Who has more to lose as strikes pile up – the PM, or the workers? | Beth Rigby

Published

3 years ago

January 17, 2023

admin

The third Monday in January is coined “Blue Monday” because it is supposedly the most depressing day of the year, due to the combination of bad weather, stretched finances and broken new year resolutions.

And this particular Blue Monday has brought on an extra dose of misery, bringing with it more strikes in our NHS and now our schools.

The Royal College of Nursing announced there would be two further days of industrial action on 6 and 7 February in England and Wales, to add to their strike days on 18 and 19 January.

Meanwhile, the GMB union also met to discuss further ambulance strikes with its members.

A decision will be made public on Wednesday, but the mood music from meetings today wasn’t good and I expect another round of ambulance strikes to be announced, with a possible six extra days of industrial action.

“There’s a huge amount of anger from our members working in the ambulance service and from the representatives that (health secretary) Steve Barclay is not taking this seriously,” the GMB told me on Monday.

“Our members will not back down in this fight and they need Steve Barclay to actually take them seriously.”

On top of that, teachers have also voted overwhelmingly in support of strike action in their dispute over pay, which is likely to result in the closure or partial closure of a vast majority of schools in England and Wales on 1 February when there is a mass walkout of staff, with further national strike days planned for 15 and 16 March.

It is the worst industrial action since the 1980s and the strike days keep rolling in.

Treasury insiders insist that the chancellor is not going to reopen pay negotiations.

“We have committed to halving inflation this year. High inflation is the root cause of industrial unrest,” one Whitehall figure told me. “We can’t risk doing anything that might disrupt that goal.”

Meanwhile, a senior Number 10 source told me the government has “mentally prepared everyone [in the country] that this might be long term” and the contingency plans in place mean the impact of the strikes hasn’t been as bad as perhaps officials feared.

So far, so blue. But is the government sticking to its guns really sustainable?

Justine Greening, a former Conservative MP and cabinet minister, pointed out to me on Monday night that the issues around pay are also a labour market problem which the government, she thinks, will eventually have to enter.

Take teachers: there are huge shortages in areas such as STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), with demand for graduates in those areas far outstripping supply in a tight labour market.

“In the end, the government are going to have to get round the table and reach an agreement,” Ms Greening said. “They are recruiting in a wider market and that is going to have to be taken into account.”

Meanwhile, there are some glimmers of hope that this “winter of discontent” could perhaps give way to some sort of compromise in the coming weeks, if all sides shift a little.

When it comes to rail strikes, talks are continuing this week between the rail industry and the RMT union amid renewed optimism that a deal can be reached without further industrial action after a four-week period of strikes either side of Christmas. Talks are set to continue in London on Tuesday.

And when it comes to nurses, there is a sense in government that the mood music is shifting after ministers’ positions moved from absolutely no compromise to talking about options and the Royal College of Nursing unofficially dropped its 19% pay demand to 10%.

While the government will not, as the unions want, reopen the pay deal for the year to April 2023, there is talk about how “productivity gains” in the NHS could help top up pay, while creative solutions to a pay deal are being floated.

One is to offer nurses a one-off pay award – perhaps up to £1,000 – to help ameliorate the inflation hit without bedding an extra pay rise into salaries.

Another idea is to ensure the pay rise for 2023/24, normally decided in April, kicks in then rather than in August as it normally does, ensuring nurses get the benefit immediately.

A final suggestion is to backdate the April 2023 pay rise to January, effectively giving nurses a three-month pay rise in order to offset the inflationary hit while allowing the government to say it hasn’t re-opened the 2022/23 pay deal.

All of these options have been floated in talks between the unions and the health secretary.

But the decision isn’t Steve Barclay’s, it belongs to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, with the latter no doubt insisting that any additional pay rises should be found from the additional £6.6bn over two years that he awarded the NHS in last November’s autumn statement.

In the meantime, as the talks go on, the government is pushing new minimum service level laws through the House of Commons to ensure, in the words of Business Secretary Grant Shapps, that the government can “protect the ability of workers to take industrial action, but it will also protect the public from disproportionate disruption to their daily lives”.

He added: “To put it simply, one person’s right to strike doesn’t infringe on someone else’s right to life and limb.”

But on nurses’ strikes at the very least, the public are very much on the side of the health professionals over the politicians, while unions are warning that strike legislation is unworkable and will only serve to lengthen disputes by further straining already tense relations between the unions and government.

And if the bill does become law, the Trades Union Congress thinks it will have grounds to challenge the new legislation through the courts.

All the while, the continued strikes leave the country with the sense that the wheels are coming off the basic services that citizens expect, which is uncomfortable for a new administration that promised to do less politics and more governing.

Number 10 insiders insist that what would look worse for the new prime minister would be to risk the country’s finances by paying public sector workers more and potentially further stoking inflation.

But in this stand-off, it seems like the prime minister, already 20 points behind in the polls, has more to lose as the strikes, and the public discontentment, pile up.

World

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about ‘very big mistake’ with Putin

Published

59 seconds ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about 'very big mistake' with Putin

Ukrainians have given a lukewarm reaction to this week’s White House summit.

There is bafflement and unease here after US President Donald Trump switched sides to support his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, dropping calls for a ceasefire and proposing that Ukraine surrender territory.

While allies are talking up the prospects of progress, people here remain unconvinced.

Ukraine war latest – Trump rules out using US troops

The Trump administration’s contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here.

MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind.

“Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?”

For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu.

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers.

They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia’s side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago.

We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s.

He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈        

“It’s not true, it’s not true, Russia never, never, it’s my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake.”

Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade.

But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions.

Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path.

Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing.

While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable.

Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front.

If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he’s showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.

World

Putin wasn’t at the White House, but his influence was – the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Published

12 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Putin wasn't at the White House, but his influence was - the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Vladimir Putin wasn’t at the White House but his influence clearly was. At times, it dominated the room.

There were three key moments that revealed the Russian president‘s current hold over Donald Trump.

The first was in the Oval Office. Sitting alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the US president told reporters: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire.”

Ukraine talks latest: Zelenskyy ‘ready to meet’ Putin after Trump summit

It was a stunning illustration of Mr Trump’s about-face in his approach to peace. For the past six months, a ceasefire has been his priority, but after meeting Mr Putin in Alaska, suddenly it’s not.

Confirmation that he now views the war through Moscow’s eyes.

The second was the format itself, with Mr Trump reverting to his favoured ask-what-you-like open-ended Q&A.

In Alaska, Mr Putin wasn’t made to take any questions – most likely, because he didn’t want to. But here, Mr Zelenskyy didn’t have a choice. He was subjected to a barrage of them to see if he’d learnt his lesson from last time.

It was a further demonstration of the special status Mr Trump seems to afford to Mr Putin.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

The third was their phone call. Initially, President Trump said he’d speak to the Kremlin leader after his meeting with European leaders. But it turned out to be during it.

A face-to-face meeting with seven leaders was interrupted for a phone call with one – as if Mr Trump had to check first with Mr Putin, before continuing his discussions.

We still don’t know the full details of the peace proposal that’s being drawn up, but all this strongly suggests that it’s one sketched out by Russia. The White House is providing the paper, but the Kremlin is holding the pen.

For Moscow, the aim now is to keep Mr Trump on their path to peace, which is settlement first, ceasefire later.

It believes that’s the best way of securing its goals, because it has more leverage so long as the fighting continues.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈      

But Mr Putin will be wary that Mr Trump is pliable and can easily change his mind, depending on the last person he spoke to.

So to ensure that his sympathies aren’t swayed, and its red lines remain intact, Russia will be straining to keep its voice heard.

On Monday, for example, the Russian foreign ministry was quick to condemn recent comments from the UK government that it would be ready to send troops to help enforce any ceasefire.

It described the idea as “provocative” and “predatory”.

Moscow is trying to drown out European concerns by portraying itself as the party that wants peace the most, and Kyiv (and Europe) as the obstacle.

But while Mr Zelenskyy has agreed to a trilateral meeting, the Kremlin has not. After the phone call between Mr Putin and Mr Trump, it said the leaders discussed “raising the level of representatives” in the talks between Russia and Ukraine. No confirmation to what level.

World

Trump is playing both sides – but has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

Published

17 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Trump is playing both sides - but has taken peace talks a distance not seen since the war began

Talks between Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders have taken place at the White House, aimed at finding an end to the war in Ukraine.

On the agenda were US security guarantees, whether a ceasefire is required, and a potential summit between the Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy ready to meet Putin – follow latest

Here’s what three of our correspondents made of it all.

For Trump

For Mr Trump, the challenge to remain seen as the deal-broker is to maintain “forward momentum, through devilish detail,” Sky News’ US correspondent James Matthews says.

The US president called the Washington summit a “very good early step”, but that’s all it was, Matthews says.

Despite cordiality with Mr Zelenskyy and promising talk of a US role in security guarantees for Ukraine and discussions for meetings to come. Matthews says the obstacles remain.

“Trump has taken peace discussions to a distance not travelled since the start of the war, but it is a road navigated by a president playing both sides who have changed his mind on key priorities.”

For Putin

As for Russia, Sky News’ Moscow correspondent Ivor Bennett says the aim is to keep Trump on its preferred path towards peace – a deal first, a ceasefire later.

“Moscow believes that’s the best way of securing all of its goals,” Bennett says.

But Ukraine and Europe want things the other way round, and Moscow “will be wary that Trump can be easily persuaded by the last person he spoke to”.

And so, Russia will be “trying to keep themselves heard” and “cast Kyiv as the problem, as they won’t agree to a peace deal on the Kremlin’s terms”.

For the UK and Europe

Sky News’ deputy political editor Sam Coates says, for Sir Keir Starmer and Europe, the biggest success of the Washington summit was the US promise of security guarantees for Ukraine.

He adds that the “hard work starts now to actually try to figure out what these guarantees amount to”.

Sir Keir said if Vladimir Putin breaches a future peace deal, there would have to be consequences, but Coates said potentially “insoluble” issues stand in the way.

“At what point do those breaches invoke a military response, whether US guarantees would be enough to encourage European involvement in Ukraine, and whether or not you could see the UK and Europe going to war with Russia to protect Ukraine?”

Coates says “there may never be an answer that satisfies everyone involved”.