Lord Robertson — former NATO chief and Blair-era defence minister — is supporting the “need” for welfare cuts to boost defence spending, according to legacy media.

This has been happening for three consecutive weeks, and throughout that time legacy media have ignored Robertson’s long-standing affiliation with ‘defence’ firms and global oil giants.

You can read our coverage here and here. For three weeks straight the Canary has been filling in the blanks left by the chummy old boys’ club of the British press — serving in the interests of politics and big industry.

We’re a bit tired of it, but let’s go again…

Tight budgets and looming threats?

Lord Robertson appeared in front of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on 27 April. The committee was talking about ‘societal resilience’.

ITV published a piece on the evening of 27 April. The article quoted Robertson saying:

It would be horrible to think it would take an actual crisis, an actual attack on the United Kingdom before we woke up to the kind of threats that are facing us.

Adding:

The problem is how to pay for it when budgets are so tight, and the public expects a certain level of spending on other priorities. This is the ‘guns versus butter’ argument, and Robertson is scathing about it.

The peer said:

There will be no butter if we don’t have guns. If you’ve got a war, it costs a lot of money. We finished paying for the Second World War in 2016.

You know that’s a war that we won… so it’s a much more expensive proposition than deterrence is.

And he told the panel:

It may well be that other things are preoccupying the mind of the prime minister and the secretary of state for defence, and that is postponing it, but it’s regrettable nonetheless.

If you read this piece as an interested citizen you might think Robertson is a well-meaning expert sharing his professional opinion. Maybe that is what he is doing… But if the author cited Robertson’s decades-long paid role at a major US defence consultancy, that might change how you looked at his comments, right?

Exactly.

Vested interests in war

Back in April, the Canary dug into the corporate ties of several key figures advocating for welfare cuts to fund war — Robertson included. At the time, Lord Robertson said:

There is a corrosive complacency today in Britain’s political leadership. Lip service is paid to the risks, the threats, the bright red signals of danger – but even a promised national conversation about defence can’t be started.

His arms industry links went unmentioned…

Then on the week of 23 April, the Guardian cited new comments from Robertson — without mentioning his arms trade links. That time had Robertson used a think-tank event to argue for:

 lifting defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 in line with a NATO target.

On 27 April, ITV did the same…

For the record (again), the Cohen Group defence consultancy website describes Robertson’s role with them as a senior counsellor. He’s been there since 2004…

The Cohen Group even brag on their website about brokering big deals between a US war firm and an unnamed European country:

A leading US-based global aerospace and defense firm approached The Cohen Group (TCG) for assistance in competing for a multi-billion contract in Europe.

But there is more…

Remunerated by arm firms

Robertson’s registered interests as a peer indicate he has had “remunerated employment” with — and has reportedly been paid by — various unnamed firms. This includes his role as a:

Senior Adviser on geo-political and geo-strategic issues to 5654 & Company (consultancy founded to help companies act to earn reputation) (suspended 16 July 2024).

The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists says ‘5654 & Co’ worked with arms firms Raytheon and Melrose PLC between January and March 2023.

The register also says Robertson has “shareholdings” with Weir Group PLC – an engineering firm with major global mining interests in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe. Robertson is also reportedly an advisor to British Petroleum (BP).

We don’t know if this is an editorial failure or an example of vested interests shaping coverage. We hope in good faith it is the former. Nevertheless, important public interest details keep being left out of major stories.

We reckon if a wealthy politician with arms links is lobbying for the less well-off to pay for weapons, that should be reported. But that’s just us…

Feature image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Source link

On Monday 27 April, the former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls interviewed Green Party leader Zack Polanski. The reason a former shadow chancellor conducted this interview is because the UK has a revolving door between establishment politics and the establishment media.

As Polanski is one of few politicians who will point this out, the appearance ended up being pretty embarrassing for Balls:

So #GMB spent their entire interview with @ZackPolanski asking him about policies that aren't Green party policy & aren't in the manifesto for Mays elections, along with a story from the scum about Zack before he was a politician

Zack: "This is why people hate the media" pic.twitter.com/nuphPCF8fY

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026

Advertisement

Balls up thanks to Polanski

As Saul Staniforth noted, Ed Balls was particularly hung up on policies which aren’t Green Party policies. In one clip, a smirking Balls said:

It looks like you’re doing a bit of a Nigel Farage here, Mr. Polanski. Last year, Reform did very well in the Runcorn-Helsby by-election and then started ditching their tax policies. You did very well in the Gorton and Denton by-election a couple of months ago, and now you are telling us you’re going to be ditching some of your longstanding Green policies.

Polanski responded:

We’re not actually ditching any policies – the story isn’t true.

If it’s not true, how does he explain Balls’s self-assured smirk?

Polanski continued:

Our members vote on our policies and then we decide the manifesto that we put towards the public.

Clutching several sheets of A4 paper, Balls hit back:

So you told Politico that you were looking to revise… your party’s democratise [sic] and at times chaotic and unwieldy system which lets members set the policy agenda. So I assume you wanted to do that in order that you could change the policy.

Polanski explained:

No, I don’t want to change the policies. I want a more democratic system because Green Party members decide Green Party policy. And at the moment we have 226,000 members and it’s growing. And so we need to look at more agile systems.

Balls later said:

A Green Party official says right now it’s like we’ve got a list of policies for the Daily Mail to ring us up about.

Balls was smirking again. Because he’s a Labour guy, he probably doesn’t understand that a left-wing politician is able to hold positions which are at odds with the right-wing gutter press.

The Green Party leader responded:

I don’t care what the Daily Mail ringers up about I want to challenge more millionaires and billionaires in this country so of course the Daily Mail won’t like that

Labour’s man

In another section, Polanski highlighted that Balls is a beneficiary of the revolving door:

Well done to @ZackPolanski for calling out the fact he was being interviewed by a former Lab minister & husband of the current foreign secretary!

Since the start of this year #GMB is produced by @itvnews. How can they think this is tenable?

Oh & Ed took it in good grace (not) pic.twitter.com/SJgDBAzkif

— Saul Staniforth (@SaulStaniforth) April 27, 2026

Polanski said:

Do you know what I’m enjoying? The fact that a Labour politician who’s married to a senior Labour minister is allowed to ask questions of a leader of the Green Party. This is not our manifesto and what you’re doing is an entire stitch up, and people will see it for this.

Balls’s wife is Yvette Cooper, by the way – the current foreign secretary. We assume she didn’t take his name because she didn’t want to be called ‘Yvette Balls’. Honestly, he probably should have taken her name.

Mr Balls responded by dramatically asking:

Are you accusing me of being a Labour politician?

He also said:

Yeah. Look, unfortunately, Mr. Polanski, I lost my seat in 2015 and I’ve not been a Labour politician for 10 years.

Balls clearly thought this was very clever, but it won’t wash with anyone who has more than two brain cells.

It’s ok for a tv presenter to support one or another political party, although in Balls’ case the links are particularly deep.

What’s not ok is being totally unable to cope with that being pointed out, losing your cool entirely, & claiming it somehow isn’t true?! https://t.co/LSktRPb6Ng

— Zoe Gardner (@ZoeJardiniere) April 27, 2026

People do hate the media

Balls was once a Labour politician who sat as an MP; now he’s a Labour politician who sits as a daytime TV host. In both situations, he used his position to pursue political aims. That’s literally what he was doing in his interview with Polanski.

This everyday dishonesty is why people hate politicians and media figures, and as someone who’s functionally both, Balls deserves a double dollop of your disrespect – as Polanski showed.

Featured image via GMB

By Willem Moore

Source link

Operation Black Vote (OBV) has announced it will host a major pre-election hustings meeting in Sheffield on 30 April. It’ll take place from 6-8pm at St James’ United Reformed Church, Scott Road.

The event will bring together candidates from across political parties and independents alongside members of Sheffield’s Black and Asian communities for a critical conversation on the issues that matter most to them.

The hustings will provide a high-profile, non-partisan platform for candidates to set out their priorities and engage directly with communities. It’ll address questions of race equality alongside the wider social, economic and civic issues shaping people’s lives.

The event builds on a series of Race Equality Assemblies which OBV convened in collaboration with the Humanity Project and local partners. These assemblies have enabled residents and community leaders to articulate shared priorities. These include representation, opportunity, fairness, and how communities experience public services and institutions.

With Sheffield’s political landscape delicately balanced, organisers say the participation of Black and Asian communities will be increasingly significant in shaping electoral outcomes.

