labourlist--2020-11-27--The government is failing victims of both the Windrush scandal and Grenfell fire

Harold Wilson famously said : “ A week is a long time in politics.
” This rings true now more than ever .
With a 24-hour news cycle and the growth in social media , national stories quickly come and go from prominence .
There is often little scope for thorough analysis or the attention span in Westminster to allow real investigation and consideration of the results .
Unfortunately , this phenomenon is relevant for two of the most devastating scandals to have scarred the consciousness of modern Britain .
On June 14th , 2017 , a fire broke out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 72 deaths and hundreds of injuries .
The images of that night and stories of families , young people alone and couples waiting in their flats as the fire engulfed the building still haunt us .
At the same time , over the course of 2017 and into 2018 , newspaper reports emerged about the Home Office threatening and sometimes succeeding in deporting citizens who had lived in the UK for over 50 years .
The Windrush scandal with anecdotes of elderly men and women – our neighbours and friends for decades – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , housing and employment by their own government ’ s scheme to implement a ‘ hostile environment ’ shocked us all .
There was immediate attention for both .
Theresa May suffered immense criticism for her lack of emotional bandwidth to immediately meet with residents at Grenfell who had survived the fire .
Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary as a result of the Windrush scandal .
But once the political furore ebbs away , the struggle for justice continues .
There are two key aspects : real analysis as to what went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as is possible , to put things right .
The Equality and Human Rights Commission this week concluded that the Home Office had broken equality law with its focus on a hostile environment policy .
But on the day of its release , the story was the fifth item in the news .
The report is worth reading in full .
It reveals a Home Office agenda where political battles to appear ‘ tough on immigration ’ were deemed more important than people ’ s lives , particularly Black people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the conclusions are damning .
For example : To translate : Home Office politicians and officials prioritised chasing headlines in the Daily Mail over properly considering the effect of their policies on people .
Black lives did not matter enough .
The Grenfell inquiry continues and the evidence that is emerging should be front-page news even during the pandemic .
You may not know , but it has recently been admitted that the executives who sold combustible insulation for use on Grenfell Tower , and other high rise buildings , perpetrated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behaved in a “ completely unethical ” way .
Celotex , the responsible company , had used an insulation foam that fuelled flames and released toxic gases but had passed the safety test ( at the second time of asking ) after presenting the product , as an employee now accepts , in an “ intentionally misleading ” way .
Asked by counsel at the inquiry : “ Did you realise at the time that this would be a fraud on the market ?
” The relatively junior employee replied : “ Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncomfortable with what I was being asked to do.
” This staggering evidence and the questions it poses as to corporate culture and the regulation of suppliers critical to the safety of our homes has not achieved the prominence it deserves in the media or indeed in Westminster .
It is right to note that the inquiry is still ongoing , but there is a sense that , only three and half years on from Grenfell , too many have moved on and the right lessons have not been learnt .
And whilst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenfell and the Windrush scandal , not enough is being done to prevent the very same egregious horrors occurring again .
With regards to Grenfell , the cladding safety scandal continues , with the government looking weak-willed and flat-footed .
A damning report published this week by the communities and local government select committee highlighted the hundreds of thousands of people stuck in properties that have flammable cladding similar to that used in Grenfell .
Some blocks have rota systems , by which residents share the responsibility of ‘ keeping watch ’ overnight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The residents each face bills of tens of thousands of pounds to remove the cladding , and their homes are worthless until they are paid .
The cross-party report stated that the government ’ s current plans still leave residents in this impossible scenario despite repeated assurances from ministers that they would not .
It concludes : “ We consider this unacceptable and an abdication of responsibility on the part of the government.
” As MP Hilary Benn told the Chancellor in the House of Commons , nothing in this week ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle for justice for victims of the Windrush scandal shows an equally unimpressive government response .
The latest compensation scheme figures show just £2.8m has been paid out .
In the context of the billions that have been thrown down the drain in personal protective equipment procurement , the figure is offensive .
The scale of the Windrush scandal should not be forgotten .
The Home Office has admitted that it wrongly deported or detained at least 164 British citizens ( likely many more ) .
Victims were made homeless , jobless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services by their own government .
At least 11 died before they received any justice .
There are more than 5,000 cases of individuals alleging that they were in some way seriously harmed by the contempt their own government showed them .
It is also worth noting that many citizens continue to be victims of irrational decision-making by the Home Office .
When tragedy and horrific scandal occurs , it is very easy to mourn or show outrage .
Real political leadership requires the stamina and resolve to get justice for those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are never made again .
This government is failing in that duty .

Harold Wilson famously said: “A week is a long time in politics.” This rings true now more than ever. With a 24-hour news cycle and the growth in social media, national stories quickly come and go from prominence. There is often little scope for thorough analysis or the attention span in Westminster to allow real investigation and consideration of the results. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is relevant for two of the most devastating scandals to have scarred the consciousness of modern Britain.
On June 14th, 2017, a fire broke out at Grenfell Tower in West London causing 72 deaths and hundreds of injuries. The images of that night and stories of families, young people alone and couples waiting in their flats as the fire engulfed the building still haunt us. At the same time, over the course of 2017 and into 2018, newspaper reports emerged about the Home Office threatening and sometimes succeeding in deporting citizens who had lived in the UK for over 50 years. The Windrush scandal with anecdotes of elderly men and women – our neighbours and friends for decades – being detained, deported, denied healthcare, housing and employment by their own government’s scheme to implement a ‘hostile environment’ shocked us all.
There was immediate attention for both. Theresa May suffered immense criticism for her lack of emotional bandwidth to immediately meet with residents at Grenfell who had survived the fire. Amber Rudd resigned as Home Secretary as a result of the Windrush scandal. But once the political furore ebbs away, the struggle for justice continues. There are two key aspects: real analysis as to what went wrong; then the battle, as much as is possible, to put things right.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission this week concluded that the Home Office had broken equality law with its focus on a hostile environment policy. But on the day of its release, the story was the fifth item in the news. The report is worth reading in full. It reveals a Home Office agenda where political battles to appear ‘tough on immigration’ were deemed more important than people’s lives, particularly Black people’s lives. Although couched in legal terminology, the conclusions are damning. For example:
“Where negative equality impacts were identified by the Home Office and stakeholders, they were repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or their severity disregarded at crucial points of policy development, particularly where they were seen as a barrier to implementing hostile environment policies in a highly-politicised environment”
To translate: Home Office politicians and officials prioritised chasing headlines in the Daily Mail over properly considering the effect of their policies on people. Black lives did not matter enough.
The Grenfell inquiry continues and the evidence that is emerging should be front-page news even during the pandemic. You may not know, but it has recently been admitted that the executives who sold combustible insulation for use on Grenfell Tower, and other high rise buildings, perpetrated a “fraud on the market” and behaved in a “completely unethical” way. Celotex, the responsible company, had used an insulation foam that fuelled flames and released toxic gases but had passed the safety test (at the second time of asking) after presenting the product, as an employee now accepts, in an “intentionally misleading” way.
Asked by counsel at the inquiry: “Did you realise at the time that this would be a fraud on the market?” The relatively junior employee replied: “Yes, I did. I felt incredibly uncomfortable with what I was being asked to do.” This staggering evidence and the questions it poses as to corporate culture and the regulation of suppliers critical to the safety of our homes has not achieved the prominence it deserves in the media or indeed in Westminster. It is right to note that the inquiry is still ongoing, but there is a sense that, only three and half years on from Grenfell, too many have moved on and the right lessons have not been learnt. And whilst we look back at the causes of Grenfell and the Windrush scandal, not enough is being done to prevent the very same egregious horrors occurring again.
With regards to Grenfell, the cladding safety scandal continues, with the government looking weak-willed and flat-footed. A damning report published this week by the communities and local government select committee highlighted the hundreds of thousands of people stuck in properties that have flammable cladding similar to that used in Grenfell. Some blocks have rota systems, by which residents share the responsibility of ‘keeping watch’ overnight in case there is a fire. The residents each face bills of tens of thousands of pounds to remove the cladding, and their homes are worthless until they are paid.
The cross-party report stated that the government’s current plans still leave residents in this impossible scenario despite repeated assurances from ministers that they would not. It concludes: “We consider this unacceptable and an abdication of responsibility on the part of the government.” As MP Hilary Benn told the Chancellor in the House of Commons, nothing in this week’s autumn statement changed this situation.
The struggle for justice for victims of the Windrush scandal shows an equally unimpressive government response. The latest compensation scheme figures show just £2.8m has been paid out. In the context of the billions that have been thrown down the drain in personal protective equipment procurement, the figure is offensive. The scale of the Windrush scandal should not be forgotten.
The Home Office has admitted that it wrongly deported or detained at least 164 British citizens (likely many more). Victims were made homeless, jobless, left destitute and denied access to public services by their own government. At least 11 died before they received any justice. There are more than 5,000 cases of individuals alleging that they were in some way seriously harmed by the contempt their own government showed them. It is also worth noting that many citizens continue to be victims of irrational decision-making by the Home Office.
When tragedy and horrific scandal occurs, it is very easy to mourn or show outrage. Real political leadership requires the stamina and resolve to get justice for those who suffered and work to ensure the mistakes are never made again. This government is failing in that duty.


labourlist--2020-11-27--Bristol West Labour complains of “overreach” by region as AGM cancelled

Local party Bristol West Labour has complained of “ overreach ” by the South West regional office after its annual general meeting was cancelled this week allegedly without prior notice being given to the executive committee .
The chair , co-secretaries and a number of other Bristol West Labour members have been suspended by the party after considering a motion on the suspension of former leader Jeremy Corbyn despite being told not to do so .
General secretary David Evans had issued a warning about hearing motions related to disciplinary cases at a local party level before the meeting was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told by senior party figures that it should not take place .
LabourList reported earlier this month that the meeting was conducted over Zoom , joined by around 200 members , and the motion considered without debate .
It passed by a majority of 19 with 99 voting for , 80 against and three abstaining .
A number of Bristol West Labour members including executive officers were subsequently suspended .
According to LabourList sources , this was due to the motion and due to tweets calling for the resignation of the regional director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled annual general meeting ( AGM ) postponed by the regional office , and the executive committee has now released a statement saying they are “ disappointed and frustrated ” by the way this was done .
The local party rejects claims by region that there were problems with the notice period , insisting that the noticed period required was exceeded , and that there was a problem with “ the unavailability of role holders to effectuate their roles ” .
The statement counters : “ We have many other CLP officers you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to run the local party and hold meetings while the chair and secretaries are suspended , in accordance with the party rules.
” LabourList has been told that the acting vice-chair ( membership ) of the local party has had their access to the email system “ revoked ” , with one source saying the regional office has “ effectively gagged ” the executive committee .
It is understood that Bristol West Labour asked for a meeting with the South West regional director to discuss the AGM postponement , but he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the request .
Below is the full text of the statement released by Bristol West Labour .
All Bristol West members should by now have received an email from Labour South West informing them of the postponement of our annual general meeting ( AGM ) .
We would like to make clear that this has completely bypassed your elected representatives on the executive committee .
We are disappointed and frustrated that regional office have not consulted or informed us of this move prior to emailing members and we oppose the silencing of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the following reasons .
They claim there were problems with the “ notice period ; members not receiving emails and the set-up of the online meeting ; and the subsequent advertising of this link outside of the party membership , ” as well as “ the unavailability of role holders to effectuate their roles ” .
The facts of the matter are that the meeting exceeded the required notice period as specified in the Labour party rules .
The CLP first announced the meeting on the 30th of October and then sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 16th of November .
The meeting was set up following party guidance for online meetings and voting .
Additionally , regional did not contact the executive committee with any concerns about the running of the meeting .
They even had a meeting with the secretary last week where they said they were happy with the process and didn ’ t raise any concerns .
327 members had registered to attend the meeting – this would have made the meeting the largest the CLP has ever seen .
It is impossible to reasonably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this meeting .
As with any meeting , the executive committee were going to check people ’ s membership prior to admittance .
It ’ s impossible to stop people sharing a link ( just as it ’ s impossible to stop people finding out venues for in person meetings ) and it is not against Labour Party rules to do so .
We have many other CLP officers you elected at the last AGM who are able to run the local party and hold meetings while the chair and secretaries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
To suspend all meetings of the CLP and take over the running of the AGM while the rest of the executive committee remains capable of taking on the roles necessary to carry out the running of the local party – as we have done for the past 16 months – demonstrates an overreach on behalf of regional office .
We have sent a request to the South West regional office to attend a meeting with the executive committee to discuss what has happened and how we can work together to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the local elections in May .

Local party Bristol West Labour has complained of “overreach” by the South West regional office after its annual general meeting was cancelled this week allegedly without prior notice being given to the executive committee.
The chair, co-secretaries and a number of other Bristol West Labour members have been suspended by the party after considering a motion on the suspension of former leader Jeremy Corbyn despite being told not to do so.
General secretary David Evans had issued a warning about hearing motions related to disciplinary cases at a local party level before the meeting was held, and Bristol West members was told by senior party figures that it should not take place.
LabourList reported earlier this month that the meeting was conducted over Zoom, joined by around 200 members, and the motion considered without debate. It passed by a majority of 19 with 99 voting for, 80 against and three abstaining.
A number of Bristol West Labour members including executive officers were subsequently suspended. According to LabourList sources, this was due to the motion and due to tweets calling for the resignation of the regional director.
Bristol West this week had its scheduled annual general meeting (AGM) postponed by the regional office, and the executive committee has now released a statement saying they are “disappointed and frustrated” by the way this was done.
The local party rejects claims by region that there were problems with the notice period, insisting that the noticed period required was exceeded, and that there was a problem with “the unavailability of role holders to effectuate their roles”.
The statement counters: “We have many other CLP officers you elected at the last AGM who are able to run the local party and hold meetings while the chair and secretaries are suspended, in accordance with the party rules.”
LabourList has been told that the acting vice-chair (membership) of the local party has had their access to the email system “revoked”, with one source saying the regional office has “effectively gagged” the executive committee.
It is understood that Bristol West Labour asked for a meeting with the South West regional director to discuss the AGM postponement, but he has replied on Friday afternoon to turn down the request.
Below is the full text of the statement released by Bristol West Labour.
All Bristol West members should by now have received an email from Labour South West informing them of the postponement of our annual general meeting (AGM). We would like to make clear that this has completely bypassed your elected representatives on the executive committee. We are disappointed and frustrated that regional office have not consulted or informed us of this move prior to emailing members and we oppose the silencing of our Constituency Labour Party (CLP) members for the following reasons.
They claim there were problems with the “notice period; members not receiving emails and the set-up of the online meeting; and the subsequent advertising of this link outside of the party membership,” as well as “the unavailability of role holders to effectuate their roles”.
The facts of the matter are that the meeting exceeded the required notice period as specified in the Labour party rules. The CLP first announced the meeting on the 30th of October and then sent a reminder with the Zoom link on the 16th of November.
The meeting was set up following party guidance for online meetings and voting. Additionally, regional did not contact the executive committee with any concerns about the running of the meeting. They even had a meeting with the secretary last week where they said they were happy with the process and didn’t raise any concerns.
327 members had registered to attend the meeting – this would have made the meeting the largest the CLP has ever seen. It is impossible to reasonably claim that members were not made aware of this meeting.
As with any meeting, the executive committee were going to check people’s membership prior to admittance. It’s impossible to stop people sharing a link (just as it’s impossible to stop people finding out venues for in person meetings) and it is not against Labour Party rules to do so.
We have many other CLP officers you elected at the last AGM who are able to run the local party and hold meetings while the chair and secretaries are suspended, in accordance with the party rules.
To suspend all meetings of the CLP and take over the running of the AGM while the rest of the executive committee remains capable of taking on the roles necessary to carry out the running of the local party – as we have done for the past 16 months – demonstrates an overreach on behalf of regional office.
We have sent a request to the South West regional office to attend a meeting with the executive committee to discuss what has happened and how we can work together to find a solution so we can organise to win the local elections in May.


labourlist--2020-11-27--What do the latest NEC results say about Black male representation in Labour?

Labour ’ s new ruling body met for the first time this week , following internal party contests that concluded earlier this month and gave rise to a fresh national executive committee .
With the election of a new NEC chair and 13 members staging a walk-out , attentions were drawn – as they typically are – to factional infighting .
But for many members of the party , the under-told story of the NEC results was that of a key opportunity missed .
As revealed by a collective of young Black men called The 1987 Caucus Movement earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black male representation on the ruling body – and that is still the case after Labour ’ s 2020 NEC elections .
This is despite two Black men running on different factional slates : Jermain Jackman backed by soft left Open Labour and Terry Paul from the pro-leadership Labour to Win platform .
I spoke to them to find out more about their experiences of the election and their views on what must be done to address this problem .
Both Jermain and Terry are positive about their experiences running for Labour ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I was pleasantly surprised by the positive nature of the campaign , ” Terry told me .
“ As a Black man , it allowed me to not only have personal views on what ’ s happened this year , but also to put them in a context of Labour Party politics .
So for me , personally , I found it a very , very positive experience.
” Similarly , Jermain said : “ I really enjoyed running in this campaign .
The year 2020 has been the year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and just missing out by my fingernails !
” He ran earlier in the year for the Black , Asian and minority ethnic ( BAME ) rep post , but missed out due to lack of trade union support .
Jermain is particularly pleased about the breadth of support he secured this time , though , highlighting that someone messaged him to say , “ I don ’ t know any member who can get the endorsement of Diane Abbott and Wes Streeting in the same day ” .
This compliment touches on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s lack of Black male representation must be seen : factionalism .
As Jermain summarises : “ You had two Black men on either side of the party , both running to be on the NEC , and neither of them got elected.
” This suggests the problem can be found across the party .
But is factionalism itself a driver ?
Jermain thinks so : “ People are so entrenched in factionalism that it blinds the fight for representation and equality .
And that goes for the right and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is positive about his experience of running , the 2014 winner of The Voice UK does tell me : “ I ’ ve been called every name underneath the sun .
I ’ ve been called a Trot , a crank , a witch-hunter .
Names that I have never even heard of before in my life because I come from the entertainment industry .
And I thought that was brutal .
Politics is brutal .
But the Labour Party is a whole other level.
” This name-calling “ didn ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ but it just felt so strange having adults behave like children ” .
Jermain is worried that people “ don ’ t understand their internalised racism ” , and says : “ I do question whether or not we really want to go on that journey to be in a Labour government , because right now we are setting ourselves back time and time again.
” He is clearly exhausted by the infighting and how it distracts from the original reasons that people become politically active .
And this is part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a problem with members as individuals but with “ institutional slates and institutional cliques ” .
Jermain ran as an Open Labour candidate , but had also applied for Momentum ’ s endorsement .
His name was raised in the meeting that determined the slate but not ultimately included .
He does not complain about this outcome in our interview , yet outlines how he was perceived and treated .
“ People still call you careerist , rather than ambitious .
People still called me a member of the right of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation with me .
Lies were created about ‘ Oh , Jermain was mentored by Lisa Nandy , Jermain stood up and supported Keir Starmer in his local CLP meeting.
’ No , that was another Black man .
I had to battle all of these things.
” After the NEC results were announced , Jermain was contacted by people from other slates seeking to pick his brain for policies .
“ If you like my ideas so much , you should have had me on your slate !
” he tells me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing about and seeing backroom deals and ‘ okay , I ’ ll scratch your back if you scratch mine ’ .
” His solution ?
“ We formalise the factions within the Labour Party .
Just like how they do it in Australia.
” He promises to send over a comment piece outlining in more detail how he would propose to reform the party in this way .
In the meantime , he hints that people simply need to grow up .
Speaking of veteran NEC member Ann Black , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was elected this year , we laugh as Jermain recounts : “ She said there was one time she was in a meeting for six hours , and a decision wasn ’ t made .
And that broke my heart , to hear you were in a meeting for six whole hours .
That ’ s a trip to New York , you ’ re in a meeting for a whole trip to New York !
And a decision was not made .
I would have left after the first 30 minutes.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black representation and anti-Black racism in the party .
LabourList reported in September that he told an event Labour does not “ have the back ” of the Black community , so I ask him to expand on those thoughts .
“ Does the [ Parliamentary Labour Party ] look representative of the Black community , male and female ?
No , it doesn ’ t .
Did the Labour Party talk enough about issues of concern to the Black community ?
No .
If you look at issues around policing , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark , trying to come up with an acceptable answer of how we deal with stop and search and underrepresentation.
” Terry is focused on how Black lived experiences don ’ t play a role in policy-making , and how Labour does not reflect well enough the communities it seeks to represent .
Highlighting that Labour ’ s only Black male MPs are David Lammy , Clive Lewis and Mark Hendrick , he asks : “ David is out there , Clive and Mark are banging the drum , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They can ’ t cover the pitch , can they ?
” He doesn ’ t want “ gestures ” either , though .
He wants to see “ issues of concern to the Black community championed more ” and “ all policy portfolios handle the issues of concern to the Black community better ” – but strongly warns against tokenism .
“ The key thing is I don ’ t like tokenism .
I hate it .
And I think there are sufficient people of colour who are eminently able to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asked about the NEC election result , Terry is determined not to come across as resentful or anything like that , and of course he is not .
“ Members have a right not to choose you .
You can ’ t insult people by saying , ‘ hey , vote for me I ’ m a Black guy ’ .
That ’ s ridiculous .
I didn ’ t say that once during the campaign .
I ’ ve never said it in my life.
” But he is also clear about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want a Black man on the NEC .
Simple as that .
It didn ’ t vote for it .
That ’ s it , ” he concludes .
“ It ’ s people who are part of the structure .
It ’ s not the computer saying no , it ’ s the person typing in the computer .
Essentially , the party didn ’ t see fit to put either me or Jermain sufficiently high enough in the top nine slots.
” Turning to what needs to change within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues of awareness and transparency – and holding the party to the standards it sets for others .
“ I don ’ t think the party could tell you how many ethnic minority members there are , ” he says .
“ If you went to David Evans , or Keir Starmer right now , you say , how many Black men or Black members of staff do you have ?
They wouldn ’ t know , I suspect .
‘ How many Black members do we have ?
I wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They would probably come up with a reason why they can ’ t tell you .
But we say to the rest of the UK , private and public sector , that ’ s not good enough .
How many times have you heard a Labour politician haranguing an organisation for the lack of diversity at their board , their NEC ?
” Terry notes , “ I don ’ t want to use the word BAME… I hate the word , or BAME shortlist .
Because now what happens ?
Black people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He stresses the need to talk about Black men explicitly , rather than BAME or ethnic minorities .
And approaching the issue rather like a businessman , or perhaps a member of a governing body , he tells me : “ I expect the Labour Party to do what it expects of UK civil society.
” And the way that he identifies the solution is simply that the party “ make use of its talent ” – because it is already there , it just needs to be recognised and valued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an NEC member ?
“ When seats come up , why is it always favoured sons and daughters , predominantly white and middle class in the trade unions , who get seats ?
Why is that ?
” he asks in response .
“ I would set a challenge to the Labour Party to put an end to the nonsense , where all-women shortlists seem to favour a certain type of women , where selections seem to favour the sons and daughters of the trade union barons .
That ’ s what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Terry Paul going to do next in his activism ?
Stand for Labour ’ s NEC again ?
“ No .
I ’ ll tell you what I ’ m gon na stand for .
I ’ m gon na go into parliament , actually .
I always try to be a positive individual .
And I think , you know what I ’ m going to do ?
I want to stand outside of London in a seat that is predominantly white .
You know why ?
Because I ’ m fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represented by Black male Conservative MPs , and asks : “ Why is it the Tories can do it ?
” .
Although Terry stood on the Labour to Win platform , very supportive of Keir Starmer and the current direction of the party , he does not shy away from setting challenges for the new leadership .
“ Something has to fix the Labour Party , and that only can be fixed by the leader , which is David Evans and Keir Starmer .
No-one else .
None of these special interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a challenge that only those two can fix .
And if they ’ re really interested in it , they should personally lead a piece of work on it… You deal with your most pressing problems with your best people.
” It is a pressing problem .
Jermain tells me he has been “ taking a step back from the Labour Party ” , which means working at a grassroots level and with his local authority ( “ I ’ ve just had my recommendations voted on and accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on internal elections .
“ Once you go into the Labour world , it ’ s almost like that ’ s the only thing that exists to you .
It ’ s almost like your head is in a hole .
It ’ s the only thing that you can see , ” he points out , with devastating accuracy .
His heart-breaking conclusion : “ The level of toxicity in this movement has shown me that we ’ re not here for change.
” Jermain tells me that after the leaked report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at my membership card and wonder if this was the party for me ” .
Jermain and Terry adopt slightly different focuses in their analyses of Labour ’ s problem with Black men , but they agree that the problem exists and that it needs to be urgently addressed by the leadership .
As Jermain says , “ we do need to rebuild that red wall , but we need to remind ourselves that there are black and brown bricks in that wall too ” .
And as Terry puts plainly : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keir is , what are you doing about it ?
” .
Jermain ends our Zoom call by saying : “ Keir has my number .
Let ’ s just say that : Keir has my number , and he can call me or text me whenever he wants .
”

Labour’s new ruling body met for the first time this week, following internal party contests that concluded earlier this month and gave rise to a fresh national executive committee. With the election of a new NEC chair and 13 members staging a walk-out, attentions were drawn – as they typically are – to factional infighting. But for many members of the party, the under-told story of the NEC results was that of a key opportunity missed.
As revealed by a collective of young Black men called The 1987 Caucus Movement earlier this year, there has never once been Black male representation on the ruling body – and that is still the case after Labour’s 2020 NEC elections. This is despite two Black men running on different factional slates: Jermain Jackman backed by soft left Open Labour and Terry Paul from the pro-leadership Labour to Win platform. I spoke to them to find out more about their experiences of the election and their views on what must be done to address this problem.
Both Jermain and Terry are positive about their experiences running for Labour’s NEC as local party representative candidates. “I was pleasantly surprised by the positive nature of the campaign,” Terry told me. “As a Black man, it allowed me to not only have personal views on what’s happened this year, but also to put them in a context of Labour Party politics. So for me, personally, I found it a very, very positive experience.”
Similarly, Jermain said: “I really enjoyed running in this campaign. The year 2020 has been the year of Jermain trying to get onto the NEC and just missing out by my fingernails!” He ran earlier in the year for the Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) rep post, but missed out due to lack of trade union support. Jermain is particularly pleased about the breadth of support he secured this time, though, highlighting that someone messaged him to say, “I don’t know any member who can get the endorsement of Diane Abbott and Wes Streeting in the same day”.
This compliment touches on the key bit of context in which Labour’s lack of Black male representation must be seen: factionalism. As Jermain summarises: “You had two Black men on either side of the party, both running to be on the NEC, and neither of them got elected.” This suggests the problem can be found across the party. But is factionalism itself a driver? Jermain thinks so: “People are so entrenched in factionalism that it blinds the fight for representation and equality. And that goes for the right and the left of the party.”
Although Jermain is positive about his experience of running, the 2014 winner of The Voice UK does tell me: “I’ve been called every name underneath the sun. I’ve been called a Trot, a crank, a witch-hunter. Names that I have never even heard of before in my life because I come from the entertainment industry. And I thought that was brutal. Politics is brutal. But the Labour Party is a whole other level.” This name-calling “didn’t really affect me”, he says, “but it just felt so strange having adults behave like children”.
Jermain is worried that people “don’t understand their internalised racism”, and says: “I do question whether or not we really want to go on that journey to be in a Labour government, because right now we are setting ourselves back time and time again.” He is clearly exhausted by the infighting and how it distracts from the original reasons that people become politically active. And this is part of why he believes racism isn’t just a problem with members as individuals but with “institutional slates and institutional cliques”.
Jermain ran as an Open Labour candidate, but had also applied for Momentum’s endorsement. His name was raised in the meeting that determined the slate but not ultimately included. He does not complain about this outcome in our interview, yet outlines how he was perceived and treated. “People still call you careerist, rather than ambitious. People still called me a member of the right of the party, rather than actually having a conversation with me. Lies were created about ‘Oh, Jermain was mentored by Lisa Nandy, Jermain stood up and supported Keir Starmer in his local CLP meeting.’ No, that was another Black man. I had to battle all of these things.”
After the NEC results were announced, Jermain was contacted by people from other slates seeking to pick his brain for policies. “If you like my ideas so much, you should have had me on your slate!” he tells me. “I’m tired of hearing about and seeing backroom deals and ‘okay, I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’.” His solution? “We formalise the factions within the Labour Party. Just like how they do it in Australia.” He promises to send over a comment piece outlining in more detail how he would propose to reform the party in this way.
In the meantime, he hints that people simply need to grow up. Speaking of veteran NEC member Ann Black, who was also on the Open Labour slate and was elected this year, we laugh as Jermain recounts: “She said there was one time she was in a meeting for six hours, and a decision wasn’t made. And that broke my heart, to hear you were in a meeting for six whole hours. That’s a trip to New York, you’re in a meeting for a whole trip to New York! And a decision was not made. I would have left after the first 30 minutes.”
Terry and I talk more broadly about Black representation and anti-Black racism in the party. LabourList reported in September that he told an event Labour does not “have the back” of the Black community, so I ask him to expand on those thoughts. “Does the [Parliamentary Labour Party] look representative of the Black community, male and female? No, it doesn’t. Did the Labour Party talk enough about issues of concern to the Black community? No. If you look at issues around policing, we’re still thrashing around in the dark, trying to come up with an acceptable answer of how we deal with stop and search and underrepresentation.”
Terry is focused on how Black lived experiences don’t play a role in policy-making, and how Labour does not reflect well enough the communities it seeks to represent. Highlighting that Labour’s only Black male MPs are David Lammy, Clive Lewis and Mark Hendrick, he asks: “David is out there, Clive and Mark are banging the drum, but it’s only three of them, right? They can’t cover the pitch, can they?”
He doesn’t want “gestures” either, though. He wants to see “issues of concern to the Black community championed more” and “all policy portfolios handle the issues of concern to the Black community better” – but strongly warns against tokenism. “The key thing is I don’t like tokenism. I hate it. And I think there are sufficient people of colour who are eminently able to do the job on their own merits.”
Asked about the NEC election result, Terry is determined not to come across as resentful or anything like that, and of course he is not. “Members have a right not to choose you. You can’t insult people by saying, ‘hey, vote for me I’m a Black guy’. That’s ridiculous. I didn’t say that once during the campaign. I’ve never said it in my life.” But he is also clear about the problem. “The party didn’t want a Black man on the NEC. Simple as that. It didn’t vote for it. That’s it,” he concludes. “It’s people who are part of the structure. It’s not the computer saying no, it’s the person typing in the computer. Essentially, the party didn’t see fit to put either me or Jermain sufficiently high enough in the top nine slots.”
Turning to what needs to change within Labour, Terry picks up on fundamental issues of awareness and transparency – and holding the party to the standards it sets for others. “I don’t think the party could tell you how many ethnic minority members there are,” he says. “If you went to David Evans, or Keir Starmer right now, you say, how many Black men or Black members of staff do you have? They wouldn’t know, I suspect. ‘How many Black members do we have? I wouldn’t know, let me go check.’ They would probably come up with a reason why they can’t tell you. But we say to the rest of the UK, private and public sector, that’s not good enough. How many times have you heard a Labour politician haranguing an organisation for the lack of diversity at their board, their NEC?”
Terry notes, “I don’t want to use the word BAME… I hate the word, or BAME shortlist. Because now what happens? Black people get washed out either by other groups.” He stresses the need to talk about Black men explicitly, rather than BAME or ethnic minorities. And approaching the issue rather like a businessman, or perhaps a member of a governing body, he tells me: “I expect the Labour Party to do what it expects of UK civil society.” And the way that he identifies the solution is simply that the party “make use of its talent” – because it is already there, it just needs to be recognised and valued.
Which goals would he have pursued as an NEC member? “When seats come up, why is it always favoured sons and daughters, predominantly white and middle class in the trade unions, who get seats? Why is that?” he asks in response. “I would set a challenge to the Labour Party to put an end to the nonsense, where all-women shortlists seem to favour a certain type of women, where selections seem to favour the sons and daughters of the trade union barons. That’s what I wanted to do.”
And what is Terry Paul going to do next in his activism? Stand for Labour’s NEC again? “No. I’ll tell you what I’m gonna stand for. I’m gonna go into parliament, actually. I always try to be a positive individual. And I think, you know what I’m going to do? I want to stand outside of London in a seat that is predominantly white. You know why? Because I’m fed up.” He lists the majority-white seats represented by Black male Conservative MPs, and asks: “Why is it the Tories can do it?”.
Although Terry stood on the Labour to Win platform, very supportive of Keir Starmer and the current direction of the party, he does not shy away from setting challenges for the new leadership. “Something has to fix the Labour Party, and that only can be fixed by the leader, which is David Evans and Keir Starmer. No-one else. None of these special interest groups, taskforce, whatever. No. It’s a challenge that only those two can fix. And if they’re really interested in it, they should personally lead a piece of work on it… You deal with your most pressing problems with your best people.”
It is a pressing problem. Jermain tells me he has been “taking a step back from the Labour Party”, which means working at a grassroots level and with his local authority (“I’ve just had my recommendations voted on and accepted by Hackney Council”) rather than on internal elections. “Once you go into the Labour world, it’s almost like that’s the only thing that exists to you. It’s almost like your head is in a hole. It’s the only thing that you can see,” he points out, with devastating accuracy. His heart-breaking conclusion: “The level of toxicity in this movement has shown me that we’re not here for change.” Jermain tells me that after the leaked report, “I did have to look at my membership card and wonder if this was the party for me”.
Jermain and Terry adopt slightly different focuses in their analyses of Labour’s problem with Black men, but they agree that the problem exists and that it needs to be urgently addressed by the leadership. As Jermain says, “we do need to rebuild that red wall, but we need to remind ourselves that there are black and brown bricks in that wall too”. And as Terry puts plainly: “My challenge to David Evans and to Keir is, what are you doing about it?”. Jermain ends our Zoom call by saying: “Keir has my number. Let’s just say that: Keir has my number, and he can call me or text me whenever he wants.”


labourlist--2020-11-27--Labour leadership vows to tackle Islamophobia after meeting with LMN

Labour leader Keir Starmer , deputy leader Angela Rayner and general secretary David Evans have issued a statement promising to take steps to tackle Islamophobia after meeting with the Labour Muslim Network today .
The party was urged to tackle Islamophobia within its own ranks when a new report was put together and released two weeks ago by the Labour Muslim Network to mark Islamophobia Awareness Month in November .
The largest ever consultation of Muslim members and supporters of Labour found that more than one in four – 29 % – have directly experienced Islamophobia in the party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnessed it .
44 % of those consulted reported that they did not believe the party takes the issue of Islamophobia seriously , and 48 % said they did not have confidence in Labour to deal with Islamophobia effectively via its complaints process .
A majority of 59 % of Muslim members and supporters consulted said they did not feel “ well represented by the leadership of the Labour Party ” , while 55 % said they did not trust the leadership to tackle Islamophobia effectively .
Afzal Khan , who became the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , said : “ Whilst the Labour Party has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Muslim community for decades , we can not take their support for granted.
” Starmer had been criticised by some Labour members for not tweeting about the LMN report since it was released two weeks ago , but the leader has now confronted the concerns raised after meeting with the organisation .
The joint statement issued this afternoon reads : “ We take Islamophobia seriously and are utterly committed to eradicating it – both in our party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Network for their recent report , as well as their work to ensure our Muslim members are represented , included and heard .
“ We have met with LMN today to follow up on their report into Islamophobia within our party .
We are committed to taking swift and appropriate action to address Islamophobia and to ensure that it has no place in our party .
“ We have agreed to prepare a plan of action to take forward LMN ’ s initial recommendations .
We look forward to continuing our partnership with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be meeting with them regularly to discuss the next steps in tackling the scourge of Islamophobia.
” The key recommendations of the LMN report were as follows : • A “ public commitment ” from the leadership to equality for Muslims • Developing “ comprehensive ” Islamophobia training with LMN , the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim organisations • Conducting an equality impact assessment on all policies adopted by the party • Adopting the all-party parliamentary group definition of Islamophobia by all Labour-run councils , groups and local parties • Establishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out specific “ behaviours , policies and cultures ” that can be Islamophobic • Publishing a handbook to educate members on Islamophobia including a list of commonly used tropes

Labour leader Keir Starmer, deputy leader Angela Rayner and general secretary David Evans have issued a statement promising to take steps to tackle Islamophobia after meeting with the Labour Muslim Network today.
The party was urged to tackle Islamophobia within its own ranks when a new report was put together and released two weeks ago by the Labour Muslim Network to mark Islamophobia Awareness Month in November.
The largest ever consultation of Muslim members and supporters of Labour found that more than one in four – 29% – have directly experienced Islamophobia in the party, while over one in three have directly witnessed it.
44% of those consulted reported that they did not believe the party takes the issue of Islamophobia seriously, and 48% said they did not have confidence in Labour to deal with Islamophobia effectively via its complaints process.
A majority of 59% of Muslim members and supporters consulted said they did not feel “well represented by the leadership of the Labour Party”, while 55% said they did not trust the leadership to tackle Islamophobia effectively.
Afzal Khan, who became the LMN’s new parliamentary chair this year, said: “Whilst the Labour Party has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Muslim community for decades, we cannot take their support for granted.”
Starmer had been criticised by some Labour members for not tweeting about the LMN report since it was released two weeks ago, but the leader has now confronted the concerns raised after meeting with the organisation.
The joint statement issued this afternoon reads: “We take Islamophobia seriously and are utterly committed to eradicating it – both in our party and society. We thank Labour Muslim Network for their recent report, as well as their work to ensure our Muslim members are represented, included and heard.
“We have met with LMN today to follow up on their report into Islamophobia within our party. We are committed to taking swift and appropriate action to address Islamophobia and to ensure that it has no place in our party.
“We have agreed to prepare a plan of action to take forward LMN’s initial recommendations. We look forward to continuing our partnership with LMN to implement their recommendations and will be meeting with them regularly to discuss the next steps in tackling the scourge of Islamophobia.”
The key recommendations of the LMN report were as follows:


labourlist--2020-11-27--Retrofitting homes in the UK will be a key step towards climate justice

We all know that the climate crisis will require radical action at national and international levels .
But there is much to be done to address the crisis closer to home .
Retrofitting housing in the UK will be a key step towards climate justice and – in the absence of a Labour government – we need Labour councils nationwide to be brave enough to take a lead .
Housing is one of the main drivers of climate change , accounting for a growing proportion of the UK ’ s carbon emissions .
This includes both construction , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greenhouse gas emissions , and existing homes .
Our current housing stock is the least energy efficient in Europe , which drives up energy usage and bills forcing many to decide between heating and eating .
Not only will we have to green this sector of our economy to build the houses our country needs while meeting our climate commitments , but it is also an important vote winner .
Retrofitting housing is the clearest example of an eco-socialist policy that will materially improve people ’ s lives , by eliminating fuel poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( IPPR ) recently published a report on the economic benefits of retrofitting northern homes .
The report recommends a decarbonisation programme that would improve energy efficiency in over five million northern households and replace polluting heating systems with heat pumps in 4.6 million homes .
IPPR found that this would create 77,000 new jobs across the North by 2035 and bring an additional 111,000 supply chain jobs across the UK .
It forecast that these would generate an additional £3.85bn GVA to the North annually , which would help “ level up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , if carried out at present , such a programme would not ‘ level up ’ the North and would fall far short of a socialist green new deal .
While retrofitting is essential to bringing about a zero-carbon future , the programme outlined by the IPPR would only create private jobs and line the pockets of large private companies .
Between 2010 and November 2019 , almost five times as much was spent on new private housing than new public housing , and double on private repairs .
In 2006 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s housebuilding boom , the ten largest housebuilding companies accounted for almost half of newly completed homes .
This public/private imbalance is reflected in architecture too , with only 0.7 % of all architects being publicly employed .
Compare this to the early 1960s – the era of great public housing , when half of all architects worked in the public sector and the ten largest housebuilding companies contributed only around 8-9 % of all housing – and we see just how dominated the market has become .
Not only should we be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private hands , we should also recognise that it is due to our current market-oriented housing system , and lack of publicly-employed architects and construction workers , that new builds are not being designed with people and environmental standards in mind .
It is a fallacy that the private sector can build ( or retrofit ! )
us out of the climate crisis .
Instead of putting public funds into private pockets and relying on large property developers for poor-quality and unsustainable housing , we need to ensure that those who retrofit our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector jobs .
Obviously , solving our housing woes is a problem that requires a ( Labour ) government willing to invest in and roll-out a total decarbonisation programme .
But with climate activists rightly calling for a 2030 decarbonisation deadline to mitigate the worst climate impacts , and 2024 being the earliest possible date we can elect a Labour government , we need radical action at a local level now .
Labour councils have an opportunity to lead the fight for climate justice .
They all already have housing teams in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undertake repairs on vacant social housing .
These workers , alongside public-oriented architects and builders , could form green public housing teams to retrofit existing social housing , greatly lowering carbon emissions and ending fuel poverty for millions immediately .
Councillors would not be working alone in this .
Organised workers are already making these calls – as seen in UNISON ’ s national ‘ Warm Homes into the Future ‘ policy , and Leeds TUC ’ s campaign demanding local retrofitting .
Municipal action in support of workers ’ demands could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left coalition to fight the climate crisis , at the same time preparing the ground for 2024 .
The next Labour government must build millions of council houses .
These can not be built by the UK ’ s large , monopolistic housebuilding companies under our current system where both standards for sustainable design and accountability within construction are lacking .
If the next Labour government can hope to provide green public housing for the many , our local authorities need to have publicly-employed , public-oriented design and construction teams in place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the houses – quick !

We all know that the climate crisis will require radical action at national and international levels. But there is much to be done to address the crisis closer to home. Retrofitting housing in the UK will be a key step towards climate justice and – in the absence of a Labour government – we need Labour councils nationwide to be brave enough to take a lead.
Housing is one of the main drivers of climate change, accounting for a growing proportion of the UK’s carbon emissions. This includes both construction, with the built environment contributing almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions, and existing homes. Our current housing stock is the least energy efficient in Europe, which drives up energy usage and bills forcing many to decide between heating and eating.
Not only will we have to green this sector of our economy to build the houses our country needs while meeting our climate commitments, but it is also an important vote winner. Retrofitting housing is the clearest example of an eco-socialist policy that will materially improve people’s lives, by eliminating fuel poverty.
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) recently published a report on the economic benefits of retrofitting northern homes. The report recommends a decarbonisation programme that would improve energy efficiency in over five million northern households and replace polluting heating systems with heat pumps in 4.6 million homes.
IPPR found that this would create 77,000 new jobs across the North by 2035 and bring an additional 111,000 supply chain jobs across the UK. It forecast that these would generate an additional £3.85bn GVA to the North annually, which would help “level up the North’s economy”.
Unfortunately, if carried out at present, such a programme would not ‘level up’ the North and would fall far short of a socialist green new deal. While retrofitting is essential to bringing about a zero-carbon future, the programme outlined by the IPPR would only create private jobs and line the pockets of large private companies.
Between 2010 and November 2019, almost five times as much was spent on new private housing than new public housing, and double on private repairs. In 2006, at the peak of the UK’s housebuilding boom, the ten largest housebuilding companies accounted for almost half of newly completed homes.
This public/private imbalance is reflected in architecture too, with only 0.7% of all architects being publicly employed. Compare this to the early 1960s – the era of great public housing, when half of all architects worked in the public sector and the ten largest housebuilding companies contributed only around 8-9% of all housing – and we see just how dominated the market has become.
Not only should we be concerned by the concentration of wealth in private hands, we should also recognise that it is due to our current market-oriented housing system, and lack of publicly-employed architects and construction workers, that new builds are not being designed with people and environmental standards in mind. It is a fallacy that the private sector can build (or retrofit!) us out of the climate crisis. Instead of putting public funds into private pockets and relying on large property developers for poor-quality and unsustainable housing, we need to ensure that those who retrofit our homes are given good, well-paid public sector jobs.
Obviously, solving our housing woes is a problem that requires a (Labour) government willing to invest in and roll-out a total decarbonisation programme. But with climate activists rightly calling for a 2030 decarbonisation deadline to mitigate the worst climate impacts, and 2024 being the earliest possible date we can elect a Labour government, we need radical action at a local level now.
Labour councils have an opportunity to lead the fight for climate justice. They all already have housing teams in place. Sheffield recently hired 39 new apprentices to undertake repairs on vacant social housing. These workers, alongside public-oriented architects and builders, could form green public housing teams to retrofit existing social housing, greatly lowering carbon emissions and ending fuel poverty for millions immediately.
Councillors would not be working alone in this. Organised workers are already making these calls – as seen in UNISON’s national ‘Warm Homes into the Future‘ policy, and Leeds TUC’s campaign demanding local retrofitting. Municipal action in support of workers’ demands could help set the stage for a powerful left coalition to fight the climate crisis, at the same time preparing the ground for 2024.
The next Labour government must build millions of council houses. These cannot be built by the UK’s large, monopolistic housebuilding companies under our current system where both standards for sustainable design and accountability within construction are lacking. If the next Labour government can hope to provide green public housing for the many, our local authorities need to have publicly-employed, public-oriented design and construction teams in place to deliver it. We need to retrofit the houses – quick!


labourlist--2020-11-27--Sunak is still ignoring the Excluded – and it threatens to hold back our recovery

With any fiscal events , there are winners and losers , and the list of losers from this week ’ s spending review is a sobering read .
It includes frontline public servants like teaching assistants , health and safety inspectors , and environmental workers , who have been hit with yet another pay cut as a reward for their hard work and sacrifices during this pandemic .
And , shamefully , it includes the world ’ s poorest and most vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of the cut in overseas aid spending .
But there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of financial damage in the spending review , with the added insult of complete denial and gaslighting from the Chancellor .
These are the ‘ Excluded ’ – those workers who do not qualify for help under either the job retention scheme or the self-employed income support scheme .
These workers , largely self-employed and freelancers , have faced a year with no support at all , while others have rightly received thousands of pounds as part of the response to an unprecedented employment crisis brought about by the Covid restrictions .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes thousands of workers in our Bectu sector working in the creative industries , from PAYE freelancers getting started in theatre through to renowned assistant directors working on major feature films .
The Treasury line on this issue has veered wildly throughout the months .
At the start , we were told that the schemes were set up quickly and that problems would be ironed out later .
Then the issue morphed for the first time ; everyone who was excluded apparently earned hundreds of thousands of pounds a year .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the excuse was that the government was scared of fraud .
Now the approach seems to be a toxic mix of denial that the issue exists and vague generalities about how much support has been given in total .
Rishi Sunak ’ s answer on Good Morning Britain on Thursday was a case in point : answering a question about desperate workers by claiming that they should be grateful because the government is funding the public services they use .
It ’ s obvious they are floundering .
This is a desperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the long-term trends affecting self-employed workers , Prospect set up the inquiry into the future of self-employment , working with Community and the Federation of Small Businesses .
At an evidence session recently , I heard about the wave of despair that is sweeping through this fragile community of workers .
People are really suffering , and the Chancellor ’ s refusal to even acknowledge the problem is causing pain and anger and exacerbating stress and mental health issues .
The real danger is that the government ’ s approach drives people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our economic recovery .
Industries like the Arts , which are naturally project-based , rely on a flexible workforce of freelancers and self-employed workers .
These people want to work in this way , and unions like Prospect through our Bectu sector , Equity and the Musicians ’ Union are proud to represent them .
We need these people to bounce back in 2021 and power forward the recovery of a sector that enriches our lives but also contributes over £100bn to the economy .
But they can ’ t bounce back if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers as part of our inquiry about the future of freelancing , one simply replied that “ nobody wants to do it any more ” .
These are the kind of people a Tory government normally claims to champion but they have been totally abandoned , leaving it to trade unions , grassroots groups and opposition parties like Labour to make the case for the self-employed .
Our job as trade unionists is not only to fight for these workers to receive the support they deserve , but to map out a future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brings more dignity to the workers who choose to work in this way .
Our inquiry will be making recommendations on this ahead of next year ’ s Budget .
Rishi Sunak should think again before ignoring the voices of the organised self-employed .

