Category: UK

  • Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters have targeted Barclays branches across the UK – a bank they describe as “Europe’s largest investor in new fossil fuels”. The group took 100 seperate actions against the bank, in around 50 locations across the UK. Just last year, the Guardian reported that Barclays had:

    financed more in fossil fuel projects than any of the UK’s largest banks in the months leading up to the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow.

    Barclays: the dirty bank?

    One protest took place in south London:

    An image from an XR protest

    XR said:

    The flash mob were dancing while ‘cleaning up Barclays Bank greenwashing’ to draw attention to how complicit Barclays are in funding the fossil fuel giants. They sung: “Move, move, move your money; find a greener bank!”

    An XR Barclays protest

    The protestors held signs explaining why people should stop banking with Barclays. XR showed that, in terms of fossil fuels, the banks’ track record was worse than its competitors like HSBC:XR Barclays Protest

     

    Protester Dorothea from Camden said:

    Scientists say keep the coal in the hole in order to stop global warming. Barclays are going against everything scientists are saying. We want people to switch their bank account away from Barclays to a greener bank. For example Nationwide’s current accounts emit five times less CO2 than Barclays and offer a £200 for switching.

    Facts and figures

    Describing the bank as “Europe’s number one financiers of the climate crisis”, activist group Market Forces noted that:

    Barclays wants you to think it’s responsible and climate-friendly.

    But research from the influential Banking On Climate Chaos report shows that since 2015 (the year the Paris climate agreement was signed) and up to the end of 2021, Barclays has financed around US $167 billion in fossil fuels, making the bank the biggest financier of fossil fuels in Europe and the seventh-largest in the world.

    Barclays spray painted with the slogan "we fund fossil fuels"

    Market Forces added:

    Barclays is an eager funder of some of the most polluting companies in the world. Since 2015, it has provided $2 billion for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, one of the world’s most sensitive habitats. It is the seventh-largest global funder of tar sands and the biggest in Europe.

    In the same time period it provided $29 billion for fracking, a process so environmentally destructive it is banned in the UK-headquartered bank’s home country.

    UK-wide action against Barclays

    XR UK shared images of protests from across the UK on its Facebook page. Campaign group Just Stop Oil supported the action:

    Just Stop Oil at an XR Barclays protest

    In Bristol, XR replaced corporate advertising billboards with its own posters:

    XR Billboards

    And of course, the group’s obligatory redecorations were performed:

    Barclays covered in red paint

    A press release from XR noted:

    This April the United Nations reported that the World is on a “fast track” to disaster, and scientists warned it is “now or never” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. This summer the UK recorded its hottest ever temperature, and there were three times more wildfires in 2022 than 2021. Just this week the UN secretary general, António Guterres, warned, “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator”.

    It added that the local action forms part of a national campaign, with thousands of protestors gathering at 110 Barclays banks across the UK. The week-long protest follows Barclays’ announcement of much higher-than-expected pre-tax profits for nearly £2bn for the quarter. Higher interest rates have helped increase Barclays’ profits, whilst the cost of living over the same period has soared. Given the situation, XR is urging people to:

    Move your money out of Barclays, be part of the solution.

    The group will continue to target corporations that claim to be supporting climate action while in reality, they do the opposite. XR joins other groups like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in targeting Barclays – the latter doing so over the bank’s ties to arms manufacturers supplying Israel. So, there are countless reasons why people shouldn’t use this dirtiest of banks.

    Featured image via XR UK and additional images via Don Travis (@futurehackney) and XR UK

    By Steve Topple

  • Last week, Kill the Bill demonstrators were sentenced to over five years in prison between them at Bristol Crown Court – for standing up to the police at a demonstration against the Police Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill on 21 March 2021.

    Joe Parry was sentenced to 20 months in prison for violent disorder on Monday 7 November. Tyler Overall and Christopher Hind were both given prison sentences of 21 months on Friday 11 November.

    A third person, Fleur Moody, was given a 12 month suspended sentence, and ordered to do 80 hours of unpaid work after pleading guilty to the less serious charge of affray.

    All of them were originally charged with riot, the most serious public order charge in English law, but the Crown Prosecution Service accepted guilty pleas to less serious charges.

    The 21 March protest came just weeks after the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, and days after officers assaulted mourners at a vigil in her memory on Clapham Common.

    All of those sentenced had experienced intense police brutality on the night. For example, Fleur Moody sustained a serious head injury, and was knocked unconscious after an officer hit her with an overarm strike from a long baton.

    Resistance

    The Bristol protest on 21 March 2021 escalated after police in riot gear attacked demonstrators with batons, horses, and dogs. They repeatedly brought down their riot shields onto demonstrators’ heads in a practice known as ‘blading’.

    The crowd fought back, and by the end of the evening the windows of the police station had been smashed, and several police vehicles had been set alight.

    For six weeks after 21 March, people in Bristol held a series of further Kill The Bill demonstrations, which were met with extreme police violence – which was dubbed as “revenge policing”.

    Repression

    The ensuing police repression has been intense. Over 80 people have been arrested, and Avon and Somerset Police are still circulating wanted photos. 47 people have been charged. The majority of them were charged with riot, though some defendants have since been able to essentially make plea bargains to lesser offences such as violent disorder. Fleur Moody is the first person to successfully bargain her charge down to affray.

    So far, 25 people have been given custodial sentences for the events of 21 March 2021, amounting to a total of almost 80 years in prison. Ryan Roberts was given the longest sentence so far – a massive 14 years.

    The court system will not silence us

    Those who have been arrested and brought before the courts are met with a stark decision: to plead guilty and potentially receive a shorter sentence, or to go to trial and place themselves at the whims of an unjust system where the odds are stacked against them. Those who enter guilty pleas at court are not able to put forward a defence, and the state’s narrative is taken at face value.

    Now, a year after the uprising at Bridewell, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is becoming more amenable to accepting a plea to a lesser charge, making it an even more difficult decision to go to trial or make a plea to a lesser offence.

    Some people have gone to trial and won: Ailsa Ruah, Kadeem Yarde, and Jasmine York were all found not guilty of riot by juries earlier this year. But for some, the risk of going to trial is too great.

    At the Canary, we stand in solidarity with Joe, Fleur, Christopher, and Tyler. We want to publish accounts from the defendants of what really happened outside Bridewell police station. These statements were collected by the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) prior to their sentencing.

    You can read Christopher’s account in full here.

    The following are excerpts from Tyler’s defiant and passionate statement that he made before the sentencing.

    Tyler Overall: sentenced to 21 months

    Tyler Overall

    Tyler Overall told Netpol that the protest turned into something else “when the police started being violent”. Tyler said that when he arrived at Bridewell, the crowd was sitting down outside the police station:

    I was following the marches throughout the day. When I joined at Bridewell Police Station, the majority of people there were sitting down on the floor. The police were outside the police station, but pretty soon they started blocking people from joining other people. They separated the crowd, they split it in two. I had friends one side and I was the other side.

    Tyler said that many of the demonstrators were Travellers, one of the groups who would be most affected by the planned bill (which has now become law):

    Before long, there was violence everywhere – really and truly from the police. I don’t like [to] see violence anywhere. A lot of people were there because they are Travellers. The bill was going to affect everyone but especially them, so they’d only gone there that day to stand up against the bill.

    The bill “was gonna make most of my friends homeless”

    The Bill targets Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) people. Tyler explained how people would be affected:

    The bill means they don’t want you to live roadside. They don’t want people living in caravans. They don’t want people not paying taxes and stuff like that. That bill was gonna make most of my friends homeless essentially. But not only was it going to make them homeless, it was also going to criminalise them. The government was basically trying to make people that have a different way of thinking to them – people that don’t have the luxury to afford a house and stuff – into criminals. Many of us turned to the cheaper alternative, the affordable alternative which is living in a fucking van or living in a caravan.

    Essentially, they’re just trying to target the poor. That’s what they’re doing.

    “There were people everywhere being struck by police batons”

    The crowd on 21st March were subjected to extreme police violence. Tyler said that he had tried to protect vulnerable people who were being attacked:

    There were people everywhere being struck by police batons that night. And they were being pepper sprayed to the point where – because we were in such a big crowd of people – everyone was affected. I saw people being assaulted by the police. They were being knocked to the floor, people were losing their balance. If one person got hit, they’d try to move because your natural reaction is to move away from the violence. So people were moving back, and then they were knocking into people, which would then make a ricochet effect on everybody. So people were falling on the floor, getting trampled on, all sorts of things. So I was doing my best to make sure that people weren’t going to be stampeded.
    Tyler explained how he pushed police shields in order to protect people in the crowd:
    When I saw somebody vulnerable on the floor, I would go out of my way and I would make sure that they were in a safer environment. And that meant I had to push a police shield to get them back so we were able able to pick somebody up and move them away and make sure they were okay. That’s what we were doing.

    “We should be out there always standing up for our rights

    Finally, Tyler laid out the impact that the year and a half of police repression had on him:
    That night affected everything. It started to affect my work because it was a constant stress on my mind. It impacted my mental health to the point where I couldn’t do simple things I could do before. For the past two years I’ve struggled. ln the long haul scheme of things – looking back – I’ve kind of just been trying to push it all to one side. But that doesn’t work either. My ADHD had quieted down for many years but this all set off really badly.

    Tyler also wanted to send a message to others to say that they shouldn’t be intimidated by the police and the courts, and should keep on resisting:

    They’re sending me to jail because I was there standing up for people’s rights. They’re making an example of us so that people don’t do this again because this is the easiest alternative for them. They want to scare people not to go to protests again. But even after all this, I really do believe that like we should be out there always standing up for our rights. They’re always going to keep trying to pass these laws. 

    “We can’t just let them win”

    He continued:

    I was there that night. My mum was there when she was my age. My gran was there when she was my age. What’s happened to me doesn’t mean it’s going to happen to everybody so I don’t want this to ever be something that kills people’s spirit to protest.
    Tyler concluded with a call to keep on fighting injustice:
    If we don’t stand up and fight for our rights, if we don’t  go and make noise on the streets and stuff like that, they’re just going to think that people don’t actually care. We need to lead by example. And we need to make sure that we’re standing up and we’re fighting against injustice because we can’t just let them win.

    We need to stand with the defendants and carry on their struggle

    We can’t expect any justice from the court system. We need to stand in solidarity with our comrades experiencing repression, and not forget Joe, Tyler, and Christopher while they carry out their sentences. All of the defendants are experiencing this repression because they resisted police brutality, and we should be proud of them. It’s up to us to organise together to continue the struggle, and to defend our communities against the violence of the police.

    Featured image via Netpol (with permission)

    By Tom Anderson

  • Far-right UK home secretary Suella Braverman has signed a deal with France over the refugee crisis. She has agreed to pay the French government €72m for it to put more police on the coast of northern France. However, the whole thing is preposterous – as people pointed out rather quickly.

    UK-France deal on refugees

    As Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported, Britain has agreed to pay France another €72m to prevent refugee boats crossings the Channel. Both countries signed the new deal on Monday 14 November. Around 40,000 people – many of them Albanians, Iranians and Afghans – have crossed the Channel to England from France this year. AFP reported that the figure is well over 2021’s 28,561, which was a thousand-fold increase from 2018, when refugees first began sailing inflatables across one of the world’s busiest shipping channels.

    The extra money will reportedly fund a 40% rise in the number of security forces patrolling France’s northern beaches, meaning an additional 350 people, the French interior ministry said. Teams of observers will be deployed on both sides of the Channel. Braverman, who has used far-right language like “invasion” when describing refugees, said of the deal:

    There are no quick fixes, but this new arrangement will mean we can significantly increase the number of French gendarmes patrolling the beaches in northern France.

    The UK home office said:

    The arrangement means, for the first time, specialist UK officers will also be embedded with their French counterparts.

    However, on social media people were quick to point out what a shambles it was.

    Where’s the fair asylum system?

    Some pro-EU people were pointing out the irony:

    Former Canary writer Sophia Akram said the deal showed UK policies on refugees were just “cruel”:

    Other people pointed out that the anti-refugee UK government should just provide safe routes for people:

    The UK Refugee Council put out a thread on Twitter. It said:

    The government’s deal with France on Channel crossings fails to address the factors behind why men women and children take dangerous journeys to reach the UK and so will do little to end the crossings.

    A deal is needed that focuses on creating more safe routes such as family reunion and working with the EU and other countries to find global solutions to share responsibility for what is a global challenge as more people are displaced by war, terror and violence.

    Critically this government should be doing far more to create a fair functioning asylum system so that there aren’t more than 120,000 people stuck in limbo waiting for years on end for a decision on their claim.

    It also noted that the backlog of asylum claims had now hit over 122,000 people – with over 40,000 of them waiting between one and three years. Meanwhile, AFP reported that the French coastguard was rightly adamant that it cannot intercept boats once they are in the water. This is because attempting to do so could cause them to capsize. Over in the UK, former home secretary Priti Patel tried to institute an awful boat pushback policy – but failed.

    The new deal between the UK and France will do nothing to stop people desperately trying to reach the UK. It is a preposterous waste of money which shows the far-right UK government cares not for people’s welfare and safety. It merely wants to maintain its own dogmatism.

    Featured image via David Woolfall – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under license CC BY 3.0

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Jeremy Corbyn has made the headlines in recent days – mostly in right-wing outlets. As the former Labour leader said, he appears to be living rent free in their heads – along with the complimentary stay Rishi Sunak is giving him. So, what would be more delicious than Corbyn moving in permanently, by running to be London mayor?

    Corbyn: will the whip ever come back?

    The right-wing media has had a splattering of stories on Corbyn recently. First, the Times reported that members of Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet are urging him to permanently remove the whip from Corbyn. This comes after Sunak has repeatedly referenced the former Labour leader at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). The Times noted that one shadow cabinet member said that:

    Keir’s position in the party is very strong now. We need to be able to say clearly that there will be an excellent Labour candidate in Islington North at the next election who shares Keir’s values, and that person will not be Jeremy Corbyn. The party has a long rule book so it’s tricky, but things will move on Corbyn soon.

    The problem for Labour is that Corbyn’s position in Islington North is strong. As one person tweeted:

    Therefore, as the Guardian asked, what Labour member would want to even try to unseat Corbyn?

    It seems some of Corbyn’s Constituency Labour Party (CLP) is behind him, too. The Morning Star reported that one faction of the CLP told it that talk of Starmer permanently removing the whip was an “egregious affront” to Islington North residents. The group, Islington Friends of Jeremy Corbyn, told the Morning Star:

    Unlike other MPs, Jeremy’s second job is not as a lobbyist or hedge fund manager — he’s a volunteer at a local foodbank… He is frequently out on the picket lines in solidarity with Islington workers. He speaks truth to power, which is why he is so loved but also why he is so feared and reviled.

    So, what do you do if you’re the right-wing media and you know that Starmer’s Labour has no chance against Corbyn? Well, you cause mischief elsewhere.

    Jeremy for mayor?

    As the Mail on Sunday reported, and MyLondon repeated, apparently Corbyn “supporters” are urging him to stand as London mayor in the 2024 election. Josiah Mortimer wrote that:

    the Mail on Sunday reports that the left-wing ex-leader is being urged by supporters to mimic Ken Livingstone’s 2000 election efforts, after he was blocked from being the Labour candidate but won as an independent. However, the voting system in 2024 will be different, with no chance for people to put a second preference and limit the number of wasted votes.

    A Corbyn ally told the paper: “Jeremy would win and plenty of people around him are urging him to do it.” One MP close to Jeremy Corbyn told MyLondon he had ‘no idea’ if the rumours were true. And Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London, told the Mail Mr Corbyn would be ‘bloody good’ in the role.

    Of course, Corbyn is seemingly committed to his job as Islington North’s MP. He is also seemingly committed to the Labour Party as a project. So, it is unlikely he’ll stand for London mayor. Some people on Twitter think that’s probably wise:

    Others thought it would be a good idea:

    However, whatever happens it seems the saga of the former Labour leader and his party won’t be over anytime soon. Even on Monday 14 November, the whip story was rumbling on – with the Guardian reporting that:

    even if Corbyn does apologise “unequivocally, unambiguously and without reservation” the leadership would be reluctant to let him return.

    One senior Labour figure said: “Jeremy Corbyn is never getting back in. He would be toxic to our chances of winning back some of the seats we need to win back.”

    It means that if Corbyn wants to remain an MP, he will have to stand as an independent in his Islington North seat.

    So, we’ll have to wait and see on what grounds, and for what job, Corbyn fights to be elected in 2024. One thing is for certain – at least he’s got some rent-free living available to him.

    Featured image via the Mail on Sunday – screengrab and This Morning – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Christopher Hind was sentenced to 21 months on 11 November 2022 for his role in the Bristol uprisings on 21 March 2021. This article is republished, with permission, from Christopher and the Network for Police Monitoring.

    What would you do if you saw a man hitting another person with a stick?

    A lot of people might see this, assume it’s none of their business and walk briskly past with their head down. But let’s say you’re not one of those people. You can’t just hurry off and forget what you’ve seen. It’s an ugly spectacle and you wonder if you should do something about it. On further inspection, you realise that the person on the receiving end of this man’s stick is unarmed, which makes things a lot more serious. This has now become a real cause for concern, and you start to wonder not if anything should be done about it, but what exactly should be done about it. You look around at other people who are witnessing the same thing, you’re all looking back and forth at each other with startled expressions, not knowing exactly how to react.

    What if the unarmed person being hit by the man with the stick is also a lot smaller and younger than their assailant? The situation now takes another, darker turn and, unless you’re somewhat empathetically challenged, it surely then becomes impossible not to take some kind of action. How you may choose to act in this situation might vary depending on what kind of person you are. Maybe you’re hard as nails and you wade in to try and restrain the attacker. Maybe you point and shout to raise the alarm to other passersby. Maybe you whip out your phone and upload it to Tik Tok. Of course, the most common course of action would be to phone the police. But what if this was the police? The scenario now takes on a whole new meaning.

    And what if the person with the stick was wearing a police uniform?

    Imagine all the same fundamental elements apply – there is a large man with a blunt weapon attacking a younger, smaller, unarmed person in the street; but now the attacker is wearing a police uniform. The clothing this man is wearing should seem fairly insignificant in this context, and in a sense it is – because what you are witnessing remains completely unacceptable no matter what clothing is being worn. But how should you react now the attacker is wearing a police uniform? Do you phone the authorities that police the police, or send out the bat signal?

    We can all agree that large men hitting smaller people with sticks is generally bad. You don’t need to be a high-powered lawyer to know there are laws against it. So why do these laws seem to disappear in a puff of smoke as soon as it’s a policeman swinging his stick at people?

    Let’s say you didn’t see this take place in the real world but saw it in a video on the Mail Online. A policeman hitting a young, unarmed protester with his stick. You get really angry, you’re fuming, and as the red mist descends you bang on that capslock and write, “WELL SHE MUST OF DONE SOMETHING TO DESERVE IT!!!!!!!” And then you go off for a little cry and punch a wall or something. A more composed contributor might make the point that something must have happened to provoke the violence. So then someone informs you that what they did was stick their finger up at the officer. “SEE THAT WOT U GET M8 LOCK HER UP AN THROW WAY THE KEY!!” would be a common online response, especially in the comments section of the second-most-read news outlet in the UK.

    Does the punishment fit the crime?

    Would you say the punishment fits the crime here? Is the punishment for flipping off a police officer to be flogged repeatedly with a baton? Is this the iron age? Also, if a large crowd of people witnesses this in real life, not just once but on multiple occasions by numerous officers, do you think there might be some kind of backlash?

    Imagine you’re a man in his forties. You shine your shoes regularly and you wear a goatee with pride. You drink protein shakes and work out in your home gym every chance you get. You’re proud of your bulky mass, it makes you feel protected yet powerful, and as a result you’re not an easily intimidated person.

    Let’s say one evening you, a large goatee-adorning man in his forties, are coming out of your local Tesco Express; you’ve just been to pick up Adele’s latest album, and as you’re walking back across the car park someone of radically less mass than you gives you the finger. This considerably smaller and much younger person stands right in front of you and just flips you off, right up in your face, in front of other onlookers. Do you, a large, bulky, goatee-sporting, protein-shake-drinking, home-gym-going man in his forties – a man of reasonable firmness – fear for your safety? It’d be weird if you do, but let’s say you would, for the benefit of the tape. Let’s say you’re so scared that you drop your Adele CD and go straight for your metal bar that you have hanging from your belt (just in case someone flips you off) and swing it as hard as possible at this person, in self-defence of course – because obviously, you’re really scared.

    If you were an onlooker and saw someone in a carpark react in this way, to such a minor transgression, would you think that was okay?

    It doesn’t really make sense, does it?

    So, now pretend you’re this same man, but you’re at work. You work as a police officer and have trained further in the field of crowd control. It could be appreciated that hundreds of protesters gathering right in front of you and your colleagues, to vent how angry they are at how you’ve dealt with them, could make you fear for your safety. But if your unnecessarily violent approach to crowd dispersal is the exact cause of the instant repercussions you and your colleagues are at the receiving end of, then why keep doing it? If this is the reaction you routinely get from heavy-handed policing then why use this approach in the first place?

    Crowds can obviously become rowdy, and as groupthink takes hold the vibe can plummet suddenly, so you and your work mates put on protective vests and helmets, you all grab shields and truncheons and you run out there and start hitting people? Do you think that’ll calm things down? It’s certainly not de-escalation 101. And not only are you hitting people, you’re hitting people indiscriminately, including the smaller, more vulnerable people in the crowd, and then expecting everyone else to just turn around and walk away.

    It doesn’t really make sense, does it? If we don’t want big public altercations that end up with police vans on fire, then de-escalation is the only way to prevent that. But in theory, if you wanted to provoke a crowd of people who were protesting about worryingly authoritarian laws being passed, then a more violent approach would start to make sense.

    As a normal person, you’d never want to see violence on our streets. But as a police officer, media mogul, or a politician – maybe it does serve a purpose. If you were a politician who was attempting to pass laws that attack the very foundations of democracy by repealing the right to protest, and your mate was a wealthy media tycoon, and you were having lunch together (on a purely personal basis, and definitely not a political one, promise ;-)) you might suggest to your friend that, “maybe it’d be rather handy to make these protesters look like unruly savages. I say, here’s an idea – let’s get the police to provoke them into an angry response by hitting them indiscriminately with those stick things we gave them, and then you can frame it, in that clever way you seem to be so adept at, so that your readers think the protesters are rather nasty fellows. Maybe you could put ‘DEEPLY MARXIST LOONY LEFTY ENGINEERS OF EXTREME TERROR AND CHAOS ATTACK POLICE IN BOTCHED ATTEMPT AT WORLD TAKEOVER’ on the front cover. They only pulled down that statue of Colston so they could replace it with one of Stalin, you know. Tell you what, old chap, the police themselves could even issue a false statement saying they’ve suffered broken bones, it doesn’t matter if they had to retract it later, just put the retraction in small print on page 30 or something. All that would work wonders for the PCSC bill that we’re trying to put through.”

    Any protesters who’ve experienced these situations firsthand knows that this is actually an age-old tactic. It’s especially beneficial in the context of the PCSC bill, but it’s a tactic that exists not only in the form of aggressive policing but also in the form of agent provocateurs and other forms of baiting to encourage people to behave in a way that can be re-contextualised in the news to undermine the integrity of protests. Escalation and provocation of this kind can be used to shape public opinion in a way that benefits the political discourse of that time.

    If de-escalation is the only direction of traffic in terms of keeping the peace, it seems that riot police work in direct opposition to that model, and the people they most often clash with seem to be those who are trying to change things for the better. To serve and protect is their motto, but in terms of protest, it seems that the public is not included in that.

    I’m not a violent person

    I was arrested and charged with riot after they matched my DNA with blood they found on one of their riot shields. On that evening, I was hit on the hand and knee with a truncheon, kicked in the ribs, whacked on the head (hence the blood) and pepper-sprayed. I’m not saying I was a saint during that altercation, but I’ve got a feeling I did much less damage to them than they did to me. I’m not a violent person, but when you see an unarmed person of diminutive stature get hit with a baton at full force for sticking their finger up at an officer, it’s extremely hard not to react.

    For a year and a half now, I’ve had a black cloud looming over me. I ended up deciding to plead guilty to violent disorder, as some kind of weird bargaining tactic to minimise the damage. I chose this because it seemed more logical to feign remorse, and take a guaranteed but minimised stretch, than to gamble with a trial and face up to six years. I can have more of an influence outside than in, so the less amount of time I spend in there the better. On my return, I’m going to make sure it doesn’t end here, they’ve made a strong enemy for themselves. Their primitive system of punishment will bite them in the ass, and I’m going to make sure it really fucking hurts.

    By Christopher Hind

  • The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has revealed that the number of people off sick due to chronic illness has exploded. The ONS doesn’t directly point a finger at the cause – but it does hint at it: coronavirus (Covid-19).

    Chronic illness: a sudden surge

    On Thursday 10 November, the ONS released data on the number of economically inactive people. This is how many working-age people are not working and not actively looking for work either. The ONS said that this number had been going up since 2019 due to long-term sickness:

    A graph showing an increase in the number of people economically inactive

    from around 2.0 million people in spring 2019, to about 2.5 million in summer 2022.

    But crucially, the ONS said that the number of chronically ill and disabled people who are economically inactive has shot up by 363,000 since the coronavirus pandemic began in early 2020. It noted that:

    Long-term sickness is an increasingly common reason for economic inactivity, making up 28% of all those out of the labour market in June to August 2022, compared with 25% at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    The graph below shows the cumulative number of people ages 16-64 who are out of work because of long-term sickness, from  January to March 2017 to June to August 2022:

     

    As another ONS graph showed, more people were sick because of “other health problems and disabilities” and mental health issues than any other reason:

    A graph showing the different reasons people were economically inactive

    The ONS said that:

    Comparing Quarter 2 (April to June) in both 2019 and 2022, the number of people inactive because of long-term sickness who reported their main health condition as “other health problems or disabilities” rose by 97,000 (41%), the largest of any category.

    It noted that this could include long Covid, but that the disease may fall into other categories too. This is a concerning trend – but one which people were warning about.

    Long Covid: sadly predictable

    As the Canary reported in March 2020, before the first UK lockdown, the sudden appearance of long Covid was sadly predictable. Post-viral chronic illness has been reported for decades in the form of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS). People within the ME community were warning of the potential of an explosion in chronic illness – which has now happened.

    However, on top of this, the ONS reported increases in mental health issues. It also noted that some of the increases in long-term sickness could be due to increased NHS waiting times. But perhaps most worryingly, the biggest increase in this was seen in the 25-34 age group:

    A graph showing the number of economically inactive people by age group

    No end in sight for the chronic illness epidemic

    The ONS said that there were still more women economically inactive than there were men. However, it noted that there was a larger increase in men becoming chronically ill than women between 2019 and 2022.

    Overall, 19% of people who have become chronically ill between quarter one of 2021 and quarter two of 2022 were previously working. Within this, it was poor people who were hit hardest. Many of those now chronically ill were the lowest paid workers who the government forced to keep the country running during the pandemic:

    A graph showing the number of economically inactive people via lowest to highest paid job sectors

    For the rest of the new chronically ill people, before they became long-term sick:

    • 22% were previously looking after the family or home.
    • 21% were temporarily sick or injured before reporting long-term sickness.
    • 18% were retired
    • 12% were students.

    The ONS summed up by saying:

    There is a lot more to be understood about rising ill health in the UK working-age population, but it is not possible to assign trends in recent years wholly to one reason. With younger people seeing some of the largest relative increases, and some industries affected to a greater extent than others, it could be that a range of other factors, such as working environment, are also playing a role. Further work is required to consider a range of factors and the extent to which they are driving higher rates of economic inactivity.

    However, with coronavirus not really going anywhere and treatments for long Covid still not forthcoming in the UK’s NHS, this trend will likely continue, devastating the lives of those affected in the process.

    Featured image via Pöllö – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 pixels under licence CC BY 3.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the UK is gripped by the Tory-induced cost of living crisis, another trade union has announced a series of strikes. This begs the question: are there any workers left who aren’t taking industrial action?

    A winter of severe discontent… for the Tories

    In recent days, we’ve had announcements from the Royal College of Nurses (RCN), the University and College Union (UCU), London Unite bus drivers and Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union that their members will strike. The PCS union action must be particularly galling for the Tories, as government civil servants will be walking out.

    Other unions are still balloting their members – including teachers, bus drivers elsewhere in the country via Unite, and Unison’s NHS division. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) is currently running a consultative ballot for its members. Meanwhile, strikes from the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) continue.

    And now, a rail union has announced further strikes, too.

    Trade unions: another walk out

    The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) has said its train drivers will be striking across the UK. It said in a statement that:

    ASLEF members at 12 companies – Avanti West Coast; Chiltern Railways; CrossCountry; East Midlands Railway; Great Western Railway; Greater Anglia; London North Eastern Railway; London Overground; Northern Trains; Southeastern; Transpennine Express, and West Midlands Trains – will strike on 26 November.

    As with many of the strikes, ASLEF members will walk out again over pay. Train operators are giving workers a real-terms pay cut due to spiralling inflation and companies’ greed. The union previously held strikes on days across the year. However, many of the train companies have refused to budge. So, the strikes will continue.

    When’s the general strike, guys?

    ASLEF general secretary Mick Whelan said:

    We regret that passengers will be inconvenienced for another day. We don’t want to be taking this action. Withdrawing our labour is always a last resort for a trade union.

    We have come to the table, as we always will, in good faith but while the industry continues to make no offer… we have no choice but to take strike action again.

    They want drivers to take a real terms pay cut. With inflation now well into double figures, train drivers who kept Britain moving through the pandemic are now being expected to work just as hard this year as last year but for less. Most of these drivers have not had an increase in salary since 2019.

    We want the companies – which are making huge profits – to make a proper pay offer so that our members can keep up with the cost of living.

    All of this begs the question: if so many unions are striking, why are they not taking coordinated action? That is, why aren’t unions organising a general strike? Hopefully they are, and we just don’t know it yet – coordinated union action would send the strongest message to the Tory Party that workers won’t tolerate their toxic governance any longer.

    Featured image via the Guardian – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Mere weeks into his time as PM, the Telegraph published an article which hinted at Rishi Sunak’s latest transphobic attack line. It was buried in amongst reporting on the proposition that the Sunak administration should suggest restrictions on the information that schoolchildren can be taught about gender identity. This is, in itself, a worrying echo of Section 28 and all the damage that it did to the LGBTQI+ community. However, the article ended with a much broader scope, stating that Sunak:

    intends to look to review the Equality Act to make it clear that sex means biological sex rather than gender.

    This would mean that biological males cannot compete in women’s sport and other single-sex facilities such as changing rooms and women’s refuges will be protected.

    It would also mean clarifying that self-identification for transgender people does not have legal force, meaning transgender women have no legal right to access women-only facilities.

    If this is true, the ramifications would be disastrous for the UK trans community.

    The Equality Act

    Currently, the Equality Act (EA) prohibits discrimination against the twin characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. ‘Gender reassignment’ is a necessarily broad category that encompasses all transgender people. It applies regardless of whether an individual’s transition is social or medical. It also applies regardless of whether they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) or not. The EA also prevents the exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces, with a few exceptions.

    Sunak is no stranger to the use of transphobia for political gain. However, gutting trans protections from the EA would be steps beyond any of the posturing up until this point. The Good Law Project’s Jo Maugham confirmed that the potential move was theoretically possible within the law:

    Legally, there is nothing to stop the Tories from changing the Equality Act. They have a majority in Parliament and our (abject) so-called ‘constitution’ says that Sunak, if he can carry Parliament, can remove the rights of whichever friendless minority he decides to target.

    Right now, two things need to be borne in mind. First, the Telegraph’s story was based on an unnamed “Downing Street source”. While Sunak has stated before that he would like to go after the EA, his government has made no official announcement yet.

    Second, an alteration to the EA of this magnitude would be something of a legislative feat.  Pink News CEO Benjamin Cohen offered the following opinion:

    My gut is that Sunak won’t try to remove trans protections because there isn’t a majority in the Commons for this. He couldn’t even count on the support of a majority from his own MPs including former PM Theresa May, some current cabinet members + other ‘big beasts’

    I wouldn’t trust the human decency of the Tory Party as far as I could throw it. However, removing trans protections from the EA would be a long and difficult process. The government is under fire for its disastrous handling of the economy and the cost of living crisis. So, monstering trans people for no real gain may simply be too much effort for the embattled PM.

    Starmer – no ally

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the commons benches, Keir Starmer is never one to allow a political enemy to make a mistake unaccompanied. The Labour leader gave an interview to Mumsnet founder Justine Roberts on Friday 28 October in which he questioned the competence of teenagers to make decisions about their own gender identity.

    Whilst Mumsnet is ostensibly a forum for parents to seek support on raising their children, it has become something of a hotbed of transphobic rhetoric and organising. This being the case, it was inevitable that the conversation would turn to trans children.

    Responding to a question on “child safeguarding in the context of gender identity services”, Starmer answered:

    Children shouldn’t be making these very important decisions without consent to their parents, I say that as a matter of principle as a parent.

    We all know what it’s like with teenage children. I feel very strongly about this. This argument [that] children [can] make decisions without the parents is one I just don’t agree with at all.

    This statement is one that should set alarm bells ringing. Starmer appears to be questioning the concept of Gillick competence. This was the 1985 legal ruling that allows minors to make decisions regarding their own medical care. Gillick competence means that:

    Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they’re believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what’s involved in their treatment.

    If Starmer believes that children can’t properly consent to medical treatment, that’s deeply worrying. If, on the other hand, he believes that a cis child is capable of making decisions regarding their healthcare but a trans child is not, this is very clear discrimination.

    The belief that transness is a unique thing to which the norms of personal and bodily autonomy should not apply is discrimination. This autonomy should apply whether or not a child happens to have supportive parents who would ‘allow’ them to transition, socially or medically. Frankly, I am amazed that this needs to be said.

    A rock and a hard place

    So, Sunak is reported to be eyeing the EA, and thus the foundations of trans legal protections. Starmer seems content to question the rights of trans adolescents to make their own choices. Clearly, the watchword of the current incarnation of Labour is ‘Conservative lite’. Currently, both leaders of major parties in the UK are scoring cheap political points at the expense of trans people.

    The Tories’ transphobic posturing, particularly during the leadership debates, is well known. Meanwhile, Labour refuses to root our transphobia from its own MPs – despite its clear commitments to the contrary. Hell, even the Greens are currently at war with themselves over whether it’s OK to discriminate against trans people.

    I ask you, where on earth is a trans person in the UK meant to turn? The government despises us more openly every day, and the opposition is only marginally less awful. The trans community is currently a convenient distraction from the massive failings of Brexit, the cost of living crisis, and the latest recession. That’s all. But we are real people, with real lives which politicians are threatening out of sheer, unfounded cruelty.

    Featured image via Unsplash, resized to 770×403

    By Alex

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tory MP and new transport secretary Mark Harper was under pressure on BBC Question Time (BBCQT) on Thursday 10 November. When probed by the audience over MPs’ second jobs and donations, Harper denied he had either. However, is this actually the case? Well, it is now – but only if you ignore previous gifts from G4S, dark money donations to a pressure group he’s in and a second job paying £150 an hour.

    BBCQT: Harper grilled

    During BBCQT, an audience member asked [18:34]:

    How many insects need to be consumed before our politicians are held to a code of conduct fit for their positions?

    She was obviously referring to disgraced former health secretary and sitting MP Matt Hancock’s stint on I’m a Celebrity. However her broader point was also about politicians’ behaviour overall, including [19:06]:

    repeated allegations of bullying… security breaches… resigning and getting your job back a week later. None of it is behaviour anybody in this audience would be allowed to get away with in an actual place of work.

    So what did the Tory MP, whose government the audience member was talking about, have to say? Well, Harper appeared to be whiter than white.

    Harper said of Hancock:

    Being a member of parliament is a tremendous honour and privilege… I think we should spend our time, particularly those of us who are lucky enough to be in government… not focused on ourselves, but focused on what we’re trying to do for you.

    He continued:

    Hancock, I don’t think, should be going on a reality programme, particularly when parliament is sitting. As a member of parliament, you should be doing your job in your constituency and the House of Commons.

    But then, another audience member asked the panel about second jobs and donors. Or rather, she tore MPs apart:

    I think you should all wear a badge telling us who you’re sponsored by…

    Harper replied that:

    I’m not paid by anybody. I’m paid by the tax payer to be the member of parliament…

    He continued:

    I’m not paid for by anybody else, and as a minister I’m allowed to have outside interests… My only second job is I’m secretary of state for transport.

    So, is everything Harper said actually correct? Kind of.

    Not completely squeaky clean

    Currently, Harper spends his time as a minister and an MP. However, that wasn’t always the case. For over two years between 2017 and 2019, a law firm paid him £3,000 a month for 20 hours work. Clearly, being an MP wasn’t his only job then – with his legal moonlighting paying him £150 an hour. Harper is also a member of the Tory Party parliamentary club the Covid Recovery Group – the finances of which were subject to some digging by openDemocracy. It found “dark money” from unincorporated companies going into the group as well as equity firms and former oil executives.

    Also, in April this year, private government contractor G4S gave Harper nearly £2,000 of free training. This kind of “gift” is illegal in many US states because of the possibility it could “improperly influence official action“. A company with government contracts giving a gift to a serving MP is one such example of that scenario. Of course that’s fine in the UK, though.

    Harper was directly involved in the coalition government’s creation of a register of lobbyists. But as Spinwatch wrote at the time:

    the minister in charge of introducing lobbying transparency regulations, Mark Harper, is refusing to release details of his discussions with lobbyists over lobbying transparency rules. SpinWatch submitted an FOI request to the cabinet office in August 2010. Fourteen months on, the release of the information is still being blocked.

    And on who pays Harper, it’s not just the public as he claimed. He’s received over £25,000 in donations since becoming an MP – and a few subsidised trips from the Conservative Friends of Israel, too.

    Exasperated, and not just with Harper

    However, Harper’s outside interests are small fry compared to other MPs – like former prime minister Boris Johnson. As Data Lobo wrote, between 2017 and 2019:

    Johnson received £200,000 in donations and hospitality – more than any other MP… he also earned more income than any other MP from additional work outside of Parliament.

    But the point is that even the most frugal politicians still get bungs – Harper included. It’s time to end the gravy train that is the Westminster bubble, because the only people benefitting from the ride are politicians and their cliques.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The state’s latest attack on our right to demonstrate is a bizarre one – as a court has allegedly banned one protester from carrying eggs in public, unless they’re for eating. Feel free to say ‘you couldn’t make this shit up’.

    Eggcellent work by a protester

    As the Mirror reported, police arrested student Patrick Thelwell after he threw eggs at king Charles Windsor and his wife Camilla. The Mirror reported that:

    Charles and Camilla were being welcomed by city leaders when four eggs were hurled at them, all of which missed before the pair were ushered away. The monarch continued shaking hands with a member of the public as the eggs flew in his direction, pausing briefly to look at the shells cracked on the ground. The lone protester was heard shouting “this country was built on the blood of slaves” as he was wrestled to the ground by several police officers at Micklegate Bar, a medieval gateway and focus for grand events. Onlookers in the crowd started chanting “God save the King” and “shame on you” at the man.

    Of course, as the Guardian noted, egg throwing is “Britain’s most traditional form of protest”:

    David Cameron, Nigel Farage, Ruth Kelly, George Galloway, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Griffin, Simon Cowell, David Blaine: all have been egged with varying degrees of accuracy and response. Still most famous of all is John Prescott, North Wales, 2001, when the then deputy prime minister responded to a perfectly aimed egg hurled by a farm worker with a Kevin Keegan haircut by punching him in the face, creating the gif that never stops giving.

    However, according to the state, this is now subject to police conditions.

    The thin end of the wedge?

    The Mirror reported that Thelwell claimed:

    his bail conditions had been quite “amusing”. He said they include not being allowed to be 500 metres within the King and not being allowed to possess any eggs in a public place. Although he says they had to alter that condition so he could go grocery shopping. He said he has been charged with Section 4 public order offence and due in court on December 1st.

    North Yorkshire police confirmed Thelwell’s arrest and release. However, while the story is amusing, there is a sinister undertone to it.

    With the Tory government legislating to try and break strikes and stop protester actions like blocking roads – while police are arresting journalists reporting on activism – banning a protester carrying eggs is the thin end of the wedge in an increasingly authoritarian state.

    Featured image via the Royal Family Channel – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Wes Streeting caused a storm on Wednesday 9 November when he referred to Jeremy Corbyn as “senile” in parliament. But it wasn’t the only time in recent days that he’s thrown an outdated, offensive word at somebody.

    Streeting: insulting countless people

    As Politics JOE tweeted, Streeting called Corbyn “senile” in parliament. It was in response to the former Labour leader trying to raise a point of order about Rishi Sunak’s repeated referencing of him during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs):

    People were rightly angry. The word ‘senile’ is an insult and mental health slur. As Healthline wrote:

    Today, “senile” is generally considered an insult and is not used except as part of archaic medical condition names. The more accurate way to refer to natural changes of aging, especially those related to mental and intellectual functioning, is “cognitive changes.”

    On social media, Streeting upset people with lived experience of dementia:

    As always, Corbyn acted with dignity – using the furore about Streeting’s comments to tweet a rallying cry over dementia:

    Streeting has since apologised. He said to Owen Jones on Twitter:

    In jest, but I accept in poor taste. I’ve dropped Jeremy a note directly to apologise for any offence caused.

    However, this wasn’t the only offensive slur Labour’s shadow health secretary has used recently.

    ‘Hysterical’

    On 8 November, accounting professor Richard Murphy quote-tweeted Streeting regarding a comment he made about the NHS. In response, Streeting said Murphy’s tweets were “increasingly hysterical”:

    He doubled down on calling Murphy’s tweets hysterical, saying:

    some of your commentary on the Labour Party in recent days has been hysterical

    The problem with Streeting’s comments is that ‘hysterical’ is also an insult – it’s misogynistic and sexist.

    As Shalome Sine wrote on her Medium page:

    Hysteria comes from the Greek root hystera, meaning ‘uterus.’ Originally, it was believed that hysteria and hysterical symptoms were caused by a defect in the womb, and thus, only women could become hysterical.

    She continued by noting that medical professionals claimed hysteria was an actual physical and mental health condition for years. Spoiler alert: the condition doesn’t exist. Even to this day, things like the pseudoscientific ‘conversion disorder’ are essentially psychiatrists dressing up hysteria for the 21st century. Meanwhile, medical professionals dismissing women with the neuroimmune disease myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) has its roots in the misogyny of hysteria.

    Streeting should know better

    So, as Sine wrote, even now this “ridiculous” idea still permeates society:

    Women are typically considered less reasonable. When we’re upset, we get asked whether we are on our period. When we’re not upset, and instead feeling emotionally level, we’re considered cold. This horrendous catch-22 leaves us with only one socially acceptable option: smiling and acting warmly toward those around us is the only attitude considered appropriate for us. For women, reasonableness is simply not a social expectation. Smiles are.

    She also noted that hysteria also impacts on other genders too:

    Men could not be diagnosed with hysteria because they did not have wombs. Besides, they were supposed to be too strong for these ‘womanly’ diseases. In turn, they could not (or would not) be treated for their psychological distress.

    So, as Sine summed up:

    We have a lot to learn from this. Sexism and rape culture are woven through the language we speak. It’s important to recognize these words, learn our history, and change the future for the better.

    I, for one, know I won’t be using the word ‘hysterical’ any time soon.

    Yet Streeting repeatedly used it. Now, Murphy is a man – but the point is that using hysterical in any context legitimises people using the word. It’s this that we need to root out.

    For the shadow health secretary to use the word ‘senile’ is really bad. However, Streeting has clearly missed the connotations around ‘hysteria’, too – again, something you think he’d know as the shadow health secretary. The Canary has previously used “hysterical” or “hysteria” in articles. But we didn’t know better, and have since learned. So, hopefully Streeting may read this article and apologise and learn himself. We won’t be holding our breath, though.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) members were striking on the London underground on the morning of Thursday 10 November. The reason is simple: once again, bosses are attacking workers’ rights. However, this time the strikes are less about pay and more about the Tory government interfering in Transport for London (TfL) – and TfL capitulating.

    London underground: at a standstill

    Early on 10 November, striking workers shut down most of the tube network:

    The RMT is taking action over pensions, redundancies and changes to staff working conditions. It tried to make a last-minute deal with TfL on Tuesday 8 November. However, the company rejected the RMT deal. So, underground workers have walked out. As one worker tweeted:

     

    Tory attacks on London’s transport

    The situation that has caused RMT workers to strike is complex, but the union summed it up well on Twitter.

    First, the RMT noted that the Tory government is at the root of the problem:

    This “politically motivated attack” on the underground stems from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. As the Guardian noted:

    TfL’s finances were wrecked by the coronavirus pandemic, with its budget mostly dependent on tube fare revenue. Ridership sank to 4% of normal levels in 2020 and has only recovered to around 70% of 2019 weekday levels.

    The government stepped in to plug the revenue shortfall. However, in August a new deal it made with TfL had conditions. As the RMT noted, these include forcing:

    1. … pay restraint… [which] ties TfL pay awards to the public sector…
    2. TfL [to] continue to waste time and resources on the futile project to deliver more ‘driverless trains’ on the Underground.
    3. TfL [to] produce two proposals for reform of the pension scheme…

    The RMT said:

    These conditions are underwritten with the threat to remove funding if TfL fails to comply.

    So, TfL complied. The RMT says the result of this is bad for underground workers:

    Specifically, the RMT says the deal will result in:

    • 600 job losses.
    • A worsening of the work-life balance for staff, with managers being empowered to make shift changes at the last minute.
    • Around a 30% cut in people’s pensions.

    Crucially, the RMT says TfL is not blameless in this. It claims the company was previously against the government’s pension plans:

    London mayor Sadiq Khan also agreed with TfL on pensions:

    However, both have now caved to the Tory government’s demands. So, RMT underground workers have been left with no choice but to strike.

    Underground bosses must ‘stop indulging the Tories’

    The union is demanding that TfL:

    • shelve its plans to cut station staff jobs,
    • withdraw its threats to existing agreements and
    • commit to not attacking the TfL pension scheme.

    The RMT had some choice words for TfL and Khan, too:

    The Mayor and TfL should stand firmly with their workers, the people who kept London’s transport services moving during the pandemic. Instead, they are allowing London Underground managers to cut jobs and undermine employment conditions on the Tube and they continue to indulge the government’s spiteful raid on the TfL pension scheme.

    However, with a funding shortfall and the Tories on the counter attack, it is unlikely that TfL will back down anytime soon. So, expect more RMT underground strikes as the union is again forced to defend its members – and workers are forced to fight for their basic rights.

    Read the RMT’s full briefing here:

    Featured image via the Canary 

    By Steve Topple

  • Free speech has been saved! Elon Musk has bought Twitter for a measly $44 billion. He is now our new corporate overlord.

    One of his announcements had the world’s richest man sounding like a revolutionary:

    $8 a month!

    That’s right, Musk will be allowing the famous blue tick to be available for all… at a cost of $8/month. What stage of capitalism is it when free speech is now offered at a low low price of only $8?!

    Regardless, the policy has caused a stir:

    Our friends at Evolve Politics hit the nail on the head:

    It’s a stupid policy which wouldn’t even have the desired effect. The blue tick will be completely defunct once it becomes a commodity, rather than a verification process.

    Maybe it’s a way of trying to claw back some of the $44 billion he spent on buying the bird app, although he may need a few more ideas to get close:

    With all the noise surrounding this gimmick, a much more important story surrounding Musk happened as soon as he took over.

    Musk fires employees

    Musk has begun to lay off workers at Twitter, with the staff number reduced to around 7,500:

     

    According to the Washington Post, an email was sent around informing workers of their potential futures (and lack thereof) at the company:

    Team, In an effort to place Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through the difficult process of reducing our global workforce on Friday.

    We recognize that this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company’s success moving forward.”

    If getting fired to ensure the company is successful isn’t a slap in the face, then I don’t know what is.

    However, it seems that Musk may have broken labour laws and will potentially face legal consequences:

    He’s clearly desperately trying to bring in some cash after blowing $44 billion in a purchase which he acknowledges himself was massively overpriced. Given he is the richest man in the world, it’s safe to say that being rich doesn’t automatically equal higher intelligence.

    Increased racism

    However, a much darker element of Musk’s takeover of the app has surfaced. Racism has exploded on the platform, with use of the ‘N’ word increasing by nearly 500%:

    Twitter may be heading into a cesspit of even more impersonation and racism.

    But the larger point isn’t about the fact that Elon Musk is simply an asshole, it’s the fact that one man can wield so much power. Giving one sole billionaire control of speech on a huge platform, to use it as a plaything when the website has been an important tool – not least for journalism – should never have been allowed to happen.

    FI Screen Cap YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAXzH7mUgxM Cropped 770×403

    By Curtis Daly

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Keir Starmer showed he’s no friend of the activists currently taking on capitalism. The Labour leader used Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) as an opportunity to throw protesters like Just Stop Oil to the wolves. Little surprise, really – given he can barely support trade unions.

    PMQs: rent-free and solidarity-free, too

    PMQs on Wednesday 9 November was a torrid affair, not least with Rishi Sunak showing former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was right when he said he lived “rent free” in the PM’s head:

    However, Starmer didn’t come off well either. During the slanging match, the subject turned to the Tories’ windfall tax on energy companies. Starmer accused Sunak of fudging it and letting companies like Shell off the hook. The PM responded by saying:

    [Starmer] talks about working people. The Right Honourable Member voted against legislation to stop strikes disrupting working people. He voted against legislation to stop extremist protesters disrupting working people. That’s because he’s not on the side of working people

    So, did Starmer defend himself against these anti-activist and anti-trade union accusations? Of course not. He merely played into them.

    Starmer responded to Sunak by saying:

    I’m against all of those causing chaos, damage to our public services and to our economy  – whether they are gluing themselves to the road or sitting on the government benches.

    Watch below from 11 minutes 45 seconds:

    Wonderful. Not only has the Labour leader refused to support his own party’s affiliated trade unions – now he agrees that protesters like Just Stop Oil are “extremists”, and says he’s against them. What’s the point in Labour, you may ask? At this point, very little it seems.

    Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • University and College Union (UCU) members are to strike across three days before the end of the year. The action will be the biggest in the union’s history. However, the UCU strike poses the question of whether it’s time for unions to call a general strike across the UK.

    UCU: had enough

    As the Canary previously reported, university bosses have cut workers’ real-terms pay by around 25% since 2009. The pension fund that manages university workers’ retirement pots has also been acting appallingly – cutting up to 35% off people’s final pension income. This element has been particularly dire. Pension managers claimed that the workers’ overall fund had a shortfall of £14.1bn – meaning they had to cut the amount of people’s final pension payouts. However, this shortfall then shrank to £2.9bn – but bosses still claimed they had to cut the fund. Then, the shortfall was nothing – and finally, in October, the UCU revealed that actually the fund would be in surplus. Yet despite all this, bosses still want to cut workers’ pensions.

    However, the action is not just about pay. As Union News wrote, workers want:

    an end to race, gender and disability pay injustice; a framework to eliminate zero-hours and other insecure contracts; and meaningful action to tackle unmanageable workloads

    Workers at individual universities have taken industrial action for many months this year. Strikes had to be carried out at individual campuses because the UCU couldn’t meet the legal threshold for a national strike. That’s now changed.

    70,000 workers – out

    As the Canary previously reported, UCU balloted its members for a national strike on the issues of both pay and pensions. The result was a ‘yes’ – so, UCU wrote that:

    Over 70,000 university staff at 150 universities will strike for three days later this month over attacks on pay, working conditions and pensions. The National Union of Students (NUS) has backed the strikes, which will be the biggest ever to hit UK universities and could impact 2.5 million students.

    Pay is central – bosses have imposed a 3% rise this year, which is of course an effective cut, given inflation. The UCU is demanding a “meaningful pay rise” to support workers with the cost of living crisis. The union also wants bosses to act over pensions. It says they must “revoke the cuts and restore benefits”. UCU general secretary Jo O’Grady said:

    This is not a dispute about affordability – it is about choices. Vice-chancellors are choosing to pay themselves hundreds of thousands of pounds whilst forcing our members onto low paid and insecure contracts that leave some using foodbanks. They choose to hold billions in surpluses whilst slashing staff pensions.

    General strike now

    O’Grady continued:

    UCU members do not want to strike but are doing so to save the sector and win dignity at work. This dispute has the mass support of students because they know their learning conditions are our members’ working conditions. If university vice-chancellors don’t get serious, our message is simple – this bout of strike action will be just the beginning.

    However, the bigger picture here is that government and capitalist bosses are effectively causing the UK to grind to a halt – from the NHS, to education, via postal and phone/internet services, the London Underground and Heathrow airport. Surely now is the time for unions to call a general strike – after all, it’s getting towards the point where we’re in one, in everything but name.

    Featured image via the UCU

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Gavin Williamson, former minister without portfolio, has resigned and Rishi Sunak is under pressure, making the new prime minister’s tenure already look wobbly. So, what do you do if you’re a loyal Tory MP? Go on national television and defend them both – even shocking the presenter in the process.

    Tory clusterfucking

    As the Guardian reported, parliament is conducting three inquiries into weasel Williamson. People have alleged he is a bully who issued threats of violence and intimidation. The Guardian claimed that:

    Williamson allegedly told a senior civil servant to “slit your throat” and “jump out of the window”, in what they claimed was a bullying campaign while he was defence secretary.

    It also noted that people have accused Williamson of using:

    MPs’ mental and physical health problems against them, collecting “salacious gossip” about their “sexual preferences” and on one occasion telling [a former MP] to give [another] MP with financial problems a cheque and tell them: “I now own him.”

    What a lovely guy. Of course, Williamson denies any “wrongdoing” – but not the actual words he allegedly used. Meanwhile, Sunak is under pressure over giving him a job in the first place – and then not getting rid of him as soon as people started making the allegations. The Guardian noted that Sunak stood by Williamson until the most recent allegations came to light.

    However, and despite all of this, Tory MPs have fallen into line. The party rolled out the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, on breakfast TV to try and make it all look like slightly less of a shitshow than it actually is. Predictably, this didn’t go well.

    ‘Williamson has shown accountability’. No, really.

    Keegan was on BBC Breakfast. Host Sally Nugent put it to the education secretary that Sunak:

    promised his government would have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. Now, that just isn’t the case, is it?

    Nugent may as well have not bothered – because the government had clearly briefed Keegan to deny everything the host said to her. However, the education secretary fluffed her words, saying:

    No, that definitely is the case.  I’ve worked with him for many years. He has integrity, fabulous judgement, [he’s] professional – and accountability? I don’t think there’s anything more accountable than somebody resigning…

    Defending the indefensible

    The BBC Breakfast host queried who Keegan was talking about – as it sounded like Williamson. Unbelievably, Keegan confirmed she did think Williamson had been accountable. Nugent then pushed Keegan further:

    Let me just clarify… when you were talking about ‘fabulous judgement’ who did you mean?

    Given Keegan’s defence of the disgraced Williamson, it was a fair question. Keegan doubled down, crossing her arms and saying:

    Rishi has great judgement.

    So, there we have it. The person responsible for the education of our children sees fit to defend two men, neither of whom are accountable or have integrity. Good on Nugent for pushing the issue – and shame on Keegan for not having the backbone to tell the truth.

    Featured image via Haggis_UK – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On Sunday 6 November, hundreds of people from around the UK travelled to the Manston Airport refugee processing centre to protest the squalid conditions that migrants are forced to survive in.

    The centre – which is in a former military camp – has come under increased scrutiny since grassroots campaigners photographed conditions at the Camp on 30 October. The situation intensified after the Home Office moved hundreds more people there from Dover on 1 November. These 700 people were relocated after a racist firebombing attack. Home secretary Suella Braverman chose to respond to the attack by proclaiming to parliament that there’s supposedly an “invasion on our southern coast”.

    Overcrowding causing disease

    The Manston Airport camp has the capacity to hold a maximum of 1,600 people, but up to 4,000 people have been crammed into it. This has caused outbreaks of MRSA, diphtheria and scabies.

    The camp is only intended for people to stay in for 24 hours. However, refugees have routinely been forced to stay there in marquees and on mats on the floor for over a month.

    Detention Action has launched legal action against Braverman over conditions at Manston.

    People tweeted from the demonstration on Sunday:

    The demonstration was a passionate and angry show of resistance and saw protesters braving the pouring rain to shake the gates of Manston. Mint Press News tweeted this video from the day:

    “Tomorrow we keep up the fight”

    On 7 November, several demonstrators reflected about the day. According to communications worker for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Nadia Inha:

    The Right to Remain campaign thanked those who took part:

    Meanwhile, another campaigner commented on the power of collective resistance:

    Keeping people in squalid conditions for private profit

    Like almost everything else in the UK, accommodation for refugees is a for-profit business. Manston processing centre is run by private company Mitie,

    According to anti-capitalist research group Corporate Watch:

    Mitie manages 50 % of the UK’s migrant detention capacity, including the Manston camp. The company recently reported record profits of around $4 billion, up 58% in just one year. It also supplies guards that enforce Home Office deportations.

    Corporate Watch‘s research shows that Mitie is owned by Stephen and Caroline Butt, through their Silchester Group of companies. Stephen Butt is one of the 200 richest people in the UK, while Caroline Butt has donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Tory party. Meanwhile, the people housed in Manston processing centre – and Mitie’s other Home Office accommodation – are in dire conditions.

    Cries of “freedom”

    Global Women Against Deportations acknowledged the achievement of the people of the camp in exposing the horrendous conditions. It said:

    Credit must go first of all to the children, women and men who, at great risk to themselves, exposed the horrendous conditions at this camp.  We know that 70% of women asylum seekers fled rape and other sexual violence so that means that there must be traumatised survivors suffering further abuse in Manston. The overcrowding and inhumane conditions are not an accident, or a blunder, it is a deliberate racist government policy aimed at preventing people from claiming asylum, sowing division and fuelling hatred against people fleeing wars and starvation. But the mounting outcry has revealed a growing movement of people determined to defend the rights of asylum seekers and in doing so defend us all against a cruel government that treats us like our lives don’t matter.

    A call for abolition

    Action Against Detention and Deportation, one of the groups which organised Sunday’s demonstration, released a statement calling for the abolition of the UK’s detention system:

    The humanitarian disaster at Manston detention camp is the sharp end of a violent and racist border regime that punishes people seeking safety and a better life in the UK. Treating people fleeing war, poverty, persecution and climate breakdown this is barbaric. We’re glad that our exposure of the inhumane conditions there has provoked public rage and solidarity, with increasing numbers now being released. The cries of “freedom” and “we need your help” from detained children have stirred people to action. But we won’t stop until the place is shut down, and immigration detention as a whole is abandoned for good.

    We need to stand in solidarity with all those detained by the UK government and facing deportations. We should prioritise supporting the struggle against the UK’s racist border system. Ultimately, this is an abolitionist struggle – one which demands a complete end to the UK’s racist border regime and all of the violence associated with it.

    Featured image courtesy of Corporate Watch 

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Martin Lewis has effectively become one of the few in the public eye people seem to trust and rely on. But even he can’t hide his frustration sometimes. This boiled over on Tuesday 8 November, as he gave an emotional diatribe on one aspect of the cost of living crisis: warm spaces.

    Lewis: not holding back

    As Lewis angrily said:

    I hate the fact I’m doing this. But I’m doing it anyway. If you are really struggling, and you know someone who is really struggling, we in Britain this winter… [pause] have warm spaces.

    Lewis was talking about warm “hubs” or “banks“. This supposedly new phenomenon is not really new. Ask plenty of poor people and they’ll tell you libraries or charity shops were always a go-to in winter. Warm spaces have a fairly obvious idea behind them. If people cannot afford to heat their homes, they can go to a warm space to stop themselves being cold. As the organisation Warm Spaces wrote on its website:

    Every space can offer something different. Some may offer free food; pay-it-forward schemes, advice, somewhere to charge your phone or maybe just somewhere to be comfortable & warm with no judgement.

    Warm spaces everywhere

    Warm Spaces’ interactive map shows people where spaces are – and there’s already a lot:

    A picture of a map of warm spaces in the uk

    Anyone can use them. And as Lewis explained, it’s important that everyone knows about them, because:

    libraries or local councils are saying everyone is welcome to spend time and stay warm. There’s a website, warmwelcome.uk, where you can find one near you. If you know perhaps elderly relatives or people who live near you who can’t turn their heating on and they’re worried, why not find where your nearest warm space is for them?

    However, Lewis was also right to point out that:

    We shouldn’t be doing [this]. But it’s important people know, and the nice bit is I’m glad there are people out there who care enough to set these things up.

    The reason for the sudden appearance of official warm spaces is the cost of living crisis. However, dangerously cold homes in the UK are hardly new – and they’re an issue of ethnicity and class. This is because it’s often the poorest and Black and brown people who are hardest hit.

    A perfect storm of negligence

    Poor social housing association properties and council houses are major culprits of poor people not being able to afford their heating bills. For example, 4% of social homes have damp – versus 2% of owner-occupied ones. This is probably an underestimate, as a recent survey found that five million social housing tenants had lived in a damp property at some point. Damp is often caused by poor heating systems or poor ventilation.

    In all types of housing, the damp figure rises to 13% for some dual heritage households, and 10% for some Black and Bangladeshi ones. It is likely that much of this percentage is, again, social housing – given these ethnic groups make up some of the largest proportions of residents. Recently, a coroner said two-year-old Awaab Ishak died because of the mould in his house – which the council hadn’t bothered to deal with.

    Cold homes: killing people

    Meanwhile, 31% of residents’ heating and hot water problems were due to social housing associations not doing their jobs properly. On top of this, social housing landlords are notoriously bad at insulating their housing stock. 44% of social housing falls below the standards needed by 2030. Social housing landlords’ dire track records on insulation is costing residents over £500 a year in increased bills, on average. Couple this with the government’s real-terms social security cuts – amounting to £13,000 a year for some people – and the situation is dire.

    Around 12,000 people die every year in the UK due to cold homes. However, this was in years without the huge energy price increases and sky-rocketing inflation we’ve seen this year. So the death toll from cold homes is likely to be even higher. This is why Lewis got so angry – and why he urged people to spread the word. Lewis is working with CILIP, and has created a guide for setting up warm spaces:

    Lewis: picking up the pieces of systemic failures

    So, it’s down to the poorest people to heed every human-heating tip Lewis gives us. This is where you heat your body, not your home:

    Meanwhile, social housing landlords allow people to live in dangerously low-quality, cold homes while the government cuts their benefits. Little wonder that Lewis is angry. The creation of official warm banks would have been completely avoidable, if there was the will from the government and social housing landlords. Sadly, there isn’t. So Lewis is once again left picking up the pieces.

    Meanwhile, as communities, we must stick together and support each other.

    Featured image via ITV Hub – screengrab 

    By Steve Topple

  • The fat cats running London’s biggest listed companies increased their pay by more than double the rate of UK inflation. A lot of the increase was on boss’s bonuses – as workers struggle to make ends meet.

    Fat cat pay: up

    Accountancy firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) has completed its annual survey on fat cat pay. As Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported, it found that total compensation for CEOs at FTSE 100 firms jumped by nearly 22%. It averaged £3.9m in 2021/22 compared with the previous 12-month period. A spokesperson for PwC said:

    The increase in executive pay and bonuses highlights that FTSE 100 companies were boosted by businesses opening up and demand returning after the pandemic. However, looking forward… higher pay outcomes are likely to be met with greater investor scrutiny, particularly in the context of rising inflation and pay increases across the workforce.

    The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic meant that some companies’ values fell – British Airways, for example. But for others – such as Tesco – profits soared. Some companies froze CEO pay. However PwC said that the proportion of CEOs with salary freezes this year fell to 15% from 43%.

    However, while bosses rake it in, their workers and others are struggling.

    Workers’ pay: down

    UK annual inflation is at a four-decade high, standing at above 10%, while a majority of the country’s workers are receiving pay increases far below this level. Workers across various sectors have gone on strike across Britain this year in a bid to secure pay rises matching inflation. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) and its members were striking over dire pay. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) are also going on strike – and the National Education Union (NEU) is currently balloting its members.

    But it’s the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) which best sums up the situation with fat cat pay. Its workers at Royal Mail are striking over a below-inflation pay cop-out. However, at the same time, the company’s CEO Simon Thompson took over £750,000 in salary and bonuses. It is exactly this kind of disparity which the PwC report shows.

    Disgrace

    Campaign group the High Pay Centre told AFP:

    Over the past decade or so, investors have started to take a tougher line on executive pay,

    However, the group also said that pay awards of £3-4m for most CEOs amount:

    to pay over 100 times that of the typical UK worker, historically very high in the context of the past half century. The effect of investor scrutiny has been to contain pay gaps rather than significantly reduce them.

    Bosses earning far more than workers is hardly new. But the latest PwC report comes in the middle of a cost of living crisis – and while the Tory government is still planning on scrapping the bankers’ bonuses cap. Unless bosses have the moral backbone to pay workers well before feathering their own nests, then strikes will continue to happen – and rightly so.

    Featured image via Epic Slow Mo – YouTube

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) has been at the forefront of industrial action against the Tory government and its capitalist supporters this year. It has scared the living daylights out of Royal Mail and taken huge action against BT. However, the CWU cannot do this work in isolation – and it needs your help to continue its crucial industrial actions.

    CWU: unparalleled industrial action

    The Canary has been following the CWU’s work this year. Over at Royal Mail, workers have been striking over the company’s dire pay offer of nearly half the rate of inflation. After Royal Mail announced 6,000 redundancies and 4,000 job cuts, the company then threatened the CWU with a legal letter. It was over a tiny technicality in the strike action, and the CWU had to cancel its strikes. However, the union wasn’t having it – it immediately sorted the situation and announced more strikes.

    Meanwhile, the CWU has also been showing BT what’s what. Around 40,000 members in call centres and Openreach held repeated strikes against (again) dire pay and working conditions. Much like Royal Mail, BT has offered workers a paltry pay rise below inflation. As the Canary previously reported, BT made over £1bn in profit. So, workers have been striking – with a small measure of success. BT has agreed to get back round the table to talk with the CWU. We’ll have to see if a resolution comes out of the negotiations.

    However, workers cannot keep striking and fighting the bosses without our support. So, the Canary asked the CWU Newcastle branch how our readers could support its members locally and nationwide during industrial action – aside from sharing news on social media and attending pickets.

    Support the workers if you can

    You can donate to the union’s strike fund via PayPal here. But it knows this platform isn’t accessible for some people. So, the CWU Newcastle Amal branch told the Canary:

    Individuals can donate by making a payment to the CWU General Fund and referencing Welfare Fund with the payments. Payments can be made via bank transfer to the following account;

    Sort Code: 60-83-01 – Account: 33019822

    Of course, it goes without saying you should only financially support the CWU if it won’t hurt your own finances. Supporting them in person at strikes and on social media is also vital.

    It is crucial that we back the CWU workers. Royal Mail CEO Simon Thompson has already warned workers that he’ll make more of them redundant if they continue to strike. And while the overtones from BT look slightly better, that could change at any moment. So, striking workers will surely appreciate anything you can give.

    This article is thanks to a Canary reader’s email.

    Featured image via the CWU

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Tories will be making a real-terms cut of £1bn to the education budget in 2023. That’s the analysis of a campaign group which previously exposed the government’s huge slashing of school funding. It’s calling on prime minister Rishi Sunak to increase the education budget. But will he listen –  especially as he promised to restore real-terms education spending to 2010 levels by 2024/5?

    Stop School Cuts

    Stop School Cuts is a campaign group linked to the National Education Union (NEU). In 2015, it showed that by 2020 the government would be giving 83% of schools in England less in real terms. At the time, think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) backed Stop School Cuts, saying:

    This analysis shows that most schools will have seen real-terms cuts in school funding per pupil between 2015 and 2020 once you account for confirmed school funding allocations and the likely costs faced by schools.

    Now, the group has performed another analysis. It’s found that next year, even more schools will be facing real-terms cuts.

    Tory cuts of £1bn

    Stop School Cuts says the government will be cutting funding to 90% of schools in 2023:

    As Stop School Cuts wrote, the Tories will be cutting £1bn in total – affecting over 18,000 schools. The group noted that:

    For millions of children, these cuts will lead to larger class sizes, reduced subject choice and less individual support for children. For teachers it means more real-terms pay cuts, more unmanageable workloads and less time to teach each child.

    So, the group wrote an open letter to Sunak. It said:

    At the 2021 spending review, you promised to “restore per-pupil funding to 2010 levels in real terms” but with rising costs, schools now face a real terms cut of £1bn next year. In total 18,060 schools face cuts, with millions of children impacted losing on average £146 per pupil in one year. After a decade of real terms cuts to school budgets and teacher pay, school communities simply cannot afford to bear further cuts.

    The government will spend £324 less per pupil in 2023 than in 2015 in real terms. Teacher’s have suffered real-terms pay-cuts in the same period.

    12 years of education austerity. Is there more to come?

    Stop School Cuts’ analysis comes after 12 years of previous cuts. The IFS previously said that the government’s education budget between 2015/16 and 2019/20 faced:

    the largest cut in school spending per pupil over a four-year period since at least the early 1980s and would return school spending per pupil to about the same real-terms level as it was in 2010–11.

    Now, it appears Sunak’s government is compounding the issue. So, Stop School Cuts laid down the gauntlet to the PM. It asked him if he would:

    • Reverse the cuts facing schools next year?
    • Ensure deserved pay-awards for school staff are fully funded?
    • Keep your promise to restore per-pupil funding to 2010 levels in real terms?

    With the government already putting austerity on the cards, whether or not Sunak will honour his 2021 pledge to restore real-terms education funding remains to be seen. It’s therefore likely that Stop School Cuts will have a lot more work to do in the future.

    Featured image via Unsplash and Rishi Sunak – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary can reveal that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will deny over 20,000 more chronically ill and disabled people November’s cost of living payments than it did in July. It comes as the DWP has already warned people not to expect the £324 immediately. Overall, around one million benefit claimants will not get the payment.

    DWP cost of living payments

    As the Liverpool Echo reported, the DWP will be issuing the second cost of living payments between 8-23 November. People claiming the following benefits should get it:

    • Universal Credit
    • Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
    • Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
    • Income Support
    • Pension Credit

    If you claim Tax Credits, the DWP will only give it to you now if you also claim one of the benefits listed above. If you don’t, HMRC will pay you the £324 between November 23-30. However, like the first one in July, not everyone who claims social security will get the cost of living payments.

    1.5 million missed out who claim benefits

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP did not give July’s £326 payment to a lot of claimants. This included:

    • 433,000 Housing Benefit claimants
    • 523,000 Carer’s Allowance claimants
    • 568,000 PIP/DLA claimants

    It was not possible to work out the number of non-income-based ESA/JSA claimants not entitled to the payment as the DWP doesn’t make the figures publicly available. So, overall, around 1.5 million social security claimants were not entitled to July’s cost of living payments.

    Now, the Canary has crunched the numbers again for PIP/DLA claimants, looking at November’s payment.

    Disabled people being penalised once more

    We’ve found that over 20,000 less chronically ill and disabled PIP/DLA claimants are entitled to the second cost of living payments. This is because the number of people claiming the two benefits only has gone up – from 568,889 to 590,435. These claimants won’t get the payments because they don’t claim any other benefit – like Universal Credit.

    Meanwhile, the number of Housing Benefit claimants who won’t be getting the cost of living payments has gone down – from 433,015 to 405,236. Now, this may mean that the DWP will give the payment to more people – but only if these people have moved to another qualifying benefit, again like Universal Credit. However, that is still over 400,000 people who the DWP says are poor enough to need support with rent – but not poor enough for anything else.

    DWP: beyond belief

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP had not done an impact assessment at the time of rolling out July’s cost of living payments. This is where a government department checks how its policies will affect protected groups – like disabled people. However, in September the DWP did one for the cost of living payments. It stated that of all protected groups by law (like disabled people):

    There is no evidence to suggest any specific impacts on customers within any of these protected characteristic groups.

    This is likely demonstrably false, given there will be disabled people with high support needs that the DWP will not give the cost of living payments to. All this is without the 8.6 million chronically ill and disabled people who the DWP did not give the other, £150 cost of living payment to either.

    It is beyond belief that the DWP will be denying some chronically ill and disabled people additional support this winter. This will be along with countless Housing Benefit and Carer’s Allowance claimants, too. Inflation is out of control, hitting food and energy bills hard. So, it will be charities and communities who pick up the pieces of the DWP’s neglect.

    Featured image via Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Canary can reveal that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will deny over 20,000 more chronically ill and disabled people who claim benefits November’s cost of living payments. It comes as the DWP has already warned people not to expect the £324 immediately. Overall, around one million benefit claimants will not get the payment.

    DWP cost of living payments

    As the Liverpool Echo reported, the DWP will be issuing the second cost of living payments between 8-23 November. People claiming the following benefits should get it:

    • Universal Credit
    • Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
    • Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
    • Income Support
    • Pension Credit

    If you claim Tax Credits, the DWP will only give it to you now if you also claim one of the benefits listed above. If you don’t, HMRC will pay you the £324 between November 23-30. However, like the first one in July, not everyone who claims social security will get the cost of living payments.

    1.5 million missed out who claim benefits

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP did not give July’s £326 payment to a lot of claimants. This included:

    • 433,000 Housing Benefit claimants
    • 523,000 Carer’s Allowance claimants
    • 568,000 PIP/DLA claimants

    It was not possible to work out the number of non-income-based ESA/JSA claimants not entitled to the payment as the DWP doesn’t make the figures publicly available. So, overall, around 1.5 million social security claimants were not be entitled to July’s cost of living payments.

    Now, the Canary has crunched the numbers again for PIP/DLA claimants, looking at November’s payment.

    Disabled people: penalised once more

    We’ve found that over 20,000 less chronically ill and disabled PIP/DLA are entitled to the second cost of living payments. This is because the number of people claiming just the two benefits only has gone up – from 568,889 to 590,435. These claimants won’t get the payments because they don’t claim any other benefit – like Universal Credit.

    Meanwhile, the number of Housing Benefit claimants who won’t be getting the cost of living payments has gone down – from 433,015 to 405,236. Now, this may mean that the DWP will give the payment to more people – but only if these people have moved to another qualifying benefit, again like Universal Credit. However, that is still over 400,000 people who the DWP says are poor enough to need support with rent – but not poor enough for anything else.

    Beyond belief for those who claim benefits

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP had not done an impact assessment at the time of rolling out July’s cost of living payments. This is where a government department checks how its policies will affect protected groups – like disabled people. However, in September the DWP did one for the cost of living payments. It stated that of all protected groups by law (like disabled people):

    There is no evidence to suggest any specific impacts on customers within any of these protected characteristic groups.

    This is likely demonstrably false, given there will be disabled people with high support needs who the DWP is not giving the cost of living payments to. All this is without the 8.6 million chronically ill and disabled people who the DWP did not give the other, £150 cost of living payment to, either.

    It is beyond belief that the DWP will be denying some chronically ill and disabled people additional support this winter. This will be along with countless Housing Benefit and Carer’s Allowance claimants, too. Inflation is out of control, hitting food and energy bills hard. So, it will be charities and communities who pick up the pieces of the DWP’s neglect.

    Featured image via VideoBlogg Productions – the Canary and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Australia and the United Kingdom will deepen defence research ties as early bilateral quantum tech collaboration shows signs of success, according to the top defence scientists from both nations. Given ongoing geopolitical tensions, Australia’s chief defence scientist Professor Tanya Monro said that Australia needs to collaborate with its closest allies and partners to manage the…

    The post Aust, UK to deepen non-AUKUS defence research ties appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • During her failed bid to become Tory leader, Suella Braverman received funding linked to the former chair of a climate change denying thinktank. Now, three MPs are demanding the wider finances of that thinktank – based at the prestigious Westminster address of 55 Tufton Street – be investigated. This news may prove embarrassing for the government, coming as it is during COP27 week.

    The investigation could potentially end up as a test case for other groups – collectively nicknamed the Tufton network – based at, or associated with, that address. Several senior Tory MPs work closely with those groups. Many of them are also listed as current or past members of the European Research Group (ERG).

    Investigation into “wrongdoing”

    Representing a cross-party trio of MPs, the Good Law Project has asked the Charity Commission to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The thinktank is a registered charity that rejects climate change.

    An 18 page letter sent to the Charity Commission, alleging “mismanagement” by GWPF, is available to view here.

    Specifically, the MPs claim GWPF authorised:

    several hundred thousand pounds’ worth of spending on one-sided and politically-motivated research, which does not fall properly within the “educational” purposes of the Charity.

    A company owned by former GWPF chair Terence Mordaunt donated £10k to Suella Braverman for her bid as Tory leader. Mordaunt is also a trustee of the similarly named GWP Forum, a subsidiary of GWPF.

    So who are the the Tufton network?

    In October, Led By Donkeys (LBD) posted a video identifying the groups who make up the Tufton network. They include: TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), and Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). LBD also named individuals from these groups who worked closely with Liz Truss during her short tenure as prime minister. They include Matthew Sinclair and Alex Wild (TPA), Caroline Elsom (CPS), Ruth Porter (IEA), and Julian Jessop (IEA).

    According to LBD, the IEA reportedly received funds from BP and ExxonMobil. LBD adds that the tobacco industry funds the IEA, the CPS, and ASI.

    More funding sources

    Independent media sites in particular have exposed other funding sources for the Tufton network:

    • In June 2022, Open Democracy revealed that the John Templeton Foundation provided just under “$2m to the US arms of the Adam Smith Institute and the IEA”.
    • ExxonMobil gave $30k to the US arm of Policy Exchange (PE), another lobby group, co-founded by Michael Gove. PE recommended a new law to target Extinction Rebellion (XR) and other climate change groups. That proposed law became the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. Policy Exchange has described XR as ‘extremists’.
    • The Sarah Scaife Foundation, a funder of climate denial organisations, donated $350k to pro-privatisation and pro-private healthcare ASI and Legatum, another lobby group.
    • The Charles Koch Foundation, set up by the co-owner of fossil fuel company Koch Industries, donated $154k to Legatum.
    • Legatum’s founder and major funder is former hedge-fund Sovereign Global manager Christopher Chandler. He and his brother invested heavily in Russia, including the energy company Gazprom.
    • A trust which donated $22m to climate denial organisations also gave $2m to Policy Exchange, TPA, IEA and Legatum via their US fundraisers.
    • BP has funded the IEA “every year since 1967”, according to openDemocracy.

    Tufton network and the Tories

    The pro-privatisation and climate change denying CPS has long-standing links with the Tory right. It was set up by Margaret Thatcher, along with Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman. Wikispooks lists CPS directors and council members, the latter of which include several Tory MPs. The CPS’s advisory board also includes, among others, Graham Brady who is chair of the highly influential 1922 Committee of Tory MPs.

    Brady is also the CPS deputy chair. The CPS supports NHS privatisation and fracking.

    Moreover, in 2021, the IEA launched the Free Market Forum that included Priti Patel, Liz Truss, and Kwasi Kwarteng in its parliamentary wing. The forum’s advisory council included former TPA CEO Matthew Elliott.

    It’s further revealed by openDemocracy that:

    14 members of Boris Johnson’s cabinet – including the home secretary Priti Patel, the foreign secretary Liz Truss and the business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, are “alumni of IEA initiatives”.

    There’s also Shanker Singham, Legatum’s then-economic policy director, who met regularly with then Brexit minister and ERG head Steve Baker. Singham later moved on to the IEA.

    Then there’s Tim Montgomerie, senior fellow at Legatum and “creator of the ConservativeHome website”. Following the disastrous Kwasi Kwarteng budget, openDemocracy reported that Montgomerie, who was also a former adviser to Boris Johnson:

    wrote on Twitter that the mini-budget was a “massive moment for the IEA”. “They’ve been advocating these policies for years,” he said.

    These groups “are the government”

    Guardian columnist George Monbiot has also identified links between certain Tufton network groups and Tory Party policies:

    Monbiot suggests that the lobby groups mentioned are “no longer lobbying government – they are the government”.

    He points out that their policies also include: no tax for the rich, deregulation of industries, and the abolition of trade unions and protest movements. He argues that these groups promote fundamentalist policies that would see massive cuts in services, leading to the privatisation of public services, including the NHS.

    Meanwhile, we await a response from the Charity Commission to the Good Law Project’s request for an investigation into GWPF finances.

    As for the wider Tufton network, their links with Tory-run government are expansive if not endemic. Indeed, to borrow a phrase from the Thatcher era, they could be described as the “enemy within”.

    Featured image via YouTube cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rough sleeping in one city in Devon has doubled in the space of a year, according to a local charity. However, the news may represent the wider picture across the UK. St Petrock’s is a charity in Exeter which has reported the increase. Its boss said the current cost of living crisis is probably causing the spiralling number of rough sleepers.

    Exeter: rough sleeping doubled

    St Petrock’s supports homeless people, rough sleepers, and those it calls “vulnerably housed”. As Devon Live reported, two weeks ago St Petrock’s did a count of the number of rough sleepers in Exeter. It found that the number has doubled since last year: from 14 to 30. The figures come against a backdrop of Devon having lower rates of poverty than other places in the UK. However, there are still pockets of extreme deprivation and a growing life expectancy gap.

    The director of St Petrock’s is Peter Stephenson. He told Devon Live that:

    Rough sleeping numbers had been going down steadily in the last couple of years and the pandemic helped as the government brought everyone in off the street and not everyone went back to the streets again. But sadly it seems to be going the other way again.

    Stephenson wouldn’t commit to a definite cause of an increase in Exeter’s rough sleeper population. But he did tell Devon Live that:

    I think it’s to do with the cost of living crisis. One thing we have never had at St Petrock’s before, but have been for the last three months, is members of the public calling us saying they have tried everyone else to get help and are worried about losing their home and can’t pay for food and rent.

    However, the situation in Exeter may be a microcosm of the national picture.

    A national crisis that’s getting worse?

    As the Big Issue reported:

    the latest official count estimated a total of 2,440 people were sleeping rough on a single night in autumn 2021 in England.

    This was down 10% on 2020. However, the Big Issue warned that:

    the number of people sleeping rough has grown steadily since 2010 and despite four consecutive years of falling numbers there, the current figures are 38 per cent higher in 2022 than they were 12 years ago.

    And the official rough sleeping figures are often thought to be a considerable underestimate as they rely on single-night counts and estimates by local authorities.

    Tory government: unconcerned and unprepared

    In reality, there are at least 8,239 rough sleepers a year in London alone – and again this figure may be an underestimate. Mayor Sadiq Khan has already warned the cost of living crisis may make things worse. This is already being seen in the quarterly rough sleeper figures, with a 10% increase between January-March and April-June this year.

    With the cost of living crisis set to get worse, the picture in Exeter and London is likely to be replicated nationally. And so far, the government is probably both unprepared and unconcerned.

    Featured image via Newtown Graffiti – Flickr, resized to 770×403 pixels under licence CC BY 2.0

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • On the evening of Saturday 5 November, an as-yet-unnamed man died in the reception area of Stoke Newington police station. The death prompted the sudden closure of the station, at which time officers erected a hasty screen of blue tarpaulin to obscure the scene.

    Hackney Police quickly put out a tweet stating that the death was not being treated as suspicious. However, commenters were swift to point out that ‘not being treated as suspicious’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘not actually suspicious’:

    As Hackney Cop Watch pointed out, Stoke Newington police station is somewhat notorious for the deaths within its walls:

    Along with Brixton, Stoke Newington has the highest number of deaths in custody in any police station in the UK. This is not an isolated event.

    Campaign group Sisters Uncut drew parallels with the historic deaths of Colin Roach and Vandana Patel within the station:

    In light of this, the concerns raised by the public over the circumstances of this newest fatality are not unfounded.

    Further questions

    It later emerged that the deceased was a 68-year-old white man who had apparently been in and out of the station since 9am that same morning. A later statement from the police stressed that he was not in custody.

    Police claimed that the deceased died after climbing onto a telephone kiosk and jumping off. They also said that they had found a suicide note.

    The updated statement served to raise more questions than it answered. Caroline Russell, Highbury ward councillor for the Green Party, commented:

    Indeed, the telephone kiosks in question appear to have been somewhat low to the ground, casting some doubt on the official version of events:

    Hackney Cop Watch has called for the release of CCTV footage to the family of the deceased. The group has also stated that it will be:

    holding a meeting on Wednesday 9th November at 6:30pm at Well Space, 241 Well Street, E9 6RG. This meeting, hosted by Hackney Cop Watch, will be a space to reflect, mourn, and organise.

    We await the coroner’s report on the exact manner of the deceased’s death, and join in the call for greater clarity and transparency.

    You can read Hackney Cop Watch’s full statement here.

    Featured image via Twitter

    By Alex

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It looks like the Royal College of Nurses (RCN) union will be striking across the UK. After it balloted 300,000 members, the union has indicated the result was a ‘yes’ to walkouts. The strike may be the biggest in the RCN’s history. However, so far the Labour Party leadership has not supported NHS nurses’ action. Nurses, meanwhile, have told the Canary they “expect” Labour to support them.

    RCN: everybody out?

    As the Guardian reported, the RCN is saying that the result of its ballot will mean strikes before Christmas. The industrial action is over appalling pay and working conditions, as Tories have inflicted a £4,300 real-terms cut to nurses’ pay since 2010. The Guardian noted that one RCN source said:

    This will see the majority of services taken out, and picket lines across the country.

    The RCN will protect life-critical services from the strike. This includes A&E and critical care – but otherwise most other services will be hit. As the Guardian reported:

    The counting of the RCN ballots is continuing, but officials expect to announce shortly that the majority of nurses in some of the UK’s main trusts and health organisations have voted to strike.

    So, the Canary spoke to one campaigner and frontline NHS nurse. She told us her and her colleagues have had enough.

    NHS nurses: “angry” and expecting Labour’s support

    NHS Workers Say No is a grassroots campaign group. Founder and nurse Holly Turner told the Canary:

    Nursing staff have made history by voting for a national strike with the RCN. There has been a dramatic shift in mood and union engagement over the past 12 months. These results are evidence of that. NHS workers are angry, and they are focused on getting organised to win change for themselves and their patients. The results are a testament to the hard work of activists across the UK who have not given up, despite campaigning alongside working in full time clinical roles in unsafe and emotionally gruelling conditions.

    Turner didn’t mess around when it came to what nurses faced. She noted that:

    The media onslaught has begun. But we are ready for that. We know why these strikes are necessary, and we won’t be guilted or cajoled into giving up by the right-wing press and Tory mouthpieces.

    Crucially, Turner said:

    What we now need, and expect to see, is full support from the opposition, labour movement and class solidarity to support us in our fight.

    However, so far this hasn’t happened.

    Starmer busy dropping racist dog-whistles about the NHS

    The Labour leadership has not stated whether it supports the RCN strike or not. Back in October, Keir Starmer said:

    I don’t want the strikes to go ahead. We want to be in government – in government you resolve issues.

    On NHS workers’ pay, he said that was a:

    question for each of the negotiations, exactly where it lands

    And in recent days, Starmer showed his dog-whistle racism by saying there should be fewer foreign-born nationals working in the NHS. But as of 12pm on Monday 7 November, he had not commented on the RCN strike.

    Meanwhile, former Labour leader Ed Miliband couldn’t bring himself to say Labour supported the RCN strike either, merely saying [0:21]:

    nobody wants to see a strike go ahead, including nurses

    NHS workers deserve all our support. It’s a damning indictment of the current Labour leadership that so far, no-one will come out and say as much.

    Featured image via Clara Paillard – Twitter, Sky News – YouTube and Sky News – YouTube 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A protester captured a devastating photo at the People’s Assembly demo on Saturday 5 November. It’s one that should haunt the Tories. This is because it shows a disabled homeless person – as thousands marched against the government.

    Get the Tories out

    People’s Assembly staged its latest national demonstration on 5 November. Thousands of people turned out to call for a general election and to protest against the Tories:

    Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had hit the headlines during the week after he said he lived “rent free” in prime minister Rishi Sunak’s head. Corbyn also spoke at the People’s Assembly rally. He said that the Tories were sacrificing the UK:

    All on the altar of profits to distant hedge funds. That is the reality of what modern Britain is about.

    Disabled homeless people: the reality under the Tories

    Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) member and activist Paula Peters also spoke at the People’s Assembly rally. And she took photos along the way. One of them was of a homeless person’s tent with a wheelchair next to it:

    The fact this homeless person is disabled is not uncommon. As charity Just Life wrote:

    A study by Crisis of 14,922 individuals, 70% of whom were homeless while the others were either at risk of homelessness or had a history of homelessness, found that 39% reported having a disability. Another study… found that 12% of a group of people experiencing homelessness showed strong signs of autism. The prevalence of autism in the general population is approximately 1%.

    This figure has risen in recent years. Crisis reported in 2019 that it found a 53% rise in:

    the number of people with physical ill health or disability whose local council have been unable to help prevent or relieve their homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) and now are classed as priority need for housing

    Moreover, 45% of homeless people live with mental health issues. This figure rises to 80% for rough sleepers. Peters, whose photo is evocative of the situation, thinks she knows why all this is the case.

    ‘Barely surviving – or dying’

    Peters told the Canary:

    DPAC formed in 2010. Now, after 12 years of brutal coalition and Tory austerity, things have got progressively worse for disabled people. Successive governments have cut social security, Housing Benefit and the Local Housing Allowance; they’ve introduced the bedroom tax and chaotic Universal Credit; they’ve overseen rising inflation, energy and food prices, and presided over cuts to social care. Many disabled people are in energy and social care debt – chased by bailiffs for money they haven’t got.

    The travesty of this [is] disabled people are in a precarious position of barely surviving – or dying. If they can’t afford to live, they end up on the street. This shouldn’t be happening. More disabled people will end up this way. With the Tories’ budget in a few weeks, that’s sadly going to be the case.

    However, it’s not just the Tories causing disabled people’s precarity which Peters thinks is a problem. She noted that during the People’s Assembly march:

    What struck me was the sheer number of activists walking past this homeless, disabled person to get to the start of the demo. People didn’t see the sheer poverty literally beside them. They were too intent on getting to where they needed to go. It was like the entire march went through the homeless disabled persons space: people marching to resist this government against precarious situations such as this. It is so important to show the horrific situation disabled people are ending up in. I think some of the protesters on the People’s Assembly march chose not to see the homeless, disabled person – because deep down there is a stab of fear it could be them.

    It could be you, next

    It goes without saying that we all need to be fighting back against the Tories and the system. However, we particularly need to be allies for chronically ill, disabled and homeless people. As Peters said:

    DPAC are still campaigning and fighting the government. But disabled people’s campaigns need all the support we can get, to pile the pressure on the government to stop the attacks on us. We need to resist this government with everything we have but we need support to do this.

    As Peters summed up:

    No-one is immune from disability or losing their job. Circumstances change – and you can end up like this.

    Successive UK governments have systematically persecuted chronically ill and disabled people. It got to the point where the UN accused Tory-led governments of “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights. That was in 2016. And in 2022, as Peters’ photo shows, little has changed.

    Featured image via Paula Peters

    By Steve Topple

  • People have dragged Keir Starmer over comments he made about NHS workers on Sunday 6 November. However, his broader comments about immigration have also prompted a backlash. People have accused him of not only pandering to racists, but being a racist himself – with Jeremy Corbyn dragging him via a subtweet.

    However, always one to be on the side of the establishment, enter the BBC to minimise the damage for Starmer – by changing a headline to make him look slightly less racist.

    NHS overrun with foreigners, says Starmer

    BBC Scotland‘s The Sunday Show was interviewing Starmer. The host asked him about what his wife Victoria, who works in the NHS, thinks the problems are. Starmer said [2:17]:

    We haven’t got enough people.

    However, the Labour leader’s solution to this was crass at best. Starmer said:

    I think that we should be training people in this country. Of course we need some immigration but we need to train people in this country.

    Starmer called immigration in the NHS a “short-term fix”. He also went further on immigration, saying:

    We don’t want open borders. Freedom of movement has gone and it’s not coming back. So that means fair rules, firm rules, a points-based system. What I would like to see is the numbers go down in some areas. I think we’re recruiting too many people from overseas into, for example, the health service. But on the other hand, if we need high-skilled people in innovation, in tech, to set up factories etc, then I would encourage that.

    Dog-whistle racism

    Starmer’s comments are literally dog-whistle racism – as people pointed out on social media:

    Professor of accounting Richard Murphy took the time to take down Starmer in a blog post, saying the Labour leader would not be able to form a “credible government”:

    And as a doctor pointed out, contrary to what Starmer says, the NHS does need a quick fix:

    The BBC: propping up Starmer’s racism

    Then, the dog-whistling, racist BBC aided and abetted Starmer in his racist pandering. It changed the headline on its article about his comments – clearly trying to make the Labour leader look slightly less racist:

    So, Corbyn decided to subtweet at Starmer – not exactly subtly, either:

    Starmer’s comments once again show that Labour is intent on toeing a right-wing line to curry favour with that voting base. It’s clear why Labour’s doing this: the party has always had a racism problem. But also the right-wing rump of Labour thinks the answer to winning a general election is to copy the Tories. And the BBC will quite happily prop this up – to the ruin of us all.

    Featured image via Peter Curran – YouTube and BBC News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.