Saturday, March 29, 2025

Turkey opposition calls mass rally in Istanbul

By AFP
March 29, 2025

Students have kept up their protests, despite a growing police crackdown
 - Copyright AFP Sai Aung MAIN

Fulya OZERKAN

Protesters were to join a mass rally in Istanbul Saturday at the call of Turkey’s main opposition CHP over the jailing of the city’s mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a top figure in the party whose arrest has sparked 10 days of the country’s biggest street demonstrations in a decade.

Imamoglu’s detention on March 19 has also prompted a repressive government response that has been sharply condemned by rights groups and drawn criticism from abroad.

The rally, which begins at 0900 GMT in Maltepe on the Asian side of Istanbul, is the first such CHP-led gathering since Tuesday and comes on the eve of the Eid al-Fitr celebration marking the end of Ramadan, which starts Sunday.

Widely seen as the only Turkish politician capable of challenging President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the ballot box, Imamoglu was elected as the CHP’s candidate for the 2028 presidential race on the day he was jailed.

“Imamoglu’s candidacy for president is the beginning of a journey that will guarantee justice and the nation’s sovereignty. Let’s go to Maltepe.. and start our march to power together!” CHP leader Ozgur Ozel said on X.

The protests over his arrest quickly spread across Turkey, with vast crowds joining mass nightly rallies outside Istanbul City Hall called by the CHP, that often degenerated into running battles with riot police.

Although the last such rally was Tuesday, student groups have kept up their own protests, most of them masked despite a police crackdown that has seen nearly 2,000 people arrested.

Among them were 20 minors who were arrested between March 22-25, of whom seven remained in custody, the Istanbul Bar Association said Friday.

In Istanbul, at least 511 students were detained, many in predawn raids, of whom 275 were jailed, lawyer Ferhat Guzel told AFP, while admitting that the number was “probably much higher”.

The authorities have also cracked down on media coverage, arresting 13 Turkish journalists in five days, deporting a BBC correspondent and arresting a Swedish reporter who flew into Istanbul to cover the unrest.

Although 11 journalists were freed Thursday, among them AFP photographer Yasin Akgul, two more were detained on Friday as was Imamoglu’s lawyer Mehmet Pehlivan, who was later granted conditional release.

Swedish journalist Joakim Medin, who flew into Turkey on Thursday to cover the demonstrations, was jailed on Friday, his employer Dagens ETC told AFP, saying it was not immediately clear what the charges were.

– ‘Accusations 100 percent false’ –



Unconfirmed reports in the Turkish media said Medin was being held for “insulting the president” and belonging to a “terror organisation”.

“I know that these accusations are false, 100 percent false,” Dagens ETC’s editor-in-chief Andreas Gustavsson wrote on X account.

In a post on social media, Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said Stockholm was taking his arrest “seriously”.

Turkish authorities held BBC journalist Mark Lowen for 17 hours on Wednesday before deporting him on the grounds he posed “a threat to public order”, the broadcaster said.

Turkey’s communications directorate put his deportation down to “a lack of accreditation”.

Baris Altintas, co-director of MLSA, the legal NGO helping many of the detainees, told AFP the authorities “seem to be very determined on limiting coverage of the protests.

“As such, we fear that the crackdown on the press will not only continue but also increase.”

burs-hmw/ach


Opinion

Turkey's president arrested his top opponent. Here's why it matters to the beleaguered free world.

(RNS) — Erdoğan's arrest of the Istanbul mayor is aimed at quelling an increasingly vocal political opposition. But Ekrem İmamoğlu is also indispensable to the Turkish president as a symbol of religious toleration — and a foil to Erdoğan's Islamist ideal.


Demonstrators shout slogans during a protest after Istanbul's Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu was arrested and sent to prison, in Istanbul, Turkey, Tuesday, March 25, 2025. (AP Photo/Francisco Seco)


Katherine Kelaidis
March 28, 2025

(RNS) — Earlier this month, the now-former mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem İmamoğlu, was arrested on corruption charges along with 100 other opposition leaders. The arrests have provoked massive demonstrations across the country, not least because many Turks believe the arrests are a thinly veiled crackdown by Turkish strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the increasingly popular opposition as a 2028 general election approaches. İmamoğlu is by far the most prominent of those opposition figures.

The conflict in Turkey in many ways mirrors the domestic tensions playing out in many parts of the world, as the rising tide of authoritarianism does battle against the liberal world order. Turkey’s history and geopolitical position makes its post-postmodern struggle unique, but also of wider concern. With the fate of religious pluralism in the Balkans and (one might argue) the very survival of Christianity in the Middle East in question, the outcome of Turkey’s political conflict is important for most anyone west of Moscow.

For nearly a century after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk invented the modern Turkish state, Turkey was not just secular, but aggressively secular. One of the “six arrows” of Kemalist ideology was the stringently areligious civic life the French call laïcité. If anything Turkey’s version outdid that of France, particularly in its anti-clericalism. The Kemalist consensus began to crumble at the end of the 20th century, however, and the election of Erdoğan to the presidency in 2014 (after 11 years as prime minister) marked what many believed would be the end of its dominance in Turkey.

RELATED: Authoritarian movements depend on political religions — not least in America

This was due in part to Erdoğan’s purported moderate Islamist leanings. In fact, like many budding strongmen of our era, Erdoğan exhibits no particular ideology beyond his own power, but he did recognize the growing power of Islamist factions in the country and has curried favor with them. In 2020, for instance, he oversaw the reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque after its 85 years as a museum.

Modern Islamism and the Ottoman past have also shaped Erdoğan’s foreign policy and soft power strategy. Turkey has funded the building of mosques throughout the Balkans and eastern Mediterranean, including the new Turkish-funded Namazgah Mosque that Erdoğan personally inaugurated in Tirana, Albania, last year, and the massive Ottoman-style mosque in the disputed territory of Northern Cyprus completed in 2018. From Syria to Gaza to Kosovo, Erdoğan has sought to position Turkey as an explicitly Muslim state and himself as the leader of the Muslim world.

The effects for Turkey’s religious minority communities — most notably its significant Christian community — has been devastating. Turkey regularly appears on human rights watch lists, often for violations of religious freedom.

The opposition has seized on this human rights record. The Republican People’s Party, the oldest political party in Turkey, founded by Kemal Atatürk himself, still holds onto its founder’s radical laïcité. İmamoğlu has been so vocal in his support of Istanbul’s Greek Orthodox minority that Erdoğan attacked him in a 2019 speech as a “crypto Greek” and his supporters as Greeks “disguised as Muslims.” An Erdoğan deputy has said there are “many questions” about İmamoğlu’s ethnic and religious identity.

İmamoğlu’s response to these attacks reflect his own commitment to pluralism and the Kemalist tradition, telling The Times, “If I were of Greek origin, I wouldn’t mind to say so… I also condemn people who think they are degrading someone by calling them Greek.”

RELATED: Why are American evangelicals not backing their counterparts in Ukraine?

But the fact that such a response was even necessary highlights what is at stake for Turkey’s religious and ethnic minorities and for the future of religious freedom. Erdoğan still envisions Turkey as a place that has no room for non-Muslim Turks, precisely because his personal opportunities rest on the existence of the quintessential “other” — and for the Ottomanist, that other is still, as it has been for centuries, the Greek.

If Erdoğan is allowed to triumph in his battle against the more tolerant İmamoğlu, the fate of Turkey’s minority groups will inevitably be a darker one. Its dwindling Christian community is watching closely as Ottamanist rhetoric and Islamic policies put them directly in the crossfire. The world must wait to see if the Turkey that emerges from this conflict is Atatürk’s pluralist and secular dream or an Ottoman-inspired authoritarian and nationalist nightmare.

(Katherine Kelaidis, a research associate at the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge, England, is the author of “Holy Russia? Holy War?” and the forthcoming “The Fourth Reformation.” The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of RNS.)

Turkey and the neofascist contagion


Published 

Turkey rally

First published in Arabic at Al-Quds al-Arabi. Translation from Gilbert Achcar's blog.

The events unfolding in Turkey since last Wednesday are extremely serious: they constitute a new and very dangerous step in the country’s slide towards the suffocation of democracy. The arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu  the popular mayor of Istanbul and candidate of his party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), to the next presidential election scheduled for 2028  and the detention of nearly 100 of his collaborators in the municipality of Turkey’s largest city, on charges that combine corruption (the Turkish judiciary should have better investigated corruption in Erdogan’s entourage, starting with his son-in-law) and links to “terrorism”, i.e., contact with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK (at a time when the government is negotiating with this party for a peaceful settlement), is behaviour straight out of the familiar playbook of dictatorships. 

If anyone had any doubt that the charges were fabricated and that the intent was to eliminate the strongest opposition figure to the rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who seems determined to rule his country for life like other autocratic rulers, Istanbul University’s decision to invalidate Imamoglu’s degree on the eve of his arrest leaves no room for doubt. A university degree is one of the requirements for running for president in Turkey, and the university’s decision was based on a completely flimsy pretext, especially since Imamoglu received his degree thirty years ago!

Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the last municipal elections in Turkey, I recalled Erdogan’s role in establishing democracy in his country during the first decade of his rule. Despite his subsequent autocratic drift, including by dismissing those leaders of his party whom he perceived as rivals, I praised his acknowledgement of his party’s defeat in the municipal elections, which distinguished him from several neofascists who do not accept defeat, including Donald Trump who tried to overthrow the electoral process that took place in the autumn of 2020, and still refuses to acknowledge his loss, claiming that the presidency was stolen from him (“Two Valuable Lessons from the Turkish Elections”, 2 April 2024, in Arabic only). 

The moral of this story is that the same man who began his political career with a courageous struggle against a dictatorial regime, and who, during his tenure as mayor of Istanbul, suffered what is very similar to what he is now inflicting on his opponent, the current mayor  this man, who played a commendable role in establishing democracy in his country, has been led by the intoxication of power and the enjoyment of a great popularity, to desire to perpetuate this condition, even if by imposing it coercively at the expense of democracy. And yet, until last year, Erdogan did not cross the qualitative red line separating the preservation of a margin of freedom that allows democracy to survive, albeit with increasing difficulty, and encroaching upon this margin in a dictatorial manner.

This was despite the fact that Erdogan exhibits some neofascist characteristics, by relying on an “aggressive, militant mobilization of [his] popular base” on an ideological ground that incorporates some of the key components of far-right ideology, including nationalist and ethnic fanaticism against the Kurds (in particular), sexism, and hostility, in the name of religion or otherwise, to various liberal values (see “The Age of Neo-Fascism and Its Distinctive Features”, 4 February 2025). His current drift suggests that he is now completing his adherence to the ranks of neofascist regimes with regard to their stance on democracy. In the aforementioned article, I described this stance as follows: “Neofascism claims to respect the basic rules of democracy instead of establishing a naked dictatorship as its predecessor did, even when it empties democracy of its content by eroding actual political freedoms to varying degrees, depending on the true level of popularity of each neofascist ruler (and thus his need or not to rig elections) and the balance of power between him and his opponents.” 

There are two main factors behind Erdogan’s drift towards neofascism. The first is that the neofascist temptation increases whenever an authoritarian ruler faces rising opposition and fears losing power by way of democracy. Vladimir Putin provides an example of this in that his drift intensified when he faced rising popular opposition upon his return to the presidency in 2012 (after a charade of transferring to the prime ministership in compliance with the constitution, which at the time prohibited more than two consecutive presidential terms). At the same time, Putin resorted to inciting nationalist sentiment towards Ukraine (in particular), just as Erdogan later did towards the Kurds. 

The second, and crucial, factor is the rise of neofascism to power in the United States, represented by Donald Trump. This has provided a powerful incentive for the strengthening of various forms of actual or latent neofascism, as we clearly see in Israel, Hungary and Serbia, for example, and as we will increasingly witness globally. The strength of the neofascist contagion is proportional to the strength of the main neofascist pole: the fascist contagion was greatly strengthened, particularly on the European continent, when Nazi Germany’s power went on the rise in the 1930s. The neofascist contagion has become even stronger today, with the United States shifting from a role of deterrent to the erosion of democracy, albeit within obvious limits, to encouraging this erosion, directly or indirectly. The erosion is already underway and accelerating within the United States itself. 

It is thus no coincidence that Erdogan’s attack on the opposition began following a phone call between him and Trump, which Steve Witkoff, Trump’s close friend and envoy to various negotiations, described last Friday as “great” and “really transformational”. Witkoff added that “President [Trump] has a relationship with Erdogan and that’s going to be important. And there’s some good coming  just a lot of good, positive news coming out of Turkey right now as a result of that conversation. So I think you’ll see that in the reporting in the coming days.” (Witkoff’s statement was made two days after Imamoglu’s arrest, even if he was not necessarily referring to that arrest.) Moreover, Erdogan believed he has succeeded in neutralizing the Kurdish movement through recent compromises, which were blessed by his allies of the Turkish nationalist far right themselves (he was proved wrong: the Kurdish movement came out in support of the opposition and the popular protest). He also believes that the Europeans need him, and his military potential in particular, at this critical juncture for them, so that they would not exert any real pressure on him. 

What remains a source of hope in the Turkish case is that Erdogan is facing a popular backlash far beyond what he apparently anticipated. This mass backlash is far greater than what Putin faced in Russia, where the popular movement was atrophied after decades of totalitarian rule. It is far greater than what most of the pioneers of neofascism have been confronted with, including Trump, who has met only very weak opposition from the Democratic Party since his second election. Erdogan is attempting to quash the popular movement by escalating repression (the number of detainees is approaching 1,500 in a country with a prison population of 400,000, including a high percentage of political prisoners and many journalists) at the expense of Turkey’s security, stability, and economy (the Central Bank was forced to spend $14 billion to avoid a complete collapse of the Turkish lira, and the stock market has experienced a sharp decline). 

The ongoing battle in Turkey has become increasingly significant for the entire world. Either Erdogan succeeds in eliminating the opposition, which could require a bloody crackdown similar to Bashar al-Assad’s suppression of the Syrian popular uprising in 2011, thus risking the country’s slide into civil war, or the popular movement will prevail, causing him to backtrack or fall one way or another. If the Turkish popular movement wins, its victory will have a significant impact in galvanizing resistance to the rise of neofascism worldwide.


Turkey: Defend democracy and the rule of law!

MARCH 27, 2025

By Fatma Nur Yoğuran

The cancellation of the diploma of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and his subsequent detention have had a wide repercussion on the public and have led to widespread protests across Turkey. This has created a strong social demand that the principles of democracy and the rule of law must be protected.

Ekrem İmamoğlu is the elected Mayor of Istanbul and a key figure in Turkey’s democratic opposition, who rose to prominence after winning the 2019 municipal elections, defeating the ruling party’s candidate twice, despite significant pressure and interference.

