Rail union RMT is demanding all Govia Thameslink Railway staff be brought into direct employment after the train company became the latest to be brought under public control.

The union has been campaigning for all elements of the railway to come into public ownership. And it has welcomed the commitment by the government to launch Great British Railways with track and train all nationalised.

However, private contractors will continue to employ thousands of workers. These include:

• Cleaners.
• Gate line staff.
• Security staff.
• Infrastructure maintenance, renewal and engineering workers.

This is despite the Labour government’s commitment to undertake the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey said:

We want to see all our members on the railway receive the same benefits of public ownership and this includes outsourced workers.

The Labour government needs to follow through on its commitment to undertake a mass wave of insourcing.

Railway workers in outsourced companies work just as hard and contribute just as much to public transport as those directly employed.

Across our union, thousands of outsourced workers are growing increasingly frustrated at having poorer wages, no sick pay and being treated as if they are a second-class workforce.

RMT will industrially and politically maintain pressure on the government until it fulfils its obligations to our members.

Advertisement

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Less than a quarter of the UK’s largest commercial fishing vessels may have clear ownership transparency. And this is creating a systemic blind spot in UK fisheries governance.

Environmental law organisation ClientEarth has laid out these findings in a new analysis: Whose Boat Is This?

The current regulatory gap on commercial fishing vessel ownership risks enabling vessel owners to operate through complex corporate structures and hide behind shell companies. This can mask the Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) of these vessels.

ClientEarth’s Kyle Lischak said:

The core problem is simple: the government does not publicly identify who really owns many of the vessels commercially fishing UK waters to a clear and satisfactory extent.

This lack of transparency around vessel ownership, which limits accountability, allows for unlawful fishing practices to potentially occur.

The UK is a leading maritime nation and a global ocean governance actor. It has consistently supported international efforts to tackle illegal fishing and improve fisheries transparency through initiatives such as the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Action Alliance and its wider engagement in multilateral ocean governance forums.

However, it falls short of implementing the highest standards domestically because the UK current regulation does not require disclosure of ultimate beneficial owners for all commercial fishing vessels operating under its jurisdiction.

In particular, key systems such as vessel registration and fishing licences do not effectively capture who ultimately owns or controls vessels.

When ownership cannot be identified, the UK cannot rule out links to organised crime, sanctioned entities, or hostile actors. In cases where ownership is untraceable, the trail leads to opaque offshore jurisdictions.

Illegal fishing practices

The lack of regulation weakens national oversight in UK waters, making this a matter of economic control and national security, as well as public safety.

Without clear ownership and accountability, the UK public cannot be completely confident that the seafood harvested by UK vessels, and other commercial vessels that fish in UK waters, is legally and sustainably sourced. Lischak said:

At a time of focus on domestic security, the UK cannot fully account for who is exploiting its marine resources.

The UK, and the devolved governments, now have clear evidence of a major transparency gap in their fisheries governance. This regulatory gap exposes the country to risks linked to organised crime, illicit financial flows, sanctions evasion and other illegal activities associated with global fishing networks.

Most UK fishers make real and concerted efforts to follow the rules but they may be left competing with opaque commercial operators whose ownership can remain hidden behind complex structures.

When ownership is unclear, enforcement is weaker and any bad actors are not held accountable, this can create unfair competition for honest UK fishers and lead to market distortions. Lischak commented:

Law-abiding UK fishers may be left competing with operators who do not play by the same rules.

This opacity also has direct environmental consequences. Illegal and unaccountable fishing accelerates overexploitation, damages marine ecosystems, and undermines efforts to manage ocean resources sustainably and ensure food security. Lischak continued:

The ocean is one of the UK’s greatest allies on future food and job security, and in the fight against climate change. Weakening its health through poor oversight puts us all at risk.

Calls for reform

The UK already has established frameworks that could improve fisheries transparency, including company ownership rules and new verification powers.

To live up to its reputation as a global ocean governance leader, the UK must close the gaps by requiring UBO disclosure at commercial fishing vessel registration and licensing stages, lowering ownership thresholds to make it harder to hide, and publishing UBO data in a publicly accessible register.

It needs to strengthen the enforcement of company disclosure requirements and restrict access to UK waters for commercial vessels with opaque ownership, closing loopholes that currently allow anonymity to persist.

Countries around the world are endorsing the Global Charter for Fisheries Transparency and implementing its 10 principles, including UBO disclosure. The UK also supports the Charter, but now it needs to act on it or risk undermining its leadership on this issue more broadly.

Lischak added:

These reforms would strengthen enforcement, protect UK fishers, and build public trust. The solution is practical and achievable with existing tools. It is now up to the UK to act.

You can read the full report here.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Donald Trump has claimed that Israel and Hezbollah have “agreed to halt attacks” after indirect talks through intermediaries.

Trump wrote:

I had a very good call with Hezbollah, and they agreed that all shooting will stop – that Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.

Bearing in mind that no US president has ever spoken with Hezbollah, and the US designated the group a terrorist organisation, we have to ask if the intermediary was a carrier pigeon or a pet fish?

According to statements from Lebanon’s embassy in Washington, the plans mean Hezbollah would stop ‘attacking’ Israel. This would be in exchange for Israel stopping its illegal strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs.

Of course, Hezbollah and Lebanon have the right to self-defence under international law. Whereas Israel has zero authority to be attacking, bombing, or illegally occupying another country’s sovereign territory.

Lies

Trump has been caught lying more times than we can count since the US and Israel launched their illegal attacks on Iran.

To start with, Trump claimed that Iran was aiming to rebuild its nuclear programme. He also said Israel and the US “obliterated” these sites in strikes last year. However, there was no evidence of any nuclear programme, this year or last.

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told NBC News the organisation did not believe Iran has nuclear weapons and:

had not seen elements of a systematic and structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons there.

Trump also claimed that Iran was seeking to develop a long-range missile to attack the US, for which there was no evidence.

A 2025 federal government assessment contradicted this. It stated that Iran was still years away from the ability to produce long-range missiles.

Then, in April, Trump claimed that the Iran-Israel ceasefire did not include Lebanon, despite Pakistan making it clear in advance that it was always included.

Around the same time, Trump delivered a 19-minute address to the nation. In it, he slurred his words and stumbled over basic sentences. He denied that he aimed to bring about regime change in Iran. This was despite his earlier demand for “unconditional surrender” from Iran.

Additionally, after Trump’s regime, alongside the Israeli regime, murdered Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump insisted that he should have a say in Iran’s new leader. Because, of course, when you murder the leader of a sovereign nation, you get first pick over its new one.

But Trump got his regime change. Khamenei was replaced by erm, Khamenei – his very own son.

More lies

Even before the US and Israel launched their unprovoked attacks, Trump was already lying about the number of Iranians the ‘regime had killed’ in its ‘brutal crackdown’ of mass protests in January.

Trump also likes to set a deadline of ‘two weeks’. This never actually comes to fruition. He has used the same time frame for Iran, Ukraine, and Russia, as well as his own tariffs. It’s been a long two weeks…

It’s unclear whether the angry orange man doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies or if he just doesn’t care.

What is clear, though, is that the things that come out of his mouth have very few links to reality. There is also no way of knowing what he might, or might not, do next.

He is in charge of one of the world’s most powerful countries. Yet his credibility is directly endangering the lives of millions of people in West Asia.

Feature image via Nathan Howard/Getty Images

By HG

Source link

Student organisations and experts are launching an inquiry into the defunct debt-bondage system of student loans across England. In particular, the National Union of Students (NUS) wants the inquiry to look at the interest rates. Additionally, it will examine threshold repayment mechanisms.

The loans inquiry can’t come soon enough for many students or graduates on the sharp end of our privatised, financialised education model. Studies show that one in three people now think that a degree:

just isn’t worth the amount of time and money.

The structurally defunct student loans system

Much of Europe and the developed world, more broadly, receives free or heavily subsidised education. This even extends to Scotland, and before 1990, also England and Wales. Moreover, English degrees now cost on average £53,000 in debt.

If most comparable countries can do free education, it’s clearly not a structural necessity. Dumping decades worth of wage debt onto young people, before they’ve entered the job market, just isn’t working.

Youth unemployment (16-24) is now nearly 15%. This figure includes countless graduates. Unsurprisingly, young people often feel that they were tricked into valueless degrees. These degrees lead to considerable debts.

The acronym NEET — Not in Education, Employment nor Training — dominated airwaves last week. This happened following the devastating report into NEETs by former minister Alan Milburn. Its 217 pages paint what Milburn calls:

a record of failure [by consecutive neoliberal governments] … We are at risk of a lost generation. That is a moral crisis. It has economic consequences.

This cumulative cost is estimated at £125bn by Milburn’s report. Furthermore, there are also stark regional inequalities between, say, North London boroughs and West Midlands areas. North London boroughs have 1% NEET, while in West Midlands areas it is over 21.5%.

Martin Lewis schools Kemi Badenoch on student loans

In whose interest?

One of the most reprehensible aspects of student loans is how punishing the interest rates are. Extortionate interest means that many graduates’ debt actually increases while they work and pay back (those lucky to find work).

See, for example, the case of one NHS nurse whose debt rose from £57,000 to over £77,000 whilst she was working and honouring repayments. This privilege came at a monthly cost of £145 from her paycheck, although £400 was being added each month simultaneously.

The 29-year-old Labour MP Nadia Whittome pointed out earlier this year that her student debts had fallen by only £1,000 since graduating. This despite working six years on an MP’s salary in the top 5% of UK earners.

Another miserable graduate wrote to the BBC’s Your Voice platform:

Just after she graduated in 2016, her debt was £34,105 – but her latest balance statement shows it’s now £41,908 because the interest accumulating is outstripping her repayments.

“It feels like I’m constantly chasing a debt that gets bigger over time; it feels like climbing a mountain.”

This became a flashpoint earlier this year when ‘Money Saving Expert’ Martin Lewis went head-to-head with Tory elite Kemi Badenoch over the issue. Reminder that Badenoch served as Tory minister for children and families. She also served, later, for inequalities previously, thus contributing to the above structural dysfunctions.

Job market blues and AI bots

It’s hardly surprising that fewer people than perhaps ever believe that going to university leaves graduates “a lot better off” in the long run. Notably, this shocking statistic is down from 50% in 2005 to 36% in 2025.

Milburn’s report cites young people recounting dehumanising, dystopian tales of sending dozens of CVs assessed and rejected by AI. Many also reported being tested via AI simulations or self-recorded videos. These are then being turned down for work en-masse, without applicants ever talking to an actual human.

In response, many students are using AI to write their applications, since there’s little point in selling your soul only to have a robot reject you. This leaves a historically unique, bizarre robot-to-robot interaction which benefits neither companies nor job-hunters.

Entry-level jobs, the report also says, are becoming more challenging to attain, in part because of this remote recruitment farce. But the roles traditionally filled by younger people – retail, customer service, warehousing – are now either scarcer or increasingly specialised. This too is partly as a result of rapid AI automation.

These issues cannot be viewed separately. They need addressing together, systematically, and quickly.

Featured image via Sion Touhig / Getty Images

By Cameron Baillie

Source link

The Oxford Union (OU) has issued a statement condemning the Starmer government for cancelling the entry visas of US anti-genocide speakers Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker.

The pair had been scheduled to speak at an OU debate and were barred by Starmer for their speech against Israel’s genocide and other crimes. But its own free speech record is anything but spotless.

The government’s action to please the UK Israel lobby is a disgrace, if an entirely unsurprising one.

In a post on X, OU president, Arwa Elrayess, said it would proceed with the event. She added that the cancellation was a “direct threat to free expression” by the Starmer regime.

The Oxford Union intended to host Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker on 6 June for a discussion and Head-to-Head event with our members.

We are deeply concerned by the revocation of both speakers’ Electronic Travel Authorisations on the basis that their appearances would not be ‘conducive to public good’. These events had been publicly announced for months. This eleventh-hour call signals much more than democratic decline – it is a direct threat to free expression.

The Oxford Union was founded on one principle: that ideas are challenged through debate, not silenced by decree. We have never turned a speaker away because of their political beliefs nor have we sought a permission slip from the state. We will not start now.

This event will not be cancelled. The Union will ensure this discussion takes place. Free speech does not require a visa.

We will update our members shortly.

Advertisement

The OU is absolutely right that the UK government is a threat to free speech. It has been one at least since Starmer took over and launched his war on UK rights to protect Israel from scrutiny and resistance.

Oxford Union has dirty hands too

However, the OU’s own hands are far from clean on the matter.

It boasts that it is the “last bastion of free speech”. However, Palestinian-American writer Susan Abulhawa is suing the OU for deleting five sections from the record of Abulhawa’s address to a 2024 OU debate on the motion, ‘This house believes Israel is an apartheid state engaged in genocide’.

The European Legal Support Centre had noted that her “speech contributed to the proposition’s overwhelming victory —278 votes to 59”. Meanwhile, the video of her speech, “garnered a quarter of a million views in just one week”.

However, on 12 December 2024, the Oxford Union quietly deleted the original and replaced it with an altered version, cutting nearly two minutes of her words without her consent. They concurrently issued a vaguely worded statement citing “potential legal concerns,” which the claim argues are utterly unfounded.

In reality, it is claimed, this was a discriminatory, politically motivated decision to appease those offended by her truth-telling.

Two of the deletions described well-documented crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians:

“…and in the 1980s and ’90s, Israeli soldiers had left booby-trapped toys in southern Lebanon that exploded when excited children picked them up”.
“…if Palestinians were systematically raping Jewish doctors, patients, and other captives with hot metal rods, jagged and electrified sticks, and fire extinguishers, sometimes raping to death, as happened with Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh and others”.

Israel’s use of rape as a weapon is now an established fact that the denialism of its lobby can’t hide. But it can try to delete mentions of it — and the OU capitulated.

First they came…

Martin Niemöller’s famous poem, First they came, notes how many people keep silent, or worse, collaborate with fascism when they are not its direct victims. The same goes for freedom of speech, particularly when it is attacked by Israel and its enablers.

The OU is complaining now — rightly so. But its complaints are undermined by its own collusion with the same Israel lobby on Israel’s crimes in the Abulhawa case (and others).

It’s good that the OU has finally found its voice, but it comes after almost three years of genocide. There must be an end to capitulations by establishment groups and politicians while there are still Palestinian people to defend.

Featured image via Rich Polk/Getty Images for Politicon and Jerod Harris/Getty Images for Streamer Awards

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

Four years after Qatar became the first Arab country to host the World Cup, they return to football’s biggest stage with unfinished business.

As hosts in 2022, Qatar’s national team — Al Annabi — struggled under the spotlight, losing all three group matches and finishing without a point. The campaign contrasted sharply with Qatar’s recent dominance in Asia, making the early exit harder to swallow. Questions quickly followed — did Qatar buckle under the pressure, or was it simply not ready to face the world’s top teams?

The 2026 World Cup could finally settle the question.

Qatar: A team in flux

Many of the players who shaped Qatar’s rise remain at the heart of the squad.

Akram Afif continues to drive the team, capable of moments that can swing a game. Almoez Ali and Hassan Al-Haydos bring hard-won experience that few Asian sides can rival.

More intriguing is the rise of a new generation. Young players bring pace, energy, and versatility—especially in midfield and on the flanks—giving Qatar a sharper edge than four years ago.

The challenge, however, remains the same. Against top-level opposition, Qatar must cope with a faster game, quicker decision-making, and a level of physical intensity rarely seen in Asian competition.

Quick feet

One of Qatar’s biggest strengths is its tactical flexibility. The team used to rely mainly on keeping the ball and building patiently from the back, but now it can adapt depending on the game. Qatar can sit deep and defend in numbers, break quickly on the counterattack, or press higher up the pitch when needed.

Akram Afif remains the creative spark, finding space to make things happen and driving the attack. Around him, the team can adjust its formation or approach depending on the opponent, giving the coach more options. In a World Cup, where a single moment can change everything, that flexibility could prove crucial.

Where is counts

Qatar’s group presents an opportunity rather than an impossible task. Switzerland will offer an immediate measure of where the team stands, while the clash with Canada could prove decisive in the race to reach the knockout rounds.

Reaching the last 16 would mark real progress and a clear step forward from 2022. Anything beyond that would be a significant achievement.

But this tournament is about more than results. Qatar has already shown it can host the biggest event in world football. Now it must prove that the team has a place at this level.

For Al Annabi, 2026 is a chance not just to compete, but to redeem itself after 2022

Featured image via Dan Mullan / Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

France has banned Israeli government officials from the Eurosatory arms exhibition in Paris. It will not allow Israel to host a national pavilion, and will only permit private Israeli defence companies to display “air-defense products”.

France’s defence ministry imposed a similar ban in 2024 over its genocide in Gaza. It said that Israeli companies would be limited to showing.

equipment and materials related to air defence ​and missile defence.

According to Reuters, over 2,600 exhibitors are expected to take part in this year’s event, which begins on June 15.

Of course, the Israeli government called it a “disgraceful decision”, claimed it was part of a “deeply troubling pattern”, and said that France was on the wrong side of history.

Because opposing genocide and murder is apparently being on the wrong side of history.

In response to the Israeli defence ministry statement, Charles Beaudouin, president of COGES Events, said:

Only Israeli exhibitors presenting anti-ballistic and anti-air defence systems are authorised.

This is a decision by the French government, by the Defence Council

There is no room for ambiguity: if an exhibitor is also a rocket manufacturer, they will not be allowed to display them. This ensures that no offensive weapons are present.

Advertisement

What ceasefire?

On Sunday, May 31, France strongly condemned Israel’s illegal seizure of the medieval Beaufort castle in Lebanon and requested an emergency UN Security Council meeting.

Jerome Bonnafont, France’s ambassador to the UN, warned the Council that Israel’s expanding illegal invasion and attacks in Lebanon risked becoming a “major strategic mistake”. He urged all parties to “recommit” to the “fragile ceasefire agreement”. Of course, using the word ‘ceasefire’ at this point is ridiculous. 

Essentially, it means Iran and Hezbollah have to stop firing at Israel, but Israel can continue doing whatever it wants.

France – Israel

France was one of the first countries to recognise ‘Israel’ and establish diplomatic relations with the settler-colonial state. It has promoted a two-state solution, but it has also condemned the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank and called on Israel to comply with international law.

Over the last few years, France has slowly become more vocal in its condemnation of Israel’s actions.

In September 2025, France recognised Palestinian statehood. Israel retaliated by cutting French defence contracts, and now, France has banned Israel from Eurosatory.

France also banned Israel from the naval arms show, Euronaval, in 2024. Then, in 2025, it covered up Israeli displays at the Paris Air Show. The French government made the show’s organisers hide the booths with black panels after the Israeli defence ministry ignored the ban on Israeli offensive military equipment at the show.

According to Politico, only four of nine Israeli exhibitors complied with the rules. The companies that ignored them were Elbit, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael, UVision, and Aeronautics. French officials said:

they will be able to exhibit once they respect the rules.

Both the Israeli government and private Israeli arms companies have shown time and time again that they cannot respect the rules. Whether it’s arms shows or international law. Yet they still want to play the eternal victim.

It says a lot when the organisations that literally profit from war, bombing and destruction are banning a genocidal settler-colony from an arms expo.

Wait for the claims that the arms expo booth was promised to them 3,000 years ago in 3,2,1…

Featured image via Kiran Ridley/Getty Images

By HG

Source link

South by Southwest (SXSW) is facing backlash after the UK government banned two left-wing Americans from entering the UK. The men in question were Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and progressive news anchor Cenk Uygur. And while Keir Starmer’s government is attracting most of the backlash, it isn’t the only entity being panned right now:

This is such a pitiful statement by SXSW https://t.co/RGGG1XL5RJ

— Taylor Lorenz (@TaylorLorenz) June 1, 2026

The backlash to SXSW

SXSW is a multimedia festival. In its own words, SXSW:

is best known for its conferences and festivals that celebrate the convergence of tech, film, music, education, and culture.

During his stay in Britain, Piker was due to speak at SXSW London. As Aftermath’s Nathan Grayson commented:

in response to @hasanthehun’s uk ban ahead of a speaking engagement at sxsw london, the organization has resolutely failed to take a stand. now some speakers are pulling out https://t.co/olH9LOf9W9 pic.twitter.com/SQp04XTU61

— Nathan Grayson (@Vahn16) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

The statement from SXSW London read:

Decisions on entry to the U.K. are a matter for the Home Office and the individuals concerned. SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse voices and perspectives. We remain focused on delivering a programme this week fostering open dialogue and exchange of ideas and featuring more than 800 speakers, artists and screenings.

