Rats! Why Angela Rayner must sort out Birmingham's striking binmen
Wilson settled the miners' dispute, but he and Jim Callaghan were unable to persuade the unions to reform themselves – Callaghan's phrase, 'free collective vandalism', rings through the decades – and the Labour government ended in the misery of the Winter of Discontent, with rubbish piling up on the streets of London.
If the current strike by refuse collectors in Birmingham had been in the capital, it would have attracted more media attention. But the crisis is serious and is starting to damage the Labour government.
Inevitably, reports of 'rats the size of cats', as when the bin bags piled high in Leicester Square in February 1979, prompt public alarm and demands that the government step in.
We can tell that the Birmingham dispute is damaging to the Labour government because Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has strayed beyond his brief again, posting a photo on social media comparing the rubbish on Labour-controlled Birmingham city council's side of a road with the rubbish-free side in Conservative Bromsgrove.
But we didn't need Jenrick's intervention to see how the dispute has all the ingredients to make a toxic brew, especially for Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, responsible for local government and trade unionism's representative at the cabinet table.
She is proud of her background as a tough negotiator in the tradition of the party of organised labour. She came into politics as a union rep for care workers in Unison in local government. Yet when her department is asked about what is going on in Birmingham, it says only that it is 'monitoring the situation closely'.
She needs to get on the phone to Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, the union that is in dispute with Birmingham city council over its attempt to make the workforce more efficient.
The council seems to be powerless in the face of industrial action by a small group of workers. This week it declared a 'major incident', but all that seems to mean is that it can ask neighbouring councils for help – and they cannot resolve the dispute that is the cause of the problem.
The council's finances have been weakened by huge payouts for historical equal-pay claims. The only 'assistance' provided by central government has been to allow it to raise its council tax by more than the usual 5 per cent limit. So this week Birmingham residents face not only rat-infested streets but council tax bills 7.5 per cent higher than last year.
So far, Rayner has sent out Jim McMahon, her junior minister, to say that the government 'cannot legally intervene' in the strike, because the council is being overseen by commissioners after it in effect declared bankruptcy. No wonder Conservative MPs are accusing the government of 'washing its hands' of the dispute.
Rayner could be the fulcrum around which the fate of the Labour government turns. The bin strike in Birmingham is the most visible of her challenges, but local government around the country is under financial strain. If Labour does badly in the local elections next month – and I hear squeaks of panic behind closed Labour doors – she might be allocated some of the blame. One saving grace may be that there are no elections in Birmingham this year, but that may not save the city from dragging Labour down elsewhere.
She is also responsible for an employment rights bill that could cost jobs, and an ambitious house-building target that seems to be a long way off track to being met. But the urgent priority is to get the refuse collectors back to work in Birmingham. If she cannot do that, the echoes of the Seventies will only grow louder.
Julian Lewis, the Tory MP for New Forest East, which is some distance from Birmingham, warned McMahon – who wasn't born at the time of the Winter of Discontent – in the Commons on Monday: 'The Callaghan government and the Labour Party never shook off the pungent smell of the rubbish piling in the streets on their watch, and he really doesn't want to have the same thing happen to him.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Europe speaks with Donald Trump after Ukraine ceasefire talks
The Prime Minister joined a call with Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside leaders from Italy, France, Finland, Germany and Poland, as well as Nato's Mark Rutte, and Ursula von der Leyen of the European Commission KEIR Starmer has spoken with Donald Trump after the US president's summit with Vladimir Putin ended without a deal to stop the war in Ukraine . Trump did not secure a deal to end the conflict in Ukraine after nearly three hours of talks with his Russian counterpart at a military base in Anchorage, Alaska. The highly anticipated summit in Alaska yielded no agreement to resolve or pause Russia's war in Ukraine, although both Trump and Putin described the talks as productive before heading home. After the negotiations, which took place alongside senior officials, the two presidents refused to answer questions from reporters. READ MORE: Labour MP resigns as trade envoy over northern Cyprus visit During a brief appearance before the media following the nearly three-hour meeting in Alaska, the two leaders said they had made progress on unspecified issues. But they offered no details and took no questions. Trump also did not take questions when he landed in the United States at Joint Base Andrews. During his presidential campaign and upon taking office, Trump had vowed to quickly end the war in Ukraine that began with Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 but has thus far failed to deliver on that promise. Starmer is due to speak again with European leaders this morning. Axios reporter Barak Ravid said, citing a source, that Trump spoke for more than an hour and a half with Zelenskiy and European leaders. Zelenskiy later said he would travel to Washington on Monday.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Tories split on Ricky Jones' verdict
The decision to clear Ricky Jones of encouraging violent disorder has not gone down well with many senior politicians. Footage of the suspended Labour councillor went viral last August after he suggested that far-right protesters should have their throats slit. Jones, 58, drew his finger across his throat and called demonstrators 'disgusting Nazi fascists'. On Friday, jurors found him not guilty after just half an hour of deliberations. Many were quick to contrast it to the Lucy Connolly case, whereby the wife of a Tory politician was jailed for 31 months during the Southport riots after writing 'set fire to all the… hotels [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care'. Some senior Conservatives certainly see it this way. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, made that comparison explicit, writing that 'the development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.' He added that ministers 'must come forward with plans to ensure justice is handed out equally, regardless of the background or views of the perpetrator' but 'this Labour government seems to be quite happy with two tier justice'. His colleague James Cleverly, the Housing spokesman, called the verdict 'unacceptable', writing on X that 'decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system'. Clearly, this decision is a controversial one. But there is a crucial difference between the Jones trial and the punishment meted out to Lucy Connolly: she pleaded guilty so she did not receive a jury trial. Had she done so, she might well have been acquitted. Take the case of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael. Charged with stirring up racial hatred after Southport, he was acquitted by his jury after just 17 minutes. It was only five weeks' ago that Robert Jenrick was leading a big campaign against proposals to limit jury trials. For some of his fellow Tories to now rush to condemn them, off the back of one verdict, is an overreaction, given the essential pressure valve they function. All this matters because judicial reform is likely to be a cornerstone of the next government of the right. Kemi Badenoch is reviewing how Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights; others want her to go much further. The last Tory administration found itself fighting endless battles in the courts, in a fruitless bid to halt illegal migration. Picking the right battles over the right principles is essential if the next government is to avoid repeating that fate.
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws?
Could Labour ban VPNs after users dodge online protection laws? Some internet users have raised concerns that stricter online safety laws could include VPNs in the future Some internet ueers are concerned their VPNs are under threat (Image: Getty Images) Since Labour introduced new age verifcation methods as part of the Online Safety Act, VPNs have seen an uptick in popularity. Virtual Private Networks help to obscure someone's IP address and can trick a website into thinking someone is connecting from another country. In practice, this allows users to dodge age verification checks from websites that require them under the new laws. However, with the government pushing the controversial rules on sites and emphasising its necessity in protecting children from harm online, many are concerned that this relatively easy way of skirting the checks could be banned. One concerned user on Reddit raised this question and asked whether the government could actually ban VPNs. Difficulties faced in banning VPNs User GenericUser104 wrote in the r/homelab subreddit:"I've recently started using a VPN again. I used one a while back to sail the seas, and now I'm using Proton to get around the Online Safety Act in the UK. Now there's talk of them banning VPNs too. Surely this isn't something they can do—and if it is, how would I put things in place so it won't affect me?" In response, another user highlighted how it would be technically very difficult for the government to implement a ban on VPNs due to their extensive use in business settings as well as person. User hk135 said: "VPN's are used extensively in the Corporate world for remote working, this is where they originated as a means to securely connect to the network at Work or interconnect various offices and sites. "Blanket banning VPN's is a non-starter for corporate reasons. Not just this but also depending on how you define a VPN, if it is encapsulating traffic in an encrypted tunnel, then SSL in general would be covered. Article continues below "What about encrypted connections to Proxy servers, that would redirect traffic as well. The logistics of banning VPNs or even anything that hides (intentional or not) the source IP address is unworkable, it would make any kind of security on the internet illegal." Overseas restrictions on VPNs However, some other users pointed out that other countries have already placed bans and restriction on using VPNs at home. For example, citizens in China are only allowed to use certain VPNs that have been approved by the government. Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates also has strict laws against using VPNs to access restricted content. Certain forms of restricted content can include calling services like WhatsApp. Similarly, user theantnest claimed: "As somebody who lived and worked in Dubai for a number of years, I can tell you that banning VPNs is totally possible. In the UAE every VPN website is blocked, it just won't load. And then they use deep packet inspection to detect VPN use and then throttle the traffic. "This even works on private VPNs like shoving a raspberry Pi running OpenVPN onto the network at your grandmothers house. The one caveat is that the UAE only has 2 ISPs that are both government owned. For it to work in the UK they would need to legislate that all ISPs must block VPN traffic by law." Does the government plan on banning VPNs? While concerns are being raised over a potential ban on VPNs, there is currently no indication from the government or other official bodies of this being put in place. In fact, the Science Secretary Peter Kyle told Sky News last month that he acknowledged VPN use was on the rise but stressed "the vast majority of adults" in the UK were following the rules. At the time, he said no plans were in place to ban VPNs, but added that he was looking "very closely" at how they are being used. He noted that "very few children" were actively looking for harmful content online and that the issue surrounding the law was that "harmful content comes and finds them". Melanie Dawes, the head of Ofcom, told MPs in May that people would use VPNs to get around the restrictions. 'A very concerted 17-year-old who really wants to use a VPN to access a site they shouldn't may well be able to,' she said. 'Individual users can use VPNs. Nothing in the Act blocks it. Furthermore, a spokesperson for the Age Verification Providers Association said that good quality VPNs provide a more secure way to connect to the internet. They added that AVPF does not support a ban on VPNs. Article continues below On its own website AVPF highlighted that digital services that want to remain compliant with the rules could detect VPN use, asses risk through behavioural cues, and flag users the option to verify their age or prove their location. A Government spokesperson said: "The Online Safety Act places no curbs whatsoever on what adults can say, see or access on the internet, unless it is something that would already be illegal, offline. "However, we make no apology for holding platforms to account, to ensure they take steps to prevent children from bypassing safety protections. This includes not encouraging content that promotes VPNs or other workarounds, when they are aimed specifically aimed at young users. More broadly, there are a range of legitimate reasons why users might use VPNs which do not cut across children's safety online."
