To cool down, we can turn up the heat! & The mad delusions of a president reignite the Iran war

As everyone knows only too well - since we're already in our third heatwave this year - there's no legal maximum workplace temperature.

    Fortunately, some bosses supply bottles of iced water and cold drinks and they offer heat reliefs. At the World Cup, matches are halted so that players can take hydration breaks.

    But in many workplaces workers get no relief - the meanness of some bosses is off the scale, just like the temperature. They don't want the tiniest cut in their productivity. And no surprise there!

    The "law" on workplace temperature goes back to 1992 and only sets a lower temperature limit of 16°c, or 13° for strenuous work, and isn't legally binding - it's just a recommendation by the Health and Safety Executive. There had been heatwaves before 1992 of course. Like in 1976. But because it was hot only occasionally, bosses weren't prepared to shell out for air conditioning, and no government was going to compel them to do so. Even if controlling the temperature via AC - and other means - in all seasons, would be beneficial!

    So now, Green MP Hannah Spencer is introducing a parliamentary bill which would stipulate a maximum temperature for workers. As a former plumber herself, she knows what it's like to try to do your job in the heat... She said: "From bus and train drivers sweltering in cabins that are hotter than the soaring temperatures outside and bakers working in temperatures of over 40 degrees, to builders whose workplaces offer no respite from the heat, the government has a duty to protect all of us..."

    Well, calling on the government's "duty to protect all of us" is a bit naive. Common sense tells workers that they had best protect themselves! But still, it's something!

    In the meantime though, Unison and the Trade Union Congress have called for a maximum indoor work temperature of 30°, or 27° for strenuous work. In hospitals? On the production line? They can't be serious! Maybe these union bureaucrats were inspired by the French "code of practice", that suggests maximums of 28°c and 30°c respectively!

    Anyway workers know better than to expect bosses to provide a healthy modern, temperature- controlled environment. Not under this system! And Spencer's "law", if passed, is likely only to "recommend" that the TUC's too high 27-30% is adhered to. It's not OK, of course, but we can impose our own solution, as we always have in the past: find somewhere to cool down... outside.

Trump's war on Iran has escalated once more. It's again dangerous to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. And the oil price is going back up. Before the war started on 28 February, the price was $78/barrel. Then it jumped to $120/barrel, and along with it, everyone's energy bills jumped too.

    But then came that so-called Memorandum of Understanding, signed on 17 June. The fighting stopped. The oil priced dropped. However, Trump has declared this agreement "over" and claims "he" will now take over control of the Strait.

    Surging energy costs will hit the economic growth agendas, which all governments are trying to pursue. Indeed, "growth" has been the watchword of Starmer's government and this is precisely what his replacement, Andy Burnham, has been promising, as the way to fund all the "changes" he offers. But now crisis looms again...

    Accordingly, Allan Campbell, Leader of the House of Commons, announced an emergency debate on Iran this Wednesday. This infuriated the Tories because they were meant to have an "Opposition Day" to demand an extra sitting of parliament to quiz Andy Burnham on his policy plans. Not that he would have attended! Or that it would have had the slightest import!

    However, war on Iran does impact everyone. What's more, the blockage of the Strait not only hits the oil price, but it also hits the workers and crews on tankers - which are left adrift and become targets for US and Iranian shells or get hit in the crossfire.

    And all this for what? The delusions and lies of a US president who claims he is "preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon" When the late Ayatollah, Trump's very first target in this war, had already declared in 2003 that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic Law!

    In fact Trump is only trying to cover for his miscalculation - one more, after so many - in starting this war against Iran in the first place. It's tragedy and farce wrapped up into one; US imperialism in caricature, having long passed its sell-by date. Its defeat would be in all our interests. But that will be the future task of the American working class...