David Weaver OBE, chair of Operation Black Vote, said:

For over three decades, Operation Black Vote has worked to address the democratic deficit affecting Black and minority communities. Electoral hustings are central to that mission.

In Sheffield, Black and Asian communities are clear; they want to engage on the full range of issues affecting their lives, from economic opportunity and public services to trust and representation.

This event creates a space for political parties to respond directly to those lived realities, including how communities feel they are seen, heard and treated. This is about accountability – communities asking: do you understand our experience and what will you do differently?

Advertisement

Dr Sharon Curtis, chief executive of Ellesmere Children’s Centre (Sheffield), said:

This hustings builds on the strong engagement we have already seen through the Race Equality Assemblies convened in Sheffield over recent months. Communities are organised, informed and clear about their priorities.

This is about ensuring those voices shape the conversation – bringing lived experience, identity and everyday realities into direct dialogue with political candidates. We expect a respectful but honest exchange about how those experiences are understood and acted upon.

The hustings will follow OBV’s established national model. This provides a structured forum where political representatives outline their vision, communities raise questions grounded in lived experience and voters gain clearer insight ahead of the election.

All major political parties have been invited. In line with OBV’s approach, if any party fails to attend, there’ll be an “empty seat”, reinforcing transparency and accountability.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link

The 2026 London Marathon has made history in more ways than one.

With 59,830 finishers, London reclaimed its title as the host of the world’s largest marathon, surpassing New York’s 2025 marathon, which saw 59,226 participants.

The biggest headline came with the breaking of the two-hour barrier for the first time in marathon history. The surge underscores the event’s growing appeal — a top fixture in the running world.

Breaking the two-hour barrier

Kenyan runner Sebastian Sawi became the first person to complete a marathon in under two hours, finishing with a time of 1:59:30.

Sawi shattered the previous world record by over a minute, drawing widespread acclaim as one of the greatest achievements in marathon history. The Guardian called it “the greatest day in the history of the marathon.”

Sawi wasn’t alone in making history. Ethiopian runner Yumif Kigelsha also broke the two-hour barrier, showcasing the rising standard of elite marathon running.

London outpaces New York

The London Marathon saw several other notable milestones. Ethiopia’s Tigst Assefa set a new world record in the women’s race — another historic achievement.

Increasing global appeal and growing demand was also evident, with over 1 million applications received for this year’s marathon.

London has raised the bar high. Not only has it surpassed the New York Marathon by over 600 finishers, but it has also set new performance benchmarks, with two runners breaking the two-hour mark — leaving its rivals in the dust.

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet’s firm profits massively from the F-35 strike aircraft and other weapons used by Israel in its Gaza genocide. And he has told investors that the US-Israel war on Iran is a “golden opportunity” for the firm to do even better.

Lockheed Martin: laughing all the way to the bank

First, Taiclet said that the war is making it easier to retain key staff without necessarily having to pay them better. He said that Lockheed does enough on pay to beat the industry average on staff retention. But he told investors with relish that the use of the company’s products to protect Israel and US assets also plays a significant role in keeping people in the company:

Like, this air defense mission we’re talking about is so important and the situation in the Middle East would be far, far different if the Patriot, the THAAD and the Aegis systems weren’t employed, and others from other of our competitors and partners. People get drawn to that mission, and they tend to stick around if that’s why they came here. The contracting side, we had a meeting with about 30 of our key people yesterday in Arlington, in our office there, and I said the same thing to them.

And Taiclet considers the US’s and Israel’s aggression in west Asia to be a goldmine for Lockheed Martin:

This is a golden opportunity right now based on who’s in government, their experience, their willingness to change, the demand that they have for what we do and our partners in our industry do.

He says this is, in part, because he thinks the greater need will remove the “burden” of regulation, honest negotiations and rigorous costing:

We can move the contracting system from this FAR, cost, Federal Acquisition Regulation-based, cost-based, Truth in Negotiations Act burden that we’ve all had and move it more towards a commercial contracting system, which is exactly the agreement we have in these frameworks with the Department of War right now. This is the time to do that. I would say the new entrants and the venture-backed companies are constructive on this. They’re helping us and the government get out of our traditions and into a more agile contracting scenario. We embrace that … We’ll have better ROI on our investments going forward…

A ‘subcontractor’ to Palantir

But he also admits that Lockheed Martin is “a subcontractor to Palantir and Anduril“, sinister firms seeking to push the US military in the direction of ‘autonomous’, AI-controlled weapons systems. Like those corporations, Lockheed is exploiting the situation in the push to AI-driven battle systems:

We’re introducing Artificial Intelligence into target recognition, into battle management, command and control, target weapons matching, as it’s called, things like that. Places where you’ve got a lot of data. If you can fuse it, bring intelligence to it quickly and provide commanders and pilots options, that’s basically the way we’re driving AI into our mission solutions, if you will. All of this is within what we call the Lockheed Martin Artificial Intelligence Center.

