labourlist--2020-05-28--Starmer’s appointments send a message: the days of class war are over

The appointment of David Evans as Labour ’ s new general secretary is a huge win for Keir Starmer .
A veteran of the Blair years , Evans developed a reputation as a formidable campaigner during the former Prime Minister ’ s tenure and has since emerged a champion for transformative initiatives in local government .
It ’ s no secret that Evans was the preferred candidate of the leadership , and his campaigning acumen will have no doubt factored into Starmer ’ s decision to back him .
But the appointment of Evans tells us something else about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of class war are over .
As first regional secretary , and then assistant general secretary , Evans was a strong advocate for modernising the party .
In 1999 , Evans authored a report in which he argued the party needed a “ radical overhaul ” , that local parties were “ dysfunctional ” , and that it should “ empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise ‘ old Labour ' ” .
Naturally , the recently resurfaced report has caused alarm among those on the Labour left who fear the factional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeremy Corbyn years will continue .
But it is not just party processes and structures that Evans believes need to be overhauled .
In a 2014 article for HuffPost UK , Evans argued that class politics itself had come to an end .
In the piece , headlined “ From Essex to Manchester , the UKIP surge signals the death knell of class-based voting ” , Evans wrote that the gradual decline of class-based political allegiances since the mid-1970s suggests that class is no longer relevant to voters in the 21st century .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to their motivations .
The last two elections suggest that Evans may have a point .
In both 2017 and 2019 , a Corbyn-led Labour Party attempted to redraw the political landscape along class lines .
It almost worked in 2017 – the party ’ s core message and manifesto appeared to resonate with voters and Labour secured its greatest vote share increase since 1945 , under Clement Attlee .
But against a comically poor opponent in Theresa May , Labour still lost .
And in 2019 , despite a raft of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the working class and rhetoric pitting workers against a ‘ rigged system ’ , the party suffered its worst election result since 1935 .
One of the lessons from the 2019 election is that voters in former ‘ Red Wall ’ seats do not take kindly to soak-the-rich rhetoric .
A February report from Tax Justice UK found ex-Labour voters wanted what they saw as fairness – the closure of tax loopholes , increases to capital gains tax and fairer pension rates all came up as suggestions .
They also wanted immediate public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected rapid change .
But although they wanted the playing field to be levelled out , Tax Justice UK head Robert Palmer said that aggressive anti-wealth language went down “ seriously badly ” with respondents .
Starmer will be aware of this .
As a veteran who not only believes class divides are irrelevant , but has a proven record on local issues as well , the appointment of Evans is an indicator of the direction in which the leadership wants to take Labour .
And Evans ’ views on class are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of policy , Claire Ainsley .
In her book The New Working Class , Ainsley argues that class still matters during elections , but its nature is changing .
While much rhetoric in politics appeals to the ‘ traditional ’ working class , Ainsley argues that the ‘ new ’ working class is made up of a broad variety of different workers on different incomes , most of whom are in the service sector .
Ainsley does not believe these workers will respond to labels of class , but signals as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Between these two appointments , it seems clear that Starmer is looking for a clean break from the class-based strategy of his predecessor .
And the shadow cabinet is beginning to follow suit .
Over the weekend , shadow economic secretary to the Treasury Pat McFadden embarked on a charm offensive with banks and asset management companies in an attempt to mend ties damaged during Corbyn ’ s leadership .
According to the Financial Times , McFadden did not think Labour had been open enough to engaging with business during Corbyn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ ve always believed that an aspiring party of government should be as interested in wealth creation as it is in the fair distribution of wealth.
” These are not the sentiments of a Labour Party wedded to traditional conceptions of class .
As it stands , all signs suggest Starmer has little interest in adopting the antagonisms that characterised Labour under Corbyn ’ s leadership .
To be sure , Starmer pledged to build on the platform that nearly led Labour to victory in 2017 .
But the underlying philosophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material interests of the 99 % and the 1 % are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed – has been all but scrapped .
In that respect , Starmer could be Labour ’ s next moderniser .
With four years to go , it ’ s too early to say what Labour will look like by the next election .
But right now , one thing is clear : class politics are out .

The appointment of David Evans as Labour’s new general secretary is a huge win for Keir Starmer. A veteran of the Blair years, Evans developed a reputation as a formidable campaigner during the former Prime Minister’s tenure and has since emerged a champion for transformative initiatives in local government. It’s no secret that Evans was the preferred candidate of the leadership, and his campaigning acumen will have no doubt factored into Starmer’s decision to back him. But the appointment of Evans tells us something else about the Labour Party under Starmer: the days of class war are over.
As first regional secretary, and then assistant general secretary, Evans was a strong advocate for modernising the party. In 1999, Evans authored a report in which he argued the party needed a “radical overhaul”, that local parties were “dysfunctional”, and that it should “empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise ‘old Labour'”. Naturally, the recently resurfaced report has caused alarm among those on the Labour left who fear the factional infighting that dogged the party during the Jeremy Corbyn years will continue.
But it is not just party processes and structures that Evans believes need to be overhauled. In a 2014 article for HuffPost UK, Evans argued that class politics itself had come to an end. In the piece, headlined “From Essex to Manchester, the UKIP surge signals the death knell of class-based voting”, Evans wrote that the gradual decline of class-based political allegiances since the mid-1970s suggests that class is no longer relevant to voters in the 21st century. Instead, Evans believes voters are distinguishable according to their motivations.
The last two elections suggest that Evans may have a point. In both 2017 and 2019, a Corbyn-led Labour Party attempted to redraw the political landscape along class lines. It almost worked in 2017 – the party’s core message and manifesto appeared to resonate with voters and Labour secured its greatest vote share increase since 1945, under Clement Attlee. But against a comically poor opponent in Theresa May, Labour still lost. And in 2019, despite a raft of policies designed to improve the lot of the working class and rhetoric pitting workers against a ‘rigged system’, the party suffered its worst election result since 1935.
One of the lessons from the 2019 election is that voters in former ‘Red Wall’ seats do not take kindly to soak-the-rich rhetoric. A February report from Tax Justice UK found ex-Labour voters wanted what they saw as fairness – the closure of tax loopholes, increases to capital gains tax and fairer pension rates all came up as suggestions. They also wanted immediate public investment in their areas, and many expected rapid change. But although they wanted the playing field to be levelled out, Tax Justice UK head Robert Palmer said that aggressive anti-wealth language went down “seriously badly” with respondents.
Starmer will be aware of this. As a veteran who not only believes class divides are irrelevant, but has a proven record on local issues as well, the appointment of Evans is an indicator of the direction in which the leadership wants to take Labour. And Evans’ views on class are also consistent with those of Starmer’s director of policy, Claire Ainsley. In her book The New Working Class, Ainsley argues that class still matters during elections, but its nature is changing. While much rhetoric in politics appeals to the ‘traditional’ working class, Ainsley argues that the ‘new’ working class is made up of a broad variety of different workers on different incomes, most of whom are in the service sector. Ainsley does not believe these workers will respond to labels of class, but signals as to whether a party is on their side.
Between these two appointments, it seems clear that Starmer is looking for a clean break from the class-based strategy of his predecessor. And the shadow cabinet is beginning to follow suit. Over the weekend, shadow economic secretary to the Treasury Pat McFadden embarked on a charm offensive with banks and asset management companies in an attempt to mend ties damaged during Corbyn’s leadership. According to the Financial Times, McFadden did not think Labour had been open enough to engaging with business during Corbyn’s time as leader, adding: “I’ve always believed that an aspiring party of government should be as interested in wealth creation as it is in the fair distribution of wealth.”
These are not the sentiments of a Labour Party wedded to traditional conceptions of class. As it stands, all signs suggest Starmer has little interest in adopting the antagonisms that characterised Labour under Corbyn’s leadership. To be sure, Starmer pledged to build on the platform that nearly led Labour to victory in 2017. But the underlying philosophy of the Corbyn years – that the material interests of the 99% and the 1% are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed – has been all but scrapped. In that respect, Starmer could be Labour’s next moderniser. With four years to go, it’s too early to say what Labour will look like by the next election. But right now, one thing is clear: class politics are out.


labourlist--2020-05-28--Anti-elitism? The irony of the Cummings story

Dominic Cummings has betrayed the very people in the North East who put their faith in his campaign to win the election in 2019 .
Coronavirus has exposed the regional inequalities that our government has enabled over the last ten years – from regional health inequalities to systemic social inequality , the North East of England where I live has suffered disproportionately during this pandemic .
However , our region has been forced into the media spotlight this week – not drawing attention to the impact of this crisis on the area , but due to the actions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unable to follow the advice given by his own boss , it seems that Cummings thinks he is above the law , or that the rules do not apply to him .
The privileges enjoyed by Cummings are far removed from the experiences of most ordinary working people in this country .
Whilst the media attention and widespread condemnation of his actions have been welcome , what has been lacking is recognition that those who voted Conservative for the first time in the North East have been betrayed .
Communities such as North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that switch because they wanted clear national leadership , politicians they could trust and a government who would put them first – plus an end to the parliamentary impasse that had consumed British politics for three years .
Yet on this occasion , the will of the people has been completely ignored by Boris Johnson .
His handling of this crisis has resulted in the UK suffering the highest excess death rate in the world , and it is probably the government response to the Cummings story in particular that has caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 points this week .
Our Prime Minister has chosen to defend an unelected adviser who decided that the rules in place did not apply to him .
He travelled 260 miles to an area of the UK that has now had the highest infection rate in the country , and three boroughs within it that have the highest death rate recorded nationally .
It was Johnson that people chose to be our Prime Minister last year , but it was Cummings who devised the campaign and strategy .
It was Cummings ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elitism and the political establishment – to platform the people ’ s voices first and listen to them above all else .
Those who once defended the efforts of Johnson and his inner circle are now quickly losing faith in the government , however – including many of those who voted Tory for the first time last year , and members of my own family who live and work in the North East .
One relative even got in touch with me to say her protest vote against Labour in December was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have trusted a Tory .
The irony of this crisis is the supposed anti-elitist agenda promoted by Cummings .
He ran a campaign that won an election last year to be a ‘ people ’ s government ’ , but it is clear that those currently in 10 Downing Street are solely intent on protecting their own interests .
For these reasons , we are not “ all in this together ” in the fight against coronavirus .

Dominic Cummings has betrayed the very people in the North East who put their faith in his campaign to win the election in 2019. Coronavirus has exposed the regional inequalities that our government has enabled over the last ten years – from regional health inequalities to systemic social inequality, the North East of England where I live has suffered disproportionately during this pandemic.
However, our region has been forced into the media spotlight this week – not drawing attention to the impact of this crisis on the area, but due to the actions of the Prime Minister’s chief adviser. Unable to follow the advice given by his own boss, it seems that Cummings thinks he is above the law, or that the rules do not apply to him. The privileges enjoyed by Cummings are far removed from the experiences of most ordinary working people in this country.
Whilst the media attention and widespread condemnation of his actions have been welcome, what has been lacking is recognition that those who voted Conservative for the first time in the North East have been betrayed. Communities such as North West Durham, Bishop Auckland and Sedgefield made that switch because they wanted clear national leadership, politicians they could trust and a government who would put them first – plus an end to the parliamentary impasse that had consumed British politics for three years.
Yet on this occasion, the will of the people has been completely ignored by Boris Johnson. His handling of this crisis has resulted in the UK suffering the highest excess death rate in the world, and it is probably the government response to the Cummings story in particular that has caused his personal approval rating to drop by 20 points this week.
Our Prime Minister has chosen to defend an unelected adviser who decided that the rules in place did not apply to him. He travelled 260 miles to an area of the UK that has now had the highest infection rate in the country, and three boroughs within it that have the highest death rate recorded nationally.
It was Johnson that people chose to be our Prime Minister last year, but it was Cummings who devised the campaign and strategy. It was Cummings’ vision that advocated an end to political elitism and the political establishment – to platform the people’s voices first and listen to them above all else.
Those who once defended the efforts of Johnson and his inner circle are now quickly losing faith in the government, however – including many of those who voted Tory for the first time last year, and members of my own family who live and work in the North East. One relative even got in touch with me to say her protest vote against Labour in December was a waste, and that she never should have trusted a Tory.
The irony of this crisis is the supposed anti-elitist agenda promoted by Cummings. He ran a campaign that won an election last year to be a ‘people’s government’, but it is clear that those currently in 10 Downing Street are solely intent on protecting their own interests. For these reasons, we are not “all in this together” in the fight against coronavirus.


labourlist--2020-05-28--81% in favour of Covid-19 rent or mortgage suspensions, new poll finds

81 % of the British public are in favour of people being able to suspend rent or mortgage payments during the period of the coronavirus pandemic , according to a new poll .
In the research published by Survation today , 69 % of those who supported such a suspension felt that the money should be recompensed after lockdown , compared to 24 % who opposed repayment .
Labour under its new leader Keir Starmer advocated rent deferrals earlier this month , which would require renters to make additional rent payments to cover the arrears accrued during the crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ party to back rent cancellations , without the need to pay back arrears – several thousand Labour members signed an open letter to Starmer to this effect .
Survation also questioned respondents about easing immigration requirements for key workers , bailouts for airlines and their satisfaction with how the government has handled the crisis .
A majority of people – 55 % – rejected airline bailouts , and 72 % of those who did support rescue measures thought that the public should hold a share of the companies that receive financial assistance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailout of companies in the aviation sector , but said that these should be conditional on environmental commitments and the protection of jobs .
On immigration , 38 % favoured the introduction of easier entry requirements for all key workers – compared to 20 % that wanted to make it harder and 35 % who thought that the UK should maintain the current rules .
Support for easing immigration requirements rose when respondents were specifically asked about health and care workers to 42 % , and again to 48 % when referring only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s immigration bill has just passed its second reading in the Commons and would enable ministers to introduce a salary requirement of £25,600 – as Labour has pointed out , this is more than many key workers earn .
The Home Secretary Priti Patel has insisted that the government ’ s legislation is “ not about a salary guide ” and instead argued that it is about skills and “ creating a level-playing field ” .
47 % of people surveyed in the poll expressed the view that the government had handled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said that the government had handled it well .
8 % said that they were uncertain .
This research from Survation follows polls earlier in the week that show a sharp drop in support for Boris Johnson and the Tories , and comes amid the ongoing row over the actions of senior Tory adviser Dominic Cummings .

81% of the British public are in favour of people being able to suspend rent or mortgage payments during the period of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new poll.
In the research published by Survation today, 69% of those who supported such a suspension felt that the money should be recompensed after lockdown, compared to 24% who opposed repayment.
Labour under its new leader Keir Starmer advocated rent deferrals earlier this month, which would require renters to make additional rent payments to cover the arrears accrued during the crisis.
Some within Labour are arguing for the party to back rent cancellations, without the need to pay back arrears – several thousand Labour members signed an open letter to Starmer to this effect.
Survation also questioned respondents about easing immigration requirements for key workers, bailouts for airlines and their satisfaction with how the government has handled the crisis.
A majority of people – 55% – rejected airline bailouts, and 72% of those who did support rescue measures thought that the public should hold a share of the companies that receive financial assistance.
Labour has put forward proposals for a bailout of companies in the aviation sector, but said that these should be conditional on environmental commitments and the protection of jobs.
On immigration, 38% favoured the introduction of easier entry requirements for all key workers – compared to 20% that wanted to make it harder and 35% who thought that the UK should maintain the current rules.
Support for easing immigration requirements rose when respondents were specifically asked about health and care workers to 42%, and again to 48% when referring only to NHS workers.
The government’s immigration bill has just passed its second reading in the Commons and would enable ministers to introduce a salary requirement of £25,600 – as Labour has pointed out, this is more than many key workers earn.
The Home Secretary Priti Patel has insisted that the government’s legislation is “not about a salary guide” and instead argued that it is about skills and “creating a level-playing field”.
47% of people surveyed in the poll expressed the view that the government had handled the crisis badly, compared to 44% who said that the government had handled it well. 8% said that they were uncertain.
This research from Survation follows polls earlier in the week that show a sharp drop in support for Boris Johnson and the Tories, and comes amid the ongoing row over the actions of senior Tory adviser Dominic Cummings.


labourlist--2020-05-28--Government branded “hopeless” as non-virtual parliament makes voting unsafe

