Opposition to NATO in Paris, October 2022 - Photo: Tehran Times

On Sunday March 2, Prime Minister Keir Starmer "convened international leaders at a summit in London" [1] with French President Macron, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy and some other European leaders from Germany, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Czechia and Romania, as well as Canada, Turkey and NATO. This so-called summit at Lancaster House, like the one before two weeks ago hosted by Macron in Paris [2] without Ukraine, also excluded most of the countries of the EU and Europe. This hastily put together summit focused on "strengthening Ukraine's position now - including ongoing military support and increased economic pressure on Russia". In other words, Starmer and Macron are attempting to lead Europe in the failing proxy war in Ukraine against Russia.

The summit of Starmer and Macron followed their visit last week to meet with President Donald Trump in the White House. According to reports they tried to secure US military support for a force of British and French NATO troops as "peacekeepers" in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire agreement brokered by the US with Russia and Ukraine. According to these reports this US "backstop" to the Starmer/Macron plan was not agreed then at these meetings. Since then, commentators have said that the combined military strength of Britain and France will not be enough to tempt the US to join them as "peacekeepers" and risk war with Russia in Ukraine.

Despite the obsequious visit of Starmer to Trump setting out his stall to provide a "bridge" between Europe and the US and what Starmer imagined would be the trump card of an invitation by King Charles to pay a second state visit to the UK, President Trump, sensing the ability to control the material and human resources of the Ukraine, went ahead with his ultimatum to Volodomyr Zelenskyy. All parties were exposed in their true colours.

According to reports, Zelenskyy had also returned early to Britain from the US on Saturday, March 1, for the "international leaders" summit. The BBC reported that Zelensky "had been welcomed to the White House by Trump, but the cordial talks ended in a shouting match in front of the media in the Oval Office as Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart to be more thankful for US aid and accused him of 'gambling with World War Three'." Zelenskyy appears to have been caught in a trap, to be presented with an offer he couldn't refuse, and was summarily shown the White House door. Starmer then gave Britain's firm support to Zelenskyy with a phone call the following day and again on his arrival Britain. Zelenskyy also met with King Charles later on the Sunday, in what was described "as a moment of royal solidarity with Ukraine". The fact is that both Starmer and Trump are playing with people's lives.

Starmer presents the aim as one of defence of Ukraine's sovereignty. However, in reality, one of the primary aims of Britain and France in is to maintain the interest of the huge war industries in Britain and France and to occupy Ukraine with their troops even if they are forced to accept peace. This was in line with the government's plan last week that Britain will increase its spend to 2.5% of its GDP on defence by 2027, cutting the foreign aid budget to fund the boost in military spending. Starmer had told the Commons that would mean spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027. Last year the UK spent £53.9bn on defence. This move has received vehement opposition from all quarters interested in the people's well-being and opposed to the pro-war agenda of Starmer. It prompted the resignation of Analiese Dodds as Minister for International Development and for Women and Equalities, highlighting the divisions within the Labour Party itself as the anti-war and pro- social movements gain strength and militancy. The "difficult decisions" that Starmer refers to always involve the discovery that funding which favours the people is to be cut, in favour, in this case, of the military and military industries, with the lame excuse that the books have to be balanced.

Starmer tried to claim that one of the aims of the summit in London was to "present a peace plan to US president Donald Trump after a summit of European leaders in London today [3]." But this is not a "peace plan" when the UK and France are assembling what Starmer called a "coalition of the willing to enforce any peace deal for Ukraine" without Russian support. Starmer claimed that a "number of countries" had agreed to join this coalition at the summit.

The use of "coalition of the willing" is deliberate bombast and rather pathetically echoing the "might is right" and illegal actions of the "coalitions of the willing" of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair alongside US President Bush to invade and occupy many countries including Afghanistan and Iraq. This time such a "coalition of the willing" is supposedly for the "peacekeeping" stance of Starmer and Macron who claim to be leading Europe and the EU even though Britain is no longer in the EU. This when so many other leaders in the EU and Europe firmly oppose this dangerous move to send troops to Ukraine and are against war with Russia under the guise of "defence against Russia". Countries opposed to sending troops are Hungary, Slovakia, Spain and now Italy and Poland, whilst many other countries such as Germany have strong reservations.

Thus the roles of Starmer as promoter of endless war and of King Charles III as the embodiment of "soft power" are shameless. They have both been pressed into the service of the ambitions of the European as well and Anglo-US warmongering oligarchs to do their best and face off any peace proposal in their interests. Starmer and Macron are planning to send our youth into a war zone again in foreign lands for their interests which is not in the interests of the people of Ukraine. They want to continue their attempts to control Ukraine and embed their forces in Ukraine and in their war industries and armies. They want to continue to use Ukraine as their proxy against Russia now and in the future. They are against peace for all the peoples in Eurasia. This must not pass!

