labourlist--2020-05-19--The Tory trade bill threatens parliamentary sovereignty

Two and half years on from its first appearance , the government is bringing back the trade bill to the House of Commons this week .
Embarrassed by the public outcry over chlorine-washed chicken and stymied by Labour amendments insisting on proper democratic scrutiny , the government had been reluctant to risk putting the bill to a final vote when it had a working minority of 42 .
To bring it back at this time of crisis – knowing that in normal times it would engender considerable public concerns – is inexcusable .
Those concerns relate to how free trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberties , our labour standards , environmental protections , food safety regulations , animal welfare laws and the capacity of our public services to continue to operate in the public sector .
If this bill goes through unamended , the government will have afforded itself unchecked powers to lock the UK into binding obligations under international law that may profoundly impact upon each of these areas .
Parliament would have no say .
The procedure for ratification of international treaties is laid out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 ( CRAGA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaty need only be laid on the floor of the House for a period of 21 sitting days – if there is no vote against it during that period , it passes into law .
But the government decides on the business of parliament and can simply arrange that no vote takes place .
The only possible block would be an opposition day debate , which the government can simply choose not to grant .
When CRAGA was introduced , there were a huge number of scrutiny processes in place throughout the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any negotiation mandate at the European Council , there were consultation procedures , and the European parliament committee on international trade would scrutinise the treaty before passing it to the European parliament to vote on .
It then came to the EU scrutiny committee in the Commons for further examination before the CRAGA process ratified it .
Under this bill , all that is left is the rubber stamp of CRAGA .
All other layers are gone .
That is why it is of the utmost importance that in next week ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative process and scrutiny framework that ensures formal consultation with key stakeholders , trade unions and devolved administrations as well as a formal role for parliament .
Now that we no longer participate in the scrutiny layers that exist in the EU , it can not be right that we find ourselves in a situation where there is no democratic oversight of trade agreements whatsoever .
For the past four years , the Labour frontbench in both the Commons and Lords have fought to defend the sovereignty of parliament and insisted that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may disagree about whether a free trade agreement will benefit jobs and the economy , or whether it will adequately protect our rights and environmental standards .
But they should at least have the right to debate these matters and hold the government to account .
This bill denies us that right .
This is not parliament taking back control – it is government snatching it from parliament .
Of course , we are all pre-occupied with Covid-19 .
I am too .
But I urge colleagues to fight this awful piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , even in a time of lockdown at the other end of a Zoom call , we can fulfil our role as Her Majesty ’ s Official Opposition and expose the dangers of this bill .
The use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in future trade agreements should be ruled out in any form .
They give higher rights to foreign investors than to our own domestic companies , allowing them to sue our government for policy decisions that impact upon even their potential profits .
The high costs of defending these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chill ’ , where governments back off from sensible public policy decisions .
So much for gaining freedom from a supranational court .
Negative lists of those services to be liberalised should be banned because of the way that they prevent government from regulating emergent or future services not yet invented .
So much for making our own way in the world .
Last week , we saw the government refuse to amend the Agriculture Bill to safeguard our existing environmental protections , food safety regulations and animal welfare laws .
But simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not protect them in a free trade agreement .
Allowing the importation of goods produced to lower standards , or made in conditions which would be illegal in the UK , will undermine our own producers and lead to a race to the bottom .
So much for not lowering our food standards .
Then there is the innocuous sounding provision for the “ restructuring of pharmaceutical pricing models ” .
This is the way you undermine the health service by downgrading our bulk purchasing power against big pharmaceutical companies .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their hands .
Labour MPs must demand that this bill sets a proper regulatory framework for our independent trade policy .
This means formal consultation before the start of any negotiations including formal engagement with stakeholders , business organisations , trade unions , civil society groups and the devolved administrations .
It means full , bespoke , UK-specific , impact assessments addressing the economic benefits and losses anticipated from any trade agreement and the impact on rights , standards equalities and climate goals .
It means parliamentary approval of negotiating mandates and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prior to ratification .
And it means a properly independent trade remedies authority that reports to parliament on its decisions .
The debate this week is about more than trade .
It is about the balance of power between parliament and the executive .
It is about the sovereignty of parliament – something that every Tory who will vote for this obnoxious bill swore to defend in their manifesto .

Two and half years on from its first appearance, the government is bringing back the trade bill to the House of Commons this week. Embarrassed by the public outcry over chlorine-washed chicken and stymied by Labour amendments insisting on proper democratic scrutiny, the government had been reluctant to risk putting the bill to a final vote when it had a working minority of 42.
To bring it back at this time of crisis – knowing that in normal times it would engender considerable public concerns – is inexcusable. Those concerns relate to how free trade agreements can impinge on our rights and liberties, our labour standards, environmental protections, food safety regulations, animal welfare laws and the capacity of our public services to continue to operate in the public sector. If this bill goes through unamended, the government will have afforded itself unchecked powers to lock the UK into binding obligations under international law that may profoundly impact upon each of these areas. Parliament would have no say.
The procedure for ratification of international treaties is laid out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAGA). This legislation stipulates that any treaty need only be laid on the floor of the House for a period of 21 sitting days – if there is no vote against it during that period, it passes into law. But the government decides on the business of parliament and can simply arrange that no vote takes place. The only possible block would be an opposition day debate, which the government can simply choose not to grant.
When CRAGA was introduced, there were a huge number of scrutiny processes in place throughout the EU. The government would have a say in any negotiation mandate at the European Council, there were consultation procedures, and the European parliament committee on international trade would scrutinise the treaty before passing it to the European parliament to vote on. It then came to the EU scrutiny committee in the Commons for further examination before the CRAGA process ratified it. Under this bill, all that is left is the rubber stamp of CRAGA. All other layers are gone.
That is why it is of the utmost importance that in next week’s debate we should demand a proper legislative process and scrutiny framework that ensures formal consultation with key stakeholders, trade unions and devolved administrations as well as a formal role for parliament. Now that we no longer participate in the scrutiny layers that exist in the EU, it cannot be right that we find ourselves in a situation where there is no democratic oversight of trade agreements whatsoever.
For the past four years, the Labour frontbench in both the Commons and Lords have fought to defend the sovereignty of parliament and insisted that there be a proper ratification process. MPs may disagree about whether a free trade agreement will benefit jobs and the economy, or whether it will adequately protect our rights and environmental standards. But they should at least have the right to debate these matters and hold the government to account. This bill denies us that right. This is not parliament taking back control – it is government snatching it from parliament.
Of course, we are all pre-occupied with Covid-19. I am too. But I urge colleagues to fight this awful piece of legislation as never before. And show that, even in a time of lockdown at the other end of a Zoom call, we can fulfil our role as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition and expose the dangers of this bill.
The use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in future trade agreements should be ruled out in any form. They give higher rights to foreign investors than to our own domestic companies, allowing them to sue our government for policy decisions that impact upon even their potential profits. The high costs of defending these cases in private courts creates ‘regulatory chill’, where governments back off from sensible public policy decisions. So much for gaining freedom from a supranational court.
Negative lists of those services to be liberalised should be banned because of the way that they prevent government from regulating emergent or future services not yet invented. So much for making our own way in the world.
Last week, we saw the government refuse to amend the Agriculture Bill to safeguard our existing environmental protections, food safety regulations and animal welfare laws. But simply keeping our regulations for our farmers here does not protect them in a free trade agreement. Allowing the importation of goods produced to lower standards, or made in conditions which would be illegal in the UK, will undermine our own producers and lead to a race to the bottom. So much for not lowering our food standards.
Then there is the innocuous sounding provision for the “restructuring of pharmaceutical pricing models”. This is the way you undermine the health service by downgrading our bulk purchasing power against big pharmaceutical companies. So much for the NHS being safe in their hands.
Labour MPs must demand that this bill sets a proper regulatory framework for our independent trade policy. This means formal consultation before the start of any negotiations including formal engagement with stakeholders, business organisations, trade unions, civil society groups and the devolved administrations.
It means full, bespoke, UK-specific, impact assessments addressing the economic benefits and losses anticipated from any trade agreement and the impact on rights, standards equalities and climate goals. It means parliamentary approval of negotiating mandates and a parliamentary vote to approve a trade agreement prior to ratification. And it means a properly independent trade remedies authority that reports to parliament on its decisions.
The debate this week is about more than trade. It is about the balance of power between parliament and the executive. It is about the sovereignty of parliament – something that every Tory who will vote for this obnoxious bill swore to defend in their manifesto.


labourlist--2020-05-19--So give me coffee and STV?

So give me coffee and STV?

