Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds arrives as coking coal is unloaded at Immingham Port, northern England, as he visits the site in Lincolnshire to view raw materials destined for British Steel at Scunthorpe, being off-loaded, April 15, 2025
THE CRISIS at Scunthorpe steelworks, rightly if belatedly being addressed in the immediate term by state intervention, is the consequence of privatising critical national infrastructure so decisions on its future rest on the profit-and-loss calculations of private companies.
Right-wing media and parliamentarians, who are pro-privatisation and pro-war, want to avoid this conclusion. So we are seeing a propaganda campaign to blame it on other causes, each of which advances the right’s agenda.
One is that it is the result of pursuing “net zero” policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, a planned and publicly directed green transition is essential to Britain’s industrial future: it is leaving it to the market which places jobs and industry at risk.
Turning our backs on the climate crisis cannot be an option as extreme weather events and crop failures grow more serious with each passing year. Labour should face pressure not to drop its already much reduced climate commitments, but to invest in measures that directly help people — restoring its original ambitious plans to insulate 19 million homes in a decade, cutting emissions and lowering household energy bills, for example — to stop the climate-denialist right claiming green policies lower living standards.
The other is to turn Jingye’s record at British Steel into a “security risk” because the company is Chinese, scaremongering over other Chinese investments in Britain and calling for trade decoupling in line with the new cold war being pushed from Washington.
Here, socialists must take a clear position that distinguishes our opposition to any company not accountable to the British people controlling assets of strategic importance from a China-bashing narrative that raises international tensions and risks advancing the US-led war drive.
That doesn’t mean defending the behaviour of a firm like Jingye, which seemed designed to force the closure of the Scunthorpe blast furnaces and whose negotiations with government involved demanding huge sums of money while offering little in return.
But it does mean identifying the parallels between its conduct and, say, that of the Indian conglomerate Tata, which has also taken hundreds of millions in public money while refusing to save the blast furnaces at Port Talbot, a move set to cost thousands of jobs. The common factor is not the country of origin, but the lack of democratic accountability of companies not owned by the British public.
INCREASED NHS funding during the last Labour government masks how privatisation reduced its efficiency, says a groundbreaking new expert report which was launched in Parliament this week.
The Rational Policy-maker’s Guide to Rebuilding the NHS was produced by academics and NHS professionals at the 99% Organisation and Keep Our NHS Public (KONP).
Cross-party MPs, policy-makers attended the event sponsored by Labour MP Richard Burgon.
Today he said: “This report lays bare the truth that underfunding and creeping privatisation have left our NHS in crisis. But there is a way forward.
“Proper public investment and a commitment to keeping the NHS free at the point of use can rebuild our health service and improve patient outcomes.
“The government must take note: this is not just about economics, it’s about saving lives.”
The report warned that ministers “must skilfully avoid the pitfalls of the past” Labour government, including failing to tackle social care.
…
Founder of the 99% Organisation Mark E Thomas said: “There is no dispute that the NHS is struggling badly, but there is certainly dispute about how to fix it.
“This report demonstrates that calls for further privatisation or an insurance-based system would be catastrophic for both public health and the economy.
“The only viable solution is proper funding, preventive healthcare investment, and tackling the root causes of ill health, including poverty.”
KONP co-chair Dr John Puntis said: “Decades of market-driven policies have eroded our NHS.
“This report makes it clear that the way forward is not more outsourcing or corporate involvement, but a properly funded, publicly run health service that puts patients before profit.
An aerial view shows the Vatnajokull glaciers in Iceland are melting into the ocean or forming lagoons due to global warming and climate change on February 23, 2025. (Photo: Evrim Aydin/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“The environment does not care about politics. Keep spewing greenhouse gases and face the consequences.”
European Union officials said the Copernicus Climate Change Service had issued its latest “stark reminder of why climate action is urgent” when the bloc’s program announced that it observed less sea ice covering the Earth’s oceans last month than at any other point in recorded history.
In the Arctic, sea ice reached its lowest monthly extent on record, at 8% below average, in early February, and it remained below the previous record for the rest of the month.
The oceans were missing an area of ice roughly the size of the United Kingdom last month, according to Copernicus (C3S), and the finding was not an anomaly in recent sea ice observations.
February marked the third consecutive month in which record low sea ice levels for the corresponding month were observed in the Arctic.
C3S reported that in the Antarctic, sea ice levels have rapidly declined in 2025 after appearing to recover to near-record levels in December 2024.
Last month, sea ice near the South Pole reached its fourth-lowest monthly extent, at 26% below average.
C3S said the daily sea ice extent in the Antarctic may have also reached its annual minimum toward the end of the month, which will be confirmed later in March; if confirmed, it would be the second-lowest annual minimum in the satellite record.
“February 2025 continues the streak of record or near-record temperatures observed throughout the last two years,” said Samanatha Burgess, strategic lead for climate at the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. “One of the consequences of a warmer world is melting sea ice, and the record or near-record low sea ice cover at both poles has pushed global sea ice cover to an all-time minimum.”
