Teaching assistants on strike at nearby Richard Cobden School (pic: Guy Smallman)
Teaching assistants (TAs) at Primrose Hill Primary School in north London are proving to management that they are not backing down in their pay fight.
The Unison union members in Camden first struck in April to demand bosses move them from pay scale 3 to 4 in line with other schools in the borough.
TAs stepped up their campaign this week by calling strike days to coincide with the start of the new school term.
One TA told Socialist Worker that their pay does not come close to reflecting the work they do.
“We are doing a lot of things that we’re not getting paid for,” she said. “Unison wrote to us saying that changing children’s nappies, which we currently do as part of our job, is not scale 3 work. But we’ve been doing that for years.”
She explained that personal care has become an inseparable part of the role as an increasing number of children have special educational needs and disabilities (Send).
“Last year, instead of working one-to-one to support children who were entitled to it, I was working one-to-three—sometimes more,” she explained.
“It feels like you’re never in a constant place. We’re sent to cover here, to ‘do this, do that’.
“That also means there is no consistency for the children either.
“There’s not much teaching happening. It’s more like we are a baby-sitting service,” added another TA.
“I’ve worked here for decades and things were not like this when I started. It’s been in the past three or four years that it’s gotten really bad.”
She explained that it had a knock-on effect on workers’ health. Some of the TAs are single parents who have had to take on second jobs to make ends meet.
“Your wellbeing doesn’t count,” she said. “They just want you to do the job, ‘stop moaning’ and get on with it.
The dispute over regrading has seen several walkouts, and not just at Primrose Hill. Only a stone’s throw away, TAs at Richard Cobden School struck for two days this week over the same issue. They have been fighting since late last year.
Strikers at Primrose Hill and Richard Cobden are angry that other Camden schools have already coughed up the money to pay TAs the higher rate.
TAs explained to Socialist Worker that the school has disgracefully been getting agency workers in to fill the gaps when they are striking. But, despite these attempts to undermine the strike, TAs were sure that they could win.
“We’re united in fighting for our rights. We deserve a pay rise,” said one TA as she handed out stickers outside the school gates.
Another added, “We do this job because we care and we want to see these children go on and have better lives with our help.
“But the thing is, we have to be paid the correct amount for the work we’re doing. Pay us correctly—don’t exploit us.”
Keir Starmer was the MP for Holborn and St Pancras, the constituency where both primary schools are, until his resignation earlier this month.
A by-election is set for 8 October, with Zack Polanski announced as the official candidate standing for the Green Party. Labour’s candidate, Sagal Abdi-Wali, is the leader of the council.
This offers a fresh opportunity to campaign and demand council bosses pay up—and the Labour government funds schools.
Drivers on the picket line this summer (Photo: Guy Smallman)
London bus drivers have shown that strikes wield real power—and win results.
The Unite union announced this week that Transport for London (TfL) and the capital’s bus operators have now committed to fitting all London bus driver cabs with air conditioning by May 2027.
The agreement also stated that cabs would be fitted with UV protective film to reduce drivers’ risk of skin cancer.
This major victory comes after bus drivers employed by Arriva North London struck in August over intolerable temperatures during this summer’s heatwaves.
Peter, a bus driver and union rep at Arriva North, told Socialist Worker that the impact of strikes in the delivery of the deal was “massive”.
“Before the members balloted for strikes they weren’t even talking about this. It wasn’t until after that ballot result that the extreme weather taskforce was even formed,” he said.
On the picket line in August, drivers told Socialist Worker that this meant cabs were like “mobile greenhouses” with temperatures rising to highs of nearly 50 degrees on some of the hottest days.
At present, the majority of buses only have the ineffective and cheaper air cooling systems installed. These take air from outside and circulate it around and can only reduce temperatures by two or three degrees.
“There’s a lot of drivers who have never been on strike in their life,” said Peter. “Winning this after taking action is going to raise their confidence massively.
“It shows that, when we’re standing together, we can actually win things.”
Peter said that if bosses didn’t implement these changes in the timeframe agreed, then members will strike again.
“We’ve dates now for pay talks and now bosses know that if they don’t deliver on pay then members are organised. This win proves workers hold power and pay is next on our agenda,” he said.
Peter said he hoped that other bus drivers across Britain should take similar action.
“The bus industry is so fragmented, which is done on purpose,” he said. “But we hope that this win will encourage others to fight too.
“The union’s ambition is to roll this out across the country, not just in London.
“Hopefully other drivers will say ‘we want some of that’ and go out and fight for it whether that’s through negotiation or industrial action.”
This summer, London experienced a record-breaking 40 days where the weather exceeded 30 degrees. This exposed how little we are ready to meet the challenges of extreme weather conditions. There is not even a maximum working temperature.
But major improvements to working conditions will not just be handed out without significant pressure being put on companies to deliver them. The lesson here is that they can be won if workers are prepared to call hard-hitting strikes.
Trump and the Republican Party are weak. Disapproval of the president’s performance reached 64 percent in August—it currently stands at 61 percent. (Photo: Flickr / Gage Skidmore)
Donald Trump says he is celebrating “the most successful two years, financially and every other way, in the history of the presidency.” But he has been reduced to bribing voters.
On the first night of the Republican midterm convention, the US president promised $5,000 to every adult US citizen if the party kept control of both houses of congress.
In his presidential campaign, Trump he promised to be the “president of peace” and stop “forever wars”.
When the US and Israel attacked Iran in February, Trump promised a “short term excursion” that would be over within two weeks. Yet, after nearly 200 days, he is still threatening to hit Iran “very hard”.
And, the war has had a disastrous effect on the economy—a far cry from the military prowess and stability Trump floated.
Polling shows that voters’ biggest concern is the cost of living crisis. Some 60 percent want greater financial security and to be able to afford even the necessities like housing.
Instead of providing comfort, Trump dismissed concerns about the cost of living. He blamed the Democrats, saying they caused the financial crisis and that “we’re fixing it”. “I’m bringing the prices way down,” he claimed.
In reality, the cost of basics such as orange juice are up 20 percent. The cost of beef mince has risen 18 percent since Trump came to office last year.
His promise of a $5,000 “Trump dividend” to bribe voters is a sign of his weakness.
This dividend would cost some $1.3 trillion. Trump stated that it would have to be spent domestically—but provided no guidelines for this. Vice president JD Vance suggested that the money would be raised from Trump’s tariffs.
It’s a sign of the Republican Party’s desperate need to placate growing anger in its base.
Even the line that it will come from tariffs is a sticking plaster—the vast majority of US voters think the tariffs have had a negative impact. This includes at least 60 percent of Republican voters.
A Republican convention for the midterm elections is in itself a morbid symptom. They are usually only held in presidential campaign years.
Trump and the Republican Party are weak. Disapproval of the president’s performance reached 64 percent in August—it currently stands at 61 percent.
Since he came back to office, we have seen explosions of anger and resistance to Trump’s regime, from the burning streets of Los Angeles to the formidable opposition in Minneapolis.
Hope lies with deepening that resistance, not with Democrats who paved the way for Trump’s return.
The Palestine march in London on 18 July delivers a message to new prime minister Andy Burnham (Picture: Guy Smallman)
Labour hoped that its recent shift in tone over Palestine would win back voters—and rebuild the legitimacy that the Western “liberal order” and Israel have lost.
But the response from the Israel’s far right leadership has deepened the crisis and opened up opportunities for the Palestine movement.
Understanding the shift—and its limitations—is key if our side is going to capitalise on the civil war in theirs.
Britain was among 12 Western states, including France and Canada, to say it wouldn’t trade with settlements that are illegal under international law. Labour foreign secretary Ed Miliband announced limited sanctions in the House of Commons this week.
Why did this shift take place?
First, it would not have happened without the Palestine solidarity movement, without all those who marched, walked out, occupied and took direct action.
The Palestine movement was the decisive factor that broke Keir Starmer’s premiership long before he had to resign as prime minister. Hundreds of thousands of people broke with Labour to the left, first to independent challengers and then mainly the Green Party. Many will never return.
Around 53 percent of voters who switched to the Greens, Independents, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru or the Lib Dems said Palestine was a “factor or a major factor”.
Among Green voters, 67 percent said it was a “factor” and 30 percent said it was a “major factor”.
The same polling asked voters who abandoned Labour since the general election in 2024 what would change their perception of the party. Some 67 percent of those voters said they would “have a much more favourable view” of Labour if “the next leader were to adopt a stronger policy”.
Andy Burnham knows part of his job is to win back voters that Labour had lost to the left.
When Starmer resigned, 14 percent of people who voted Labour in the general election said they would now back Zack Polanski’s Green Party. That figure is down to 9 percent since Burnham took over.
The shift in tone on Palestine will help to sustain the “Burnham bounce” during the autumn.
Labour officials will breathe a sigh of relief as they face the Holborn and St Pancras by election in London on 8 October after Starmer resigned as an MP. Starmer’s majority significantly shrank in the general election as independent challenger Andrew Feinstein and the Greens made gains.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has said he’ll stand in the by election. If Labour retains the seat, that will further boost Burnham.
The scale of the movement means that Labour was forced to go further on Palestine than before. Miliband acknowledged “that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank perpetrated by settler terrorists”.
He accepted the International Court of Justice (ICJ) view that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not just settlements, is “unlawful”.
And, in subsequent interviews, Miliband accepted that Britain owed the Palestinians an apology.
But the Labour Party’s strategy goes much deeper than trying to win back voters. This has never been Labour’s only calculation. If it was, surely Starmer wouldn’t have done half the policies he did?
Rather, it is linked to how Israel’s crisis of legitimacy threatens the whole imperialist order that backs it.
A crisis of legitimacy
The ruling class uses a combination of “force and fraud” to maintain its wealth and power. We can see the “force” on full display on the streets of the US, the war on Iran, and in the repression of the Palestine movement.
But the ruling class also relies on “fraud”, on convincing people to accept—at least in part—the way the world works as “natural”. In times of crisis, however, this acceptance can begin to break down as millions of people come to see through their lies.
The inability of ruling classes to provide solutions to the crises, whether war or climate chaos, fuels such a crisis of legitimacy. But, in the West, it is deeply intertwined with Gaza.
For over 30 years, US imperialism has destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and other countries under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”. At the same time, it holds up Israel as a “civilised society” and the “one democracy” in the region.
Many people have always rejected Western talk of “humanitarian intervention”, but millions of others did buy into it.
For them, seeing the West’s premier ally in the dock for war crimes has helped shatter an entire “world view”.
As Israel committed new atrocities every day—starvation, murder, annexation—its claims of “humanitarianism” were barely hanging on by a thread.
In France a decisive 68 percent of people hold a negative view of Israel, in a stark turnaround to before the genocide.
In Britain, 50 percent say Israel is committing a genocide while 62 percent oppose Israeli military action in the West Bank and Gaza and 60 percent in Lebanon.
Almost 60 percent support a total suspension of British arms sales to Israel. That was once a demand that didn’t gain an echo beyond the far left and most radical sections of the movement.
That is what drove French president Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer to declare recognition for a Palestinian state in the summer of 2025.
Western leaders were forced criticise Israel action as an attempt to re-establish their legitimacy, fearing their ability to justify imperialist wars in the future.
Resuscitating the ‘two state solution’
For the Western governments that announced sanctions, resurrecting the “two state solution” is a vital part of their strategy.
The joint statement from the foreign ministers of the 12 states makes this clear. It opens, “The government of Israel’s actions in the West Bank are undermining the possibility of a two-state solution.
“Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney have agreed on the need to take action to prevent further damage.”
Miliband said, “The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two state solution.
“This is in our fundamental national interest because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the Middle East without a two state solution.”
The “two-state solution” was a sham that allowed the West to back Israel while claiming a Palestinian state could one day exist on a small portion of the stolen land.
In 1990s, the US promised a Palestinian state based on the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel had grabbed in 1967.
This peace process was the product of Palestinian resistance—and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) leaders making disastrous concessions.
The First Intifada, a mass uprising that began in 1987, shook the West and its watchdog state. It saw strikes, boycotts and rallies and inspired resistance across the region in Egypt, Turkey, Sudan, Kuwait, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco and Syria
Fearing the spread of resistance, the US began talks between Israel and the PLO that led to the Oslo Accords of 1993.
But the agreements in the 1990s only granted Palestinians control of less than 20 percent of the West Bank.
Israel maintained its control and expanded settlements in the West Bank since then. The Palestinian Authority—initially led by PLO leader Yasser Arafat who had heroically fought Israel—became a subcontractor for the occupation.
But the Oslo Accords allowed the West to say it did support the rule of law and justice for the Palestinians, while in practice backing its watchdog state.
When the Israeli leadership has endangered that, the West has sometimes stepped in with criticism.
Ten years ago, US president Barack Obama’s administration chose not veto a United Nations (UN) security council resolution condemning settlements in the West Bank.
US Secretary of State John Kerry argued that the US had to save the “two state solution”—or at least had to be seen to do so. He described a “two state solution” as the “only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state” and “an important way of advancing US interests in the region”.
He said the US could not “stand idly by” and “allow a dangerous dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests”.
“It would serve American interests to stabilise a volatile region and fulfil America’s commitment to the survival, security and well-being of an Israel at peace with its Arab neighbours.”
Those interventions came in the wake of the “Arab Spring” that challenged the West and isolated Israel. The revolts shook Arab regimes that are part of the US imperialist infrastructure, and Palestine solidarity ran through them.
Kerry’s aim was to reign in Israeli actions, fearing that the death of the “two state solution” would bring further instability.
Today, Miliband said, “The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel.
There is an added dimension. The British state and the Labour government are grappling with how to deal with the breakdown of the US’s liberal world order.
Britain wants to maintain its position as a junior partner of US imperialism. But the Labour government, and other members of the Nato warmongers alliance, have clashed with the Trump White House.
One such flashpoint is Ukraine, where European leaders want to keep the proxy war between Western and Russian imperialism going.
Burnham and Macron are organising those states to lobby Trump for more arms at a meeting in New York in September.
Britain and France hope that being seen to lead on the international stage will bolster their position as they navigate the new order of increasing competition.
An ascendent far right in Israel
British diplomats were clear that the sanctions “are largely symbolic and will have no material impact on the UK’s wider relationship with Israel”.
But the reaction from Israel’s far right leadership has opened up a deeper crisis in the strategy and means they may not get their way.
The Israeli government has reacted with a storm of fury and accusations of antisemitism to the mild measures.
It ordered the British consulate in Jerusalem to shut and banned 12 high profile politicians and activists, including Jeremy Corbyn and Green MPs, from entering Israel. Miliband, who is Jewish, was outrageously labelled an antisemite.
Israel has threatened further measures—and made clear that it will never allow even the sham of the “two state solution”.
Nearly three-quarters of Jewish Israelis favour partial or total annexation of the West Bank, a poll for the Jewish People Policy Institute found.
All leading candidates in the upcoming election on 27 October reject a Palestinian state.
The ascendency of the far right is a product of Israel’s settler colonial society. Each time Israel has been unable to crush the Palestinian resistance, politics and society marches further to the right.
It flows from a basic problem—Israel wants to grab more Palestinian land but has always wanted to maintain a Jewish demographic majority.
This means that Israeli settler colonialism swings between apartheid and genocide as a way of dealing with the “problem” of Palestinians. And since 7 October, it has come down firmly on the side of elimination.
How should the left respond?
Seize the opportunities, but don’t sow illusions in Labour.
One danger is thinking that Labour, now Starmer is replaced with Burnham, is a friend of the movement.
Middle East Eye ran an opinion piece this week by Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding. It is a gushing article, headlined, “Miliband has decisively broken with decades of UK inaction on Palestine.”
“It is a welcome shock to find a government prepared to be bold and take the lead, its moral compass steering the direction of travel,” he writes.
“For this to continue, those in favour of peace and justice in the Middle East will have to work hard to keep it on course.”
But the Labour front bench is not a friend to be gently encouraged to maintain its righteous course.
The fact that the invertebrates of the Labour front bench were forced to act is a sign of their crisis—and the impact of the movement.
The Palestine coalition in Britain says the sanctions must be a “floor, not a ceiling”. “A ban on goods, finance, construction and advertising of settlements is just the beginning,” it says
“While it is right for the government to refuse additional arms export licences, loopholes remain that have allowed the continuation of F-35 components to be exported, even at the height of the genocide. If the government is serious about ending complicity, a full two-way arms embargo must follow.
“Settlements are one part of a wider system of occupation and apartheid across historic Palestine, and extending to the millions of Palestinian refugees living outside their homeland whose right of return has yet to be implemented.
“Israel’s entire system of colonial occupation and apartheid must be dismantled, and we will continue to push for the complete implementation of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
Many people will have had their expectations raised by Starmer’s departure. The left has to argue that they will only be fulfilled if there is a fight on the streets and workplaces, not waiting for the Burnham government to deliver.
So seize the opportunities opened up by the shift to fight for much more than Labour’s attempt to rebuild its legitimacy and safeguard Israel.
Let’s demand Labour stop arming Israel, impose a trade embargo and expel the ambassador. Keep fighting for the British state to sever its links with Israel—and for Palestine to be free from the river to the sea.
Tomáš Tengely-Evans is editor of Socialist Worker and author of newly-released book, Death Rides Out: Imperialism in the 21st Century. Available from Bookmarks: the socialist bookshop
Key upcoming dates in September and October
26 September: Tell Andy Burnham, Stop arming Israel, march on the Labour conference in Liverpool, 12noon, St George’s Plateau.
30 October: International day of action in support of dock and port workers. See Stop The War for more info. What can you do in your union branch, workplace or campus?
Weapons won’t make workers safer or solve the crises facing us
The leaders of the TUC union federation want to line up behind a new arms race that makes us all less safe.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak has fired a shot across the bows of the anti-war movement ahead of the annual congress next week.
Last year, delegates voted for a motion from the UCU union that opposed “support for immediate increases in defence spending”. It said that unions should instead “prioritise campaigning for public investment in Britain’s public realm, decimated by austerity.”
This year the UCU has put forward another motion asking the TUC to reaffirm its support for a position of “wages not weapons”.
But Nowak wants unions to fight for “wages and weapons”. He told Politics Home reporters, “We should fundamentally reject the right wing argument that somehow it is a choice between investing in our national and collective security, and investing in our schools and hospitals and infrastructure. I just reject that choice out of hand.”
When asked if the TUC had been campaigning against increased defence spending since last year, he confirmed that it had not been doing so.
Labour prime minister Andy Burnham and chancellor John Healey want to ramp up spending on “defence” including spending billions on nuclear weapons.
British firms supply weapons to Israel that are used in the slaughter in Gaza, and British military bases are used in the US-led war on Iran. The state wants defence to play a role in all areas of society, including in the education system through projects like the Defence Universities Alliance.
Burnham says that Britain needs to invest in weapons to protect its citizens from the threat of war. And he wants to support Ukraine against Russian invasion, now that Donald Trump’s administration has become an unreliable ally. Nowak has lined up with these nationalist arguments by talking about the “national interest” in defence spending.
The Labour government wants to ally with other European states in a drive to rearmament. This year states such as France and Germany have also driven up military spending.
Germany has also tried to push more young people to join the military through voluntary conscription, although this has provoked mass resistance.
But the real threats to British people’s security are from deadly heatwaves, a crumbling NHS and social care system and the threat of a food crisis, not an imminent Russian invasion.
Investing in more weapons pulls Britain further into a deadly arms race that will make us all less safe.
Nowak says that there doesn’t need to be a choice between “defence” and spending on the welfare state—there is enough money to have both.
But European states are squeezing social spending while ploughing billions into rearmament.
And Burnham’s government, like the Keir Starmer government before it, wants to present itself as “fiscally responsible”
The prime minister has confirmed he will stay within the self-imposed fiscal rules put in place by his predecessor.
Faced with a bleak economic picture, and unwilling to take more radical measures to tax the wealthy, Burnham will squeeze social spending to pay for defence.
Nowak rightly calls on Burnham to raise the surcharge—a tax on the profits of banks and building societies—back to the 2023 level of 8 percent. He says this could be used to help give ordinary people a discount on their energy bills.
But it will take more than patiently lobbying the Labour government to tackle the cost of living crisis.
Trade unionists should support and vote for the UCU motion—and push for resistance on the streets and picket lines that can deliver change.
The international day of action in solidarity with dockers, who’ve blocked arms shipments to Israel, is taking place on 30 October. It’s an opportunity for trade unionists to take action against war and austerity in Britain.
Tags: TUC Posted in News, Trade Unions |
Comments Off on Reject TUC union leader’s support for Labour arms spending drive
Nearly 300 workers at the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust have so far joined the walkout
You could hear them long before you could see them.
Scores of striking low paid NHS workers were shouting their defiance on megaphones outside Guy’s hospital in central London on Thursday.
“Band two, no way… we want decent pay,” they chanted.
Their voices—and their reggae sound system—echoed around a part of the city littered with glass towers, like The Shard, and corporate wine bars.
“My job is vital. If I didn’t do it properly, infections would spread across the hospital,” said Cynthia, a long-standing domestic worker on the picket line.
“But we are not treated with respect, and our pay is too bad.”
Cynthia is right.
Nearly 300 workers at the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust have so far joined the walkout—but the dispute has implications far beyond central London.
Poverty pay is an issue for around 180,000 NHS band two workers across England. After this year’s 3.3 percent pay rise, the hourly rate outside the capital is just £12.92 and £15.89 in inner London.
Cynthia commutes in daily from Sutton, in the far south of London, at a cost of nearly £200 a month.
Fares, like all her other bills, are rising fast. Last year, the NHS had to announce an “interim top-up” of band two pay to prevent it from falling below the increased National Living Wage of £12.71 an hour.
Bill, a porter at Guy’s for more than 20 years, says that low pay is an issue for all NHS workers, but particularly for those on the bottom rung of the NHS pay scale.
“Everyone on band two is struggling,” he said. “And management are making it harder by getting rid of some of our meal vouchers, and shortening the bank shifts.
“The shorter shifts mean they don’t have to pay us for breaks.
“And this job is getting harder all the time. We’re constantly being given more duties and more patients to move around.
“Don’t get me wrong, we’re all very proud to work for the NHS, but the job is definitely getting harder, while our pay is getting worse.
“The employer has got great words for us, but their words won’t pay our bills. They respect us, but not enough to do something about that.”
Roger, another porter, chips in, saying that being surrounded by all the wealth in the Guy’s hospital area “reinforces the feeling of inequality”.
Looking towards The Shard, Bills says, “Everyone at some point in their lives needs the NHS. We want to do our jobs so we can serve the NHS. But right now, instead we are struggling to make ends meet.
“And some people underestimate the work we do. In addition to transporting patients around the hospital, we also take care of the dead—including children and babies.
“That requires care and skill—and can leave you traumatised.
“We do so many things that people don’t really know about, that if we work to rule, the whole system will fall apart. Yet management job evaluations say we have ‘minimal patient interaction’ and therefore we should remain on band two.”
Many patients say they are often reassured by porters who take them to and from what are sometimes difficult procedures and consultations.
Those interactions represent a kind of value that management simply don’t understand.
On the picket line, leading Unite union official Tabusam Ahmed told Socialist Worker that this week’s strike was the “start of a broader campaign” for low paid NHS workers.
She said that while pay is the central issue, strikers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospitals have many other complaints too—including problems related to management bullying and favouritism.
“People are unhappy and morale is low,” she said.
And Tabusam indicated that if management doesn’t make an offer, then Unite will likely extend the action.
Strikers that Socialist Worker spoke to were all keen to reiterate the message that they were proud that they were now hitting back.
“We are ready for this fight,” said Cynthia. “It will be hard, because we don’t have spare cash, but we need to show we can fight.”
Bill agrees, and says, “This will be just the start if management don’t move.”
Strikers’ names have been changed.
Tags: Health, NHS Posted in Trade Unions |
Comments Off on ‘We are ready for this fight,’ say NHS workers hitting back at poverty pay
Attendees of the summit agreed councils should campaign for a restoration of local government funding to 2010 levels and that local government debts should be scrapped. (Picture: David B Young)
Some 250 people met in Hackney, east London on Wednesday for an anti-austerity summit hosted by the Green-run council in the borough.
They included councillors from the Greens and Labour, as well as trade union activists and campaigners.
Attendees agreed that councils should campaign for a restoration of local government funding to 2010 levels and that local government debts should be scrapped.
But there was a debate about whether councillors should refuse to implement austerity or whether “balanced budgets” are the only sensible option in the here and now.
Jordan, the Unison union branch secretary at Homerton Hospital, said, “I think it’s really important that councils refuse to implement budget cuts.
“We need people we’ve elected to be brave and do this—the more that do the same, the more influence that it will have. I’ve supported NHS members being made redundant due to Hackney council reducing what they are prepared to pay for a service. I’ve seen my daughter go through having her school closed last year.
“We have power in our workplaces, that we need to be prepared to use by striking, and when services are under threat, we’ve also seen that occupations can stop services being taken away.”
Jordan added that outsourced workers winning sick pay at the hospital had a big impact on racial equality.
“Racism is used to divide the workforce—we need to be together to effectively fight back,” she said.
But Green mayor Zoe Garbett has said the Hackney council is committed to setting a balanced budget. She argued at the event that setting a no-cuts budget would mean the central government would send commissioners in to take over the running of the council.
One of the most recent examples of commissioners being sent in is Birmingham, when the council faced bankruptcy.
They were met with very little resistance. But things would have looked very different if the trade union movement and community campaigns had mobilised mass resistance including ballots for strikes.
This could have challenged councillors to stand with those fighting back.
Attendees at the event agreed to set up local anti-austerity groups in different areas.
They also resolved to support the day of action on 1 October against spy tech firm Palantir, which is muscling its way into the NHS and local councils as well as the protest in London against austerity on the eve of budget day.
Ken Muller, one of the organisers of the budget day protest, told Socialist Worker, “We have the backing of the trade council, the NEU union branch and two Unison union branches.
“Lots of people took the leaflets and offered to help get support from their union branch. It’s not just a one-off demo, it’s a springboard for further action.”
Chancellor John Healey gave the project of building a third runway his backing this week (Photo: Flickr)
Despite the summer of drought and scorching heat, the Labour government looks set to press ahead with a misguided Heathrow airport expansion project. It will turn up the heat on climate breakdown and cost us all.
On Tuesday, chancellor John Healey gave the project of building a third runway his backing. In answer to a question in the House of Commons, he said, “After years of delay, years of indecision, years of often vexatious challenge, we have given the go-ahead to this project.”
“The economic case stacks up and it will help bring growth,” the chancellor claimed.
It doesn’t mean it’s a done deal. The consultation on the third runway closed earlier this month and it will need to be debated and voted on.
Paul Beckford from the No 3rd Runway Coalition told Socialist Worker the government is driving us in the wrong direction by considering a third runway.
“Even without Heathrow we would struggle to meet our climate targets. It will make it really difficult to achieve,” he said.
“It will benefit the wealthy few who fly frequently,” he added. “And mean massive costs for local communities.”
The project will mean 781 homes are destroyed and a further 5,500 are rendered uninhabitable. Remaining residents will be impacted by aircraft noise and the already dangerously polluted air will become even more toxic.
Local residents say that letters from Heathrow Airport that talk about home relocation are creating anxiety, especially when plans are not approved yet.
Eilish Stone, from Harmondsworth in west London, said, “I want to stay in my home and don’t want a 3rd runway, but I am equally sick to the back teeth of receiving disturbing letters from Heathrow.
“It feels a bit like harassment, which causes stress and anxiety. They are after information which is not required at this stage and are misleading residents into thinking they are about to get bought out.”
“The third runway project has been sold as a project for jobs and growth. But according to the government’s own figures it doesn’t do that,” said Paul.
It is projected to add 0.05 percent to GDP by 2056 according to the Department for Transport. But this tiny increase will be offset by a net loss to the economy of up to £60 billion.
“It will be a £1 billion cost to society every year for 60 years. It’s not delivering growth at all.”
The government wants to invest in Heathrow as part of its plan to make Britain a more competitive destination for jet-setting business people.
Some unions, including Unite and the GMB, also support the plans.
But Paul said there are better ways of creating jobs. He explained that the plans would support some jobs in construction while the new runway is being built.
“But we want sustainable, long-term, well paid jobs for the future,” he told Socialist Worker. “That means building rail links and public transport as opposed to flogging these outdated 20th century technologies.”
As climate breakdown leads to thousands of deaths and threatens a food crisis, unions and campaigners should demand that Labour puts ordinary people’s lives before the profits of a few and cancel its third runway plans.
