“Change” – the Prime Minister’s clarion call as he sets out ‘reforms’ to the state in general and the Civil Service in particular. What does Starmer’s change consist of? So far it has been cosying up to big business and the US (in the hope that they might agree to magic up some economic growth in a way that won’t scare the markets); the victimisation of migrants and asylum seekers; the further immiseration of those dependent on social security to live (particularly disabled people); and ‘restraint’ on public sector pay, fearful of that great but as yet unseen neoliberal chimera – the wage-price-spiral.

Neoliberalism with a red rosette

Perhaps someone could tell Starmer that this isn’t really change – they’re all things that successive governments have tried since 1979. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak. Each has tried to impoverish public servants and the public as a way to fix British capitalism. Each has failed to do anything other than make their mates in the City richer (perhaps that was the point…) while Britain’s post-industrial decline continues.

Undeterred, the PM, slightly earlier than many of his predecessors, it must be said, has reached for a tired trope. The state, specifically the Civil Service is inefficient, a dead hand restraining the animal spirit of the Leviathan. It must be reformed, by which of course, he means cut.

Starmer may have emailed all civil servants a few days ago to say he valued us and knew we too felt “shackled by bureaucracy, frustrated by inefficiency”. But elsewhere his rhetoric is little different from that of Dominic Cummings’ talk of ‘the blob’. We are not, the PM says, offering “good value”. The Minister for the Cabinet Office went on TV to tell the BBC a smaller Civil Service, achieved in part by ‘mutually agreed exits’ (so, redundancies) is part of the plan.

Starmer says that soon we’ll welcome “teams into every government department with a clear mission from me to make the state more innovative and efficient” via the application of AI. Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State of the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, is so enamoured with AI boosterism that he asks Chat GPT what podcast he should go on, or what ‘quantum mechanics’ is. Why rely on your officials, or even Wikipedia, when you can burn a few trees to quiz a chatbot whose ultimate purpose is to provide a convincing answer, rather than reliably determine fact? It would be funny, except Kyle isn’t embarrassed. And then we had the PM and the Health Secretary Wes Streeting gleefully announcing the abolition of NHS England – the undoing of an Tory ‘reform’ that might be worth considering if its functions are rehomed back in the Department of Health and Social Care, but not at the cost of some 10,000 jobs.

Properly funded, resourced public services are both effective and efficient

The Independent Left, and indeed most civil servants, would not disagree that the state could be better, more efficient, and deliver more value for citizens. But, rather than trying the same failed programs of cuts that his predecessors have, we would urge the PM to listen to the labour movement and genuinely ‘fix the foundations’ of the state – its servants.

We would be more productive if we weren’t so stressed. Civil Service World reported that in 2022 the Civil Service saw ‘771,433 sick days due to stress or mental health problems in 2022, compared to 558,125 in 2021’. People are burnt out by ever-increasing workloads, less staff, tighter budgets, and frustrated members of the public. Civil servants are worried about money – we know that in DWP alone many officials are claiming UC, using foodbanks, and stuck on the minimum wage. It’s not hard to realise that if civil servants weren’t overworked, weren’t on poverty wages, and could choose to work their way so as to meet their caring and other responsibilities, then we would not only have much better working and living conditions, but could get more done.

And then, there is outsourcing. According to the Institute for Government, central and local government spent £379 billion (36% of all government expenditure) on ‘procurement’ in 2021/22. Not all of this is outsourcing, to be clear, some of it will be paperclips and other things. But plenty is money which flows from taxpayers to G4S, OSS, Carillion and other vampiric corporations. They pay their staff terribly, on worse terms, and focus entirely on their own profit, rather than delivering for the country – and so what they provide is shit. 

