Archive for category Events

BTUC Conference on Brexit and its impact in Birmingham and the West Midlands

Jack Dromey speaking on the impact of Brexit in Birmingham and the West Midlands
Jack Dromey in Q&A on Brexit and its impact in Birmingham and the West Midlands

Councillor Fred Grindrod speaking on Brexit and its impact in Birmingham and the West Midlands

David Hearne researcher, Centre for Brexit Birmingham City University

Q&A with David Herne and Fred Grindrod on Brexit and its impact in Birmingham and the West Midlands
Graham Stevenson leading local Trade Unionist speaking on Brexit and its impact in Birmingham and the West Midlands

Tackling the Climate Emergency Presentation Outline for Birmingham TUC 7/Feb/2019

What is the “Climate Emergency” and how can organised labour help to tackle it?  This short presentation by a member of Climate Action Network West Midlands will explain the issues, evidence and consequences of “global warming”.  Some of the approaches and initiatives of labour organisations in the UK and globally will be outlined.  The meeting will then discuss how we can organise at city / regional level to tackle the problem.

The scientific evidence is very clear – our industrial society is damaging the natural systems we depend on to survive.  If we carry on burning fossil fuels, generating vast quantities of waste and ruining our soil and water, then millions of lives are at risk.  Poor and vulnerable people world-wide are already suffering.  Ultimately, there is a risk our civilisation could collapse as all previous civilisations have done.

This dystopian future is avoidable, if we act quickly and decisively.  Organised labour has always worked towards a fairer, healthier and safer society.  Collective action to tackle the Climate Emergency and other threats to our environment will also support our broader goals.

Mike Shakespeare speaking on precarious workers in the 21st Century

Mike Shakespeare speaking on Precarious working conditions including zero hour contracts Jan 2019
Mike Shakespeare in Q&A with BTUC delegates on precarious working conditions

BTUC Delegate meeting Sharon Thompson Cabinet member for Housing speaking

The Magic Money Tree

BTUC October Delegate Meeting Thursday 4th October 7:30 pm Council House, Victoria Square Birmingham B1 1BB

The October delegate meeting will hear Paul Kelemen discussing Where does the Labour party adopting the IHRA definition on antisemitism leave the politics of anti-racism?

What has unfurled this vehement denunciation of the left for antisemitism? Only late last year, the largest survey on attitudes in Britain to Jews and Israel published by the Institute of Jewish Policy Research (IJPR) concluded that a ‘relatively small group of the general population can justifiably be described as antisemitic’ and that ‘the very left-wing are, on the whole, no more antisemitic than the general population, but neither are they less antisemitic’. A still more recent YouGov survey showed that since Jeremy Corbyn has been the Labour party leader, antisemitism has declined among Labour voters.

Among Conservative voters, the decline over the same period to this question was much smaller and the overall levels of prejudice much higher: 31 percent in 2015, and 27 percent in 2017. Opinion polls give, at best, a rough assessment and opinions are fluid but the decline of antisemitism among Labour voters probably results from younger people, more at ease with multiculturalism, indentifying, in greater numbers, with Labour since Corbyn has become leader. Whatever the reason, it belies the ideological assault to drum into public consciousness that the party and its supporters released from the grip of New Labour’s rightwing agenda are descending into antisemitic bigotry

The frenzied campaign that purports to have detected a tidal wave of leftwing antisemitism has another objective. It is aimed at closing down debate on Israel’s continuing settlement expansion and military occupation aimed at preventing Palestinian self-determination by fragmenting the Palestinian population into ghettos, fenced off behind walls, barriers and army checkpoints and deprived of adequate land, water, housing, medical services and opportunities for work.

On 18th July of this year, in the midst of the media frenzy over Labour’s alleged anti-semitism, the New York Times reported that after over five decades of illegal occupation of the West Bank, ‘Israel has marked out hundreds of thousands of acres as public land, and it has allocated almost half of them for use. But only 400 of those acres 0.24% of the total allocated so far – have been earmarked for Palestinians… the other 99.76% of the land went to help Israeli settlements.’ The process of dispossession that is taking place in the West Bank replicates what occurred in the land area that now constitutes the state of Israel. On the eve of the 1948 war that led to the foundation of Israel, 93% of the land was in Palestinian ownership. Currently, Palestinians living in Israel, forming 20% of the population,

own just 3%. In addition, Israel has seized from the Palestinians: 10,000 shops, 25,000 family houses, 95% of olive groves and 50% of citrus groves.

The allocation of Palestinians resources to an incoming Jewish population, whether in Israel or in the West Bank, follows from the principle of building a ‘Jewish state’, the essence of which is to prioritise the needs of its Jewish population over those of the Palestinian inhabitants. The discrimination between Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank is still more blatant. Since 1967, this has been a new frontier of colonisation where the two populations are governed by different laws and where the Israeli state promotes settlement expansion for its Jewish citizens while concentrating the Palestinians into ever smaller enclaves. The Israeli geographer, Oren Yiftachel, writing in 2006, pointed out that the Israeli state has built, since 1948, over 700 housing development areas for its Jewish population but not a single one for Palestinians under its rule. Israel, he argues, is an ‘ethnocracy’. Unlike the South African apartheid system, Israel does not operate the petty forms of separation in public spaces such as on buses, in restaurants and entertainment venues but it discriminates on grounds of ethnicity in the state’s allocation of resources, be that in land, state jobs, housing or regional development. In every sphere Palestinians are marginalised and have second class status.