The Tory immigration bill was passed by the House of Commons at second reading last night , with 351 votes in favour and 252 against .
The move will end EU freedom of movement and introduce a new , as yet undefined , immigration system .
This is the reality of an 80-seat majority for the Conservatives : amid a pandemic , they can prioritise rushing through legislation to punish many of those on the frontline and many of those most at risk of losing their lives to the virus .
Labour ’ s Shadow Home Secretary focused his arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a signal to key workers , many of whom earn under £25,600 , that they are “ unskilled and unwelcome ” .
Labour MPs were on a three-line whip to vote against the bill .
None voted in favour , but 15 had no vote recorded .
A number of them – including frontbencher Rachel Reeves and backbencher Clive Lewis – said they had technical difficulties , because this vote was done remotely .
But chair of the home affairs select committee Yvette Cooper announced in the chamber that “ in cross-party spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
“ I believe that this bill is flawed , but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed , ” Cooper said .
The former Labour leadership candidate has long taken the view that the UK needs “ more honest public debate about immigration ” , which from her perspective means not setting unachievable net migration targets but also being tough on illegal immigration .
The party membership is overwhelmingly supportive of a more pro-immigration approach , however , and 2019 conference backed extending free movement .
Some online activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marked a return to the days of immigration mugs , but that the party unequivocally set a three-line whip against the bill stands in contrast to the indecision we saw when Jeremy Corbyn ’ s Labour ordered abstentions before performing a U-turn .
Labour ’ s national executive committee will meet virtually today .
Members will discuss party conference , the next set of NEC elections and the voting system used for those contests .
On conference , the leadership is understood to be keen on holding it in some kind of virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech by Keir Starmer and perhaps the passing of rule changes made necessary by the EHRC antisemitism investigation .
Local parties have not been able to pass motions – though that suits the leadership just fine when it wants to go slow on policy-making at the start of a parliamentary term .
There is broad consensus on conference arrangements .
There is less consensus on NEC elections .
The moderates are keen for the contests to take place this summer , while the left members are less so – they say local parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the process should be put off until next year .
A similar divide is seen on the issue of a switch to a preferential voting system for NEC elections , with Labour First/Progress-aligned NEC members happy with the change and Momentum-aligned reps not .
However , Labour left figures such as Clive Lewis – more associated with Compass and electoral reform – are also in favour of STV , and it is thought Jon Lansman himself could vote for it .
And of course the soft left are leading the STV campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NEC meeting here .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The Tory immigration bill was passed by the House of Commons at second reading last night, with 351 votes in favour and 252 against. The move will end EU freedom of movement and introduce a new, as yet undefined, immigration system. This is the reality of an 80-seat majority for the Conservatives: amid a pandemic, they can prioritise rushing through legislation to punish many of those on the frontline and many of those most at risk of losing their lives to the virus. Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary focused his arguments on this point: the bill sends a signal to key workers, many of whom earn under £25,600, that they are “unskilled and unwelcome”.
Labour MPs were on a three-line whip to vote against the bill. None voted in favour, but 15 had no vote recorded. A number of them – including frontbencher Rachel Reeves and backbencher Clive Lewis – said they had technical difficulties, because this vote was done remotely. But chair of the home affairs select committee Yvette Cooper announced in the chamber that “in cross-party spirit” she would not vote against the bill. “I believe that this bill is flawed, but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed,” Cooper said.
The former Labour leadership candidate has long taken the view that the UK needs “more honest public debate about immigration”, which from her perspective means not setting unachievable net migration targets but also being tough on illegal immigration. The party membership is overwhelmingly supportive of a more pro-immigration approach, however, and 2019 conference backed extending free movement. Some online activists expressed concern that Cooper’s move marked a return to the days of immigration mugs, but that the party unequivocally set a three-line whip against the bill stands in contrast to the indecision we saw when Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour ordered abstentions before performing a U-turn.
Labour’s national executive committee will meet virtually today. Members will discuss party conference, the next set of NEC elections and the voting system used for those contests. On conference, the leadership is understood to be keen on holding it in some kind of virtual form, which will allow for a speech by Keir Starmer and perhaps the passing of rule changes made necessary by the EHRC antisemitism investigation. Local parties have not been able to pass motions – though that suits the leadership just fine when it wants to go slow on policy-making at the start of a parliamentary term. There is broad consensus on conference arrangements.
There is less consensus on NEC elections. The moderates are keen for the contests to take place this summer, while the left members are less so – they say local parties have not been able to nominate candidates and the process should be put off until next year. A similar divide is seen on the issue of a switch to a preferential voting system for NEC elections, with Labour First/Progress-aligned NEC members happy with the change and Momentum-aligned reps not. However, Labour left figures such as Clive Lewis – more associated with Compass and electoral reform – are also in favour of STV, and it is thought Jon Lansman himself could vote for it. And of course the soft left are leading the STV campaign. You can read my preview of the NEC meeting here. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Labour will hold the Tories to account on their Brexit promises

Coronavirus is dominating politics and all our energies are focused on combatting it .
We still do not know how its legacy will shape our country , but decisions being taken over the next few weeks in the talks on our future relationship with the EU will play a key part in our recovery from the Covid-19 crisis .
It comes as a surprise to some that the talks are still taking place at all .
Struggling to deal with coronavirus , many doubt the capacity of the government to focus on the agreement we need in trade , security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Indeed , the ten rounds of talks planned before a crucial June review have been reduced to four , and those have inevitably been moved online .
But , even in these difficult circumstances , ministers have decided to press on and are insisting they will secure a good deal by the end of the year .
They now have the responsibility to deliver on that pledge , and Labour will hold them to it .
So what should we see in the deal ?
Expectations have been steadily reduced over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from promises of the “ exact same benefits ” that we enjoyed as EU members , through ‘ Canada+++ ’ , to anything that provides the opportunity to break with protections for employees and the environment .
But that is not what the Conservatives promised in the general election .
Their manifesto promised to implement Boris Johnson ’ s ‘ great new deal ’ with the EU .
A deal based on the commitments he signed in the political declaration to secure an “ ambitious , broad , deep and flexible partnership ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees , charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors ” .
They pledged it would safeguard “ workers ’ rights , consumer and environmental protection ” and include a “ broad , comprehensive and balanced security partnership ” underpinned by “ continued adherence and giving effect to the European Convention on Human Rights ” .
That is the minimum against which they should be judged , and the coronavirus crisis makes it even more important that they secure an agreement along these lines .
As we face the biggest recession in a century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : why make the situation even worse ?
The economic disruption of leaving the transitional period in December without agreement , or with a bad deal which falls short of their promises , will add to the economic hit caused by Covid-19 .
We have left the EU , but it remains our closest neighbour and most important trading partner .
We still share a continent in which security and judicial co-operation help to keep all our people safe .
Labour will continue to make that case and hold the Tories to account @ @ @ @

Coronavirus is dominating politics and all our energies are focused on combatting it. We still do not know how its legacy will shape our country, but decisions being taken over the next few weeks in the talks on our future relationship with the EU will play a key part in our recovery from the Covid-19 crisis.
It comes as a surprise to some that the talks are still taking place at all. Struggling to deal with coronavirus, many doubt the capacity of the government to focus on the agreement we need in trade, security and all the other areas under negotiation. Indeed, the ten rounds of talks planned before a crucial June review have been reduced to four, and those have inevitably been moved online.
But, even in these difficult circumstances, ministers have decided to press on and are insisting they will secure a good deal by the end of the year. They now have the responsibility to deliver on that pledge, and Labour will hold them to it.
So what should we see in the deal? Expectations have been steadily reduced over the last three years. We have gone from promises of the “exact same benefits” that we enjoyed as EU members, through ‘Canada+++’, to anything that provides the opportunity to break with protections for employees and the environment. But that is not what the Conservatives promised in the general election.
Their manifesto promised to implement Boris Johnson’s ‘great new deal’ with the EU. A deal based on the commitments he signed in the political declaration to secure an “ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership” that would entail “no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”. They pledged it would safeguard “workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection” and include a “broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership” underpinned by “continued adherence and giving effect to the European Convention on Human Rights”.
That is the minimum against which they should be judged, and the coronavirus crisis makes it even more important that they secure an agreement along these lines. As we face the biggest recession in a century, businesses and trade unions are asking: why make the situation even worse? The economic disruption of leaving the transitional period in December without agreement, or with a bad deal which falls short of their promises, will add to the economic hit caused by Covid-19.
We have left the EU, but it remains our closest neighbour and most important trading partner. We still share a continent in which security and judicial co-operation help to keep all our people safe. Labour will continue to make that case and hold the Tories to account on their promises.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Labour’s ruling body agrees to cancel conference due to Covid-19

Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) decided at its latest meeting today to cancel party conference in September as a result of the coronavirus pandemic .
Due to take place in Liverpool , Labour conference will now likely be replaced by some kind of virtual policy event – but the details have not yet been determined .
A Labour Party spokesperson said : “ Our priority is the safety of members , staff and visitors to our events and the need to protect the public ’ s health .
“ In light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year ’ s annual and women ’ s conferences.
” The decisions over whether to hold regular NEC elections this summer and whether to adopt a single transferable vote ( STV ) system have been deferred .
Arguments in favour of a switch from first-past-the-post to STV were heard this afternoon , but the proposal was pulled from the relevant paper just before the meeting .
Labour ’ s NEC will make a ruling on the timing of the contests at a meeting in June .
It has been argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agenda then .
The committee had a heated debate over the membership of the panel that will draw up the longlist and shortlist of candidates for the Labour general secretary job .
As previously reported by LabourList , new NEC member Carol Sewell was added to the panel in a win for Keir Starmer and the right of the party .
But , according to LabourList sources , it emerged today that Sewell had not been asked whether she was available – and she informed them that she could not join the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other members with the same politics as Sewell – Gurinder Singh Josan , Mark Ferguson and Shabana Mahmood – join the panel .
But the NEC chair Andi Fox ruled this out of order on the basis that the panel had already been decided , which caused a fierce row over Zoom .
NEC youth representative Lara McNeill tweeted : “ Members badgered the chair , declared that she was wrong repeatedly and even asked to get legal advice on a simple ruling on maintaining a previous decision.
” It was ultimately decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace Sewell as a member of the panel , which is otherwise made up of NEC officers .
Applications for the general secretary post closed at midnight on May 18th , and the party received 17 .
It is understood that the Labour leadership has decided to favour David Evans .
Keir Starmer also told Labour ’ s NEC that he has invited Nick Forbes , the leader of the Local Government Association Labour group , to attend shadow cabinet meetings .
The aim is “ to feedback the experience of councils and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the policy-making process ” , Alice Perry wrote in her latest NEC report .

Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) decided at its latest meeting today to cancel party conference in September as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Due to take place in Liverpool, Labour conference will now likely be replaced by some kind of virtual policy event – but the details have not yet been determined.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Our priority is the safety of members, staff and visitors to our events and the need to protect the public’s health.
“In light of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, we have therefore decided to postpone this year’s annual and women’s conferences.”
The decisions over whether to hold regular NEC elections this summer and whether to adopt a single transferable vote (STV) system have been deferred.
Arguments in favour of a switch from first-past-the-post to STV were heard this afternoon, but the proposal was pulled from the relevant paper just before the meeting.
Labour’s NEC will make a ruling on the timing of the contests at a meeting in June. It has been argued that the voting system should also be included on the agenda then.
The committee had a heated debate over the membership of the panel that will draw up the longlist and shortlist of candidates for the Labour general secretary job.
As previously reported by LabourList, new NEC member Carol Sewell was added to the panel in a win for Keir Starmer and the right of the party.
But, according to LabourList sources, it emerged today that Sewell had not been asked whether she was available – and she informed them that she could not join the panel.
It was proposed that other members with the same politics as Sewell – Gurinder Singh Josan, Mark Ferguson and Shabana Mahmood – join the panel.
But the NEC chair Andi Fox ruled this out of order on the basis that the panel had already been decided, which caused a fierce row over Zoom.
NEC youth representative Lara McNeill tweeted: “Members badgered the chair, declared that she was wrong repeatedly and even asked to get legal advice on a simple ruling on maintaining a previous decision.”
It was ultimately decided that parliamentary party representative Shabana Mahmood would replace Sewell as a member of the panel, which is otherwise made up of NEC officers.
Applications for the general secretary post closed at midnight on May 18th, and the party received 17. It is understood that the Labour leadership has decided to favour David Evans.
Keir Starmer also told Labour’s NEC that he has invited Nick Forbes, the leader of the Local Government Association Labour group, to attend shadow cabinet meetings.
The aim is “to feedback the experience of councils and local authorities directly into the shadow cabinet and the policy-making process”, Alice Perry wrote in her latest NEC report.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Labour’s national policy forum must be reformed or replaced

Labour ’ s national policy forum ( NPF ) will launch a consultation on eight policy topics tomorrow , May 20th .
But the future of the NPF itself is uncertain , and we do not know what reforms to policy-making the new Labour leadership might want .
In recent years the forum has been sidelined in its role of preparing policy .
The time is approaching when the party must decide whether to reform the NPF or replace it altogether .
Obviously , it is not top of the agenda in a year when we don ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of virtual annual conference .
This year ’ s NPF consultations will be greatly truncated and the documents for conference much less ambitious .
It might surprise Labour members to know that the NPF has not met since February 2018 .
Its work has devolved to the eight policy commissions , which some believe are the most valuable part of the NPF .
One problem of this way of working is that NPF members have input to only one of the eight priority topics presented to annual conference .
It was embarrassing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conference delegate an NPF report that I didn ’ t see myself until the start of conference .
It seemed like I wasn ’ t doing my job as a representative .
The NPF used to meet each June to finalise the policy statement to be presented to the annual conference .
In 2016 , this meeting was cancelled due to the leadership contest then under way .
In 2017 it was cancelled due to the general election .
And in 2018 and 2019 , they were just not convened .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has consulted on 16 priority topics with work carried out by the eight policy commissions supported by party staff .
However , the consultations did not lead to draft policy statements .
Conference was presented instead with factual reports on the process of the consultation but with no conclusions or recommendations for future policy .
The party must decide either to reinvigorate and reform the NPF or put something else in its place .
If the latter , then there are two qualities of the current arrangement that we should preserve .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to policy-making .
It offers a more rational method than can be achieved by late night compositing meetings during conference itself .
It allows proposals to be examined in depth , and for stakeholders to give evidence .
The arguments for a policy can be sharpened and the trade-offs between objectives considered .
Many Constituency Labour Parties ( CLPs ) organise special meetings to discuss the priority topics and feed their views into the process .
This means that the consultation exercises not only gauge opinion among party members but also stimulate discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and share ownership of the results .
Secondly , the NPF has a particular value in tying together of Labours two policy-making streams .
The first is the one with party members in control – discussions and resolutions debated and decided in CLPs , union branches and other affiliates are submitted to the national executive committee ( NEC ) and to annual conference .
The second runs through the shadow cabinet .
Shadow ministers have their own policy advisers .
They commission research , convene groups of experts and spend time in conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ associations , think tanks etc .
– and develop their own policy positions .
The shadow cabinet role in policy-making is recognised in the existence of the Clause V meeting , which decides the manifesto , and the joint policy committee ( JPC ) where the NEC and shadow cabinet coordinate policy between elections .
The NPF has provided a mechanism by which party activists engage directly with the shadow cabinet .
In my experience , shadow ministers have been very good at briefing NPF policy commissions on the research and frontbench policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NPF with a broader mandate to review all aspects of policy .
However , if it is abolished , we should seek new structures to enable the continuation of a deliberative approach empowered by activist and frontbench cooperation .

Labour’s national policy forum (NPF) will launch a consultation on eight policy topics tomorrow, May 20th. But the future of the NPF itself is uncertain, and we do not know what reforms to policy-making the new Labour leadership might want. In recent years the forum has been sidelined in its role of preparing policy. The time is approaching when the party must decide whether to reform the NPF or replace it altogether.
Obviously, it is not top of the agenda in a year when we don’t even know whether there will be some kind of virtual annual conference. This year’s NPF consultations will be greatly truncated and the documents for conference much less ambitious. It might surprise Labour members to know that the NPF has not met since February 2018. Its work has devolved to the eight policy commissions, which some believe are the most valuable part of the NPF.
One problem of this way of working is that NPF members have input to only one of the eight priority topics presented to annual conference. It was embarrassing for me to be asked to explain to a conference delegate an NPF report that I didn’t see myself until the start of conference. It seemed like I wasn’t doing my job as a representative.
The NPF used to meet each June to finalise the policy statement to be presented to the annual conference. In 2016, this meeting was cancelled due to the leadership contest then under way. In 2017 it was cancelled due to the general election. And in 2018 and 2019, they were just not convened.
In the last two years, the NPF has consulted on 16 priority topics with work carried out by the eight policy commissions supported by party staff. However, the consultations did not lead to draft policy statements. Conference was presented instead with factual reports on the process of the consultation but with no conclusions or recommendations for future policy.
The party must decide either to reinvigorate and reform the NPF or put something else in its place. If the latter, then there are two qualities of the current arrangement that we should preserve. The first of these is its deliberative approach to policy-making. It offers a more rational method than can be achieved by late night compositing meetings during conference itself. It allows proposals to be examined in depth, and for stakeholders to give evidence. The arguments for a policy can be sharpened and the trade-offs between objectives considered.
Many Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) organise special meetings to discuss the priority topics and feed their views into the process. This means that the consultation exercises not only gauge opinion among party members but also stimulate discussion, broaden understanding of the issues involved and share ownership of the results.
Secondly, the NPF has a particular value in tying together of Labours two policy-making streams. The first is the one with party members in control – discussions and resolutions debated and decided in CLPs, union branches and other affiliates are submitted to the national executive committee (NEC) and to annual conference.
The second runs through the shadow cabinet. Shadow ministers have their own policy advisers. They commission research, convene groups of experts and spend time in conversation with stakeholders – unions, firms, associations, think tanks etc. – and develop their own policy positions. The shadow cabinet role in policy-making is recognised in the existence of the Clause V meeting, which decides the manifesto, and the joint policy committee (JPC) where the NEC and shadow cabinet coordinate policy between elections.
The NPF has provided a mechanism by which party activists engage directly with the shadow cabinet. In my experience, shadow ministers have been very good at briefing NPF policy commissions on the research and frontbench policy thinking. My preference is to re-establish the NPF with a broader mandate to review all aspects of policy. However, if it is abolished, we should seek new structures to enable the continuation of a deliberative approach empowered by activist and frontbench cooperation.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Conference 2020 cancelled, and other Covid news – Alice Perry’s NEC report

Labour ’ s national executive committee met via Zoom today .
The NEC thanked outgoing general secretary Jennie Formby for her service .
Keir Starmer talked about his work holding the government to account during the Covid-19 pandemic .
He talked about Labour ’ s work challenging the government on a range of key issues , including selective use of statistics , the furlough and self-employment scheme and lack of personal protective equipment for key workers .
Keir talked about 40 % of Covid deaths being in care homes , where the crisis has been absolutely shocking .
Keir talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard on safety in the work place , transport and schools .
Labour is doing a wide consultation with trade union and local government to ensure the experiences of the pandemic across the UK are reflected and raised .
Keir has been holding virtual meetings around the country with local communities .
These have included a number of open meetings with local people , including current and former Labour voters , to listen and rebuild trust .
The first meetings took place in Bury and Tees valley .
The NEC then asked questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : uniting party , Kashmir , the urgent need for financial support for local government , Covid-19 , deaths in care homes , support for renters , reopening schools , surveillance testing and contact tracing , the impact of the pandemic on mental health , party discipline , safety of bus workers and other transport workers , the impact of Covid on BAME communities , funding for TFL , the economy , the importance of resisting future austerity and digital inclusion .
Angela Rayner talked about the community organising pilots and the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She thanked Jennie Formby , as well as Jon Lansman , who is standing down as chair of Momentum .
She described it as an “ end of an era ” and thanked them both .
Angela talked about the importance of solidarity with workers and the importance of standing up for workers ’ rights , as well as what can be achieved when we unite together as a party .
Angela also addressed some of the issues raised in the leaked report .
She discussed measures to improve culture within the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prejudice .
She gave an update on some of the disciplinary action taken as a result of the leaked report .
Angela stressed the importance of ending factionalism and uniting party .
The NEC discussed how we can continue to function as a political party during the pandemic .
So much of our activity is based around meeting face-to-face and speaking to each other and the public .
Most of the metro-mayors , PCCs , London Assembly selections are complete or almost complete .
There are many council selections that need to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings can take place electronically via video conferencing .
I asked about arrangements for Labour groups to meet and hold their AGMs with secret ballots .
The Labour Party has recently issued guidance on AGMs and will provide further information soon .
Labour groups are encouraged to continue business and hold AGMs .
We discussed arrangements for this year ’ s NEC elections .
The decision about how these elections will take place has been deferred to later in the year .
I spoke in favour of the single transferable vote ( STV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other relevant internal elections ) .
The NEC also discussed arrangements for regional conferences .
A number of regional conferences where due to take place this spring but were delayed .
The current situation makes it challenging to reschedule them so they have been delayed until 2021 .
The NPF has begun holding policy consultations .
Members will be able to engage online .
The vacant NEC policy commission chairs were filled .
More information about the NPF and how it works is available on the Policy Forum website .
The NEC regretfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A policy conference can take place online instead .
This is a shame but necessary .
Hopefully life will be back to normal in 2021 .
Nick Forbes gave the local government report , updating the NEC on local government ’ s Covid-19 response .
He highlighted the importance of government providing the funding they promised to help councils in their vital work tackling the novel coronavirus .
Keir has invited Nick to attend shadow cabinet , enabling need to feedback the experience of councils and local authorities directly into the shadow cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the preparations for the important 2021 local elections and thanked Angela Rayner for her work supporting councillors and committing to meeting us regularly .
The NEC thanked key workers for their amazing work responding to the crisis and for everything they do – day in , day out .

Labour’s national executive committee met via Zoom today. The NEC thanked outgoing general secretary Jennie Formby for her service.
Leader’s report
Keir Starmer talked about his work holding the government to account during the Covid-19 pandemic. He talked about Labour’s work challenging the government on a range of key issues, including selective use of statistics, the furlough and self-employment scheme and lack of personal protective equipment for key workers. Keir talked about 40% of Covid deaths being in care homes, where the crisis has been absolutely shocking. Keir talked about how Labour is pressing the government hard on safety in the work place, transport and schools. Labour is doing a wide consultation with trade union and local government to ensure the experiences of the pandemic across the UK are reflected and raised.
Keir has been holding virtual meetings around the country with local communities. These have included a number of open meetings with local people, including current and former Labour voters, to listen and rebuild trust. The first meetings took place in Bury and Tees valley.
The NEC then asked questions on a range of issues, including: uniting party, Kashmir, the urgent need for financial support for local government, Covid-19, deaths in care homes, support for renters, reopening schools, surveillance testing and contact tracing, the impact of the pandemic on mental health, party discipline, safety of bus workers and other transport workers, the impact of Covid on BAME communities, funding for TFL, the economy, the importance of resisting future austerity and digital inclusion.
Deputy leader’s report
Angela Rayner talked about the community organising pilots and the national plan for activity during the pandemic. She thanked Jennie Formby, as well as Jon Lansman, who is standing down as chair of Momentum. She described it as an “end of an era” and thanked them both. Angela talked about the importance of solidarity with workers and the importance of standing up for workers’ rights, as well as what can be achieved when we unite together as a party.
Angela also addressed some of the issues raised in the leaked report. She discussed measures to improve culture within the party, tackling racism, sexism or other prejudice. She gave an update on some of the disciplinary action taken as a result of the leaked report. Angela stressed the importance of ending factionalism and uniting party.
Local democracy during the pandemic
The NEC discussed how we can continue to function as a political party during the pandemic. So much of our activity is based around meeting face-to-face and speaking to each other and the public.
Most of the metro-mayors, PCCs, London Assembly selections are complete or almost complete. There are many council selections that need to take place. We discussed ways these selection meetings can take place electronically via video conferencing.
I asked about arrangements for Labour groups to meet and hold their AGMs with secret ballots. The Labour Party has recently issued guidance on AGMs and will provide further information soon. Labour groups are encouraged to continue business and hold AGMs.
We discussed arrangements for this year’s NEC elections. The decision about how these elections will take place has been deferred to later in the year. I spoke in favour of the single transferable vote (STV) system for NEC elections (and other relevant internal elections).
The NEC also discussed arrangements for regional conferences. A number of regional conferences where due to take place this spring but were delayed. The current situation makes it challenging to reschedule them so they have been delayed until 2021.
National Policy Forum
The NPF has begun holding policy consultations. Members will be able to engage online. The vacant NEC policy commission chairs were filled. More information about the NPF and how it works is available on the Policy Forum website.
Labour Party 2020 conference
The NEC regretfully has had to cancel annual conference. A policy conference can take place online instead. This is a shame but necessary. Hopefully life will be back to normal in 2021.
Local government report
Nick Forbes gave the local government report, updating the NEC on local government’s Covid-19 response. He highlighted the importance of government providing the funding they promised to help councils in their vital work tackling the novel coronavirus. Keir has invited Nick to attend shadow cabinet, enabling need to feedback the experience of councils and local authorities directly into the shadow cabinet and the policy-making process. Nick spoke about the preparations for the important 2021 local elections and thanked Angela Rayner for her work supporting councillors and committing to meeting us regularly.
The NEC thanked key workers for their amazing work responding to the crisis and for everything they do – day in, day out.


labourlist--2020-05-19--We need a fully-resourced plan for mass testing and contact tracing

More than two months after the government said it was no longer necessary to identify every new case – and abandoned the World Health Organisation ’ s standard containment approach of find , test , treat , and isolate – Matt Hancock announced details of the next phase of their testing and tracing strategy .
For weeks now , whilst ministers could have been using lockdown to put the fundamentals of infectious disease control in place , the government ’ s focus appears to have been on meeting their arbitrary testing capacity targets .
And yet their own statistics show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day by April 30th was only met once in the first two weeks of May – by the end of which the Prime Minister had stated his ambition would be to reach 200,000 tests a day .
And they will mark this by testing capacity , not actual people tested , which has never risen over 100,000 despite Boris Johnson claiming that the target referred to people – not tests .
Whilst ambitious aims are welcome , targets for increased capacity are not a strategy in itself .
It is clear that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before there is sufficient capacity and availability to enable the level of testing that any meaningful testing and tracing strategy requires .
There remains large discrepancies between the number of tests available , the number carried out and the number of people tested .
There are also issues with the reliability of self-administered tests and the availability of local testing facilities .
Even today , there are yet more reports of healthcare workers being unable to access tests for themselves , their patients , and their family members .
These all need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a successful testing and tracing strategy .
There has rightly been a great deal of concern amongst the public about the implications of the recent relaxation of the lockdown rules .
It is more important than ever , with regards to building public confidence and trust , that a testing and tracing plan is accompanied by the publication of a clear and credible strategy – together with the scientific evidence supporting that strategy .
Critically , we need to know what the anticipated level of new infections will be each day , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the project .
If infections are too high and there are not enough tracers to do the work required , it will soon become overwhelmed .
I recently wrote to Baroness Harding , the government ’ s newly appointed national lead on testing and tracing , setting out a series of important questions and issues we need clarity on in relation to this strategy .
Given the recent statistics on the impact of inequalities , and the higher number of BAME people affected by the virus , any new strategy must include details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prioritising the roll out of community testing and contact tracing to the most vulnerable .
Including those in the most deprived areas and in areas with a higher proportion of BAME residents .
With regards to testing , we need specific assurances on when routine testing of NHS and social care staff will start ; when it will become a requirement that all patients discharged into social care settings are tested beforehand ; when no-one seeking a test will have to travel for longer than 20 minutes to reach a testing station ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be within a timeframe that enables effective tracing .
Alongside evidence of the number of additional tracers needed for the strategy to be successful , we also need clear answers on how the government will make best use of existing local public health teams who know their communities and are best placed to respond to local outbreaks .
We must also know how the government plans to reach those sections of the population who do not have a smartphone , particularly the elderly and schoolchildren .
And what plan is in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app , and to reassure the public that data collected via the app is secure and only used for the intended purposes .
Only through mass testing and contact tracing can we identify , contain , and prevent further spread of the virus , controlling new outbreaks quickly and efficiently .
We need a fully resourced and effective plan that will enable that to happen .

