Unite boss accuses Angela Rayner of ‘totally and utterly abhorrent' behaviour as clash with Labour escalates
General secretary Sharon Graham hit out at the deputy prime minister after the union voted to suspend her in a row over how the Labour-run council in Birmingham treated striking bin workers.
The union, one of Labour's biggest financial backers, claims fire and rehire tactics had 'effectively' been deployed against striking workers, who are taking industrial action in a dispute over pay and job conditions.
In a fresh attack on Saturday, Ms Graham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Angela Rayner refuses to get involved, and she is directly aiding and abetting the fire and rehire of these bin workers, it is totally and utterly abhorrent."
The general secretary said Ms Rayner had been "a member of our union for over 10 years". Allies of Ms Rayner have said she resigned from Unite in April.
Ms Graham said the politician may well have done 'Houdini act' in recent months by trying to leave the Union, but added: "She was very clearly a member when she asked us to give her £10,000 for the election. And on our system, obviously we go by quarters, so up to the March quarter."
She added: "Now, if she has over the last couple of weeks, because she's seen the mood music, because this isn't the first time that we've discussed that we're not happy with what's going on, then she may well have done that."
Ms Graham hinted that the union may have to rethink its relationship with Labour, adding that Unite members have to see that the fee to affiliate with Labour is "worth something'.
"At this present moment in time, it is hard to justify it, if I'm being honest,' she continued.
'Would that money be better spent on frontline services for my members? But the decision will be a serious decision. It's not a rash decision."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
The pub and bar chain thriving thanks to warm weather
Mitchells & Butlers, the pub and bar group, reported a significant boost in customer numbers and strong performance. The owner of Toby Carvery and All Bar One saw like-for-like sales increase by 5 per cent in the quarter ending 19 July. This growth was partly attributed to recent sunny weather and Easter, with both food and drink sales climbing by nearly 5 per cent. Despite facing cost inflation challenges, the company anticipates its annual results will reach the "top end" of industry forecasts. M&B has converted or remodelled 150 venues and opened two new sites this year, though its shares experienced a slight dip in early trading.
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Councils to buy empty homes to house migrants under government plans
Migrants could be housed in empty homes and properties bought by councils under government plans to slash the number of asylum hotels. Ministers are seeking to partner with councils to buy or lease houses and vacant properties around the UK in which to place asylum seekers, amid rising anger at the use of hotels for migrants. They are proposing pilot schemes where the Government could pay councils to buy or renovate property, which they would lease back to the Home Office to house asylum seekers. Another model would see empty homes brought back into use for both local homeless people and asylum seekers. Government data show there are some 700,000 empty homes across England, including some 93,600 in London and 35,000 in Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool. Officials are also targeting former tower blocks, student accommodation and old teacher training colleges for use as 'medium-sized' sites where dozens of asylum seekers could be housed. The moves come as police are braced for fresh protests against asylum hotels this weekend, following the 16 arrests for violence at the Bell hotel in Epping, Essex, amid anger at an alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by a 38-year-old migrant from Ethiopia. Some 32,000 asylum seekers are being housed in around 210 hotels, according to the latest Home Office data from March. This compares with just under 30,000 in June last year, days before Labour won the election, but down from the peak of 56,000 at 400 hotels in September 2023 at a cost of £9m a day. On Friday, the Home Office announced that asylum seekers face being made homeless if they refuse orders by officials to move out of hotels into alternative accommodation. Hundreds of migrants refuse to be transferred every week, according to the Home Office, which is frustrating attempts to reduce the number of asylum hotels. Some hotels have been forced to remain in use for as few as three migrants due to refusals to move out. Now, asylum seekers will be threatened with losing their taxpayer-funded accommodation and weekly £49.18 allowance if they reject a transfer request for a second time under a new 'firm-but-fair' policy to reduce the number of asylum hotels. The search for alternative accommodation has become a priority as a record 24,000 migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year, up 50 per cent. On top of 80,000 outstanding initial asylum claims in March, there is a growing backlog of 41,000 failed asylum seekers who have appealed against the decision, with many requiring housing. Sir Keir Starmer set out the Government's approach this week, when he told the liaison committee: 'A central focus of what we are doing is what can be built, arranged or taken by councils and repurposed. I am impatient for this change to be driven through. 'We have to take over other accommodation, and we have to drive down the asylum lists. There is no alternative... There is lots of housing in many local authorities that can be used, and we are identifying where it can be used.' Dame Angela Eagle, the border security and asylum minister, told MPs the aim was to 'evolve' away from a 'commercial' approach using private accommodation contractors to a 'more democratically accountable' system in partnership with local councils. It comes ahead of 'break' clauses next year where the Home Office could end its reliance on three contractors – Clearsprings, Mears and Serco – to find accommodation for asylum seekers. Around 200 councils have 'expressed interest' in running pilot schemes partnering with the Government. 'The pilots are looking at various ways to provide accommodation, for example, putting a grant to local authorities and leasing back the property. There are elements of: could we give grants to remediate void properties?' said Joanna Rowland, the Home Office's director general for customer services. 'Is there a support-only option, so we are not providing accommodation? There are a lot of ideas, but we will need those pilots to give us an evidence base for how we might want to move forward.' Dame Angela said: 'Maybe some of the things that we develop will go to supporting local temporarily homeless people from the area in exchange for having some of the things we develop available for our own asylum seekers as well. 'It is a kind of co-operative approach, I hope, that will be more sustainable than the situation that we find ourselves in now.' The Home Office has already faced local opposition and delays where it has attempted to set up 'medium-sized' sites. Plans to buy a 27-flat block in Fareham, Hampshire, to house 70 migrants was abandoned after a local outcry. A 9,000-strong petition has also been raised to proposals to put 35 asylum seekers in high-street flats above a vacant shop in Waterlooville in Hampshire, while plans to house almost 700 asylum seekers in former student blocks in Huddersfield have still not gone ahead more than a year after they were first mooted. Powers to seize properties Islington council in north London is, however, going ahead with plans to buy back up to 900 former council houses to house both homeless people and refugees. Angela Rayner, Communities Secretary, is also pushing for councils to get powers to seize properties that have stood empty for more than six months. The current rules only allow councils to take control of a building if it has been empty for two years and plagued by anti-social behaviour. Her department said it was 'pure speculation' to suggest the powers would be used to repossess vacant properties for asylum accommodation. The Home Office said it aimed 'to develop a more sustainable, long-term model of accommodation supply, which may be more locally led, should reduce competition for affordable housing, and help deliver new supply'.
Times
15 minutes ago
- Times
Fears grow about lack of London Stadium naming rights deal
A naming rights deal for the London Stadium looks as elusive as ever after venue chiefs admitted there was 'a significant risk' that no sponsor will be found before 2028. The owners of the stadium, which is occupied by West Ham United for most of the year, have been unable to secure a deal to reduce the venue's losses despite previously claiming one was imminent. The risk of a continuing failure is spelt out in the draft annual report of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), which owned the stadium until March, when it transferred to be directly under the Greater London Authority. The report also reveals that Lyn Garner, the LLDC's chief executive until March, received a £228,000 payoff for stepping down from the position on top of her £304,000 salary, only to be appointed as the chairwoman of the London Stadium's new board. 'Lyn's full-time role as chief executive of LLDC became redundant after a restructure and she received compensation in line with policy and procedures,' a GLA spokesman said. 'Her role at the London Stadium is part-time and is a non-executive role. Her appointment was made in line with policy and she brings a wealth of skills and experience to leading the London Stadium board.' Five other LLDC executives also received payoffs of between £91,000 and £151,000. In early 2023, Garner told the London Assembly she was 'very confident' that it would finally agree a naming rights deal for the loss-making stadium that year but it never happened. West Ham have to agree to any deal and the club shares any income worth more than £4million a year. Meanwhile, West Ham are still in a dispute with the London Stadium owners over who should pick up the costs of staging matches involving their Women's Super League (WSL) team. The club's 2013 concession agreement to use the stadium — labelled as the 'deal of the century' by one London Assembly member — makes the venue's owners responsible for paying costs such as stewarding, security and electricity, which are thought to be about £100,000 for a Premier League match. West Ham are understood to have offered to pay some of the costs for staging a WSL match there — and make a financial loss in doing so — but that offer has not been accepted by the London Stadium. 'We cannot ask London's taxpayers to subsidise the cost of West Ham putting on these matches,' a London Stadium spokesman said. Plans in place for Lionesses parade The FA has pencilled in a victory celebration in central London for Tuesday should England overcome Spain in the Women's Euro 2025 final on Sunday. The plan is understood to include a parade in the capital with a gathering in or near The Mall for the players to display the trophy, but the FA is keeping its cards close to its chest so as not to distract from preparations for the final in Basel, Switzerland. Top teams to cash in with new TV deal The Premier League's new television deal, which starts next month, will mean 70 more matches a season are shown live — which is likely to mean even more money for the top teams. Clubs are paid a 'facility fee' for every live match they take part in and last season each match was worth £890,000. Liverpool, the champions, earned £24.9million and Ipswich Town, who finished 19th, the minimum figure of £8.9million. Next season, every Premier League match will be live on TV apart from those played at 3pm on Saturday, so that will guarantee a facility fee for all clubs whose games are moved due to them playing midweek fixtures in Europe. The plus side for the smaller clubs is that they should also get more money, but just not as much as the bigger ones. Triathlon trouble World Triathlon's reputation has been dealt a serious blow after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that Uruguay's executive board member, Líber García, breached its anti-corruption policy in the lead up to last year's presidential election. It found that García had implied to Australia's Michelle Cooper, a rival candidate to the eventual winner Antonio Fernández Arimany, that she would lose her place on the board if she did not withdraw from the contest. Britain's candidate for the election, Ian Howard, whose campaign was backed by £12,000 of public funding from UK Sport, told World Triathlon's congress in October: 'We stand at a crossroads, you can choose more of the same and see the reputation of our federation increasingly damaged: unholy alliances, dodgy deals, dirty tricks.' 'Emperor' Infantino Football's international players' union, Fifpro, has accused Fifa and its president, Gianni Infantino, of 'autocratic' leadership. 'Football needs responsible leadership, not emperors,' Fifpro said in a statement after a meeting of 58 national player unions, in response to Fifa announcing an agreement with unrecognised player representatives. Infantino hosted that summit in New York but Fifpro and the English PFA — who have ongoing legal action against Fifa in the European courts — were not invited.