With any fiscal events, there are winners and losers, and the list of losers from this week’s spending review is a sobering read. It includes frontline public servants like teaching assistants, health and safety inspectors, and environmental workers, who have been hit with yet another pay cut as a reward for their hard work and sacrifices during this pandemic. And, shamefully, it includes the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of the cut in overseas aid spending.
But there is one group who have suffered the injury of financial damage in the spending review, with the added insult of complete denial and gaslighting from the Chancellor. These are the ‘Excluded’ – those workers who do not qualify for help under either the job retention scheme or the self-employed income support scheme.
These workers, largely self-employed and freelancers, have faced a year with no support at all, while others have rightly received thousands of pounds as part of the response to an unprecedented employment crisis brought about by the Covid restrictions. In Prospect’s membership, this group includes thousands of workers in our Bectu sector working in the creative industries, from PAYE freelancers getting started in theatre through to renowned assistant directors working on major feature films.
The Treasury line on this issue has veered wildly throughout the months. At the start, we were told that the schemes were set up quickly and that problems would be ironed out later. Then the issue morphed for the first time; everyone who was excluded apparently earned hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. Then, when that was revealed as a nonsense, the excuse was that the government was scared of fraud.
Now the approach seems to be a toxic mix of denial that the issue exists and vague generalities about how much support has been given in total. Rishi Sunak’s answer on Good Morning Britain on Thursday was a case in point: answering a question about desperate workers by claiming that they should be grateful because the government is funding the public services they use. It’s obvious they are floundering.
This is a desperate situation. In response to this issue and the long-term trends affecting self-employed workers, Prospect set up the inquiry into the future of self-employment, working with Community and the Federation of Small Businesses. At an evidence session recently, I heard about the wave of despair that is sweeping through this fragile community of workers. People are really suffering, and the Chancellor’s refusal to even acknowledge the problem is causing pain and anger and exacerbating stress and mental health issues.
The real danger is that the government’s approach drives people away from genuine self-employment and holds back our economic recovery. Industries like the Arts, which are naturally project-based, rely on a flexible workforce of freelancers and self-employed workers. These people want to work in this way, and unions like Prospect through our Bectu sector, Equity and the Musicians’ Union are proud to represent them. We need these people to bounce back in 2021 and power forward the recovery of a sector that enriches our lives but also contributes over £100bn to the economy. But they can’t bounce back if they are destitute.
When I asked workers as part of our inquiry about the future of freelancing, one simply replied that “nobody wants to do it any more”. These are the kind of people a Tory government normally claims to champion but they have been totally abandoned, leaving it to trade unions, grassroots groups and opposition parties like Labour to make the case for the self-employed.
Our job as trade unionists is not only to fight for these workers to receive the support they deserve, but to map out a future for self-employment that is more secure and brings more dignity to the workers who choose to work in this way. Our inquiry will be making recommendations on this ahead of next year’s Budget. Rishi Sunak should think again before ignoring the voices of the organised self-employed.


labourlist--2020-11-28--Cutting our aid budget undermines the UK’s credibility as a force for good

The Prime Minister last week promised the House of Commons that he would end an era of British retreat from the world stage .
Instead , in breaking his promise to the world ’ s poorest and the British people , he has signalled the biggest retreat by a British government in decades .
I have been dismayed by the patronising comments by some Tories that people in the North or the Midlands don ’ t care about helping people in need .
This does a disservice to the British people and is simply false .
We know how generous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – we see it in upsurges in volunteering , fundraising and donating whenever humanitarian emergencies hit the news .
And I know my constituents are incredibly proud of the UK ’ s record in inoculating children against deaths from preventable diseases , and providing safe drinking water and food aid following disasters .
However , in recent years , the government has increasingly diverted the aid budget away from the poorest countries to projects and programmes that have stretched the definition of humanitarian or development support to breaking point .
This is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made and it must stop .
Aid should be spent on eradicating poverty and tackling inequality .
Spending aid helping the world ’ s poorest is not just the right thing to do but it is in our national interest .
Next year we host the presidency of the G7 , the UN Security council , the Global Partnership for Education summit and COP26 ( the UN Climate Conference ) .
As we leave the European Union , these are opportunities to showcase Britain as a leader on the greatest challenges facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of British people to the world .
Instead , by breaking the commitment that was enshrined in law and promised in their manifesto a year ago this week , and that has been repeated many times since by Boris Johnson , Dominic Raab and his ministers , the government is calling into question whether they can be trusted to keep their word .
This administration seems determined to shirk its international responsibilities and commitments , regardless of what that does to our country ’ s reputation .
Britain historically punches well above its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that influence is built on trust .
Our traditional allies as well as our detractors and competitors are looking on , and make no mistake , they have already noted this move – and it will weaken our hand .
We are in the middle of a global health crisis which has caused devastation around the world with the loss of almost 1.5 million lives directly due to the coronavirus .
Defeating it as quickly as possible requires cooperation and collaboration across borders , but this government has repeatedly shown they have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Breaking alliances and weakening our global influence puts us all at risk .
The UN Climate Conference next year is vital to our efforts to agree a dramatic acceleration in the pace and scale of global climate action .
For it to be a success , the UK will need to lead by example and harness the political will and drive of others .
Cutting the aid budget sets the worst possible example .
Not only have Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak undermined the UK ’ s credibility as a force for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder for us to build a safer , healthier , fairer , better world for all of us .
From civil servants to the world ’ s poorest , this government has a knack for passing the buck for its shortcomings ; all the better when their scapegoats can ’ t answer back .
They have wasted billions of pounds of UK taxpayers ’ money on 184 million items of unusable personal protective equipment during Covid , a test and trace system that still isn ’ t working and contracts handed out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than taking responsibility for their incompetence , this government has chosen to make the poorest and most vulnerable pay for its failures .
Rishi Sunak ’ s announcement this week of a second cut to the aid budget this year was a political choice , not a necessity .
One that a Foreign Office minister described as “ fundamentally wrong ” in her resignation letter .
The 0.7 % commitment ensures that the country only funds what it can afford .
If the UK economy is doing well it goes up ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic downturn in the G7 , then yes , it goes down proportionally .
During the economic crisis in 2008 , the last Labour government showed you can support the UK economy and the people in this country without turning your back on the world ’ s poorest .
We can help the poorest people in the UK and abroad if we choose to .
This government has made the decision not to .

The Prime Minister last week promised the House of Commons that he would end an era of British retreat from the world stage. Instead, in breaking his promise to the world’s poorest and the British people, he has signalled the biggest retreat by a British government in decades.
I have been dismayed by the patronising comments by some Tories that people in the North or the Midlands don’t care about helping people in need. This does a disservice to the British people and is simply false.
We know how generous and compassionate people are in this country – we see it in upsurges in volunteering, fundraising and donating whenever humanitarian emergencies hit the news. And I know my constituents are incredibly proud of the UK’s record in inoculating children against deaths from preventable diseases, and providing safe drinking water and food aid following disasters.
However, in recent years, the government has increasingly diverted the aid budget away from the poorest countries to projects and programmes that have stretched the definition of humanitarian or development support to breaking point. This is an active choice that successive Secretaries of State have made and it must stop. Aid should be spent on eradicating poverty and tackling inequality.
Spending aid helping the world’s poorest is not just the right thing to do but it is in our national interest. Next year we host the presidency of the G7, the UN Security council, the Global Partnership for Education summit and COP26 (the UN Climate Conference). As we leave the European Union, these are opportunities to showcase Britain as a leader on the greatest challenges facing humanity and demonstrate the compassion and solidarity of British people to the world.
Instead, by breaking the commitment that was enshrined in law and promised in their manifesto a year ago this week, and that has been repeated many times since by Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab and his ministers, the government is calling into question whether they can be trusted to keep their word. This administration seems determined to shirk its international responsibilities and commitments, regardless of what that does to our country’s reputation.
Britain historically punches well above its weight on the world stage, but that influence is built on trust. Our traditional allies as well as our detractors and competitors are looking on, and make no mistake, they have already noted this move – and it will weaken our hand.
We are in the middle of a global health crisis which has caused devastation around the world with the loss of almost 1.5 million lives directly due to the coronavirus. Defeating it as quickly as possible requires cooperation and collaboration across borders, but this government has repeatedly shown they have no clear strategy for engaging with the world. Breaking alliances and weakening our global influence puts us all at risk.
The UN Climate Conference next year is vital to our efforts to agree a dramatic acceleration in the pace and scale of global climate action. For it to be a success, the UK will need to lead by example and harness the political will and drive of others. Cutting the aid budget sets the worst possible example. Not only have Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak undermined the UK’s credibility as a force for good, they have made it far harder for us to build a safer, healthier, fairer, better world for all of us.
From civil servants to the world’s poorest, this government has a knack for passing the buck for its shortcomings; all the better when their scapegoats can’t answer back. They have wasted billions of pounds of UK taxpayers’ money on 184 million items of unusable personal protective equipment during Covid, a test and trace system that still isn’t working and contracts handed out to their family and mates. But rather than taking responsibility for their incompetence, this government has chosen to make the poorest and most vulnerable pay for its failures.
Rishi Sunak’s announcement this week of a second cut to the aid budget this year was a political choice, not a necessity. One that a Foreign Office minister described as “fundamentally wrong” in her resignation letter. The 0.7% commitment ensures that the country only funds what it can afford. If the UK economy is doing well it goes up; and if you are presiding over the worst economic downturn in the G7, then yes, it goes down proportionally.
During the economic crisis in 2008, the last Labour government showed you can support the UK economy and the people in this country without turning your back on the world’s poorest. We can help the poorest people in the UK and abroad if we choose to. This government has made the decision not to.


labourlist--2020-11-29--Rayner says “thousands” of Labour members may be suspended from party

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner has called on members to “ get real ” about antisemitism within the party and warned that “ thousands and thousands ” could be suspended if they fail to do so .
Addressing the Jewish Labour Movement one-day conference this morning , Rayner talked about a local Nottingham East Labour meeting on Friday that led to a Jewish member saying he felt forced to leave .
The local party considered and passed a motion calling for the Labour whip to be restored to Jeremy Corbyn – after general secretary David Evans had said such motions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Local Labour MP Nadia Whittome issued a statement to “ put on record my stated objection to the motion this evening ” .
She described the “ atmosphere and tone ” of the meeting as “ wholly unacceptable ” .
Commenting on the events , Rayner said : “ We ’ re on it , by the way .
I want people to know that there as been suspensions and we ’ re on it and we are supporting Nadia , the MP there who spoke out and I completely commend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members need to get real about this , our Labour members .
If they don ’ t think antisemitism is within the Labour Party and that there ’ s problems now , then there ’ s really no place for them in the Labour Party .
“ If they think making people feel unsafe or unwelcome in our meetings is a response to the EHRC report , then they need to be out of our party immediately .
People need to understand what our Jewish community have been through.
” The Equality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released in October found that there were “ unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible ” .
The deputy leader added : “ We should have a bit of humility… We should be listening and aware of how hurt and upset people are .
I feel really , really angry actually that there ’ s been scenes like that in our CLP meetings .
“ If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members , we will do that .
Because we can not and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because an injury to one is an injury to all .
That ’ s what we say in our movement .
“ It ’ s about education as well .
It ’ s about having this approach where we don ’ t accept that people – you know , we have debates but there ’ s no debating what the EHRC said .
“ There ’ s no debating whether antisemitism exists in the Labour Party .
It does , and we ’ ve got to do everything we can to stamp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments , Rayner said : “ What Jeremy said in response to the EHRC report was totally unacceptable .
Any attempts to minimise or downplay the extent of antisemitism are part of the problem .
This is the issue .
“ I knew this would happen .
It is a matter of public record now that I contacted Jeremy to try and get him not to say what he said , and to apologise and withdraw it afterwards .
Because I don ’ t think Jeremy really quite gets how upsetting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is when he made those comments .
And I just want to say that I really do hope that Jeremy really does reflect now on what he said on the day that report was published and his response to that .
“ I truly hope he reflects .
I understand that he thinks he ’ s always tackled issues of antisemitism .
I understand he thinks he ’ s always tackled issues of racism .
But on this , he ’ s wrong .
He has to accept as a leader that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept that .
I ’ ve accepted my failure in that .
Then we ’ ve got to go and make sure that we do everything we possibly can to regain that trust and respect .
“ I don ’ t think Jeremy has done enough for that now , no , so at the very least I think he should apologise , absolutely.
” Corbyn was suspended in October after commenting that “ one antisemite is one too many ” but also claiming that “ the scale of the problem was… dramatically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
A panel of Labour national executive committee ( NEC ) members decided to readmit Corbyn to the party less than three weeks later , but Starmer the following day announced that the whip would continue to be withheld .
The former leader has been told by chief whip Nick Brown that the suspension of the whip is set to last for three months and this will be kept “ under review ” .
He has been asked to apologise and edit or delete his EHRC response post .

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner has called on members to “get real” about antisemitism within the party and warned that “thousands and thousands” could be suspended if they fail to do so.
Addressing the Jewish Labour Movement one-day conference this morning, Rayner talked about a local Nottingham East Labour meeting on Friday that led to a Jewish member saying he felt forced to leave.
The local party considered and passed a motion calling for the Labour whip to be restored to Jeremy Corbyn – after general secretary David Evans had said such motions would be “ruled out of order”.
Local Labour MP Nadia Whittome issued a statement to “put on record my stated objection to the motion this evening”. She described the “atmosphere and tone” of the meeting as “wholly unacceptable”.
Commenting on the events, Rayner said: “We’re on it, by the way. I want people to know that there as been suspensions and we’re on it and we are supporting Nadia, the MP there who spoke out and I completely commend her for doing that.
“Our members need to get real about this, our Labour members. If they don’t think antisemitism is within the Labour Party and that there’s problems now, then there’s really no place for them in the Labour Party.
“If they think making people feel unsafe or unwelcome in our meetings is a response to the EHRC report, then they need to be out of our party immediately. People need to understand what our Jewish community have been through.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission report on Labour antisemitism released in October found that there were “unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination for which the Labour Party is responsible”.
The deputy leader added: “We should have a bit of humility… We should be listening and aware of how hurt and upset people are. I feel really, really angry actually that there’s been scenes like that in our CLP meetings.
“If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that. Because we cannot and we will not accept an injury to one, because an injury to one is an injury to all. That’s what we say in our movement.
“It’s about education as well. It’s about having this approach where we don’t accept that people – you know, we have debates but there’s no debating what the EHRC said.
“There’s no debating whether antisemitism exists in the Labour Party. It does, and we’ve got to do everything we can to stamp it out.”
Turning to Corbyn’s comments, Rayner said: “What Jeremy said in response to the EHRC report was totally unacceptable. Any attempts to minimise or downplay the extent of antisemitism are part of the problem. This is the issue.
“I knew this would happen. It is a matter of public record now that I contacted Jeremy to try and get him not to say what he said, and to apologise and withdraw it afterwards. Because I don’t think Jeremy really quite gets how upsetting it is.
“How really upsetting it is when he made those comments. And I just want to say that I really do hope that Jeremy really does reflect now on what he said on the day that report was published and his response to that.
“I truly hope he reflects. I understand that he thinks he’s always tackled issues of antisemitism. I understand he thinks he’s always tackled issues of racism. But on this, he’s wrong. He has to accept as a leader that we failed.
“We all have to accept that. I’ve accepted my failure in that. Then we’ve got to go and make sure that we do everything we possibly can to regain that trust and respect.
“I don’t think Jeremy has done enough for that now, no, so at the very least I think he should apologise, absolutely.”
Corbyn was suspended in October after commenting that “one antisemite is one too many” but also claiming that “the scale of the problem was… dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”.
A panel of Labour national executive committee (NEC) members decided to readmit Corbyn to the party less than three weeks later, but Starmer the following day announced that the whip would continue to be withheld.
The former leader has been told by chief whip Nick Brown that the suspension of the whip is set to last for three months and this will be kept “under review”. He has been asked to apologise and edit or delete his EHRC response post.