On 19th March 2025, İmamoğlu and over 100 associates were detained by Turkish authorities. His detention is another clear sign of Erdoğan’s deepening autocracy. The Turkish government is silencing opposition voices and dismantling democratic institutions step by step. İmamoğlu represents millions who demand change, justice, and democracy. His arrest is not just about one man — it is about the right of an entire nation to be heard.

“These allegations are politically motivated and baseless,” İmamoğlu’s Legal Team have stated. Critics view the arrest as an attempt to eliminate political rivals ahead of the 2028 elections.

In light of these developments, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) has announced that it will hold a widely attended rally in Maltepe, Istanbul, on Saturday, March 29th, at 12:00. The rally aims to defend democracy, support Ekrem İmamoğlu and increase social awareness against the recent negative action. Attending this rally is a significant opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to democracy and the rule of law, strengthen social solidarity, and make your voice heard against the negativities that are being experienced. Everyone’s contribution is valuable towards Türkiye becoming a more just and democratic country.

London Protest Against Erdoğan’s Autocracy: Stand with Ekrem İmamoğlu

Join us this Saturday at 10 Downing Street at 4pm to protest the unjust arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu.

Why does this matter?

  • Judicial independence is under threat.
  • Voters will is being silenced.
  • Democratic institutions are at risk.

The case against İmamoğlu is not just about one man—it is about the future of democracy in Turkey.

We, as members and supporters of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TİP) in the UK, invite everyone to stand in solidarity with those resisting oppression in Turkey. Let’s raise our voices together!

 Fatma Nur Yoğuran is CHP England Youth Leader.

Labour News Network report: Ismet Aslan released – Trade unionism is not a crime!

Trade unionist Ismet Aslan has been released after six months in prison. The trial will continue, but Ismet will not remain in detention.

Ismet was arrested on October 7th, 2024, along with fellow unionists Giyasettin Yiğit and Yusuf Eminoğlu, charged under Turkey’s anti-terror law, often used against unions and activists. In court, he stated, “I am not a criminal. I am a trade unionist,” explaining his actions as part of his union duties.

A LabourStart campaign helped raise global awareness, with nearly 5,000 supporters showing the power of international solidarity. The next hearing is on July 10th, 2025. We thank everyone who supported the campaign—your solidarity made a difference.

Contact your MP to condemn what has been happening in Turkiye. At a time of  creeping dictatorship internationally, demand the UK government stand up and take action in support of democracy and the rule of law globally!

Image: University students sit beside anti-riot police during a protest in Istanbul after Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu’s arrest and imprisonment. (AP pic) https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2025/03/25/crackdown-on-opposition-tips-turkey-into-financial-turbulence/ Licence: Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0 Deed



Turkey: a mass movement builds against Erdogan’s power grab


Monday 24 March 2025, by Antoine LarracheUraz Aydin


Uraz Aydin answers questions from Antoine Larrache about the mobilization currently building in Turkey after the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul, who is seen as Erdogan’s main rival in the race for the next presidential election.


Can you tell us about the arrest of the mayor of Istanbul?

On the morning of March 19, Ekrem Imamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul, was taken into custody along with around a hundred other mayoral staff on charges of “corruption” and “connection with terrorism”. The day before, his university degree (obtained 30 years ago) was arbitrarily annulled, with the obvious aim of preventing his candidacy in the next presidential election. Ekrem Imamoğlu, having twice won Istanbul’s municipal elections - in 2019 and 2024 - as a candidate for the CHP (Republican People’s Party, secular center-left), has established himself over time as Erdogan’s main opponent.

On March 23, the CHP was due to hold its “pre-elections” to decide on its candidate for the next ballot, normally scheduled for 2028 but most likely to take place earlier, to allow Erdogan to run one last time. Unless there is a constitutional change, which is also under discussion. The aim of this operation is therefore very clear: to render the main opposition candidate ineligible, criminalize his management of Istanbul’s mayoralty and perhaps even appoint an administrator in place of the elected mayor, as has been happening for several years in the municipalities of Kurdistan, in south-west Turkey.

Can you describe the mobilization in the face of this?

Today is the third day of mobilizations. Every day, the CHP calls for rallies in front of Istanbul City Hall. Tens of thousands of people are taking part. Of course, in addition to CHP members and supporters, all sectors of the opposition are mobilizing, including the radical left, against what has come to be known as the “March 19 coup”.

It’s worth remembering that the country has been living in an atmosphere of permanent repression since the Gezi revolt in 2013. The end of negotiations with the Kurdish movement, the remilitarization of the Kurdish question and the resumption of the war, the attempted coup d’état carried out by Erdogan’s former allies and the state of emergency decreed in its wake, the ban on strikes and the repression of the feminist and LGBTI+ movements are the main milestones in the development of authoritarianism articulated to the construction of an autocratic regime led by Erdogan. We are therefore in a country where mobilizations are rare, where the reflex to protest in the street has become quite unusual and risky for ordinary citizens. But despite this and the ban on rallies in Istanbul, there are major mobilizations and, above all, a spirit of protest that can be felt on the streets, in the workplace, on public transport, and so on.

On the second evening, in many parts of Istanbul and dozens of other cities, citizens came out to protest, with the main slogans “Government resign!”, “Down with the AKP dictatorship!”, “No individual liberation! All together or none of us”.

What is the scale of the mobilization among young people?

Precisely the most important and surprising element is the mobilization of university students. Universities have been depoliticized for years, radical left-wing movements are weak and their capacity for action is drastically reduced. So the current generation of students, while probably having grown up with stories of the Gezi revolt told by their parents, has almost no experience of organizing and mobilizing. This is true even of young revolutionary activists, who have not even had the opportunity to “do their job” in universities.

But despite this, through an “electric jolt” as Rosa Luxembourg1 used to say, a spontaneous radicalism is awakening in the universities. There are, of course, many social-economic (objective) and cultural-ideological (subjective) factors that come together to forge this mobilization. We’ll have to think about that later. But the fact that in a country that is becoming poorer, where it is difficult to find work, that offers no “promise of happiness” to young people, where years of study mean almost nothing on the job market, the fact that a diploma can be cancelled with a simple government pressure on the university is also an element that has probably contributed to achieving this jolt, in a sector of youth that was more or less predisposed to it.

What impact is this student radicalization having on the protests?

I think it’s shaking things up, and forcing the CHP to break out of its pre-constructed opposition patterns. As I said, CHP president Özgür Özel has called for a rally outside Istanbul town hall. But it has to be said that no serious preparations had been made to accommodate tens of thousands of people. The main objective was to call on citizens to vote in the pre-elections on March 23 and thus demonstrate Imamoğlu’s legitimacy against the regime, but also to continue the “fight” at the judicial level, by appealing, etc

Faced with this, the slogans most chanted by young people (who made up the majority of rallies in front of the mayor’s office) were “liberation is in the streets, not in the ballot box” or “resistance is in the streets, not in the ballot box”. Faced with this pressure from young people, who succeeded on several occasions in breaking down police barriers in front of universities, who marched en masse in Ankara to ODTÜ University and clashed with the CRS, who forced the police to send riot intervention vehicles to the universities (notably in Izmir), who refused to disperse at the end of official CHP rallies and wanted to march to Taksim (the historic symbolic site of resistance since the May 1st 1977 massacre to the Gezi uprising), the CHP leadership had to give in. Özgür Özel called on the people to “storm the squares”. “If obstacles are erected in front of us on the basis of an order contrary to the law, overthrow them, without hurting the police,” he added. Which is quite exceptional. Özel also agreed to install a second stand at Saraçhane, for the students.

How can we link this situation with what’s happening in Kurdistan, with the peace “process”?