PCS is currently supporting facilities management and other outsourced workers in disputes across government for fair pay and terms. But we say to Starmer now: it’s not just a matter of bringing these people in-house being something which should be a principled decision for a man who describes himself as a ‘socialist’ (or at least ‘centre-left’); these companies are the ones who, more than anyone else, don’t provide good value to taxpayers. Bring their dedicated workers in-house, and reap the benefits to not just citizens, but the Exchequer.

Left Unity are now the right wing, and not a very clever one

The labour movement is the only meaningful force in Britain that advocates for an equitable solution to the crisis of British neoliberal capitalism, and who oppose this idiocy/corruption on the part of our ruling class.

But alas, many of our trade union so-called ‘leaders’ leave rather a lot to be desired. And PCS General Secretary Fran Heathcote and her faction (and political appointee staff association) Left Unity, are not up to the job. Heathcote says that she has fully signed PCS up to the PM’s ‘national mission of renewal and changes to the Civil Service’. She tells us ‘happily’ to not worry about mentions of job cuts because a minister told her not to and provided some completely non-binding reassurances before she emerged, starry-eyed back out to Whitehall. 

Time is a cruel mistress and so, as the PM continued to set out his vision of immiseration in further speeches and statements, Fran released another statement saying that “Any proposals for changing the way our members work must be done in full consultation with the unions”. Given LU’s track record on getting anything out of the government, other than the worst pay rise in the public sector, we’re sure Starmer’s New New Labour government won’t lose any sleep over ‘negotiating’ with someone keen to ‘welcome’ any offer, even if it’s terrible.

This obsequious approach to the government is perhaps an attempt to try and keep them onside until we see the fruition of Labour’s promised reforms to workers and trade union rights (although the repeal of the 2016 anti-TU legislation is long past its ‘first 100 days in government’ deadline). This is an increasingly foolish gambit to adopt. Last week the government passed a series of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, watering down its provision to placate the circling vultures of capital. As part of these amendments they have reneged on their promise to repeal the anti-democratic 50% turnout threshold in ballots for industrial action – a requirement which the Labour Party previously referred to as a ‘gimmick’. The government says that it has to be delayed – claiming that further work is required to introduce such a change, and that they must first introduce electronic voting. It should be self-evident, but we will be clear; neither the repealing of the 50% threshold legislation nor changing legislation to allow for electronic balloting are contingent upon one another. 

Why are Labour doing this? Could it be they have been swayed by the pleas of employers, perhaps delivered at an all-expenses-paid-for concert or football match? And perhaps they are conscious that if they follow through with their proposed 2.8% public sector pay offer, in the face of still-rising living costs, they are likely to see a repeat of the ‘hot strike summer’ of 2023 – and would like to restrict industrial action as much as possible?

The response to this ‘delay’ from the leadership of the trade union movement has been lacklustre. Unison say they are ‘disappointed’, noting hopefully the government’s ‘continued commitment’ and asking that the repeal be effected by secondary legislation as soon as practicable. We have written to Unison, offering to sell them a bridge. At least though, they have said something (as have those bastions of militancy, the FDA and Prospect), while Fran Heathcote, and the PCS communications machine she so jealously guards, have at best been bland, complacent and incredibly late at responding to the gathering stormclouds of these attacks – and deafeningly silent at worst.

Why are the bureaucracy not angry? Why are they content with pandering at a time when Labour announce cuts without consultation, and renege on their manifesto promises, in order to retain the ability to quell potential strike action whilst it is politically convenient to do so? Why will they not come out and properly condemn this, try to galvanise members and the public towards a different vision, and to ready members for action which might convince the government otherwise? 

Meanwhile, the Left Unity website is blogging gleefully about the abolition of NHS England and 10,000 jobs. Only about 1% are members, you see, and for right-wing labourites such as Left Unity, paying your subs, and therefore their travel and subsistence, is all that matters. 

Left Unity barely care about PCS members (and frequently deride engaged, hard-working PCS members as ‘out of touch activists’) so why would they possibly care about non-members? They mocked members of the NEC’s left majority coalition for their temerity of suggesting the committee meet to discuss how to respond to these threats of cuts. Don’t worry guys, Fran’s on it, she’s going to agree to anything they say, spin it as ‘significant concessions’ (remember that one?) then release a video about how busy she is!

Change for PCS

Left Unity offers members nothing new and tells you to like it. Like successive governments, they have spent decades trying the same old thing, despite it not working, and are more interested in preserving their positions of privilege than doing anything useful.

PCS should be consulting with branches and other lay structures right now – taking soundings about what’s going on in advance of this year’s central pay remit, seeing where McFadden’s axe might fall, where things aren’t working, and where the government is vulnerable to industrial action. We should be encouraging branches to identify leverage areas of dispute around our national demands, to campaign, to be ready for a ballot, and build industrial momentum in anticipation of the government launching their attack. We should be actively recruiting in NHS England and offering to help fight job losses, suggesting a transition into the Civil Service proper instead! Roles can be moved to DHSC or staff redeployed and retrained for new roles where duplication of services would occur. It’s no one’s fault they work for a badly run quango, and if any restructure is needed, we should be liaising with the doctors’ and other healthcare workers’ unions to find out their views on how best it could be done, and what specifically it needs to achieve to provide the best outcomes.

But they won’t do it. If you want a union leadership that cares about this, and will do something to fight against it, then vote for Independent Left and other Coalition for Change candidates in this year’s NEC elections.

PCS members working in the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (MHCLG), are currently being balloted for industrial action in response to a series of attacks on the terms and conditions of staff initiated by the senior management team:

• The closure of six departmental offices, including MHCLG bases in Newcastle, Truro, Sheffield, and Birmingham; flying in the face of Labour’s espoused commitment to “the regions”
• Ironically, given said programme of office closures, the continued enforcement of arbitrary and unequal office attendance policies, despite the evidence from the pandemic (and since), including the Ministry’s own evidence, showing that the vast majority of departmental roles can be undertaken from home without impact on the output and quality of work, and that staff are the best judges of where to undertake their roles from, consistent with their wellbeing and their personal lives
• The proposed abandonment of the department’s current location-neutral recruitment policy, that allows existing staff to apply for and take up any departmental role from their current locations, greatly expanding job choice and promotion opportunities, especially for staff in smaller offices

Members of the PCS Independent Left have been crucial in leading PCS MHCLG Branch’s “Our Work, Our Way” campaign in opposition to these wholly unnecessary attacks.

Offices threatened with closure are being balloted on an aggregated (collective) basis that will end 26th March. All other ‘regional’ offices are also being balloted on an aggregated basis with the ballot set to end 9^th April. London is the subject of its own ballot also ending the 9^th April. In the face of management intransigence, PCS representatives are working hard to secure a mandate for industrial action and fight back over the continued erosion of the flexibilities, and terms and conditions of MHCLG members and other civil servants. 

Whilst these proposals have been initiated by senior management, MHCLG is headed by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, who “declared”, in the House of Commons last October,  “…I am a lifelong proud trade union member.” Tellingly, however, despite invitation and representations by the MHCLG Branch, Rayner has failed to meet with PCS over this issue and has not met MHCLG PCS representatives once since becoming the Secretary of State over seven months ago. Rayner’s unwillingness to engage with MHCLG representatives undermines her public commitments to the importance of workers’ representation, “back[ing] working people to take their voice back, [and] improve their terms and conditions.” Successful ballots would represent a test for Rayner, who would be the first Secretary of State of this Labour Government to face strike action by civil servants within their own department over issues initiated during their incumbency.

With continued briefings and suggestions that the government will soon announce headcount reductions and the Chancellor asking departments to model spending cuts of 11% a year, it is likely that departments will propose office closures in the near future elsewhere and we must be prepared to fight back. We need a serious industrial and political strategy in response – a joined-up collective campaign to demand more for members that integrates opposition to office closures and cuts, with positive demands for pay restoration, and an end to low pay, flexible working, and job security. You can help us do this by voting for IL and Coalition for Change candidates in this year’s NEC and group elections – read our joint platform here.

