imagine he’s going to do across the UK as a whole?

Starmer is offering us the same as the Tories. Across the UK, millions of children live in poverty – 12,000 under-16s in the borough of Camden alone. Labour says it can’t afford to take steps to lift them out of poverty through measures such as scrapping the two-child benefit cap. Yet then we hear, in a series of trailed manifesto pledges, that there will be money to build 20,000 more prison spaces and increase defence spending. It’s an absolute disgrace.

We need a totally different approach to housing and local services that puts the people of Holborn and St Pancras first. That means addressing homelessness, the housing crisis, the lack of council housing and bringing in rent controls.

Starmer isn’t offering this – or any real change. That’s why I’m standing against him. I was an MP in South Africa serving in Nelson Mandela’s government between 1994 and 2001. I exposed corruption at the heart of government and have continued to campaign against it ever since.

I want to use my experience to fight for an economy that works for people, not corporations. As an independent candidate, I will listen to local people, not billionaires. I will work for more and improved social housing, funding for our public services, and an end to the main parties’ support for genocide. I will keep my promises and I will not engage in corrupt deals.

Starmer and his Conservative rival for PM, Rishi Sunak, view us all as stepping stones to power and wealth. We deserve politicians who genuinely want to serve their local communities.

UK

Reform candidate suspends campaign and says ‘vast majority’ of fellow candidates are ‘racist, misogynistic and bigoted’

Basit Mahmood 

Today

Left Foot Forward

'I do not wish to be directly associated with people who hold such views that are so vastly opposing to my own and what I stand for. 

'

Reform UK continues to lurch from one scandal to another. This time one of the party’s candidates has suspended her campaign and defected to the Tories because she believes that the “vast majority” of her fellow candidates are “racist, misogynistic and bigoted”.

Georgie David, the Reform candidate for West Ham and Beckton, said in a statement that the ‘vast majority’ of candidates in the party are ‘indeed racist, misogynistic, and bigoted’.

The BBC reports that David ‘had been “frustrated and dismayed” by Nigel Farage’s failure to tackle concerns about Reform’s candidates, though she said she did not believe Reform’s “senior leadership” are racist’.

She added in her statement: “I do not wish to be directly associated with people who hold such views that are so vastly opposing to my own and what I stand for.

“I also have been significantly frustrated and dismayed by the failure of the Reform Party’s leadership to tackle this issue in any meaningful way, and their attempts to instead try to brush it under the carpet or cry foul play.

“As such, I have now suspended my campaign with Reform, and I am endorsing the Conservative Party – I would encourage all of my fellow patriots to do the same.”

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

 

Why Nigel Farage’s anti-media election interference claims are so dangerous

Lone Sorensen, Associate Professor of Political Communication, University of Leeds

Mon, 1 July 2024 

As the headlines about alleged racism in Reform UK pile up, party leader Nigel Farage has stepped up his own campaign to paint the media as undemocratic.

With a week to go before election day, a Channel 4 undercover investigation caught a Reform canvasser on camera using racist language about the prime minister Rishi Sunak, and saying the army should “just shoot” asylum seekers crossing the Channel. Reform has now dropped support for three of its candidates over a number of offensive comments, and a Reform candidate has defected to the Conservatives over the row.

Farage described the Channel 4 investigation as a “stitch-up on the most astonishing scale”. According to Farage, the canvasser was a paid actor set up by the broadcaster to make his party look racist. Reform has since reported Channel 4 to the Electoral Commission, accusing the broadcaster of election interference.

When Farage appeared on BBC’s Question Time the following day, audience members challenged him about the racist comments and asked why his party attracted extremists. Farage subsequently attacked the BBC for having “rigged” the audience. The organisation was a “political actor”, he claimed.

Speaking at a Reform rally in Birmingham over the weekend to an audience of 4,500 Reform supporters and canvassers, Farage attacked both the BBC and Channel 4 as partisan institutions not worthy of the label of public service broadcasters.

Accompanied by pyrotechnics and Union Jacks, Farage implied that the broadcasters, as part of the establishment, were conspiring to stop Reform in its tracks for fear of its success. He rehearsed this narrative in posts on X, framed as a “POLITICAL INTERFERENCE ALERT”.

This strategy of media populism is a mirror of US president Donald Trump’s rhetoric, and dangerous for democracy. It doesn’t just paint broadcasters as a scapegoat for Farage’s own electoral failure, it sets the scene for complaints of election rigging when the results come in on Friday morning.

Fake news, populist reality

It may be Trump who brought the phrase “fake news” into the mainstream, but Farage has long attacked the supposedly conspiring media elite as part of his populist approach.

Since his election to the European Parliament in 2014, Farage (then leader of Ukip) has repeatedly accused the BBC of bias and double standards. He has presented mainstream media as distorting reality (especially in connection with unfavourable representations of himself) in a way that interferes with people’s ability to practise their democratic rights.

He appears to have ramped up this rhetoric in the final weeks of the election campaign. Just in the last week, Farage has accused The Daily Mail, Google and Ofcom of “political interference” and “election interference” for various alleged mis- and under-representations.

---

Read more: Why is Nigel Farage taking on the Daily Mail?

---

He has now added TikTok to the list, saying they had suspended the live feed from Sunday’s rally because of alleged hate speech. This language and his repeated use of the term “rigged” to describe BBC’s Question Time audience are unlikely to be incidental. They are a striking imitation of Trump’s repeated accusations of the “rigged election” in the US since 2020.

This populist tactic serves two purposes. First, it uses Farage’s status as supposed persona non grata in establishment media circles as proof of his unorthodox truth-telling. As the Reform UK chairman, Richard Tice, introduced Farage at the rally, he complimented Farage’s bravery to stand up against a conspiring establishment, “to tell the truth … against all the pressure to stick at it”.

This self-portrayal of a certain truth-telling faculty is characteristic of populism. Untruthful claims and disinformation – such as some of Reform’s claims about climate change are presented as truth and often taken as such by supporters because they appear to be authentically performed. This authenticity-based understanding of truth is what Trump’s then-campaign manager Kellyanne Conway famously referred to as “alternative facts”.

In the story populists invent about political reality, the truthteller/leader is a saviour of the good people who are being misled by a self-interested and lying political and media establishment.

Preparing for the future

The second purpose of Farage’s tactic of anti-media populism is the long game. By accusing the media of interfering in his electoral success, he can claim after the election that his views have far greater support than the vote suggests. He can then use this claim to build even greater momentum behind him for the following election in five years’ time.

Farage has openly declared his intention to become prime minister in 2029 and to build a movement to that effect during the upcoming parliament. His increasingly Trumpian rhetoric – even launching his campaign with a promise to “make Britain great again” – and the threat this poses to British democracy should be foremost on voters’ and the incoming government’s minds in this election and beyond.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Lone Sorensen receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, grant number AH/X011631/1.

UK

Tory candidate was member of church which endorsed gay conversion therapy

Miriam Cates said she has never advocated the practice.

CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE MIRIAM CATES SAID SHE DOES NOT AND HAS NEVER ADVOCATED WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS ‘GAY CONVERSION THERAPY’ (DANNY LAWSON/PA)

AINE FOX

A Conservative candidate has insisted she does not and has never advocated so-called “gay conversion therapy” after a church of which she was a member and trustee apologised to a man who said he underwent an “exorcism” which attempted to make him straight.

The Diocese of Sheffield issued a statement describing conversion therapy as “unethical, potentially harmful” and something which “has no place in the modern world” after a report upheld the survivor’s complaint.

Miriam Cates, Conservative candidate for Penistone and Stocksbridge in South Yorkshire, was a member of St Thomas Philadelphia Church in Sheffield between 2003 and 2018, and on the Board of Trustees between 2016 and 2018.

An independent investigation by the Barnardo’s charity looked at the case of Matt Drapper, who said he “experienced prayer ministry, which he considers to be an exorcism, and which attempted to change his sexual orientation from gay to straight” in 2014.

For the avoidance of doubt, Miriam does not and has never advocated what is referred to as 'gay conversion therapy'

STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF MIRIAM CATES

The probe, first reported by the BBC, found this complaint – made in 2019 – to be substantiated and that there was a “culture” in the church at the time to be “one in which the presence of evil spirits and ‘ungodly soul ties’ were believed to be the cause of homosexual thoughts, feelings and behaviour and prayers of ‘deliverance’ for homosexuals were not uncommon”.

Mr Drapper has previously told the BBC how he was left feeling “totally empty and not myself” by the experience, which he described as a “trauma”.

The report said it found evidence of such beliefs and practices still being delivered in November 2019, linking “spirit possession and homosexuality and the ways in which these spirits should and could be expelled and how, as a consequence, homosexuals would be ‘healed’”.

The report stated: “It is clear from information provided to us that deliverance ministries in relation to homosexuality was endorsed and supported by the church.”

Deliverance rites were said to be those thought to be able to “exorcise the demons that cause homosexuality” and therefore “allow gay individuals to be ‘healed’”.

A statement on Ms Cates’ behalf said: “During her time as a Trustee, none of these allegations were raised to her knowledge, and no individual raised any such concern with her. If they had she would have taken them very seriously and investigated them.”

It added said there is “no suggestion that any of the events” alleged to have taken place occurred while she was on the board of trustees.

It stated: “For the avoidance of doubt, Miriam does not and has never advocated what is referred to as ‘gay conversion therapy’.

“She has never participated in such activities, and she was not aware – nor was there any way that she could have been aware – of Mr Drapper’s allegations, which were not, to her knowledge, raised during the time that she was on the leadership of the church, and only surfaced after she left.”

Following her time as trustee until 2018, Ms Cates “moved on to a different church for family reasons”, the statement said.

The Diocese of Sheffield said in a statement: “We deeply regret that the process has taken so long and understand the frustrations of those who have been affected. We apologise unreservedly to the survivor for the distress this has caused and to anyone else similarly affected by such practices in the past.

“The Diocese of Sheffield believes, along with the wider Church of England, that conversion therapy is unethical, potentially harmful and has no place in the modern world. The Church of England takes all allegations of misconduct and abuse seriously.”