Connect with us

Published

on

At this year’s Trade Union Congress (TUC), union leaders representing 5.5 million members called for “a special working group of willing unions which would organise coordinated action over pay and terms and conditions where possible with all TUC unions, including further demonstrations, national and regional rallies, and coordinated industrial action where possible”.

Mick Lynch, who is currently leading the highest profile strike by railway workers, declared: “I would support a general strike and co-ordinated action.”

Asked on Sky News about a general strike, Sharon Graham, general secretary of UNITE – one of the biggest unions – told Sophy Ridge: “If there are a number of strikes happening at the same time, people can call it what they like, quite frankly.”

Heading into this winter, the UK is facing its biggest wave of strikes for at least a decade, involving action by more than a million workers in the public sector led by the major trade unions.

Do these powerful calls for “synchronised action” mean the UK will soon plunge into a “general strike” to match the historic General Strike which took place just under a century ago in May 1926?

Only the general council of the TUC can call a general strike, and union bosses sit on the council.

Yet for all the rhetoric so far, there is considerable practical reluctance to escalate industrial actions in multiple sectors in what would turn into a formal confrontation with the government.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

UK strikes: What does the data show?

From nurses to teachers: The year in strikes

Come what may, 2022 will go down as a year of strikes.

Some 560,00 working days were lost in August and September – almost twice the total for whole years recently – and industrial actions are mounting.

In pursuit of their pay-claim, 40,000 members of the RMT union have announced more one-day strikes over the Christmas period on 13, 14, 16 and 17 of December, and 3, 4, 6, and 7 January 2023. There will also be an overtime ban in the weeks in between. Train drivers in ASLEF plan strikes for other days.

For the first time ever and following a yes vote in a ballot, the Royal College of Nursing is announcing strike days by more than 300,000 nurses. And 400,000 NHS workers in UNISON are currently voting on strike action, with the result due in January.

Christina McAnea, the general secretary of UNISON, said recently: “Co-ordinated action unites us, and we have a single goal: end this pay crisis in this country.”

• The Royal College of Midwives is also consulting its members. So are the junior doctors in the British Medical Association (BMA)

• 70,000 in the University and College Lecturers union (ULU) walked out this week

• 115,000 postal workers in the Communications workers union are continuing strikes from November into December

• 400,000 teachers and support staff in the NASUWT – National Education Union (NEU) are holding a strike ballot, with the result due in the new year. The separate Scottish teachers union is already taking action

• 100,000 civil servants in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) have voted heavily for industrial action

• There are also disputes involving airline ground staff in the GMB, some dockworkers, London bus drivers, BT and Outreach staff amongst others

Read more:
Keep track of all this winter’s strikes

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Union boss has ‘positive’ talks with govt

Different strikes, same cause

These disputes all have the same root cause: UK inflation is now running at 11%.

The unions want above inflation pay awards to combat the cost of living crisis. Already, they point out, their members’ earnings have declined in real terms, and are now worth what they were in 2008.

Fourteen years is the longest period of wage stagnation in modern times. If they were to catch up in real terms, pay awards would have to be 15% or more.

Workers in the private sector are currently settling for below-inflation increases averaging around 6%, but many public sector employers have yet to match that with their offers.

Secondary complaints by the unions include protests at what they regard as the privatisation of public services and proposed changes in working practices which, they believe, would adversely impact conditions for those involved.

Employers often want to attach strings demanding changed working practices to potential pay awards.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Post workers ‘don’t want to be on strike’

What history tells us about general strikes

Demands for more pay to avoid falling behind and against poorer working conditions were also central grievances in the 1926 General Strike, though in much starker form.

Then, 1.2 million miners in the privately owned (but strategically vital and government monitored) coal industry were locked out after opposing wage reductions and worse contracts. Eventually, negotiations between the unions, employers and outside advisors broke down.

Rail, transport, printing, dock and iron and steelworkers joined the General Strike in support of the miners’ claim of “not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day”.

At its height, some 1.75 million workers were striking.

The Conservative government led by Stanley Baldwin was well-prepared for the strike. Special constables to ensure “the maintenance of supplies” had been recruited, although the proposal of then-chancellor Winston Churchill to deploy armed troops was rejected.

Middle class volunteers acted as strikebreakers, ostensibly to preserve essential services.

After nine days, the TUC General Council called off the General Strike. The miners lost and had to accept longer hours and lower wages.

The coal industry continued the decline, which would run all the way through full nationalisation to the Miners Strike of 1984-1985 during Mrs Thatcher’s premiership.

Historians say the General Strike has to be seen in the context of genuine fears of revolution in the wake of the communist take-over of Russia a few years previously. The Labour Party was only just establishing itself as a party of government and then, as now, it did not fully support the strikes.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Pay rise ‘not affordable’

Sunak’s less confrontational approach

This has not stopped Rishi Sunak repeatedly demanding that Sir Keir Starmer should tell Labour’s “union paymasters” to call off the strikes.

In practice, Sunak’s government seems to be taking a less confrontational approach than his immediate predecessors.

Transport Secretary Mark Harper readily agreed to meet with the RMT. Mick Lynch described their encounter as “positive” though he said he was no closer to calling off the Christmas strikes.

Society is much less polarised about the strikes now than it was in 1926. The Conservative government may have changed the law to allow railway companies to bring in agency workers to keep services running, but they have so far declined to do so, even if such substitute workers were readily available.

There was no NHS in 1926. The centrality of public health workers in the current disputes has increased public sympathy. After a rolling dispute with health workers back in 1982, Mrs Thatcher won re-election and then gave the nurses an annual pay award of up to 14%.

In polls, around 60% support the current strikes, with between 24% and 33% opposing them. But less than half agree that pay awards should be as big as the unions are asking for.

The RMT risks losing public sympathy with its strikes disrupting the Christmas festivities, including “Black Eye Friday”, the biggest day for office and work parties.

After two Christmases wiped out by COVID, the hospitality industry in London alone reckons the disruption will cost it some £300m, with an estimated national bill of £1.2bn. The media-savvy Mick Lynch has been forced to deny he is a “Grinch” on national TV.

More from Adam Boulton:
Lessons to be learned from strikes past and present
Next two years will reveal if Sunak is a safe pair of hands
US midterms an unreliable way of predicting next president

In these straightened times, the UK is by no means the only country being hit by waves of industrial protests. South Korea, Bolivia, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and France have all recently been hit by national waves of cost-of-living strikes.

The US Congress passed a law to block a planned railway strike.

Yet the membership of organised trade unions is in decline. The unions lost the General Strike of 1926. Since then, most governments have taken steps to weaken the effectiveness of mass action.

In this country, most citizens and workers are caught in the middle and suffer the consequences without being directly involved.

A class confrontation or co-ordinated “uprising”, along the lines hoped for by Mick Lynch, is unlikely.

Instead, continued widespread and sporadic disruption are near-certainties in the coming months. Individual disputes will eventually be settled above what employers and the government say they can afford, but below what the strikers are asking for.

Continue Reading

UK

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

UK

Labour sinks to lowest approval rating of this parliament

Published

on

By

Labour sinks to lowest approval rating of this parliament

Labour has sunk to its lowest approval rating for this parliament, according to a fresh YouGov poll for Sky News.

Sir Keir Starmer’s party is currently on 20% of the vote – the lowest level since last year’s general election and just three points ahead of the Conservatives. on 17% of the vote.

Politics latest: Labour goes on the attack against Reform

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which on Tuesday outlined plans to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants if it wins power at the next election, is currently in the lead with 28% of the vote.

Asked about the polling, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the EU relations minister, told Sky News’ Anna Jones that the government had been forced to take “very difficult decisions to stabilise the public finances early in this parliament”.

He said Labour had acted in the “national interest” by securing a reset deal with the EU which lowers costs for supermarkets and shoppers, and which the government hopes to extend.

“That is acting in the national interest, that is not about particular opinion polls you are showing me today,” he said.

“That is about work the prime minister asked me to do and to prepare for before this government came into office and that is what this government does. It does the hard yards of delivery for the British people.”

He added: “What Nigel Farage does is to stoke problems and offer empty promises for their solution.”

Mr Thomas-Symonds, who represents Torfaen, took the fight to Mr Farage in a speech today, where he accused the Reform UK leader of wanting to “reverse our progress” and of “dividing communities and stoking anger”.

The government wants to get a permanent deal with the EU on food and drink agreed in the next 18 months.

The current temporary agreement, which was put in place in June, stopped checks on some fruit and vegetables imported from the EU, which meant no border checks or fees would be paid, and is due to expire in January 2027.

Mr Farage has previously called for the agreement between the UK and EU to be torn up, saying in May that the SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] provisions agreed that month would push the UK “back into the orbit of Brussels, giving away vast amounts of our sovereignty for very little in return”.

In his speech, Mr Thomas-Symonds said the Tories and Reform UK only offer “easy answers and snake oil” over the UK’s relationship with the EU.

“Some will hysterically cry even treason,” he said. “Some will say we’re surrendering sovereignty or freedoms, but that is nonsense.

Read more:
Farage’s small boats plan is about putting Labour on the spot
How Farage’s latest ‘leave’ plan might impact you

“We are determined to plug the gaps, to rebuild Britain, protect our borders, bring down bills in every part of the country and secure good jobs, a new relationship of mutual benefit, one that brings freedom back to our businesses and exercises our sovereignty.

“And it needs pragmatism. When you’re tough, decisive and collaborative. That cannot rest on easy answers and snake oil. The Tories [are] completely 2D, stuck with a ghost of Brexit past. And then Nigel Farage, who has pledged to reverse our progress.”

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “No one has done more damage to British businesses than this Labour government.

“With 157,000 fewer people on payroll since Labour took office, their jobs tax is stifling success and hitting small and medium-sized businesses across the country.

“Cosying up to the EU and leaving us entangled in reams of retained EU law which Kemi Badenoch failed to scrap will not resuscitate Britain’s struggling economy.”

Continue Reading

UK

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 – with these areas worst hit

Published

on

By

England warned it faces six million new cancer cases by 2040 - with these areas worst hit

More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.

This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.

A coalition of more than 60 cancer charities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.

The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.

This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.

The research also finds regional variations:

• South East – over a million diagnoses

• North East – 865,000

• East of England and the South West – 722,000

• London – 714,000

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis

Six key demands

These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.

Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.

These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:

• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029

• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes

• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies

• Addressing inequalities in patient care

• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients

• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer

‘A defining moment’

The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.

But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.

The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.

“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.

Read more:
Are we are entering ‘golden age’ of cancer treatment?

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.

“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.

“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.

“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”

Continue Reading

Trending