The melting sea ice was recorded as global average temperatures rose 1.59°C (2.8°F) above the pre-industrial average last month, making it the third-warmest February on record.
In Europe, the temperatures that most exceeded averages were recorded last month in parts of Scandinavia, Iceland, and the Alps. Outside of Europe, “temperatures were most above average over large parts of the Arctic.”
The low extent of sea ice will lead to “more solar heat absorbed by the darker oceans,” and “faster warming,” said Simon Oldridge, a climate campaigner.
Grim news for the climate. Less reflective ice means more solar heat absorbed by the darker oceans—faster warming.
It’s time for politicians to take their heads out the sand and brief the public on the seriousness of this crisis. https://t.co/fvkoudUKb1
— Simon Oldridge #CANBill (@SiOldridge) March 6, 2025
The loss of sea ice can also lead to the collapse of ocean currents that are crucial for marine life to thrive.
C3S reported on the record-low sea ice levels as campaigners in the U.S. and around the world condemned recent anti-climate actions taken by U.S. President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, including the country’s exit from the Paris climate agreement, the GOP’s passing of a bill to end a federal program aimed at reducing planet-heating methane emissions, and Trump’s push to fast-track fossil fuel projects—as scientists warn that new extractive projects have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating and avoiding its worst impacts.
“The environment does not care about politics,” said public health expert Ali Khan. “Keep spewing greenhouse gases and face the consequences.”
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark RichardsNeo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Alan Milburn speaks at the first national conference of the Social Enterprise Coalition, January 25, 2005
Behind a facade of flimsy restrictions, the man who was Tony Blair’s privatisation champion is back in an advisory role, despite the fact he already works for firms that will profit from the selling off of the NHS, writes SOLOMON HUGHES
HEALTH Secretary Wes Streeting says he put Alan Milburn, who was health secretary under Tony Blair, onto the board of the Department of Health “to help government fix health and care.”
But Milburn can’t talk about anything relating “to nutrition, diet, and food, including any work related to the department’s sponsorship of the Food Standards Agency” on that board because he has a part-time job working for Mars Inc.
Appointing someone who works for the firm making Mars Bars to the Department of Health board in the middle of an obesity crisis shows how Streeting values corporate interests above public services.
Milburn was health secretary under Blair from 1999 to 2003. He oversaw the wide-scale privatisation of the NHS. He continued the Margaret Thatcher and John Major governments’ plans to privatise NHS “support services” like cleaning, catering and building management, with the disastrous PFI scheme expanding on his watch.
Milburn also broke new ground by privatising “clinical” services by buying in private operations or giving NHS money to set up privately run clinics. Milburn then cashed in his experience by leaving government and taking on lucrative corporate jobs.
Milburn and his family get around £1-2 million a year from his “advisory” firm, AM Strategy, where all the funds for his “advisory” jobs are collected. Streeting clearly admires both Milburn’s record of privatisation when he was a minister and his highly paid post post-ministerial corporate work.
The Department of Health says Milburn will give up his job as an adviser to Mars Inc at the end of this year, so next year, he will be able to forget all about working for Mars Bars and start discussing obesity.
Having an under-funded legal aid system can ruin lives | Oli Scarff/Getty Images
Extra £20m of spending should be celebrated, but it pales in comparison to funding for hostile environment policies
Navigating the UK’s Kafkaesque immigration system is incredibly challenging. One ‘wrong’ turn – a delay in an application, an incorrect form – can quite literally risk a person’s life.
This is deliberate; the system is designed to be hostile. If you’re someone with an immigration or asylum problem, you’ll probably need a lawyer for specialist advice. But what happens if you can’t afford one?
In theory, everyone claiming asylum in this country has the right to access legal aid if they can’t afford it themselves – which is the case for most people seeking asylum, who are not allowed to work. In practice, though, decades of chronic underfunding have left the system in crisis and many people without the necessary legal support. This year only 43% of people claiming asylum had access to a legal aid lawyer, down from an estimated 73% in 2020.
Last month, after years of concerted organising by communities and legal workers, we received a glimmer of hope. Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood announced an extra £20m of funding for the civil legal aid system – the first increase since 1996.
We’ve seen almost 30 years of stagnating salaries for legal workers, legal aid providers shutting down, and more people being forced to face injustices without support. Now, we need to see much bolder action from the new Labour government if we are to get out of the downward spiral that legal aid is in.
How did we get here?
The UK’s legal aid system was created in 1949, on the post-war principle that wherever you are, whatever problems you face and however much money you have, you should be able to have legal advice and representation if you need it.
But while it has never actually been that easy for migrants to access legal aid, the last few years have made it particularly punishing.
In the 2010s, as successive governments’ austerity regimes violently stripped away safety nets for working-class people – migrants and UK citizens alike – legal aid was cut drastically. The appropriately named ‘hostile environment’ policies also meant people whose immigration claims fell through faced losing access to healthcare, housing and jobs.