More than two months after the government said it was no longer necessary to identify every new case – and abandoned the World Health Organisation’s standard containment approach of find, test, treat, and isolate – Matt Hancock announced details of the next phase of their testing and tracing strategy. For weeks now, whilst ministers could have been using lockdown to put the fundamentals of infectious disease control in place, the government’s focus appears to have been on meeting their arbitrary testing capacity targets.
And yet their own statistics show that the target for 100,000 tests a day by April 30th was only met once in the first two weeks of May – by the end of which the Prime Minister had stated his ambition would be to reach 200,000 tests a day. And they will mark this by testing capacity, not actual people tested, which has never risen over 100,000 despite Boris Johnson claiming that the target referred to people – not tests. Whilst ambitious aims are welcome, targets for increased capacity are not a strategy in itself.
It is clear that there is still a long way to go before there is sufficient capacity and availability to enable the level of testing that any meaningful testing and tracing strategy requires. There remains large discrepancies between the number of tests available, the number carried out and the number of people tested. There are also issues with the reliability of self-administered tests and the availability of local testing facilities. Even today, there are yet more reports of healthcare workers being unable to access tests for themselves, their patients, and their family members. These all need to be resolved if we are to have a successful testing and tracing strategy.
There has rightly been a great deal of concern amongst the public about the implications of the recent relaxation of the lockdown rules. It is more important than ever, with regards to building public confidence and trust, that a testing and tracing plan is accompanied by the publication of a clear and credible strategy – together with the scientific evidence supporting that strategy. Critically, we need to know what the anticipated level of new infections will be each day, to match the number of staff engaged in the project. If infections are too high and there are not enough tracers to do the work required, it will soon become overwhelmed.
I recently wrote to Baroness Harding, the government’s newly appointed national lead on testing and tracing, setting out a series of important questions and issues we need clarity on in relation to this strategy.
Given the recent statistics on the impact of inequalities, and the higher number of BAME people affected by the virus, any new strategy must include details on what consideration has been given to prioritising the roll out of community testing and contact tracing to the most vulnerable. Including those in the most deprived areas and in areas with a higher proportion of BAME residents.
With regards to testing, we need specific assurances on when routine testing of NHS and social care staff will start; when it will become a requirement that all patients discharged into social care settings are tested beforehand; when no-one seeking a test will have to travel for longer than 20 minutes to reach a testing station; and whether the return of test results will be within a timeframe that enables effective tracing.
Alongside evidence of the number of additional tracers needed for the strategy to be successful, we also need clear answers on how the government will make best use of existing local public health teams who know their communities and are best placed to respond to local outbreaks. We must also know how the government plans to reach those sections of the population who do not have a smartphone, particularly the elderly and schoolchildren. And what plan is in place to encourage take-up and usage of the app, and to reassure the public that data collected via the app is secure and only used for the intended purposes.
Only through mass testing and contact tracing can we identify, contain, and prevent further spread of the virus, controlling new outbreaks quickly and efficiently. We need a fully resourced and effective plan that will enable that to happen.


labourlist--2020-05-19--David Evans emerges as favourite for next Labour general secretary

David Evans has emerged as the Labour leadership ’ s favourite candidate to become the next general secretary .
The Campaign Company founder and director is a former assistant general secretary of the party ( 1999-2001 ) , when he helped organise Labour ’ s 2001 general election campaign , and he was also a regional secretary during the Blair era ( 1995-1999 ) .
And Keir Starmer has picked him out as the preferred choice .
The move is considered controversial on the Labour left due to his past comments and apparent factional allegiances .
In 1999 , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would very much like to get hold of in full – that was leaked to the press .
It described constituency parties as “ dysfunctional ” and said in terms of “ high street presence ” they were “ more like Trotters Independent Traders than Marks & Spencer ” .
It recommended a “ radical overhaul ” of the party that could “ empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise Old Labour ” .
Others in the party have a different take on Evans .
They say he is an excellent organiser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour to regain control of Croydon in 2014 and helped to build the foundations of Labour ’ s success against the BNP in Barking in 2010 .
Council leader Darren Rodwell says Evans really understood how to “ connect ” with voters , and knows the value of local government – like Starmer .
Evans has ties to the Local Government Association , and working closely with local government has been a big priority of the new leader ’ s office .
Crucially , he is close to Starmer ’ s chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For TCC from 2007 to 2009 before moving to the LGA and later Labour Together .
Evans also has the experience of performing the assistant general secretary role , which means he sort of falls into the category of general secretaries who were appointed internally – albeit in this case after a nine-year break from the party .
( The other category is senior trade unionists , who have experience of large budgets , staff , and complicated internal politics .
For more on the criteria used , see Luke Akehurst ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of picking general secretaries . )
And yet there has been criticism – including by supporters – of the maleness and paleness of appointments made so far by Starmer .
His leader ’ s office staff picks were criticised in this way : the new LOTO has a male majority and is overwhelmingly white .
When Jennie Formby first resigned , those considered to have the best chance of succeeding her were women – Unite ’ s Anneliese Midgeley and GMB ’ s Lisa Johnson .
But the leadership did not plump for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have applied for the job .
Another applicant who could be agreeable to the leadership , however , is Karin Christiansen .
She was general secretary of the Co-operative Party from 2012 to 2015 , and she is now managing director of data polling and campaigns firm Datapraxis .
She has significant support among Labour MPs , particularly Co-operative ones – and there are plenty of those in the new shadow cabinet .
She has also run international organisations , and has a thorough grasp of how to professionalise an operation .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , LabourList has been told .
Byron Taylor , who has historical ties with trade unions as a former trade union liaison organisation ( TULO ) officer , is another who could gain support .
The list of names also included Andrew Fisher and Pamela Fitzpatrick from the left , as well as former MP Nic Dakin , ex-MEPs Paul Brannen and Neena Gill , plus some councillors and past parliamentary candidates .
Everything can change very quickly in the Labour Party .
If the unions go another way , the best laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be disrupted .
But the firm favourite now is David Evans .

David Evans has emerged as the Labour leadership’s favourite candidate to become the next general secretary. The Campaign Company founder and director is a former assistant general secretary of the party (1999-2001), when he helped organise Labour’s 2001 general election campaign, and he was also a regional secretary during the Blair era (1995-1999). And Keir Starmer has picked him out as the preferred choice.
The move is considered controversial on the Labour left due to his past comments and apparent factional allegiances. In 1999, he penned an internal report – which LabourList would very much like to get hold of in full – that was leaked to the press. It described constituency parties as “dysfunctional” and said in terms of “high street presence” they were “more like Trotters Independent Traders than Marks & Spencer”. It recommended a “radical overhaul” of the party that could “empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise Old Labour”.
Others in the party have a different take on Evans. They say he is an excellent organiser, having overseen the campaign that allowed Labour to regain control of Croydon in 2014 and helped to build the foundations of Labour’s success against the BNP in Barking in 2010. Council leader Darren Rodwell says Evans really understood how to “connect” with voters, and knows the value of local government – like Starmer. Evans has ties to the Local Government Association, and working closely with local government has been a big priority of the new leader’s office. Crucially, he is close to Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who worked for TCC from 2007 to 2009 before moving to the LGA and later Labour Together.
Evans also has the experience of performing the assistant general secretary role, which means he sort of falls into the category of general secretaries who were appointed internally – albeit in this case after a nine-year break from the party. (The other category is senior trade unionists, who have experience of large budgets, staff, and complicated internal politics. For more on the criteria used, see Luke Akehurst’s very interesting LabourList piece on the history of picking general secretaries.)
And yet there has been criticism – including by supporters – of the maleness and paleness of appointments made so far by Starmer. His leader’s office staff picks were criticised in this way: the new LOTO has a male majority and is overwhelmingly white. When Jennie Formby first resigned, those considered to have the best chance of succeeding her were women – Unite’s Anneliese Midgeley and GMB’s Lisa Johnson. But the leadership did not plump for either of those options, and neither have applied for the job.
Another applicant who could be agreeable to the leadership, however, is Karin Christiansen. She was general secretary of the Co-operative Party from 2012 to 2015, and she is now managing director of data polling and campaigns firm Datapraxis. She has significant support among Labour MPs, particularly Co-operative ones – and there are plenty of those in the new shadow cabinet. She has also run international organisations, and has a thorough grasp of how to professionalise an operation.
There were 17 applicants to the GS post, LabourList has been told. Byron Taylor, who has historical ties with trade unions as a former trade union liaison organisation (TULO) officer, is another who could gain support. The list of names also included Andrew Fisher and Pamela Fitzpatrick from the left, as well as former MP Nic Dakin, ex-MEPs Paul Brannen and Neena Gill, plus some councillors and past parliamentary candidates. Everything can change very quickly in the Labour Party. If the unions go another way, the best laid plans of the leader’s office could be disrupted. But the firm favourite now is David Evans.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Racism and inequality are political issues, and so is Covid-19

The government ’ s response to the pandemic is front-page news on a daily basis – as it should be .
The death toll in the UK marks us out as a nation that has failed in its responsibilities to protect people during this public health crisis .
From slowness to act to ill-preparedness and appallingly poor provisions of testing and personal protective equipment , to confused communications and putting business before public health , there can be no doubt that the public has been let down .
Amidst all of this , we know the Covid-19 tragedy has affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll in BAME communities has been disproportionately high .
In my own city of Oxford , three of the four health workers who have died from the virus were from our BAME communities .
We should be under no illusions this crisis represents yet another trauma for communities that have – under successive governments – been overlooked , neglected , and at worst , been at the receiving end of policies fundamentally racist in their design and execution .
We know that there are a number of factors that have contributed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have died from working on the frontline in NHS hospitals .
Underlying health inequalities , housing conditions and proximity to densely populated areas have also made it much more likely for people from BAME communities to contract the disease .
But we must be clear that this is , at its core , a political crisis .
Public health is a political issue .
Race is a political issue .
Inequality is a political issue .
The government ’ s response to Covid-19 is a political issue .
This government has failed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
Ten years of wave after wave of cuts to the very services BAME communities rely on to survive has exacerbated their unequal positions in our society .
From access to good quality housing and healthcare , to the right to live in dignity and safety , BAME communities have found themselves at the receiving end of public policy grandstanding and negligence .
We can not ignore the historical context from which BAME communities in Britain have ended up in this position .
Institutional racism and the legacies of colonialism continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of regard , understanding and due consideration in policy making for existing inequalities mean those who are at the bottom of power and privilege structures will suffer more .
And with woeful levels of understanding of race dynamics , histories of colonialism and how structural inequality manifests at the very top of our political institutions and in public discourse , it is no wonder that BAME communities are some of the most marginalised and disenfranchised in our society .
It is not enough to simply change faces in institutions .
We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how policies will affect different communities in different ways .
The labour movement has a big task ahead striving to achieve justice for all those who have suffered as a result of coronavirus .
Firstly , we must urgently unionise on a mass scale in all of our communities .
Lower-paid workers , those on precarious , insecure contracts and those in BAME communities are less likely to be members of a union .
If we are to strengthen the collective voice of BAME workers , mass unionisation is going to be critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key to this and the Labour Party should seek to empower grassroots members to reach into their communities to do this .
Secondly , to achieve justice for the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives , we must be prepared for a fight .
Public Health England has been tasked with a “ rapid review ” into factors affecting how people are affected by Covid-19 .
But for any inquiry to have the full confidence of the communities affected by this tragedy , it must be independent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Diane Abbott , John McDonnell , Zarah Sultana , Apsana Begum , Bell Ribeiro-Addy , Richard Burgon , Dawn Butler and others have called for a public inquiry into the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on BAME communities .
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has also called on Boris Johnson to commission an independent inquiry into race and health inequalities in Britain .
Following any independent inquiry , there will need to be government action on the findings .
Labour ’ s shadow cabinet will be looked to to lead on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prepared to push for that action .
Finally , we must continue the fight against the effects of austerity and the normalisation of any future cuts .
There can be no going back – we must pursue an agenda that puts economic , class and racial justice at its core .

The government’s response to the pandemic is front-page news on a daily basis – as it should be. The death toll in the UK marks us out as a nation that has failed in its responsibilities to protect people during this public health crisis. From slowness to act to ill-preparedness and appallingly poor provisions of testing and personal protective equipment, to confused communications and putting business before public health, there can be no doubt that the public has been let down.
Amidst all of this, we know the Covid-19 tragedy has affected different communities in different ways. The death toll in BAME communities has been disproportionately high. In my own city of Oxford, three of the four health workers who have died from the virus were from our BAME communities. We should be under no illusions this crisis represents yet another trauma for communities that have – under successive governments – been overlooked, neglected, and at worst, been at the receiving end of policies fundamentally racist in their design and execution.
We know that there are a number of factors that have contributed to the BAME Covid-19 death toll. Many have died from working on the frontline in NHS hospitals. Underlying health inequalities, housing conditions and proximity to densely populated areas have also made it much more likely for people from BAME communities to contract the disease. But we must be clear that this is, at its core, a political crisis. Public health is a political issue. Race is a political issue. Inequality is a political issue. The government’s response to Covid-19 is a political issue.
This government has failed. Conservative and Liberal Democrat-backed austerity has cost lives. Ten years of wave after wave of cuts to the very services BAME communities rely on to survive has exacerbated their unequal positions in our society. From access to good quality housing and healthcare, to the right to live in dignity and safety, BAME communities have found themselves at the receiving end of public policy grandstanding and negligence.
We cannot ignore the historical context from which BAME communities in Britain have ended up in this position. Institutional racism and the legacies of colonialism continue to be perpetuated through policy decisions. Lack of regard, understanding and due consideration in policy making for existing inequalities mean those who are at the bottom of power and privilege structures will suffer more. And with woeful levels of understanding of race dynamics, histories of colonialism and how structural inequality manifests at the very top of our political institutions and in public discourse, it is no wonder that BAME communities are some of the most marginalised and disenfranchised in our society. It is not enough to simply change faces in institutions. We have to hardwire into our decision-making a consideration of how policies will affect different communities in different ways.
The labour movement has a big task ahead striving to achieve justice for all those who have suffered as a result of coronavirus. Firstly, we must urgently unionise on a mass scale in all of our communities. Lower-paid workers, those on precarious, insecure contracts and those in BAME communities are less likely to be members of a union. If we are to strengthen the collective voice of BAME workers, mass unionisation is going to be critical. Community organising is going to be key to this and the Labour Party should seek to empower grassroots members to reach into their communities to do this.
Secondly, to achieve justice for the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives, we must be prepared for a fight. Public Health England has been tasked with a “rapid review” into factors affecting how people are affected by Covid-19. But for any inquiry to have the full confidence of the communities affected by this tragedy, it must be independent, comprehensive and adequately time-resourced.
Labour MPs including Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Zarah Sultana, Apsana Begum, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler and others have called for a public inquiry into the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on BAME communities. Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has also called on Boris Johnson to commission an independent inquiry into race and health inequalities in Britain. Following any independent inquiry, there will need to be government action on the findings. Labour’s shadow cabinet will be looked to to lead on this, and the wider labour movement should be prepared to push for that action.
Finally, we must continue the fight against the effects of austerity and the normalisation of any future cuts. There can be no going back – we must pursue an agenda that puts economic, class and racial justice at its core.


labourlist--2020-05-19--The agriculture bill revealed the government’s true post-Brexit vision

The agriculture bill , passed by the Commons last week , shows the government ’ s intention to lower standards across the board .
The bill was an opportunity to improve food and animal welfare standards while tackling the climate crisis – but the government wasted that opportunity .
In my own constituency of Edmonton , the dairy sector is a key employer .
Arla , a dairy cooperative owned by over 9,900 farmers , employs hundreds of my constituents at their Oakthorpe site and they work tirelessly to improve and protect our environment .
My constituents who work in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the sector , have expressed deep regret at the passing of the legislation .
They are clear : the bill will weaken food standards in the future .
In recent months , it has become apparent that this government is desperate to strike a trade deal with the US at any cost .
However , we must not allow any trade deal to undercut our existing food and animal welfare standards .
Our farmers can not survive if are undercut – and if that were to happen , it would be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is significant uneasiness coming from the National Farmers Union and other experts in the field who warn of a huge risk to UK farming standards from imported food produced at a lower standard .
The government should have used the agriculture bill as an opportunity to protect farmers from being undercut , ensuring that all imported produce meets UK standards in law .
But the government did not take that opportunity , because doing so would put a trade deal with the US at risk .
We clearly face a much greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any such deal become public .
We also need to pay proper recognition to the fact that the UK imports 50 % of its food from overseas .
Covid-19 has exposed the fragility of the UK food supply line .
We must never again go back to the scenes in February of empty shelves in our supermarkets , and the public must be reassured that we have put empty shelves behind us .
Moving forward , we should take a leading role on the global stage to promote sustainability and resilience of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK farmers and the pursuit of an international approach to UK food security is interconnected and must be driven by the values of fairness and sustainability .
As the climate crisis grows , the importance of global cooperation on this issue will only increase .
The bill should have ushered in modernisation of our agricultural sector for the better .
But the legislation will be remembered as failing on the environment , on animal welfare and on food standards .
It is our job to meet the challenges we face now , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not face the same challenges in the future .
Instead , we saw the mask slip and the government ’ s vision for a post-Brexit Britain in greater clarity : lower regulations ; lower standards ; workers and employers at the mercy of the global ‘ free market ’ .
A race to the bottom with the only winners being big business .
I do not share that vision of this country , and we must fight it every step of the way .

The agriculture bill, passed by the Commons last week, shows the government’s intention to lower standards across the board. The bill was an opportunity to improve food and animal welfare standards while tackling the climate crisis – but the government wasted that opportunity.
In my own constituency of Edmonton, the dairy sector is a key employer. Arla, a dairy cooperative owned by over 9,900 farmers, employs hundreds of my constituents at their Oakthorpe site and they work tirelessly to improve and protect our environment. My constituents who work in food produce, and those who rely on the sector, have expressed deep regret at the passing of the legislation. They are clear: the bill will weaken food standards in the future.
In recent months, it has become apparent that this government is desperate to strike a trade deal with the US at any cost. However, we must not allow any trade deal to undercut our existing food and animal welfare standards. Our farmers cannot survive if they are undercut – and if that were to happen, it would be the consumers who suffer as a result. There is significant uneasiness coming from the National Farmers Union and other experts in the field who warn of a huge risk to UK farming standards from imported food produced at a lower standard.
The government should have used the agriculture bill as an opportunity to protect farmers from being undercut, ensuring that all imported produce meets UK standards in law. But the government did not take that opportunity, because doing so would put a trade deal with the US at risk. We clearly face a much greater fight as and when the details of any such deal become public.
We also need to pay proper recognition to the fact that the UK imports 50% of its food from overseas. Covid-19 has exposed the fragility of the UK food supply line. We must never again go back to the scenes in February of empty shelves in our supermarkets, and the public must be reassured that we have put empty shelves behind us.
Moving forward, we should take a leading role on the global stage to promote sustainability and resilience of the overseas supply chain. The welfare of UK farmers and the pursuit of an international approach to UK food security is interconnected and must be driven by the values of fairness and sustainability. As the climate crisis grows, the importance of global cooperation on this issue will only increase.
The bill should have ushered in modernisation of our agricultural sector for the better. But the legislation will be remembered as failing on the environment, on animal welfare and on food standards. It is our job to meet the challenges we face now, so that our children’s children will not face the same challenges in the future. Instead, we saw the mask slip and the government’s vision for a post-Brexit Britain in greater clarity: lower regulations; lower standards; workers and employers at the mercy of the global ‘free market’. A race to the bottom with the only winners being big business. I do not share that vision of this country, and we must fight it every step of the way.


labourlist--2020-05-19--Party activists launch new group ‘Labour Tenants United’

Party activists have launched new campaign group ‘ Labour Tenants United ’ today , declaring that “ Labour fails renters ” and “ around one in every five Labour MPs ” receives an income through rent .
In a statement urging Labour members to sign up to their initiative , the organisation said the party “ seeks not only to represent the interests of the landlords ” but also that “ it is represented by them too ” .
The campaign stated a need for “ bold policies from Labour , to ensure that tenants get a fair housing deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better parliamentary representation for renters .
The group declared that it has one goal : “ Empower the tenants.
” The launch of the new organisation comes amid an ongoing debate about the party ’ s position on renters in the Covid-19 crisis – specifically , whether the party should be calling for rent cancellations or deferrals .
Activists William Sorenson , Patrick Jenkins , Luke Evans and Wrenna Robson launched Labour Tenants United following an open letter to Labour leader Keir Starmer on the party ’ s current policy proposal .
Commenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re excited to get going with the campaign .
The strength of feeling amongst renters and Labour supporters for strong policy created for tenants and by those on the side of tenants shows how overwhelming the case is for policy change and we will see that happen.
” The group has said it will work within the Labour Party ’ s democratic structures with shadow cabinet members , tenant ’ s unions , local parties and renters – including grassroots members and those outside the party .
Under Jeremy Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent deferrals in a letter to the Prime Minister on March 14th .
But Corbyn shortly afterwards called for a suspension , and John McDonnell said the “ government should cover rent ” .
Labour advocated rent deferrals earlier this month , which would require additional payments by renters to cover arrears accrued during the Covid-19 crisis .
Within 48 hours of the change , 4,000 Labour members had signed the open letter to Starmer in opposition .
Backbench MPs including Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis have also criticised the policy , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 rent strikes and urging Labour members and councillors to do the same .
Below is the full text of the launch statement from Labour United Tenants .
The Labour Party as it stands today seeks not only to represent the interests of the landlords , but it is represented by them too , with around one in every five Labour MPs declaring earnings through rent .
This means Labour is deaf to the demands of the renters .
This means Labour consults the landlord lobby before it consults tenants unions .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancel the rent .
This means Labour fails renters .
We ’ re going to fix that .
Labour Tenants United is a campaign group within Labour that has one goal : empower the tenants .
We look to keep in close co-ordination with existing tenants unions and turn the Labour Party into a vehicle that can represent their interests in parliament where it has so far failed .

Party activists have launched new campaign group ‘Labour Tenants United’ today, declaring that “Labour fails renters” and “around one in every five Labour MPs” receives an income through rent.
In a statement urging Labour members to sign up to their initiative, the organisation said the party “seeks not only to represent the interests of the landlords” but also that “it is represented by them too”.
The campaign stated a need for “bold policies from Labour, to ensure that tenants get a fair housing deal” and said it aims to get better parliamentary representation for renters. The group declared that it has one goal: “Empower the tenants.”
The launch of the new organisation comes amid an ongoing debate about the party’s position on renters in the Covid-19 crisis – specifically, whether the party should be calling for rent cancellations or deferrals.
Activists William Sorenson, Patrick Jenkins, Luke Evans and Wrenna Robson launched Labour Tenants United following an open letter to Labour leader Keir Starmer on the party’s current policy proposal.
Commenting on the launch, they said: “We’re excited to get going with the campaign. The strength of feeling amongst renters and Labour supporters for strong policy created for tenants and by those on the side of tenants shows how overwhelming the case is for policy change and we will see that happen.”
The group has said it will work within the Labour Party’s democratic structures with shadow cabinet members, tenant’s unions, local parties and renters – including grassroots members and those outside the party.
Under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour had advocated rent deferrals in a letter to the Prime Minister on March 14th. But Corbyn shortly afterwards called for a suspension, and John McDonnell said the “government should cover rent”.
Labour advocated rent deferrals earlier this month, which would require additional payments by renters to cover arrears accrued during the Covid-19 crisis. Within 48 hours of the change, 4,000 Labour members had signed the open letter to Starmer in opposition.
Backbench MPs including Zarah Sultana and Clive Lewis have also criticised the policy, with Lewis saying that he would be supporting Covid-19 rent strikes and urging Labour members and councillors to do the same.
Below is the full text of the launch statement from Labour United Tenants.
The Labour Party as it stands today seeks not only to represent the interests of the landlords, but it is represented by them too, with around one in every five Labour MPs declaring earnings through rent.
This means Labour is deaf to the demands of the renters. This means Labour consults the landlord lobby before it consults tenants unions. This means Labour refuses to back calls to cancel the rent. This means Labour fails renters.
We’re going to fix that. Labour Tenants United is a campaign group within Labour that has one goal: empower the tenants.
We look to keep in close co-ordination with existing tenants unions and turn the Labour Party into a vehicle that can represent their interests in parliament where it has so far failed.


labourlist--2020-05-19--WATCH: “Social care has not had the same priority as the NHS,” says Labour

Liz Kendall has said that “ social care has not had the same priority as the NHS ” and highlighted the unequal treatment that the care sector has received in comparison to the NHS throughout the pandemic .
In parliament today , she described difficulties in getting personal protective equipment for care homes because it had been “ requisitioned ” for the NHS , and highlighted that a plan for social care was not provided until mid-April .
The shadow minister asked the Health Secretary Matt Hancock “ how he squares all this with his claim that the government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care homes right from the start ” .
She also asked why guidance saying that care homes were “ very unlikely to be infected ” wasn ’ t withdrawn until March 12th when the chief medical officer warned about community transmission and the risk to the elderly on March 4th .
The organisation Care UK , which operates 122 care homes in the country , has revealed that it is currently dealing with at least least one case of coronavirus in 71 % of the sites that it manages .
The ONS has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in English and Welsh care homes up to May 8th .
But as Keir Starmer has raised in PMQs , there are an additional 10,000 additional unexplained deaths for April alone when compared with previous years .
In her contribution in parliament this afternoon , Kendall highlighted that there have now been an additional 23,000 deaths in care homes in the first four months of 2020 than in the previous year .
Commenting on the latest figures from the ONS , published earlier today , the shadow health minister said : “ Ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around care homes ring hollow when we see these numbers .
“ These figures are still ringing alarm bells , as deaths involving Covid-19 as a percentage of all care home deaths continued to rise this week .
The government is still being too slow in its response .
“ MPs have received reports of complete confusion around care home testing , with the new portal only available for care homes for over 65s and the portal not accepting care homes who try to apply .
Ministers must give social care the resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the spread of this awful virus.
” The numbers released by the ONS this morning revealed that in the week leading up to May 8th , 42.4 % of coronavirus-related deaths took place in care homes in England and Wales .

Liz Kendall has said that “social care has not had the same priority as the NHS” and highlighted the unequal treatment that the care sector has received in comparison to the NHS throughout the pandemic.
In parliament today, she described difficulties in getting personal protective equipment for care homes because it had been “requisitioned” for the NHS, and highlighted that a plan for social care was not provided until mid-April.
The shadow minister asked the Health Secretary Matt Hancock “how he squares all this with his claim that the government has thrown a ‘protective cloak’ around care homes right from the start”.
She also asked why guidance saying that care homes were “very unlikely to be infected” wasn’t withdrawn until March 12th when the chief medical officer warned about community transmission and the risk to the elderly on March 4th.
"Over 23,000 more people have died in care homes" compared to 2019, says shadow care minister Liz Kendall She asks why personal protective equipment (PPE) was taken from care home supplies for the NHS, "when both are equally important"https://t.co/6YMQxKnFhR pic.twitter.com/tj7O97VO3V — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) May 19, 2020
The organisation Care UK, which operates 122 care homes in the country, has revealed that it is currently dealing with at least least one case of coronavirus in 71% of the sites that it manages.
The ONS has recorded a death toll of 9,980 deaths in English and Welsh care homes up to May 8th. But as Keir Starmer has raised in PMQs, there are an additional 10,000 additional unexplained deaths for April alone when compared with previous years.
In her contribution in parliament this afternoon, Kendall highlighted that there have now been an additional 23,000 deaths in care homes in the first four months of 2020 than in the previous year.
Commenting on the latest figures from the ONS, published earlier today, the shadow health minister said: “Ministers claims to have formed a protective ring around care homes ring hollow when we see these numbers.
“These figures are still ringing alarm bells, as deaths involving Covid-19 as a percentage of all care home deaths continued to rise this week. The government is still being too slow in its response.
“MPs have received reports of complete confusion around care home testing, with the new portal only available for care homes for over 65s and the portal not accepting care homes who try to apply. Ministers must give social care the resources, support and attention it needs to stop the spread of this awful virus.”
The numbers released by the ONS this morning revealed that in the week leading up to May 8th, 42.4% of coronavirus-related deaths took place in care homes in England and Wales.


labourlist--2020-05-20--Minimum wage workers shouldn’t be forced further into poverty during this crisis

One of the great achievements of the last period of Labour government was the introduction of the national minimum wage .
In the face of ferocious Tory opposition , it established a basic principle that – as its name makes abundantly clear – no worker should get paid less than a statutory minimum .
For two decades , there has been a broad consensus around this principle , if not around the levels it should be paid at .
Until now , that is .
The spirit of that historic measure is now being undermined by the Conservative government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers who have been furloughed as part of the job retention scheme .
They will receive just 80 % of their minimum wage salary .
The furlough scheme offers welcome protection for millions of people and the trade union movement can add its introduction to the list of achievements it has secured down the years .
But the guarantee that employees will have 80 % of their incomes protected is simply not enough for minimum wage workers .
How can workers be expected to live on less than a state-declared minimum , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices haven ’ t fallen ?
Sadly , when I called on the Chancellor to put in place guarantees so that no furloughed worker lives on less than the national minimum wage , he outrageously replied suggesting that those workers should plug the gap by seeking additional employment during this crisis .
His dismissive answer brought to mind the out-of-touch Norman Tebbit ’ s infamous ‘ get on your bike and look for work ’ sentiment .
This week ’ s job vacancy figures show just how completely divorced from reality the Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really think that minimum wage workers can find additional employment during this crisis when so many of the businesses they normally work in – be it bars , shops or hotels – are shut ?
Others can ’ t find work due to additional caring responsibilities during this crisis or , as some have told me , because their current employment contracts do not permit it .
While some may be able to just about get by with 80 % of their salaries , low-paid workers certainly can ’ t afford this deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum wage is £8.72 for those aged 25 and over .
Cutting that by a fifth during furlough means that a full-time worker could be over £280 per month worse off .
Yet the government guidance explicitly permits furloughed workers to get just 80 % of their salary “ even if , based on their usual working hours , this would be below their appropriate minimum wage ” .
Expecting lower-paid workers to live below the minimum will punish those already struggling most and deliberately thrust the lowest-paid workers into even greater poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect those previously on the minimum wage .
Many others will be dragged under the minimum wage rates if they ’ re only getting 80 % of their previous wage .
While the virus itself doesn ’ t discriminate , we have seen time after time how this crisis has widened pre-existing inequalities .
The failure to protect minimum wage workers will deepen inequalities even further .
Around two million workers are directly affected by minimum wage rates and they are more likely to be women and work part-time and in occupations such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been hit hard by this crisis .
Black , Asian and minority ethnic ( BAME ) workers are more likely to be in lower-paid work .
The government ’ s approach on the furloughing of minimum wage workers heaps inequality upon inequality and injustice upon injustice .
The furlough system has a ceiling of £2,500 per month .
It also needs a floor that protects worker ’ s wages through this crisis .
Across the labour movement , all of us who wish to defend the principle of the minimum wage need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind and ensure no worker is paid less than this hard fought for minimum wage during this crisis .

One of the great achievements of the last period of Labour government was the introduction of the national minimum wage. In the face of ferocious Tory opposition, it established a basic principle that – as its name makes abundantly clear – no worker should get paid less than a statutory minimum. For two decades, there has been a broad consensus around this principle, if not around the levels it should be paid at. Until now, that is.
The spirit of that historic measure is now being undermined by the Conservative government, which is failing to protect minimum wage workers who have been furloughed as part of the job retention scheme. They will receive just 80% of their minimum wage salary.
The furlough scheme offers welcome protection for millions of people and the trade union movement can add its introduction to the list of achievements it has secured down the years. But the guarantee that employees will have 80% of their incomes protected is simply not enough for minimum wage workers. How can workers be expected to live on less than a state-declared minimum, especially given that rents, bills and food prices haven’t fallen?
Sadly, when I called on the Chancellor to put in place guarantees so that no furloughed worker lives on less than the national minimum wage, he outrageously replied suggesting that those workers should plug the gap by seeking additional employment during this crisis. His dismissive answer brought to mind the out-of-touch Norman Tebbit’s infamous ‘get on your bike and look for work’ sentiment.
This week’s job vacancy figures show just how completely divorced from reality the Chancellor’s suggestion is. Does he really think that minimum wage workers can find additional employment during this crisis when so many of the businesses they normally work in – be it bars, shops or hotels – are shut? Others can’t find work due to additional caring responsibilities during this crisis or, as some have told me, because their current employment contracts do not permit it.
While some may be able to just about get by with 80% of their salaries, low-paid workers certainly can’t afford this deep cut to their income. The current minimum wage is £8.72 for those aged 25 and over. Cutting that by a fifth during furlough means that a full-time worker could be over £280 per month worse off.
Yet the government guidance explicitly permits furloughed workers to get just 80% of their salary “even if, based on their usual working hours, this would be below their appropriate minimum wage”. Expecting lower-paid workers to live below the minimum will punish those already struggling most and deliberately thrust the lowest-paid workers into even greater poverty and hardship.
Nor will this just affect those previously on the minimum wage. Many others will be dragged under the minimum wage rates if they’re only getting 80% of their previous wage. While the virus itself doesn’t discriminate, we have seen time after time how this crisis has widened pre-existing inequalities. The failure to protect minimum wage workers will deepen inequalities even further.
Around two million workers are directly affected by minimum wage rates and they are more likely to be women and work part-time and in occupations such as retail and hospitality, which have been hit hard by this crisis. Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) workers are more likely to be in lower-paid work. The government’s approach on the furloughing of minimum wage workers heaps inequality upon inequality and injustice upon injustice.
The furlough system has a ceiling of £2,500 per month. It also needs a floor that protects worker’s wages through this crisis. Across the labour movement, all of us who wish to defend the principle of the minimum wage need to be pressuring the government to change its mind and ensure no worker is paid less than this hard fought for minimum wage during this crisis.