It’s a very contradictory process, but one we’ve already experienced. Let’s not forget that during the Gezi uprising in 2013, when the west of the country was going up in flames, there were negotiations with Abdullah Öcalan, leader of the PKK. And of course, while the radical opposition to the regime usually came from the Kurdish regions, or from the Kurdish movement, this time their participation is naturally more limited. However, we saw that these two dynamics of contestation had converged in the candidacy of Selahattin Demirtaş, of the left-wing pro-Kurdish HDP party in the 2015 elections.

Today, while once again there is a process of “peace” according to the Kurds, of “disarmament” according to the regime (a facet of which can also be seen in the agreements initiated between Rojava and the new Syrian regime), the Turkish state is conducting a campaign of violent repression against the secular bourgeois opposition, journalists... but also against elements of the Kurdish movement. For the Kurds, the regime wants to show (above all to its own social and electoral base) that it still has its iron fist within its grasp, and that there is no question of negotiation but of “putting an end to terrorism”. As for the imprisonment of Imamoglu and other CHP mayors, if one of the charges is corruption, the other is links with or support for terrorism, since the CHP had forged an informal alliance with the Kurdish movement party in the 2024 municipal elections under the name of “urban consensus”.

Another surprising fact is that all demonstrations and gatherings in Istanbul have been banned except for Newroz, a festival celebrating the arrival of spring in the Middle East and the Caucasus, but which has acquired political-national significance for the Kurdish movement over several decades. So it could be said that Erdogan’s regime is trying to take another, decisive step in the construction of its regime, to reinforce its neo-fascist character by subduing the two biggest “chunks”, the secular bourgeois opposition represented by the CHP/Imamoglu and the Kurdish movement.

In the case of the former, by criminalizing it, imprisoning its representatives, perhaps forcing it to change its leadership and candidate, and finally destroying all legitimacy of the elections. As for the Kurdish movement, the regime will probably try to “de-radicalize” it, making it an ally at national and regional level (Syria, Iraq) in the hope that, in exchange for a few gains (of which no details are known at present), the movement will abandon its fight for the democratization of the entire country and guarantee a more peaceful existence with the regime. For the time being, the Dem Party (formerly HDP) has announced that it strongly opposes this “civil putsch” against Imamoglu and the other elected representatives, and that it is calling on the opposition forces to protest together at the Newroz rally on March 23.

Of course, we can’t anticipate the outcome of Erdogan’s two-pronged strategy, but as the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci once said, only the struggle can be foreseen

March 21 2025

P.S.


If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Attached documentsturkey-a-mass-movement-builds-against-erdogan-s-power-grab_a8916.pdf (PDF - 899.5 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8916]

Turkey
Turkey and the Neofascist Contagion
Turkish people will not accept the death sentence for their democracy
Kurdistan: ‘Turkey must choose between the status quo, endless war and peace with the Kurds’.
The Turkish State and the Kurdish Question: Contradictions and fragilities of a new hope
Sudan: Towards peace for warlords?

Antoine Larrache

Antoine Larrache is editor of Inprecor and a member of the leadership of the Fourth International

Uraz Aydin

* Uraz Aydin is the editor of Yeniyol, the review of the Turkish section of the Fourth International, and one of many academics dismissed for having signed a petition in favour of peace with the Kurdish people, in the context of the state of emergency decreed after the attempted coup in 2016.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.


English fuel poverty figures highlight failure to tackle energy bills crisis



MARCH 28,2025

The Government has published the latest English fuel poverty figures for 2024. They show that in 2024, there were an estimated 11.0% of households – 2.73 million – in fuel poverty in England under the Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) metric. 

More older households in fuel poverty

Among households where the oldest resident is aged over 75, there has been a slight increase in the numbers in fuel poverty (10.1% in 2024 up from 9.7%).

The average fuel poverty gap for England in 2024 (the reduction in energy costs needed for a household to not be in fuel poverty) was estimated at £407.

The data also shows the number of households who are required to spend more than 10% of their income (after housing costs) on domestic energy.  In 2024, 36.3% of households (8.99 million) exceeded this threshold, up from 35.5% in 2023 (8.73 million). 

Jonathan Bean from Fuel Poverty Action, commented: “The latest Government fuel poverty statistics expose the complete failure of Government and Ofgem to tackle the energy affordability and fuel poverty crisis.

“A shocking 36.3% of households in England are unable to afford the inflated energy prices we are forced to pay due to a rigged energy market and obscene profits. Many of us are forced to survive the winter huddled under blankets and go without hot water.

“The Government tries to hide the extent of fuel poverty by excluding the millions of us on low incomes struggling with high energy prices based on an often flawed Energy Performance Certificate rating.  But even using its own distorted figures, the Government has failed to address fuel poverty, and is expecting it to actually rise next year.”

Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented: “The measure which is most sensitive to the rising cost of living is creeping up. This shows just how devastating the ongoing cost of living crisis is and what a mistake it was for the Chancellor to axe Winter Fuel Payments.

“It is now high time that the Chancellor finally commits in full to the £13.2bn Warm Homes Plan promised in the Labour Manifesto. This will ensure that millions of people can stay warm every winter. 

“But given that energy bills continue to rise – and even the Office of Budget Responsibility has said that increases in gas prices are harming the economy – the Government must go further. The Chancellor must provide help to those struggling in fuel poverty now, not continue with cuts in vital support to older and disabled people.

“We need a government willing to invest in the solutions to the cost of living crisis – and the future of the country.”

Progress has “flatlined”

Dr Matthew Scott, Senior Policy Officer at the Chartered Institute of Housing, said:
“Everyone should be able to live in a safe, warm home. However, the latest fuel poverty statistics published this morning show that progress essentially flatlined in the final years of the previous Government.

“Through its Warm Homes Plan and updated fuel poverty strategy, the new Government has an unmissable opportunity to reverse this trend. By building on its welcome investment into the Social Housing Fund and Local Grant programmes, the Government can reduce energy bills and improve the health and wellbeing of millions of people before the end of the decade.

“CIH continues to call for the government to allocate the full £13.2 billion to its Warm Homes Plan in the forthcoming spending review, utilising the expertise and experience of social housing providers as key delivery partners.”

Jonathan Bean added: “Government energy efficiency schemes are failing badly as they have only  taken only 0.2% of households out of fuel poverty, even if changes to the Warm Home Discount Scheme are included.  At this rate it will take until 2070 to hit the Government’s 2030 Fuel Poverty Target.   

“One reason for the failure of retrofit schemes is that they have not focussed on the homes with the highest fuel poverty incidence, conversion flats (18.8%).  Instead schemes are biased towards those in detached houses, who have the lowest fuel poverty incidence (7.3%).  A totally new retrofit strategy is needed if the Government is serious about tackling fuel poverty.  

“Electric-only households have double the rate (20.7%) of fuel poverty than gas (10.0%) which highlights the urgency of bringing down inflated electricity prices that are currently quadruple the price of gas.” 

Ofgem’s “cruel tariffs”

Earlier this month, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition was among the charities and consumer groups that warned that Ofgem’s proposals for standing charge reform could see many households end up worse off if they accept one of the proposed tariffs. 

In a submission to the official consultation on the issue,  the Coalition described how consumers would only need to use half of the “typical domestic consumption values” before their bills increased if on a “zero standing charge” tariff.

It argued that the proposals did not move costs away from energy bills and simply “rearranged the deckchairs”, that they presented a flawed version of rising block tariff for consideration and did not contain wider proposals for reform previously put forward.

The National Pensioners Convention also warned the Ofgem consultation on standing charges that their proposals for reform were ‘not good enough’ and that these cruel tariffs should be scrapped.

In its letter of submission before the consultation closed this month, it also told the industry regulator of its disappointment that it has made no effort to reduce energy firms’ inflated, multi-billion pound profits.

Profits up

This week, Ithaca was the latest company to announce what Warm This Winter spokesperson Caroline Simpson called “obscene profits”. She added: “What makes it worse is that Ithaca is holding the UK back by making millions in North Sea drilling while investing nothing in UK renewable energy.

Polling shows time and again UK bill payers don’t want ‘drill baby drill’ they want clean power that also gives us much needed energy security. That is why it is crucial as a country we continue to ramp up our production of homegrown, renewable energy which is abundantly available and the quickest form of power generation to get up and running. And we need to stop the oil and gas profiteers who use the UK bill payers as a cash machine.”

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cj_collective/6992454230 climatejusticecollective Licence: Attribution 2.0 Generic Deed CC BY 2.0

UK

Sewage spills by water companies hit record high but Ofwat hasn’t issued fines



27 March, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

“This has to be the final nail in the coffin for Ofwat, a regulator that has time and again proven it is completely inadequate to protect customers and our beautiful environment.”



Water companies dumped raw sewage in rivers and seas in England for almost 3.61 million hours in 2024, more than ever before.

Environment agency data published today revealed that the duration of spills was up slightly (0.2%) from 3.6 million hours in 2023.

The Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: “These figures are disgraceful and are a stark reminder of how years of underinvestment have led to water companies discharging unacceptable levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes, and seas.”

The Lib Dems have pointed out that the water regulator Ofwat has failed to recoup hundreds of millions in fines it has issued to water companies.

In August 2024, Ofwat recommended penalties of £104m for Thames Water, £47m for Yorkshire Water and £17m for Northumbrian Water for failing to manage wastewater treatment works and their wider sewer network.

In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by the Liberal Democrats, the water regulator Ofwat said “we have not currently issued fines” for any of the enforcement cases they have brought against water companies since 2019.

Ofwat admitted to spending £244,106 on external advice for these investigations which have so far resulted in no fines.

Liberal Democrat Leader Ed Davey said: “This has to be the final nail in the coffin for Ofwat, a regulator that has time and again proven it is completely inadequate to protect customers and our beautiful environment.

“The government should act now to get a new regulator in place to protect British rivers and seas from being pumped with disgusting sewage. It’s time for Ofwat to go.”

Davey added: “We will continue to fight for much tougher regulation of a water industry which is profiting from pollution.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
UK

Number of Islamophobic social media posts aimed at Mayor of London; Sadiq Khan double in a year.

26 March, 2025




At a time of increasing polarisation, with the far-right on the rise, incidents of Islamophobia are increasing, with the number of Islamophobic social media posts aimed at the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan doubling in a year.

According to analysis commissioned by the Greater London authority (GLA), almost 28,000 social media posts referring to Khan included a key Islamophobic phrase last year, a huge increase on the 12,000 sent a year earlier and a more than eight-fold increase from 2022.

The vast majority of abuse was posted on X. It comes after Trump supporter and owner of X Elon Musk reinstated the accounts of far-right figures like Tommy Robinson and also significantly reduced the number of content moderators.

The research also found that 89% of the offending Islamophobic posts about Khan since 2015 had originated on X.

Earlier this year, Khan warned that progressives faced a century defining challenge with the ‘far right on the march’. He called on governments to ratchet up the pressure on social media companies to tackle lies, hate and misinformation, taking particular aim at Musk.

He also said that we should ‘challenge so-called mainstream politicians who are normalising the ideas and language of the far right’.

Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward
UK
Nigel Farage in sexism row over comments about women in the workplace

28 March, 2025 


'Nigel Farage seems to be stuck in the 1970s. He clearly has no idea about the sacrifices women make'




Nigel Farage has been slammed for being “stuck in the 1970s” after making comments suggesting women are less willing to make sacrifices to pursue careers than men.

During a lunch in Parliament, the Reform UK leader said that due to these “life choices”, there are fewer women in senior positions.

When asked why there are more white men in top jobs, Farage said: “I think the truth of it is in many, many cases, women make very different life choices to men.”

He added: “If you look at business, men are prepared to sacrifice their family lives in order to pursue a career and be successful in a way that fewer women are.

“And those women who do have probably got more chance of reaching the top than the blokes.”

Natalie Fleet, the Labour MP for Bolsover, said: “Nigel Farage seems to be stuck in the 1970s.

“He clearly has no idea about the sacrifices women make, how on earth can his party represent them?”

She added: “Perhaps he can explain to women across Britain how his plan to dismantle the NHS would leave them paying thousands more for healthcare. That’s the cost of Farage’s Reform.”

Mimicking Donald Trump’s anti-diversity equality and inclusion (DEI) stance, Farage took the opportunity to hit out at policies designed to improve opportunities for people from minority groups.

The MP for Clacton said “the world of work is changing” due to more women being in work and demographic shifts, but stated that “the idea that you give certain groups privileges not based on merit, but based on skin colour or sexuality or whatever is wrong and it doesn’t work.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
UK

Revealed: Young workers disproportionately affected by ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts

28 March, 2025

Only 8% of young workers would choose a zero-hours contract



Young workers are bearing the brunt of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which the TUC warns are “holding young people back at a key stage in their working lives”.

New analysis by the union body reveals 18-24 year-olds are more than twice as likely to be employed on ‘exploitative’ zero-hours contracts than other workers, with one in 10 affected.

The research reveals that more than half of young workers aged 18-24 are at risk of unfair dismissal, due to having been with their employer for less than two years.

In addition, around one in 10 are excluded from sick pay, as they are more likely to earn below the £123 per week threshold.

Polling commissioned by the TUC shows 76% of young workers want secure hours, while just 8% would choose a zero-hours contract.

In good news for workers, the government’s Make Work Pay agenda will raise the minimum wage and scrap minimum wage age bands to ensure fair pay for young people.

The Employment Rights Bill, which had its second reading in the Lords yesterday, will ban zero-hours contracts, guarantee sick pay from day one, and strengthen unfair dismissal protections.

Workers will still have the option to remain on a zero-hours contract if they want to.

TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “Everyone deserves to start their working lives on a strong footing.”

Nowak said that the government’s Make Work Pay agenda will introduce “common sense reforms to strengthen rights and protections at work” and help put more money in young people’s pockets.

He added: “Britain’s experiment with a low-pay, low-rights economic model has been tested to destruction.

“Those defending the broken status quo are opposing access to better pay and jobs for young people across the country.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward
UK

Gary Stevenson ‘takes down’ GB News host in wealth tax debate on BBC Question Time

28 March, 2025 
Left Foot Forward

“Why are we taxing working people more than billionaires? Tax wealth, not work”



Former City trader and left-wing economist Gary Stevenson took down GB News host Camilla Tominey on BBC Question Time last night.

Asked what the solutions to plugging the UK’s economic deficit are, Stevenson said that the tax system needs to be “shifted”, to focus on taxing wealth, instead of making working people pay.

Stevenson said: “We have ordinary working people paying 30, 40, 50, 60% [tax], while people like the Duke of Westminster can inherit £10 billion and pay nothing.”

He said that the current system is already sucking wealth out of the middle class, “it’s already completely bankrupted the working class and it’ll bankrupt the government which is what we are seeing”.

The Youtuber and activist said that this will lead to a situation where “There will be poverty, broad poverty” and “no middle class left”.

“Tax the billionaires, of course you should,” he said, to a round of applause from the audience.

GB News host Camilla Tominey argued that in European countries such as France and Norway, they’ve tried to implement a wealth tax but had to scrap it as it has failed.

Stevenson responded to this stating, “Whenever people suggest this to me, I always think of the Conservatives second home stamp duty tax.”

He said that when it was introduced, he was surprised the Tories were taxing the rich, then he discovered there was an exemption if people bought seven homes or more at once, which the ex-Tory chancellor did.

Stevenson continued: “I understand it’s difficult to tax rich people because politicians are rich people, they’re funded by rich people and they put loopholes in the system that mean rich people don’t pay them, and it ends up being paid by working people.

“That doesn’t mean we don’t do it. If you don’t do it, working people will be poor.”

Clutching at straws, Tominey took a cynical swipe at trade unions, asking whether it could be guaranteed that wealth tax receipts go to the poor, not “public sector pay rises for train drivers already on good wages”.

People on social media have been praising Stevenson for his strong performance on Question Time. One user on X said: “Gary Stevenson doing God’s work on #bbcqt“.

Another commented: “The look on Camilla Tominey’s face is priceless. You can almost see the panic on her face as she thinks oh s*** how can I defend that.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

Dinner table gossip


 March 26, 2025

Bill Bowring reviews Get In: The Inside Story of Labour under Starmer by Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Pogrund, published by The Bodley Head.

In her front cover endorsement Laura Kuenssberg says “Stuffed full of scoops…revealing who’s really in charge.” And that is not Sir Keir Starmer KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, 2008 to 2013, the job, as Chief Prosecutor, in which he was evidently most at home. The authors, a political columnist for The Times, and Whitehall Editor at the Sunday Times respectively, conclude that: “Their political project was predicated on this unpolitical leader doing as he was told.”

Who were “they”?

There is no question that the hero of this book is Morgan McSweeney, Downing Street Chief of Staff since October 2024, and Labour Party campaign manager from November 2022. McSweeney has no fewer than 59 entries in the Index, and appearances on almost every page. Right at the start, McSweeney is introduced, at a meeting with Jeremy Corbyn, no less, at a meeting in April 2019, as “the man from West Cork… the mastermind of a deception without precedent in British politics.”

But even earlier in the book an inanimate hero appears, “a south London dinner table”. This object makes many appearances in the book, and is of particular interest to me.

In 1978, I was elected to Lambeth Council as Councillor for Herne Hill, which included Railton Road, the centre of the first Brixton riots in April 1981. I was encouraged to stand for election by colleagues at the Brixton Advice Centre in Railton Road, where as a recently qualified barrister I volunteered as a housing adviser, and went on to represent squatters in court. This brought me into sharp conflict with the Labour leader Ted Knight, a true Municipal Socialist, although we went on to become comrades and friends. I was elected for a second four-year term in 1982, for Angell Ward, and in 1986 was, with Ted and my other Labour comrades, surcharged £106,000 and banned from holding office for five years, for “wilful misconduct”, resisting Thatcher’s devastating attack on local government. The Greater London Council was abolished by her in the same year.

Why the dinner table?

All is revealed in Chapter 4. “Labour’s strategy was really written by the kitchen cabinet which met in secret on Sunday evenings at the Kennington home of Roger Liddle, a Labour peer and old friend of Peter Mandelson’s from their days as councillors under Ted Knight.” Another key conspirator was Wes Streeting, “the smooth talker all present hoped would one day lead the party.”

Liddle and Mandelson were elected to Lambeth Council with me in 1978, and were close cronies, united in their hatred and contempt for the left in the Lambeth Constituency Labour Parties. Indeed, in 1981, Liddle was a founder member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and left Labour until the SDP was dissolved in 1988. He re-emerged as a Special Adviser to Tony Blair in 1997, and on 19th June 2010 became a Labour Peer as Baron Liddle of Carlisle. He was introduced in the House of Lords by… Lord Mandelson and Lord Rodgers, another founder of the SDP and later Lib Dem peer.

Mandelson did not stand in 1982, did not join Liddle in the SDP, rose in the Labour Party, was close to Blair, and was famously obliged to resign government positions in 2000 (because of a loan which enabled him to buy a house in Notting Hill) and in 2001 (a passport application scandal). He went on to become EU Trade Commissioner, and in 2008 was also created a Baron. Now, as a Starmer crony, he has a really dreadful job, UK Ambassador to Washington.

The next sighting of the dinner table is virtual, an online meeting of Liddle’s supper club on  4th May 2020, in lockdown. Some months later, “over dinner at Roger Liddle’s on 8th March”, McSweeney described the tuition fees pledge as a “bribe”. McSweeney believed that identity politics was an electoral dead end. “Over dinner at Roger Liddle’s his circle had bemoaned the supposed co-option of racial politics by the Corbynite left.”

At the same meeting, McSweeney told “his audience at Roger Liddle’s supper club” that the EHRC inquiry, engineered with help of his work with the Jewish Labour Movement, would be Starmer’s Clause IV moment, “the definitive, irreversible break from the past.”

In October, “over dinner at Roger Liddle’s, [McSweeney] apprised his friends of the political strategy that could – would? – make Starmer prime minister within 5 years.” And in “early December he returned to Roger Liddle’s dining table. He spoke with a new optimism. Corbyn had been humiliated.” Later, in early December 2020, McSweeney again enlightened his friends  at Roger Liddle’s.

Fast forward to May 2021, and “As well as predicting a defeat in Hartlepool, McSweeney had told his friends at Roger Liddle’s dining table that the May elections would ‘test all our systems as if running a general election campaign’.” In the aftermath of Hartlepool, “news of [Angela Rayner’s] supposed ambitions had even reached Roger Liddle’s dining table…” When there was the possibility of Starmer resigning, “Neither Rayner nor Mahmood knew of the Lambeth dinners hosted by Roger Liddle at which Streeting was ever-present.”

Recounting the events of 2024, the authors reveal McSweeney’s hatchet man, “the impish Matthew Faulding, a friend and protégé of McSweeney, and regular attendee of Roger Liddle’s supper clubs.”

The two authors of this gossip-stuffed volume must have a hot line to this table, which acquires a totemic significance for them as the location of the successful plot – which never included Starmer. Or perhaps their source is the ex-SDP Baron himself.

One wonders if one should feel sorry for the pawn, Starmer himself?

Bill Bowring was a Lambeth Labour Councillor from 1978 to 1986.



Spring Statement: ‘Government should break the disability-poverty link, not entrench it’



As a Liverpudlian who moved to Middlesbrough to study during the Thatcher years, I was reminded last week about Yosser taking the same journey to seek work. Alan Bleasdale’s much acclaimed drama ‘boys from the Black Stuff’ may well get a repeat in light of Liz Kendall’s proposed welfare reforms.

The words ‘gizza job’ and ‘I can do that!’ from Jimmy ‘Yosser’ Hughes as he watches the demolition of a Tate and Lyle factory in 1980’s Liverpool has resonance today for people struggling with life and being workless. Like Yosser, many of us want to work but encounter barriers to opportunity, including sneering attitudes and systemic discrimination.

Instead of setting out proposals to support people into work from the outset, the government has woven a narrative about cutting benefits by £5bn and shifting resources to defence. They are indeed economic pressures that have to be addressed but not at the cost of disadvantaged people or through austerity plus.

Things were not helped in the days prior to the Welfare Statement with Wes Streeting taking to the airways to question the legitimacy of anxiety, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) and poor mental health being experienced by many young people. The tone was reminiscent of Yosser being labelled a lazy ‘scrounger’ rather than his loss of self-worth due to the stigma of being jobless and having to deal with psychiatrists, social workers and creditors.

