Labour-Tory axis rejects divestment call from thousands of Enfield residents opposed to genocide

Thousands of people in Enfield signed a petition asking their local council to divest from companies complicit in Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. But in a 24 June council vote, the Labour-Tory axis in charge rejected their constituents’ request outright.

This comes as Enfield’s independent left has been stepping up as the main opposition to the establishment parties’ domination in the area. Enfield Community Independents (ECI) responded to the council’s decision by saying:

We look forward to the May 2026 local elections and removing existing councillors from their position and allowing a proper debate on divestment to be held.

The Canary previously outlined that at least 81 local government pension funds invest in complicit companies, and that Enfield Council apparently “invests more than £53 million of workers’ pension funds in companies complicit in human rights violations, apartheid and genocide in Palestine”.

‘Other councils could. So why couldn’t Enfield?’

As independent media outlet Enfield Dispatch reported, “campaigner Chris Kaufman addressed a full council meeting at Enfield Civic Centre”, pointing out that other councils (like Waltham Forest and Islington) had “the same constraints” as Enfield Council but had committed to:

lawfully exit from financial relationships with companies that may facilitate breaches of international law

Labour council leader Ergin Erbil, however, refused to do this. His justification was that he and others had to “make rational and sensible decisions” regarding pension fund investments. And he claimed the council was acting “responsibly and transparently”.

Conservative opposition leader Alessandro Georgiou added that:

It is near impossible even if we wanted to, to disentangle ourselves from every single body, company and organisation that has traded with Israel.

Responding to the council’s decision, ECI leader Khalid Sadur said that:

The level of debate at the Divestment meeting on 24 June highlighted the level of partisan politics present on the existing Council and the failure of councillors to address real issues ahead of party interests.

Sadur previously ran 2024 general and local election campaigns with an anti-war, anti-austerity platform, and has received Jeremy Corbyn’s endorsement. Despite working with a low budget, ECI surprised the local political establishment and now represents the main opposition to Labour-Tory domination in the area.

“No excuse” for hiding investments

The ECI statement challenged Erbil’s claim that the council was behaving “responsibly and transparently”. It stressed that:

Investing in companies which are potentially complicit with human rights violations or human rights abuses places additional risk on the pension fund valuation.

It also said:

At present, the Council does not publish details of its fund investments to scheme members or the wider public…

If councillors are performing their fiduciary duty correctly and there is nothing to hide, there should be no excuse for not publishing quarterly fund holdings and ensure this existing breach is resolved.

ECI also referred to the council’s “Pension Scheme Advisory Board Guidance”, claiming that the Pensions Committee had a duty to:

request a specific review of geopolitical risk from fund managers on the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and its impact on the existing fund valuation.

There could be “significant losses” from investments if Israel faces sanctions for its “human rights abuses and breaches of international law”. And ECI insisted that councillors’ failure to consider this meant that “research and
analysis” were not informing their decisions.

The Scheme Guidance it referred to also makes clear that councillors should prioritise beneficiaries’ interests over their own personal views. By rejecting the divestment request “without first consulting and hearing the views of scheme members”, ECI stressed, councillors were in breach of this guidance.

When councillors deem unethical behaviour “rational and sensible”, something is very wrong

When Kaufman introduced the petition at the council meeting, he asked councillors to consider the “moral and ethical question”:

Is it right for Enfield’s pension funds to be used to fund war crimes in any way?

“Each of you must decide”, he said. “Can you look the other way whilst the planes zoom and dive?” He added:

Don’t leave your consciences at the door. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’

He finally urged councillors “to listen to the people of Enfield” and take action.

But they decided to look the other way, leave their consciences at the door, and choose the side of the oppressor. And they chose to ignore the people of Enfield.

Kaufman told Enfield Dispatch that councillors were:

washing their hands of their responsibilities. They keep implying this idea that to look after people’s pension funds means maximising returns and forgetting any morality and ethics and they’ve shown themselves in their true colours.

Indeed, only seriously misanthropic people could argue that it’s “rational and sensible” to sideline human rights. But it seems such people thrive in Britain’s current political system. And that’s why it’s so important for residents to expose their wrongdoing and organise to defeat them.

In Enfield, people have already begun to stand up as a community against councillors’ unethical behaviour. And if this continues, Sadur promised: