UK

How we are winning UNISON for the left

HubMP2012

MARCH 18, 2026

Dan Sartin reflects on UNISON’s recent General Secretary election.

Something staggering happened on December 17th, 2025. UNISON, the UK’s largest trade union, elected a new General Secretary – Andrea Egan – a candidate standing on a clear and unashamed socialist platform. This marked arguably the biggest win for the left since Jeremy Corbyn saw off the ‘chicken coup’ in 2016.

Why was UNISON the unlikely focus for this change of fortune? After all, UNISON had been in the iron-grip of the Labour right since its inception as a union in 1993. Decades had seen the union’s right-wing bureaucracy entrench itself and consolidate power. The resultant political culture was stifling and was a direct contributor to UNISON’s organisational inefficiency and failure to win industrially for members.

Years in the making

Like all hard-won changes, this one was years in the making. In 2016, UNISON Action was created as a new left caucus within the union. UNISON Action helped propel the left to become a more effective opposition within UNISON’s governing body, its National Executive Council (NEC). It did well in the 2019 NEC elections, albeit not winning a majority. Unity on the left in UNISON did not hold, however. By the time of the 2020 UNISON General Secretary election, UNISON Action was wound up following the Socialist Party’s decision to stand its own candidate. This led to the creation of Time For Real Change, a new left formation without Socialist Party comrades, which ultimately went on to prove itself the most successful left group in UNISON’s history.

Time For Real Change retained a remarkable unity of purpose. Its candidate in the 2020 General Secretary election, Paul Holmes, achieved a record number of votes for a lay member, coming second to Christina McAnea with 34 per cent of the vote in a four-horse race.

Lessons learnt 2021-25

Time For Real Change built on this progress and the following year in 2021 achieved an overall majority on the union’s NEC. This was a huge breakthrough, sending shockwaves through the bureaucracy, and naturally enough led to a bitter fightback from the right-wing of the union throughout 2021-25. These were tough years with many ups and downs, but all comrades who engaged in those struggles to win UNISON for its members learnt and improved from them in a variety of ways.

By the time of the 2025 General Secretary election, years of comradely working on the NEC and its committees throughout 2021-25 rebuilt trust to a level that the Socialist Party agreed not to stand a candidate. Andrea Egan stood with the endorsement of Time For Real Change following a contested selection process amongst its supporters. The selection was held informally due to Time For Real Change’s necessary lack of any constitution (such formalisation could have been against the union’s election rules set by the right and could have led to disciplinary action being taken against UNISON members). But it was held with enough rigour and transparency that all parties were satisfied with the outcome and committed to work to elect Andrea Egan.

Having one candidate, and the comradely selection process used to identify her, was not the only reason for the left’s success.

Sheer hard bloody work

Winning an election against an incumbent candidate with the backing of the union’s bureaucracy was never going to be easy. UNISON’s rules allow for its paid staff to become its members. They cannot benefit from UNISON’s bargaining or its individual representation for members, but they do have a right to stand for election to its General Secretary position and to take a full part in campaigning in that election.

Time For Real Change activists needed to overcome several inbuilt disadvantages. Of foremost importance in countering these was the capacity for sheer hard work amongst lay activists, and the discipline and commitment required to get campaigning tasks done and on time, over an extended period. Hundreds of comrades across the union’s regions and nations played a role in getting Andrea Egan elected. They should all take a bow.

Campaigning is an ‘extra’ for lay activists, done after the end of the working day or before it starts, on top of the day job and the union commitments reps have. The determination to stick to the plan and get the job done was critical. For Andrea’s core campaign team, and their candidate, this meant daily weekday meetings for over a year prior to the voting period, plus weekend and evening meetings. It was gruelling but making the personal sacrifices to find the time to grind out the victory, task by task and campaign output by campaign output, was what made the difference. This is a lesson we would do well not to forget.

Trust your comrades

Time For Real Change has a collective, informal leadership. For the reasons above, it could not be constituted. Time For Real Change worked and works well because of an implicit trust, shared between comrades at all its levels. This trust is built by UNISON branch activists and reps through years of their shared experience and understanding of the union, its bureaucracy and its shortcomings. The difficult and punitive internal culture, which previous General Secretaries presided over, inevitably brought activists together in a spirit of comradeship and defiance. Through years of frustration and dissatisfaction came, over time, an acceptance of the primary and overriding need to win internal union elections if things were ever going to change.

Time For Real Change has circles of informal leadership and activity: at its core, in its regions, in its service groups, and in its self-organised (equalities) groups. This way of working evolved organically and as a result led to semi-autonomous activity taking place at all levels throughout UNISON’s multiple elected structures. Time For Real Change works without a formal constitution or elections of officers, and its success is based on trust and toleration. It might sound simple, but we have seen recently what happens to left projects when trust is lost.

A radical manifesto

Andrea Egan’s election manifesto was developed similarly through an informal but nevertheless democratic and participatory series of meetings of Time For Real Change supporters from across the union. This development process again was one rested on trust, which led to a comprehensive final manifesto which all supporters could sign up to and be proud of. The manifesto and how it was arrived at was a contributory factor to the election win, as it spoke to the union’s activists and members about what UNISON could and should become.

But one particular manifesto commitment was and remains key to reinforcing the trust required for organisational success. The commitment for the Time For Real Change candidate to only take a worker’s wage if elected (and not the £181,000 salary package on offer) played this dual role.

A worker’s wage

It is probably the most important single pledge for members. It tells them that the candidate is motivated to do the role for the right reasons, and has no interest in rising above them, and indeed will do the job better by remaining ‘one of them’. In a union with hundreds of thousands of low-paid public service workers, this is an important signal and indicates also the care that will be taken of the hard-earned subs members pay to the union.

But more than this, it is a signal to Time For Real Change comrades ourselves that we, as a movement determined to democratise and build a union fit for our members and which will also serve the country better, do not put forward our leaders for personal gain or profit. This reinforces trust and the relationship between Time For Real Change and our own leaders, whom we increasingly hope to elect and see within all the union’s structures over time. We are all committed to this industrial and political project for our union, and this commitment transcends and must continue to transcend any desire for personal reward over and above a worker’s wage.

The worker’s wage principle is one we should be discussing more within our labour movement. If we are ever to be in a position to win trust again with the UK electorate, as we were on the precipice of achieving in the 2017 general election, there is a role for the worker’s wage principle. We need to convince a rightly cynical electorate that we are different and we aspire to power for different reasons than other politicians. Mandelson and his like mean we as the left must be clearer than ever that we are not motivated by personal gain, as has become ubiquitous in Parliament.

If it ain’t broke…

Time For Real Change’s forced informality and ways of working have served the left well.We havedecisively wona critical election for the leader of the UK’s biggest trade union. But within UNISON, because of its complex structures, the job is only half done, if that. There are multiple poles of power within UNISON and if you are not able to influence them all, you can be held back.

Time For Real Change cannot therefore afford to take its foot off the pedal. It must forge ahead. We have internal Service Group elections starting from 1st April to 13th May, and absolutely vital NEC elections in Spring 2027.

Time For Real Change cannot spend its next year wrangling over its own structures or we will miss the opportunity in front of us. There is a trade-off because in practice UNISON activists only have so much spare time, given the multiple competing pressures of day job or jobs, union work supporting members, union work within elected positions, commitments to family and friends and so on. The priority must be to continue to focus on our objectives of winning elections and preparing the conditions to allow our new General Secretary to succeed. We will not be able to do both successfully.

Nor has Time For Real Change been a forum for the left to debate every issue in UNISON and come to agreed positions. Time For Real Change is a broad left coalition, focused on winning power and how best to do that. If comrades want to change the union’s policy or practice, there are ample democratic structures available within the union itself to force those debates and effect change.

An urgent task for Time For Real Change is to draw more supporters into its activism, and our shared challenge will be to help those comrades into our networks where they can be supported to do the critical work still needed to build the left within UNISON.

Our winning candidate

For a union with over one million members, there was a consensus that this time the left should stand a candidate who was a woman. Andrea Egan is not just any woman candidate, however. She is the real deal: a working class lay member and fighter, with acumen, talent and capability in buckets. We are proud of her and thrilled to see her elected, as we know what UNISON could now become, if the left can maintain the same work ethic, trust and tolerance which led to the electoral breakthrough itself.

We as UNISON activists can already see the benefits of Andrea’s interventions in the media, whether defending migrant workers from Labour Government attacks or making clear our union’s demands for peace even when the leadership of the Party we affiliate to prefers indiscriminate bombing. These interventions would never have happened under previous UNISON General Secretaries, and we must not take them for granted.

But there is of course still a massive job ahead to implement Andrea’s manifesto. Elements of our union remain hostile to a socialist being in charge with its implications for the Labour right. There is though the possibility of a broader consensus on industrial issues and how we should change the union to address them.

Time For Real Change must remain focused on these tasks ahead, and winning forthcoming elections in 2026 and 2027, if we are to see through the change our union needs. Only then, as public service workers, can we hope to have the positive and lasting impact on the wider politics and priorities of our country which we all want to see so much.

Dan Sartin is branch secretary of UNISON West Sussex and a member of UNISON’s National Executive Council. Time For Real Change can be contacted through their website at https://timeforrealchange.uk/

UK consumers facing a ‘Trump War Tax’

Campaign coalition urges government to prepare emergency energy bill support as gas and oil price spikes continue.

At what point does the US-Israeli war on Iran become a war on everybody? Oil prices are up by over 50% on their pre-war level and global markets are in sharp decline. The International Monetary Fund estimates that every 10% rise in oil prices, sustained over a year, would correspond with a 0.4% increase in global inflation and a 0.15% reduction in economic growth.

Energy markets now face exceptional volatility. The US, with its domestic sources of gas, may feel more protected, but the rest of the world is likely to pay a very high price.

The impact here will be significant. Gas prices have soared to a three-year high as the Middle East conflict escalates. Attacks on energy sites in Iran and Qatar were followed by threats from US President Donald Trump to “massively blow up” a key Iranian gas field in retaliation.

Simon Francis, coordinator of the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, commented: “These gas and oil prices haven’t been seen since the winter of 2022/23 when an Energy Price Guarantee was needed to protect households from the worst excesses of our exposure to global markets. The reality is that households will face a ‘Trump Tax’ on their energy bills as a result of this war and the case for Government action to support households is becoming impossible to ignore. 

“We have written to Ministers with proposals to ensure support reaches the households most exposed to high energy costs first, while giving the Government the ability to scale up help quickly if the crisis continues.

“That means immediate support for households relying on heating oil, LPG and other off-gas fuels, help for heat network customers facing rising commercial energy prices, and targeted reductions in energy bills from July when the price cap rises. It also means faster action on energy debt, stronger winter support through the Warm Home Discount and reformed Cold Weather Payments, and an overhaul of electricity pricing so households do not pay more than they should.

“These are practical steps that can protect people now while complementing longer-term plans such as the Warm Homes Plan and moves to renewables, which are essential to bringing bills down for good.”

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition is urging the Government to prepare an emergency energy support framework to protect households from rising energy bills as global fossil fuel prices remain volatile. Millions of households could be plunged into fuel poverty if bills increase again from July. Tthe Coalition estimates that around 13 million households will be left spending more than 10% of their income on energy, with around 5 million spending more than 20%.

Some households are already feeling the impact of rising costs. Off-gas households relying on heating oil have reported refill prices doubling in recent weeks, LPG customers are facing rising prices, while heat network customers could soon face steep increases as energy supply contracts expire.

The immediate measures recommended include a new, longer-term, Alternative Fuel Support Scheme for households relying on heating oil, LPG and other off-gas-grid fuels, as well as support for heat network customers who face rising commercial energy prices.

The proposal also recommends preparing a targeted reduction in energy unit rates from July if the Ofgem price cap rises significantly, alongside faster rollout of a national energy debt relief scheme to address record levels of household debt.

For the winter, the Coalition is calling for reforms to existing schemes including further expansion of the Warm Home Discount and strengthening Cold Weather Payments so support reaches vulnerable households earlier. Ministers are also urged to speed up reform to electricity pricing and prepare a scalable universal support package that could be activated quickly if energy prices spike further.

Simon Francis added: “Rather than making snap decisions, the Government should establish an emergency support framework now, so households know what support can be expected. Reducing energy price spikes benefits the whole country. It helps limit inflation, reduces pressure on household finances, prevents worsening fuel poverty and cuts the health impacts associated with cold homes.

“This support should be funded fairly. Energy companies and other parts of the energy industry make huge profits during periods of price volatility, so it is only right that windfall taxes and excess profits are used to help protect households from another energy price shock.”

Maria Booker, Head of Policy, Fair By Design, commented: “The Government must use the next two and a half months to design an emergency support package that is both effective and fair. This shock is yet  another reminder of why the Government must accelerate progress on data‑matching capabilities so that support can be better targeted.”

Uplift Deputy Director Robert Palmer said: “Everyone in the UK is going to pay the price if this reckless conflict continues via a ‘Trump War Tax’ that could add thousands of pounds to people’s bills. We risk seeing higher energy bills, more expensive petrol, pricier mortgages and bigger food bills.”

Morgan Vine, Director of Policy and Influencing at Independent Age, said: “It is clear that support is needed for older people in financial hardship who are understandably anxious about what the fuel crisis could mean for them. With over half of older people on a low income already finding it a struggle to keep up with their energy bills, many are already making tough choices, not turning the lights on at night, heating only one room even in the depths of winter, or washing in cold water.  

“Older people on low incomes can’t afford to absorb any more costs; they’re already at breaking point. The UK Government must take comprehensive action now to protect everyone on a low income from sky-high energy prices.”

Jonathan Bean, spokesperson for Fuel Poverty Action, said: “Any emergency support must recognise that electric-only homes face much higher unit prices than oil and gas households due to our rigged energy market. The Government must urgently break the link between gas and electricity which allows firms to inflate the price of cheap renewable energy.

“The Prime Minister must also get a grip on the huge profits that already make up £500 of the average energy bill. If the Government was serious about bringing down our bills, they would work with Ofgem to cut profits and pass the savings back to us.”

Susie Elks, Senior Policy Advisor on the UK Power System at E3G commented: “The government must lower the cost of ‘hidden taxes’ on bills, which add £11bn to households and business energy bills. 

“They must solve the energy debt crisis, which is adding £50-£70 to every household’s bill. They must find a way for us to modernise our energy networks, which have been chronically underinvested in, whilst managing the costs to households.”

Ian Preston, Director of Development and External Affairs from the Centre for Sustainable Energy commented: “Another fossil fuel price crisis, when many households still haven’t recovered from the last one, underlines the urgent need to support households to switch to heat pumps powered by homegrown renewable energy generation as quickly as possible.” 

The End Fuel Poverty Coalition brings together more than 100 charities, health organisations, housing groups, trade unions and consumer bodies working to end fuel poverty across the UK.

Image: https://www.rawpixel.com/image/5945203 Licence: CC0 1.0 Universal CC0 1.0 Deed

HubMP2012

How music in detention still inspires

 March 20, 2026

Sue Lukes reviews Music and Political Imprisonment in Pinochet’s Chile, by Katia Chornik, published by Oxford University Press.

About 20 years ago I was asked to speak briefly at the Royal Academy of Music, by a student performing as part of her masters degree. Her thesis was on music played and heard by those held in Nazi concentration camps and Chilean political prisons. 

Katia Chornik left a great impression on me: it was a fascinating topic. My grandparents were held in Terezin, where there was a strange flowering of musical talent, and I liked to think that they had heard the music of Viktor Ullmann or Gideon Klein in those grim barracks.  Katia played Klein’s unfinished string trio at the concert. 

My Chilean friends and family talked about and performed the songs that had sustained them through their imprisonment following the 1973 Pinochet coup. Candombe para José is a regular on the playlist I have to give me focus when writing: it was a popular hit by the folk group Illapu just before the Chilean coup, and its celebration of friendship acquired a special meaning for political prisoners looking after each other, often sung as those released left the jail.

Another I listen to often is Palabras para Julia, described here by a woman imprisoned  as “a song with lyrics by José Agustín Goytisolo and music by Paco Ibáñez. It speaks of strength, love, resistance, and it became the anthem of the women of the Tres Álamos political prison camp. With it, we greeted those who arrived and said goodbye to those who were freed.”  You can see why it has such power:

Life is beautiful, you’ll see
despite its sorrow
you’ll have friends, you’ll have love
you’ll have friends.

I don’t know what more to tell you
but you should understand
that I am still on the road.

But always, always remember
what I wrote one day
thinking of you, thinking of you
as I am thinking of you now.

Some of those women sing it here. They were celebrating the launch of Cantos Cautivos, the website that Katia went on to set up, to collect the testimonies of those held in Pinochet’s jails about the music they shared. 

And then in February 2026 I went to the Chilean embassy for the launch of the book that was initially inspired by the thesis. But Music and Political Imprisonment in Pinochet’s Chile is not solely the narrative of musical resistance and resilience that Cantos Cautivos has commemorated. Katia tells darker and different stories too, as she says, a “memory cacophony” a “discordant kaleidoscope, including the role that music played in torture. There are even interviews with some of the most notorious torturers about their relationship to music.

She unearths and celebrates the music created or made by prisoners, but does not flinch from describing the conflicts that arose around it, with some songs seen as too frivolous, for example. She looks for the truth behind the story of Julio Iglesias’ visit to Valparaiso prison- his attempt to be the Spanish Johnny Cash ended with the political prisoners booing and swearing at him for both his support of the Chilean regime (and Franco) and his insensitivity to their imprisonment. 

She returns again and again to the role of memory, remembrance and what music means. Even Candombe Para José was used briefly during the election campaign of Jose Antonio Kast, the new far right President of Chile who has promised to release those convicted of human rights abuses from jail. Music will inspire and comfort those who are already mobilising against Kast, just as Victor Jara’s anthem, El Derecho de Vivir en Paz, inspired the uprising against another right wing Chilean President, Sebastián  Piñera, in 2020.  It is a brilliant, complex, disturbing and fascinating book that inspires and challenges. Read it!

But let’s not leave it there, because I did not. That concert over 20 years ago inspired us in the UK as well. Hear Me Out was set up soon afterwards, as Music in Detention, to take music into immigration detention centres and to make detainees’ voices heard outside.  It has flourished, and now works with people trapped in the asylum system, in hotels, in barracks and bases and in detention, to find connection, support and hope in deeply isolating circumstances, uplifting voices of hope and building an empowering community that stands for dignity in the face of hostility.

And right now, you can help, Hear Me Out has a fundraising campaign and donations to it will be doubled if made by 23rd March. Please give, and just as importantly, please watch, like and share this amazing video by Ardavan, who found hope in an asylum hotel and with whom I am so proud to be a trustee of Hear Me Out. You can share it on Instagram, on Facebook, on Linked In. We stand in solidarity with all those trapped in the asylum and immigration detention systems. We are building a community that supports and uplifts voices of hope, and we are doing it with music. Please join us.

Sue Lukes was an Islington Labour Councillor from 2018 to 2022 and is a writer and consultant on migration issues.

Banning 280 Sudanese students will not ‘Save Britain’

HubMP2012

MARCH 21, 2026

280 Sudanese Students – and Britain shuts the door. Alhadi Osman probes the real reasons for the Home Secretary’s latest clampdown.

On March 3rd, 2026, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced an “emergency brake” on study visas for nationals of Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Cameroon. The official justification? Stopping people from “exploiting our generosity.”

Pause on that phrase. Examine it carefully. 

Who is “exploiting” whom?

Sudan is currently home to the largest displacement crisis on the planet, confirmed by the United Nations itself. Over 13 million people are forcibly displaced, both inside Sudan and across its borders into neighbouring countries. Nearly two-thirds of the entire population needs humanitarian assistance. 17 million children are out of school. Over 70% of health facilities in conflict-affected areas have ceased functioning. The WHO recorded 63 attacks on healthcare facilities in Sudan in 2025 alone, killing 1,611 people, wiith numbers from LSHTM suggesting a much higher mortality. The surge of asylum cases in the UK is a pure paper trail of a war, the very same war in which UK military equipment was used by the RSF militia accused of genocide in Sudan. 

This is the context in which a Sudanese student submits a study visa application to the United Kingdom. Deciding to remain ambitious in such a context is far from exploitation; it should be bravery and courage, at the least, if not determination.

The Sudanese diaspora in the UK (the largest in Europe) contributes to the UK economy primarily through professional expertise, business development, and, increasingly, by facilitating economic connections and humanitarian support, which in turn strengthens UK-Sudan relations. An alumnus of the London School of Economics should not be seen as anything less than an intelligent individual capable of driving policy and business at a large scale. Applying for asylum does not discredit his abilities nor his potential; it’s a mere legal status. Popular examples of public figures who contributed to a forgiving and hospitable culture in the UK include Mo, a Sudanese barber from Derby, who has been travelling the UK giving free haircuts to homeless people, filmed and covered by the BBC. But confidently, the NHS sits on the shoulders of hundreds (if not thousands) of Sudanese health professionals. Applying for asylum did not diminish their humanity or their impact. It was simply a legal status.

Remember Ukraine?

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the UK’s response was swift. The Homes for Ukraine scheme was launched within weeks, and visa processing was fast-tracked through a dedicated 24/7 helpline, with application fees waived. By the end of 2024, 218,600 Ukrainians had arrived under the two Ukraine visa schemes. Universities across the country opened their doors. The message was unambiguous: people fleeing war deserve protection, and Britain will provide it. That was the right response, and it should be acknowledged as such.

But it also set a standard. Because the question that now hangs uncomfortably in the air is this: why does the same logic not apply to a student from Khartoum? Sudan’s war has displaced more people; its civilian death toll was more catastrophic; its universities, too, were bombed and looted. The only substantive difference between a Ukrainian student and a Sudanese student arriving in Britain is not the war they fled, it is the colour of their passport. But let’s move beyond basic principles.

 The numbers that indicate the policy

The UK hosts over 750,000 international students annually. The number of Sudanese students among them, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency? 280 (less than 0.04% of the total), and the number has been declining steadily over the last few years. This is the scale of ‘abuse’ that required an emergency government decision. For context, the total number of students from all four banned countries combined is 3,875 out of three-quarters of a million.

If this is genuinely about numbers, consider this: Pakistan accounts for 40% of all student visa asylum claims in the UK. Nigeria ranks among the top three nationalities in asylum-supported accommodation. Neither country was banned on March 3rd. If the policy were truly driven by data, the list would look very different. The fact that it does not tells you something important about what this policy is actually for.

The UK government’s central argument is a 330% surge in asylum claims from Sudanese and Cameroonian student visa holders between 2021 and 2025. This is data manipulation. The issue was clearly not the burden. As I wrote earlier, this surge is a pure paper trail of a war. 

The policy has already failed its own test

Britain tried this before. In 2025, it raised short-term study visa refusal rates from 45% to 68%. The result was a 20% reduction in student asylum claims, clearly proving this is not a solution, but a marginal shift, achieved by making the legal route harder for everyone.

The “emergency brake” is not a new policy. It is a tacit admission that the old policy failed, and instead of examining why people flee, the response is to punish the people fleeing.

When legal doors close, people do not stop moving; they simply take more dangerous routes. In 2025 alone, 41,472 people crossed the English Channel irregularly. This new ban will not reduce that number. It will add to it.

 When policy language becomes a weapon

“Exploiting our generosity” is not a legal term. It is a political instrument, carefully chosen to summon a particular image in the minds of the British public: the opportunistic outsider, not the student whose university was bombed into rubble.

When that phrase is applied to a student from Khartoum, Wad Madani or Nyala, it is not a drafting error. It is a deliberate narrative choice. And it deserves to be named as such.

And here is what makes this not just unjust but strategically incoherent. International students generate a £37.4 billion net gain for the UK economy. Over a quarter of the world’s heads of state were educated at British universities. The NHS is actively recruiting health workers abroad to fill critical shortages. And the UK is spending £226.5 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan, which requires trained local professionals to be effective. Banning 280 Sudanese students does not protect British interests. It quietly dismantles them.

 The question this policy cannot answer

The UK repeatedly claims to support “safe and legal routes” for those fleeing conflict. Very well, if the study visa is closed, the work visa is closed, and the visit visa is closed… what exactly is the safe and legal route you keep promising?

The policy does not answer this. Because an honest answer would reveal that in many cases, no such route exists, and what is being labelled “exploitation” is, in reality, people doing what they must do to grow, prosper at best, or stay alive at least.

That is not a policy. That is a message.

Alhadi Osman is a Senior Health Advisor at Save the Children UK, before which he worked with the Ministry of Health in Sudan. He is a medical doctor from Sudan, with an MPH degree from the KIT Institute in the Netherlands and is currently enrolled in the Global Healthcare Leadership master’s degree at the University of Oxford. This article originally appeared here.

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/uk_parliament/54087412451 Copyright: House of Commons Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Deed

Keir Starmer and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

HubMP2012Keir Starmer and the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

MARCH 21, 2026

Bill Bowring recalls the early years of an ambitious lawyer.

Keir Starmer was Secretary of the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers when I was Chair in the early 1990s.

I joined Haldane in 1986, for solidarity. I had been a Labour Party councillor in Lambeth since 1978, and was being prosecuted by Margaret Thatcher for Wilful Misconduct. With my fellow councillors I was fined £160,000 and banned from public office for five years. Like George Lansbury and the Poplar councillors in 1921, we deliberately broke the law, believing that we would join up with other Labour councils, and with the miners, to bring down Thatcher. We were defeated.

Thatcher’s intention was to bankrupt me and my Lambeth and Liverpool comrades, as the Tories had done with the Clay Cross councillors some years earlier. But, with the support of the three big unions, and money collected by us all over the country, she failed to do so.

I had not joined Haldane earlier. It was dominated by the Communist Party lawyers, Stalinists, although John Hendy and others played a magnificent role defending the miners and their union in the Miners Strike, 1984-5. Starmer had never had anything to do with trade unions, and nothing to do with the Labour Party until Frank Dobson stood down in 2014.

Starmer would never under any circumstances break the law. He was not involved in Haldane in 1986. He became a member of the Editorial Collective of Socialist Lawyer in 1987. The late Joanna Dodson QC was Chair, Beverley Lang (now a High Court judge) was Secretary. Starmer first wrote an article in SL in Autumn 1987 – “Beyond Collective Bargaining”. I wrote my first SL article, on the Poll Tax, in 1987-88 – same Chair and Secretary, same Editorial Collective. Starmer became Joint Secretary with Pam Brighton in late 1988, and Secretary in 1989, Joanna Dodson still the Chair. He attempted to change Haldane’s name, so that it would no longer be “socialist” but “radical” or “democratic”. He was defeated at a noisy meeting, which I vividly recall, by the CP lawyers.

I was elected Chair in 1990 with Starmer as Secretary, and this continued through 1991 with Kate Markus as Vice Chair. In Autumn 1990 Starmer wrote an article for SL entitled “Haldane Forth: What Next”, in which he set our his proposals for transforming Haldane into something more like Liberty, with premises, staff, and a charitable Educational Trust making money through CPD (Continuing Professional Development) courses. For several years Haldane had premises, first in Tooks Court, then over Conway Hall. The Educational Trust fizzled out.

In September 1991 Starmer organised and led a successful Haldane mission, fifteen-strong, to Northern Ireland. I have the Report, published in 1992, entitled “Upholding the rule of law? Northern Ireland: criminal justice under the ‘emergency powers’ in the 1990s”. We called for a united Ireland.

In Spring 1993 I was still Chair, Nadine Finch became Secretary, and Starmer became Treasurer. Kate Markus took over from me as Chair in 1995, with Richard Bielby as Secretary.

There were two large summer parties in my house in Brixton/Herne Hill in 1994 and 1995, with Starmer and the others present, and a late night altercation between Starmer and Bielby as to who was more working class. Richard Bielby, a former train driver and barrister, was working class.  

