Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Justice. Show all posts
People And Nature ☭ Written by Simon Pirani.


This post is based on a talk I gave at the Ecosocialism conference in London on Saturday 30 May, about the Fare Free London campaign, in which I participate, and the wider movements of which it is part. I was on a panel on “Organising the climate movement” with Tyrone Scott of War on Want and Sophia Brown of Greens Organise - Simon Pirani.

For social movements, and the labour movement, to take on the challenges presented by global heating and other ecological crises, the most important thing is to integrate this with broader struggles against social injustice – that is, the struggle to resist, and supercede, the tyranny of capital.

A “make them pay” demonstration in London, September 2025. Photo by Steve Eason

It is not enough to assert that averting ecological disasters is inseparable from fighting capitalism. We need to develop movements based on that inseparability.

In the UK, we are doing this at the end of a 40-plus-year neoliberal onslaught on working-class rights and working people’s living standards. During that time, traditional social democracy has collapsed and the traditional structures of the labour movement weakened.

In other words, we are doing this as part of rebuilding our movement against capitalism in new forms.

Here I will look at Fare Free London’s (so far very modest) contribution to doing this, and to the sort of alliances we hope to build.

I will also say something about how our movement engages with the state, and with institutions that mediate society’s relationship with the state, such as trade unions and political parties.

We need to consider what it means to demand that the state does things – whether providing free public transport, or anything else – and what it means to organise social forces that can challenge the state.

Fare Free London’s experience

Fare Free London is a small organising group of volunteers, with no staff and hardly any funds. We do street stalls, participate in meetings and demonstrations, speak at trade union and political meetings, and publish stuff on our web site.

We hope to organise at borough level; so far we have one active borough group and embryos of at least two more.

One priority is to form a national campaign and there are now Fare Free campaigns in Manchester and Yorkshire.

The next point is about failure. When confronting such an enormous threat as global heating, we are bound to experience failures, and Fare Free London was basically born from the failure of a previous campaign, to stop the Silvertown tunnel.

That campaign had been conducted by a small group of environmentalists since 2012. From 2018 it expanded thanks, basically, to the wave of activism around Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future.

Despite our mobilisation, and the level of public opposition to the tunnel project, the Greater London Authority, controlled by Labour, went ahead with it. And in 2023, with the tunnel almost built, we had to choose between simply winding up the campaign, or trying to build on what we had achieved – a strong alliance of community organisations, trade unions, environmentalists and academic researchers. This is where Fare Free London started.

And now a point about success. Where we have had success, it has been largely due to the political power of the demand for free public transport.

πŸ”΄It is visionary, and links immediate fights with a vision of the sort of cities we want to live in, which is essential to socialism as I understand it.

πŸ”΄ It cuts right through the reactionary claim that tackling climate change necessarily costs ordinary people money. It says: here is something that benefits you, now, and is a substantial step towards decarbonisation.

πŸ”΄ It challenges neoliberalism. It prompts the question, “how are you going to pay for it?”, providing an opportunity to question neoliberal narratives about the need for austerity.

Interaction with existing institutions

Politicians of all parties have introduced partial free public transport, mainly for specific age groups e.g. over 60s or under 11s, as a populist measure. Don’t forget, it was Boris Johnson, the ultimate populist politician, who brought in the Freedom Pass for older people in London.

Such populism has often gone hand in hand with the privatisation of bus and train services, the hiking of fares for those who pay them, and the appalling degradation of public transport services – buses in rural areas especially.

In our campaign we are still learning how to deal effectively with this populism. I think we should be pointing out, first, that it shows that the state can provide free public transport, if it wants to, and second that, without social pressure to make public transport a public good, a commons, the demand for free public transport can be gutted of its potential.

Populism exerts social control in many ways. In this instance, by presenting people with things they want, and making them appear as gifts from on high. We need to take agency back into the hands of social movements.

There are examples of such populism not only from politicians but from trade union leaders.

For example, last month Maryam Eslamdoust, general secretary of the Transport and Salaried Staff Association, called for universal free public transport to be introduced, in response to the fuel price crisis caused by the US-Israeli war on Iran. Her statement followed decisions by local authorities in Pakistan, Australia and elsewhere to make public transport free in response to soaring fuel prices.

We welcomed this call – but also talked to friends and comrades in that union who explained that in recent years internal union democracy has been trampled on, activists victimised and expelled and rank and file structures gutted.

So the call for free public transport has not been discussed in the union at all. So, in front of us is a campaign to win grass-roots support in the TSSA, and not allow free public transport to be owned opportunistically by bureaucrats.

Another relevant issue is the position of elected councillors.

Prior to the elections this month, together with our friends in Manchester and Yorkshire we convinced more than 200 councillors and candidates to sign a pledge to use their platforms to advocate the extension of free public transport.

The pledge specifies that “funding models would have to change”, that is, it recognises implicitly that most levels of local government have little or no control over the funding required, as a consequence of decades of neoliberalism.

How to support, and push, elected councillors working in the very limited framework will be an issue for all campaigns, not only ours.

It could help to look back at the lessons learned from left Labour councils’ fights against cuts in the 1980s.

(At Saturday’s conference, members of Greens Organise spoke of their own pledge, signed by a much larger number of Green council candidates, to resist government-imposed austerity, to organise communities to fight back and to press for democratic control of local resources. They are planning events later in the year to consider this.)

Alliances

Just as free public transport can address immediate threats to working-class household budgets, and help tackle climate change, so programmes of insulation and heat pump installation can address soaring fuel bills and simultaneously cut fossil fuel burning.

For this reason we have sought to work together with groups campaigning around energy costs, such as Fuel Poverty Action. There is much further to go.

A big challenge is coming up: the government’s Warm Homes Plan, under which funding is to be provided to retrofit homes with insulation, and install heat pumps and solar panels.

Such changes could simultaneously slash households’ soaring energy bills and make substantial reductions in the UK’s level of gas consumption, thus simultaneously and demonstratively tackling the assault on living standards and the threat of climate disasters.

A national march for housing rights, April 2026. Photo: Steve Eason

But, done the way the government is planning to do it, they could fail all round.

Energy researchers and campaigners are warning of exactly such a failure. Previous schemes crashed, wasting billions, because construction work was poorly regulated – and that has not changed.

Moreover, the government’s plan will not undo much of the damage done by privatisation of electricity supply on one hand and the consequences of decades of neoliberalism in the housing market on the other.

At best, the plan will be a sticking plaster. At worst it will, on one hand, further undermine the position of tenants in the private rented sector, and, on the other, lead to heat pumps being fitted in houses that are not properly insulated, and don’t work properly.

This would provide the far right with another opportunity to rant about “net zero” being a fraud.

Campaign groups who deal with energy, housing and construction are actively engaged with this. A broad coalition has put together demands to “make green fair”. For a group like ours working on different but adjacent issues, strengthening our links with such groups is essential.

We need to think about how to bring housing issues to the centre of organising work .

Historically, the labour movement at its strongest has brought together workplace issues with housing issues, just as it has forged links with feminism and anti-racism, for example.

Here we should consider the alliances in practice that we need, in the world we live in now. This is a work in progress to which we can all contribute.

πŸ”΄ Participants in our session split up in to breakout groups, and at the end we heard reports from these about organising priorities. One group said it had discussed the rapid advance of renewable electricity generation in China, and saw this as an example to point to. I said that I do not agree.

It is true that there has been a very rapid, state-coordinated expansion of solar and wind power in China, and that it is the world’s number one producer both of its own renewable electricity and also of solar panels, batteries and other equipment. However China continues to burn coal at a planet-endangering rate: 4.8 billion tonnes last year, or about 25 times the level of UK coal production when at its highest.

Such issues deserve discussions of their own, which take time, and I hope that we collectively find ways to arrange these. I wrote about Chinese energy systems e.g. here, here and here.

πŸ”΄There was a thought-provoking session at the conference about “Ecocide and war”, with Hamza Hamouchene, co-author of Dismantling Green Colonialism and Kimia Talebi of Energy Embargo for Palestine. This article covers some of the issues that Hamza addressed.

πŸ”΄ Another session that I found worthwhile looked at “Big Tech, AI and the climate crisis”, with Dan McQuillan, author of Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence, Anne Alexander, a researcher at the University of Cambridge (see her substack here), and economist James Meadway.

☭ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month)

Organising Action On Climate And Social Justice πŸ”₯ What Next

People And Nature ☭ Free public transport “opens the city to all” and should be “provided as a public service, just like health, education and public parks”, a new Campaign Briefing from Fare Free London says.


Abolishing fares for public transport in London is “one of the drastic, demonstrative actions needed to tackle climate change globally and air pollution locally”.

Fare Free London, set up at a meeting of community, trade union and environmentalist activists last month, is calling on the city’s Mayor to adopt the policy, and commission research on how to implement.

Celebration of the introduction of free public transport in Montpellier, France, December 2023.
With thanks to the Mayor’s office at Montpellier

It urges national government to support the fare-free approach around the country, and change local government finance rules so that it can be paid for.