The Government is planning job cuts

The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has set out his vision for ‘the fundamental reform of the British state’. His speech was one of of several harbingers this week; alongside statements by Peter Kyle, Secretary of State (SoS) for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), Wes Streeting, SoS for Health and Social Care (DHSC), and Pat McFadden, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – the most senior minister in the Cabinet Office; as well as other media briefings by the government, and the economic policies and general direction of the Government since it took office last year. Whatever the wider political claims made by ministers, the sharp end for PCS members is that job cuts are coming our way and we must prepare to defend ourselves.

What Starmer and Kyle said

Starmer said, “If we push forward with digital reform of government – and we are going to do that, we can make massive savings, £45 billion savings in efficiency.”

Speaking on Sky News, Kyle said, that “…there are £45 billion worth of productivity and efficiency savings within government if we move to digital… more than half or about half of all transactions carried out by government are analogue, so that is for example, DVLA opening 45,000 envelopes every single day… HMRC is picking up the phone 100,000 times every day.”

Those envelopes are being opened, and those telephones are being used, by PCS members and potential members. The £45 billion ‘savings’ Kyle is referring to are essentially job losses. Kyle did not refer once to reducing the working week; to redeployment to other parts of the Civil Service, with remote and home working, for otherwise redundant staff; to strengthening areas of the Civil Service in need of more resources. Like the Prime Minister, he spoke entirely in terms of ‘savings’.

What McFadden and Streeting said

Pat McFadden said that “the central Civil Service would and can become smaller” and that any civil servants performing below expectations may be ‘incentivised’ to leave their jobs, promising a new ‘mutually agreed exits’ process. The history of the Civil Service shows that it is people in the ‘junior’ grades (e.g. operational delivery) who are generally found to be ‘under performers’ and, damningly, disproportionately disabled and ethnic minority staff. Sadly but unsurprisingly, there was no mention of equality evidence or impact analysis.

McFadden also said he wanted to see more civil servants working outside London, “where the state can get better value for money” i.e. “saving” money by employing less people in London where wages are higher. Of course in reality, it will be job cuts in London and job cuts outside London as well.

When Health Secretary Wes Streeting, was interviewed on Sky News about the absorption of NHS England functions into his Department, he bluntly said ‘yes’ to the statement “so 9,000 civil servants plus out of the door” and added, “we will be treating people with care and respect and… fairness” but he did not say how, did not talk about redeployment, and did not apologise for the way in which staff in NHS England found out about job losses and the abolition of NHS England – through the media rather than through TU consultation or even official employer channels.

The context of the Government agenda

On the 11th December 2024, The Financial Times reported, “more than 10,000 [civil service] jobs are to be set to be cut under ministers’ plans to find savings of 5 per cent to their departments in the spending review…”

On the 14th January 2025, The Guardian reported Starmer insisting that the government will be ‘ruthless’ in cutting public expenditure in this year’s summer spending review to meet their austerity-portending, self-imposed, ‘fiscal rules’.

The response of the PCS General Secretary

Given the government’s clear intent, how has PCS’ Left Unity General Secretary responded? Her reply can be read here. Fighting words they ain’t. The GS pleads for members interests to be “…taken into account by providing them with job security and good pay and conditions.” The Government will say ‘yes’ because ‘taken into account’ is vague enough for anybody to sign up to.

The GS states, “We agree technology has a part to play in improving public services and enhancing our members’ job satisfaction, but we are also clear that it cannot be used as a blunt instrument to cut jobs”. Her preference, it seems, is for Ministers to use technology as a scalpel to cut jobs. Ministers will agree, because it will cost them nothing, will make them looker nicer and more competent than the Tories when in government – the lowest of bars – and they still get to cut, albeit not with a ‘blunt instrument’.