In 1996, Starmer organised and led a large delegation, 45-strong, to the XIV IADL (International Association of Democratic Lawyers) Congress in Cape Town, South Africa. I was IADL Treasurer, and met Nelson Mandela, who was IADL President. There was a reprise of the altercation between Starmer and Bielby.

I don’t think Starmer was ever a ‘socialist’, certainly not a Marxist, although I have PDFs of his articles in the ‘Pabloite’ journal Socialist Alternatives, including in 1987, “Wapping – beyond a defeat”. I never heard Starmer utter the words “Trotsky”, “Pablo” or “Marx”. But then the Labour Party is not a socialist party. It is a trade union party.

Starmer was a good civil liberties and human rights lawyer, and acted pro bono for ten years for the defendants Helen Steel and David Morris, in the McLibel case brought by McDonalds. He became Director of Pubic Prosecutions in 2008 through his work in the peace process in Northern Ireland (contacts he made in the 1991 mission), reforming police and prosecutors. In 2007, before he became DPP, he led me in drafting the application to the Strasbourg Human Rights Court in Carter v Russia, the poisoning of Alexandr Litvinenko by the Russian state, brought by his widow Marina. I won the case at Strasbourg in September 2021, with a finding of murder against Russia.

Starmer was always intensely ambitious. If you had told him in 1990 that he would become Sir Keir Starmer KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, Leader of the Labour Party, and Prime Minister, that would simply have confirmed his ambition.

Bill Bowring, Colchester CLP, teaches international law and human rights at Birkbeck College. He was a Lambeth Labour Councillor from 1978 to 1986.

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Keir_Starmer_crop_2.jpg. Source: https://api20170418155059.azure-api.net/photo/X9dwBvuR.jpeg?crop=MCU_3:4&quality=80&download=trueGallery: https://beta.parliament.uk/media/X9dwBvuR. Author: Chris McAndrew (1974, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

“The USA pulled the strings behind the assassination of Patrice Lumumba”

HubMP2012

MARCH 22, 2026

A Belgian court has ordered that a 93-year-old former diplomat stand trial for the 1961 assassination of Congo’s former prime minister and independence leader, Patrice Lumumba.

Lumumba was killed at age 35, after serving for just three months as the first prime minister of the Congolese Republic, now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He was ousted in a political coup and assassinated a few months later by mercenaries.

It was only in 2002 that Belgium admitted moral responsibility for Lumumba’s assassination. Lumumba’s remaining family brought the case to the Belgian courts some 15 years ago. Etienne Davignon, a junior diplomatic intern in Kinshasa at the time of the coup, is the last living among ten Belgians with suspected involvement in the killing.

Prosecutors allege that the ex-diplomat participated in Lumumba’s unlawful detention and transfer and was complicit in denying Lumumba’s right to a fair trial, and subjecting him to “humiliating and degrading treatment”. He also stands accused of complicity in the murders of Maurice Mpolo and Joseph Okito, who were prominent allies of Lumumba. Taken together, these accusations amount to war crimes.

To understand the significance of Patrice Lumumba and the movement he led, we republish below an interview conducted by Maurin Picard with Susan Williams, who has written extensively on this subject. Susan Williams told Labour Hub that the legal ruling is a significant step forward — but it’s important not to absolve the United States from involvement, as was pointed out by the 2001 report of the Belgian parliamentary inquiry into Lumumba’s assassination.

The interview

Maurin Picard: What is left of Patrice Lumumba’s legacy in Africa today? 

Susan Williams: Patrice Lumumba belongs to the pantheon of great Pan-Africanist leaders of the twentieth century, alongside Kwame Nkrumah, Frantz Fanon, Amilcar Cabral, and Thomas Sankara. Currently, it is his brutal death that is being remembered. But the power of his legacy in Africa today rests on the strength of his ideals: democracy, non-violence, freedom from colonialism and white minority rule, non-tribalism, and non-alignment.  

This legacy has also thrown up reasons to distrust the West. The CIA-backed overthrow and killing of Lumumba was a direct attack on the elected and legitimate government of the Congo. Such aggression was incompatible with America’s portrayal of itself as the world’s champion of democracy. 

MP: How do you explain the extraordinary success of this man, then, and his incredible popularity, comparable to Che Guevara? Is it well deserved and if yes, why? 

SW: It is indeed deserved. Both Lumumba and Che Guevara can be seen as martyrs: courageous men still in their thirties who were murdered in CIA-backed operations. But, unlike Guevara, Lumumba was against the use of violence in the struggle for liberation. Barely three months after his election he realized that everything was against him and he told his supporters that it was up to them to carry on the fight. “For me,” he said, “it’s finished. I feel that I am going to die. I will die like Gandhi.”

MP: Your book White Malice uncovers efforts made by the CIA and the Eisenhower Administration to keep a tight leash on newly independent African countries, starting with Congolese political elites… What was the end goal? 

SW: The end goal was clear: to assert US control over the former colonial territories of Africa and their resources. US administrations feared that the newly-independent nations might become satellites of the Soviet Union. The Congo was seen as central in this concern, because of its geographical position and its strategic mineral resources, especially the Shinkolobwe uranium mine in Katanga. This mine produced the uniquely rich ore that was used to build the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A CIA agent explained: “We didn’t want the Russians to get all of the Uranium. They had Uranium of their own, but we certainly didn’t want them to control any of the ores that were coming out of Congo. We did our best to prevent them…”

Some American leaders’ attitudes to Africa were fuelled by racial prejudice. At a meeting in January 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon revealed his extremely racist views when he stated: “Some of the peoples of Africa have been out of the trees for only about fifty years.” 

MP: When does the US turn against Patrice Lumumba (in other words, can we identify a watershed or a point of no return)? 

SW: American hostility against Lumumba started to brew even before the Congo’s independence at the end of June 1960. But matters accelerated swiftly. A watershed moment occurred in late July, when Lumumba was visiting New York and was asked whether Americans would still have access to Congolese uranium, as they had when Belgium ruled the country. Lumumba’s response was a clear no: “From now on we are an independent and sovereign state. Belgium doesn’t produce any uranium; it would be to the advantage of both our countries if the Congo and the US worked out their own agreements in the future.” Eisenhower was outraged. He cancelled his planned meeting with Lumumba, saying he preferred to play golf. A month later, at a meeting of the National Security Council, he backed the plan to assassinate the democratically-elected Prime Minister of the Congo.  

MP: Very early on, US spies start plotting against Lumumba. Yet, the last hours seem to involve only Belgian and Katangese personnel. Where is the American touch in Lumumba’s demise? 

SW: Yes: the Americans seem to be invisible. But they were lurking in the shadows of events in multiple covert and sinister ways, facilitating the steps that led tragically to Lumumba’s death. Important details about the involvement of the CIA are starting to emerge, especially from recent releases of documents under the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. The US managed events in such a way that their policy of assassination was enacted by others, who have been held responsible ever since. 

MP: With Lumumba gone, have you established a sense of relief on the American side, or did it prove to be in vain, with regards to American plans for the Congo? 

SW: It was not so much in vain, as a stage in the process of establishing American control of the Congo through the insertion of puppet leaders. Kennedy’s inauguration as the new president of the US in January 1961 – just a few days after Lumumba’s assassination – was perceived by newly-independent nations as a reason for hope. But the new administration did not alter Eisenhower’s policy in the Congo; if anything, it strengthened it. There were even contingency plans for a military intervention. 

MP: What was Lumumba’s ultimate weakness? Too naive (re: Mobutu), too inexperienced on the international stage as it is often said (threatening the UN and the US to appeal to the USSR to oust Belgian troops)? Something else? 

SW: Lumumba was too trusting; he found it difficult to accept that people might behave dishonourably. This weakness led him to trust Mobutu, even against the warnings of his advisors. But Lumumba’s murder was not the result of mistakes or failings on his part. The reason for his death was his commitment to the genuine and unfettered independence of his nation, including control over its own extremely valuable mineral resources. Lumumba never had a chance.  

MP: Is there any form of US guilt and apologies regarding American involvement in Lumumba’s death, comparable to Belgium’s formal ‘regrets’ in 2002? 

SW: Thus far, Belgium has taken all the blame. The US Senate Committee that was set up in 1975 under Senator Frank Church to investigate the abuses of US intelligence agencies, acknowledged the fact of American plots to kill Lumumba. But it acquitted the CIA of any responsibility for his actual death. The 2001 report of the Belgian commission of inquiry does not accept this: it states that Belgian government files do not support the modest role claimed by CIA officials. This finding is abundantly supported by my own research, as set out in White Malice.

Belgium is trying to find a way of coming to terms with its colonial past and of shouldering its responsibilities for the terrible things that were done. It is a step forward and in sharp contrast with the approach of the UK government, which firmly resists the idea of facing up to any of the realities – and horrors – of its own colonial history. Indeed, the UK itself – as the junior partner to the US – supported plots to kill Lumumba, as official documents reveal.  

Maurin Picard, a former correspondent in the USA for French and Belgian publications, is the author of Katanga! La guerre oubliée de la Françafrique contre l’ONU (2024) and Ils ont tué Monsieur H. (2019). Susan Williams, a Senior Fellow at the School of Advanced Study, University of London, is the author of White Malice. The CIA and the Neocolonisation of Africa (2021) and Who Killed Hammarskjöld? (2011). This is a slightly edited version of an article that was published in Africa Briefing and is a translation of an interview published in French in Le Soir.

Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LumumbaBruxelles1960.jpg Source:
GaHetNa (Nationaal Archief NL) 910-9732.Author: Herbert Behrens (ANEFO), licensed under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.