The Campaign Briefing, supported by Fare Free London, the Greener Jobs Alliance, the Stop the Silvertown Tunnel coalition and Tipping Point, argues:

Free public transport supports social justice. A system based on public transport and active travel (walking, cycling and so on) supports Londoners’ physical and mental health.
Free public transport, introduced as part of an integrated transport policy, would help rapidly to cut the number of private cars, vans and HGVs on the roads – and so cut greenhouse gas emissions, and the air pollution that kills thousands of Londoners each year.
London is falling behind its own weak climate targets, and even further behind targets worked out by climate scientists. The transport sector has made the least progress in cutting fossil fuel use over the last twenty years. Free public transport would start to reverse this dangerous trend.
Free public transport cuts across the dangerous populist rhetoric that tackling climate change costs ordinary people money. It shows that the opposite is true: measures to deal with climate change and air pollution can also make life better.

The briefing, written by Simon Pirani, cites the largely positive experience of mid-sized cities that have adopted a zero-fares approach, including Luxembourg, Tallinn (Estonia), Dunkerque and Montpellier (France), and Albuquerque and Kansas City (USA). “London can be the first big global city to follow their example.”

London has its own experience to build on: in the 1980s, a sharp reduction in fares bumped up public transport use and reduced car journeys, before Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government stepped in and took control of the capital’s transport away from the Greater London Council.

On climate policy, the briefing shows that London’s transport sector is missing even the Mayor’s own targets – and these lag far behind targets based on climate science.

In 2022 Mayor Sadiq Khan declared that London should aim for “net zero” by 2030, rather than 2050. A report he commissioned from Element Energy on how to achieve this stressed that, in transport, it “can not be achieved by technology alone”. Reducing demand for travel in high-carbon modes – mainly, private cars – is crucial.

The Mayor then opted for an “accelerated green” approach that would cut the number of vehicle-kilometres driven in the city by 27%, by 2030. Even if that is achieved, transport sector emissions would be 30% higher than needed, Fare Free London’s briefing points out.

It adds that “in the two years since these new targets were announced, City Hall has not noticeably shifted from its emphasis on electrification as the main means to decarbonise transport”.

The briefing points to research from a team at Imperial College, that presents scenarios in which there are 43-81% fewer vehicle kilometres driven by 2027 as the only credible ones for meeting science-based emissions reduction targets.

Electrification of vehicles just can not happen fast enough; cutting traffic is the priority, the Imperial team says. This dovetails with other transport research advocating an avoid-shift-improve approach (avoid car journeys where possible, shift to public transport and active travel, improve the carbon intensity of remaining journeys).

To achieve emissions reductions, free public transport needs to be part of an integrated transport policy, the Fare Free London briefing states. This includes:

πŸ”₯ Substantial investment in public transport and active travel, a return to principles of public service provision, and support for a properly-rewarded, secure workforce;

πŸ”₯ A review of road projects, similar to that undertaken by the Welsh government, with a view to suspending those not compatible with climate policy;

πŸ”₯Policies to encourage active travel (walking, cycling etc);

πŸ”₯An end to subsidies for car drivers at the public’s expense, and consideration of a London-wide road-user charging scheme, and parking charge reform, to discourage unneeded trips by car.

“Road pricing is tried and tested”, the report points out. It has been in place in Singapore since 1999, to reduce congestion.

As a social justice measure, to support low-income households, free public transport always works. To achieve progress on climate and air pollution too, it needs to be integrated with other transport policies.

Here Fare Free London builds on the approach advocated by Transport for Quality of Life, whose recent briefing, A Radical Transport Response, stated:

Rapid action to reduce car use will only be fair, and command public consent, if it takes place in parallel with big changes to our transport system, to give people decent, clean and affordable ways of travelling to work, education and services, by foot, bike or low-carbon public transport.

A section of the Fare Free London Briefing on how to fund free public transport shows that London is more heavily reliant on fare income than other major world cities.

The London transport system’s revenue from fares, around £4 billion per year, is 70% of the total (excluding temporary government grants), compared to 26% in Paris, 36% in Hong Kong and 38% in New York.

Alternative options covered by Fare Free London’s briefing include:

□ Road user charging, which can be levied by the Mayor, and an improved system of parking fees, which requires cooperation between borough councils;

□ Land value capture, already used by Transport for London to finance the recently completed Elizabeth Line, with the Community Infrastructure Levy of £600 million and enhanced business rates income of £4.1 billion. The Centre for Cities estimates that TfL could raise more than ten times as much with similar measures;

πŸ”₯A payroll tax similar to the one in Paris, which covers more than half the cost of the Paris public transport system. A charge of 0.6% of London’s gross wage bill would raise £1 billion per year; it would require parliamentary legislation to introduce.

The report also covers measures that could be adopted by national government, to fund free public transport in London and nationally, including:

πŸ”₯ Ending the freezing and cutting of fuel duty, which has cost the Treasury £80 billion in 2010-23, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility;

πŸ”₯ Cancelling road building projects that do not conform to climate policy objectives and diverting the money to public transport;

πŸ”₯A consistent approach to taxing wealth, including e.g. a wealth tax, reversal of Capital Gains Tax reductions and the application of National Insurance to the wealth of landlords and speculators;

πŸ”₯ A clampdown on corporate tax evasion as long advocated by the Tax Justice Network.

Fare Free London does not prescribe any means of funding free public transport, but rather points to the wide range of options, given the will to implement it.

Free public transport has “become a synonym of freedom”, the editor of a local transport magazine in Dunkerque, where fares have been abolished, wrote. In a largely working-class city, “people of limited means say they have rediscovered transport.”

Here is a way to voice our aspiration for cities that put people, their health and their lives, first – a way to bring together our struggles for climate justice and social justice. 20 March 2024.

πŸ”₯Fare Free London’s campaign briefing is downloadable from the Transport Action Network site. Fare Free London is on the web and at info@farefreelondon.org.

πŸ”₯ Thanks to the Ecologist, where this article first appeared.

⏩ People & Nature is now on mastodon, as well as twitter, whatsapp and telegram. Please follow! Or email peoplenature@protonmail.com, and we’ll add you to our circulation list (2-4 messages per month).

Zero Fares ☀ A Way To Act On Climate And Social Justice

Dr John Coulter ✍ If you call yourself a Christian, then you can’t complain if voters elect a candidate with non-Biblical views because you didn’t bother to vote on polling day!

Ireland, north and south, is set to witness a raft of elections in the coming months - council, European in the Republic, possibly two general elections for Westminster and the Dail.

Unfortunately, many Christians - especially from the evangelical and fundamentalist traditions - take the outdated view when they misinterpret Scripture that when you become a born again believer, this means the ‘come ye out from amongst them’ states you don’t vote!

We Christians are constantly moaning about the state of the world; about the development of the secular society, and the advance of pluralism. But let’s take some of our own Biblical medicine by taking the moat out of our own eyes before we take the beam out of others’.

Put bluntly, how much of what is happening in society is down to the inactivity of the Christian Churches, either Christians burying their heads in the social sand by staying in their pews and not mixing with the public, or refusing to vote on polling day?

I have often made reference for the need for Christians to mobilise the flocks, not just to register to vote, but to actually vote. Here’s a link from February 2023: 

Imagine how the political landscape of Ireland would change if everyone who called themselves a Christian of whatever denomination voted in the forthcoming elections on the polling days.

But here’s the reality check as I warned in my recent column of the need for Christians to unite to combat the introduction of any laws on assisted dying:.

Too many Christians get bogged down in arguing over petty issues or man-made rules and they miss the big picture of how society is changing around them.

Society faces huge challenges from social injustices - hunger, the cost of living crisis, addictions, homelessness, mental health and well-being to name but a seemingly growing list.

Jesus Christ Himself gave us Christians an agenda for social action when he unveiled the Beatitudes during his famous Sermon on the Mount in the Biblical New Testament. But what practically are we Christians doing to put Christ’s sterling guidance into action in this third millennium?

Can each and every Christian place of worship say they are implementing the Sermon on the Mount to the maximum? If a drug addict or homeless person turned up at our place of worship on a Sunday morning, what would our attitude be?

While some churches are getting involved in their local communities, many Christians are quite content to be spiritual sponges; they are happy to sit in their pews on Sundays or the mid week Bible study, soak up what the speaker is saying, maybe throw a few quid into the collection plate, and then retreat to the warmth and safety of their homes.

Likewise, while many churches contribute generously to community food banks, could places of worship do more? For those who are facing challenges, pious words are meaningless; practical action is urgently required.

As well as churches providing food banks, places of worships could establish clothing and footwear banks. How many Christians when clothes or shoes no longer fit, simply throw them in the bin? Some Christians may donate them to charity shops, but many charities are themselves also facing a funding crisis.

Many families, especially the elderly, are also facing a heat or eat crisis, whereby budgeting is focused on either heating a room or cooking a meal. So could the churches combine to form energy clubs for electric, gas or home heating oil?

As for the homeless, could more of our places of worship be opened as shelters to prevent a cardboard home culture developing in our towns and cities?

Of course, many churches are themselves facing a cost of living crisis in this past pandemic society as they struggle to pay bills with dwindling numbers in the pews or folk not having enough cash to put in the collection plate as they did before Covid struck.

Churches have a lot of serious questions to ask in the coming months. One factor is certain, churches can no longer afford the luxury of being holy huddles keeping themselves distance from the communities in which they are based.

It is time for all places of worship, irrespective of denomination, to start putting the Sermon on the Mount into practical action in the communities they serve. By adopting such a pro-active approach to social injustice, the churches can maintain their relevance in society. Remaining aloof is not an option anymore.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Churches Need More Proactive Agenda In Tackling Social Injustice