‘Reducing benefits doesn’t drive people into work but deeper into poverty’

Liz Kendall was somewhat late pitching in with claims about the value of work and respecting people’s dignity, but nonetheless a welcome change in tone. In her Commons Statement she rightly said: “disabled people and people with health conditions who can work should have the same rights, choices and chances to work as everybody else.”.

It wasn’t enough though as she laid out a set of proposals which leave most claimants with uncertainty about consequences for themselves. Delivered in the context of reducing budgets, the government has created an unnecessary maelstrom of fears. They would be wise to give some clarity on who will be protected.

Reducing benefits doesn’t drive people into work but deeper into poverty. The Department of Work and Pensions’ own figures claim that, by 2029/30, more than three million families who currently receive benefits or will be recipients in the future will suffer an average loss of £1,720 per year. The government’s welfare changes will also push 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into relative poverty.

‘Ill thought out’ or ‘strong performance’? Reeves’ Spring Statement divides MPs

This is the worry with the cut to the means-tested health element of universal credit. People currently assessed as having “limited capability for work-related activity” (LCWRA) receive £4,992 a year in addition to the standard rate and are not expected to work. Even though the standard rate is set to increase, it won’t match what many will lose from the reduced health top up and nobody under 22 will qualify. The freeze in the health element of universal credit is also set to hit future claimants particularly hard, with 730,000 future recipients facing a staggering average loss of £3,000 per year.

Collapsing Work Capability Assessments (WCA) into Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Assessments will have a significant negative impact for a potential million claimants where new criteria excludes them from PIP and/or the health element of Universal Credit. Whatever lines are drawn the potential to move people closer or over the cliff edge is alarming.

Reforms include merging Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) into a single contributory benefit. The new time limit proposal will be concerning to many long-term claimants. Whilst the ‘Right to Try’ Guarantee is encouraging, it isn’t applicable to some disabled people with long-term conditions that will not improve.

‘Despite talk about reasonable adjustments, people find themselves pushed out’

Conservative failure over the last 14 years to bring down NHS waiting lists means that too many people are unable to work. Tackling the backlog in appointments, diagnostics and treatment to significantly contribute to people’s fitness and wellbeing to work. Yet the uncertainties surrounding benefit reform could exacerbate people’s circumstances, resulting in additional public services being needed. All this re-assessment will add to people’s stress and bring GP’s more administrative burdens.

The announcement that tailored employment support will be funded with an additional £1bn is welcome. It will be important for the government to engage with disability organisations to shape this provision, alongside listening to their concerns about proposed changes to benefits. Access to Work provides a range of support to disabled people in employment but has a woeful track record in providing adequate support in a timely way, resulting in some people losing their job.

The range of jobs many of us could do are somewhat limited. Liz Kendall is unlikely to employ someone who is blind like me to cut her hair, rewire the family home or drive her around Job Centres that are apparently bulging with prospects.

Employment initiatives tend to focus on recruitment with little regard to retention. Acquiring a health condition or experiencing the onset of disability is common during working life. Despite much talk about reasonable adjustments, people find themselves pushed out. Employers lose experienced, skilled and committed workers because they fail to understand things can be done differently.

Many disabled people working in public services will be worried about the threat of redundancy following Sir Keir Starmer kickstarting ‘Project Chainsaw’ with NHS England and Pat McFadden signalling cuts to the wider Civil Service. There has been no indication from the government that disabled people will be protected in any way.

READ MORE: Spring Statement: Reeves under fire from Labour’s three biggest unions

‘Labour is in danger of reconstructing poverty, not breaking the link between disability and poverty’

Technological improvements frequently make job tasks more difficult for disabled people because adaptations do not keep pace with mainstream changes. I managed Access to Work contracts across the UK during the 1990’s when blind telephonists were being laid off by banks, public services and other employers due to switchboards being replaced by direct dialling and information points being merged into large customer call centres. Generally speaking, the new kit wasn’t accessible and new ways of working failed to be inclusive. Whilst some people learned new skills, many were made redundant and left to languish on benefits. We are always playing catch up epitomised by the government publishing the Green Paper last week, but still accessible versions are not available.

Work in the future is set to be even more transformational and widespread with artificial intelligence taking on routine administrative and data intensive roles. Improved productivity will help Britain’s competitiveness but there are serious risks for the employability of disabled people in this accelerating complex workforce.

The daily living component of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) covers 8 categories, from the ability to prepare food to making decisions about money. There are 2 categories for the mobility component. Under current rules, claimants are given the standard rate if they score between eight and 11 points across all categories on either component, while scores over 12 receive the enhanced rate. Changes to the Daily Living component means someone who scores 4 points in just 1 category will qualify whereas someone scoring consistently across most categories which accumulate a higher result would not. The spiralling PIP budget is unlikely to be brought under control without people with ‘less severe conditions’ not being eligible.

My overwhelming sense is that Labour ministers are driven by economic choices rather than bringing disabled people into the mission to breakdown barriers to opportunity. Labour is in danger of reconstructing poverty, not breaking the link between disability and poverty. The absence of a comprehensive Disability Strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people suggests the foundations of these reforms are weak. The overall costs of benefits will no doubt fall but whether securing positive outcomes for sick and disabled people are ambiguous. The devil will be in the detail to whether adequate protections are robust, support is effective and those of us calling to ‘gizza job’ works.



The return of disability scapegoating

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward


Fast forward 14 years since the Sun's repugnant 'Beat the Cheat' campaign, and the same misguided and exaggerated vilification of disabled people has resurfaced, this time under a Labour government.



The cyclical nature of British politics, perpetuated by a media ecosystem that endlessly regurgitates the same ‘outrages,’ is in full force once again.

More than a decade has passed since the Sun’s repugnant ‘Beat the Cheat’ campaign, which encouraged vigilant citizens to report their disabled neighbours to a benefit fraud hotline.

The media frenzy came as the then-chancellor George Osborne tore into the benefits system, fuelling a toxic rhetoric that permeated the right-wing media narrative, which fed into the public discourse around social security.

There were 1,788 recorded incidents of disability hate crime in England and Wales in 2011, an increase of more than 18% on the total for 2010 and the highest since the data was first recorded in April 2010. Yet in the same year, there were just 523 convictions for the offence.

Disability charities had little doubt that the worsening climate was being driven by the demonisation of disabled individuals as ‘benefit scroungers.’ The Department for Work and Pensions came under fire for its reckless rhetoric, particularly its suggestion that three out of four people receiving incapacity benefits were faking disabilities.

Fast-forward 14 years, and the same misguided and exaggerated vilification of disabled people has resurfaced, this time under a Labour government. In her Spring Statement this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the health element of Universal Credit will be cut by 50 percent for new claimants by 2029/30 before being frozen. Reeves said this is to meet Labour’s fiscal rules: balancing the budget so day-to-day costs are covered by revenues and ensuring debt falls as a share of GDP within five years.

The Spring Statement followed an earlier announcement of the government’s plans to slash £4.8bn from the welfare bill. Most of these savings will come from personal independence payments (PIP), with the eligibility threshold raised, meaning an estimated one million disabled people will lose their benefits.

The ‘wrong choice’

The welfare cuts will leave an estimated quarter of a million more people, including 50,000 children, in relative poverty after housing costs across the country by the end of the decade, according to the government’s own impact assessment.