Given these realities, why should left-wing criticism of the Israeli state elicit such controversy? In part this is the product of the Labour party’s historic support for the Zionist movement. This dates back to the 1920s, when the Zionist movement along other forms of European expansion into the unindustrialised world, was seen as a ‘civilising’ force and one that for many socialists seemed to have the added advantage of introducing trade unionism and co-operative agriculture. Few in the Labour party, in this period, objected to these labour organisations excluding Arabs in order to develop a separate Jewish economy. For the Zionist movement, nationalism trumped socialism. Its project was not to have Jews live alongside Arabs but to remove the indigenous people as European colonisation had earlier, for example in north America and Australia.

The Labour party’s historic support for the Zionist project was given added force by the Holocaust. Israel’s establishment was widely seen as Western civilisation’s atonement for the Nazi mass murder of Jews, though it was at the expense of the Palestinians who had paid no part in the genocide. But if Israel is meant to symbolise atonement for the worst crime of modern racism it can be rightly expected to represent the negation of racism. Instead, the Israeli state is based on ethno-nationalism, also propounded by the governing elites of Hungary and Poland, which define national belonging as rooted in ‘blood’ relations,

from which then derive political and economic privileges denied to those deemed to be of a different origin.

Ethno-nationalism is the main ideological seedbed of contemporary racism in all its forms and, yet, the bizarre consequence of adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism is to make more difficult calling for the Israeli state to be transformed into a multi-ethnic state, with equality for all its citizens. Without that, however, there is no prospect of realising lasting peace in the Middle East.

Paul Kelemen is the author of The British Left and Zionism,History of a Divorce (Manchester University Press, 2012)

Birmingham BTUC Delegate Meeting Thursday 7th Sept 7:30 pm

Birmingham Trades Council Delegates Meeting 5th July 2018 7:30 pm Council House

Birmingham’s affordable housing shortage – how developers exploit loopholes to put profit first

The Council promised that 35% of new developments would be affordable housing, but achieved less than 10%. Of the 4,768 houses approved for development in 2016/17, just 425 were lower cost housing, according to figures obtained in a Freedom of Information request by BirminghamLive.

The Birmingham Post online July 2 reports that house builders are exploiting loopholes in planning regulations to avoid providing affordable housing in the city. They are allowed to sidestep rules on affordable housing if they can show that providing discounted homes would stop the development making a profit.

Last year, the housing charity Shelter revealed that during 2015/16, Birmingham developers behind the construction of 2,916 homes were able to backtrack on promises to deliver 1,003 of them at the affordable rate by arguing their profits would be unfairly hit.

The problem also impacts on people trying to get social housing. In the West Midlands, there are 97,526 households on the social housing waiting list, according to figures from 2017, but there are just 37,840 available lettings. In Birmingham alone – a deficit of 3,135 social rent lettings.

By far the biggest developer of housing in the city is the council itself, under its Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust arm. But even it has to sell about 50% of the 1,000 plus homes a year it is building to fund further building.

Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, says the social housing waiting list “a national scandal” that is happening right across the country including in Birmingham and the West Midlands.

“People are being condemned to a life of unstable and expensive renting, forcing them out of areas they can no longer afford to live in,” she says. “But if we want to build enough genuinely affordable housing, we need to be prepared to pay for it.

“This means bringing down the mammoth cost of land. And getting rid of planning loopholes that make it too easy for developers to wriggle out of building affordable homes.”

So what can be done to solve the problem? Birmingham Labour councillor Peter Griffiths, who was until May the city’s cabinet member for housing, argues that the council should be more forensic in its analysis of developers’ figures.

He also suggests linking affordable housing contributions directly to the profitability of building projects.

Griffiths, who is now on his second spell on the city’s planning committee, is sceptical about the viability assessments that developers have to do to prove that they could not afford to build if forced to discount homes, and wants to get more of them independently audited.

In some cases he has found figures to be questionable. Affordable housing is supposed to be below 80% of market value, yet he says that some developers make assumptions of 60% just to tip the development into a loss on paper and excuse themselves the discount.

The Birmingham Post report quotes one would-be home-buyer priced out of the market. Jess Taylor says the solution should be simple. Birmingham Council – and the government – should choose to prioritise building affordable homes to fix the problem. “I think all new homes should fall under affordable brackets. Thirty-five per cent isn’t enough.”

Come and hear Councillor Sharon Thompson, the new Cabinet member for Housing, speaking on the issue  at the Birmingham Trades Council meeting on Thursday 5 July at 7.30 in the Council House

You can read the full report by Neil Elkes, Nicola Slawson and Sarah Probert in the Birmingham Post at




Report this ad
Report this ad

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply