Workers' Weekly Internet Edition Year 2026 Volume 56 Number 6

Workers' Weekly Internet Edition Year 2026 Volume 56 Number 6
Volume 56 Number 6, February 28,
2026
ARCHIVE
JBCENTRE
Student resistance
Graduates Protest Student Loan Changes
Workers' Weekly Internet Edition
Article Index :
Student resistance:
Graduates Protest Student Loan Changes
A Significant Public Law Ruling:
Palestine Action Judgment
Cuba:
Cuba Foils Attempt at Armed Infiltration
Student
resistance
Graduates Protest Student Loan Changes
On February 11, several hundred graduates and current students gathered
outside parliament to protest changes to the student loan repayment system that
will further lock young people into long-term debt. Organised by the NUS
alongside local student unions, graduate groups, Save the Student and other
networks, the demonstration saw some wearing shark costumes and holding
placards accusing the government of behaving like "loan sharks".
Graduates have taken to social media and other public spaces to describe
their reality of loan balances that barely move despite years of repayments,
and in some cases grow as interest accumulates. They point to their experience
of juggling multiple part-time jobs to cover rent and basic living costs,
working unpaid or precarious internships, and cutting back on essentials so
monthly repayments can be met. For students and graduates this is not an
abstract policy debate but the lived experience of the incoherence of the whole
system.
The immediate trigger was a decision in the Autumn 2025 Budget to freeze the
Plan 2 repayment threshold at the April 2026 level (£29,385) for three
years from April 2027. Under Plan 2, graduates pay 9% of earnings above that
threshold. Freezing the threshold means that as wages rise with inflation or
pay growth, more of a graduate's income falls into the repayment band. In
practice, many people will start repaying earlier after graduating and remain
paying for longer, increasing lifetime repayments potentially by thousands for
those on typical incomes. NUS has warned that the freeze will add
"hundreds of pounds" to annual repayments for many Plan 2 holders
[1].
Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that the freeze will
particularly affect graduates on middle incomes. Those who earn too much to
have their loans written off quickly, but not enough to repay the full balance
early, are expected to see lifetime repayments rise by several thousand pounds.
Higher earners are less affected, as they typically repay their loans in full
regardless of threshold changes [2].
Graduates have been burdened with an unpredictable and opaque system. They
are particularly angered by the arbitrary and imposed nature of the recent
changes, given that the terms they signed up to have been altered after the
fact. This arbitrariness is not incidental: it is part of the concentration of
power in a small executive able to reshuffle financial rules at will.
The policy is part of the broader framing of higher education as an
individual transaction, creating a capital-centred system where students are
made a target because education is thought of as something which students
engage in for self-serving reasons, while at the same time are penalised not
only financially but having to devote time to making ends meet, needing to work
during study in insecure part-time jobs. Students are treated not as members of
a society whose production and reproduction depends on education, but as
fragmented consumers.
Responding to comments made by Chancellor Rachel Reeves defending the
student loan system and threshold changes, NUS Vice President for Higher
Education Alex Stanley said [3]:
"The student loan system isn't working for anyone. Not for students who
are having to access foodbanks. Not for graduates who are paying back hundreds
of pounds a month without touching the sides of the interest on their loans.
And not for the Government as student debt is ballooning. Surely Reeves should
be looking for a solution rather than doubling down on a broken system?
Students demonstrating, Gateshead, 2008
"Firstly, the Chancellor needs to stop playing politics with students
and graduates. In the Autumn budget she effectively added hundreds of pounds to
the amount Plan 2 loan holders pay back each year by freezing the thresholds
from 2027. We went to university, signed a complex contractual agreement with
the Student Loans Company, and now that loan is a political football impacting
our bank balances each month.
"Students and graduates are gearing up to be a powerful electoral
force. And with the polling in YouGov which finds there is growing support for
measures including completely wiping off all student debt, it is time the
Chancellor started looking at the practical solutions which would deliver for
student and graduates.
"Anyone who went to University for free should not be able to call the
current system fair."
Aside from the spurious economic logic that poses higher education as a cost
and not something that is creating value in the economy - value that is used by
but unrealised by the businesses that employ its end product, the graduates
themselves - the issue throws into relief the way decisions affecting large
sections of the population are made, and asks: who decides? The freezing of the
repayment threshold is an example of an increasingly arbitrary form of
governance, which destroys all the accepted arrangements as it suits those in
power. From this perspective, the protests, social-media testimony and union
campaigns are not merely pleas for better terms; they are aimed at political
agency, challenging the authority as it exists. Demonstrators are speaking and
acting in their own name, highlighting the gap between the authority and its
institutions, and the lived economic realities of graduate workers. Resistance
is not limited as opposition to this specific policy, but is part of the
struggle to assert direct influence over decisions that shape their lives.
Notes
1. Plan 2 itself sits within a broader history of student finance reform
stretching back to the Dearing Report of the late 1990s and the 2010 Browne
Review. Those policy shifts reframed higher education funding around fees and
income-contingent loans, normalising the idea that graduates carry the bill.
Changes since then - variable fees, marketisation of universities, and new
repayment plans - have layered complexity and cohort differences onto the
system, while generally increasing costs to the individual massively. The
mechanics of Plan 2 mean repayments depend on income rather than outstanding
balances, while interest accrues at rates tied to inflation. For numerous
borrowers, monthly payments fail even to cover interest, so balances can grow
despite decades of payments. By the late 2010s official forecasts (OBR)
indicated a large share of post-2012 loans would be unlikely to be fully repaid
and therefore expected to be written off, such was the state of the crisis at
that time. Th e newest regime, Plan 5, applies to students who started courses
from autumn 2023. Plan 5 lowers the repayment threshold, changes interest and
repayment rules, and extends the repayment/ write-off period to 40 years. The
current protest, however, centres on Plan 2 borrowers (those who began courses
between 2012 and 2023 - i.e., starters before the Plan 5 regime introduced in
autumn 2023), who face the immediate impact of the threshold freeze.
2. Kate Ogden, "How do Plan 2 student loans work, and how have they
changed over time?", Institute for Fiscal Studies, February 6, 2026
3. "Stop the Plan 2 repayment threshold freeze; response to Rachel Reeves'
comments", NUS, February 4, 2026
Article Index
A Significant Public Law
Ruling
Palestine Action Judgment
People welcoming the news outside the High Court, London,
February 13, 2026
Paul Heron, solicitor at the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC), has
published an analysis of the decision in the recent Palestine Action judgment.
He writes:
"The Court allowed a challenge to the Home Secretary's decision to
proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000, finding the move
unlawful and disproportionate. Yet", he says, "the victory, whilst
extremely important, is partial and potentially very fragile. Palestine Action
remains proscribed pending further order, and the Court accepted that a small
number of its actions fell within the statutory definition of terrorism."
Paul Heron points out that "terrorism" is, under the Terrorism Act
2000, defined broadly, as the use or threat of action designed to influence the
government for a political cause, involving serious violence or serious damage
to property.
"The Home Secretary," he writes, "reached an 'unchallenged
conclusion' that Palestine Action was concerned in terrorism. The claimant did
not dispute that some activities could fall within broad definition of section
1 [where terrorism is defined]. Instead, the challenge focused on whether
proscription, with its sweeping criminal consequences, was lawful and
proportionate.
"The proscription order, approved by Parliament and in force from 5
July 2025, made it a criminal offence to: Belong or profess to belong to
Palestine Action; Invite support for it; Express supportive opinions
recklessly; Organise or address meetings connected to it. Thus, the order
doesn't just ban specific acts of damage. They restrict people from organising,
speaking, and associating under a political banner."
Of a number of grounds for the challenge to proscribing Palestine Action,
the High Court considered four main grounds, ultimately ruling that the
proscription of Palestine Action was unlawful on two of them.
Paul Heron explains: "The first successful ground of challenge
concerned the Home Secretary's own policy on proscription. That policy states
that proscription requires both a belief that the organisation is concerned in
terrorism and that it is proportionate to proscribe. It also directs
consideration of factors such as the nature and scale of activity and the
threat posed to the UK.
"In deciding to ban the group, the Home Secretary argued that
proscription would make it easier to prosecute supporters and give the
authorities stronger powers to disrupt them. The Court said this went against
the purpose of the policy, which was meant to limit when proscription could be
used. It wasn't enough to say that a ban would be useful, there had to be clear
reasons why it was truly necessary.
"In effect, the executive was caught using proscription as a tool of
political convenience rather than necessity. The Court did not question
Parliament's broad terrorism framework. Instead, it insisted that if the
government promises restraint, it must demonstrate it."
The second successful ground was under the Human Rights Act 1998, and
concerns the issue of freedom of expression and association..
Paul Heron explains: "The Court rejected the argument that Palestine
Action's conduct was civil disobedience and confirmed that the HRA does
necessarily protect violent or non-peaceful protest. However it accepted that a
'very small number' of the group's activities amounted to terrorism as defined
in the Act.
"But the Court reframed the key issue. The interference to be justified
was not the restriction on criminal damage. It was the criminalisation of
peaceful protest and expression carried out under the Palestine Action
banner."
In other words, the proscribing of Palestine Action, the judgment says, still
seriously interferes with people's rights to free expression and protest under
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"The Court looked not just at the alleged offences," Paul Heron
explains, "but also at the wider impact of proscription. It recognised
that banning a group can create a 'chilling effect' meaning people may hold
back from taking part in lawful political protest or speech because they fear
being associated with a banned organisation or risking prosecution." This
of course has been the effect of proscribing Palestine Action, in particular
for the demand that the genocide in Palestine be ended, while the resistance
has grown and mass arrests have taken place.
"Most importantly," says Paul Heron, "the Court found that
the group's activities had not reached the level, seriousness, or sustained
scale that would justify treating it as a terrorist organisation. The Court
were of the view that ordinary criminal laws can already be used to prosecute
any specific unlawful acts, a full ban was not considered necessary or
proportionate."
Paul Heron affirms: "This distinction matters. Criminal law deals with
individual offences. Proscription changes the legal consequences of simply
being linked to a group, even in lawful activity."
In summing up, Heron offers a word of caution, in saying that "the
judgment is not a sweeping denunciation of executive power. The Court attached
'real weight' to the Home Secretary's responsibility for public safety. It
rejected a discrimination claim under Article 14. It did not disturb the
assessment that some conduct met the statutory terrorism definition." And
he underlines: "This is constitutional caution. The judiciary has drawn a
line, but a very thin one."
From a public lawyering perspective, three dynamics stand out.
"First, the elasticity of terrorism law. It is a shifting sand. The
statutory definition treats serious damage to property, when politically
motivated, in much the same way as violence against people. That breadth allows
militant protest to be recast as a matter of national security.
"Second, Government response intensified in the context of the Gaza war
protests. Direct action against arms companies and supply chains received
heightened scrutiny. Proscription indicated a shift toward treating such
protest activity as a matter of national security.
"Third, the judiciary as a contradictory arena. The Court accepted part
of the terrorism case but pushed back on its broader consequences. It upheld
the right to organise and protest, while leaving the underlying
counter-terrorism framework unchanged."
In dealing with the "chilling effect" of proscribing, the judgment
recognises that proscription does not merely punish organisers. It deters
students hosting meetings, trade unionists organising events, and activists
expressing solidarity.
Paul Heron concludes, in raising the issue from the perspective of the
peoples' movements: "But the big question remains: who defines terrorism,
and how expansively? The Terrorism Act endures. The executive may reconsider or
appeal. Parliament may legislate further. ... Litigation can expose overreach
and defend political campaigning but it operates within legal boundaries shaped
by the state and thus the establishment itself. Judgments like this can slow
the machinery of bad law occasionally. It does not challenge or dismantle
it."
Article Index
Cuba
Cuba
Foils Attempt at Armed Infiltration
Latin American conference, London, February
2026
On the morning of February 25, 2026, a speedboat was detected violating
Cuban territorial waters. The vessel, registered in Florida, approached up to
one nautical mile north-east of the El Pino channel, in Cayo Falcones,
Corralillo municipality, Villa Clara province.
When a surface unit of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of the
Interior, carrying five service members, approached the vessel for
identification, the crew of the violating speedboat opened fire on the Cuban
personnel, resulting in the injury of the commander of the Cuban vessel. As a
consequence of the confrontation four aggressors on the foreign vessel were
killed and six were injured. The injured individuals were evacuated and
received medical assistance.
The Cuba authorities have confirmed that they are investigating this armed
attack against a patrol vessel of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of
the Interior. In a statement on February 26, the Cuban Ministry of the Interior
reported that the intercepted speedboat, registered in the state of Florida,
was carrying 10 armed individuals who, according to preliminary statements by
those detained, intended to carry out an infiltration for terrorist purposes.
Assault rifles were seized, along with sniper rifles, pistols, Molotov
cocktails, multiple tactical assault gear including night vision equipment,
bulletproof vests, assault bayonets, camouflage clothing, ammunition of various
calibres, combat rations, communication equipment, and a significant number of
monograms from counter-revolutionary terrorist organisations.
All participants are Cuban nationals residing in the United States. Most
have prior records involving criminal and violent activity, including Amijail
Sánchez González and Leordan Enrique Cruz Gómez, who
appear on Cuba's National List of individuals and entities designated pursuant
to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, international law, and
Cuban domestic legislation. They are currently under criminal investigation and
are wanted by Cuban authorities for their alleged involvement in the promotion,
planning, organisation, financing, support, or execution of terrorist acts in
Cuba or abroad.
In addition, Cuban national Duniel Hernández Santos was arrested
within Cuban national territory. He had allegedly been sent from the United
States to facilitate the landing and reception of the armed group and has
confessed to his role.
A statement by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba, Carlos
Fernández de Cossío, pointed out that from the very outset, upon
determining that the vessel had departed from United States territory, the
Cuban authorities have maintained communication with their US counterparts -
including the Department of State and the Coast Guard - regarding this
terrorist attempt. An investigation is currently underway to fully clarify the
facts with the utmost rigour. The Cuban government, the statement said, is
willing to exchange information with the United States government concerning
this incident.
The statement continued: "Among other requests, we will ask the US
authorities - through the existing mechanisms between the two countries - for
information about the individuals involved, the vessel used, among other
details. US government authorities have expressed their willingness to
co-operate in clarifying these regrettable events."
The statement of the Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister went on to emphasise that
this is not an isolated act. He pointed out: "For over 60 years, Cuba has
been the victim of aggression and countless terrorist acts, most of them have
been organised, financed, and carried out from United States territory.
"In recent years, Cuban authorities have denounced the increase in
violent and terrorist plans and actions against Cuba, as well as the prevailing
sense of impunity among the organisers and perpetrators in the face of inaction
against them. Cuban authorities have regularly provided the US government with
information on individuals who in recent years have been involved in promoting,
financing, and organising violent and terrorist acts against Cuba.
"This information includes the National List of individuals and
entities that have been subject to criminal investigations and are wanted by
Cuban authorities due to their participation in acts of terrorism. It is
compiled in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373,
the norms and principles of international law, and domestic legislation."
Carlos Fernández de Cossío clarified that anti-Cuban groups
operating in the United States resort to terrorism as an expression of their
hatred to Cuba and the impunity they believe they enjoy. Cuba, he said,
reaffirms its absolute and categorical commitment against all terrorist acts,
methods, and practices in all their forms and manifestations. "Our
country," the Deputy Foreign Minister said, "maintains an exemplary
record in combating terrorism and has fulfilled - and will continue to honour -
the commitments it has undertaken in this area. Cuba is a State Party to the 19
international conventions on terrorism and has accordingly implemented legal
and institutional measures aimed at effectively combating this scourge. Cuba
has the duty and responsibility to protect its territorial waters."
In the face of the current challenges the country, its government and its
people are facing, Cuba is reaffirming its determination to protect its
territorial waters, safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring stability in the
region.
The statement concludes by emphasising: "Our actions are consistent
with the international law, which applies to all countries, including the
United States itself. Furthermore, they are part of the Cuban state´s
national defence as an indispensable pillar for safeguarding our sovereignty,
as well as the lives, security, and well-being of Cubans."
(Cubaminrex)
Article Index
Receive Workers'
Weekly E-mail Edition:
It is free to
subscribe to the e-mail edition
We encourage all those who support the work of RCPB(ML) to also support it
financially:
Donate to
RCPB(ML)
WW Internet
RSS Feed
Workers' Weekly
is the weekly on
line newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
Website:
E-mail:
office@rcpbml.org.uk
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
RCPB(ML) Home Page
Workers' Weekly Online
Archive