labourlist--2020-06-15--Labour MPs back launch of post-Brexit demands ‘Alternative Mandate’

Labour MPs Clive Lewis , Kate Osamor and Nadia Whittome are among those backing the launch of a new campaign , ‘ Alternative Mandate ’ , that sets out a left-wing post-Brexit vision .
Campaign group Another Europe is Possible , which organised within Labour to oppose Brexit and promote a fresh referendum before the 2019 general election , has unveiled the new initiative today .
The Alternative Mandate has put forward a list of demands on the ongoing Brexit negotiations that will determine the UK ’ s future relationship with the EU and whether there is a ‘ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 areas of policy , from international coordination on the coronavirus crisis and on tackling the climate crisis to human rights and trade negotiations .
The group is asking for continued British membership of the European Medicines Agency , free movement , a UK net-zero target of 2030 , no loss of rights for workers and protection of the Human Rights Act .
Observing that “ Brexit happened in part because of a crisis of democracy ” , the campaigners also call for broader commitments such as a written constitution , proportional representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The alliance of figures behind the move include five Labour MPs , Plaid Cymru ’ s Hywel Williams , Green Party politicians , the TSSA ’ s Manuel Cortes and the general secretary of the BFAWU .
Sarah Woolley of the Bakers ’ Union said : “ As a union , we supported Leave in the 2016 referendum – but we never backed a Brexit that would hit jobs and workers ’ rights , and neither did millions of Leave voters .
“ This government is hell-bent on using Brexit to deregulate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants for the consequences .
Now that we ’ ve left the EU , it is essential that the labour movement and the left unites around a set of demands to defend working class people.
” Labour ’ s Clive Lewis , who campaigned against Brexit , added : “ We ’ ve left the EU , and it ’ s no good pretending like this hasn ’ t happened .
But leaving the EU is just the first stage of the Brexit process .
Everything is now at stake , and unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to face yet another disaster .
“ There is a real danger this government will try to use the Covid crisis and the very possible resulting recession as a shock doctrine .
One they can use to reshape our society around a trade deal with Donald Trump .
“ That could mean a permanently deregulated economy , lower standards and worse wages and rights .
All the things we said were likely should Brexit be successful .
There is almost no popular support for such an approach .
“ That means we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the dangers such a trade deal represents but also our own alternative vision for a radically different future and what it would like.
” Below is the full statement of Alternative Mandate and its signatories .
The UK has left the EU .
Regardless of whether or not you opposed Brexit , we must all now come to terms with this reality and unite to address the enormous dangers ahead of us .
Coronavirus has disrupted the fabric of our society , and we will soon face a massive economic crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will use this crisis to pursue an unprecedented attack on workers , human rights , migrants and the environment .
In the UK , they will attempt to use the Brexit process to deregulate the economy and undermine our rights .
If our alternative vision is to succeed , we need to break from the status quo , and to put forward a radical politics built on internationalism and solidarity .
So today , we are supporting the launch of The Alternative Mandate – a set of demands on the Brexit process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and from public health and jobs to agriculture and science funding , we are determined to offer an alternative to the vision put forward by the likes of Boris Johnson , Victor Orban , Donald Trump and Matteo Salvini .
Achieving these goals , whether over the next five years or over the next 50 , will require a mass movement that is pluralistic , and which stretches across the boundaries of parties and countries .
Caroline Lucas MP Clive Lewis MP Hywel Williams MP Nadia Whittome MP Kate Osamor MP Virendra Sharma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Green Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley , Green Party co-leader Manuel Cortes , TSSA general secretary Sarah Woolley , BFAWU general secretary Ian Hodson , BFAWU president John Moloney , PCS deputy general secretary ( pc ) Amelia Womack , Green Party deputy leader Shaista Aziz , Stop Trump coalition co-founder Michael Chessum , Another Europe is Possible Nick Dearden , Global Justice Now Hilary Wainwright , Transnational Institute Mary Kaldor , LSE professor Joseph Healy , Left Unity principle speaker

Labour MPs Clive Lewis, Kate Osamor and Nadia Whittome are among those backing the launch of a new campaign, ‘Alternative Mandate’, that sets out a left-wing post-Brexit vision.
Campaign group Another Europe is Possible, which organised within Labour to oppose Brexit and promote a fresh referendum before the 2019 general election, has unveiled the new initiative today.
The Alternative Mandate has put forward a list of demands on the ongoing Brexit negotiations that will determine the UK’s future relationship with the EU and whether there is a ‘no deal’ scenario.
The demands cover 13 areas of policy, from international coordination on the coronavirus crisis and on tackling the climate crisis to human rights and trade negotiations.
The group is asking for continued British membership of the European Medicines Agency, free movement, a UK net-zero target of 2030, no loss of rights for workers and protection of the Human Rights Act.
Observing that “Brexit happened in part because of a crisis of democracy”, the campaigners also call for broader commitments such as a written constitution, proportional representation for elections and votes at 16.
The alliance of figures behind the move include five Labour MPs, Plaid Cymru’s Hywel Williams, Green Party politicians, the TSSA’s Manuel Cortes and the general secretary of the BFAWU.
Sarah Woolley of the Bakers’ Union said: “As a union, we supported Leave in the 2016 referendum – but we never backed a Brexit that would hit jobs and workers’ rights, and neither did millions of Leave voters.
“This government is hell-bent on using Brexit to deregulate the economy and attack workers, and blaming migrants for the consequences. Now that we’ve left the EU, it is essential that the labour movement and the left unites around a set of demands to defend working class people.”
Labour’s Clive Lewis, who campaigned against Brexit, added: “We’ve left the EU, and it’s no good pretending like this hasn’t happened. But leaving the EU is just the first stage of the Brexit process. Everything is now at stake, and unless we apply some pressure, we are going to face yet another disaster.
“There is a real danger this government will try to use the Covid crisis and the very possible resulting recession as a shock doctrine. One they can use to reshape our society around a trade deal with Donald Trump.
“That could mean a permanently deregulated economy, lower standards and worse wages and rights. All the things we said were likely should Brexit be successful. There is almost no popular support for such an approach.
“That means we need to make ourselves heard – both about the dangers such a trade deal represents but also our own alternative vision for a radically different future and what it would like.”
Below is the full statement of Alternative Mandate and its signatories.
The UK has left the EU. Regardless of whether or not you opposed Brexit, we must all now come to terms with this reality and unite to address the enormous dangers ahead of us.
Coronavirus has disrupted the fabric of our society, and we will soon face a massive economic crisis. Around the world, right wing governments will use this crisis to pursue an unprecedented attack on workers, human rights, migrants and the environment. In the UK, they will attempt to use the Brexit process to deregulate the economy and undermine our rights.
If our alternative vision is to succeed, we need to break from the status quo, and to put forward a radical politics built on internationalism and solidarity. So today, we are supporting the launch of The Alternative Mandate – a set of demands on the Brexit process. From migrants rights to trade justice, and from public health and jobs to agriculture and science funding, we are determined to offer an alternative to the vision put forward by the likes of Boris Johnson, Victor Orban, Donald Trump and Matteo Salvini.
Achieving these goals, whether over the next five years or over the next 50, will require a mass movement that is pluralistic, and which stretches across the boundaries of parties and countries.
Caroline Lucas MP
Clive Lewis MP
Hywel Williams MP
Nadia Whittome MP
Kate Osamor MP
Virendra Sharma MP
Geraint Davies MP
Sian Berry AM, Green Party co-leader
Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader
Manuel Cortes, TSSA general secretary
Sarah Woolley, BFAWU general secretary
Ian Hodson, BFAWU president
John Moloney, PCS deputy general secretary (pc)
Amelia Womack, Green Party deputy leader
Shaista Aziz, Stop Trump coalition co-founder
Michael Chessum, Another Europe is Possible
Nick Dearden, Global Justice Now
Hilary Wainwright, Transnational Institute
Mary Kaldor, LSE professor
Joseph Healy, Left Unity principle speaker
Julie Ward, former MEP for the North West


labourlist--2020-06-15--Why free school meals and Marcus Rashford’s intervention matter

As one of a small number of MPs who received free school meals , I know better than most how important they are to families living at or below the poverty line .
Perhaps if more MPs on the government benches had received free school meals , they wouldn ’ t need convincing of the need to make sure that kids don ’ t go hungry this summer .
Yet despite repeated warnings from charities that deal with family hunger , select committee inquiries that found parents living on cereal to make sure that their kids could eat properly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Boris Johnson ’ s government plans to end food vouchers for children when the school term finishes in July .
The families of around 1.5 million children qualify for the scheme , but this is just the tip of the iceberg .
Last summer , food banks warned that as many as three million children risked going hungry during a ‘ normal ’ summer .
This year , with coronavirus threatening livelihoods as well as lives , the Food Foundation think tank estimated that around five million people in households with children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table each day during the crisis .
There has been an outcry in parliament , but the Tories aren ’ t listening .
Just this weekend , Shadow Education Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey has launched a petition to put pressure on Conservative MPs to do the right thing .
Her intervention follows years of campaigning by MPs like Sharon Hodgson , who also received free school meals , Carolyn Harris , who has been organising food distribution across Swansea , and cross-party groups on hunger and school food .
That ’ s why Marcus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so powerful .
It shouldn ’ t be needed .
All the evidence is there .
Boris Johnson ’ s government can not say they weren ’ t warned .
But sometimes it takes someone using their fame and celebrity status to get them to listen .
Rashford ’ s story shows why this matters .
His family relied on free school meals , breakfast clubs and community .
Without it – as he wrote in his moving letter to MPs – he would not be playing for Man United or our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with me .
I remember all too well the struggles my mum had to make ends meet , like so many single mums .
Growing up , it never occurred to me that summer holidays would be harder for her because of the added cost , but that was because she went without so that I didn ’ t .
It is one of the reasons why , before I became an MP , I worked for the charity Magic Breakfast , trying to persuade the government to fund school breakfast clubs so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too hungry to learn .
Rashford isn ’ t a politician .
Footballers and other celebrities are told to steer clear of politics and political controversy .
But he has put his head above the parapet and raised more than £20m for the food charity FareShare .
He has put his money where his mouth is , and now it ’ s time for the government to do the same .
The government ’ s own social mobility commission has warned that child poverty is rising .
It will take more than vouchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend , but it would be a start .
The existence of child poverty in our country reflects a poverty of ambition from our political leaders .
There is no excuse for it .
Let ’ s make sure that kids are fed this summer and let ’ s make ending poverty our national mission once again .

As one of a small number of MPs who received free school meals, I know better than most how important they are to families living at or below the poverty line. Perhaps if more MPs on the government benches had received free school meals, they wouldn’t need convincing of the need to make sure that kids don’t go hungry this summer.
Yet despite repeated warnings from charities that deal with family hunger, select committee inquiries that found parents living on cereal to make sure that their kids could eat properly and mounting evidence that child poverty is rising, Boris Johnson’s government plans to end food vouchers for children when the school term finishes in July.
The families of around 1.5 million children qualify for the scheme, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Last summer, food banks warned that as many as three million children risked going hungry during a ‘normal’ summer. This year, with coronavirus threatening livelihoods as well as lives, the Food Foundation think tank estimated that around five million people in households with children have struggled to put food on the table each day during the crisis.
There has been an outcry in parliament, but the Tories aren’t listening. Just this weekend, Shadow Education Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey has launched a petition to put pressure on Conservative MPs to do the right thing. Her intervention follows years of campaigning by MPs like Sharon Hodgson, who also received free school meals, Carolyn Harris, who has been organising food distribution across Swansea, and cross-party groups on hunger and school food.
That’s why Marcus Rashford’s intervention is so timely and so powerful. It shouldn’t be needed. All the evidence is there. Boris Johnson’s government cannot say they weren’t warned. But sometimes it takes someone using their fame and celebrity status to get them to listen. Rashford’s story shows why this matters. His family relied on free school meals, breakfast clubs and community. Without it – as he wrote in his moving letter to MPs – he would not be playing for Man United or our national team.
It struck a chord with me. I remember all too well the struggles my mum had to make ends meet, like so many single mums. Growing up, it never occurred to me that summer holidays would be harder for her because of the added cost, but that was because she went without so that I didn’t. It is one of the reasons why, before I became an MP, I worked for the charity Magic Breakfast, trying to persuade the government to fund school breakfast clubs so that no child turns up to school too hungry to learn.
Rashford isn’t a politician. Footballers and other celebrities are told to steer clear of politics and political controversy. But he has put his head above the parapet and raised more than £20m for the food charity FareShare. He has put his money where his mouth is, and now it’s time for the government to do the same.
The government’s own social mobility commission has warned that child poverty is rising. It will take more than vouchers for the school holidays to reverse this trend, but it would be a start. The existence of child poverty in our country reflects a poverty of ambition from our political leaders. There is no excuse for it. Let’s make sure that kids are fed this summer and let’s make ending poverty our national mission once again.


Pro patria mori

It was the three year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire on Sunday .
Labour marked it by issuing a reminder that up to 56,000 people still live in blocks with the same dangerous style of cladding .
Echoing the demands of the cross-party Commons committee on housing , Labour urged ministers to take action against building owners who have failed to make blocks safe .
Thangam Debbonaire called the situation a “ national disgrace ” .
Like the murder of Jo Cox , it often just doesn ’ t feel as if this country has truly absorbed the horror @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
These events should have led to radical changes , but that simply hasn ’ t happened , and there has not been action to prevent a recurrence of either .
I say this after a week of the Prime Minister and Tory MPs deploring the removal of statues commemorating racists from history and over the weekend obsessively focusing on the statue of Winston Churchill .
And I say this after far-right rallies dominated the capital on Saturday , supposedly with the aim of protecting statues but actually to be violent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condemn the racism , but this was after a lengthy thread promoting the idea that Churchill ’ s statue was genuinely under threat and before it was briefed to the press that the government could introduce ten-year jail sentences specifically for desecrating war memorials .
Labour does not want to be dragged into a battle that portrays the opposition party as too out-of-touch to understand why people would be concerned about war memorials .
The Tories remain in campaign mode .
As a result , Nick Thomas-Symonds said he would support creating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the government on the proposed legislation .
Some party members questioned whether accepting the cynical framing of issues by this government was in fact wise in the long term .
Arguably Jeremy Corbyn ’ s Labour did shift the Overton window while in opposition .
Backing the idea did not seem necessary anyway : David Lammy simply gave a non-committal answer and pointed out that “ you can already get ten years in prison for criminal damage ” .
We have a busy week ahead .
LabourList can confirm that the long-awaited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be published on Friday .
After the full report is released , on Monday evening LabourList will co-host a special online event to discuss the findings .
You can sign up to that here .
Before then , I will be in conversation with Preet Kaur Gill MP , our new Shadow International Development Secretary , on Thursday at 6pm .
We will talk about the subjects raised in her recent LabourList piece , but if there is anything about her brief that you would like me to ask , please feel free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

It was the three year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire on Sunday. Labour marked it by issuing a reminder that up to 56,000 people still live in blocks with the same dangerous style of cladding. Echoing the demands of the cross-party Commons committee on housing, Labour urged ministers to take action against building owners who have failed to make blocks safe. Thangam Debbonaire called the situation a “national disgrace”. Like the murder of Jo Cox, it often just doesn’t feel as if this country has truly absorbed the horror of the Grenfell fire that claimed 72 lives. These events should have led to radical changes, but that simply hasn’t happened, and there has not been action to prevent a recurrence of either.
I say this after a week of the Prime Minister and Tory MPs deploring the removal of statues commemorating racists from history and over the weekend obsessively focusing on the statue of Winston Churchill. And I say this after far-right rallies dominated the capital on Saturday, supposedly with the aim of protecting statues but actually to be violent and racist. Boris Johnson tweeted afterwards to condemn the racism, but this was after a lengthy thread promoting the idea that Churchill’s statue was genuinely under threat and before it was briefed to the press that the government could introduce ten-year jail sentences specifically for desecrating war memorials.
Labour does not want to be dragged into a battle that portrays the opposition party as too out-of-touch to understand why people would be concerned about war memorials. The Tories remain in campaign mode. As a result, Nick Thomas-Symonds said he would support creating a specific offence and be willing to work with the government on the proposed legislation. Some party members questioned whether accepting the cynical framing of issues by this government was in fact wise in the long term. Arguably Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour did shift the Overton window while in opposition. Backing the idea did not seem necessary anyway: David Lammy simply gave a non-committal answer and pointed out that “you can already get ten years in prison for criminal damage”.
We have a busy week ahead. LabourList can confirm that the long-awaited Labour Together 2019 general election review will be published on Friday. After the full report is released, on Monday evening LabourList will co-host a special online event to discuss the findings. You can sign up to that here. Before then, I will be in conversation with Preet Kaur Gill MP, our new Shadow International Development Secretary, on Thursday at 6pm. We will talk about the subjects raised in her recent LabourList piece, but if there is anything about her brief that you would like me to ask, please feel free to email suggestions. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-15--“The time for review is over and the time for action is now,” says David Lammy

David Lammy has warned that “ the time for review is over and the time for action is now ” , urging the government to take action on racism and implement the recommendations of previous studies into race issues .
In an interview with the Today programme this morning , the Shadow Justice Secretary discussed the commission announced this weekend by Boris Johnson to look into racism and the disparities experienced by minority ethnic groups in the UK .
The Tottenham MP highlighted the lack of detail outlined by the Prime Minister , declaring that the announcement had been “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packet yesterday to assuage the Black Lives Matter protests ” .
Lammy said : “ If he was serious , why are there no details about how it will be staffed , its remit , its terms of reference , its timetable ?
That ’ s the question.
” He queried the Prime Minister ’ s decision to announce the review behind a paywall in The Telegraph , “ buried in the middle of yet another article about Churchill ” , and criticised his focus on the issue of statues .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t talking about statues , the Lib Dems aren ’ t calling for Winston Churchill ’ s statue to be removed , neither are the Greens .
“ The only person that wants to focus on Winston Churchill ’ s statue is the Conservative Party and , frankly , it is bizarre .
“ They want a culture war because they want to distract from the central issue .
Implement the reviews : do something , change it , you ’ re in power , you ’ ve been in power for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviews carried out by the government on race issues , urging the Prime Minister to focus on implementing the recommendations already made .
Commenting on the various studies , he said : “ The question we ’ ve got to ask ourselves is — is this really the extent of our ambition , after all of the reviews ?
” Listing several , he added : “ The Macpherson report in 1999 into institutional racism in policing .
Boris asked Baroness McGregor-Smith to review workplace discrimination .
Theresa May ’ s disparity audit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Wendy Williams Windrush lessons review .
“ You can understand like it feels that yet again in the UK , we want figures and data , but we don ’ t want action.
” Johnson used his column in The Telegraph on Sunday to announce the commission , but also defended the statue of Winston Churchill and warned against “ purging the record ” by removing memorials to historical figures .
Several statues have been targeted by protesters across the country during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations , sparked by the killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US .
The bronze memorial to a 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston was toppled in Bristol , while the words “ is a racist ” were painted on the statue of Churchill in Westminster .
Labour leader Keir Starmer said that it was “ completely wrong ” for protesters to pull down the statue in Bristol , but added that it “ should have been taken down a long , long time ago ” .

David Lammy has warned that “the time for review is over and the time for action is now”, urging the government to take action on racism and implement the recommendations of previous studies into race issues.
In an interview with the Today programme this morning, the Shadow Justice Secretary discussed the commission announced this weekend by Boris Johnson to look into racism and the disparities experienced by minority ethnic groups in the UK.
The Tottenham MP highlighted the lack of detail outlined by the Prime Minister, declaring that the announcement had been “written on the back of a fag packet yesterday to assuage the Black Lives Matter protests”.
Lammy said: “If he was serious, why are there no details about how it will be staffed, its remit, its terms of reference, its timetable? That’s the question.”
He queried the Prime Minister’s decision to announce the review behind a paywall in The Telegraph, “buried in the middle of yet another article about Churchill”, and criticised his focus on the issue of statues.
He said: “The Labour Party isn’t talking about statues, the Lib Dems aren’t calling for Winston Churchill’s statue to be removed, neither are the Greens.
“The only person that wants to focus on Winston Churchill’s statue is the Conservative Party and, frankly, it is bizarre.
“They want a culture war because they want to distract from the central issue. Implement the reviews: do something, change it, you’re in power, you’ve been in power for a decade.”
Lammy spoke about the previous reviews carried out by the government on race issues, urging the Prime Minister to focus on implementing the recommendations already made.
Commenting on the various studies, he said: “The question we’ve got to ask ourselves is — is this really the extent of our ambition, after all of the reviews?”
Listing several, he added: “The Macpherson report in 1999 into institutional racism in policing. Boris asked Baroness McGregor-Smith to review workplace discrimination. Theresa May’s disparity audit in 2017. My own review. The Wendy Williams Windrush lessons review.
“You can understand like it feels that yet again in the UK, we want figures and data, but we don’t want action.”
Johnson used his column in The Telegraph on Sunday to announce the commission, but also defended the statue of Winston Churchill and warned against “purging the record” by removing memorials to historical figures.
Several statues have been targeted by protesters across the country during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, sparked by the killing of George Floyd by police officers in the US.
The bronze memorial to a 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston was toppled in Bristol, while the words “is a racist” were painted on the statue of Churchill in Westminster.
Labour leader Keir Starmer said that it was “completely wrong” for protesters to pull down the statue in Bristol, but added that it “should have been taken down a long, long time ago”.


labourlist--2020-06-15--The UK must provide global leadership at the UN for the world’s refugees

As a leading contributor to the UN budget , and one of only five permanent members on the Security Council , there are few member states able to levy as much influence as the UK .
Yet as the world casts an eye to the most vulnerable for Refugee Week , the government has offered little more than kind words .
There is no single initiative that could have provided greater immediate safety for refugees and internally displaced people than the global ceasefire campaign , launched by secretary-general António Guterres in March .
His call centred on the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world leaders , there was an opportunity for warring parties to cast conflict aside so that they could focus instead on protecting their people from the coronavirus .
“ The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war , ” he said .
The first hurdle was the Security Council , and the usual battle lines were again drawn .
Repeated drafts were laid but it soon became clear that there would be no end to the illogical , and frankly incoherent , infighting .
Both France and Germany produced resolutions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK remains largely silent and absent .
The UK has been similarly absent on other initiatives .
The displaced people of Syria are among the most desperate .
Almost six million people have fled Syria in the last decade .
Those who have remained live in a country where many healthcare centres and hospitals , schools , and basic are damaged or destroyed .
Eight million Syrians lack reliable access to food , and over four million rely on cross border operations to receive humanitarian assistance .
Yet if cross border operations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on our humanitarian response in the region will be catastrophic .
In the Lords , I have raised the urgent need for an additional border authorisation in north east Syria .
In response , the minister could only tell me that he hopes this will happen .
When Labour ’ s shadow international development minister Anna McMorrin wrote to the Secretary of State demanding priority action , it took over a month and a chasing letter before a reply was sent .
The UK has the influence step up and drive the renewal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems there is no appetite within the government to do so .
Since violence broke out in Yemen five years ago , millions have fled their homes and approximately 80 % of the population are in desperate need of humanitarian help even before Covid-19 .
The international community has not stepped up and a funding crisis threatens 30 out of a total of 41 major UN programmes operating in the country .
To its credit , the government have made a contribution to help close the shortfall , but when some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow suit , the UK should wield our influence to hold their feet to the fire .
The United Arab Emirates , for example , have ignored the funding drive , despite their previous involvement in the war .
Saudi Arabia , meanwhile , has made a recent pledge but almost half will be spent by the King Salman Centre rather than the UN .
UK aid alone will not be enough to support the UN ’ s work in Yemen , but the government should be using our standing to encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not always as effective as it could be in response to the crises and threats facing the world , and I am pleased to be asked by Labour ’ s Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy to develop a review of proposals for the reform of the institution .
But regardless of the UN ’ s shortcomings , international cooperation is the greatest tool we hold to confront suffering , and there are few more powerful mechanisms for the UK to help the world ’ s refugees .
The UK holds enormous influence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or willing to , we could provide real leadership for refugees .
This article is part of a series on international development starting on Refugee Week .
LabourList will be in conversation with Preet Kaur Gill on Thursday , June 18th , at 6pm .

As a leading contributor to the UN budget, and one of only five permanent members on the Security Council, there are few member states able to levy as much influence as the UK. Yet as the world casts an eye to the most vulnerable for Refugee Week, the government has offered little more than kind words.
There is no single initiative that could have provided greater immediate safety for refugees and internally displaced people than the global ceasefire campaign, launched by secretary-general António Guterres in March. His call centred on the idea that as the threat of the pandemic consumed world leaders, there was an opportunity for warring parties to cast conflict aside so that they could focus instead on protecting their people from the coronavirus. “The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war,” he said.
The first hurdle was the Security Council, and the usual battle lines were again drawn. Repeated drafts were laid but it soon became clear that there would be no end to the illogical, and frankly incoherent, infighting. Both France and Germany produced resolutions in an attempt at finding compromise. The UK remains largely silent and absent.
The UK has been similarly absent on other initiatives. The displaced people of Syria are among the most desperate. Almost six million people have fled Syria in the last decade. Those who have remained live in a country where many healthcare centres and hospitals, schools, and basic are damaged or destroyed. Eight million Syrians lack reliable access to food, and over four million rely on cross border operations to receive humanitarian assistance. Yet if cross border operations are not renewed and extended, the impact on our humanitarian response in the region will be catastrophic.
In the Lords, I have raised the urgent need for an additional border authorisation in north east Syria. In response, the minister could only tell me that he hopes this will happen. When Labour’s shadow international development minister Anna McMorrin wrote to the Secretary of State demanding priority action, it took over a month and a chasing letter before a reply was sent. The UK has the influence step up and drive the renewal of the necessary UN resolution but it seems there is no appetite within the government to do so.
Since violence broke out in Yemen five years ago, millions have fled their homes and approximately 80% of the population are in desperate need of humanitarian help even before Covid-19. The international community has not stepped up and a funding crisis threatens 30 out of a total of 41 major UN programmes operating in the country. To its credit, the government have made a contribution to help close the shortfall, but when some of the key actors in the conflict are refusing to follow suit, the UK should wield our influence to hold their feet to the fire.
The United Arab Emirates, for example, have ignored the funding drive, despite their previous involvement in the war. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has made a recent pledge but almost half will be spent by the King Salman Centre rather than the UN. UK aid alone will not be enough to support the UN’s work in Yemen, but the government should be using our standing to encourage others to contribute.
The UN is not always as effective as it could be in response to the crises and threats facing the world, and I am pleased to be asked by Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy to develop a review of proposals for the reform of the institution. But regardless of the UN’s shortcomings, international cooperation is the greatest tool we hold to confront suffering, and there are few more powerful mechanisms for the UK to help the world’s refugees. The UK holds enormous influence, and if only the government felt able or willing to, we could provide real leadership for refugees.
This article is part of a series on international development starting on Refugee Week. LabourList will be in conversation with Preet Kaur Gill on Thursday, June 18th, at 6pm.


labourlist--2020-06-15--In conversation with… Preet Kaur Gill MP

Join us at 6pm on Thursday 18th June for our “ In conversation with… ” online event featuring LabourList editor @ @ @ @ @ s Shadow International Development Secretary Preet Kaur Gill .
The conversation will touch on the @ @ @ @ @ Edgbaston MP ’ s recent LabourList article about her priorities in the shadow cabinet role @ @ @ @ @ for questions , please feel free to email them to us .
The page will @ @ @ @ @ livestream below when the event starts .
You will also be able to view it @ @ @ @ @ here .

Join us at 6pm on Thursday 18th June for our “In conversation with…” online event featuring LabourList editor Sienna Rodgers and Labour’s Shadow International Development Secretary Preet Kaur Gill.
The conversation will touch on the subjects raised in the Birmingham Edgbaston MP’s recent LabourList article about her priorities in the shadow cabinet role. If readers have suggestions for questions, please feel free to email them to us.


labourlist--2020-06-15--What to expect from the EHRC inquiry into Labour antisemitism

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into antisemitism within the Labour Party in May 2019 .
The equalities watchdog is expected to conclude the probe imminently .
Here is what we know about the inquiry… What will it tell us ?
In a briefing on the inquiry delivered by the Jewish Labour Movement last week , secretary Peter Mason said : “ We are not going to get the answer to the question ‘ is Labour institutionally antisemitic ?
’ ” .
He said that was a political question .
JLM has invited the EHRC to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The EHRC investigation is specifically looking into “ whether the Labour Party has unlawfully discriminated against , harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish ” .
It is seeking to establish whether unlawful acts have been committed by Labour , and/or its employees , and/or its agents , and whether the party has responded to complaints of unlawful acts in a lawful , efficient and effective manner .
It will do so by considering submissions as well as Labour ’ s rulebook and the steps taken by the party following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee report on antisemitism and the Chakrabarti Report .
What has the EHRC been sent ?
JLM has made two main submissions .
The opening one referred Labour to the EHRC in November 2018 .
The closing document , leaked in its redacted form in December 2019 , contained 70 testimonies from current and former party staffers and more than 100 testimonies from party members .
It concluded that Labour ’ s “ structures , processes , agents and employees have all contributed to creating an environment that is profoundly hostile to Jewish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , campaign group Labour Against Antisemitism ( LAAS ) submitted a digital dossier that comprised over 15,000 screenshots of allegedly antisemitic online statements by members .
The charity Campaign Against Antisemitism ( CAA ) sent a complaint and , LabourList understands , a rolling timetable of incidents .
According to James Libson of law firm Mishcon de Reya who is representing JLM in the investigation , the commission has been presented with “ voluminous evidence ” .
We know that this comes from party staff , ex-staff , MPs and members .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party itself , of course , as Labour will have been asked for evidence in relation to particular claims .
The party ’ s main submission has been controversial as national executive committee officers reportedly turned down the opportunity to view it , despite the ruling body having legal responsibilities .
What about the leaked report ?
The possibility that the 850-page leaked internal report on Labour ’ s handling of antisemitism complaints could be considered by the EHRC has been the subject of some discussion .
The Jewish Chronicle reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inquiry .
But Libson told the JLM event that the Jewish affiliate had written to the EHRC “ to ensure that they didn ’ t want to look at it ” .
He said : “ They can ’ t take it into account , they won ’ t take it into account… It is purely a political thing in terms of why it was done , why it was leaked.
” Margaret Hodge MP agreed : “ I don ’ t think it has anything to do with the EHRC inquiry at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do is distract from that .
It ’ s the EHRC report that really matters.
” The leaked report was designed to be sent to the EHRC , but its submission was reportedly blocked by party lawyers .
It is now itself subject to an independent investigation , which is due to report by mid-July .
“ It ’ s up to the EHRC , ” Libson said , before adding that he thought the EHRC would be “ a little reluctant ” to call out individuals explicitly .
The impression is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a whole .
It is not considered beyond the bounds of possibility that individuals will be censured , though , either due to original actions or frustrating the investigation .
When will the report be published ?
First , the EHRC ’ s draft report will be sent to the Labour Party for review for at least 28 days .
Relevant extracts will also be sent to anybody who has charges levelled against them .
During this period , the findings should be kept confidential – and it is possible that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But as the party is prone to leaks , more information may emerge .
Before the report is settled , the party can make written representations to the Commission about the draft , and these will be considered .
Only then will the report be finalised .
As it is now mid-June , that means we are probably waiting until at least mid-July for official publication ( unless this process has already been completed and there were no leaks ) .
There is the possibility that the report will not be published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Equality Act 2006 , the EHRC can choose to enter into an agreement with Labour if it concludes that an unlawful act has been committed but the party undertakes not to commit that act again and takes preventative action .
However , non-publication is thought unlikely .
JLM has asked the party to allow the report to be published for transparency , and Keir Starmer is keen to rebuild that relationship .
He has previously vowed to “ throw open the books ” to the EHRC , and it would be unexpected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privately .
It is also seen as politically savvy to reveal the “ warts and all ” EHRC report in order to strengthen the new team ’ s mandate for change .
What are the immediate consequences ?
If the EHRC concludes after the investigation that the party has committed an unlawful act , it can give Labour an ‘ unlawful act notice ’ under Section 21 of the Equality Act .
This notice can require the party to prepare an action plan so that it avoids continuing or repeating the unlawful act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Labour must make a plan , it will be given a date by which a first draft must be delivered , and this can be approved or another notice can be issued that would force the party to revise it .
The EHRC has supervisory powers over the plan , and further enforcement action can be taken .
“ The ability for JLM to do anything ends at the point where the EHRC has made its conclusions .
There is not an avenue of appeal , ” James Libson told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-term consequences ?
JLM naturally hopes that in the long term the EHRC report will lead to substantial change within the party .
Margaret Hodge told the JLM event that there are some “ jolly simple steps ” she hopes the leadership will take – from changing people at the top , which has already started , to a “ zero tolerance ” approach and an independent complaints system .
Hodge also said a strong education and training programme should be implemented , “ which JLM is brilliantly placed to provide ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , and Peter Mason said it would not provide it again “ until the EHRC has reported and we ’ ve started to see the type of actions that we need to see ” .
Among JLM members , the test for internal reforms is often considered to be when the party will see the return of Louise Ellman , who quit in October 2019 , did not defect to another party and said she hoped to rejoin in the future .

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into antisemitism within the Labour Party in May 2019. The equalities watchdog is expected to conclude the probe imminently. Here is what we know about the inquiry…
What will it tell us?
In a briefing on the inquiry delivered by the party-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement last week, secretary Peter Mason said: “We are not going to get the answer to the question ‘is Labour institutionally antisemitic?’”. He said that was a political question. JLM has invited the EHRC to say that Labour is institutionally racist, however.
The EHRC investigation is specifically looking into “whether the Labour Party has unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish”.
It is seeking to establish whether unlawful acts have been committed by Labour, and/or its employees, and/or its agents, and whether the party has responded to complaints of unlawful acts in a lawful, efficient and effective manner.
It will do so by considering submissions as well as Labour’s rulebook and the steps taken by the party following the Royall Report, the home affairs select committee report on antisemitism and the Chakrabarti Report.
What has the EHRC been sent?
The charity Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) made the initial referral to the EHRC. As the complainant, it has made regular submissions to the inquiry and is in ongoing contact with the body, LabourList understands.
JLM has made two main submissions. The closing document, leaked in its redacted form in December 2019, contained 70 testimonies from current and former party staffers and more than 100 testimonies from party members. It concluded that Labour’s “structures, processes, agents and employees have all contributed to creating an environment that is profoundly hostile to Jewish members”.
In between those submissions, campaign group Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS) submitted evidence including a digital dossier that comprised over 15,000 screenshots of allegedly antisemitic online statements by members.
According to James Libson of law firm Mishcon de Reya who is representing JLM in the investigation, the commission has been presented with “voluminous evidence”. We know that this comes from party staff, ex-staff, MPs and members.
The EHRC will also be considering responses from the party itself, of course, as Labour will have been asked for evidence in relation to particular claims. The party’s main submission has been controversial as national executive committee officers reportedly turned down the opportunity to view it, despite the ruling body having legal responsibilities.
What about the leaked report?
The possibility that the 850-page leaked internal report on Labour’s handling of antisemitism complaints could be considered by the EHRC has been the subject of some discussion. The Jewish Chronicle reported that it could be incorporated into the EHRC inquiry.
But Libson told the JLM event that the Jewish affiliate had written to the EHRC “to ensure that they didn’t want to look at it”. He said: “They can’t take it into account, they won’t take it into account… It is purely a political thing in terms of why it was done, why it was leaked.”
Margaret Hodge MP agreed: “I don’t think it has anything to do with the EHRC inquiry at all, what it’s trying to do is distract from that. It’s the EHRC report that really matters.”
The leaked report was designed to be sent to the EHRC, but its submission was reportedly blocked by party lawyers. It is now itself subject to an independent investigation, which is due to report by mid-July.
Will the EHRC report mention individuals?
“It’s up to the EHRC,” Libson said, before adding that he thought the EHRC would be “a little reluctant” to call out individuals explicitly. The impression is that it will likely consider the institution as a whole. It is not considered beyond the bounds of possibility that individuals will be censured, though, either due to original actions or frustrating the investigation.
When will the report be published?
First, the EHRC’s draft report will be sent to the Labour Party for review for at least 28 days. Relevant extracts will also be sent to anybody who has charges levelled against them. During this period, the findings should be kept confidential – and it is possible that we may not know about it being sent. But as the party is prone to leaks, more information may emerge.
Before the report is settled, the party can make written representations to the Commission about the draft, and these will be considered. Only then will the report be finalised. As it is now mid-June, that means we are probably waiting until at least mid-July for official publication (unless this process has already been completed and there were no leaks).
There is the possibility that the report will not be published at all. Under Section 23 of the Equality Act 2006, the EHRC can choose to enter into an agreement with Labour if it concludes that an unlawful act has been committed but the party undertakes not to commit that act again and takes preventative action.
However, non-publication is thought unlikely. JLM has asked the party to allow the report to be published for transparency, and Keir Starmer is keen to rebuild that relationship. He has previously vowed to “throw open the books” to the EHRC, and it would be unexpected for the leadership to conduct the process privately. It is also seen as politically savvy to reveal the “warts and all” EHRC report in order to strengthen the new team’s mandate for change.
What are the immediate consequences?
If the EHRC concludes after the investigation that the party has committed an unlawful act, it can give Labour an ‘unlawful act notice’ under Section 21 of the Equality Act. This notice can require the party to prepare an action plan so that it avoids continuing or repeating the unlawful act, and the EHRC can make recommendations.
If Labour must make a plan, it will be given a date by which a first draft must be delivered, and this can be approved or another notice can be issued that would force the party to revise it. The EHRC has supervisory powers over the plan, and further enforcement action can be taken.
“The ability for JLM to do anything ends at the point where the EHRC has made its conclusions. There is not an avenue of appeal,” James Libson told the recent JLM event.
What are the long-term consequences?
JLM naturally hopes that in the long term the EHRC report will lead to substantial change within the party. Margaret Hodge told the JLM event that there are some “jolly simple steps” she hopes the leadership will take – from changing people at the top, which has already started, to a “zero tolerance” approach and an independent complaints system.
Hodge also said a strong education and training programme should be implemented, “which JLM is brilliantly placed to provide”. JLM suspended its antisemitism awareness training last year, and Peter Mason said it would not provide it again “until the EHRC has reported and we’ve started to see the type of actions that we need to see”.
Among JLM members, the test for internal reforms is often considered to be when the party will see the return of Louise Ellman, who quit in October 2019, did not defect to another party and said she hoped to rejoin in the future.


labourlist--2020-06-15--How zoos epitomise the government’s chaotic approach to Covid

You wouldn ’ t normally consider zoos to be at the heart of political debate but their treatment epitomises the government ’ s disordered approach to the Covid-19 epidemic .
MPs are debating coronavirus restrictions in the House of Commons today as new easing of the lockdown comes into effect with , amongst other things , the reopening of non-essential retail .
We won ’ t be debating whether it is the right time to reopen these shops , however .
We will be discussing changes that were actually introduced a fortnight earlier .
These include allowing elite athletes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that six people can meet outside .
They also include new restrictions so that , for the first time , zoos and safari parks amongst other venues are required to close .
The first lockdown measures were introduced back in March in response to Covid-19 .
The initial regulations needed to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rapidly rising number of infections and were not debated until some six weeks after they were introduced – but now that parliament is up and running again , time should be provided to ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic consent before they are introduced .
The chaotic nature of the government ’ s approach is best highlighted by the fact that on the same day we are debating these regulations , which close down zoos and safari parks , they will in fact be reopening after a government U-turn last week .
We are left with the mess of a government introducing laws in parliament that it has already said it won ’ t be following .
This is now the third debate on the lockdown rules taking place long after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer has said , they are not making it easy for us to work constructively with them .
This is not just a procedural issue either ; the rule of law matters .
We can not have a government that – even in these extraordinary times – believes it is standard practice to get parliamentary approval only when convenient .
When Matt Hancock suggested he would ask the Treasury to “ look at ” all the fines issued under the lockdown rules where childcare was an issue , during the height of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how little regard the Tories have to due process and the rule of law .
We know that in order for the economic damage to be mitigated , the relaxation of the lockdown must be done as soon as is possible – but do it too soon and we risk a second surge in infections that threatens to undo all the sacrifices made to date .
The government has been extremely coy about providing the scientific advice on which they are basing their decisions ; the scientific advisory group for emergencies ’ advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – but weeks after the event and in the meantime various experts are popping up on TV to warn against a relaxation .
Most worryingly , there are now concerns that experts ’ opinions are being vetted before they are allowed to appear on the Downing Street podium .
No evidence has been produced to show how the government has met its own five tests for relaxing the lockdown rules , which are particularly important when the Joint Biosecurity Council has not reduced its threat level .
The government is required to review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never released those reviews .
We know , for example , that people from BAME backgrounds are far more likely to be fined under the regulations , yet we see no evidence that the potentially discriminatory impact of these regulations is being considered .
This is before we even consider whether the testing and tracing system is working properly .
One of the government ’ s own chief scientific advisors said it is critical that this is working properly before we have any relaxation of the lockdown – and only yesterday the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know that it is failing to test thousands of people with the virus , a third of those tested are not being contacted and we don ’ t have a date for when the ‘ vital ’ app will be ready .
More than 12 weeks since lockdown began , it is time government really began to show that it can develop a structured , evidence-based , coherent approach .
The lack of grip on detail is astonishing , though perhaps no more than we can expect from a government led by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cobra meetings at the start of the crisis .

You wouldn’t normally consider zoos to be at the heart of political debate but their treatment epitomises the government’s disordered approach to the Covid-19 epidemic. MPs are debating coronavirus restrictions in the House of Commons today as new easing of the lockdown comes into effect with, amongst other things, the reopening of non-essential retail. We won’t be debating whether it is the right time to reopen these shops, however. We will be discussing changes that were actually introduced a fortnight earlier. These include allowing elite athletes to train and the easing of restrictions so that six people can meet outside. They also include new restrictions so that, for the first time, zoos and safari parks amongst other venues are required to close.
The first lockdown measures were introduced back in March in response to Covid-19. The initial regulations needed to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rapidly rising number of infections and were not debated until some six weeks after they were introduced – but now that parliament is up and running again, time should be provided to ensure that any future changes to the lockdown have democratic consent before they are introduced. The chaotic nature of the government’s approach is best highlighted by the fact that on the same day we are debating these regulations, which close down zoos and safari parks, they will in fact be reopening after a government U-turn last week. We are left with the mess of a government introducing laws in parliament that it has already said it won’t be following.
This is now the third debate on the lockdown rules taking place long after the rules have changed. As Keir Starmer has said, they are not making it easy for us to work constructively with them. This is not just a procedural issue either; the rule of law matters. We cannot have a government that – even in these extraordinary times – believes it is standard practice to get parliamentary approval only when convenient. When Matt Hancock suggested he would ask the Treasury to “look at” all the fines issued under the lockdown rules where childcare was an issue, during the height of the Dominic Cummings scandal, he showed just how little regard the Tories have to due process and the rule of law.
We know that in order for the economic damage to be mitigated, the relaxation of the lockdown must be done as soon as is possible – but do it too soon and we risk a second surge in infections that threatens to undo all the sacrifices made to date. The government has been extremely coy about providing the scientific advice on which they are basing their decisions; the scientific advisory group for emergencies’ advice is, at last, being released – but weeks after the event and in the meantime various experts are popping up on TV to warn against a relaxation. Most worryingly, there are now concerns that experts’ opinions are being vetted before they are allowed to appear on the Downing Street podium.
No evidence has been produced to show how the government has met its own five tests for relaxing the lockdown rules, which are particularly important when the Joint Biosecurity Council has not reduced its threat level. The government is required to review the impact of the legislation but has never released those reviews. We know, for example, that people from BAME backgrounds are far more likely to be fined under the regulations, yet we see no evidence that the potentially discriminatory impact of these regulations is being considered.
This is before we even consider whether the testing and tracing system is working properly. One of the government’s own chief scientific advisors said it is critical that this is working properly before we have any relaxation of the lockdown – and only yesterday the World Health Organisation said the same. But we know that it is failing to test thousands of people with the virus, a third of those tested are not being contacted and we don’t have a date for when the ‘vital’ app will be ready.
More than 12 weeks since lockdown began, it is time government really began to show that it can develop a structured, evidence-based, coherent approach. The lack of grip on detail is astonishing, though perhaps no more than we can expect from a government led by a Prime Minister who missed five successive Cobra meetings at the start of the crisis.


labourlist--2020-06-15--What Labour can learn from Jacinda Ardern and New Zealand

In the age of the Trumps , Johnsons and Bolsonaros , there has seldom been a bigger gulf in political and moral leadership at an international level .
This vacuum has been hugely evident in the lack of global coordination and leadership in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Though there is little doubt that we are indeed living in the age of populists – trading in easy answers to complex questions – there remains a small group of leaders who continue to stand out .
Merkel in Germany is , of course , the obvious example .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a straw poll and ask who has impressed most during the Covid-19 crisis , Jacinda Ardern would be the near the top of many people ’ s lists .
Ardern has won a number of plaudits from around the world in recent months for New Zealand ’ s handling of the pandemic , having now officially eradicated the disease – something that many argued was impossible .
Doubters will be quick to point out that this was made easier due to the country ’ s smaller , more sparsely separated population .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , it fails to recognise that – at the peak of the virus – New Zealand had over 1,000 cases and the country still has a number of densely populated areas .
Auckland alone , for example , is a city of 1.7 million people .
In reality , the real difference between New Zealand and the UK is decisive leadership .
New Zealand acted fast and early to deal with the virus , going into lockdown almost immediately , to save lives .
Here , we were told that going into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage the economy .
New Zealand is now out of lockdown and has just ended social distancing , suffering only 22 deaths .
The UK has the second-highest death rate in the world and is on course to suffer the worst economic damage of any developed country in the world .
Leadership matters .
Ardern ’ s approach in dealing with coronavirus has been a lesson to the world in leadership , as was her response to the tragic Christchurch terrorist attack in 2019 .
But her domestic record is just as impressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – particularly for UK Labour .
Before Ardern become leader , the New Zealand Labour Party had been out of power for nine years , lacking credibility on key issues like the economy and immigration .
In changing this , she has had to show flexibility – putting aside ideological purity in favour of pragmatism – while still managing to put forward a radical policy agenda .
Ardern is a social progressive first and foremost , but recognises the importance of community and that many people have been left feeling uncomfortable with certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the neoliberal model .
This is something that UK Labour failed to do when last in government .
Ardern has highlighted how unchecked capitalism has seen rises in homelessness and had a profound impact on the environment .
She has also favoured stronger controls on migration , focusing on skilled immigration , and recognised that increases in the number of people coming to New Zealand has put considerable pressure on public services .
Crucially though , rather than simply blaming immigrants and immigration , her government has invested in housing , infrastructure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealanders – so that local people can help fill skill gaps in the economy rather than relying on labour from abroad .
Last year , New Zealand became the first country in the world to drop GDP as the sole measure of national progress .
The government instead focused on people ’ s overall wellbeing and put forward a ‘ wellbeing budget ’ , which included millions to tackle poverty , family violence and improve mental health , as well as a number of other measures to improve people ’ s quality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things .
Firstly , that too many New Zealanders felt left behind by globalisation , not feeling the benefits of change .
It acknowledged that people don ’ t measure their own lives in terms of GDP , so why should governments ?
And , most importantly , it reaffirmed Ardern ’ s commitment to tackling poverty and making material improvements in people ’ s lives .
The first duty of government .
Remarkably , Ardern has managed to put forward a radical policy agenda while addressing her party ’ s traditional lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to a set of budget responsibility rules , setting critical limits on public debt .
All governments and parties around the world should look to Ardern and New Zealand as an example .
But Keir Starmer ’ s Labour in particular should pay special attention .
At this point , we have no idea what the post-coronavirus world will look like .
But if Labour in the UK is to have any chance of winning power in 2024 , the party must tackle some of its past failings in the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting forward a radical policy agenda fit for the 21st century , recognising the things that drive people – community , quality of life and wellbeing – while regaining credibility and trust on immigration and the economy .
It ’ s a tall order , but as Ardern and New Zealand Labour have shown , it is possible .

In the age of the Trumps, Johnsons and Bolsonaros, there has seldom been a bigger gulf in political and moral leadership at an international level. This vacuum has been hugely evident in the lack of global coordination and leadership in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Though there is little doubt that we are indeed living in the age of populists – trading in easy answers to complex questions – there remains a small group of leaders who continue to stand out. Merkel in Germany is, of course, the obvious example. But I’m sure if you were to take a straw poll and ask who has impressed most during the Covid-19 crisis, Jacinda Ardern would be the near the top of many people’s lists.
Ardern has won a number of plaudits from around the world in recent months for New Zealand’s handling of the pandemic, having now officially eradicated the disease – something that many argued was impossible. Doubters will be quick to point out that this was made easier due to the country’s smaller, more sparsely separated population. While there may be some truth in this, it fails to recognise that – at the peak of the virus – New Zealand had over 1,000 cases and the country still has a number of densely populated areas. Auckland alone, for example, is a city of 1.7 million people.
In reality, the real difference between New Zealand and the UK is decisive leadership. New Zealand acted fast and early to deal with the virus, going into lockdown almost immediately, to save lives. Here, we were told that going into lockdown too soon would cost jobs and damage the economy. New Zealand is now out of lockdown and has just ended social distancing, suffering only 22 deaths. The UK has the second-highest death rate in the world and is on course to suffer the worst economic damage of any developed country in the world. Leadership matters.
Ardern’s approach in dealing with coronavirus has been a lesson to the world in leadership, as was her response to the tragic Christchurch terrorist attack in 2019. But her domestic record is just as impressive, and there are lessons here too – particularly for UK Labour. Before Ardern become leader, the New Zealand Labour Party had been out of power for nine years, lacking credibility on key issues like the economy and immigration. In changing this, she has had to show flexibility – putting aside ideological purity in favour of pragmatism – while still managing to put forward a radical policy agenda.
Ardern is a social progressive first and foremost, but recognises the importance of community and that many people have been left feeling uncomfortable with certain elements of globalisation and deep flaws in the neoliberal model. This is something that UK Labour failed to do when last in government. Ardern has highlighted how unchecked capitalism has seen rises in homelessness and had a profound impact on the environment. She has also favoured stronger controls on migration, focusing on skilled immigration, and recognised that increases in the number of people coming to New Zealand has put considerable pressure on public services. Crucially though, rather than simply blaming immigrants and immigration, her government has invested in housing, infrastructure, public services and provided training for New Zealanders – so that local people can help fill skill gaps in the economy rather than relying on labour from abroad.
Last year, New Zealand became the first country in the world to drop GDP as the sole measure of national progress. The government instead focused on people’s overall wellbeing and put forward a ‘wellbeing budget’, which included millions to tackle poverty, family violence and improve mental health, as well as a number of other measures to improve people’s quality of life. Crucially, this recognised several things. Firstly, that too many New Zealanders felt left behind by globalisation, not feeling the benefits of change. It acknowledged that people don’t measure their own lives in terms of GDP, so why should governments? And, most importantly, it reaffirmed Ardern’s commitment to tackling poverty and making material improvements in people’s lives. The first duty of government.
Remarkably, Ardern has managed to put forward a radical policy agenda while addressing her party’s traditional lack of credibility on the economy, via commitment to a set of budget responsibility rules, setting critical limits on public debt. All governments and parties around the world should look to Ardern and New Zealand as an example. But Keir Starmer’s Labour in particular should pay special attention.
At this point, we have no idea what the post-coronavirus world will look like. But if Labour in the UK is to have any chance of winning power in 2024, the party must tackle some of its past failings in the same way Ardern’s has. This means putting forward a radical policy agenda fit for the 21st century, recognising the things that drive people – community, quality of life and wellbeing – while regaining credibility and trust on immigration and the economy. It’s a tall order, but as Ardern and New Zealand Labour have shown, it is possible.


labourlist--2020-06-15--Labour Together election review to be published this week

A review conducted by the cross-factional group Labour Together to analyse and learn from the Labour Party ’ s 2019 general election defeat will be published later this week .
Following several months of inquiry into Labour ’ s worst defeat since the 1930s , the inquiry jointly commissioned by LabourList and launched in December will release its findings on Friday .
The project to examine the party ’ s failure received contributions from more than 11,000 people from across the labour movement in an online survey earlier this year .
The commissioners involved in the review are : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Meadway ; • Former general secretary of the Co-op Party Karin Christiansen ; • Former political director of Scottish Labour and parliamentary candidate Martin McCluskey ; and LabourList is co-hosting a special online event next Monday , June 22nd , for members of the labour movement to discuss insights from the report with the commissioners .
The event will take the form of an online panel discussion , where attendees will be able to hear directly from the commissioners and ask questions about the key findings of the review .
This will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the recommendations can be implemented across the labour movement in a participatory workshop .
You can sign up to take part here .
Labour Together was launched after the 2015 general election and leadership contest by Jon Cruddas , Lisa Nandy and Steve Reed and aims to be a non-factional group .
Its stated aim is to “ create a space for people to have difficult but necessary political conversations face-to-face ” and says it is “ proud to work across factions and none to bring people together ” .

A review conducted by the cross-factional group Labour Together to analyse and learn from the Labour Party’s 2019 general election defeat will be published later this week.
Following several months of inquiry into Labour’s worst defeat since the 1930s, the inquiry jointly commissioned by LabourList and launched in December will release its findings on Friday.
The project to examine the party’s failure received contributions from more than 11,000 people from across the labour movement in an online survey earlier this year.
The commissioners involved in the review are:
Ed Miliband MP;
Lucy Powell MP;
Shabana Mahmood MP;
Former Labour MP Jo Platt;
Economist and former adviser to John McDonnell James Meadway;
YouGov director of international projects Marcus Roberts;
Former general secretary of the Co-op Party Karin Christiansen;
The Campaigns Company director Daniel Jackson;
Journalist Ellie Mae O’Hagan;
Council leader Louise Gittens;
General secretary of the TSSA Manuel Cortes;
2019 parliamentary candidate Mary Wimbury;
Former political director of Scottish Labour and parliamentary candidate Martin McCluskey; and
LabourList editor Sienna Rodgers.
LabourList is co-hosting a special online event next Monday, June 22nd, for members of the labour movement to discuss insights from the report with the commissioners.
The event will take the form of an online panel discussion, where attendees will be able to hear directly from the commissioners and ask questions about the key findings of the review.
This will be followed by the opportunity to explore how the recommendations can be implemented across the labour movement in a participatory workshop. You can sign up to take part here.
Labour Together was launched after the 2015 general election and leadership contest by Jon Cruddas, Lisa Nandy and Steve Reed and aims to be a non-factional group.
Its stated aim is to “create a space for people to have difficult but necessary political conversations face-to-face” and says it is “proud to work across factions and none to bring people together”.


labourlist--2020-06-16--Activists call on Labour leadership to set up anti-racism roundtable

The youth wing of the party and other activists from its left flank have called on the leadership to set up a roundtable discussion hosted by deputy leader Angela Rayner on racism within Labour .
The letter sent to the party leadership and its ruling body comes from Young Labour as well as campaign groups Labour Against Racism And Fascism ( LARAF ) and Socialists of Colour .
It is also signed by individual party members such as Huda Elmi , a member of the national executive committee ( NEC ) , and the National Education Union ’ s Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their views following the leaked internal report on Labour ’ s handling of complaints , and argue that BAME communities have been “ alienated from the party ’ s structures , policies and public discourse ” .
They raise concerns over the many 2014 Labour abstentions on the Immigration Act 2014 – a vote that saw only a handful of Labour MPs , including Jeremy Corbyn , vote against the hostile environment measures .
The activists also criticise Keir Starmer ’ s recent statement on the Kashmiri conflict , which said it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pakistan ” , for showing “ disdain for party procedure , the membership and the people of Kashmir ” .
The letter claims that Labour has a “ colonial past ” that “ needs to be urgently addressed ” , and concludes that it will otherwise be confronted with an “ electoral cost ” .
The meeting requested by the activists would , they say , “ lay the groundwork for a comprehensive and long-delayed redressing of Labour ’ s involvement in racist and colonial injustices ” .
LARAF was launched last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ east London , joined by “ nearly 100 trade unionists , CLP representatives and a number of councillors ” according to Natasha Josette and Artin Giles .
Its latest move has been made with Socialists of Colour , a new collective that includes former NEC candidate Jermain Jackman , who said : “ The days for mere words is over and it ’ s high time we begin to act .
“ That ’ s why I ’ m joining the call for leadership to actively engage with its ethnic minority members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act , so that together we can shape a better party.
” Below is the full text of the statement and its signatories .
We are writing as BAME and migrant organisers , Labour Party members , Members of Parliament and community organisations to raise with you a number of urgent and important questions related to the recently leaked Labour Party report : “ The work of the Labour Party ’ s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism , 2014 – 2019 ” and the party ’ s subsequent response .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocking , to many of us they will not have been surprising .
BAME and migrant communities , together with anti-racists and internationalists , have long been alienated from the party ’ s structures , policies and public discourse .
Very often , we find that basic principles of anti-racism and progressive internationalism , and those of us espousing them , are not represented in party policy and are often made unwelcome in the party .
There are a number of structural reasons for this .
The party currently does not collaborate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and migrant groups within the party who work tirelessly to encourage their communities to engage with and vote for the party .
Our BAME structures have long been inadequate and poorly resourced , reforms subject to delays and consequently the new structures leave many sceptical .
BAME and migrant communities feel taken advantage of , mistrustful of party structures , and increasingly resentful towards the party .
This silencing of many BAME members has resulted in the invisibility of our communities and in the party taking positions which are contrary to very basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2014 Labour MPs abstained on the hostile environment vote that criminalises our communities .
It led directly to the Windrush crisis which continues to destroy so many lives .
More recently , the party has undermined the democratic decision taken at party conference to stand in solidarity with the people of Kashmir , thus emphasising disdain for party procedure , the membership and for the people of Kashmir currently living under a brutal military occupation , media and internet blackout and human rights abuses .
For us , policies around Windrush and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental issues of justice .
Labour ’ s indication of the disposability of BAME communities and migrants , as well as a disregard for those calling for a just foreign policy suggests a commitment to the continuation of Labour ’ s colonial legacy .
Labour ’ s colonial past , including the role the party has played in advancing racism at home and British imperialism abroad , continues to define how it orientates itself politically , and needs to be urgently addressed in the party , in order to end these practices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , an electoral cost to such decisions .
Under previous Labour governments , the party lost the votes of millions of committed internationalists and BAME communities due to regressive domestic policies and Labour ’ s initiation of Britain ’ s invasion , destruction and occupation of Iraq .
Many left the party , others vowed never to vote for Labour again .
We lost more than two million votes this way between 2001 and 2010 , leaving a long shadow that continues to make many in our communities reluctant to vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote at all .
We have already seen this disengagement re-emerging with a letter from over 100 mosques committing to not vote for Labour as long as the current leadership maintains its unprincipled position on Kashmir .
It is against this backdrop that we received the latest revelations regarding senior management behaviour in the party .
We are profoundly concerned regarding both the response and the tenor of the public debate regarding the leaked report , as well as the proposed solution to undertake a very limited Inquiry conducted by individuals who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a just conclusion .
Without correcting this , many communities will see no truth in Labour ’ s claim of being an anti-racist party , damaging trust even further .
We all want Labour to succeed and produce a society which delivers justice , equality and an ethical foreign policy .
We urgently request that the chair of the party , Angela Rayner MP , meet with us at a roundtable to address the concerns around the report and the demands which we and many members have , including those issued by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting would lay the groundwork for a comprehensive and long-delayed redressing of Labour ’ s involvement in racist and colonial injustices .
Labour Against Racism And Fascism Socialists of Colour South Asia Solidarity Group Arab Labour Group Tamil Socialist Collective Young Labour Suresh Grover , Director of The Monitoring Group Amrit Wilson , South Asia Solidarity Group Ashok Kumar , Lecturer of Political Economy Dr Maryumm Mehmood , Academic Researcher Dr John Narayan , King ’ s College London Salma Yaqoob Huda Elmi , NEC CLP Rep Dr. Robert Faure Walker Dr. Fatima @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London Young Labour Neha Shah , Oxford University DPhil Researcher Sultanah Parvin , FORMO Elif Sarican , Kurdish Women ’ s Movement Dr Adam Elliott-Cooper , University of Greenwhich Zita Holbourne , National Chair BARAC UK Madura Rasaratnam , lecturer in Comparative Politics Daniel Kebede , senior vice president ( elect ) , National Education Union

Activists from the left of the party have called on the leadership to set up a roundtable discussion hosted by deputy leader Angela Rayner on racism within Labour.
The letter sent to the party leadership and its ruling body comes from campaign groups, including Labour Against Racism And Fascism (LARAF) and Socialists of Colour, and individual activists.
The campaigners want to share their views following the leaked internal report on Labour’s handling of complaints, and argue that BAME communities have been “alienated from the party’s structures, policies and public discourse”.
They raise concerns over the many 2014 Labour abstentions on the Immigration Act 2014 – a vote that saw only a handful of Labour MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn, vote against the hostile environment measures.
The activists also criticise Keir Starmer’s recent statement on the Kashmiri conflict, which said it was a “bilateral issue for India and Pakistan”, for showing “disdain for party procedure, the membership and the people of Kashmir”.
The letter claims that Labour has a “colonial past” that “needs to be urgently addressed”, and concludes that it will otherwise be confronted with an “electoral cost”.
The meeting requested by the activists would, they say, “lay the groundwork for a comprehensive and long-delayed redressing of Labour’s involvement in racist and colonial injustices”.
LARAF was launched last year at a meeting in Cable Street, east London, joined by “nearly 100 trade unionists, CLP representatives and a number of councillors” according to Natasha Josette and Artin Giles.
Its latest move has been made with Socialists of Colour, a new collective that includes former NEC candidate Jermain Jackman, who said: “The days for mere words is over and it’s high time we begin to act.
“That’s why I’m joining the call for leadership to actively engage with its ethnic minority members, to hear our concerns and then to act, so that together we can shape a better party.”
Below is the full text of the statement and its signatories.
Dear Labour Party leadership,
CC: Labour Party NEC
We are writing as BAME and migrant organisers, Labour Party members, Members of Parliament and community organisations to raise with you a number of urgent and important questions related to the recently leaked Labour Party report: “The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014 – 2019” and the party’s subsequent response.
Whilst the report’s contents were shocking, to many of us they will not have been surprising. BAME and migrant communities, together with anti-racists and internationalists, have long been alienated from the party’s structures, policies and public discourse. Very often, we find that basic principles of anti-racism and progressive internationalism, and those of us espousing them, are not represented in party policy and are often made unwelcome in the party.
There are a number of structural reasons for this. The party currently does not collaborate, support or work with the many BAME and migrant groups within the party who work tirelessly to encourage their communities to engage with and vote for the party. Our BAME structures have long been inadequate and poorly resourced, reforms subject to delays and consequently the new structures leave many sceptical. BAME and migrant communities feel taken advantage of, mistrustful of party structures, and increasingly resentful towards the party.
This silencing of many BAME members has resulted in the invisibility of our communities and in the party taking positions which are contrary to very basic questions of justice. For example, in 2014 Labour MPs abstained on the hostile environment vote that criminalises our communities. It led directly to the Windrush crisis which continues to destroy so many lives. More recently, the party has undermined the democratic decision taken at party conference to stand in solidarity with the people of Kashmir, thus emphasising disdain for party procedure, the membership and for the people of Kashmir currently living under a brutal military occupation, media and internet blackout and human rights abuses.
For us, policies around Windrush and Kashmir are not optional extras, but fundamental issues of justice. Labour’s indication of the disposability of BAME communities and migrants, as well as a disregard for those calling for a just foreign policy suggests a commitment to the continuation of Labour’s colonial legacy. Labour’s colonial past, including the role the party has played in advancing racism at home and British imperialism abroad, continues to define how it orientates itself politically, and needs to be urgently addressed in the party, in order to end these practices.
There has been, and continues to be, an electoral cost to such decisions. Under previous Labour governments, the party lost the votes of millions of committed internationalists and BAME communities due to regressive domestic policies and Labour’s initiation of Britain’s invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq. Many left the party, others vowed never to vote for Labour again. We lost more than two million votes this way between 2001 and 2010, leaving a long shadow that continues to make many in our communities reluctant to vote for the party, with most choosing not to vote at all. We have already seen this disengagement re-emerging with a letter from over 100 mosques committing to not vote for Labour as long as the current leadership maintains its unprincipled position on Kashmir.
It is against this backdrop that we received the latest revelations regarding senior management behaviour in the party. We are profoundly concerned regarding both the response and the tenor of the public debate regarding the leaked report, as well as the proposed solution to undertake a very limited Inquiry conducted by individuals who lack the credibility to bring it to a just conclusion. Without correcting this, many communities will see no truth in Labour’s claim of being an anti-racist party, damaging trust even further.
We all want Labour to succeed and produce a society which delivers justice, equality and an ethical foreign policy. We urgently request that the chair of the party, Angela Rayner MP, meet with us at a roundtable to address the concerns around the report and the demands which we and many members have, including those issued by the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs.
This meeting would lay the groundwork for a comprehensive and long-delayed redressing of Labour’s involvement in racist and colonial injustices.
Yours sincerely,
Labour Against Racism And Fascism
Socialists of Colour
South Asia Solidarity Group
Arab Labour Group
Tamil Socialist Collective
Suresh Grover, director of The Monitoring Group
Amrit Wilson, South Asia Solidarity Group
Ashok Kumar, lecturer of Political Economy
Dr Maryyum Mehmood, academic researcher
Dr John Narayan, King’s College London
Salma Yaqoob
Dr. Robert Faure Walker
Dr. Fatima Rajina
Faiza Mahmood, BAME officer, London Young Labour
Neha Shah, Oxford University DPhil Researcher
Elif Sarican, Kurdish Women’s Movement
Dr Adam Elliott-Cooper, University of Greenwich
Zita Holbourne, national chair BARAC UK
Madura Rasaratnam, lecturer in Comparative Politics
Daniel Kebede, senior vice-president (elect), National Education Union
This article was amended on June 17th to correct the list of signatories.


labourlist--2020-06-16--Voting opens for internal Momentum elections

Ballots have started dropping at midday today in the contests to elect new representatives to the national coordinating group of Labour left organisation Momentum .
Following the nomination stage , members of the Corbynite activist network are choosing between 57 candidates competing to sit on the NCG .
Voting will close at 12pm on Tuesday , June 30th .
Current chair Jon Lansman revealed last month that he would not be standing in the elections , and campaign groups Forward Momentum and Momentum Renewal have each unveiled a slate of candidates .
Forward Momentum ’ s stated aim is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The group is backed by John McDonnell and its slate includes MP Nadia Whittome , metro-mayor Jamie Driscoll and former parliamentary candidate Jennifer Forbes .
Commenting on the start of voting , a campaign spokesperson said : “ We are the only campaign for real change , and we are asking all Momentum members who want to turn their organisation around to vote for Forward Momentum candidates .
“ Our records speak for themselves , our dynamic campaign speaks for itself , and our detailed policies speak to the many the challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are to renew the left for the struggles ahead .
“ If elected , Forward Momentum candidates will work together to develop a truly effective and democratic Momentum that wins in the Labour Party and builds power in our communities and workplaces .
Let ’ s make it happen.
” Momentum Renewal – launched with the support of MPs such as Ian Lavery , Jon Trickett , Kim Johnson , Paula Barker , Sam Tarry , Charlotte Nichols and Nav Mishra – has stressed the importance of “ left unity ” .
Its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organising and ensuring that Momentum is “ rooted in working-class communities ” as well as being “ member-led and -organised ” .
A spokesperson for Momentum Renewal said : “ As voting opens for Momentum ’ s NCG elections , voters should remember that as well as transforming Momentum , Momentum ’ s job is to transform Labour .
“ Momentum Renewal has put brought together a fantastic selection of candidates representing the best of the British left , a new generation of leaders for our organisation to unite the movement and continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is comprised of 20 member representatives drawn from five regional divisions across the UK , as well as several nominated by affiliated organisations and members who hold public office .
Members will cast their ballots online under a multiple , non-transferable vote system and participants can vote for up to four candidates each .
At least two of the members elected in each division must be women , and one must be BAME .
If the 20 member reps elected do not include one person who identifies as disabled , LGBT+ , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , another four will be elected to make sure that each of these groups is represented .
Novara Media will be hosting and live-streaming a hustings with the Forward Momentum and Momentum Renewal NCG candidates this evening at 6pm .

Ballots have started dropping at midday today in the contests to elect new representatives to the national coordinating group of Labour left organisation Momentum.
Following the nomination stage, members of the Corbynite activist network are choosing between 57 candidates competing to sit on the NCG. Voting will close at 12pm on Tuesday, June 30th.
Current chair Jon Lansman revealed last month that he would not be standing in the elections, and campaign groups Forward Momentum and Momentum Renewal have each unveiled a slate of candidates.
Forward Momentum’s stated aim is “refounding” and “democratising” Momentum. The group is backed by John McDonnell and its slate includes MP Nadia Whittome, metro-mayor Jamie Driscoll and former parliamentary candidate Jennifer Forbes.
Commenting on the start of voting, a campaign spokesperson said: “We are the only campaign for real change, and we are asking all Momentum members who want to turn their organisation around to vote for Forward Momentum candidates.
“Our records speak for themselves, our dynamic campaign speaks for itself, and our detailed policies speak to the many the challenges within Momentum that need overcoming if we are to renew the left for the struggles ahead.
“If elected, Forward Momentum candidates will work together to develop a truly effective and democratic Momentum that wins in the Labour Party and builds power in our communities and workplaces. Let’s make it happen.”
Momentum Renewal – launched with the support of MPs such as Ian Lavery, Jon Trickett, Kim Johnson, Paula Barker, Sam Tarry, Charlotte Nichols and Nav Mishra – has stressed the importance of “left unity”.
Its candidates have pledged to focus on community organising and ensuring that Momentum is “rooted in working-class communities” as well as being “member-led and -organised”.
A spokesperson for Momentum Renewal said: “As voting opens for Momentum’s NCG elections, voters should remember that as well as transforming Momentum, Momentum’s job is to transform Labour.
“Momentum Renewal has put brought together a fantastic selection of candidates representing the best of the British left, a new generation of leaders for our organisation to unite the movement and continue the fight for socialism.”
The NCG is comprised of 20 member representatives drawn from five regional divisions across the UK, as well as several nominated by affiliated organisations and members who hold public office.
Members will cast their ballots online under a multiple, non-transferable vote system and participants can vote for up to four candidates each. At least two of the members elected in each division must be women, and one must be BAME.
If the 20 member reps elected do not include one person who identifies as disabled, LGBT+, and three people under the age of 30, another four will be elected to make sure that each of these groups is represented.
Novara Media will be hosting and live-streaming a hustings with the Forward Momentum and Momentum Renewal NCG candidates this evening at 6pm.