As the true impact of the welfare reforms becomes clearer, a growing rift is emerging within Labour ranks. More than a 20 Labour MPs have said publicly that they will not back the government when proposed welfare reforms are voted on in Parliament.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has also weighed, saying the government is making “the wrong choice” by restricting disability benefits.

Ahead of the Statement, people with disabilities and campaigners for disability rights gathered in protest at the cuts up and down the country.

“Disabled people will not allow themselves to be made scapegoats for Rachel Reeves cuts while millionaires remain untouched by cuts,” said Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC).

Writing in the Times, Reeves defended her handling of the economy, saying her plan was starting to “bear fruit” with wages up and interest rates down.

“I won’t shy away from the challenges we face, and change won’t happen overnight,” she said. “But the prize on offer to us is immense.”

As we saw in the 2010s, fuelled by government policy, right-wing media assaults on disabled people have resurfaced recently with alarming hostility.

In a particularly revolting post on X, Tom Harwood, deputy political editor at GB Newswrote: “Make all the free cars the government gives out to people with autism or ADHD look like this and see how many people *really* need to claim them.”

Similarly, during a segment on GB News, presented as a debate on whether PIP payments are justified, health secretary Wes Streeting was provocatively asked why someone with ADHD should be receiving a £52,000 BMW through the Motability scheme.

“Why on earth do you need a taxpayer-funded car with ADHD?” the presenter pressed.

Instead of defending the Motability scheme, Streeting capitulated to the narrative pushed by the right-wing network. He responded: “I think that is a very good challenge and one of the reasons why we are looking at the whole issue of welfare reform.” This is in spite of a recent parliamentary report which highlighted the benefits of the scheme to many disabled adults who, unlike their non-disabled counterparts, often lack access to a car and face significant financial challenges. Perhaps Wes hadn’t read the report.

In fact, the Motability scheme is, bizarrely, a particular bone of contention for the right.

‘The Mobility scheme was never designed to buy 50-grand Mercs for bedwetting boy racers in balaclavas with made-up mental illnesses. Scrap it now!’ bellowed Richard Littlejohn’s headline in the Daily Mail.

In a classic case of right-wing Groundhog Day, Littlejohn even admits that it was “14 years ago today, in the wake of the financial crash,” when he first railed against the Motability scheme.

“Even then I was astonished to learn that the government was leasing flash German cars for people on disability benefits,” he continued.

But his particular gripe focuses on the rising number of Motability users, with a record 815,000 people enrolled in the scheme, a jump of 170,000 from the previous year, according to data from, well, the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Sigh, yes, the think-tank that always seems to be behind the sensational headlines fuelling right-wing outrage. It’s a classic case of right-wing media conveyor belt propaganda, getting an ostensibly credible think-tank or organisation to produce a piece of ‘research’ on a topic they are preoccupied with, which is then heavily promoted in the right-wing media.

For some context: the Motability scheme was established in 1978 to provide an affordable way for people with disabilities to lease cars, wheelchair-accessible vehicles, scooters, or powered wheelchairs. It has since helped millions of disabled people, and their families, regain mobility and independence.

The scheme is managed on a day-to-day basis by Motability Operations Ltd, under contract to the Motability Foundation. The Motability Foundation also provides charitable grants to help disabled people access the scheme and make the most of their vehicles. These grants are means-tested to ensure support is directed to those who need it most.

There is some evidence of limited abuse of the system: the iPaper for example, reported that 11,000 benefit claimants have had the taxpayer-funded cars taken from them for misuse, a fairly low percentage it has to be said. Nonetheless, it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with. But sadly, it’s been used by certain factions on the right to fuel negative sentiment towards the disabled

.

The outrage even earned a double-page ‘special report’ in the Daily Mail, entitled: ‘The most outrageous benefits scandal of all.’ The report starts by focusing on one alleged Motability claimant ‘scammer.’ “It was only when his mother came under investigation for suspected benefit fraud that a different picture of his physical abilities emerged,” the article claims, adding:

“DWP staff not only observed him walking a mile unaided through the Devon town of Axminster with a guitar slung across his back but also lifting heavy weights at a local gym.”

Yes, the actions of one man are framed as representative of hundreds of thousands, if you take the Daily Mail’s reporting at face value.

‘Under strain’

Away from the clamour of the right-wing welfare-haters, the Resolution Foundation provides an explanation as to the rise in disability benefit spending.

In its ‘Under strain – investigating trends in working-age disability and incapacity benefits’ report, the foundation argues the primary driver for the rise is not higher benefit generosity, but simply a growing number of working-age claimants. As Britain ages, becomes less healthy, and experiences a higher prevalence of disability, more people require support, either due to work restrictions or additional needs.

The foundation suggests that to reduce benefit spending, attention must focus on addressing the underlying causes of health conditions and impairments that limit the ability to work. This requires coordinated efforts from the NHS, public services, and employers, in addition to the DWP and Treasury, it says.

Less unpopular than increasing debt or taxes?

In her Spring Statement, Reeves argued that the UK has to ‘move quickly in a changing world’ and confirmed a £2.2bn increase in defence spending. Such increases require sacrifices elsewhere, and this has been broadly used to justify the cuts to welfare.

Writing in the FT, Stephen Bush notes how the problem for Keir Starmer is that British voters are generally opposed to all the ways you could potentially pay for increased defence spending.

He points to recent polling that shows cutting unemployment and disability benefits is more popular than raising government debt or taxes on individuals.




Bush argues, the government is over-indexing on “voters don’t like tax rises” and under-indexing on “can we keep Britons safe without being willing to court unpopularity over tax?”

In other words, instead of merely following the latest polls and focus groups, the government should show leadership, and in doing so, perhaps earn some respect.

Why not a wealth tax?

Which brings me to the issue of wealth tax. Advocates argue that by not implementing one, the UK is missing out on £460 million a week, which could help fund defence.

Polling even shows overwhelming public support for a wealth tax. A new poll for the TUC found that 71 percent of the public believe the wealthy should pay more tax to fund public services. It also found that 65 percent of UK adults would ‘have more trust in politicians’ if government improved public services.

There are arguments against the wealth tax: that billionaires will up sticks and go elsewhere (they don’t); that it kills off enterprise (it doesn’t); and that people hide their money (that bit is true). Maybe a truly radical government would really change the relationship between direct and indirect taxation and consider the virtues of hypothecated taxes. That though would really put the cat among the right-wing pigeons, including those in the Treasury.

There is little evidence that Starmer and co will embrace such a radical policy, perhaps out of fear of how the right-wing media would inevitably react.

And it’s not difficult to understand their fear in this sense. For the right-wing media, Labour’s approach to welfare reform is still too moderate and costly.

Andrew Neil’s Daily Mail headline last week summed it up:

“Is that it? An opportunity of a generation to tackle Britain’s bloated welfare bill has been squandered. And we’ll all the poorer for it.”

Neil criticised the reforms proposed by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, claiming they amounted to little more than a “tinker here, a dabble there, and a promise of more money for a system already wallowing in it.”

“It’s turned out to be a modest exercise in fiscal arithmetic rather than a much-needed radical reform,” he continued

.

Neil’s right about one thing – Labour needs to be more radical, radical in challenging the right and their sensationalist, fear-mongering headlines. Targeting people with disabilities to placate these voices will only alienate the voters Labour should be courting.

As former Labour chancellor John McDonnell urged ahead of this week’s Spring Statement, Labour should focus not just on short-term economic stability but on addressing long-term inequality.

“This government has one last chance to take a progressive path. Otherwise, we’re at the point of no return,” McDonnell wrote.

Sadly, his advice was ignored.



Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch