Category: UK

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content, after we reached our 20,000th article. Here, in June 2017 we looked at Theresa May giving golden handshakes to jobless ex-Tory MPs – days after the election. This article was read by over 300,000 people. 

    Theresa May plans to roll out new unemployment benefits, but only for Conservative MPs who lost their seats. At a meeting with the 1922 committee of Tory backbenchers, the sitting Prime Minister promised to give financial support to Conservative candidates out of a job.

    One MP leaving the meeting said:

    She was very concerned about people who have lost their seats. The party is going to help them, some of them are in dire financial situations. She did say sorry, several times. She apologised for colleagues losing their seats, for making the call about the early election

    On 8 June, May’s MPs faced a battering, including her top team. Home Secretary Amber Rudd managed to hang on by a handful of votes. But many other ministers weren’t so lucky. Nine of May’s government ministers lost their seats to a resurgent Labour.

    Austerity for everyone, except us

    The Conservatives have spent seven years presiding over austerity for the most vulnerable people in society. The change in the benefit system to Universal Credit represented a huge cut in unemployment allowance, among other benefits, for millions. The Tories have also ruthlessly slashed disabled people’s unemployment benefits.

    But May is now rushing to financially “help” Conservative colleagues who are out of a job. Twitter responded accordingly to the double standard:

    There were 30,000 excess deaths in 2015 alone as a result of Conservative cuts, according to an Oxford University report. A disabled activist challenged May’s new Justice Minister, Dominic Raab, during the campaign. Raab said supporting disabled people was a “childish wish list”, unless you’ve got a “strong economy”. But apparently, supporting newly unemployed Conservative MPs is fine.

    Counter-productive cuts

    Then, Raab wheeled out the well-rehearsed Conservative justification for the cruelty:

    The raw truth is that the money’s got to come from somewhere.

    The Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is a test that the government uses to determine whether a disabled person is ‘fit for work’. Contrary to Raab’s response, the WCA has actually cost the government far more to administer than it has saved in reduced numbers of benefit claimants. In short, it actually costs the taxpayer money to put people through such trauma. Yet disabled people still had their unemployment benefits cut. Meanwhile, Conservative MPs are set to be financially supported after losing their seats.

    In reality, investing in disabled and sick people is not even a cost to the taxpayer. Welfare spending is not consumption, but an investment that powers the economy. As renowned economist Ha-Joon Chang lays out in The Guardian:

    Increased spending on disability benefits and care for older people helps carers to have more time and less stress, making them more productive workers.

    So welfare spending of this kind increases productivity and can empower disabled people to contribute to their communities. Still, May and the Conservatives have cut their support relentlessly.

    But when Conservative MPs lose their jobs and need a helping hand, the money’s there. Such double standards were likely a big player in losing the Conservatives their majority.

    Get Involved!

    Read more from The Canary on the general election.

    Join The Canary, and help us hold the mainstream media to account.

    – Sign the petition of no confidence in a Conservative/ DUP coalition.

    – Make your thoughts on the deal known. Contact your MP and be vocal on social media

    Featured image via YouTube

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Fossil Free London activists, joined by Greta Thunberg, staged a noisy protest outside Guildhall in the City of London to disrupt Rishi Sunak’s speech inside the Lord Mayor’s banquet on Monday 13 November. It was over the PM’s climate-wrecking plans contained in the King’s Speech.

    Thunberg joins other activists to target the Lord Mayor’s banquet

    The new Lord Mayor, the ceremonial head of the City of London who acts as an international spokesperson for London’s finance sector, was sworn in in a silent ceremony earlier this week that was also disrupted by Fossil Free London protesters.

    The prime minister was invited to deliver the keynote address at the banquet, where bankers and business leaders celebrate the incumbent Lord Mayor.

    Activists gathered around each entrance of the Guildhall as they chanted ‘stop Rosebank’, banging pots and pans and playing the drums to drown out the speech being given by the prime minister:

    London, UK. 13 November 2023 – Protestors from Fossil Free London rally outside the Lord Mayor’s banquet attended by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in protest against new oil and gas licences and the approval of the Rosebank oil field. Credit: Andrea Domeniconi/Fossil Free London
    London, UK. 13 November 2023 – Protestors from Fossil Free London rally outside the Lord Mayor’s banquet attended by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in protest against new oil and gas licences and the approval of the Rosebank oil field. Credit: Andrea Domeniconi/Fossil Free London

    Sunak’s appearance comes after the UK Government promised earlier this week to allow new yearly rounds of licensing to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea, as laid out in the King’s Speech.

    Thunberg came out to support Fossil Free London:

    London, UK. 13 November 2023 – Protestors from Fossil Free London rally outside the Lord Mayor’s banquet attended by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in protest against new oil and gas licences and the approval of the Rosebank oil field. Credit: Andrea Domeniconi/Fossil Free London

    There was a small police presence during Thunberg and Fossil Free London’s action:

    London, UK. 13 November 2023 – Protestors from Fossil Free London rally outside the Lord Mayor’s banquet attended by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in protest against new oil and gas licences and the approval of the Rosebank oil field. Credit: Andrea Domeniconi/Fossil Free London

    Sunak: ‘maxing out’ the climate crisis

    The prime minister has been eager to make clear his determination to “max out” the fossil fuel reserves of the North Sea over the past few months. However, as the Guardian‘s environment editor Fiona Harvey wrote:

    this is clearly contrary to expert advice. The International Energy Agency, at the request of the UK before the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow, warned in 2021 that no such expansion could take place anywhere, to stay within 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

    The UK government claims this move is to ensure energy security and lower bills for UK households, despite Uplift research arguing it will do neither. The oil or gas produced will be sold to an international market, meaning the production won’t affect UK prices or ensure our supply of it.

    London’s finance sector, heavily represented at the banquet, funded nearly double the emissions produced by the whole of the UK in 2019. As a report by WWF noted:

    just a subsection of the UK Finance sector was responsible for financing 805 million tonnes of CO2 in 2019 of emissions through their lending and investment activities. This equates to 1.8 times the annual net emissions of the UK putting at risk the government’s plans to lead by example at COP26.

    To put this in stark terms, if the UK banks and investors in this study were a country, they would be ranked 9th biggest emitter of CO2 in the world – ahead of Germany, indicating the scale of the issue.

    ‘Selling us a dangerous pipedream’

    Joanna Warrington, spokesperson for Fossil Free London, said:

    Sunak and his climate-wrecking Government are selling the UK public a dangerous pipedream. They are falsely promising energy security through the expansion of new oil and gas, that if pursued would only spell utter climate disaster, and an insecure, warming world for all of us that live within it.

    Whilst Sunak dines with the Lord Mayor, bankers and business leaders at the heart of obscene wealth in this country; we are outside with a clear message. We want a livable future; and secure, affordable, renewable energy for all.

    Fossil Free London is a grassroots climate group campaigning for a London beyond fossil fuels, imagining a cleaner, greener city for residents and for people worldwide who are experiencing the loss and damage of climate crises made in London. Instagram: @fossilfreelondon Twitter: @fossilfreeldn.

    Feature image and additional images via Fossil Free London

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • New analysis published by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) on Tuesday 14 November – which is Disability Pay Gap Day – shows that non-disabled workers earn around a sixth (14.6%) more than disabled workers

    The analysis reveals that the pay gap for disabled workers across the board is £1.90 an hour, or £66.50 per week – over what the average household spends on their weekly food shop (£62.20).

    That makes for a pay difference of £3,460 a year for someone working a 35-hour week – and means that disabled people effectively work for free for the last 47 days of the year and stop getting paid today, on the day the TUC has branded Disability Pay Gap Day.

    “Zero progress” on disability pay gap

    The TUC introduced Disability Pay Gap Day in 2019. It is the day of the year when the average disabled person stops being paid, compared to the average non-disabled person.

    The pay gap has fallen since 2022, when the overall pay gap was £2.05 (17.2%) an hour.

    The new analysis shows that the disability pay gap is now higher than it was a decade ago (13.2% in 2013/14) when the first comparable pay data was recorded.

    And the gap is only slightly lower than when the TUC first launched Disability Pay Gap Day using 2016/17 data (when it was 15.0%).

    Disability pay gap by gender and age

    The new TUC analysis reveals that disabled women face the biggest pay gap. Non-disabled men are paid on average 30% (£3.73 an hour, £130.55 a week, or £6,780 a year) more than disabled women.

    The research also shows that the disability pay gap persists for workers for most of their careers. At age 25 the pay gap is £1.73 an hour hitting a high of £3.18 an hour, or £111.30 a week, for disabled workers aged 40 to 44.

    National, regional, and industrial disability pay gaps

    The analysis looked at pay data from across the country and found disability pay gaps in every region and nation of the UK.

    The highest pay gaps are in Wales (21.6% or £2.53 an hour), followed by the South East (19.8% or £2.78 an hour) and the East of England (17.7% or £2.30 an hour).

    The research found that disability pay gaps also vary by industry. The biggest pay gap is in financial and industrial services, where the pay gap stands at a huge 33.2% (£5.60 an hour).

    Unemployment

    Not only are disabled workers paid less than non-disabled workers, they are also more likely to be excluded from the job market.

    Disabled workers are twice as likely as non-disabled workers to be unemployed (6.7% compared to 3.3%).

    And the analysis shows disabled Black and Brown workers face a much tougher labour market – one in 10 (10.4%) Black or Brown disabled workers are unemployed compared to nearly one in 40 (2.6%) white non-disabled workers.

    Zero-hours contracts

    The Disability Pay Gap Day analysis shows that disabled workers are more likely than non-disabled workers to be on zero-hours contracts (4.5% to 3.4%).

    And disabled Black and Brown women are nearly three times as likely as non-disabled white men (6.0% to 2.2%) to be on these insecure contracts.

    The TUC says zero-hours contracts hand the employer total control over workers’ hours and earning power, meaning workers never know how much they will earn each week, and their income is subject to the whims of managers.

    The union body argues that this makes it hard for workers to plan their lives, look after their children and get to medical appointments.

    And it makes it harder for workers to challenge unacceptable behaviour by bosses because of concerns about whether they will be penalised by not being allocated hours in future.

    ‘Shameful’

    On Disability Pay Gap Day, TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    We all deserve to be paid fairly for the work we do. But disabled people continue to be valued less in our jobs market.

    It’s shameful there has been zero progress on the disability pay gap in the last decade.

    Being disabled shouldn’t mean you are given a lower wage – or left out of the jobs market altogether.

    Too many disabled people are held back at work, not getting the reasonable adjustments they need to do their jobs. And we need to strengthen the benefits system for those who are unable to work or are out of work, so they are not left in poverty.

    Featured image via pxhere

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content, after we reached our 20,000th article. Here, in June 2017 we looked at the BBC not showing a crucial speech by Jeremy Corbyn – days before the election. This article was read by nearly 400,000 people. 

    On Sunday 4 June, Jeremy Corbyn delivered the speech that could win the Labour Party the general election. Speaking in the aftermath of the London attacks, Corbyn laid the blame firmly with Theresa May. Not only for her cuts in policing, but for her cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia. The BBC, however, appears to not want to show it. Instead, the public broadcaster showed May’s full speech, while just including a snippet from Corbyn’s.

    The speech

    Corbyn started by having a minute’s silence for the victims, and expressing “love and solidarity” to the people killed and affected by the London attacks. And he praised the emergency services for their response.

    But he also attacked the cutting of police numbers that he has repeatedly called May out on:

    You cannot protect the public on the cheap. The police and the security services must get the resources they need. Not 20,000 police cuts. Theresa May was warned by the Police Federation but she accused them of ‘crying wolf’.

    And he set out the clear choice voters are facing on 8 June:

    The choice you face on 8 June is a Conservative Party which has made it clear that it will press on with another five years of austerity and cuts to essential public services to pay for even more tax handouts to the richest and the biggest corporations.

    Or the Labour Party, which is guaranteeing that 95% of taxpayers will pay no extra tax, but is asking the best off and the largest companies to pay a bit more to fund our hospitals, police, schools, decent pensions, and childcare.

    ‘Difficult questions’

    Corbyn also stated the difficult questions that need to be asked:

    And yes, we do need to have some difficult conversations. Starting with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states who have funded and fuelled extremist ideology. It’s no good Theresa May suppressing a report into the foreign funding of extremist groups. We have to get serious about cutting off their funding to these terror networks, including Isis [Daesh] here and in the Middle East.

    These are incredibly difficult questions for May, and ones she would much prefer not to answer. After all, the Home Office has recently sought to suppress an inquiry into terrorist funding because it reportedly highlights the role Saudi Arabia plays in funding terror. And May is a strong supporter of Saudi Arabia, with her government recently approving £3.5bn worth of arms export licences.

    You can watch the full speech here:

    The BBC

    Unfortunately, Corbyn’s speech was apparently not shown in full on the BBC, whereas May’s full speech was, as many on Twitter pointed out:

    But Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg was willing to repeat smears about Corbyn’s shoot-to-kill policy:

    He also tried to counter perceptions that he is soft on security, including his earlier stance on shoot-to-kill, which he questioned days after the Paris attack at the Bataclan.

    In fact, Corbyn’s shoot-to-kill policy hasn’t changed. Kuenssberg was found by the BBC Trust to have misrepresented Corbyn’s views. And Kuenssberg was found to have breached the BBC‘s impartiality guidelines with her coverage of Corbyn’s comments. But that doesn’t seem to have stopped her from continually repeating them.

    The bigger picture

    But while the reaction from the BBC is disappointing, it is also unsurprising, given recent coverage. Despite this, Corbyn is showing that he is defeating the Tories in one of the areas where they are traditionally stronger – law and order. And it is telling that the party which brought us “strong and stable” and “magic money tree” accused Corbyn of:

    desperate promises and evasive soundbites.

    There was nothing “desperate” or “evasive” about Corbyn’s speech. It was packed not only with empathy, but with clear policy commitments. On the other hand, May is desperate to curtail our freedoms over the concept of “extremism”, a term that she has repeatedly been unable to define. All while suppressing a report into the funding of terrorism and refusing to have those difficult conversations about the billions of pounds in arms sales that her government is authorising to Saudi Arabia.

    This could be the speech that wins Corbyn the election. And we all need to make sure that, despite the BBC‘s best efforts, everyone gets to see it.

    Get Involved!

    – Vote on 8 June. And encourage others to do the same.

    – Discuss the key policy issues with family members, colleagues and neighbours. And organise! Join (and participate in the activities of) a union, an activist group, and/or a political party.

    – See more Canary articles on Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the arms trade and the 2017 general election.

    – Support The Canary if you value the work we do.

    Featured image via screengrab and Wikimedia

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content, after we reached our 20,000th article. Here, in May 2017 we looked at the then-PM breaking the law when she was home secretary. This article was read by nearly 400,000 people. 

    On 25 May 2017, the Court of Appeal ruled that Theresa May acted unlawfully when she was Home Secretary. And with just over two weeks to go until the general election, these findings are another blow to the Prime Minister. But despite the ruling, the media are barely reporting the story.

    The case

    In 1998, 75 people (including children) were washed up on the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in Cyprus, after their boat got into difficulty off the coast. Initially detained for some months, they were granted refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

    But since then, they have been living in increasingly deteriorating conditions. According to a press release from the families’ solicitors Leigh Day:

    For the last 18 years the six refugee claimants and their nineteen children have had to endure deteriorating living conditions on the SBA where they are housed in ex-military accommodation which was due to be demolished in 1997. Many of the children have spent their whole lives on the SBA.

    Theresa May became involved in 2014 when, as Home Secretary, she refused to take legal responsibility for the families. And despite the fact that the families were granted refugee status, May argued that did not extend to the SBA. She therefore argued that the families had no right to resettlement in the UK.

    Acted illegally

    The case was taken to the High Court in 2016, where the government lost. And although the court agreed that the SBA was not technically covered by the convention, the UK was obliged to act in the spirit of that convention.

    But May wasn’t happy with this decision and appealed. And the Court of Appeal went further. It found that the SBA was indeed covered by the convention and that the UK had a direct responsibility for the families there. Leigh Day explains:

    In a unanimous decision the Court of Appeal has today (25 May 2017) found that Theresa May acted unlawfully by refusing to consider allowing entry to the UK to a group of refugee families stranded on the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) in Cyprus.

    The judgment found that:

    There can be no justification for any future decision which leaves these Claimants’ position unresolved for any further length of time. As the Judge made clear, their present conditions are quite unacceptable. That appears to be common ground… I would regard it as unreasonable and a failure of the obligations to the refugees if resettlement was not achieved rapidly.

    Awful conditions

    The lead claimant in the case, Tag Bashir, stated:

    We are delighted that the Court of Appeal has found in our favour and confirmed what we have always known: that we are the responsibility of the UK Government. For the last eighteen years the UK Government has sought to ignore us and has left us stranded on the SBA living in awful conditions. All we have ever wanted is an opportunity to work and make a future for our children. We hope that the Home Secretary will now allow us entry to the UK. We will keep fighting until she does.

    And Tessa Gregory, a partner at Leigh Day, quoted May’s own words back at her:

    Our clients have been in legal limbo for 18 years living in wholly unacceptable conditions on a British military base. They have suffered enough. Now is the time for the Government to show compassion and a ‘strong and stable’ resolve to address this situation which has festered for far too long. We hope the UK Government will not seek to pursue further costly legal proceedings and will face up to its responsibilities by allowing this small group of recognised refugees entry to the UK.

    Lack of compassion

    May acted without compassion in denying these families their right to live in the UK. And in doing so, she has forced adults and children to live in appalling conditions. May not only broke international law to deny them the right to live in the UK, she condemned them to live in accommodation that was due to be demolished some twenty years ago.

    It is a damning indictment of the Prime Minister that she was prepared to act in this way. And it is a damning indictment of the way her government treats refugees.

    Meanwhile, the BBC and other media outlets appear to be ignoring the story. And this is massively beneficial to May, as she would prefer that stories of her breaking the law didn’t make headline news.

    But on 8 June, we do have a chance to vote for compassion. To vote to do things differently and build a kinder, more compassionate society.

    Get Involved!

    – Vote on 8 June!

    – Discuss the key policy issues with family members, colleagues and neighbours. And organise! Join (and participate in the activities of) a union, an activist group, and/or a political party.

    – Also read more Canary articles on the 2017 general election.

    Featured image via Flickr

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Disabled activist Ellen Clifford has begun a legal challenge against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). It’s over the DWP’s failure to consult fairly or lawfully on plans for the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Its proposed changes could cut income for some chronically ill and disabled people by £390 a month.

    DWP WCA changes

    Proposed changes to the WCA will result in reduced benefits for many disabled people who qualify for Employment Support Allowance and the health element of Universal Credit, by changing how the DWP awards points for conditions such as incontinence, immobility, and social anxiety.

    The DWP also proposes to make it more difficult for individuals who do not score enough points, but who have in any case been assessed as not being able to work or do related activity due to a substantial risk to their health, to qualify for additional benefit payments.

    Clifford’s lawyers at the Public Law Project say the consultation process on the WCA changes may be unfair and unlawful, because:

    • At eight weeks, the time period was too short.
    • Not enough information was provided for people to engage properly with the consultation – it did not make clear that some people could lose up to £390 a month or engage with other negative impacts on disabled people.
    • No reasonable adjustments were made for the fact that the most important consultees are disabled people who may need additional support to respond.
    • The consultation design shows no evidence that the secretary of state gave due regard to his Public Sector Equality Duty.

    ‘Unfair and unlawful’

    Clifford said:

    The DWP’s proposals will take much-needed money out of the pockets of disabled people. The proposals themselves do not stack up, and the way they have gone about consulting on the changes is unfair and unlawful. At the very least, the DWP must not pursue any proposals without proper, lawful consultation.”

    The consultation proposes changes to how the system assesses ‘mobilising’, ‘absence or loss of bowel/bladder control’, ‘coping with social engagements’ and ‘getting about’ activities, by removing them entirely or reducing the points awarded for the descriptors.

    People affected by these conditions may lose some benefits altogether or could be moved into a different benefit category which would require them to carry out mandatory ‘work related’ activities as a condition of receiving these benefits.

    Pushing more chronically ill and disabled people into poverty

    She continued:

    These proposals could harm many disabled people who rely on benefits, and push more disabled people into poverty.

    The consultation took place over less than eight weeks. Deaf and disabled people’s organisations – DPPOs – had no advance warning. There was another consultation process running at the same time, in addition to lots of other competing demands on the time of under-resourced DPPOs, of which DWP was well aware.

    For impairment-related reasons, I found it personally difficult to engage with the proposals within the short consultation period. All the DPPOs I spoke to who were able to respond said eight weeks was too short and didn’t give them the chance to consult properly with their members. A number of DDPOs (including DDPOs in the devolved nations) had to rely on a template response in support of key points made by DPO Forum England.

    This left them unable to provide DWP with the level of detail appropriate for a consultation on proposals with the potential to have such serious adverse impacts on the lives of disabled people. Some DDPOs were totally unaware of the consultation and others simply couldn’t respond at all within the given timeframe..”

    The DWP says that the increase in working from home means disabled people can access the world of work more easily. Research shows that disabled people are less likely to work from home than non-disabled employees, yet DWP made no attempt to engage with or even acknowledge those findings.

    The consultation papers do not make clear that the changes may mean a reduction in the amount of benefits a person receives, and that those impacted after undergoing a new Work Capability Assessment could become subject to mandatory activities in order to receive their benefits, and risk being sanctioned if they cannot comply with the conditions imposed.

    DWP make statements about how appropriate support will be available to help disabled people to get back into work, but there is no real detail on this, and they refer to existing projects like Access to Work (AtW). Difficulties accessing AtW consistent with my own personal experience have long been flagged by DDPOs without adequate remedy.

    ‘Life-altering consequences’

    Aoife O’Reilly, the Public Law Project lawyer acting for Clifford said:

    There are principles of fairness that Government departments must follow when carrying out consultations like this.

    The changes being consulted on will have life-altering consequences for disabled people. When you think about the diverse accessibility needs of the people the consultation was aimed at, consulting for just under eight weeks is wholly inadequate.

    It is unclear why DWP thought it was appropriate to close the consultation after just eight weeks, given that it seems to not envisage actually bringing in any changes until 2025.

    We are very pleased to be working with Ellen on this important case and await DWP’s response to our pre-action letter so we can assess next steps.

    Backlash to the DWP’s plans

    In addition to DPPOs being concerned about the proposals, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Work and Pensions Select Committee have criticised the consultation process for being too short, and questioned whether it has grappled meaningfully with the impact that the changes will have on Deaf and disabled people.

    Public Law Project has written a pre-action letter to Mel Stride’s Department on behalf of Clifford, arguing that the consultation process was unlawful and that DWP must not pursue any proposals without further (lawful) consultation.

    A response from the DWP is expected on 14 November 2023.

    Featured image via the DWP – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Disabled activist Ellen Clifford has begun a legal challenge against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). It’s over the DWP’s failure to consult fairly or lawfully on plans for the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Its proposed changes could cut income for some chronically ill and disabled people by £390 a month.

    DWP WCA changes

    Proposed changes to the WCA will result in reduced benefits for many disabled people who qualify for Employment Support Allowance and the health element of Universal Credit, by changing how the DWP awards points for conditions such as incontinence, immobility, and social anxiety.

    The DWP also proposes to make it more difficult for individuals who do not score enough points, but who have in any case been assessed as not being able to work or do related activity due to a substantial risk to their health, to qualify for additional benefit payments.

    Clifford’s lawyers at the Public Law Project say the consultation process on the WCA changes may be unfair and unlawful, because:

    • At eight weeks, the time period was too short.
    • Not enough information was provided for people to engage properly with the consultation – it did not make clear that some people could lose up to £390 a month or engage with other negative impacts on disabled people.
    • No reasonable adjustments were made for the fact that the most important consultees are disabled people who may need additional support to respond.
    • The consultation design shows no evidence that the secretary of state gave due regard to his Public Sector Equality Duty.

    ‘Unfair and unlawful’

    Clifford said:

    The DWP’s proposals will take much-needed money out of the pockets of disabled people. The proposals themselves do not stack up, and the way they have gone about consulting on the changes is unfair and unlawful. At the very least, the DWP must not pursue any proposals without proper, lawful consultation.”

    The consultation proposes changes to how the system assesses ‘mobilising’, ‘absence or loss of bowel/bladder control’, ‘coping with social engagements’ and ‘getting about’ activities, by removing them entirely or reducing the points awarded for the descriptors.

    People affected by these conditions may lose some benefits altogether or could be moved into a different benefit category which would require them to carry out mandatory ‘work related’ activities as a condition of receiving these benefits.

    Pushing more chronically ill and disabled people into poverty

    She continued:

    These proposals could harm many disabled people who rely on benefits, and push more disabled people into poverty.

    The consultation took place over less than eight weeks. Deaf and disabled people’s organisations – DPPOs – had no advance warning. There was another consultation process running at the same time, in addition to lots of other competing demands on the time of under-resourced DPPOs, of which DWP was well aware.

    For impairment-related reasons, I found it personally difficult to engage with the proposals within the short consultation period. All the DPPOs I spoke to who were able to respond said eight weeks was too short and didn’t give them the chance to consult properly with their members. A number of DDPOs (including DDPOs in the devolved nations) had to rely on a template response in support of key points made by DPO Forum England.

    This left them unable to provide DWP with the level of detail appropriate for a consultation on proposals with the potential to have such serious adverse impacts on the lives of disabled people. Some DDPOs were totally unaware of the consultation and others simply couldn’t respond at all within the given timeframe..”

    The DWP says that the increase in working from home means disabled people can access the world of work more easily. Research shows that disabled people are less likely to work from home than non-disabled employees, yet DWP made no attempt to engage with or even acknowledge those findings.

    The consultation papers do not make clear that the changes may mean a reduction in the amount of benefits a person receives, and that those impacted after undergoing a new Work Capability Assessment could become subject to mandatory activities in order to receive their benefits, and risk being sanctioned if they cannot comply with the conditions imposed.

    DWP make statements about how appropriate support will be available to help disabled people to get back into work, but there is no real detail on this, and they refer to existing projects like Access to Work (AtW). Difficulties accessing AtW consistent with my own personal experience have long been flagged by DDPOs without adequate remedy.

    ‘Life-altering consequences’

    Aoife O’Reilly, the Public Law Project lawyer acting for Clifford said:

    There are principles of fairness that Government departments must follow when carrying out consultations like this.

    The changes being consulted on will have life-altering consequences for disabled people. When you think about the diverse accessibility needs of the people the consultation was aimed at, consulting for just under eight weeks is wholly inadequate.

    It is unclear why DWP thought it was appropriate to close the consultation after just eight weeks, given that it seems to not envisage actually bringing in any changes until 2025.

    We are very pleased to be working with Ellen on this important case and await DWP’s response to our pre-action letter so we can assess next steps.

    Backlash to the DWP’s plans

    In addition to DPPOs being concerned about the proposals, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Work and Pensions Select Committee have criticised the consultation process for being too short, and questioned whether it has grappled meaningfully with the impact that the changes will have on Deaf and disabled people.

    Public Law Project has written a pre-action letter to Mel Stride’s Department on behalf of Clifford, arguing that the consultation process was unlawful and that DWP must not pursue any proposals without further (lawful) consultation.

    A response from the DWP is expected on 14 November 2023.

    Featured image via the DWP – YouTube

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In a ceremony in London’s Trafalgar Square on Saturday 11 November, parents from Extinction Rebellion (XR) placed hundreds of empty childrens’ shoes at the world-famous landmark to represent all the young Israeli and Palestinian lives lost in the ongoing fighting:

    XR: calling for a ceasefire and remembering the children

    At 10am, a series of activists from XR Families read out the names of all 4,100 Palestinian children killed by Israeli attacks on Gaza and of the 26 Israeli children killed by Hamas attacks on Israel. Other parents placed sheets of paper listing the names of the dead next to the rows of empty shoes:

    A moment of silence was held at 11am in their memory, and to mourn all innocent children killed in armed conflicts:

    Julie, a mother from XR Families said:

    We are calling for an immediate ceasefire. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said: ‘Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children.’ As parents with children of our own, we say that the violence must stop now. The empty shoes are a symbol of the absence of the thousands of children who have been the innocent victims of this war, representing all the young lives that have been cut short, unfulfilled.

    Jilly, a grandmother who took part in the action, said:

    I look at my healthy, happy children and grandchildren and feel such anguish for the families whose children have been killed in Gaza and Israel.

    Alexia, mother of two added:

    Looking at those empty shoes and reading the names of the thousands of children that have been killed in Gaza, makes my heart bleed – it could be my children. Our politicians are once again showing their lack of humanity.

    It is unbelievable that neither Conservative nor Labour leaders have asked for a ceasefire when the level of killing has been so indiscriminate – It is deeply hypocritical to commemorate Remembrance Day whilst we are allowing a genocide to happen In Gaza.

    Climate chaos fuelling conflict

    XR Families has previously highlighted the link between climate breakdown and wars, in a vicious circle of destruction that harms people and the planet.

    Countries at war are less able to cope with the effects of climate change because their ability to adapt is undermined by internal divisions or ongoing violence. Climate change can also inflame existing tensions over access to diminishing necessities.

    According to the INFORM Risk index published by the European Commission, the Palestinian Territories are among the 25 regions most vulnerable to climate change. In January 2022, intense floods in Gaza damaged hundreds of buildings and put entire drainage systems out of commission, forcing people out of their homes.

    If an extreme weather event hit the area now, when access to basic needs is impossibly restricted, its local population would not have the means to cope.

    The long-lasting occupation and blockade mean people in Gaza have more limited means than in other environments, and are being denied the right to manage their land and resources, making them more vulnerable to climate-related events.

    Britain: complicit in Israel’s occupation of Gaza and Palestine

    In a statement on the Palestine/ Israel war, Extinction Rebellion UK said:

    The future we are fighting for is one free from violent systems of oppression that deem certain lives as expendable or less worthy of protection.

    If we believe in climate and ecological justice, we must seek justice in all forms. The climate and ecological emergency has roots in centuries of colonial violence, exploitation and oppression – for which the UK bears a disproportionate share of responsibility.

    Britain has historically been instrumental in the ruthless suppression of Palestinian human rights and continues to offer unwavering support for the military onslaught we’re seeing now.

    Featured image and additional images via Extinction Rebellion UK

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has branded Suella Braverman “unfit for office” amid her “disgraceful” comments on the group’s upcoming march.

    Horror in Gaza and Palestine

    For the fifth consecutive Saturday since Israel launched its deadly war on Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people will protest in support of besieged Palestinians and for an immediate ceasefire. Following a Day of Action in cities and towns across the UK last week, this Saturday sees the fourth National March for Palestine, when more than 500 000 people are expected to converge in London, making it one of the largest political marches in British history:

    The Palestinian death toll in Israel’s merciless assault stands at 10 818 killed, including 4412 children. Thousands more are missing, presumed dead, under the rubble of buildings that have been destroyed. 1.5 million people have been forcibly displaced. Israel has cut off electricity, food, water and fuel from a population of 2 million people, half of whom are children.

    Oxfam have stated that starvation is being used as a weapon of war. Vital services, including health and sanitation are being pushed towards collapse. There is a huge humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of the world’s eyes.

    PSC on Braverman: “disgraceful remarks”

    PSC reasserts its concerns at the disgraceful remarks by Home Secretary Suella Braverman. She has sought to delegitimise the call for a ceasefire, which is supported by the vast majority of the British public, smear those marching for peace and stir up public unrest. The decision to avoid the centre of London and Whitehall on this weekend was made by the organisers many weeks ago and agreed with the Police.

    Suella Braverman was fully aware of this fact, as was Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, when they issued statements suggesting that the march was intended to disrupt preparations for Remembrance Sunday. As a result, they have caused, we believe intentionally, public concern and greenlit far right activists who have declared their intention to come to London “to protect the Cenotaph”.

    This has created additional unnecessary challenges to the Police and the march organisers to ensure public safety in stewarding many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the march.

    The uncertainty earlier this week as to whether the march might be banned also created delays in the normal process of communication with the Police to plan out the details of the march, including getting agreement to our request to have more than one stage area at the end, so that crowds can be dispersed and managed more easily.

    ‘Unfit for office’

    We reject the attempts by political leaders, opposed to the call for a ceasefire, to defame those marching as hateful, antisemitic and intent on causing disorder. On Saturday we will be marching for peace, for an immediate ceasefire to end the mass killing of civilians in Gaza, and for action to address the root causes of the current violence, which are Israel’s ongoing military occupation, and imposition of a system of apartheid upon all Palestinians.

    Ben Jamal, PSC Director, said:

    Contrary to the disgraceful rhetoric of Suella Braverman and other political leaders, hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life, will come to London to march for peace, for a ceasefire, and for the rights of the Palestinian people to be respected. They reject a narrative that seeks to dehumanise Palestinians and their legitimate struggle for freedom. They are appalled by the mass killing of Palestinians including 4500 children, and they want an end to British complicity in supporting Israel’s decades long violations of international law. They reject all forms of racism and believe that a consistent antiracism means opposing in word and deed the imposition upon the Palestinian people of a system of apartheid. They march as well to affirm the right to protest, now under its most severe attack by a Home Secretary who has shown herself to be wholly unfit for office.

    Featured image via Wikimedia and Wikimedia

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in April 2017 we looked at the surge in young people registering to vote. This article was read by nearly 500,000 people. 

    Theresa May might be in store for a nasty surprise from young people in the UK. Huge numbers of them are registering to vote. And if they actually cast their ballots, they could have a massive impact on the outcome of the general election.

    In just three days, 103,439 18-to-24-year-olds registered. And a further 99,106 25-to-34-year-olds also signed up.

    Bad news for Theresa May?

    While young people engaging with democracy is a good thing, it is likely to be bad news for May. 71% of those under 25 who voted in the Brexit referendum opted to Remain. And according to Ipsos MORI, in the 2015 election those under 25 were much more likely to vote Labour. Also, there was almost an even split between people aged 25 to 44, with Labour just slightly ahead.

    Furthermore, there are indications that young people back Jeremy Corbyn. But this shouldn’t be a surprise. Voters in this age group have lived with Conservative or Coalition governments for most of their adult lives. And these governments have taken away their benefits, increased tuition fees, and destroyed their NHS. At the same time, young people have been priced out of the housing market and told they will likely work for longer than their parents, for less. And 38% of all zero hours contracts are held by those under 25.

    Young people are seeing what’s happening in the country and they don’t like it. According to Matt Henn, a professor at the School of Social Sciences at Nottingham Trent University:

    It could well be because young people have been left feeling really deeply disappointed and worried by the outcome of the Brexit referendum and therefore want to do something to ensure their voice is heard in the General Election.

    To the ballot boxes

    But the impact of this registration will only happen if people actually turn out to vote. In 2015, 70% of young people registered to vote. But only 43% actually voted.

    May will be reliant upon this happening again. And it is down to young people to prove her wrong. Parliamentary politics may not bring about radical change. And there’s far more that needs to be done other than voting. But people have an opportunity to make a political stand in seven weeks’ time. And our lives and our services are on the line in that choice.

    So let’s do it. Let’s all vote. And let’s make June the end of May.

    Get Involved!

    Register to vote in the 8 June general election. If you don’t have a national insurance number, a 5 minute phone call on 0300 200 3500 will get it sent to you in ten days.

    – Discuss the key policy issues with family members, colleagues and neighbours. And organise! Join (and participate in the activities of) a union, an activist group, and/or a political party.

    – Also read more Canary articles on the 2017 general election.

    Featured image via Flickr

    By Emily Apple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in November 2015 we looked at the Daily Mail‘s history of racism. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    The Daily Mail team are not known for their journalist ethics and measured response to crisis, but today’s attack on refugees is a low point, even for them.

    Stanley McMurty, who goes by the pen name ‘Mac’, has produced a chillingly racist cartoon for the Mail – which depicts refugees as marauding soldiers, running into Europe alongside rats. The implication being, they are one and the same.

    Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 3.18.37 PM
    Image via Daily Mail

    The shadowy, caricatured features, the suggestion of vermin-like character – this all seems very reminiscent of the sort of propaganda we have seen from some of the worst regimes in history. As one Twitter user pointed out.

    https://twitter.com/Cuphook108/status/666563241707982848

    While we’re at it, how did the Daily Mail treat Jewish refugees of the Nazi holocaust at the time? In 1938, as the Jewish population of Germany began fleeing Hitler, this was the welcome they received from the Daily Mail.

    9b80bf218ab768703e73156f17f0da6e

    Not only did the Daily Mail propagandize against the incoming Jewish families, but they spent years cheerleading for fascism in general, and Hitler in particular. In 1934, the paper’s owner Viscount Rothermere wrote an editorial personally inviting Britons to embrace both.

    Rothermere_-_Hurrah_for_the_Blackshirts

    The Daily Mail was wrong in 1934, wrong in 1938, and it is wrong today. One would have hoped that in the near century between the mistakes of the 1930’s, and today, the owners, editors and writers at the Daily Mail would have evolved. But sadly, they haven’t. Worse, neither have their readers.

    The average daily readership of the Mail sank by over 4.6% last year. That’s great news for journalism, and even better news for informed democracy. However, 1.6 million people are still waking up and buying this paper, every day.

    It’s the same story at The Sun, where Katie Hopkins invoked the same Nazi-era references, with this piece.

    o-AXELROD-facebook

    A short time later, Hopkins got her wish, when the body of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi washed up on the shores of Turkey. And no, she didn’t care then either.

    The authors of such vile narratives should be facing charges of incitement. Hate crimes against the Muslim population are rising astronomically, not solely because of terror attacks by radical fundamentalists, but because people like McMurty and Hopkins have issued a blood libel against all Muslims, and against all refugees. Thanks to the constant stream of misinformation, people are literally convinced that Muslims are taking over Britain. In fact, more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling on Britain’s borders to be closed to defend from this ‘invasion.’

    The reality is that far from being held to account, cartoonist McMurty has actually been honored with an MBE from the Queen, for “services to the newspaper industry.”

    Over 4.1 million refugees have fled the violence in Syria. Think about how traumatised France is after the attacks on Paris – now imagine such attacks were happening every day, for several years. Then you can begin to imagine the level of trauma amongst the refugees that are lining the shores of Europe. The refugees are fleeing the very people that just brought Paris such grief. Not only has that darkness followed them here, but cynical and bigoted people are actually blaming them for it.

    There needs to be a zero tolerance policy towards behaviour which endangers human life, and those who seek to radicalise the population against a community on religious or racial grounds. If that’s true for ‘mad mullahs’, it should be true for media magnates and their journalists.

    Britain, we are better than this. Let’s prove it by putting our compassion and our dignity on loudspeaker, rather than our fear and prejudice.

    Featured Image by Author 

    By Kerry-Anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Campaign group Fuel Poverty Action held a protest outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DfES) on Wednesday 8 November. Clearly, the DfES was rattled – as security ended up locking all the doors. However, Fuel Poverty Action’s protest still highlighted a ongoing scandal: energy suppliers forcing people onto extortionate prepayment meters.

    Prepayment meters: an ongoing scandal

    As the Canary reported back in February, energy companies in the UK could obtain court warrants that allowed them to enter people’s homes and fit the pay-as-you-go (‘prepayment’) meters. This was when customers had fallen into arrears with their energy bills. They were then at risk of companies cutting their gas supply off if they fail to top them up.

    However, an undercover investigation by the Times newspaper looked into this. It found that contractors working for British Gas sent debt collectors to “break into” homes and “force-fit” meters. This prompted uproar from the public and politicians – even though the practice had actually been going on since 1954.

    So, the energy regulator Ofgem and courts stopped energy suppliers from forcing customers to have prepayment meters. However, as the Morning Star reported:

    Ofgem introduced a self-regulating code of practice for energy providers enabling them to resume forced break-ins and installations.

    Scottish Power has now reportedly secured warrants and broken into the homes of mothers with young children to force them onto prepay meters using the code. But the firm claims it was unaware of the customers’ circumstances and would not have installed a meter forcibly had this become clear.

    Now, the government is considering lifting the current pseudo-ban – even thought energy companies are already forcing prepayment meters upon people, regardless. So, Fuel Poverty Action went to the front door of the DfES to make it loud and clear this would be unacceptable.

    Fuel Poverty Action’s protest

    The group delivered a giant (and impressively-created) prepayment meter to the DfES – highlighting the scale of the problem:

    There were banners and speakers – with representatives from Greenpeace UK and 350 org also supporting the action:

    Protesters holding a banner that says "energy for all" and a placard that says the same outside a big wooden door

    You can watch a video round up, with interviews, of Fuel Poverty Action’s protest below:

    Prepayment meters, and energy companies forcing them onto people, are a huge problem. In 2022 alone:

    • Energy companies forced 600,000 people to have meters.
    • 3.2 million people ran out of gas or electric at least once.
    • Older, chronically ill, disabled, and low-income people were targeted.

    Campaign group the Chronic Collaboration was supporting Fuel Poverty Action. It highlighted on X some of the major issues with prepayment meters for chronically ill and disabled people. It noted that:

    One million households on extortionate & poverty-inducing prepayment meters have a chronically ill and/or disabled person living in them

    Plus:

    Last year, around 130,000 homes with a chronically ill and/or disabled person in them were running out of gas and/or electric at least ONCE A WEEK due to prepayment meters.

    And the Chronic Collaboration also noted that 24,000 prepayment homes with a chronically ill and/or disabled person in them went without power for two days or more. Overall, the group said:

    Paula Peters from campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) was also at the protest. She noted how Rishi Sunak reportedly splashed out huge sums of money on energy to heat his private swimming pool – while poor older people are forced to sit on buses or go to warm hubs all day just to keep themselves heated in winter:

    Fuel Poverty Action wants the government to ban energy companies from forcing people to have prepayment meters. It is also calling on the government to ban energy company standing charges – which cost us all £25 a month before we even use any gas or electric.

    ‘Energy For All’ this winter

    Overall, the DfES clearly felt rattled by Fuel Poverty Action’s protest – as security ended up locking the doors to the building:

    The protest was an effective display of the issues surrounding prepayment meters. However, this is just the start of Fuel Poverty Action’s campaigning this winter. As well as its ongoing #EnergyForAll campaign, it is holding two days of nationwide actions on 1-2 December. Called ‘Warm Ups‘, Fuel Poverty Action says these local events:

    are a way to highlight fuel poverty and bring about change. They are based on the principle that if we can’t afford to heat our own homes, we have a right to go into any public space and keep warm there – and talk to passers-by, hold a speak-out, or a discussion, or a party! Or just put on woolly hats and gather outdoors to speak our minds!

    The group will be releasing more details on these soon. For now, though, Fuel Poverty Action and its allies sent a clear message to the government and the DfES over prepayment meters: that they won’t be allowing energy companies to continue to force them onto customers without a fight.

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in May 2016 we took a look at just what makes the BBC tick. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    EDITORIAL

    The BBC and its political editor Laura Kuenssberg are under fire this week, following local election coverage which has been dismissed as nothing short of propaganda by people across the country. But how did we get here?

    Who runs the BBC?

    624
    Rona Fairhead, Chair of the BBC Trust, and board member of HSBC (image via BBC)

    The current abysmal state of BBC News and Politics makes much more sense when you see who has been appointed to plot its editorial course.

    The BBC Trust is responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations, managing value for money on licence fee payments and ‘the direction of BBC editorial and creative output’. The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Rona Fairhead – who also happens to have been a longtime board member of HSBC bank.

    As The Canary’s James Wright reported earlier this year:

    Fairhead has entrenched ties to the Tory government. In fact, she and Osborne are old friends. Fairhead worked for the Conservative government as a cabinet office member, until being appointed by the previous Conservative culture secretary – Sajid Javid – as the new head of the BBC Trust. She is still business ambassador for David Cameron.

    Fairhead has also sat on the board of HSBC directors for a long time. And what is even more shocking than her other Conservative links are claims that she was actually appointed chairwoman of the BBC Trust to keep a lid on Cameron’s involvement in covering up a £1bn fraudulent HSBC scam on British shoppers. Whistle-blower Nicholas Wilson made various freedom of information requests that confirmed that Fairhead’s appointment did not follow proper procedure. She was rushed to the position after the application date closed, with no mention of her on any contemporary media shortlist.

    Her appointment does not coincide with the normal process, and many questioned why a business tycoon was right for the job. What it did coincide with was a string of interconnected visits from the BBC, HSBC, the Houses of Parliament and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to Wilson’s website where he details the scam and the FCA and Cameron’s involvement in covering it up.

     

    But the conflicts of interest do not stop at Fairhead.

    The Director of News and Current Affairs at the BBC, James Harding, is a former employee of the Murdoch Press. While Editor of The Times newspaper, he was responsible for exposing the identity of police blogger NightJack by hacking the blogger’s email accounts – which his legal team then covered up during a court case against the action. Harding has also gone on the record as ‘pro Israel’.

    This is the calibre of the figures responsible for hiring the news teams, presenters and journalists who will report on matters of hacking, privacy, and the Middle East.

    These are not trivial conflicts of interests. The two individuals primarily responsible for driving the News and Politics agenda for the BBC, are instead driving forward their personal and professional causes – and the licence fee payer is footing the bill.

    What is the impact on reporting?

     BBC3

    These conflicts of interest affect the reporting of News and Politics at the BBC in a very real way. In 2013, researchers at Cardiff University undertook a major content analysis of BBC coverage – funded in part by the BBC Trust. They studied the impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and economics, and politics.

    The findings revealed that:

    • Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
    • On BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19 to one in 2012.
    • When it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.

    On top of this, BBC reporting of Israel-Palestine has been woefully partisan – and in 2013, we found out one reason why.

    In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada, revealed that Raffi Berg, online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports. This from the report:

    In one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza.”

    This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel.

    In a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC journalists:

    “Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border.”

    He omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860.”

    Berg is still in his role.

    All that’s left is propaganda

    Recently, these two vested interests – pro-neoliberalism and pro-Israel – converged on an area of common interest: opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.

    This united bitter Blairites, Conservatives and pro-Israel groups – who ran perhaps the most toxic smear campaign against the Labour party and its leader in living memory. In the run up to the local elections on May 5, the headlines across the BBC and wider media’s flagship television and radio programs was not the 1 million people in the UK reliant on food banks to eat, but the intrigue of the smear campaign.

    Prior to the elections, the reporting by Kuenssberg was dominated almost exclusively by claims of crisis within Labour, providing a platform to a minority of bitter Blairites, and applying pressure on Corbyn to stand aside – or at the very least prepare to.

    On Friday morning – when Corbyn’s vote had not collapsed, but increased, compared to Miliband’s general election performance of 2015 – there was no apology for the wrongful prediction. Instead, the narrative wheeled on regardless. While the SNP lost their majority in Scotland, and Labour advanced in England and Wales – this was the BBC website’s response.

    The situation brings to mind the moment when the BBC’s Andrew Marr interviewed Noam Chomsky about the role of the mainstream media as a propaganda service. Chomsky was discussing the role of self-censorship by journalists, and Marr repudiated the claim, asking:

    “How can you know if I am self-censoring?” Arguing he had never been censored, or told what to think.

    Chomsky calmly responds, as if he were explaining the non-existence of Santa Claus to a child:

    “I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying, but what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

    And therein lies the rub with the role of the BBC, and the wider mainstream media, as a vehicle by which to advance the causes of those who own and run them. There is a monopoly of wealth and power in our society which translates directly into a monopoly of the media. The result is a staggering lack of diversity and pluralism of voices and opinions in the mainstream space. The media has become little more than a monotonous, relentless monologue – when as a country, and a world, we need to be having a conversation.

    Featured Image via Screengrab

     

    By Kerry-Anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in March 2016 we revealed the then-chancellor George Osborne had buried some very bad news. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    This week, George Osborne used his budget announcement to bury a multi-billion pound loss for the taxpayer. It turns out he has cost us funds that could pay for over 100,000 nurses – for a decade.

    On budget day, Sky News quietly posted an exclusive analysis of figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Their findings – described by Move Your Money as “explosive” – show that the taxpayer is set to lose nearly £22billion from George Osborne’s planned sale of our shares in the RBS bank.

    What could we buy?

    If Osborne didn’t keep mishandling the nation’s finances, our public institutions would be looking a whole lot better. The £22bn we are set to lose from RBS shares could pay for either:

    • 103,000 nurses for 10 years (an annual starting wage of £21,388)
    • 5,946 primary schools (an average cost of £3,700,000 each)
    • 147,000 affordable homes (an average cost of £150,000 each)
    • 40 state-of-the-art hospitals (based on the £545,000,000 cost of the new Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham)

    But no, the opportunity will be squandered instead, while the British people are enduring an unprecedented housing crisis and an NHS buckling under austerity.

    An ordinary person would be sacked

    The morning after his budget, Osborne was asked on BBC Radio 4:

    What’s a bloke got to do in your job to get the sack?

    John Humphrys suggested the Chancellor should be sacked for missing his own arbitrary deficit targets. Yet this billion pound loss is arguably much worse than that, as it totally overshadows the revenue that will be generated from the austerity measures within the budget.

    The budget contained cuts to disabled people’s Personal Independence Payment (PIP), to the tune of £4.4bn by 2020. This is a measly one-fifth of what Osborne will lose here. In other words, we could pay for it five times over if Osborne wasn’t vying to be the most incompetent chancellor Britain has ever seen.

    Back in 2008, we bailed out RBS for a whopping £45.5bn, and we are now getting less than half of it back. This represents a direct transfer of billions from the public purse to the private sector.

    If we’re going to make such a loss, let’s keep the bank nationalised and make profit from the shares. RBS had a net profit of £0.734 billion in 2014.

    On Tuesday, a poll conducted by BMG showed that the British public are starting to realise just how incompetent the Chancellor really is. The poll found that 59% of the British people have little or almost no faith in Osborne’s ability to manage the economy.

    This multi-billion pound loss for the taxpayer is a game changer. Osborne promised last year:

    When you take the banks in total, we’re making sure taxpayers get back billions more than they were forced to put in.

    To be fair, Osborne was right on one thing. We were “forced” to bail out the banks that caused the crisis, in what was a total insult to British democracy. Now we look set to lose untold billions that could be used to fund our public institutions, and Osborne just casually tries to sweep it under the rug.

    Let’s stop letting him get away with it.

    Get involved!

    – SHARE this article so Osborne is held to account for costing us our public services.

    Support The Canary so we can continue to bring you what the mainstream media omits.

    Write to your MP to ask about their position on this huge loss.

    Featured image via Flickr/ Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A document released by Dorset Council has revealed that it and the Home Office are actively discouraging refugees they’re holding on the Bibby Stockholm from leaving. Campaign group One Life To Live has said that this amounts to “quasi-detention”.

    Bibby Stockholm: refugees effectively stuck on board

    Dorset Council, which is responsible for health and safety on board the Bibby Stockholm barge and which is a member of the multi-agency forum (MAF) for the site, released the latest joint MAF update on 7 November. This revealed that asylum-seekers accommodated there are being confined to the barge as much as possible, and should be deterred from getting off the bus which is provided to take them into local towns.

    The provision of the bus is a requirement of the contract between CTM and the Home Office. However, the latest MAF update states:

    There have also been concerns that [the bus] service means that asylum seekers are just being dropped-off and left to ‘hang out’ in Weymouth and Portland. This is not happening, nor is it in anyone’s interest for it to happen… There are also be [sic] exercise, recreational and multi-faith facilities on board to minimise the need to leave the site.”

    The update was signed off as usual by Paul Beecroft of the communications team at Dorset Council, with the words “Sent on behalf of the MAF group” – indicating the agreement of all MAF members. Besides Dorset Council these include the Home Office, Portland Port, Dorset NHS, and Dorset Police. MAF meetings are held regularly, and invitees include elected members from the local authorities (town, district and county), MPs, voluntary and community sector partners, and local businesses.

    Now, a campaign group has said this amounts to quasi-detention.

    What is quasi-detention?

    The Home Office factsheet for the Bibby Stockholm site says that it provides “non-detained accommodation”. However, many campaigners, NGOs, and immigration lawyers have long maintained that the barge represents quasi-detention.

    According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention (whose members are cross-party MPs and peers), asylum accommodation sites can be ‘accurately described’ as quasi-detention if they include:

    1. Visible security measures.
    2. Shared living quarters.
    3. Reduced levels of privacy.
    4. Isolation from the wider community.

    All of these apply at the Bibby Stockholm site.

    (1): visible security measures

    Security on board is provided by ICSA, a private contractor, which has assigned a team of “18 guards trained to military standard”. There are security cameras in all communal spaces and along the corridors on each floor. Whenever leaving or returning to the Bibby Stockholm, asylum-seekers undergo airport-style security, including x-rays of their possessions. They cannot walk to anywhere other than the small compound at the head of the barge, which is surrounded by 20-foot-high spiked metal fences and heavy metal gates. To get out of the compound, they must take a scheduled shuttle bus.

    (2) and (3): shared living quarters and reduced levels of privacy

    Cabins on board the Bibby Stockholm, designed for single occupancy, now have bunk beds and people must share with strangers. Each person’s living space is smaller than the average car-park bay.

    (4): isolation from the wider community

    To leave the port, asylum-seekers must take a shuttle bus out of the compound, across the port and out of its gates. The bus is arranged by Portland Port and paid for out of CTM’s £1.6bn contract with the Home Office. According to page 18 of Annex A to that contract, the Home Office must approve the timetables and destinations for the bus. It is understood that there are two stops on the bus route: Victoria Square on the island of Portland, and Commercial Road in Weymouth (on the mainland).

    The MAF update comment about the shuttle bus service is at odds with the way buses are generally understood to operate – which is that passengers may dismount at the appointed stops, and are then free to do as they wish (including ‘hanging around’).

    Furthermore, ‘exercise and recreational’ facilities onboard are extremely limited. Many public spaces have been converted to cabins; the gym contains just two treadmills (for an eventual cohort of 425 men); and even the basketball is not freely available but must be signed in and out – apparently because it could be used as a weapon.

    As a result, the men feel demoralised about this and rarely sign the basketball out.

    Nicola David of One Life To Live, which campaigns against the large-scale asylum containment sites, commented:

    Placing asylum-seekers away from communities, and attempting to contain them there while restricting their freedom to move about, drives a public perception that they have done something very wrong or even criminal, which inevitably and unfairly tarnishes public sentiment towards them. In fact, these asylum-seekers have done exactly what we would all do if we faced war, conflict or persecution – flee for our lives.

    The Bibby Stockholm residents are here legally and they are not criminals. Therefore there is no legal or ethical reason to segregate and contain these asylum-seekers, or to restrict their freedom. This is quasi-detention, pure and simple.

    Discrimination and segregation

    Under Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, and specifically Section 149 (the public-sector equality duty), segregation on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic/national origin or religion is unlawfully discriminatory. Nevertheless, residents of the Bibby Stockholm have been sent to live in a contained space away from local amenities and segregated from the local population – which is overwhelmingly White British.

    Attempting to prevent them from leaving the barge, and preferring that they do not dismount from the shuttle bus contractually provided for their exclusive use, would appear discriminatory.

    Only asylum-seekers who have been in the UK since 7 March 2023, and whose asylum claims are already being processed, are eligible to be sent to the Bibby Stockholm. A high proportion of the cohort came here by plane; they also claimed asylum immediately on arrival in the UK, exactly as required. They should not be treated as if they are here illegally or as if they have committed a crime.

    In a Guardian report on 29 October, one barge resident said:

    We have exactly the feeling of being in prison. It is true that they say that this is not a prison and you can go outside at any time, but you can only go to specific stops at certain times by bus, and this does not give me a good feeling. Even to use the fresh air, you have to go through the inspection every time and go to the small yard with high fences and go through the X-ray machine again. And this is not good for our health. In short, this is a prison whose prisoners are not criminals, they are people who have fled their country just to save their lives and have taken shelter here to live.

    Featured image via Ashley Smith/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY-SA 4.0

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in February 2017 we took aim at Newsnight over one of its guests. This article was read by over 500,000 people. 

    Last night, BBC Newsnight featured a segment on the NHS in which cancer specialist Dr Karol Sikora called the health service “the last bastion of communism”. While dissenting views on the NHS are fine, it is important to know the financial interests and background of the speaker. Sikora has financial interests in privatising the NHS, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    The NHS attack on BBC Newsnight

    The NHS segment opens with Sikora introduced only by name. There is no mention of his experience, or interests. He launches into the standard argument for privatising the NHS. He claims that while it was a laudable idea, it has become a “religion”. That is now unsustainable and needs to be challenged.

    Sikora’s view, and his right to share it, is entirely legitimate. And yes, BBC Newsnight is right to share differing views. But what is critical is that we know the background of the person sharing those views, and if they have arrived at their view objectively. In Sikora’s case, he is effectively being granted a platform to lobby for his personal financial interests.

    Who is Karol Sikora?

    Sikora is the Medical Director of private health firm Proton Partners Ltd, based in the tax haven of the Bahamas. He took part in a series of anti-NHS attack ads for the US Republican Party aimed at killing off President Obama’s healthcare plans. In the videos, it is claimed that NHS rationing boards routinely deny life-saving care to vulnerable British patients.

    This is lobbying.

    Sikora also has links with the Prince Charles Foundation for Integrated Medicine (FIM). The foundation promoted the Prince’s somewhat left-field views on alternative medicine. And Sikora has been accused of exploiting the vulnerability of desperately ill people, in order to promote expensive bogus therapies like homeopathy. Ultimately, FIM was shut down after its finance director stole more than £250,000 from the charity. But the scheme was reborn as the College of Medicine just months later.

    Imperial College London also took legal advice after Sikora made repeated public claims that he holds an honorary professorship at the prestigious institution. He does not.

    Viewers, however, were quick to spot the issue.

    But is Sikora right?

    Even if Sikora had a natural bias, he might also be right. Sikora claims the NHS is unsustainable as a taxpayer-funded system, due to rising demand and technological advancement. Is this true?

    Has there been an unsustainable rise in demand? No. Demand has risen in line with population growth.

    As The Canary’s John Nedham writes:

    In short, it defies logic to claim, as the population grows and the average age increases, that a rise in demand for medical services has come as a surprise. Whatever the assorted word-jugglers and political spin doctors might like you to believe, if there are more people there will be more patients. And those patients’ expectations are no more unreasonable than they have ever been.

    Then why is the NHS in crisis? The government chose to underfund the service, providing it with less money than it required. The crisis was entirely predictable. Responding to the government’s 10-year budget forecast in 2015, the King’s Fund warned:

    The ten years up to 2020/21 are likely to see the largest sustained fall in NHS spending as a share of GDP in any period since 1951.

    As a result the NHS is struggling to meet its obligations to patients.

    What makes this all the more unnecessary is that the funds the NHS requires are entirely affordable. In 2014, the Commonwealth Fund still judged the NHS the best healthcare system in the world, and the most cost effective too.

    The secret to a decent NHS

    Any analysis of the NHS which neglects the impact of debt-laden PFI hospitals and chronic underfunding is at best incomplete, and at worst dangerous. It allows politicians and the media to scapegoat patients, staff, and the concept of the NHS itself, rather than take responsibility for a crisis of their own making. The UK has a GDP (amount of wealth we produce each year) of over £2tn a year. The NHS costs us just £116bn. UK citizens pay less money, for better care, than almost any other healthcare system in the world.

    Sikora argues we can’t afford to keep the NHS. The truth is, we can’t afford not to.

    Get Involved!

    – Read more Canary articles on the NHS, and more from The Canary’Health section.

    – Support the Save Our NHS campaign, and other NHS campaigns.

    Featured image via YouTube Screengrab

    By Kerry-Anne Mendoza

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in February 2016 we looked at Mhairi Black’s speech in defence of WASPI women. This article was read by nearly 600,000 people. 

    On Wednesday 24 February, the House of Commons held its third debate on the reform of state pensions for women born in the 1950s. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Mhairi Black, was put forward to challenge the government’s acceleration of the proceedings.

    As it stands, the reforms are set to discriminate heavily against women across the country, because they weren’t given enough notice by the government, and many are not in a position to make different arrangements in order to stay afloat.

    The reform itself dates back to 1995, however the government did not get in touch with those affected until 2009, 14 years later. Initially the reform was supposed to be phased in slowly, but in 2011 George Osborne decided to accelerate the process of equalisation by several years.

    Many women had been expecting for years to receive their pension at 60, and yet all of a sudden the reality was that they would not be receiving a single penny until they were 66. Entire life plans had to be remedied, with less than five years’ notice.

    As in the first two debates, Mhairi Black stood up to represent the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign. She sits on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and over the months she has never shied away from challenging the DWP on its vicious implementation of austerity against the UK’s most vulnerable citizens.

    ‘Pensions are not a benefit, they are a right’

    The core of the matter, as she explains, is not equalisation. There is nothing wrong with the idea that men and women should start receiving their pension at the same age.

    The problem goes much deeper than that; the government pushed through these changes without any regard to the rights of these women to a fair pension, whilst claiming that any amendment to the current legislation would be unaffordable for a supposedly cash-strapped government.

    If state pensions are to be changed, she argues, it is only fair that those affected by the changes are given fair and clear notice about what exactly is going to happen. As Black told the House:

    One of my constituents described [pensions] as a contract. That’s exactly what they are.

    So let me make this very simple:

    Everyone in this House has a phone […] We have a contract. If O2, or Virgin, or whoever else, 3, were to change the terms and conditions of our contract, we would have something to say about it.

    And if they waited 14 years to tell us that the terms and conditions had changed, I’m sure that everybody in here would have something to say about it.

    And if they said, on top of that, “you’re also going to be forced to live off your life savings because of the changes of that contract”, you would be up in arms about it, and quite rightly so.

    So why are pensions any different here?

    Mhairi Black went on to attack the government for claiming that there is no money to change these sorts of reforms. “This is austerity of choice,” she said, adding:

    I have yet to hear of a general or a defense minister say: “we can’t bomb that country because we’ve exceeded our budget, we can’t find the money”.

    When we want to bomb Syria we can find it. When we want to refurbish Westminster we can find it, but when it comes to giving our pensioners their pension we cannot do it?

    I just don’t accept that whatsoever.

    Democracy in contempt

    This is not the first time this issue has been raised. The first debate was on 7 January, and at the time the House voted overwhelmingly against the government, with 158 votes to 0.

    Apparently that result wasn’t clear enough for the government.

    An online petition then drew over 100.000 signatures, and a second debate was scheduled for 1 February. Again, the House voted against the government.

    So why was there any need to schedule a third debate? It seems that this government has a very serious problem with the idea of democracy, never mind its practice.

    We had a chance to see this during the tax credits affair in November; despite the fact that even the House of Lords had rejected George Osborne’s plans to cut tax credits, he ended up sneaking them in anyway in a shameful U-turn.

    And now, the Conservatives are repeating the same strategy. Not only are they ignoring the 2.6 million women who have been affected by these changes, they are also ignoring the very principle of parliamentary democracy that is supposed to be the crown jewel of the United Kingdom.

    But after three debates, they can no longer ignore that they have the country and Parliament against them. The WASPI campaign will continue to put pressure on the government, and so will principled Members such as Mhairi Black. The government backtracked on tax credits, they will backtrack on this issue as well.

    Get involved!

    -Follow WASPI on Facebook for more updates on their campaign.

    Write to your MP and tell them to support WASPI.

    -Support The Canary so we can keep holding power to account.

    Featured image via Facebook/Mhairi Black

    By Gabriel Popham

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In December 2019 – as had been calculatedly planned and prepared for by establishment malefactors – the Tories won the general election by a landslide, making the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership untenable. The Tory victory was not validation of their political acumen but largely a result of the success of a three word slogan – “Get Brexit Done” – in convincing people that a vote for Boris Johnson was a vote in their best interests.

    In a characteristic display of an abject lack of ethics and integrity, the current Tory UK government have been slyly hawking policies within the 2019 Labour manifesto and palming them off as their own ideas. Considering that Corbyn was systematically ridiculed, thoroughly discredited, and subjected to brutal character assassination for making the exact same policy proposals, their rebranding by the Tories should be considered absolutely disgraceful.

    It does, however, have a positive element, in that it demonstrates Corbyn’s perspective and ideas exert a deeper, more sustained impact on politics than acknowledged and have continued, enduring relevancy in society, more than many would admit, giving credence to the notion of ‘Long Corbyn’.

    Conservatives stealing Labour policies

    Overall, the Conservatives are basing the potential for policy success and a credible legacy on a calculated policy theft from Labour. This act of plagiarism and dishonesty is deliberately done away from parliamentary spaces under the public eye, subject to a certain degree of democratic scrutiny and oversight.

    The double standard within the policy-napping operation is that, when the left propose them, the ideas and their utopian spirit are taken as proof of, at best, political incompetence – and at worst, full on delusion. By contrast, and testament to the extreme pro-Tory bias of an essentially right-wing political and media power nexus, when Conservatives platform the same policies they are judged as wise, competent and pragmatic.

    Examples of Labour policies stolen and rebranded by the Conservatives are not limited to but certainly include:

    • Windfall Tax
    • Energy cap
    • HS2
    • Nationalisation
    • National Infrastructure Commission

    Faced with the huge tasks and logistical challenges of policy making, Tory governments inevitably discover that, in practice, the opposition’s approach is actually the more pragmatic option. Just the right amount of changes to superficial, surface details of the policy are made to cover up the blatant fact of policy plagiarism. While formally but falsely accredited to the Tories these policies are testament to the durability of Corbyn’s ideas.

    The broad trend of UK politics over the long century has been characterised by an acceleration toward, and eventual normalisation of, a far-right agenda and free market fundamentalism. In this climate, Corbyn was rendered a renegade and outsider candidate.

    Thatcher’s lasting legacy

    After WW2, the spectrum of acceptability of government policy (Overton Window) had settled around a consensus that state spending on public services, nationalisation of public utilities, and a generous, expansive welfare state – Keynesian economics – were virtuous and reasonable pursuits, a policy programme Corbyn sought to rehabilitate.

    Unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher exploited social instability and crises relating to the nascent Labour and trade union movement in the 1970s, casting a long spell over UK politics. She weakened support for Labour progressivism and accrued a public mandate for power by clearly presenting herself as the antidote. It is in this context that left-wing policies were maligned.

    She mounted an ultimately successful effort to shift the Overton Window in such a way that radical free market fundamentalism – an extremist ideology – would appear to be sensible, moderate pragmatism, while truly progressive utilitarian socialist policies would appear – through the distorting lens of the Overton Window – as dangerous extremism.

    Left policies are markedly more likely to work in the public interest and in support of freedom and social justice, but the optics of neoliberalism erase this fact.

    Globalisation is characterised by the subtle yet severe transformation of ostensibly sovereign institutions of national democracy into mere conduits, through which neoliberal project management and the goals of the elite are implemented and bludgeoned.

    The ‘democratic’ legislature is thus rendered a subordinate entity whose remit to autonomy and self-determination has been eroded in parallel with the growing influence of behind the scenes corporate lobbyists, with particular preferences in policy and legislation not aligned to the public interest.

    The resurgence of UK leftism

    The lamentable political reality of neoliberal globalism is surely one of the major composite elements which fomented the public dissatisfaction which propelled Corbyn and precipitated his rise to power as the leader of the opposition.

    This explosion of resurgent leftism in the UK was definitely not an isolated or short lived phenomenon, forming part of a wider seismic shift toward open rebellion against empire (galvanised by widespread political repression) spanning the entire world and continuing to manifest today.

    This alone is sufficient demonstration for the enduring relevance of Corbyn’s politics which are not, as the establishment would have us believe, the anachronistic delusions of a geriatric, senile, driftwood politician unacquainted with the reality of government.

    These movements, seemingly disparate and localised on the surface, are actually concordant, unified, and profoundly interconnected, especially in their understanding of the suboptimal political conditions they strive to transform and the progressive changes they advocate.

    Squashing the intellectual fifth column

    For example, the purposeful misuse of cyber technology for repressive purposes by authoritarian regimes, such as censorship of dissidence, wholesale surveillance of entire populaces, and behavioural modification to the extent of swaying elections, is an issue concerning everybody who values freedom – regardless of ethnicity, religion or class.

    Completely and properly comprehended, the prevailing global surveillance superstate, headed by a cartel of intelligence agencies not party to the social contract and laws of nation states that moderate abuses, exposes the concept of nationality, the fundamental organising principle of politics, as imaginary, a political illusion, a deception and mirage.

    Arguably, an accurate account of the system and laws governing global politics is that it is a post-national, post-democratic sphere galloping into dystopia, in which people of political conscience, such as Corbyn, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and the many conscientious objectors of this ilk, are falsely presented as malicious and dangerous malefactors; an internal fifth column that demands to be squashed.

    This is precisely because their activism is an existential threat to the empire and the vested interests of the people upholding it. Whilst the one dimensional caricatures of these activists don’t withstand scrutiny, they are nonetheless a powerful fiction absorbed by the masses – and this is why many people continue to ridicule Corbyn today, though time will vindicate these illustrious renegades and the canon in which they consist.

    Left-wing ideas will not be flattened that easily

    Given the disgraced incumbent government has acted so grievously dishonestly, the left can be sure it wields the moral high ground going into the next election. Whilst Keir Starmer is the architect of a McCarthy-style purge of left elements within Labour and a poor opposition to the Tories, the deep echoes of Corbyn’s vision will be sure to continue sculpting the perspectives of significant parts of the electorate demographic, particularly the young.

    It’s unlikely that the pool of subscribers to left wing ideas will diminish and the definitive case that Corbyn was worthy of wider support is in the imitation of his ideas by the Tories, flattery indeed.

    Corbyn is a paradigmatic example of how the establishment viciously protects its self serving interests by means of propaganda and psyops. Evidently the attempt to suppress the vivid, brilliant, and beautiful movement he inspired ultimately triumphed in its quest to block his ascendancy to the office of prime minister.

    Unsurprisingly this has had a deleterious effect on citizenship, on policy, and on institutions of democratic governance.

    Corbyn’s vision will outlive neoliberalism

    The Corbyn phenomenon must be viewed in this context and is only fully understood as a product of and reaction against regressive political and economic trends, like “austerity” (aka class war) that precipitated the reemergence and resurgent popularity of socialism.

    The deeper fault lines of politics, however, remain permanently shifted – and the visionary ideas of socialism will ultimately surpass and outlive the neoliberal moment.

    Featured image via Jeremy Corbyn – Wikimedia 

    By Megan Sherman

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in November 2016 we revealed the details of the Investigatory Powers Act – which still has ramifications today. This article was read by over 650,000 people. 

    The Investigatory Powers (IP) bill has received royal assent and been signed into law in the UK. Its authorisation comes just days after a petition to repeal the bill reached over 100,000 signatures.

    That petition could have triggered a parliamentary debate on the bill. But it seems the UK government decided to ignore that public outcry and forge ahead with the “most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy” as quickly as possible.

    A dark day for Britain

    The IP bill will essentially remove UK citizens’ right to privacy. It will force internet service providers (ISPs) to store a record of our web browsing activity. And a long list of officials will be able to access those records. It also allows our security services to hack devices, and legitimises their own collection of our data in bulk.

    It is a bill that codifies George Orwell’s 1984 into law. While you won’t see Big Brother beamed through your television screen like in that book, make no mistake, he will be there. In fact, he’ll be everywhere.

    A perfect day for those in power

    Home Secretary Amber Rudd saluted its royal assent. She claimed it is “world-leading legislation” that gives “unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection” to UK citizens.

    And privacy campaigners agree on Rudd’s “world-leading” assertion, although not for the same reasons. Executive Director of the Open Rights Group Jim Killock commented:

    She is right, it is one of the most extreme surveillance laws ever passed in a democracy. The IP Act will have an impact that goes beyond the UK’s shores. It is likely that other countries, including authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.

    The changing face of the UK

    While the IP bill will shore up other countries’ claims for similar legislation, it will hinder freedoms for UK citizens. Because the right to privacy encourages scrutiny, inquisitiveness, daring, and creativity. Without it, those important qualities may give way to conformity.

    This dynamic was recognised, and exploited, by 18th-century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. He designed the panopticon, a prison that ensured inmates could be surveilled at any moment – with or without their knowledge.

    French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault, meanwhile, describes the effect of this in his book Discipline and Punish:

    to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power… the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so.

    The Conservative Party is generally wedded to the principle of state reduction, especially when it comes to minimising state support for its citizens. But this bill, championed by Theresa May in her time as Home Secretary, ensures a massive state intrusion into all our lives.

    It does, though, maximise the government’s influence over the population. That’s exactly why the corridors of power are now ringing with cheers. And why the country at large should be horrified.

    Get Involved!

    – Read more Canary articles on the IP bill.

    Learn more about how to protect your privacy with the Open Rights Group.

    Support The Canary if you appreciate the work we do.

    Featured image via Ben Salter/Flickr

    By Tracy Keeling

  • In Sheffield, its council passed a motion on Wednesday 1 November calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza and the Occupied Territories. However, it wasn’t just thanks to politicians that the motion passed. Despite media reports to the contrary, it was actually the local community that made it happen.

    Sheffield Labour Party: all not quite what it seems

    Novara Media reported on Sheffield City Council’s motion. It noted that:

    All 31 Labour councillors in Sheffield have defied Keir Starmer and the Labour leadership in its support for Israel by voting for a motion calling for a ceasefire.

    The motion, which was proposed by the Greens at a full council meeting on Wednesday and which passed with cross-party backing, also called on the government to stop all arms sales and military aid to Israel, condemned its abstention at the UN on a humanitarian truce, and resolved for the council to join the Sheffield Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid. 

    This is believed to be the first time Labour councillors have voted for a motion calling for a ceasefire in a public meeting since the Hamas attacks on 7 October.

    The vote came after councillors suggested to the leadership of the Labour council group that many could resign their positions – as others have done elsewhere – if Labour did not vote to back the motion.

    However, as people pointed out on X, Novara didn’t tell the whole story:

    The community lobbying its elected reps

    The groups Sheffield Justice Movement (SJM), Sheffield Youth for Palestine, the University of Sheffield Palestine Society, and Sheffield Black Lives Matter had been campaigning for weeks for the Green Party’s motion, and for Labour councillors to vote to adopt it. Below is a statement the groups released to the Canary:

    On Wednesday 1 November, one day before the 106th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, Sheffield Justice Movement rallied outside Sheffield Town Hall alongside several other Palestine solidarity groups to pressure the City Council into passing the Sheffield Green Party motion officially recognising Israel’s war crimes since 1948. The motion was put forward by Green councillors Alexi Dimond and Maleiki Haybe.

    Over a thousand members of the community stood outside Town Hall for the entire duration of the council meeting demanding that Sheffield councillors either speak up in truth or resign from their positions. As a direct result of the action, the motion was successfully passed during the council meeting marking a significant point of success for Sheffield, as a city that officially stands against Israel’s occupation of Palestine and blockade of Gaza, just as it stood against South African apartheid decades ago.

    Most significantly, this motion:

    • Resolves to cease all arms sales to Israel
    • Calls on the British government to put an end to military aid to Israel calls for an immediate ceasefire.

    Furthermore, this motion affirms that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land and is an apartheid state. It states that both the United Nations and Amnesty International have documented numerous unlawful attacks by Israel that resulted in mass civilian casualties in Gaza, declaring these to be investigable war crimes.

    Finally, the motion calls on Keir Starmer to apologise for, and retract, his statement of support for Israel’s policy of collective punishment against Palestinians, which includes withholding food, water and electricity from Gaza as well as carpet bombing civilian areas.

    Labour: still selling out Palestinians

    What the groups also noted in their statement was that Labour councillors didn’t actually back the motion in its original form:

    Despite the fact that the motion was successfully passed, both Sheffield Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors diluted the motion with several amendments. SJM condemns the councillors’ cowardice in refusing to apologise for erecting the Israeli flag atop Town Hall, going so far as to delete the article of the motion which proposed this.

    We also condemn the reluctance of Sheffield’s elected representatives to stand in firm principled opposition against the genocide of Palestinians, instead choosing to continue enabling decades of ongoing brutal and systemic colonial violence.

    Whilst the success of this motion is a victory for Palestinian freedom movement, it serves as a reminder of how much is yet to be achieved.

    Overall, the groups said:

    This victory is evidence that grassroots communities can build independent power and strength in a meaningful, practical and impactful way to protect their communities in a way that can contribute to practical change when all else fails.

    SJM calls upon all citizens across all communities in the UK to organise and call on their councils to pass similar motions. Our city councillors must oppose Israeli apartheid, or resign their seats.

    So, while Labour councillors in Sheffield did defy Starmer – they did so with one hand behind their backs. Moreover, they certainly didn’t do it of their own accord. It was the community of Sheffield that made it happen.

    Featured image via the Socialist Equality Party – screengrab

    By The Canary

  • The Canary is looking back at some of its most-read content. Here, in November 2016 we revealed that Virgin Care had brought up £700m of NHS services – just as Donald trump was elected US president. This article was read by nearly 700,000 people. 

    While the globe is still reeling from Donald Trump’s victory, Richard Branson has quietly made the type of healthcare history only a US President would be proud of. In an unprecedented move, the British government has gifted for-profit Virgin Care direct control of Bath and North East Somerset Council’s core adult social care services as part of a £700m deal.

    The deal

    From April 2017, Virgin will run three statutory services. Adult social care, continuing healthcare, and children’s community health will all be in the control of a profit-seeking company.

    At present, the council has said there is a clause meaning any financial surplus will be reinvested in services. But Ruth Allen, of the British Association of Social Workers, was sceptical:

    How long will that last, and how will surpluses be defined?”

    How can they provide sustainable value on public money and highest quality when they need to show dividend returns to shareholders?

    Virgin Care has shareholders which need to see profit returns on their investment.

    The next step on the privatisation stairway

    Theresa May’s Conservatives have taken us up another rung of the privatisation ladder in selling off an unprecedented level of NHS services to Branson.

    But that’s not the only worrying record they’ve broken with our NHS. Contrary to May’s rhetoric, the Prime Minister and her predecessor’s ideological austerity programme have pushed historic levels of debt on the NHS.

    nhs-deficits

    NHS funding has dramatically decreased since 2010, according to the government’s own figures.

    The pattern continues. As well as record-breaking deficits and levels of private control, the Conservative government tried to sneak out the biggest sell-off in the history of the NHS. £7.9bn of contracts are up for sale in the latest NHS bonanza; 7.3% of the entire health budget.

    The government is taking us further and further towards full privatisation. Department of Health figures show that the amount of money going to “independent sector providers” more than doubled, from £4.1bn in 2009-10 to £8.7bn in 2015-16.

    Corporate billionaires like Branson love privatised profit and socialised losses

    Big Business cannot get enough of risk-free investment in essential services. When our public institutions are privatised, we still need to use them. But now, the government and corporations are continuing to place tollgates between us and what we need, like rent or increased fares. In one way or another, privatisation means we will be charged more each time we use institutions like the NHS or the railways.

    Along with buying up our health service, Branson’s Virgin empire already controls a big part of our rail. This offers insight into what we can expect from his reign over our NHS.

    Branson’s West Coast mainline received government handouts between 1997-2012 that tally up at £2.79bn at today’s prices. Subsidies to private rail companies like Virgin Trains mean we are essentially paying for our rail tickets twice.

    In 2014, the Coalition government handed Virgin and Stagecoach a lucrative £3.3bn, eight-year East Coast Mainline contract. The government is handing public money to rail shareholders through the privatisation con, while imposing austerity on the rest of us. We are handing Branson and co. billions before anyone’s even bought a ticket.

    Ending privatisation

    On the other face of our outdated two-party system, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end private provision and bring the NHS “back into public hands”. He has also vowed to end private rail provision.

    In contrast, the Conservatives are taking us closer and closer to a US-style health system.

    Across the Atlantic, a bigot who lies 78% of the time has conquered the presidency with very dangerous anti-foreigner rhetoric. Therein lies a warning. Despite enjoying 41.6% of the world’s wealth, America is by far the most unequal country in the world because of the economic policies the Conservatives are imitating. Such as selling off huge chunks of the NHS to for-profit corporations like Branson’s Virgin Care. In following the US model, the government is creating fertile ground for the rise of extremism. As well as siphoning off public funds to the rich.

    Get Involved!

    Read more Canary articles on the NHS, and more from The Canary‘s Health section.

    – Support the Save Our NHS campaign, and other NHS campaigns.

    Support The Canary, so we can keep bringing you the news that matters.

    Featured image via Wikimedia and Flickr

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has published new analysis which reveals holiday pay rights for millions of workers could be weakened by new Conservative plans. Workers risk exhaustion as lower holiday pay will leave many with no choice but to forgo paid time off, the union body has warned.

    Tory threats to holiday pay

    The TUC has found that up to 3.5 million people – or 1 in 8 workers – are at risk of being left worse off as a result of ministers’ plans to meddle with holiday pay. The warning comes as parliament returns and the government prepares to introduce regulations reducing rights at work stemming from EU law.

    Currently, the law ensures that most holiday is paid in line with workers’ normal earnings – including regular overtime, regular commission, and regular bonuses.

    However, the government wants to overhaul this and is considering requiring bosses to only cover basic pay – excluding regular overtime and commission payments. This means that some workers would be paid much less than they currently are when they take their holidays.

    The latest data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Labour Force survey suggests that 3.5 million workers do regular overtime. However, all of these workers could get lower paid time off as a result of the government’s changes.

    The TUC says the Conservatives’ plans would hit workers in the lowest paid occupations hardest, where regular overtime is more common. Some low-paid workers might be forced to forgo their leave altogether because they can no longer afford to take time off, the TUC warns.

    Rolled-up holiday pay

    Workers’ ability to take leave could also be hit by a separate government proposal – also introduced through powers in the government’s Retained EU Law Act – to allow ‘rolled up holiday pay’, according to the union body. This would rip up workers’ rights to be paid while they are on annual leave. Instead, employers could include holiday pay in a worker’s hourly pay rate, making this hourly rate slightly higher – but any holiday the worker then takes would then be unpaid.

    The union body says imposing this type of holiday pay stops low-paid workers from taking time off work because “for those struggling to put food on the table and bills, money will always come first”. It also makes it far harder for workers whose bosses refuse them time off to seek compensation from an employment tribunal.

    The union body says these measures risk increasing exhaustion and illness among workers.

    ‘Holiday shouldn’t be the preserve of the rich’

    TUC general secretary Paul Nowak said:

    No one should be left out of pocket when they take time off. But the Tories’ plan to meddle with the way holiday pay is calculated could see millions of grafters who do regular overtime worse off when they take holiday. This would be a huge blow to working people in every corner of the country.

    The last thing they need is less money when they take a well-earned break. Ministers must protect working people’s holiday pay and ditch these plans without delay.

    On the risk that workers don’t take time off as a result of the changes, Nowak added:

    Having time off shouldn’t be the preserve of the wealthy. But the Conservatives’ plans would force many low-paid workers to forgo holidays and time off with family. For those struggling to put food on the table and pay their bills, money will always come first – no matter how much they need a break. Working people are already working around the clock to make ends meet – and too many are exhausted.

    Featured image via tommyandone – Envato Elements

    By The Canary

  • In 2014, the Guardian fired its journalist Nafeez Ahmed for using his editorial freedom to post on the site about Israel’s colonisation of Palestinian resources. What remains largely unreported is the role Gaza’s natural gas could play in the current Israeli war with, and occupation, of Palestine since the conflict intensified on 7 October.

    Israel: colonising Gaza for its gas?

    Israel is blocking Palestinian development of its resources costing its people billions of dollars. While the climate crisis means we need to leave such resources in the ground, Gaza has offshore natural gas in its territory and Israel could be motivated to exploit it for itself.

    The Guardian fired Ahmed in 2014, claiming that his piece on Gaza was “inappropriate” for a blog about the environment, even though it was the website’s most shared story about the situation at the time. As Ahmed wrote on his Medium site, his piece was:

    exposing the role of Palestinian resources, specifically Gaza’s off-shore natural gas reserves, in partly motivating Israel’s invasion of Gaza aka ‘Operation Protective Edge.’ Among the sources I referred to was a policy paper written by incumbent Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya’alon one year before Operation Cast Lead, underscoring that the Palestinians could never be allowed to develop their own energy resources as any revenues would go to supporting Palestinian terrorism.

    Fast forward to 2023, a secret Israeli Intelligence Ministry document shows a plan to expel Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt, which would make way for Israel to seize Palestinian resources. Indeed, Israel is publicly demanding Palestinians flee Northern Gaza. The state has colonised Palestine since 1948, enjoying its gas and oil licenses as a result, and seems to be using Hamas to settle further in Gaza.

    The Guardian: censoring the truth

    So, the Guardian fired Ahmed for revealing the truth about Israel’s colonialism.

    However, this approach isn’t a one off. The Guardian has form here. Recently, the outlet fired its long-term cartoonist Steve Bell for a drawing criticising Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has overseen the killing of over 8,000 Palestinians since 7 October and many more in the years before. The Guardian says it fired Bell because of allegations the cartoon was antisemitic. But these appear to be based on loose association with other examples of antisemitism, rather than the cartoon itself.

    Another example of the Guardian firing critics of Israel is when media company sacked Nathan J Robinson in 2021 for a sarcastic social media post, criticising the US for arming Israel.

    Indeed, the Guardian played a key role in what academics found to be a “disinformation paradigm” when it reported on alleged antisemitism in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour.

    The Guardian remains a great resource on certain topics but it also plays a role in the information artillery of the US-led empire, as its reporting on Corbyn and Julian Assange indicates.

    However, when its mattered the most the Guardian has sided with the establishment and that shouldn’t be forgotten. And neither should Israel’s potential exploitation of Palestinian resources.

    Featured image via the Guardian – screengrab

    By James Wright

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As fossil fuel major Shell has once again announced obscene profits and shareholder pay-outs, the UK government has issued a new round of oil and gas licences. This time, the company has topped the tables for the number of new awards.

    Of course, the news comes as winter looms and UK households brace for another cold season with extortionate energy bills – of which Shell’s profits could pay for around seven million households’ worth.

    Shell’s staggering profits and shareholder pay-outs

    On Thursday 2 November, Shell published its third quarter profits.

    The fossil fuel giant posted profits of £5.1bn. This adds to its near £11.6bn already this year alone, taking its total to £16.7bn. Meanwhile, the company declared shareholder distributions of £4bn. Again, it builds on £9.3bn announced in the first half of 2023. It took its total shareholder pay-outs to over £13bn.

    Naturally, Shell’s announcement comes at a time when the UK is reeling from the devastating impacts of Storm Babet and in the grip of Storm Ciaran. Of course, scientists have linked the climate crisis to the increased frequency and severity of autumn and winter storms in the UK.

    Accounting company PwC has estimated the insurance costs of Storm Babet for residential and commercial properties at anywhere between £450-650m. Therefore, just the shareholder pay-outs Shell made this quarter alone could pay for this damage at minimum, six times over.

    Fuel poverty versus fossil fuel riches

    To make matters worse, while Shell’s profits pile up, UK electricity and gas prices remain sky high. Shell’s staggering figures stand out once more against the backdrop of soaring energy bills. UK households face another winter of exorbitant energy costs. Analyst Cornwall Insight has estimated that average energy bills will rise by 3.5% in January.

    Already, the average household energy bills between October and December will be 50% higher than in winter 2021/22. Compounding this, the Tories have dropped financial support available to households. Specifically, the government has scrapped the Energy Bill Support Scheme – a £400 winter discount on energy bills it implemented last year.

    Shell’s shareholder dividends for 2023 so far equate to more than the cost of financing this in full. What’s more, it would still leave plenty left over to cover all 1.6m people the Canary’s Steve Topple calculated the government has left out of this year’s cost of living payments.

    Alternatively, its dividends for 2023’s first three quarters could pay the average energy bills of over seven million homes. This is more than a quarter of all UK households, and over the 6.3 million households non-profit National Energy Action has estimated rising costs will push into fuel poverty this winter.

    New oil and gas licences

    So, in the same week the company announced booming profits, it also took the lion’s share of new oil and gas licences.

    On Monday 30 October, the UK government issued its first tranche of new offshore oil and gas licences. These are part of over a hundred the government previously announced in July that it plans to greenlight for this round of licensing.

    In all, it announced 27 new licences, spanning 64 blocks. Shell won the most – with 11 licences across 28 blocks. The majority of these are exploration licences, alongside two for developing wells. In addition, Shell has also obtained one licence it will merge with another it already holds.

    The total size of these blocks together equates to over 5,500km². Of this, Shell’s blocks cover some 3,500km² – over 17 times the size of Equinor’s climate-wrecking Rosebank blocks. However, since these are primarily exploration licences, the amount of oil and gas contained in the new areas is yet to be determined. It means that not all these blocks will necessarily lead to production.

    Even so, the sheer scale of the newly licensed area for oil and gas exploration flies in the face of international climate targets. The International Energy Agency (IEA) had previously warned that the world should develop no new oil, gas, or coal projects past 2021 if it plans to meet net zero by 2050. Given this, its latest licensing round drives another nail in the coffin global decarbonisation goals.

    Windfalls for fossil fuel majors

    Of course, Shell’s new oil and gas licences will bring in further profits for the energy major. Crucially however, it’ll also help to reduce its tax bill too.

    Specifically, the company will benefit from a key loophole in the Energy Profits Levy – otherwise known as the windfall tax on oil and gas. Ostensibly, the government implemented the windfall tax to claw back fossil fuel majors’ outsized profits. Moreover, the government suggested that the revenues would be used to fund measures to address the cost of living crisis.

    When the Tories introduced the windfall tax, it inserted a clause called the “investment allowance”. This stipulates that companies that invest in the UK’s North Sea oil and gas can claim tax relief on these investments. Essentially then, they evade paying the full windfall tax. It’s part of the Tories’ drive for increasing UK oil and gas to shore up its domestic energy security.

    As plenty have pointed out however, this is bogus. This is particularly the case since UK offshore oil and gas does not automatically supply UK demand. Instead, like all oil and gas, it goes on the international market. On top of this, a recent Uplift analysis highlighted that during the last six licensing rounds since the Tories took power in 2010, new blocks have produced just 16 days worth of gas.

    Notably, the windfall loophole means that for every £1 a company spends on new oil and gas, the government will provide tax relief of 91p. Given this, its new haul of North Sea oil and gas licences will help the company lower its windfall bill. Naturally then, Shell has also ditched its decarbonisation plans and ramped up oil and gas production this year.

    Cozy relationships, freezing homes

    A new investigation by Desmog in October found that the oil and gas industry had engaged in an intense lobby campaign to weaken the windfall tax. Predictably, Shell was among the North Sea fossil fuel players involved. It did so partly through trade body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), alongside direct meetings with ministers. Crucially, the outlet noted that:

    The new research indicates this ‘loophole’ came about following a surge in meetings and lobbying between OEUK and its member companies with the government

    Of course, this cozy relationship is nothing new. It is a by-product of fossil fuel finances flowing into Tory pockets. As Shell comes out on top, it’s worth remembering the fossil fuel major boasts significant ties to politicians in high places. Most notably, Shell is a top client with prime minister Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law’s firm Infosys.

    In short, climate-fuelled storms have wrought destruction, while oil and gas prices have sent household energy bills through the roof. Yet, at the same time, the Tories have gifted Shell new licences and a tax break, as its profits swell.

    It’s Tories’ class war 101. They couldn’t give a crap about people facing exorbitant energy bills, or communities losing homes and livelihoods to extreme climate-intensified weather. As the poorest UK households face one crisis after another, polluters should pay up. Instead, in Tory-wrecked UK, the fossil fuel industry gets a free pass to make an unconscionable fortune, while millions suffer.

    Feature image via Will Lane/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Palestine Action has targeted the Foreign Office in an early morning display of solidarity with the Palestinian people. The group sprayed the department’s office red to highlight the blood it has on its hands over Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. However, Palestine Action was also drawing attention to the Foreign Office’s complicity in the entire situation in the Occupied Territories, which stretches back 106 years.

    Palestine Action: hitting the Foreign Office

    Palestine Action has been at the forefront of direct action and resistance in the UK over Israel’s colonialism. It often focuses on arms company Elbit, which has factories in the UK and supplies the Israeli army. However, on Thursday 2 November it had the Foreign Office in its sights.

    The group said in a statement:

    Today, on the 106th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, activists from Palestine Action targeted Britain’s foreign office… [It] was sprayed in messages including ‘Britain Guilty’ and ‘Fuck Balfour’.

    "Blood" spraypainted onto the foreign office

    Security at the Foreign Office could do little more than look on, as Palestine Action continued its targeting:

    The group sprayed “fuck Balfour” across the building:

    Palestine Action explained:

    Written in 1917 by then UK foreign secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour, the Declaration signed away the land of Palestine to the Zionist colonial project – a land Britain never had the right to give away. After the declaration, until 1948, the British burnt down indigenous villages to prepare the way for the Nakba; with this came arbitrary killings, arrests, torture, sexual violence including rape against women and men, the use of human shields and the introduction of home demolitions as collective punishment to repress Palestinian resistance.

    The Nakba (‘Great Catastrophe’) saw British armed and trained Zionist militia forcibly displace over 750,000 Palestinians, destroy over 500 Palestinian villages, and massacre many families. The genocide underway right now in Gaza, which has already claimed the lives of over 8,500 Palestinians, injured tens of thousands more, while the 2.1 million in Gaza are starved, thirsted, and displaced, would not be happening if not for Balfour and Britain’s ongoing political and military support for the Zionist project.

    Showing solidarity with Palestinians

    The group also targeted the offices of arms firm Leonardo in London:

    It is an Italian company that has offices worldwide. Palestine Action said in a press release:

    Israel’s F-35 fighter jets, are being used in its ongoing bombardment and massacre of Palestinians in Gaza [4], using ‘high-energy military laser’ targeting systems produced by Leonardo UK [5]. Leonardo furthermore supplies Israel with Aermacchi M-346 aircraft and components for its Apache attack helicopters [6], which have also been deployed in the violent ethnic cleansing of Gaza [7].

    It briefly occupied Leonardo’s office:

    Overall, as the group summed up:

    The deep military-industrial ties between Britain and Israel show that the Balfour Declaration is not a historic document: instead, the declaration is the first proof of Britain’s commitment to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This is a commitment they continue to act on, arming the Israeli regime with the means to commit its genocide via Leonardo not least of all.

    As of 2 November, Israel had killed nearly 9,000 people in Gaza – including over 3,600 children. These atrocities cannot continue – and the more groups like Palestine Action highlight Britain’s complicity in Israeli war crimes, the better.

    Featured image and additional images via Palestine Action

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • By Holly Bancroft and Archie Mitchell

    See original post here.

    The number of children living in extreme poverty has nearly tripled in the past five years, according to a new report that lays bare the impact of the cost of living crisis on hard-hit families.

    A soaring number of households are skipping meals to save money, borrowing from relatives, and turning to food banks as they struggle to meet their most basic needs, including staying warm and dry, clean and fed.

    The report, by the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, shows that a total of 3.8 million people experienced destitution last year – a 61 per cent increase from 2019. The number of children was 1.04 million, up from 362,000 in 2017.

    Campaigners and politicians lambasted the findings, with Action for Children calling the crisis a “disgrace that shames us all”.

    Tony Lloyd MP, a member of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, said the scale of the problem is a “scandal”. “Every political party should be saying, ‘We are going to fix this,’ because it is about having a basic standard of decency in our society,” he said.

    “No child should have to suffer from a lack of warmth, to live in a home that is not dry, or to not be fed properly. In Britain, the fifth-richest country in the world, these should be the staples of our society.”

    Liz Kendall, Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary, said the report was a “damning indictment of this Conservative government”.

    The former children’s commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, warned that there must be an “urgent laser-like focus from within government to tackle child poverty so that we can consign childhood destitution to the history books and Dickensian novels where it belongs”.

    A spokesperson for the government said that its “number one priority” was driving down inflation. “We are providing support worth an average of £3,300 per household, including raising benefits by over 10 per cent this year, and are increasing the national living wage again,” they added.

    According to the survey, food was the main thing that the poorest families couldn’t afford, with nearly two-thirds of destitute households reporting that they were going hungry.

    Single working-age adults were the most likely to be living in destitution, with single parents with children the second worst affected. One mother told researchers that she could only eat one meal a day, while another said she had not done any washing for two weeks because she couldn’t afford washing powder.

    Rising costs at the supermarket were also affecting families. Mounira, a working mum of two who turned to a local food bank for help, said: “I constantly face the dilemma of having to choose between giving my family a healthy and balanced diet and a healthy social and active life. Our grocery shopping cost has almost doubled, so did our bills, yet our salaries have not followed, so I have had no choice but to seek help.”

    London had replaced the North East as the worst-hit region, analysts found. Newham council had the highest level of extreme poverty in the country, with Manchester and Middlesbrough coming second and third respectively.

    For the first time in the 2022 study, destitution was broken down by ethnicity, with analysts finding that the rate of destitution among Black respondents was three times higher than their population share.

    The report – the fourth in a series of Destitution in the UK studies published regularly in recent years – puts the rise down to a combination of very low incomes, the rising cost of living, and high levels of debt.

    But it also said that the social security system is failing to protect people from destitution, with almost three-quarters (72 per cent) of those who were destitute last year being in receipt of benefits.

    The report combined an analysis of data with a survey of nearly 4,000 of the poorest households. Out of those surveyed, more than a quarter of households said they had no spare cash at all after they had paid their housing costs. More than half had incomes below £85 per week after they had paid for essentials.

    One in 10 respondents were in paid work, with one single man who was working on a zero-hours contract telling researchers how he had sometimes to skip meals because his salary didn’t cover basic expenses.

    He said: “I just get a bag of rice, five kilos of rice. That is about £12. I do myself a vegetable stew and normal stew, and leave it in the freezer in small bowls.” He said he tries to have something to eat every day, even if it is just a yoghurt, but “there are days I go without”.

    One mother said: “I only eat one meal a day. I’ll probably have a bit of toast when I get home from work, but I won’t eat anything else till tea. The kids will have breakfast, obviously, and then they’re at school for their lunch, but I tend to just eat at night-time because I can’t afford to buy things for me to eat during the day.”

    Another said she had noticed a rise in the price of toiletries: “My eldest daughter has a disability and is incontinent at night-time, so she has to wear night-time pads. They’re not covered on the NHS so I have to purchase them myself – they’re £8 for 12 pads.”

    One elderly man said he had cut back on buying clothes. “I get clothes from churches and things like that,” he said. “My brother gives me some clothes. I do buy a few trainers and stuff like that, but I haven’t really bought clothes for a long time, to tell you the truth.”

    Responding to the report, Action for Children called on the chancellor Jeremy Hunt to “deliver on his manifesto promise to use the benefits system to reduce child poverty”.

    Imran Hussain, director of policy at the charity, said: “At an absolute minimum, all benefits must be increased by inflation in the usual way. That this is even in doubt is extremely alarming.”

    Charlotte Hill OBE, CEO of the Felix Project, said that the food banks and community projects the charity supports are in desperate need of more food in order to meet increasing demand. She said: “Every single one of the charities we support wants more food, and there are over 650 new organisations on our waiting list that we cannot help.”

    Labour MP Lyn Brown said her constituency casework had doubled. “People are in great difficulty, presenting with high levels of debt,” she said. “Schools tell me that children are lucky to get one meal a day at home. Many constituents are working more than one job, and still can’t afford the excessive rents.”

    A government spokesperson added: “There are 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty than in 2010, including 400,000 fewer children, but we know some families are struggling, which is why we are providing support.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The ongoing Covid Inquiry has been hitting the headlines once again – but this time for some of the wrong reasons. While the media focuses on Dominic Cummings’ use of swear words, the biggest story is that the government deliberately let certain sections of the population die. Not that the state killing off its own citizens in the UK is somehow new – just ask the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about it.

    Covid Inquiry revelations

    On Tuesday 31 October, the public inquiry into the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic heard evidence from former Downing Street director of communications Lee Cain, and former advisor to Johnson, Cummings. As the Guardian summed up, some of the main takeaways from their evidence were that:

    Cummings used misogynistic language to denigrate the deputy cabinet secretary, Helen MacNamara. But he claimed foul-mouthed messages about his colleague were not misogynistic, saying he was “much ruder about men”.

    Overall, it noted that:

    A toxic culture of government incompetence, backstabbing and misogyny was laid bare

    And the inquiry heard that:

    Johnson’s chaotic indecisiveness delayed lockdown measures

    However, for many people, the main takeaway of the Covid Inquiry on 31 October was, as the Guardian noted, that Johnson:

    had told senior advisers the Covid virus was “just nature’s way of dealing with old people” and he was “no longer buying” the fact the NHS was overwhelmed during the pandemic.

    As a member of campaign group Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK summed up on X, Johnson:

    clearly didn’t see people like my mum as human beings, and thousands others died unnecessarily after the same mistakes were repeated because of Johnson’s callous and brutal attitude.

    The notion that Johnson thought older people were expendable to protect the economy – that is, that they can die in the name of protecting the rich and younger people – is, as the relative said, “callous and brutal”. However, there is another word for it: ‘democide’.

    Democide

    As poet Michael Rosen tweeted:

    ‘Democide’, as Rosen probably meant to type, is:

    a term coined by political scientist R. J. Rummel for “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”… Democides are not the elimination of entire cultural groups, but rather groups within the country that the government feels they need to be eradicated for political reasons and future threats.

    So Rosen is arguing that Johnson and his government were willing to kill members of certain groups of people for political reasons – based on the evidence from the Covid Inquiry.

    ‘Let the old people get it’

    As the Financial Times (FT) reported, the Covid Inquiry heard that:

    Cain said Johnson did not believe Covid was a “big deal” and thought “his main danger [was] talking [the] economy into a slump”.

    The article went on to state that:

    Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s former chief scientific adviser, wrote that Johnson appeared “obsessed with older people accepting their fate” and considered the virus to be “just Nature’s way of dealing with old people”.

    In December 2020, weeks before England entered a third national lockdown, Vallance wrote: “Chief whip [Mark Spencer] says ‘I think we should let the old people get it and protect others’. PM says ‘a lot of my backbenchers think that and I must say I agree with them’.”

    Further to this, the health secretary during the early stages of the pandemic, Matt Hancock, allowed hospitals to discharge people into care homes without testing them for coronavirus. Over 40,000 people in care homes’ deaths involved Covid. This is a clear example of the state actively enabling the deaths of older people for political reasons – that is, because it believed the NHS would not cope with the pandemic. The High Court eventually ruled that Hancock’s actions were unlawful.

    Furthermore, campaign groups have questioned the legality of the NHS putting blanket Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) notices on clinically vulnerable people – like chronically ill and learning disabled people. Around 500 of these DNRs breached people’s human rights. Again, the state – via the NHS – was actively encouraging the deaths vulnerable groups of people for political reasons.

    Democide during the pandemic, and at the DWP

    So, Rosen’s reference to democide is apt. He’s not the first person to posit this, though. As the Canary reported in 2022, the People’s Covid Inquiry – led by barrister Mike Mansfield QC – noted that:

    The question is raised as to whether this amounts to democide (‘the killing of members of a country’s civilian population, as a result of its government’s policy, including by direct action, indifference, and neglect’), ‘social murder’, gross negligence manslaughter, or misconduct in a public office?

    However, the idea that – as far as the state is concerned – certain groups of people can die for political reasons is hardly new or shocking.

    Another recent example of democide by the UK government can be found in the policies of the DWP since 2010. As the Canary wrote in 2018:

    Disabled people are starving, homeless, penniless, terminally ill, dying and killing themselves. After three years of one political party’s rule, you could put it down to policy errors; five years could just about be excused by rhetoric like ‘we’re still learning lessons’. But after eight years of misery, poverty death and effective democide  – only one conclusion can be drawn.

    The Conservative government and the DWP are allowing sick and disabled people to die.

    Democide at the DWP: a systemic problem for the state

    For example, 42-year-old mother Jodey Whiting took her own life after the DWP stopped her social security. You can read more about her here. Whiting was just one of tens of thousands of people who died in the previous decade on the DWP’s watch. In 2018 alone at least 750 people took their own lives while claiming benefits from the DWP. However, it’s the figures for people who died after the DWP said they were fit for work which are most pertinent, here.

    As the Canary previously reported, around 90 people a month – 2,380 people overall – died between December 2011 and February 2014 after the DWP told them they were fit for work. This decision meant the DWP would have stopped most, if not all, of their benefits before their deaths.

    Given these figures, it would have been logical for the DWP to have halted the fit-for-work process. Instead, it did very little to change things – and people kept dying. Between 1 March 2014 and 28 February 2017, 1,560 people died within six months of the DWP telling them they were fit for work.

    As Labour MP Debbie Abrahams said in parliament in 2020:

    The death of any person as a result of a government policy is nothing more than a scandal. And it’s clear from the cases that I talked about… this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know what’s going on. For too long the [DWP] has failed to address the effects of its policies. It must now act. Enough is enough.

    Like Johnson and the government’s decisions during the pandemic, the DWP has been making policy decisions for political reasons that it knows will kill people – that is, democide.

    So, while the revelations from the Covid Inquiry aren’t new, they do point to a systemic culture in successive governments which holds that some people’s lives are more valuable than others. Whether it be older people or disabled people, the state believes that some people are expendable for political purposes. That’s the biggest scandal of the Covid Inquiry – and the DWP right along with it.

    Featured image via PoliticsJOE – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Over 70 non-profits have called out the UK government for “changing the goalposts” to meet its climate aid targets. Specifically, it has relabelled parts of its aid budget as international climate finance (ICF), typifying the Tories’ approach to supporting poorer climate-vulnerable countries.

    Playing fast and loose with climate aid definitions

    On 31 October, over 70 non-profit organisations from across multiple sectors – including environment, development, trade union, and disability rights bodies – penned a letter to the prime minister. In particular, the coalition’s demands pertained to the government’s recent announcement of changes to what it counts as part of its international climate finance (ICF).

    The government provides ICF through three departments. It’s intended to help poorer countries mitigate or otherwise adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis.

    On Friday 17 October, development minister Andrew Mitchell made a statement to outline the government’s progress on its ICF commitments. It demonstrated that instead of ramping up its climate finance, the government has redefined what it classes under its ICF.

    Specifically, the government will now include climate-linked contributions to multilateral development banks (MDBs) in its accounting. Development minister Andrew Mitchell has defended the change by pointing out that other countries already count climate loans to MDBs among their ICF.

    Climate Action Network UK’s (CAN-UK) executive director, Catherine Pettengell, branded it “an accounting exercise” that:

    relabels existing spending instead of actually increasing the amount of money going to climate vulnerable countries.

    CAN-UK added that it encourages a “race to the bottom on climate finance”, and stated that:

    Justifying the change on the grounds that other countries count climate finance differently, exposes a failure of UK leadership.

    International climate finance for private profits

    A Canary investigation previously found that MDB-supported renewable energy projects have harmed communities. Specifically, they have caused displacement, land dispossession, and a host of other social and environmental issues. In particular, we identified this for over 40 wind, solar, and hydropower projects spanning the 20-year period between 2002 and 2022.

    Crucially, the Canary noted that since the funding for MDBs like the World Bank:

    is not earmarked, it isn’t possible to track which projects these funds support. The degrees of separation make it difficult to identify if the UK has funded these MDB-led projects that have violated human rights, or that local communities have resisted.

    Given this, the government’s inclusion of its MDB financing in its ICF could raise serious accountability concerns.

    What’s more, Mitchell laid out the government’s plans to funnel more ICF through British International Investment (BII), the UK’s national development finance institution. The Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO) owns 100% of the shares in the company. The new ICF approach will include BII climate-related funding in its ICF spend.

    Mitchell stated that the government will:

    ensure that we maximise the opportunities presented by increasing climate investments through British International Investment (BII) and other private finance mobilisation programmes.

    In other words, it plans to increase the amount of ICF benefitting the private sector – go figure.

    Two separate Canary investigations have exposed BII projects for violating the human rights of communities in the Global South. Additionally, in September, the Canary’s Steve Topple highlighted an IDC report which found that:

    BII’s investments sometimes conflict with the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the UK’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

    In essence, the government’s new move will lavish the private sector with climate aid meant for poorer countries. Of course, the private sector’s pursuit of profits will likely eclipse its role in assisting communities address the challenges of climate breakdown – as previous cases have repeatedly shown.

    Aid for ‘climate vulnerable communities’?

    The government has implemented its classification changes to claim that it will meet a previous funding pledge. In 2019, at the United Nations (UN) general assembly in New York, Boris Johnson committed to double the UK’s ICF investments. Specifically, Johnson boasted that the Tories would boost their ICF spend to at least £11.6bn between 2021 and 2026.

    However, according to a recent Carbon Brief analysis, the UK is £2bn – nearly 40% – off track of meeting this target. It attributed this to the Tories tampering with their Official Development Assistance (ODA) – otherwise referred to as ‘foreign aid’. ICF falls under the ODA umbrella, but is specifically directed towards climate challenges. Notably, the impact on ICF was felt because the government cut its overall foreign aid budget in 2020. It cited the need to redirect funds to address the at-home costs of the Covid-19 pandemic recovery.

    On top of this, the Tories diverted a significant portion of their ODA to the UK government itself. In 2022, they funnelled 28.8% (£3.7bn) of their total ODA to housing refugees, directing funding for oversees aid into domestic budgets. A report by the parliamentary International Development Committee (IDC) in February noted that the government had channelled the bulk of this to its asylum hotel accommodation – the same hotel asylum housing scheme that has come under repeated fire for its inhumane conditions.

    Moreover, a separate Guardian investigation in June found that the government has funded Turkey’s brutal border regime using ODA. In 2022 alone, it handed £3m in UK ODA to Erdogan’s oppressive government for its violent border security forces.

    Far from fulfilling climate pledges

    To make matters worse, the Tories have withdrawn ICF funding from communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Carbon Brief highlighted that the average annual spend over the 2021-2026 period would need to amount to £2.32bn to meet Johnson’s £11.6bn target. Instead, the government spent £1.46bn in 2021, and just £1.36bn in 2022. To date then, it’s far off hitting its ICF pledge.

    Predictably, the Tories’ dubious accounting solution has gone some way to resolving this. It has meant that the government has piled on hundreds of millions of pounds to its reported spend for the past two years.

    The 2021 ICF figure now sits at nearly £1.65bn. Meanwhile, the government announced its 2022 spend at £1.63bn. Using its new classification system, it has therefore added approximately £190m in 2021 and a staggering £270m in 2022 to its ICF spending – and all without raising its funding in real terms.

    Ultimately though, the new ICF classifications will only serve to enrich corporations at the expense of poorer countries and international climate goals – just another day in private profiteer Britain. As ever, it’s frontline communities and people from the Global South who will lose out.

    Feature image via UK Government/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY 2.0

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As of Wednesday 1 November, Israel had killed nearly 8,800 people in Gaza in less than a month – including over 3,600 children. While UK politicians are failing to condemn Israel’s war crimes, campaign groups and the public have been taking action themselves. There have been national marches and spontaneous protests happening week-in, week-out in support of Palestine. However, this weekend’s upcoming action looks somewhat different to its predecessors.

    Sits ins and national marches for Gaza

    In the UK, there have been ongoing protests against Israel’s slaughter in Gaza, and occupying forces and settler violence in the Occupied Territories. For example, on Tuesday 31 October campaign groups Jews Against Genocide and Sisters Uncut rallied commuters at Liverpool Street Station in London to perform a sit in – bringing the concourse to a standstill:

    However, the focal point of UK resistance to Israel has been the national marches in London, which have taken place three Saturdays in a row. Organisers claimed the march on 28 October saw around half a million people attend:

    However, this weekend the groups are changing tactics.

    On Saturday 4 November, campaign groups are asking people to focus on their local marches:

    The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said on its website:

    For the past three weeks we’ve marched through London in our hundreds of thousands to demand a ceasefire. We’re rising up in solidarity with Palestine, and we can’t stop now.

    On Saturday 4 November, we will take action in towns and cities the length and breadth of Britain to demand a ceasefire NOW to end Israel’s assaults.

    The list of local protests is already large, and PSC said it will hopefully have more to add. Locations include:

    • Bristol.
    • Carlisle.
    • Dorchester.
    • Dumfries.
    • Durham.
    • Eastbourne.
    • Exeter.
    • Hastings.
    • Hitchin.
    • Kirkwall.
    • Leamington Spa.
    • Liverpool.
    • Newcastle.
    • Northampton.
    • Nottingham.
    • Plymouth.
    • Portsmouth.
    • Sheffield.
    • Southend.
    • Tunbridge Wells.
    • Wolverhampton.
    • Worthing.
    • York.

    In London, there are also local actions in numerous boroughs. Then, these will be joining together with the London rally in Trafalgar Square at 2:30pm.

    On Sunday 5 November, there will be further actions in Birmingham and Chester.

    Politicians are fomenting a ‘climate of intolerance’

    Of course, home secretary Suella Braverman has made a point of labelling the Palestine protests as being “hate marches” against Jewish people. She also claimed that:

    We’ve seen now tens of thousands of people take to the streets after the massacre of Jewish people, the single largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, chanting for the erasure of Israel from the map.

    This is demonstrable nonsense. PSC said in a press release that:

    For Home Secretary Suella Braverman to characterise those making this call for an end to the commission of war crimes, as “hateful” is grotesque, irresponsible and further evidence of her unfitness for public office…

    She has falsely asserted the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a call for the eradication of Jewish Israelis, when it is actually a call for the dismantling of the system of apartheid that affects all Palestinians, whether in Gaza, the West Bank or Israel.

    By so doing she is contributing to a climate of intolerance, a dehumanising of Palestinians, including British Palestinians, and is further threatening the right to protest in this country

    Meanwhile, support from the Labour Party is slim pickings. After Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, killing and injuring at least 400 civilians, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy defended Israel’s actions. He told BBC Radio 4 Today on Wednesday 1 November:

    it’s clear to me it’s wrong to bomb a refugee camp – but clearly, if there is a military objective it can be legally justifiable. It’s for Israel to explain its actions.

    On X, people reacted furiously:

    So, with both the Tories and Labour unquestioningly supporting Israel, it’s vital for the rest of us to stand up for the Palestine and its people. So, get yourself to a protest on 4 November, and send a clear message to politicians that you do not consent to complicity in Israel’s war crimes – and that you stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

    Featured image via Friends of Al Aqsa – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Monday 30 October, chronically ill and disabled people protested outside the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over the department’s planned changes to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The demo served as a stark reminder of how chronically ill and disabled people have had to fight the DWP for years – and, clearly, how they’re still going to have to.

    The DWP’s latest changes to the WCA

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP is planning to change the WCA. Specifically, the following factors – currently considered in the assessment – are being removed:

    • People’s mobility.
    • Bladder or bowel incontinence.
    • The inability to cope in social situations.
    • People’s ability to leave their homes.
    • Work being a risk to claimants or others – a clause which means that an individual is “treated as having limited capability for work and work related activity”.

    That is, the DWP thinks anyone who would currently be exempt due to those descriptors should instead have to work from home. Reading between the lines, the DWP is trying to reduce the benefits bill by forcing more chronically ill and disabled people into work. As the charity Disability Rights told Disability News Service (DNS):

    The government’s proposed changes to the work capability assessment are less to do with helping disabled people into work than a cynical attempt to impose conditionality and to reduce benefit payments.

    In reality, these changes could be terrible for the people affected. They could mean that more people would lose the health-related elements of benefits like Universal Credit. In turn, this means the DWP could subject them to sanctions.

    So, chronically ill and disabled people have begun fighting back – firstly, by going directly to the DWP’s head office.

    DPAC: fighting back against the DWP

    On Monday 30 October, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) organised a protest outside the DWP’s Caxton House offices in Central London:

    Members of DPAC protesting outside the DWP's head office

    Some people’s placards summed up the issues well:

    a placard that reads 'death, worry, persecution, oppose tightening of the WCA' to represent the DWP

    Other groups were out supporting DPAC in person – including branches of Unite the Union’s community wing, and campaign group WinVisible:

    Campaign group WinVisible holding a banner at the DPAC DWP protest which reads 'winvisible women with visible and invisible disabilities'

    Prominent DPAC and disability rights activist Paula Peters lead the protest. She has been one of the most visible faces in the ongoing fight against successive governments and the DWP. Online, campaign group the Chronic Collaboration also got involved:

    However, one of the most pertinent statements came from John McArdle, a campaigner with Scottish disability rights group Black Triangle. He told the protest that campaign groups like his and DPAC had been taking direct action for “13 years, and things are still getting worse”.

    Protesters then blocked the entrance into the road the DWP offices are located on:

    members of dpac and other groups blocking a road as part of their WCA protest

    DPAC used the chant “no more deaths from benefit cuts” – a slogan the group has used for years:

    Cops, surprisingly, did nothing –  but one driver was aggressive towards DPAC members:

    Overall, DPAC’s WCA protest marked a return to the activism the group has become well-known for, after the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic stopped a lot of the group’s activity. However, the demo was also a moment for reflection, too.

    A lost decade

    Campaigners formed both DPAC and Black Triangle in the wake of the 2010 election of the coalition government. This came at a time where the Tories and Lib Dems were pushing harsh reforms to the social security system. Both groups were a response to this – and both have been campaigning ever since. During this time, some members of DPAC have passed away – like co-founder Debbie Jolly:

    DPAC co-founder Debbie Jolly

    The Canary has been covering DPAC’s actions since 2016, when the group and its supporters blocked Westminster Bridge in a high-profile piece of direct action. As we wrote at the time:

    For disabled people, this is one of the most worrying times in decades. With support being cut, relentless attacks from the government, and hate crime rapidly rising, it’s little wonder that they feel they need to act. And in the 21st century, the fact that they still have to fight for their rights in such a public way should be a concern to us all.

    Seven years later, the DWP’s persecution of chronically ill and disabled people has barely changed – as McArdle alluded to at the WCA demo. This is despite countless protests, political pressure, and even the UN getting involved. The international body found in a 2016 investigation that successive governments and the DWP had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

    Nothing changes, and disabled people have no choice but to fight

    The demo felt like an eerie moment of déjà vu: hearing the same chants and seeing disabled people blocking roads felt like we’d been here before. DPAC, of course, very much has been here before. The fact that the group is once again having to protest over threats to disabled people – which is ultimately what the issue with the DWP’s WCA changes is – is a damning indictment of the department.

    Moreover, though, it’s a damning indictment of society – there was little support for DPAC’s protest outside of the chronically ill and disabled communities.

    In 2016, opposing the DWP cutting disabled people’s benefits was ‘all the rage’ among some sections of the political and media class, and non-disabled activists. Many people jumped on the bandwagon, lending their supposed solidarity. However, that support has clearly waned, and non-disabled activists, politicians, and journalists have moved on to the next issue they think will further their own aims or careers.

    For chronically ill and disabled people, there is no moving on. This is their lives – and it was frustrating to see so little solidarity from non-disabled people. However, DPAC and other groups will continue to fight the DWP regardless of whether non-disabled people stand with them or not – not because they want to, but because they have no choice. 

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary and DPAC

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.