Piker and Novara‘s Ash Sarkar responded as follows:

I pulled out of SXSW London, and I hope other speakers and chairs do too. https://t.co/qonIjztPFu pic.twitter.com/S8vmFKjRS7

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) June 1, 2026

Piker also said:

They had asked me and I was doing it as a f’in favor to SXSW bc some friends that I trust wanted me to do it..I’m not getting paid..doing this as a favor and they’re literally farming donations off of my image, off of my likeness”

Statement was disgusting..they just deleted my speaker page..they hit me with the Trotsky cut..I couldn’t believe it, it’s like b*tch who tf are u..seriously, I’m doing this sh*t as a favor, they get to literally farm tickets off of my likeness..I even set up the talk myself”

Advertisement

I genuinely am shocked that SXSW didn’t even say like this is a real clear cut violation of the spirit of free speech.

There may be a reason why SXSW failed to do this, as independent journalist Matt Kennard noted:

Funders of SXSW London include KPMG, Deloitte, Pepsi, Uber and the UK government itself

— Matt Kennard (@kennardmatt) June 1, 2026

Advertisement

Given that SXSW has literally taken government sponsorship money, it’s unsurprising that the festival would want to avoid upsetting Starmer. This isn’t a defence, by the way; we’re saying that any festival which seeks to explore ideas shouldn’t take money from governments which seek to stifle them.

The Streisand Effect

While the festival failed to defend Piker, the Oxford Union stepped up:

The Oxford Union intended to host Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker on 6 June for a discussion and Head-to-Head event with our members.

We are deeply concerned by the revocation of both speakers’ Electronic Travel Authorisations on the basis that their appearances would not be “conducive to public good”. These events had been publicly announced for months. This event-hour call signals much more than democratic decline – it is a direct threat to free expression.

Advertisement

The Oxford Union was founded on one principle: that ideas are challenged through debate, not silenced by decree. We have never turned a speaker away because of their political beliefs nor have we sought a permission slip from the state. We will not start now.

This event will not be cancelled. The Union will ensure this discussion takes place. Free speech does not require a visa.

We will update our members shortly.

Given the controversy, the speeches will attract significantly more attention than they otherwise would have done. This is what’s known as the ‘Streisand Effect’ – i.e. a situation in which attempting to draw attention away from something only amplifies people’s interest.

It’s as the saying goes:

They tried to bury us, but they didn’t know that we were seeds.

Featured image via Jack Taylor (Getty Images) / Araya Doheny (Getty Images)

By Willem Moore

Source link

Lambeth has elected its first ever Green leader at a reconvened annual council meeting at the Town Hall in Brixton.

Martin Abrams, councillor for Streatham Hill East, was elected to lead the council, and Ciara Alleyne and Natalie Kane were elected co-deputy leaders.

Abrams has named his cabinet, with ten councillors covering nine remits between them:

• Natalie Kane.
• Ciara Alleyne.
• Pete Elliott.
• Scott Ainslie.
• Zvikomborero Chihoro.
• Michael Chessum.
• Jeremy Isaacs.
• Sam Dorney-Smith.
• Alice Weavers.
• Jonathan Bartley.

The Greens had been moving to implement a committee system of governance. This would have scrapped the executive model in favour of cross-party committees which would have set policy. However, the move became untenable due to central government’s move to effectively ban the model.

Instead, Lambeth’s annual council meeting approved plans brought forward by the Green group to move towards a hybrid cabinet committee model under the existing system, with committees operating to provide beefed up scrutiny and allowing for more cross-party working.

Officers have been tasked with drawing up amendments to the borough’s constitution, which, alongside moving to the cabinet committee model, will also reverse the ban, introduced by Labour last year, on discussing motions relating to issues such as Gaza.

Abrams, leader of Lambeth Council, said:

I am deeply honoured to have been elected as the first ever Green leader of Lambeth. This is a historic moment, and I would like to thank my council colleagues, everyone who campaigned for us, and every voter who put their faith in us.

Lambeth is one of the most diverse and dynamic communities in the world, with deep roots in the struggle for social, racial and environmental justice. We will be true to that heritage.

Everyone in this borough deserves a decent, affordable home, a thriving environment, and a fulfilled and happy life. My administration will work every day to achieve that.

Advertisement

Chihoro, councillor for Brixton Rush Common, said:

Lambeth Greens are proud to have led the way in moving the council to a more democratic and effective model of governance.

Under Labour, one party dominated every aspect of the council, with weak scrutiny functions leading to poor decisions which harmed residents and wasted resources.

The cabinet committee model is tried and tested, and we will welcome the enhanced opportunities for scrutiny and cooperation that it will bring.

Featured image via Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link