She argues, “Any proposals for changing the way our members work must be done in full consultation with the unions.” The GS does not demand agreement, or set any criteria, or define consultation more rigorously, or set out any counter proposals. Labour ministers will of course be happy to ‘consult’ as they have seen how passively and ineffectively the GS, the President Martin Cavanagh, and the rest of LU’s decrepit leadership responded to the earlier ministerial decision that all civil servants must attend their workplaces for at least 60% of the time. We have heard sweet nothing about her consultation on that issue.

She banally comments, as if somehow it is a clever play on words, “Labour says it is fixing the state so that it works for working people. Civil servants are working people, so this plan must also work for them.” Ministers will say their plan will do because it will (supposedly) make Britain stronger for everyone.

Nowhere does the GS simply say we are opposed to job cuts and redundancies and we will resist them. She contents herself with passive statements.

What the PCS Independent Left would have said

The IL has long argued for, and would have called for, an agreement on AI, so that the union has control over its use; so that members impacted by AI are given new duties or a new post; and so that members share in productivity gains by way of higher wages and a shorter working week.

We would have called for equality impact analysis of all government and management proposals (an elementary duty LU has a weak record on).

We would have said, “You want a state sector that delivers better? Our union has many policies that would strengthen democratic rights, empower people in their workplaces and communities, and improve public services. We want to discuss them with you.” 

We would outline some of PCS policies and seek consultation on our proposals as well as the Government’s. Real consultation with a view to reaching agreement (and, if contractual rights are involved, by agreement) is a two-way affair in which the ideas and aims of both parties are considered.

We would set out criticisms of Rachel Reeves’ fiscal rules, which are self-imposed, austerity loaded, and are leading not only to attacks on our members but upon working class people more generally, on the Winter Fuel Allowance, on disability benefits, etc.

We would prepare to defend members by drawing up plans for political action, legal action, campaigning and of course industrial action – strikes and action short of a strike. The Government would know that we have leverage whenever we walk into the negotiating room.

Instead Left Unity, in the guise of the General Secretary, are simply saying ‘please talk to us.’

Blaming the Civil Service – an old clichéd practice

The Tories under Thatcher and Major, then New Labour, then under the Tories again, and now under new ‘New Labour’, have proposed and implemented ‘reforms’ to the Civil Service and the wider public sector, always with the declared aim of making the Civil Service and wider public sector more efficient (because apparently, we routinely failed to ‘deliver’) and, often, to move functions into the private sector.

To one extent or another the Civil Service and wider public sector was identified (a.k.a. scapegoated) as the cause of malaise and decline in Britain and a barrier to growth. But the next round of politicians always found it necessary to embark upon new, fundamental, reforms despite their predecessors efforts – and failures. Because none of these changes made any difference to the real problems Britain faces (but for which we are still scapegoated for; the relative, long term, economic weaknesses of British capitalism.

The IL would do for PCS what the union does not do with LU controlling the GS, the Presidency and the union’s HQ and staff: we would make the political and socio-economic case for properly funding, resourcing, and empowering the public sector and we would identify the real causes of malaise and decline in Britain. It was not public sector workers who caused the international financial crisis of 2008 and it was not public sector workers who have hollowed out the infrastructure of Britain in the long years of austerity.  

Vote for IL and other Coalition for Change candidates

The GS gets away with her passivity, complacency, and her bland, vacuous messages because LU bureaucratically and undemocratically abuse their control of the union via the office of GS, office of President, brazenly installed allies in well-renumerated senior staff posts, and their minority membership on the NEC to block democratic (majority) decision-making by the NEC and to give her political cover.

If PCS IL and our partners in the Coalition for Change (CfC) win a sweeping NEC majority then PCS will start to act as a real union rather than a pressure group and LU electoral campaign machine. Read our joint platform and vote for Coalition candidates.