On 28 February, a new, “barely out of prototype testing” Lockheed Martin ‘Precision Strike Missile’ hit a girls’ volleyball game in Lamerd, Iran. It killed at least 21 people. “Precision” in this missile’s name means that it explodes above the ‘target’ and sprays a wide area with thousands of high-velocity tungsten pellets that tear through flesh and bone.

This airburst is what slaughtered Iranian girls playing volleyball. It is considered a selling point, boasted about by the likes of the Ukrainian military with “live test footage” provided by the manufacturer:

Such things are ‘golden’, in the eyes of the monsters of the western arms industry. After all, they help retain staff and fatten profits for companies like Lockheed Martin.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The road to the 2026 World Cup has been a bumpy ride for some players. This is because 15 star footballers are sitting out this year’s tournament due to injury. Their absence is shaking up teams and leaving coaches scrambling as the starry event looms closer.

These injuries aren’t limited to any one region or team. Both Arab and international sides are feeling the blow. Therefore, managers will be forced to find replacements for key players who have been pivotal to tactics and lineups.

Blows to Arab teams

The Jordanian national team is grappling with a major setback, as striker Yazan Al-Naimat is set to miss the World Cup after suffering a torn ligament. The recovery time makes it near impossible for him to return to the pitch in time. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s defence takes a hit after Walid Al-Ahmad sustained a serious knee injury while playing domestically. There is no one to fill the gaping hole in their backline.

International stars out of the running

The international stage is not without its losses either, with some big names now ruled out.

Brazil’s Rodrigo Goes will miss the tournament due to a severe knee injury. Meanwhile, Germany’s Serge Gnabry is sidelined with a muscle tear. England’s Jack Grealish will also be absent as he recovers from surgery for a stress fracture in his foot. Japan will likely have to forgo Takumi Minamino, currently grappling with a torn cruciate ligament.

The French national team has been rocked by the absence of Hugo Ekitiki, who has suffered an achilles tendon injury. Argentina, too, is feeling the sting as both Juan Foyth and Joaquín Panicelli, out with tendon and ligament injuries.

In Germany, Serge Gnabry’s muscle tear continues the injury woes. In addition, Spain loses Samo Omorodion to a cruciate ligament injury — a serious blow. Brazil is also hit hard with Eder Militao sidelined following surgery for a muscle injury. Ghana’s Mohamed Salisu faces the challenge of a severe knee injury.

American and Dutch losses

Other teams are feeling the impact too. The US will be without Jonathan Klinsmann after he broke his neck, while the Netherlands faces the absence of Xavi Simons, recovering from a ligament injury.

As the final rosters take shape, all eyes will be on how coaches navigate these hurdles in the run-up to the World Cup. These absences will undoubtedly shape the competition and, and could also provide an opportunity for fresh faces to step into the spotlight.

The 15 big-name players to miss the 2026 World Cup:

1. Rodrigo Goes (Brazil) — Cruciate ligament + cartilage
2. Serge Gnabry (Germany) — Muscle tear
3. Jack Grealish (England) — Stress fracture
4. Takumi Minamino (Japan) — Cruciate ligament
5. Hugo Ekitike (France) — Achilles tendon
6. Juan Foyth (Argentina — Achilles tendon
7. Joaquín Panicelli (Argentina — Cruciate ligament
8. Jonathan Klinsmann (US) — Broken neck
9. Eder Militao (Brazil) — Muscle injury
10. Samo Omorodion (Spain) — Cruciate ligament
11. Xavi Simons (Netherlands) — Cruciate ligament
12. Mohamed Salisu (Ghana) — Knee injury
13. Yazan Al-Naimat (Jordan) — Cruciate ligament
14. Walid Al-Ahmad (Saudi Arabia) — Cruciate ligament
15. Luis Malagon (Mexico) — Achilles tendon

Featured image via the Canary

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

3 min read59 min

Exclusive: Donations to political parties made by people in the UK would be capped at £1m under plans being drawn up by a Labour MP.

Advertisement

Alex Sobel, the MP for Leeds Central and Headingley, told PoliticsHome that he intends to amend the Representation of the People Bill in the hope that the government will agree to go further to tackle the influence of big money in British politics.

Last month, the government announced that it would cap political donations from individuals overseas at £100,000. It also announced an immediate and retrospective ban on political donations made via cryptocurrency, in a package of measures that Communities Secretary Steve Reed said would tackle “malign actors” funnelling “dark money” into UK democracy.

The policies were in response to an independent review by former senior civil servant Philip Rycroft, which warned that the “persistent problem” of foreign interests seeking to influence British political life had become “more acute” in recent years. 

Campaign groups like the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) and Transparency International UK welcomed the steps, but said ministers should have gone further by introducing restrictions on donations from individuals based in the UK.

Advertisement

“This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions,” Dr Jess Garland, Director of Policy and Research at the ERS, said at the time.

This month, Ben Delo, billionaire co-founder of cryptocurrency trading platform BitMEX, wrote in The Telegraph that he was moving back to the UK from Hong Kong so that he could circumvent the new rules to continue donating to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.

Reform has also received around £12m from Thailand-based British businessman Christopher Harborne, and is the only UK political party to have received cryptocurrency donations.

Advertisement

Sobel said he is tabling an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill at its report stage to prevent a “very small group of very wealthy individuals buying out our whole political system”.

While donations larger than £1m are rare, the Labour backbencher believes that this would “future-proof the system”.

“We need to have a culture where we don’t get bulldozed by the donations system,” he told PoliticsHome.

The amendment, if successfully added to the legislation, would exclude donations from organisations that have democratic internal structures, as well as donations that are made up of individual donations rather than one person’s money, like those from trade unions.

Advertisement

Duncan Hames, Director of Policy at Transparency International UK and former Liberal Democrat MP, suggested last month that ministers should consider a £50,000 cap on donations by people in the UK. Writing in The House, he likened the current package of measures to “trying to secure a building while leaving the front door wide open”.

 

Source link

How would you finish this sentence? “The current system isn’t working, so we should…”

1. “…deport immigrants.”
2. “…tax the rich.”

For millions, this sums up current British politics. There are quite a few who would choose both A and B.

Radical listening

On Thursday, I was one of the Majority team running our Radical Listening, Radical Persuasion session. Too much politics is “load, fire, aim”. People just shouting slogans or posting offensive memes without making the effort to understand where someone is coming from. It’s counterproductive – almost every neutral observer thinks worse of someone who is shouty, compared to someone who can articulate their point and back it up with evidence.

Part of listening is finding out what is behind the words used. Does “too much immigration” mean “I don’t like dark-skinned people”? Or does it mean, “I’m worried the public services have no money”? You have to get past the different use of terminology. No-one likes having their speech policed. Then, nine times out of ten, you can find some common ground.

Of course, some people think the system is fine. It just needs better managers. The reason our energy bills are too high is because of too much government interference. Either that or it’s because of people with blue hair eating avocado on toast.

The failures of managerialism

Belief in managerialism is declining. For obvious reasons. The Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory. Nor the May and Cameron-Clegg governments before them. Even Labour MPs think the Starmer government is incompetent. U-turn after screeching U-turn.

Managerialism is driven much less by evidence than by the desire to be an insider. They use phrases like “grown-ups”, then jostle for ambassadorships or set up political consultancies, monetising their connections.

Paul Holden, author of The Fraud, explained it neatly in a podcast last week. He said that Starmer’s Labour faction:

present themselves as hyper-competent, ‘We can chair meetings’, ‘We can meet business leaders’, and actually, at a deep and fundamental level, they are threatened by competence. Really genuinely competent people are not allowed to be part of this political project because they are too threatening. The key examples for me are Faiza Shaheen and Jamie Driscoll.

Tax the rich

I’m an advocate of column B, tax the rich.

Those three words comprise a complete economic strategy. You need to blend tax with wider monetary policy. Any government with a sovereign currency can earn, borrow, tax or create money. Even then, money is only part of the equation. You need the real resources too. Skilled, healthy people. Transport and energy infrastructure. But “tax the rich” is three words that encapsulate the idea that wealth extraction is the root cause of people’s daily hardships.

I also think there should be some controls on borders and immigration. In a globally connected world, it is not unreasonable to want to know who is and isn’t in the country. Tax and law enforcement requires that information. Epidemic control and stopping people trafficking needs that infrastructure too.

But the UK and Ireland has had free movement for a century, and it works fine. I look at how 29 European countries work together within the Schengen area. Trade is higher and administration costs are lower. That seems like a workable system to me. You can retain your central bank and monetary sovereignty. You can still have a full English breakfast. In fact, the bacon is probably Dutch or Danish anyway.

Pressing the reset button

Radical Listening, Radical Persuasion isn’t just academic training. Those exact issues come up when we’re out canvassing in Newcastle.

“I’m thinking of voting Reform,” one bloke said after I’d introduced myself. He was maybe in his 50s. His small front garden was neat. He lives in an area of high deprivation. The media would label him “white working class”.

I asked him what he wanted Reform – or any government – to do. It came down to lower bills, cleaner streets, and reversing a general sense of decline. He basically wanted to press the reset button.

Did he want public ownership of water, I asked. Yep. Did he think we should invest in better skills training for young people? Yep. Did he think we should close tax loopholes for the rich? Damn right. Had Reform been round to talk to him? No. Who did he think would get stuff done? “You will,” he said. He’s voting Green.

By Jamie Driscoll

Source link

Campaigners staged a mock state visit on 27 April, with people in giant masks of Charles and Donald Trump. Standing in front of the Buckingham Palace gates, they held a giant prop missile with the word ‘COMPLICIT’ on it.

Demanding an end to US use of UK military bases to conduct strikes in Iran, the Stop Trump Coalition is also calling on the government to stop cosying up to Trump. It cites the cost to ordinary UK citizens. And it points out that back-to-back state visits are emboldening the rogue president when what he needs most is accountability.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Canary (@thecanaryuk)

Jake Atkinson, spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition, said:

Keir Starmer sending the king to wine and dine with the warmonger-in-chief signals we are happy to green-light Trump’s illegal actions around the world, no matter how much chaos they cause.

Ordinary people across the UK are struggling more and more with the cost of living whilst Trump’s war on Iran has driven up prices. Honouring Trump like this is a slap in the face to so many who are struggling, and suggests to the president he can continue violating international law and be rewarded with more pageantry.

Advertisement

Being joined at the hip to Trump’s US is not just making us complicit in war crimes, but hurting the British people. From teaming up with Big Pharma to hike our medicine prices to pressuring us to drop our Digital Services Tax on the biggest tech companies, Donald Trump wants to extract as much as he can from us for the benefit of the super rich and mega-corporations in the US.

The King’s refusal to meet with Epstein victims further reinforces that this visit is not to the benefit of anyone but Trump and the political elites. It should never have gone ahead.

Featured image via Stop Trump Coalition

By The Canary

Source link

Transport workers from across rail, bus and the ferry sector will take part in a day of action against assaults across the country on Tuesday 28 April.

RMT activists will leaflet train stations, bus depots and ports. They’ll be highlighting the union’s national campaign demands to curb the rise in assaults and abuse and to make public transport a safer place.

The demands include safe staffing levels and an end to lone working. The union also wants to see proper funding for British Transport Police and an increased presence of officers. And it’s calling for legislation to make it a specific offence to assault a transport worker. The campaign also wants an end to outsourcing of security and enforcement staff.

In Scotland, the union has secured manifesto commitments from the SNP, Labour and Scottish Greens, to legislate to protect public transport workers.

This stands in stark contrast to the continued failure of the Westminster government to introduce a standalone offence for assaults on transport workers. This is despite repeated calls from RMT and the wider industry.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey who will be joining activists in Glasgow, said:

Our day of action against assaults is a major part of our campaign to put pressure on employers and politicians across the UK, to take concrete steps to deliver for transport workers on this vital issue.

Our members will be calling on the public to support them in this campaign as there is a shared interest to see assaults, abuse and harassment curbed, so we can have a safer environment for travel on public transport.

The action on Tuesday will be a launchpad for further political and industrial campaigning until we secure improvements for our members.

Advertisement

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Source link