The government has been branded as “ hopeless ” by a Labour frontbencher after the Speaker declared that getting rid of a virtual parliament would make MPs voting in the usual way unsafe .
Shadow health minister Justin Madders said : “ Just had an email from the Speaker which says we can not vote in the division lobbies safely so government have asked to put forward a motion on how we will vote from now on .
“ Seems the government decided to bring parliament back without understanding/considering the safety aspects .
Hopeless.
” The Speaker of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear to me that the House simply can not conduct division safely ” ahead of MPs ’ scheduled return to Westminster next week .
In an email to MPs today , Lindsay Hoyle set out why he has agreed to the government ’ s request to recall parliament on June 2nd – but warned that it would be difficult to socially distance in the division lobbies .
The Speaker explained that as voting in the normal way would not be safe , it is for the government to put forward an alternative proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table a motion .
In the correspondence to colleagues , Hoyle wrote : “ Based on the latest professional advice from Public Health England , it is clear to me that the House simply can not conduct divisions safely via the lobbies .
“ There are pinch points in the lobbies where MPs are recorded by clerks and counted by tellers where it would be difficult to maintain social distancing , even though perspex booths were prepared for two of the division desks .
“ Nor can we follow the strict letter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the House ’ s normal practice for the conduct of divisions and sets out particular requirements.
” Standing order no .
38 specifies that when a division is declared by the Speaker , the 650 MPs – or those in attendance – have a total of eight minutes to enter the lobbies and cast their vote .
He added : “ As safety is my paramount consideration for MPs and staff – alongside the need for constituents to be properly represented through voting – we need to consider practical alternative arrangements.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would “ prefer cross-party agreement ” on the motion , but opposition parties and backbenchers will be able to table amendments if no such agreement is reached .
Hoyle does not have the power to decide on procedure for how the House votes , but if agreement is not reached he said that he would set out temporary measures “ enabling the House to come to a decision on future arrangements ” .
Responding to the developments today , Labour ’ s Valerie Vaz said : “ This is the latest example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rees-Mogg tried to abolish the hybrid remote parliament – which allowed all MPs to take part regardless of their personal circumstances – without any prior notice and against all advice on the last day parliament met .
“ He has bungled it and is now forcing parliament to return early solely to correct his earlier discriminatory move.
” “ We welcome Mr Speaker ’ s statement and stand ready to work with the government and all parties to reach a consensus that would allow all MPs to participate on equal terms , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commented : “ What an unmitigated mess .
Government summons parliament for Tuesday 2 June and lets remote voting and hybrid sessions lapse .
It insists 650 MPs vote through narrow lobbies in 15 minutes without checking that this is Covid compliant .
Public Health England declare the lobbies unsafe .
“ The government dreams up another scheme – we all join a 1.3k queue to vote .
Public Health England says this is no better .
But government has tabled the highly controversial Gerrymandering Parliamentary Constituencies Bill for Tuesday with votes at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begs the Speaker to recall parliament early so that we can vote… on how we vote .
What an absolute shower .
The govt wanted parliament to give out a message by returning – but the message is clear ‘ help , we don ’ t know what we ’ re doing ’ .
Breweries and welk-stalls .
”

The government has been branded as “hopeless” by a Labour frontbencher after the Speaker declared that getting rid of a virtual parliament would make MPs voting in the usual way unsafe.
Shadow health minister Justin Madders said: “Just had an email from the Speaker which says we cannot vote in the division lobbies safely so government have asked to put forward a motion on how we will vote from now on.
“Seems the government decided to bring parliament back without understanding/considering the safety aspects. Hopeless.”
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said “it is clear to me that the House simply cannot conduct division safely” ahead of MPs’ scheduled return to Westminster next week.
In an email to MPs today, Lindsay Hoyle set out why he has agreed to the government’s request to recall parliament on June 2nd – but warned that it would be difficult to socially distance in the division lobbies.
The Speaker explained that as voting in the normal way would not be safe, it is for the government to put forward an alternative proposal. Ministers have until June 1st to table a motion.
In the correspondence to colleagues, Hoyle wrote: “Based on the latest professional advice from Public Health England, it is clear to me that the House simply cannot conduct divisions safely via the lobbies.
“There are pinch points in the lobbies where MPs are recorded by clerks and counted by tellers where it would be difficult to maintain social distancing, even though perspex booths were prepared for two of the division desks.
“Nor can we follow the strict letter of standing order no. 38 which forms part of the House’s normal practice for the conduct of divisions and sets out particular requirements.”
Standing order no. 38 specifies that when a division is declared by the Speaker, the 650 MPs – or those in attendance – have a total of eight minutes to enter the lobbies and cast their vote.
He added: “As safety is my paramount consideration for MPs and staff – alongside the need for constituents to be properly represented through voting – we need to consider practical alternative arrangements.”
The Commons Speaker said that he would “prefer cross-party agreement” on the motion, but opposition parties and backbenchers will be able to table amendments if no such agreement is reached.
Hoyle does not have the power to decide on procedure for how the House votes, but if agreement is not reached he said that he would set out temporary measures “enabling the House to come to a decision on future arrangements”.
Responding to the developments today, Labour’s Valerie Vaz said: “This is the latest example of the government in chaos.
“Jacob Rees-Mogg tried to abolish the hybrid remote parliament – which allowed all MPs to take part regardless of their personal circumstances – without any prior notice and against all advice on the last day parliament met.
“He has bungled it and is now forcing parliament to return early solely to correct his earlier discriminatory move.”
“We welcome Mr Speaker’s statement and stand ready to work with the government and all parties to reach a consensus that would allow all MPs to participate on equal terms, including voting.”
Labour’s Chris Bryant commented: “What an unmitigated mess. Government summons parliament for Tuesday 2 June and lets remote voting and hybrid sessions lapse. It insists 650 MPs vote through narrow lobbies in 15 minutes without checking that this is Covid compliant. Public Health England declare the lobbies unsafe.
“The government dreams up another scheme – we all join a 1.3k queue to vote. Public Health England says this is no better. But government has tabled the highly controversial Gerrymandering Parliamentary Constituencies Bill for Tuesday with votes at 10pm. So now…
“The government begs the Speaker to recall parliament early so that we can vote… on how we vote. What an absolute shower. The govt wanted parliament to give out a message by returning – but the message is clear ‘help, we don’t know what we’re doing’. Breweries and welk-stalls.”


labourlist--2020-05-29--Labour urges action to stop Covid-19 “turning the clock back” on equal pay

Labour has urged the government to take action to stop coronavirus from “ turning the clock back ” on equal pay in the UK as research suggests women ’ s incomes are worst-affected during the crisis .
On the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act , leader Keir Starmer and equalities spokesperson Marsha de Cordova have supported the Fawcett Society ’ s ‘ Right to Know ’ campaign .
This initiative seeks to bring the Act up to date , and would end pay secrecy and boost transparency by giving women the right to know what a male colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Citing data that showed only 24 % reporting that salaries are discussed openly in their workplace , the Fawcett Society argues that the move would enable women to resolve equal pay issues without having to go to court .
“ The Equal Pay Act was a historic achievement that showed the impact Labour can make in power , ” Starmer commented .
“ But half a century later , progress is stalling .
Coronavirus threatens to set us back years in the fight for pay equality .
“ We must come out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better future .
That means strengthening the Equal Pay Act and monitoring how this crisis is impacting on women.
” Labour is making the case for strengthened equal pay laws particularly amid the coronavirus crisis as de Cordova says the recovery should take into account the specific impact it is having on women .
An investigation by the Institute for Fiscal studies found that mothers are almost 50 % more likely to have lost their jobs during the pandemic , while poverty charity Turn2Us said women ’ s incomes are falling more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the UK ’ s gender pay gap has stalled in recent years , with the gap closing by 7.7 % under Labour but only by 2.4 % since 2011 under successive Conservative-led governments .
The UK also fell several places in the World Economic Forum ’ s global gender equality ranking in December , from 15th to 21st – now below Albania , Canada , Costa Rica , Latvia , Switzerland , South Africa and Spain .
Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary de Cordova said : “ Today marks 50 years since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became law .
It was inspired by the demand of women of the Ford factories in Dagenham and Liverpool for equal pay for equal work .
Yet , even now , women are still getting a rough deal .
“ Labour has long warned that the UK is slipping behind on pay equality .
But the coronavirus crisis now looks set to further exploit those weaknesses by turning the clock back on pay equality .
“ As we emerge from this crisis , it ’ s clear government needs to act in women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any coronavirus recovery plan comes with a full impact assessment that ensures it doesn ’ t exacerbate the gender pay gap .
“ And it ’ s why we are calling on them to give women the right to know if they are being paid less than the man sat opposite them doing the same job .
”

Labour has urged the government to take action to stop coronavirus from “turning the clock back” on equal pay in the UK as research suggests women’s incomes are worst-affected during the crisis.
On the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, leader Keir Starmer and equalities spokesperson Marsha de Cordova have supported the Fawcett Society’s ‘Right to Know’ campaign.
This initiative seeks to bring the Act up to date, and would end pay secrecy and boost transparency by giving women the right to know what a male colleague doing the same work is paid.
Citing data that showed only 24% reporting that salaries are discussed openly in their workplace, the Fawcett Society argues that the move would enable women to resolve equal pay issues without having to go to court.
“The Equal Pay Act was a historic achievement that showed the impact Labour can make in power,” Starmer commented. “But half a century later, progress is stalling. Coronavirus threatens to set us back years in the fight for pay equality.
“We must come out of this pandemic with the commitment to build a better future. That means strengthening the Equal Pay Act and monitoring how this crisis is impacting on women.”
Labour is making the case for strengthened equal pay laws particularly amid the coronavirus crisis as de Cordova says the recovery should take into account the specific impact it is having on women.
An investigation by the Institute for Fiscal studies found that mothers are almost 50% more likely to have lost their jobs during the pandemic, while poverty charity Turn2Us said women’s incomes are falling more steeply than men’s.
Progress on the UK’s gender pay gap has stalled in recent years, with the gap closing by 7.7% under Labour but only by 2.4% since 2011 under successive Conservative-led governments.
The UK also fell several places in the World Economic Forum’s global gender equality ranking in December, from 15th to 21st – now below Albania, Canada, Costa Rica, Latvia, Switzerland, South Africa and Spain.
Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary de Cordova said: “Today marks 50 years since Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act became law. It was inspired by the demand of women of the Ford factories in Dagenham and Liverpool for equal pay for equal work. Yet, even now, women are still getting a rough deal.
“Labour has long warned that the UK is slipping behind on pay equality. But the coronavirus crisis now looks set to further exploit those weaknesses by turning the clock back on pay equality.
“As we emerge from this crisis, it’s clear government needs to act in women’s interests. Government must ensure any coronavirus recovery plan comes with a full impact assessment that ensures it doesn’t exacerbate the gender pay gap.
“And it’s why we are calling on them to give women the right to know if they are being paid less than the man sat opposite them doing the same job.”


labourlist--2020-05-29--Why Suella Braverman must go

Why Suella Braverman must go

Last Saturday , immediately after the Dominic Cummings story broke , and in a carefully choreographed social media campaign , a number of senior ministers took to Twitter to echo the Prime Minister ’ s support for his adviser .
They quoted the official No 10 statement that set out Cummings ’ version of events and concluded that “ Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally ” .
Some added their own personal message of approbation .
Among them was the Attorney General , Suella Braverman , who tweeted : “ Protecting one ’ s family is what any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.
” The response from legal commentators and practitioners was immediate and coruscating .
To understand the outrage that she has provoked , one has to understand the Attorney General ’ s role and the unique position that she holds as chief legal adviser to the Crown and to the government .
As Philippe Sands QC , Professor of Law at UCL , eloquently put it , the Attorney General is “ the adviser to the Prime Minister on matters of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain an independent position on legal matters .
The absolute integrity of an attorney general is the prerequisite for a functioning democracy.
” She also has a number of other independent public interest responsibilities including , crucially , the overseeing of the Crown Prosecution Service .
In that context , her actions were staggeringly ill-advised .
Even on his own account , the actions of Cummings raised , at the very least , the possibility that he had broken the law , that the police had already been – or would now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CPS would determine that he should be prosecuted .
And yet , immediately , and without having undertaken the most basic of independent enquiries of her own into the matter , the Attorney General – the independent legal adviser to the Crown and superintendent of the CPS – publicly and unreservedly exonerated Cummings of any wrongdoing .
How were the police or the CPS now expected independently to investigate the matter when the Attorney General herself had already said that no offence had been committed ?
Believe me when I say that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her actions not only as unconstitutional but also as grotesquely irresponsible .
It was no surprise that the Shadow Attorney General , Lord Falconer QC , wrote to Braverman on Sunday with a damning indictment : “ Your tweet appears to side with Mr Cummings in the dispute with the police .
It implies you are not supportive of the steps they took .
Moreover , your tweet is supportive of a statement from No 10 which disputes the handling of the case by the police .
The prime minister should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement of the criminal law .
He should certainly not be egged on in that by the attorney general .
As attorney general you have a special constitutional responsibility for the appropriate enforcement of the criminal law and are responsible for oversight of criminal prosecutions .
It is a rigid constitutional principle that the attorney general will discharge those functions free from political considerations or influence .
It looks clear that your tweet was part of politically orchestrated campaign in support of Mr Cummings and you have breached that rigid principle.
” How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on her actions , remind herself of the fundamental duties and responsibilities of her unique and ancient office , recognise the utterly invidious position in which she had placed those charged with enforcing the law and apologise unreservedly ?
No , she did not .
Instead , she replied to Lord Falconer , and by inference to all those appalled by her actions , in these terms : Lord Falconer described that response as “ disingenuous ” .
Strong as that term is for one lawyer to use about another , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observer ’ of her tweet would , in fact , have concluded three things : firstly , that she accepted and endorsed Cummings ’ version of the facts ; secondly , that his actions were entirely justified ( “ protecting one ’ s family is what any good parent does ” ) ; thirdly , that no further investigation was required ( “ The @ 10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it ” ) .
The suggestion that all she was seeking to do was “ to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only insults our collective intelligence – it demeans the dignity of her office .
In a previous article for LabourList , I suggested that Suella Braverman ’ s surprise appointment as Attorney General , given her relative lack of experience both at the Bar and in politics , had been driven by a recognition by No 10 that she would not , as the office demands , speak truth unto power or provide informed and above all independent counsel to the government .
Rather , they saw in her a malleable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time I agonised about so publicly doubting her ability and her character : the Bar is my life and the Attorney General is at least notionally the leader of the Bar and , indeed , to hold that office should be the pinnacle of ambition for any lawyer with a sense of political purpose and public service .
It gives me no pleasure to conclude that my concerns were well-founded .
Suella Braverman ’ s tweet was an appalling error of judgment but her position was not irretrievable .
She could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name would have done , have issued a sincere and unreserved apology .
She could have made it clear that she was reserving judgment herself until any ongoing police investigation had been concluded , as her role as overseer of the CPS demanded .
She chose to do none of those things .
In the meantime , the Durham Police have concluded that , contrary to the snap judgment of the Attorney General , Cummings might well have broken the law .
Her position is untenable .
She must go .

Last Saturday, immediately after the Dominic Cummings story broke, and in a carefully choreographed social media campaign, a number of senior ministers took to Twitter to echo the Prime Minister’s support for his adviser. They quoted the official No 10 statement that set out Cummings’ version of events and concluded that “Mr Cummings believes he behaved reasonably and legally”. Some added their own personal message of approbation. Among them was the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, who tweeted: “Protecting one’s family is what any good parent does. The @10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it.”
The response from legal commentators and practitioners was immediate and coruscating. To understand the outrage that she has provoked, one has to understand the Attorney General’s role and the unique position that she holds as chief legal adviser to the Crown and to the government. As Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at UCL, eloquently put it, the Attorney General is “the adviser to the Prime Minister on matters of law and therefore needs to be absolutely scrupulous to maintain an independent position on legal matters. The absolute integrity of an attorney general is the prerequisite for a functioning democracy.” She also has a number of other independent public interest responsibilities including, crucially, the overseeing of the Crown Prosecution Service.
In that context, her actions were staggeringly ill-advised. Even on his own account, the actions of Cummings raised, at the very least, the possibility that he had broken the law, that the police had already been – or would now become – involved, and that the CPS would determine that he should be prosecuted. And yet, immediately, and without having undertaken the most basic of independent enquiries of her own into the matter, the Attorney General – the independent legal adviser to the Crown and superintendent of the CPS – publicly and unreservedly exonerated Cummings of any wrongdoing. How were the police or the CPS now expected independently to investigate the matter when the Attorney General herself had already said that no offence had been committed? Believe me when I say that I am pulling my punches when I describe her actions not only as unconstitutional but also as grotesquely irresponsible.
It was no surprise that the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Falconer QC, wrote to Braverman on Sunday with a damning indictment:
“Your tweet appears to side with Mr Cummings in the dispute with the police. It implies you are not supportive of the steps they took. Moreover, your tweet is supportive of a statement from No 10 which disputes the handling of the case by the police. The prime minister should not be lending his authority to attacks on the enforcement of the criminal law. He should certainly not be egged on in that by the attorney general. As attorney general you have a special constitutional responsibility for the appropriate enforcement of the criminal law and are responsible for oversight of criminal prosecutions. It is a rigid constitutional principle that the attorney general will discharge those functions free from political considerations or influence. It looks clear that your tweet was part of politically orchestrated campaign in support of Mr Cummings and you have breached that rigid principle.”
How did she respond? Did she reflect on her actions, remind herself of the fundamental duties and responsibilities of her unique and ancient office, recognise the utterly invidious position in which she had placed those charged with enforcing the law and apologise unreservedly? No, she did not. Instead, she replied to Lord Falconer, and by inference to all those appalled by her actions, in these terms:
“There is of course no question of my having offered any public legal view… nor of seeking to pre-empt any formal investigation. The purposes of my comments as I think would be obvious to any fair minded observer, was simply to support the decision to clarify events. You will understand that I propose to make no further comment.”
Lord Falconer described that response as “disingenuous”. Strong as that term is for one lawyer to use about another, I would go even further. Any ‘fair-minded observer’ of her tweet would, in fact, have concluded three things: firstly, that she accepted and endorsed Cummings’ version of the facts; secondly, that his actions were entirely justified (“protecting one’s family is what any good parent does”); thirdly, that no further investigation was required (“The @10DowningStreet statement clarifies the situation and it is wholly inappropriate to politicise it”). The suggestion that all she was seeking to do was “to support the decision to clarify events” not only insults our collective intelligence – it demeans the dignity of her office.
In a previous article for LabourList, I suggested that Suella Braverman’s surprise appointment as Attorney General, given her relative lack of experience both at the Bar and in politics, had been driven by a recognition by No 10 that she would not, as the office demands, speak truth unto power or provide informed and above all independent counsel to the government. Rather, they saw in her a malleable and compliant career politician. I confess that at the time I agonised about so publicly doubting her ability and her character: the Bar is my life and the Attorney General is at least notionally the leader of the Bar and, indeed, to hold that office should be the pinnacle of ambition for any lawyer with a sense of political purpose and public service. It gives me no pleasure to conclude that my concerns were well-founded.
Suella Braverman’s tweet was an appalling error of judgment but her position was not irretrievable. She could, as any Attorney General worth the name would have done, have issued a sincere and unreserved apology. She could have made it clear that she was reserving judgment herself until any ongoing police investigation had been concluded, as her role as overseer of the CPS demanded. She chose to do none of those things. In the meantime, the Durham Police have concluded that, contrary to the snap judgment of the Attorney General, Cummings might well have broken the law. Her position is untenable. She must go.


labourlist--2020-05-29--Health unions reach agreement with NHS for proper staff pay during Covid

15 trade unions representing staff in English NHS trusts have reached an agreement with employers to ensure that health workers are paid properly for overtime during the coronavirus crisis .
Although some NHS Trusts ensure that staff are paid for every hour worked , UNISON says “ this hasn ’ t been the case everywhere ” as they often work beyond their shifts without pay or on reduced rates .
They have therefore agreed a new guidance document that establishes a framework for temporary measures that can be introduced on a local basis – though require local agreement .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month that set out how to safe reopen the NHS – from full access to testing and “ plentiful ” protective equipment to proper staff pay .
The organisations – including UNISON , Unite , GMB , the Royal College of Nursing , and the Royal College of Midwives – released the plan ahead of lockdown easing and an expected uptake in service use .
Commenting on the new agreement today , UNISON head of health Sara Gorton said : “ These are challenging times , and no one can deny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are making during the pandemic .
“ Every week people have been on their doorsteps , drives and balconies to show their support and appreciation .
They will be pleased that health staff who go the extra mile should soon be going home with more money in their pockets.
” UNISON describes overtime pay for NHS workers as “ just the start ” , however , amid consensus in the Labour Party and labour movement that there can not be a ‘ return to normal ’ post-Covid .
Gorton added : “ Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remember the applause long after the clapping has stopped – and especially when they sit down with unions and employers later in the summer to agree the next NHS pay rise .
”

15 trade unions representing staff in English NHS trusts have reached an agreement with employers to ensure that health workers are paid properly for overtime during the coronavirus crisis.
Although some NHS Trusts ensure that staff are paid for every hour worked, UNISON says “this hasn’t been the case everywhere” as they often work beyond their shifts without pay or on reduced rates.
They have therefore agreed a new guidance document that establishes a framework for temporary measures that can be introduced on a local basis – though require local agreement.
It follows a nine-point blueprint published by unions earlier this month that set out how to safe reopen the NHS – from full access to testing and “plentiful” protective equipment to proper staff pay.
The organisations – including UNISON, Unite, GMB, the Royal College of Nursing, and the Royal College of Midwives – released the plan ahead of lockdown easing and an expected uptake in service use.
Commenting on the new agreement today, UNISON head of health Sara Gorton said: “These are challenging times, and no one can deny the huge contribution staff across the NHS are making during the pandemic.
“Every week people have been on their doorsteps, drives and balconies to show their support and appreciation. They will be pleased that health staff who go the extra mile should soon be going home with more money in their pockets.”
UNISON describes overtime pay for NHS workers as “just the start”, however, amid consensus in the Labour Party and labour movement that there cannot be a ‘return to normal’ post-Covid.
Gorton added: “Health workers and the public will expect ministers to remember the applause long after the clapping has stopped – and especially when they sit down with unions and employers later in the summer to agree the next NHS pay rise.”


labourlist--2020-05-29--Should coronavirus lockdown measures be lifted now?

The coronavirus press conferences have become markedly worse .
Two months ago , I wrote that these events were “ becoming torturous – lengthy , rambling , with no opportunity for video-linked journalists to ask follow-up questions ” .
They are not quite as rambling now , but after introducing follow-ups 10 Downing Street has rediscovered the mute button on Zoom and taken to cutting off journalists .
As a result , Boris Johnson delightfully sped through the press questions last night .
The Prime Minister also appeared to stop Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance ( who were stood down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cummings story .
This “ Trumpesque ” move , as Angela Rayner put it , was a bad look .
And when they did speak for themselves , the medical advisers made clear that they didn ’ t want to be “ pulled into politics ” .
But the need for clarifications on rules post-Cummings is important to public health , and refusing to respond is itself political .
54 % of the public believe that lockdown measures are being lifted too quickly , according to a new Ipsos MORI poll .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re allowed to meet outside in groups ( of up to six in England and eight in Scotland ) , and Johnson has even encouraged us to have barbecues .
( In England , you ’ re allowed to use the toilet in homes other than your own ; in Scotland , you ’ re not . )
Yet we were promised that an app and a fully functioning test , track , trace programme would be in place before these changes were made .
There are also concerns that income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early .
113 MPs from across parliament have written to Rishi Sunak to demand an extension of the help available for self-employed workers .
Although many will continue to be affected by restrictions , that scheme is due to end this weekend .
And while the furlough scheme for employees has been thankfully extended to October , there are worries that forcing employers to contribute 20 % of wages from August will lead to huge job losses .
On LabourList today , Jon Ashworth has offered the second of his weekly updates on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shadow Health Secretary shares his views on Dominic Cummings , NHS Test and Trace , and the need to give people financial security .
It remains unclear just how those who can not work from home will be expected to take two weeks off if they are told to isolate after coming into contact with someone who has coronavirus .
We need more comprehensive and more imaginative solutions from government to get through the coming months .
Right now it looks like ministers are seriously underestimating the economic impact of this crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The coronavirus press conferences have become markedly worse. Two months ago, I wrote that these events were “becoming torturous – lengthy, rambling, with no opportunity for video-linked journalists to ask follow-up questions”. They are not quite as rambling now, but after introducing follow-ups 10 Downing Street has rediscovered the mute button on Zoom and taken to cutting off journalists. As a result, Boris Johnson delightfully sped through the press questions last night.
The Prime Minister also appeared to stop Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance (who were stood down on Monday) from addressing the Dominic Cummings story. This “Trumpesque” move, as Angela Rayner put it, was a bad look. And when they did speak for themselves, the medical advisers made clear that they didn’t want to be “pulled into politics”. But the need for clarifications on rules post-Cummings is important to public health, and refusing to respond is itself political.
54% of the public believe that lockdown measures are being lifted too quickly, according to a new Ipsos MORI poll. From Monday, schools are being reopened, we’re allowed to meet outside in groups (of up to six in England and eight in Scotland), and Johnson has even encouraged us to have barbecues. (In England, you’re allowed to use the toilet in homes other than your own; in Scotland, you’re not.) Yet we were promised that an app and a fully functioning test, track, trace programme would be in place before these changes were made.
There are also concerns that income support schemes are being cut off too early. 113 MPs from across parliament have written to Rishi Sunak to demand an extension of the help available for self-employed workers. Although many will continue to be affected by restrictions, that scheme is due to end this weekend. And while the furlough scheme for employees has been thankfully extended to October, there are worries that forcing employers to contribute 20% of wages from August will lead to huge job losses.
On LabourList today, Jon Ashworth has offered the second of his weekly updates on Labour’s Covid-19 response. The Shadow Health Secretary shares his views on Dominic Cummings, NHS Test and Trace, and the need to give people financial security. It remains unclear just how those who cannot work from home will be expected to take two weeks off if they are told to isolate after coming into contact with someone who has coronavirus. We need more comprehensive and more imaginative solutions from government to get through the coming months. Right now it looks like ministers are seriously underestimating the economic impact of this crisis. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-29--One rule for Johnson’s elite friends, another for the rest of us – Ashworth’s Covid-19 update

Dominic Cummings has undermined the most crucial public health advice in over 100 years , and Boris Johnson is dangerously irresponsible in standing by him .
We are in the midst of a pandemic , grappling with a deadly virus that spreads with speed .
We have no vaccine .
Testing and tracing was abandoned mid-March and is only slowly being cranked up now .
Our more effective tool to suppress the virus in early April was the lockdown .
Cummings was was well aware of that .
He sits in on SAGE meetings , for goodness ’ sake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ insult to the millions of people who have made unprecedented sacrifices .
Johnson should have given Cummings his marching orders , but he won ’ t .
Defending his own political interest always trumps the national interest for this Tory leader .
It ’ s against this backdrop that Matt Hancock has finally launched NHS Test and Trace .
The ‘ track ’ element seems to have been abandoned and the Hancock app put on the back burner – even though we were told it was absolutely vital to an effecting tracing regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have long called for a functional testing and tracing regime as key to the safe easing of the lockdown .
The government ’ s decision to abandon contact tracing in mid-March was a monumental error that left a huge gap in our defences against the virus .
Last week , I wrote to Matt Hancock asking a series of questions about why this was allowed to happen .
Just ten people had died of Covid-19 when Public Health England stopped community testing back on March 12 ; today , with the launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a half months later , the official death toll is approaching 40,000 — and the real number is thought to be far higher .
Those countries like Germany and South Korea that have invested early in this type of process have seen much lower death rates .
I don ’ t want us to stay in in lockdown forever , and I want to see the economy moving again , with businesses thriving and more children back in our schools .
It ’ s important that this tracking and tracing system works and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work , it has to be speedy , because we know this deadly virus spreads quickly .
If you or a family member have symptoms , or you have been told to go into isolation , you want to know as soon as possible whether you have got this awful virus .
People shouldn ’ t have to wait days on end to get their results .
It ’ s why Labour this week has called for ministers to introduce a ‘ Covid Test Guarantee ’ to ensure that nobody will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive test results .
The system should also be scaled up further by rapidly increasing the amount of testing to at least a quarter of a million a day , and recruiting an army of over 50,000 contact tracers .
And tracing should be locally-led and properly integrated with primary care .
GPs should be involved so they can monitor the health of their patients .
Local government directors of public health and public health staff – alongside other key local government staff , such as environmental health officers who know their local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing and case finding .
They must be fully mobilised to spearhead tracing as part of this system .
It also means giving people the financial security to isolate .
That means decent sick pay from day one and even help with accommodation if appropriate .
Other countries have offered those who need to isolate hotel rooms , and we should do the same .
The most important thing to make sure the system works is public confidence in it , to help drive cooperation .
We need everyone asked to cooperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stay at home instructions to keep all of us safe .
The very last thing we need at this stage of the pandemic is for people to copy the actions of Cummings , and ministerial endorsement of it , and break the quarantine laws when they are asked to isolate under the new tracing system .
I know how difficult the last few months have been .
My inbox this week has been filled with people writing to me to share their anger and disgust at Cummings ’ double standards .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families , with some people having to make agonising decisions or being unable to say goodbye to their loved ones because they followed the rules .
They put the nation before themselves .
It remains clear that there is still one rule for Johnson ’ s elite friends and another for the rest of us .

Dominic Cummings has undermined the most crucial public health advice in over 100 years, and Boris Johnson is dangerously irresponsible in standing by him. We are in the midst of a pandemic, grappling with a deadly virus that spreads with speed. We have no vaccine. Testing and tracing was abandoned mid-March and is only slowly being cranked up now.
Our more effective tool to suppress the virus in early April was the lockdown. Cummings was was well aware of that. He sits in on SAGE meetings, for goodness’ sake. To flagrantly disregard the rules is an insult to the millions of people who have made unprecedented sacrifices. Johnson should have given Cummings his marching orders, but he won’t. Defending his own political interest always trumps the national interest for this Tory leader.
It’s against this backdrop that Matt Hancock has finally launched NHS Test and Trace. The ‘track’ element seems to have been abandoned and the Hancock app put on the back burner – even though we were told it was absolutely vital to an effecting tracing regime.
Regular LabourList readers will know that I have long called for a functional testing and tracing regime as key to the safe easing of the lockdown. The government’s decision to abandon contact tracing in mid-March was a monumental error that left a huge gap in our defences against the virus. Last week, I wrote to Matt Hancock asking a series of questions about why this was allowed to happen.
Just ten people had died of Covid-19 when Public Health England stopped community testing back on March 12; today, with the launch of NHS Test and Trace two and a half months later, the official death toll is approaching 40,000 — and the real number is thought to be far higher. Those countries like Germany and South Korea that have invested early in this type of process have seen much lower death rates.
I don’t want us to stay in in lockdown forever, and I want to see the economy moving again, with businesses thriving and more children back in our schools. It’s important that this tracking and tracing system works and keeps people safe. And for it to work, it has to be speedy, because we know this deadly virus spreads quickly.
If you or a family member have symptoms, or you have been told to go into isolation, you want to know as soon as possible whether you have got this awful virus. People shouldn’t have to wait days on end to get their results. It’s why Labour this week has called for ministers to introduce a ‘Covid Test Guarantee’ to ensure that nobody will have to wait more than 24 hours to receive test results.
The system should also be scaled up further by rapidly increasing the amount of testing to at least a quarter of a million a day, and recruiting an army of over 50,000 contact tracers. And tracing should be locally-led and properly integrated with primary care.
GPs should be involved so they can monitor the health of their patients. Local government directors of public health and public health staff – alongside other key local government staff, such as environmental health officers who know their local patch – have years of experience in contact tracing and case finding. They must be fully mobilised to spearhead tracing as part of this system.
It also means giving people the financial security to isolate. That means decent sick pay from day one and even help with accommodation if appropriate. Other countries have offered those who need to isolate hotel rooms, and we should do the same.
The most important thing to make sure the system works is public confidence in it, to help drive cooperation. We need everyone asked to cooperate fully with NHS Test and Trace’s stay at home instructions to keep all of us safe. The very last thing we need at this stage of the pandemic is for people to copy the actions of Cummings, and ministerial endorsement of it, and break the quarantine laws when they are asked to isolate under the new tracing system.
I know how difficult the last few months have been. My inbox this week has been filled with people writing to me to share their anger and disgust at Cummings’ double standards. Our constituents have been unable to see their families, with some people having to make agonising decisions or being unable to say goodbye to their loved ones because they followed the rules. They put the nation before themselves. It remains clear that there is still one rule for Johnson’s elite friends and another for the rest of us.


labourlist--2020-05-29--Labour welcomes changes to support schemes – but warns against ‘one size fits all’ approach

Labour has welcomed the changes to coronavirus income support schemes announced today by the Chancellor – but warned the government against a ‘ one size fits all ’ approach .
Rishi Sunak has extended the coronavirus self-employment income support scheme ( SEISS ) , due to end this weekend .
113 MPs had demanded an extension to the mechanism currently supporting millions .
In August , self-employed workers will be able to apply for a second and final coronavirus support payment equivalent to 70 % of their monthly profits , capped at a total of £6,570 .
The Chancellor also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributing to furloughed workers ’ salaries , and he introduced flexibility to the scheme by allowing part-time work from July .
From August , the taxpayer contribution to wages will still cover 80 % of furloughed wages , while employers will be asked to pay National Insurance and pension contributions – 5 % of total employment costs .
In September , taxpayers will pay 70 % and employers 10 % ; in October , taxpayers will pay 60 % and employers 20 % , Sunak revealed today .
The job retention scheme will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Anneliese Dodds said : “ It is welcome that the government has heeded Labour ’ s calls for a more gradual introduction of the employer contribution to furlough , the introduction of flexibility within furlough to allow part time working , and the extension of the self-employed scheme.
” But the Shadow Chancellor expressed concern that a “ one size fits all approach ” was being adopted to coronavirus support programmes over the coming months despite the varying impact on different sectors .
“ However , it is concerning that there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to only be scaled back in step with the removal of lockdown .
Nor is there any analysis of the impact on unemployment of a ‘ one size fits all ’ approach being adopted across all sectors .
“ The Chancellor must publish the evidence behind these decisions to provide reassurance that his proposals won ’ t cause an additional spike in unemployment , and an even more difficult economic recovery from this crisis.
” In response to the announcement this afternoon , the TUC also welcomed both the short-time furlough from July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” – and the extension to SEISS .
TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady said : “ We ’ re glad the chancellor has listened to unions and allowed employers to start using short-time furlough from July .
This will help employers gradually and safely bring people back to work , protect jobs and support the economy to recover .
“ As employers begin to contribute to the costs of furlough , we remain pleased that all workers will continue to receive at least 80 % of their wages for every hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ However , the government needs to act urgently to make sure workers with health conditions or childcare responsibilities aren ’ t first in line when it comes to redundancies .
The UK can not afford the misery of mass unemployment .
“ The government must start planning now to build on the job retention scheme with a national recovery plan that prioritises protecting and creating jobs .
That means a jobs guarantee scheme so that everyone can get a decent job on fair wages .
“ And working with unions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have the potential for many good jobs once the outbreak is controlled .
We can work our way out of recession – together.
” The GMB trade union said : “ The Chancellor ’ s furlough plans provide a valuable lifeline for business and workers – but people mustn ’ t be abandoned while the economy is still stuttering .
“ In October , lots of sectors – leisure , hospitality , aviation – may still be on their knees .
Those workers can ’ t just be thrown to the wolves.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ further when compulsory employer contributions to furlough come in , the TUC has repeatedly called for a jobs guarantee scheme – in particular for young workers .
The trade union federation is also calling for a furlough scheme beyond October for companies with significant fall in turnover and employees can not return to work due to personal circumstances .
Unite the Union has said that changes to support schemes should “ go hand-in-hand with an immediate and strategic programme to create new green jobs as part of a just transition ” .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the furlough scheme , unemployment has risen .
Over two million new claims for benefits were made in the two months following the start of the lockdown .
Around 935,000 businesses have used the job retention scheme and a further 440,000 claims were made on the first day of the government ’ s equivalent income support scheme for the self-employed , according to the Resolution Foundation .

Labour has welcomed the changes to coronavirus income support schemes announced today by the Chancellor – but warned the government against a ‘one size fits all’ approach.
Rishi Sunak has extended the coronavirus self-employment income support scheme (SEISS), due to end this weekend. 113 MPs had demanded an extension to the mechanism currently supporting millions.
In August, self-employed workers will be able to apply for a second and final coronavirus support payment equivalent to 70% of their monthly profits, capped at a total of £6,570.
The Chancellor also confirmed that employers would need to start contributing to furloughed workers’ salaries, and he introduced flexibility to the scheme by allowing part-time work from July.
From August, the taxpayer contribution to wages will still cover 80% of furloughed wages, while employers will be asked to pay National Insurance and pension contributions – 5% of total employment costs.
In September, taxpayers will pay 70% and employers 10%; in October, taxpayers will pay 60% and employers 20%, Sunak revealed today. The job retention scheme will then close.
Commenting on these changes, Anneliese Dodds said: “It is welcome that the government has heeded Labour’s calls for a more gradual introduction of the employer contribution to furlough, the introduction of flexibility within furlough to allow part time working, and the extension of the self-employed scheme.”
But the Shadow Chancellor expressed concern that a “one size fits all approach” was being adopted to coronavirus support programmes over the coming months despite the varying impact on different sectors.
“However, it is concerning that there is no commitment within these plans for support to only be scaled back in step with the removal of lockdown. Nor is there any analysis of the impact on unemployment of a ‘one size fits all’ approach being adopted across all sectors.
“The Chancellor must publish the evidence behind these decisions to provide reassurance that his proposals won’t cause an additional spike in unemployment, and an even more difficult economic recovery from this crisis.”
In response to the announcement this afternoon, the TUC also welcomed both the short-time furlough from July – branded “another union campaign win” – and the extension to SEISS.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “We’re glad the chancellor has listened to unions and allowed employers to start using short-time furlough from July. This will help employers gradually and safely bring people back to work, protect jobs and support the economy to recover.
“As employers begin to contribute to the costs of furlough, we remain pleased that all workers will continue to receive at least 80% of their wages for every hour worked until the scheme closes in October.
“However, the government needs to act urgently to make sure workers with health conditions or childcare responsibilities aren’t first in line when it comes to redundancies. The UK cannot afford the misery of mass unemployment.
“The government must start planning now to build on the job retention scheme with a national recovery plan that prioritises protecting and creating jobs. That means a jobs guarantee scheme so that everyone can get a decent job on fair wages.
“And working with unions and business to deliver support for strategic industries that have the potential for many good jobs once the outbreak is controlled. We can work our way out of recession – together.”
The GMB trade union said: “The Chancellor’s furlough plans provide a valuable lifeline for business and workers – but people mustn’t be abandoned while the economy is still stuttering.
“In October, lots of sectors – leisure, hospitality, aviation – may still be on their knees. Those workers can’t just be thrown to the wolves.”
Amid fears that unemployment will increase further when compulsory employer contributions to furlough come in, the TUC has repeatedly called for a jobs guarantee scheme – in particular for young workers.
The trade union federation is also calling for a furlough scheme beyond October for companies with significant fall in turnover and employees cannot return to work due to personal circumstances.
Unite the Union has said that changes to support schemes should “go hand-in-hand with an immediate and strategic programme to create new green jobs as part of a just transition”.
Although 7.5 million jobs have been covered by the furlough scheme, unemployment has risen. Over two million new claims for benefits were made in the two months following the start of the lockdown.
Around 935,000 businesses have used the job retention scheme and a further 440,000 claims were made on the first day of the government’s equivalent income support scheme for the self-employed, according to the Resolution Foundation.


labourlist--2020-05-30--WATCH: Five times government ministers dropped the ball this week

1 .
Matt Hancock laughing about failures in the Covid-19 response .
On Thursday morning , Hancock laughed aloud when being questioned about the failure of the government to roll out the coronavirus app alongside the implementation of its test and trace system .
The Health Secretary was asked whether he was rushing the introduction of the manual element of the tracing program by launching it before the app .
The government had previously said that the app was “ essential ” to the system .
Hancock laughed throughout his response during the Sky News interview , saying : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m usually accused of delaying these things and bringing them in too slowly.
” He was criticised by several commentators and other politicians – including Labour ’ s shadow mental health minister and A & E doctor Rosena Allin-Khan , who highlighted that 37,000 people had died and told him : “ This is not a joke.
” 2 .
Boris Johnson on top form at the liaison committee .
In his first appearance before the liaison committee as Prime Minister , Johnson revealed himself to be stunningly unaware of the plight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what ‘ no recourse to public funds ’ meant .
This is a condition attached to some limited leave to remain visas .
Section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act sets out that a person will have “ no recourse to public funds ” – such as Universal Credit , for example – if “ subject to immigration control ” .
People affected include asylum seekers , primary care givers to British children who aren ’ t themselves British or an European Economic Area national , those on a spousal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under family or private life rules .
They are eligible for some support from councils .
However , central government doesn ’ t currently provide any support to local authorities for this .
In 2016/17 London boroughs spent £57.3m supporting 2,881 households .
The High Court this week overturned approval granted by the Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government for a Tory donor ’ s £1bn development in east London on the grounds of apparent bias .
He admitted publishing his decision in time to allow the developer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a community infrastructure levy – which would have seen them pay between £30m and £50m more to help pay for community amenities .
When asked about the timing , Jenrick said that a “ fair-minded and informed observer ” might conclude that there was a “ real possibility ” that he was biased in favour of the developer in granting the permission .
But the government minister has been busy rejecting this idea .
He told Sky News : “ There is no bias , but because issues were raised , for absolute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and enable it to be retaken.
” In possibly the quickest row-back on an announcement by a government minister , Hancock this week suggested that he would review fines given to families travelling during the lockdown for childcare purposes .
In trademark Hancock style during the press conference on Tuesday , he seemed to stumble into launching the review while answering a question from a member of the public .
Clearly responding to the pressure felt as a result of the government ’ s defence of senior advisor Dominic Cummings and his 260-mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll look at it ” and “ I think we can make that commitment ” .
This was picked up by several news outlets , but within hours the government had briefed that there would be no review despite the statement made by the Health Secretary that afternoon .
5 .
Johnson theorises on a new Covid-19 symptom live on telly .
In a Trumpesque moment , the Prime Minister appeared to announce a new symptom of Covid-19 on the hoof in his press conference on Monday , backing Cummings ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the virus .
Johnson took time out of the briefing to back the excuse given by his advisor as to why he drove his family to Barnard castle during lockdown – Cummings said he took the 60-mile round trip to the beauty spot to test his eyesight .
Commenting on his own experience , the Tory Party leader said : “ I ’ m finding I have to wear spectacles for the first time in years… I ’ m inclined to think that ’ s very , very plausible – that eyesight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” One study of the virus in China reported a range of eye problems , including swelling and sticky eyes , but a spokesperson for Moorfield Eye Hospital said that there is very little evidence to suggest that Covid-19 can affect your eyesight .
Professor Chris Hammond of King ’ s College London said : “ There aren ’ t any reports that I can find in the literature of anyone having visual loss due to the virus.
” It is not a symptom included by either the UK or the World Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , it ’ s probably best for the Prime Minister to avoid mulling it over in front of the nation .
Good to know that the government is doing all it can to ‘ follow the science ’ .

1. Matt Hancock laughing about failures in the Covid-19 response.
On Thursday morning, Hancock laughed aloud when being questioned about the failure of the government to roll out the coronavirus app alongside the implementation of its test and trace system.
The Health Secretary was asked whether he was rushing the introduction of the manual element of the tracing program by launching it before the app. The government had previously said that the app was “essential” to the system.
Hancock laughed throughout his response during the Sky News interview, saying: “It’s priceless Kay, I’m usually accused of delaying these things and bringing them in too slowly.”
He was criticised by several commentators and other politicians – including Labour’s shadow mental health minister and A&E doctor Rosena Allin-Khan, who highlighted that 37,000 people had died and told him: “This is not a joke.”
What an insult. At least 37,000 people have died of Covid-19 in the UK. Govt abandoned community testing. With a proper test and trace system in place months ago, thousands would have been saved. This is not a joke. This has been painful for so many families. pic.twitter.com/zKlCQO7J6N — Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (@DrRosena) May 28, 2020
2. Boris Johnson on top form at the liaison committee.
In his first appearance before the liaison committee as Prime Minister, Johnson revealed himself to be stunningly unaware of the plight of thousands when he appeared not to know what ‘no recourse to public funds’ meant.
This is a condition attached to some limited leave to remain visas. Section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act sets out that a person will have “no recourse to public funds” – such as Universal Credit, for example – if “subject to immigration control”.
People affected include asylum seekers, primary care givers to British children who aren’t themselves British or an European Economic Area national, those on a spousal or student visa or who have limited leave under family or private life rules.
They are eligible for some support from councils. However, central government doesn’t currently provide any support to local authorities for this. In 2016/17 London boroughs spent £57.3m supporting 2,881 households.
When asked about help for families with no recourse to public funds earlier this evening, Boris Johnson said: “Hang on, why aren’t they eligible for Universal Credit or Employment Support Allowance?” You know why, Boris #HostileEnvironment #ScrapNRPFpic.twitter.com/NxzlQVy041 — Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (@BellRibeiroAddy) May 27, 2020
3. Robert Jenrick admitting – and denying – bias towards a Tory donor.
The High Court this week overturned approval granted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for a Tory donor’s £1bn development in east London on the grounds of apparent bias.
He admitted publishing his decision in time to allow the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have seen them pay between £30m and £50m more to help pay for community amenities.
When asked about the timing, Jenrick said that a “fair-minded and informed observer” might conclude that there was a “real possibility” that he was biased in favour of the developer in granting the permission.
But the government minister has been busy rejecting this idea. He told Sky News: “There is no bias, but because issues were raised, for absolute fairness, we would quash the decision and enable it to be retaken.”
"There is no bias, but because issues were raised we would quash the decision and enable it to be retaken if that's what the applicant wants." Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick denies admitting bias in overruling a planning decision against a Tory donor.https://t.co/6uENfgYBb5 pic.twitter.com/5ikP8pXMC3 — SkyNews (@SkyNews) May 27, 2020
4. Hancock announcing a review on the fly.
In possibly the quickest row-back on an announcement by a government minister, Hancock this week suggested that he would review fines given to families travelling during the lockdown for childcare purposes.
In trademark Hancock style during the press conference on Tuesday, he seemed to stumble into launching the review while answering a question from a member of the public.
Clearly responding to the pressure felt as a result of the government’s defence of senior advisor Dominic Cummings and his 260-mile lockdown trip, he said that “we’ll look at it” and “I think we can make that commitment”.
This was picked up by several news outlets, but within hours the government had briefed that there would be no review despite the statement made by the Health Secretary that afternoon.
"I think we can make that commitment." Matt Hancock says the government will review fines imposed on families travelling for childcare purposes during lockdown after being put on the spot by a question from Martin in Brighton, a vicar. More here: https://t.co/uwH454VdyR pic.twitter.com/UD2uQPrZCc — SkyNews (@SkyNews) May 26, 2020
5. Johnson theorises on a new Covid-19 symptom live on telly.
In a Trumpesque moment, the Prime Minister appeared to announce a new symptom of Covid-19 on the hoof in his press conference on Monday, backing Cummings’ claim that his eyesight had been affected by the virus.
Johnson took time out of the briefing to back the excuse given by his advisor as to why he drove his family to Barnard castle during lockdown – Cummings said he took the 60-mile round trip to the beauty spot to test his eyesight.
Commenting on his own experience, the Tory Party leader said: “I’m finding I have to wear spectacles for the first time in years… I’m inclined to think that’s very, very plausible – that eyesight can be a problem associated with coronavirus.”
One study of the virus in China reported a range of eye problems, including swelling and sticky eyes, but a spokesperson for Moorfield Eye Hospital said that there is very little evidence to suggest that Covid-19 can affect your eyesight.
Professor Chris Hammond of King’s College London said: “There aren’t any reports that I can find in the literature of anyone having visual loss due to the virus.” It is not a symptom included by either the UK or the World Health Organisation.
So while it could be possible, it’s probably best for the Prime Minister to avoid mulling it over in front of the nation. Good to know that the government is doing all it can to ‘follow the science’.