The world's people want peace; the working class and people Britain do not want the Ukraine war prolonged, or to send British or NATO troops into Ukraine. Sending British or NATO troops to Ukraine will never be accepted by the anti-war movement and peace-loving people. It would be a further escalation of the conflict and a blow to the establishment of a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia. The anti-war movement is determined to continue its vital stand on this issue and make it again central to the political life of the country to end Britain's support for arming and support for the war in Ukraine. Resistance is further growing in condemnation of Israeli genocide against the Palestinians and arming of Israel as well as in opposition to Britain's warmongering everywhere.

Not a single youth for imperialist war!
Fight for an anti-war government in Britain!
No to the further militarisation of the UK!
No to NATO! Yes to Peace!

Notes
1. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to host leaders summit on Ukraine - Press Release, March 1 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-keir-starmer-to-host-leaders-summit-on-ukraine
2. Paris "informal summit": Sending British or NATO Troops to Ukraine as "Peacekeepers" Must Be Opposed, Workers' Weekly, February 22 2025
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-25/ww25-04/ww25-04-02.htm
3. Watch live: Keir Starmer holds press conference after Ukraine crisis talks with European leaders, Independent, Sunday March 2 2025
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/stamer-eu-press-conference-ukraine-crisis-livestream-b2707563.html

Keep Our NHS Public (KONP) held a spirited lunchtime rally opposite Old Palace Yard, near the Houses of Parliament, on February 26 to campaign against privatisation in the NHS. With the demand, "Keir Starmer: Invest in the NHS, not the private sector!", the rally brought together NHS workers, campaigners and other concerned people.

NHS workers march Colchester, October2024- Photo: Louis Bailey

Counterfire writes: "The rain poured down on the rally, but this did not dampen the mood of rally participants, nor did it stop the public from showing their support with cars honking as they passed on the busy road. The rally's theme was 'Welfare not Warfare', with most speakers referring to Keir Starmer's pledge to increase defence spending to over 2.5% of GDP. Speakers ranged from local trade union reps, Green co-leader and MP Adrian Ramsey, to Labour MPs John McDonnell and Richard Burgon, and independent MP Iqbal Mohamed, among others. There was also a delegation of striking workers from Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital."

The report continues: "The rally started with remarks from Tom Griffiths of Keep Our NHS Public on the need to rebuild the movement around the NHS. He said that this rally is just the beginning in building an understanding of the clear links between cuts and privatisation and the increase in defence spending. There was considerable anger about Starmer's pledge to increase military spending through cuts to the international aid budget. Tom pointed out: 'if there is money, it should be going into the NHS and not for weapons of mass destruction.'

"Johnbosco Nwogbo from We Own It spoke about the absolute disaster of involving private companies in the NHS. He gave harrowing examples, including about the company, Sciensus, which delivers vital medication to patients who cannot collect it themselves. The company has missed 10,000 deliveries in the course of a year. For example, it failed to send vital injections to a patient called 'Autumn', an eight-year-old girl with Crohn's disease, four times that year. This left her with severe stomach cramps, pain and fatigue, and she was unable to attend school. Nwogbo said that these missed deliveries were down to insufficient staff numbers and training. Nwogbo gave us proof that the profit motive is not able to deliver adequate health care.

"As seen in the strikes in Colchester [1], the outsourcing of workers in the NHS does nothing to benefit either the workers, the service, or health outcomes. All it does is move the responsibility onto unaccountable corporations and siphon money out of our health system. This leads directly to staff redundancies, poorer working conditions, and worse-performing hospitals."

As the Counterfire article concludes: "The increase in defence spending does not benefit any working person in the UK or abroad; it only removes resources from the services we need." The restructuring and privatisation of the health service is leading to deepening of the crisis in the NHS, and, as the KONP rally demonstrated, health workers and all concerned people are stepping up the struggle for a pro-social direction for the NHS, and against the control of the NHS by the health monopolies.

Note
[1] NHS facilities staff at Colchester Hospital went on strike in November 2024 to protest against plans to outsource jobs. The strike action was extended until January 5, 2025. The strike gained a lot of support from the local community, who marched with the strikers to the town centre in October.

(Louis Bailey, Counterfire)

The Employment Rights Bill, introduced into the Commons on October 10 last year, is being promoted as the most significant overhaul of what are legally recognised as workers' rights since the time of the Thatcher government in the 1980s. Sponsored by Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, the legislation completed Committee stage in January and has recently been slated to start Report stage on March 11. It purports to redress the increasingly obvious disequilibrium in the social relation between employer and employed, such as precarious zero-hour contracts and "fire and rehire" practices. Yet its deliberate limitations, delayed implementation and overall outlook expose the Bill itself to be a part of restructuring arrangements around this disequilibrium, underscoring the necessity for the workers' movement to maintain its independent agenda, rooted in the rallying cry of "Enough is Enough!"

The Bill is officially described as: "A Bill to make provision to amend the law relating to employment rights; to make provision about procedure for handling redundancies; to make provision about the treatment of workers involved in the supply of services under certain public contracts; to provide for duties to be imposed on employers in relation to equality; to provide for the establishment of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body and the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body; to amend the Seafarers' Wages Act 2023; to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment; to make provision about trade unions, industrial action, employers' associations and the functions of the Certification Officer; to make provision about the enforcement of legislation relating to the labour market; and for connected purposes." [1]

It seeks to repeal parts of the Trade Union Act 2016 and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which restricted trade union activities including the right to strike. It also introduces a new Fair Work Agency to streamline enforcement.

At face value, the Bill introduces various measures that have been key issues in the workers' movement. Zero-hours workers gain entitlement to guaranteed hours after a reference period, with employers mandated to provide reasonable shift notice. Cancelled shifts now require compensation, and statutory sick pay becomes immediately accessible. Flexible working requests are elevated to a "day-one" right, with employers compelled to justify rejections. Protections against harassment will now hold employers accountable for third-party abuses, while unfair dismissal reforms remove qualifying periods. The Bill also includes a number of sector-specific provisions, such as pay negotiation bodies for school support and adult social care staff.

With regards to trade union rights, the Bill simplifies the requirements for industrial action ballots by removing certain turnout and support thresholds, and it also introduces provisions for electronic balloting, making it easier for trade unions to organise and conduct ballots. Furthermore, the bill strengthens protections for workers participating in protected industrial action.

The whole outlook of the Bill is of balancing the rights of workers against the needs of business, as if the conditions were of equilibrium. Given that the reality is profound disequilibrium, and total domination by the oligopolies, the needs of "small businesses" are used as a trojan horse for the real interests it represents: those of big business. In the parliamentary debates, the "concerns of small businesses" featured prominently, particularly regarding unfair dismissal rights and flexible working demands [2].

This outlook reflects the role the Labour government is playing: to continue the anti-social offensive in the face of all-round crisis and growing opposition, particularly amongst the organised workers. This the is what Starmer calls "partnership", of making reasonable accommodations, when the reality is anything but.

The Bill therefore contains many loopholes, with exemptions inserted allegedly in support of small businesses, which simply highlights the inability to harmonise interests by posing their needs in opposition to the rights of workers, and ambiguous "reasonable grounds" for rejecting flexible work.

The lack of meaningful enforcement is for all practical purposes another get-out clause. In opposition, the TUC's five-point plan demands a single enforcement body, recycled fines funding inspections, and sector-wide licensing [3].

The Bill's staggered implementation - most measures deferred until 2026 - has also come under fire.

The Bill originated in the machinations of the Labour Party in using its "New Deal for Working People" to try to bring the workers and their organisations on side in the lead-up to last year's election, and to divert workers from fighting for their own interests [4].

Nevertheless, the existence of the Bill at all is testament to the strength of the movement and of the workers forcing their interests onto the political agenda. It is also an act of self-defence in the face of the onslaught workers face.

Just as during the election, the workers need to have their independent programme, and organise to stop of paying the rich and increasing investments in social programmes, which is the only basis of the alternative; the Bill is no substitute. The issue is to change the direction of the economy. This can only be achieved by the workers working out solutions which favour them.

Workers must renew and strengthen their organisations for the challenges of the present and adopt their own outlook and programme to build their opposition to the continuing anti-social offensive. This workers' opposition is crucial, and why the "Enough Is Enough" movement - laying claims on society - is significant, pointing in the direction of the need for political empowerment of the working class and people themselves. This is a crucial struggle of the workers in defending their dignity and pointing the way forward.

Notes
1. Employment Rights Bill, UK Parliament, as of February 27, 2025
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737
2. Employment Rights Bill Volume 755: debated on Monday 21 October 2024
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-10-21/debates/DC4CA46C-E3A4-4A75-A0AA-5143E3E12585/EmploymentRightsBill
3. "TUC Congress 2024: TUC Aims to Hold Government to Account over Workers' Rights", Workers' Weekly, September 21, 2024
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-24/ww24-23/ww24-23-02.htm
4. "Condemn Labour Using its New Deal to Bring Workers On Side", Workers' Weekly, June 8, 2024
https://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-24/ww24-13/ww24-13-03.htm

(NEU Press Release, March 1, 2025)

The National Education Union (NEU) has today (Saturday) launched a preliminary electronic ballot on the need for a fully funded pay award that takes steps to address the crisis in recruitment and retention. Around 284,000 teacher members working in maintained schools across England will be consulted over the government's recommendation to the School Teachers' Review Body of an unfunded pay rise of 2.8 per cent for teachers in 2025/26.

A 2.8 per cent increase is likely to be below inflation and would do nothing to repair the damage to the competitive position of teacher pay against other graduate professions. Teachers face another pay cut. The already critical recruitment and retention problems damaging our education service will get even worse.

The pay recommendation is unfunded. The government has proposed that schools can pay for it by making 'efficiencies' elsewhere in their budget. The reality, as every teacher knows, is that schools have endured 14 years of school cuts under the Conservatives. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has not given schools what they need. Research shows that 76 per cent of primaries and 94 per cent of secondaries will be forced to make cuts, not only to balance the books but to meet this pay award.

The preliminary electronic ballot opens on 1 March and closes on 11 April. It will ask teachers and leaders in state-funded schools in England the following two questions:

• Do you accept or reject the government's recommendation of an unfunded 2.8 per cent pay rise?
• Are you willing to take strike action to secure a fully funded, significantly higher pay award that takes steps to address the crisis in recruitment and retention?

The NEU's national executive recommends REJECT on the first question and YES on the second.

Commenting on the launch of the indicative ballot, Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said:

"We all know that an unfunded 2.8 per cent pay award is unacceptable. It will deepen the chronic recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, and means more cuts for already struggling schools. Pay has fallen by around a fifth against inflation since 2010, pushing education into the worst crisis in decades. More schools are in deficit now than at any point since 2010. Class sizes are the largest on record.

"Our members do not want to strike but ignoring the profession and backing educators into a corner means we will be left with no choice. The government was elected in the hope it would value education, but a 2.8 per cent pay award without funding does the opposite. Like the Conservatives before them, they are forcing schools to make more cuts.

"It is short-sighted, it is wrong, and teachers will not stand for it. There is time yet for Rachel Reeves and her colleagues to think again and deliver for teachers, children, and our schools."

Central London 12:00 noon - 4:00 pm

Expected to assemble Whitehall before marching to the US Embassy

Called by the organisations of the Palestine Coalition: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Stop the War Coalition, Muslim Association of Britain, Palestinian Forum in Britain, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

"As Israel intensifies its attacks on the West Bank and continues to threaten ethnic cleansing in Gaza we must continue to put pressure on our government to end support for Israel's violence."

The seventh and final prisoner exchange of the first phase of the Gaza Ceasefire Agreement took place between February 22 and February 27. On February 22, Hamas released six Israelis, three in Rafah in the morning and three in Nuseirat in the afternoon. The ceremony in Rafah was notable for the participation of all the Palestinian Resistance groups, marching in formation as a single force as if a national army.

In the light of the outrageous and vengeful attempts of the US/Zionist forces to sabotage the Gaza Ceasefire process, the Resistance forces in Palestine are standing firm, defying the attempts to wreck the ceasefire agreement by calling on mediators and the international community to hold Israel to account.

Since the announcement of a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel has at the same time intensified its attacks on various parts of the occupied West Bank, with Israeli forces blocking roads and tightening restrictions on movement. The regime forces closed two side roads in Nablus on Friday, February 28 and sealed off several main and side roads in the West Bank in the past weeks. The Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) intensified their restrictions at checkpoints surrounding the city of Nablus and closed off the Sarra checkpoint west of Nablus, preventing people from crossing.

Arab League representatives convened a Summit in Cairo on March 4, to discuss an Egyptian-led reconstruction plan for Gaza with the aim of finalising a "road map" addressing the future of Gaza and the broader struggle. Jordan and Egypt have categorically rejected any forced relocation of Palestinians. "Our position is firm and clear, and we won't accept any threat to our national security," a Jordanian official stated, stressing that displacement is a "red line" for Jordan. Reports indicate that despite diplomatic efforts, the Cairo summit concluded without any significant breakthroughs.

The Palestinian resistance is standing firm. Join the national demonstration on Saturday, March 15!