Legal aid workers, meanwhile, have not just had their salaries slashed, but their public value degraded. Immigration lawyers in particular have been demonised, denigrated by ministers and in the press as ‘lefty lawyers’ – leading to them becoming targets of violent hate crimes.
We are now seeing the predictable and painful impacts of this on the people whom we at Migrants Organise, a charity supporting refugees and migrants, work with every day.
A person seeking asylum who doesn’t have access to legal advice is far less likely to be able to put together the evidence and testimony needed to ‘meet’ the Home Office’s stringent burden of proof.
If their case is refused, they’ll face an even more byzantine appeal system and be expected to represent themselves in front of a judge – still without getting any advice on the regulations that they’re expected to meet. But several large immigration firms have also stopped taking on asylum appeal cases because they don’t get paid enough to do so, forcing many people to tackle gruelling and complex immigration procedures without ever speaking to an adviser.
Then if a person is refused again by the court, because they had a poorly prepared application and no one to advise them, they could be detained and deported to a country where their life is in danger.
Mohammed*, an aspiring barrister and a young migrant advocate at the We Belong charity, has experienced this first-hand. “I waited over five years for a decision on my asylum claim, and then my case got refused and my legal representative dropped me because they’d stopped taking appeals,” he explained. “This was a month into my Masters. It took me almost a year to find another legal aid lawyer, and it was only through the support of community organisations who knew good lawyers and could refer me.
“For people who don’t speak English or have the confidence to seek out support, it’s impossible. Now, after having thought I wouldn’t make it to study anything, I’m able to study law and go into the work that I know will help to fix the problems I myself experienced.”
Pushing back
Having an unsupported legal aid system ruins lives – but it does not need to be this way. Experts, lawyers and the communities who need them have increasingly been speaking out and coming together to document and challenge the impacts of not having access to legal aid.
Organisations and legal aid providers from across the country have been working to have their voices heard. Many contributed to a review of civil legal aid that Sunak’s government launched last year to better understand how well the current system works (or, more to the point, doesn’t). And this year, Young Legal Aid Lawyers and Migrants Organise have run a joint campaign to help those most impacted by the legal aid crisis to educate their MPs on it and demand change.
Researchers such as Jo Wilding, the author of The Legal Aid Market, have also shed light on the extent of the crisis and drawn attention to the expanding ‘legal aid deserts’ where no legal aid is available at all. And legal cases have been brought against the government. Most recently, in June this year, Duncan Lewis Solicitors challenged the government’s violation of its duty to ensure legal aid is available as a result of not increasing fees. The case was settled in September on the basis that the new lord chancellor would decide whether to increase rates in November.
This organised pressure has been impossible for the government to ignore. Finally, the new Labour government has taken heed of the decades of evidence shared, and taken a first step towards positive change by committing new funding.
The additional £20m announced last month, which will be spent over the next four years, is intended to “mark the next step in government plans to rebuild the legal aid sector”. The money will be used to increase legal aid fees for those working in the housing and immigration sectors, with the government saying it is aiming for a 10% uplift in hourly rates, to £65 outside London and £69 in the capital.
Though the final figures have yet to be announced, we at Migrants Organise calculate that the proposed payment fees could increase immigration legal aid work by just over 30%. This, we hope, will open up some capacity amongst legal aid providers to take on cases of people who have been waiting without support.
But in the grand scheme of things, this remains a small injection of cash into two severely neglected areas of legal aid, which will struggle to make any significant indent.
A small uplift in fees isn’t enough to make working in legal aid any more attractive, meaning it won’t address the current crisis in the recruitment and retention of legal aid workers. There is also no sign of a commitment to regularly review funding for legal aid, in order to avoid us ending up in the same position we are now after four more years of inflation.
As successive governments have built a profitable industry out of cruelty, money has been syphoned off to private companies at the expense of public services – housing, transport, legal advice – needed to create better futures for our communities. The hostile environment for migrants remains very much alive, with Labour promising more money for immigration detention centres, increased deportations, and terrorism charges brought against those forced to cross the Channel by boat. Many people still face barriers to accessing justice even with the latest announcement – whether due to language issues, misinformation, or delays.
“Yes, we’re fighting to have more legal aid lawyers. But when will the next increase happen?” asked Mohammed. “We need lawyers now that care, especially when the immigration system is so damaging. Quality work, care and compassion should be the core of legal aid. It’s not just about funding, it’s about the ideology and principle.”
So, whilst we’re celebrating the work that went into this change, we’re under no illusion that for people caught up in the hostile environment – or indeed anyone in the UK in need of a lawyer – life is going to get much easier.
In the short term, we need a legal aid system that is better resourced than the government’s current proposal, for funding to be sustained and raised with inflation (like in many other publicly funded services), and for it to be available to all groups of people who need it.
And ultimately, it is only an end to the hostile environment that will prevent people from being forced into precarious situations in the first place and bring about the dignity and justice that we all deserve.
With renewed hope for change, we need to continue organising with all those impacted by the crisis in legal aid to speak out and call for what’s needed.