It was a short NEC meeting on Wednesday afternoon where we discussed which motions the NEC will put forward to the upcoming Annual Delegate Conference – where members from across PCS will come together to debate motions as the union’s highest democratic decision-making body.

The meeting approved a new Organising Strategy, which represents a whole new approach compared to the failed strategy which members roundly rejected at last year’s ADC. With a clear plan to build on this, Independent Left members proposed a new platform for negotiators and organisers to be able to easily compare the pay ranges across all the employers represented by our union. This will not only embolden our Civil Service members but will have a clear focus on our outsourced and agency members, supporting the Independent Left-led campaign on insourcing, and particularly, support our DDaT colleagues. 

As part of the Coalition for Change, IL also supported putting the National Shop Steward Network (NSSN) affiliation to ADC. While we have criticisms of the NSSN, we believe it is right that members can debate and decide. 

A potential real victory for PCS awaits at ADC if members agree with our plan to democratise and open up the NEC, and eliminating the ability to cynically use the Standing Orders to cause deadlock.

But the real highlight of the meeting was an incredible U-turn by Left Unity members on the NEC, who after months of blocking debate which kept the levy in place, have now decided to put forward a plan for constant emergency levies at high rates. “We can raise levies whenever we want!” brazenly threatened one LU NEC member. They have refused to come up with a long-term plan for either pay restoration or indeed how to pay for the action to win it. In doing this, they risk keeping your pay low and leaving those members who do take action without the support of strike pay. In the debate, supporters of the General Secretary denigrated ADC and our union’s democracy, and drew out their opposition to giving members the opportunity for real debate and strategic discussion on a way forward. Instead, they proposed nothing more than running the same tactic again in future, and missing the chance to have a long-term sustainable inflow to build the Fighting Fund and keep it topped up, ready for action. For the IL, it could not be clearer – if we do not put enough money into the Fighting Fund in between periods of action, then temporary levies will be all but inevitable (and also higher than they might otherwise have needed to be). Of course, levies can also be avoided by refusing to take any action and PCS being left industrially impotent, another eventuality LU are content to be complacent about.

The Independent Left won the argument on NEC to support taking an alternative serious and realistic proposal to test with members at ADC that sets out how to have a properly maintained Fighting Fund that any member should have access to when out on strike, all by changing the current flat rate 50p contribution from subs to a 10% rate. Read our motion below:

Conference notes that the use of temporary, campaign-based levies has created a situation where funds have amassed that are not flexible enough to be used for the different industrial campaigns the union is fighting if they do not meet the stated aim of the levy at the point it was established.

Conference therefore agrees that:
1. These levies have created an unnecessary point of argument and confusion for members while creating a ‘start-stop’ approach to fighting fund replenishment which is unsustainable.
2. The current Fighting Fund contribution of 50p per month for most members is not sufficient to enable the Fighting Fund to support the amount of industrial action necessary to exercise leverage over many employers across our membership.
3. The current Fighting Fund contribution of 50p per month cannot change with inflation, or when the regular subscription rates change annually, because it is established by supplementary rule 3.14(d)
4. That changing this figure from 50p to a percentage of a member’s subscription would allow a more progressive and sustainable, permanent method of building the Fighting Fund.
5. That the appropriate figure for this contribution is 10%, which would raise approximately £2.7 million per annum for the Fighting Fund at current subscriptions rates.
6. That members except those in Band A (over £34,000) would pay less than £2 per month under this system.
7. That members in unrecognised workplaces should not contribute to the Fighting Fund, and should therefore be excluded from supplementary rule 3.14(d)

Conference therefore instructs the NEC to end any temporary levies currently in place under supplementary rule 7.11(j).

Conference further agrees to amend the rules of the Union to change the contribution to the Fighting Fund accordingly: 
1. In supplementary rule 3.14, subsection (d), after “Ordinary members”, insert “in recognised workplaces”. 
2. In supplementary rule 3.14, subsection (d), after “shall pay an additional”, replace “50 pence per month” with “10 percent of their subscription rate per month”. 

The second PCS Scottish Executive Committee conference was held in Glasgow on Friday 28th February 2025 – you can read our bulletin here, the Scottish Executive’s Annual Report here, and the motions book/agenda here (all A-marked motions were carried).

The results of the Scottish Executive Committee elections, as announced on 25th February were as follows:

Strike pay comes out of the Fighting Fund.

From May last year, members paid the levy into the FF. This raised around £550K each month. Separately, the default 50p per member (which is ringfenced out of regular subs) was also paid in. This brought in over £80K per month.

So since May 2024, from the regular contributions and the additional levy, the Fighting Fund received a total £630K or so a month. PCS has paid out well over £3M in strike pay in the same period!

For the striker, it is hardly going to matter to them whether their strike pay came from the levy or the 50 pence – money is money. And that’s true for the FF. It’s just one account and all the money is deposited into it. To claim as Left Unity do that there is a difference, you have to invent an accounting trick or illusion and divide the FF into two. Into one half goes the levy and into the other goes the 50 pence contributions.

It’s from the ’50 pence bit’ of the FF that it is claimed FM and other strikers are paid, not from the ‘levy bit’. The problem is that the strike pay being paid out is more than the £80K coming in from all those 50 pences. So it is also claimed that money is ‘borrowed’ from the levy half of the FF by the 50 pence half to pay the strikers…

We leave it to you to decide whether this is a way of evading the truth that money is money and the strikers’ pay is actually coming from the levy. Indeed even if you buy into all this accounting engineering, the strikers are being paid from the levy, even if you regard that pay as borrowed money.

This ‘borrowing’ means that the 50 pence half of the FF is increasingly in debt to the levy half. We estimate that the ‘debt’ is now over £1M and rapidly climbing.

In order for LU to maintain the pretence that the levy is not funding the strikes they claim that the debt will eventually be eradicated by transferring money from the General Account – this is where our subs and other income goes into – to the FF. Yet despite the increasing ‘debt’ they have not proposed any transfer of money from the General Account. Which is consistent with the reality that the levy is paying the strikers, and they know it.

IL instigated the debate over pausing and reviewing the levy and our votes were vital in actually getting the levy paused.  We did so even though we knew that the levy was in fact funding the action.

The problem with the levy is that it was unfairly structured and has continually been weaponised by LU. It was clear from the General Secretary’s craven videos and emails to members, openly using her position to attempt to influence the elections for LU, that it was not possible with the levy in place to have a rational discussion as to putting in suitable long term strike funding arrangements. That’s why we did what we did – to replace the temporary levy with a lower level permanent contribution, to minimise the need for any temporary levies in future.

Unlike LU who are deeply unserious, we accept the logic of our position and are in favour of moving money from the General Account to clear the ‘debt’ and also to pay, if necessary, for future action. This will run down the General Account, which is our rainy day money. The alternative is accepting LU accounting that allow the supposed debts to increase. This means LU will have to put a brake on action in order to keep the debts to sustainable levels. That is, they will be trapped by their own fiscal rules.

We know that LU will still claim they stopped the levy, despite the facts, but what they won’t do is propose what should replace it. The General Secretary, working only for LU’s interests and not those of members, has said that branches will be consulted on new strike funding arrangements, and that proposals will be brought to ADC 2026!

That might be OK if the world worked on LU time but in real world we have to urgently put something in place over the next months, in the run up to this year’s pay remit and to prove to the Government and ourselves we are serious about action if (or rather, when) offered a poor deal. IL don’t want to run down the General Account or run up more imaginary so-called ‘debts’. We will seek to work up and implement new proposals ASAP but that won’t happen unless the Coalition for Change slate and our joint platform is voted in for the NEC and for other elections.

LU as shown above are more interested in accounting games than winning for members, so let’s get rid of them and start a building a trade union worthy of the members.