labourlist--2020-07-21--NEC constituency reps say Forde inquiry must cover contents of leaked report

Constituency Labour Party representatives on the national executive committee ( NEC ) have said that the inquiry being headed-up by Martin Forde QC into the leaked antisemitism report must include an investigation into its contents .
In a letter sent to the inquiry this afternoon , six of the CLP reps – Huda Elmi , Jon Lansman , Yasmine Dar , Rachel Garnham , Darren Williams and Ann Henderson – called for clarification on the nature of the inquiry .
The letter has been sent in response to a call for evidence published by the panel earlier this month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ intends to focus on paragraph three of the terms of reference “ .
Paragraph three states that the panel will investigate and report on the “ structure , culture and practices ” within the party , “ including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party ” .
The call for evidence also notes that there are “ three other ongoing processes ” being conducted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission , UK Information Commissioner and the Labour Party .
In their letter – sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rayner – the CLP reps have written : “ You claim the content of the report is already being investigated by the Labour Party and you do not wish to “ duplicate ” this investigation .
“ To the best of our knowledge , this is not true .
As NEC members , we are not aware of any Labour Party investigation into the content of the report and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Labour Party to investigate this matter as it clearly requires independent assessment .
The NEC was clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling body appointed the four-person panel to investigate after a report on the party ’ s handling of internal antisemitism complaints between 2014 and 2019 was leaked earlier this year .
The NEC decided that the scope of the inquiry would cover the allegations in the report , its commissioning and how it was put into the public domain , and the culture within the party .
The full terms agreed were that the panel would investigate : • “ The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist , sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces , the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party , and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party ) ; • “ The background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned , written and circulated within the Labour Party , with its advisers and any other individuals external to the Labour Party , including the question of the purpose for which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain ; and • “ The structure , culture and practices of the Labour Party organisation including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party , as the panel think appropriate having regard to their investigation as a whole.
” The group argue that the party has a duty to investigate the allegations made in the report concerning both the misuse of funds in the 2017 election , and reports of the failure to deal with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wrote that the inquiry must “ fully investigating all allegations in the leaked report concerning racism , Islamophobia and antisemitism , in addition to cultural and institutional problems within Labour ” .
The signatories concluded by calling for the leadership and panel to “ please confirm that your inquiry will be investigating the contents of the leaked report , including the main allegations made in the report ” .
A spokesperson for Labour said : “ An independent investigation into the circumstances , contents and release of an internal report is taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comment further while this investigation is being carried out.
” Below is the full text of the letter sent this afternoon .
We are Constituency Labour Party representatives on Labour ’ s national executive committee , directly elected by Labour members .
We are writing with regard to the inquiry ’ s call for evidence .
The call for evidence suggests that your inquiry will focus on point three of the terms of reference ( the culture of the party ) , and that it will not investigate the content of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of reference ) because you claim the content of the report is already being investigated by the Labour Party and you do not wish to “ duplicate ” this investigation .
To the best of our knowledge , this is not true .
As NEC members , we are not aware of any Labour Party investigation into the content of the report and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Labour Party to investigate this matter as it clearly requires independent assessment .
The NEC was clear on this point .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for your investigation state that : The Panel shall investigate and report on : 1 .
The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report ( the panel shall determine which are the most significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist , sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces , the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party , and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party ) .
This specifically mandates the panel to investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including contents of the report relating to racist , sexist and other discriminatory culture in Party workplaces , the attitudes and conduct of senior staff in the Labour Party and their relationships with the elected leadership of the party .
We are aware that the party has suspended some individuals over allegations in the leaked report which could constitute a breach of the party ’ s rules .
However , this handful of individual disciplinary cases in no way constitutes an investigation into the contents of the report , or even an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report .
Many of the central and most concerning allegations made in the leaked report would not necessarily lead to disciplinary action against individuals , and , we believe , are not being considered at all as part of the party ’ s current disciplinary processes relating to a handful of individuals .
Firstly , extremely serious allegations were made in the leaked report about the potential misuse of funds during the 2017 general election .
The party ’ s governance and legal unit investigates breaches of membership rules by individuals , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about which individuals were responsible for this , which means the party will not yet have brought disciplinary action against those involved .
This is one of the most damning revelations in the leaked report .
Your inquiry has a clear duty to investigate this allegation , investigate how much of the party ’ s funds were channelled into this secret ‘ key seats ’ / ‘ Ergon House ’ project , who signed this off , and whether or not full information on spending was provided to the Electoral Commission in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential serious misconduct by former senior staff and that this information was , according to the report , deliberately hidden from the leaders ’ office at the time , this clearly falls within point one in the terms of reference , which the NEC has specifically mandated your inquiry to investigate .
Secondly , the report includes further allegations of sabotage , undermining the elected leadership of the party , and about staff working against Labour election victories .
These are again extremely serious allegations which are not being investigated by the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the inquiry panel , as stipulated in point 1 in the terms of reference .
As far as we are aware , the investigations undertaken by the party only relate to breaches of membership rules , not potential breaches of employment contracts .
The report alleges that some staff worked against the party ’ s core organisational objective – to win elections .
Again this is content within the report that must be investigated by you and the panel .
Thirdly , the report makes very concerning allegations about serious failures under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with complaints of antisemitism and Islamophobia , alleging that hundreds of complaints were simply ignored , and the report argues that factionalism played a significant role in these failures .
The report also alleges factional abuse of the disciplinary process , most notably during the 2016 leadership election , which undermined members ’ faith in the party ’ s disciplinary processes .
The allegations made in the leaked report relate to issues that have been aired widely in the public domain , including in a Panorama programme last year , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in the leaked report be investigated .
These central allegations made in the leaked report are not being investigated by the party , or the EHRC , and must be investigated by you and your panel , in line with point one in the terms of reference .
NEC members have discussed this matter with members of Angela Rayner ’ s office , who confirmed that the disciplinary processes relating to a handful of individuals named in the leaked report do not preclude your inquiry investigating the contents of the report , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your inquiry was considering not investigating the contents of the leaked report .
We have copied Angela Rayner into this letter .
We have also copied in Keir Starmer and we note that he has given assurances to black members and voters who are distressed about the racism exposed in the leaked report , that the contents of the report are being fully investigated by this inquiry .
This means fully investigating all allegations in the leaked report concerning racism , Islamophobia and antisemitism , in addition to cultural and institutional problems within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerated racism .
Indeed , although we do not know which individuals who were named in the leaked report are currently being subject to disciplinary action , based on the information we have received , we believe that these cases relate to racist , sexist or abusive language exposed in the leaked report .
Therefore , the current investigations into these individuals being conducted by the Labour Party overlap far more with point three in the terms of reference on culture ( which is the part of the terms of reference your call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ) , than they do with point one .
We are extremely concerned that the panel may have been misled or that there may have been a misunderstanding about what the Labour Party is investigating .
We , on behalf of the wider membership , are deeply concerned that these central allegations must be investigated by the inquiry panel , as set out in the terms of reference agreed by the NEC when we commissioned this inquiry .
Could you please confirm that your inquiry will be investigating the contents of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made in the report , including the extent of racist , sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces , the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party , and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party ?
We also ask that you please confirm that these main allegations include the three areas we have set out in this letter .
Given the public interest in this matter and the deep concerns among thousands of Labour members that the shocking contents of the leaked report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will be making this letter public for transparency .

Constituency Labour Party representatives on the national executive committee (NEC) have said that the inquiry being headed-up by Martin Forde QC into the leaked antisemitism report must include an investigation into its contents.
In a letter sent to the inquiry this afternoon, six of the CLP reps – Huda Elmi, Jon Lansman, Yasmine Dar, Rachel Garnham, Darren Williams and Ann Henderson – called for clarification on the nature of the inquiry.
The letter has been sent in response to a call for evidence published by the panel earlier this month, in which it wrote that the inquiry “intends to focus on paragraph three of the terms of reference“.
Paragraph three states that the panel will investigate and report on the “structure, culture and practices” within the party, “including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party”.
The call for evidence also notes that there are “three other ongoing processes” being conducted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, UK Information Commissioner and the Labour Party.
In their letter – sent to Forde, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner – the CLP reps have written: “You claim the content of the report is already being investigated by the Labour Party and you do not wish to “duplicate” this investigation.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is not true. As NEC members, we are not aware of any Labour Party investigation into the content of the report and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Labour Party to investigate this matter as it clearly requires independent assessment. The NEC was clear on this point.”
Labour’s ruling body appointed the four-person panel to investigate after a report on the party’s handling of internal antisemitism complaints between 2014 and 2019 was leaked earlier this year.
The NEC decided that the scope of the inquiry would cover the allegations in the report, its commissioning and how it was put into the public domain, and the culture within the party. The full terms agreed were that the panel would investigate:
“The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report (the panel shall determine which are the most significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party, and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party); “The background and circumstances in which the report was commissioned, written and circulated within the Labour Party, with its advisers and any other individuals external to the Labour Party, including the question of the purpose for which the report was commissioned and prepared, and the circumstances in which the report was put into the public domain; and “The structure, culture and practices of the Labour Party organisation including the relationship between senior party staff and the elected leadership of the Labour Party, as the panel think appropriate having regard to their investigation as a whole.”
The group argue that the party has a duty to investigate the allegations made in the report concerning both the misuse of funds in the 2017 election, and reports of the failure to deal with complaints about antisemitism and Islamophobia.
They also wrote that the inquiry must “fully investigating all allegations in the leaked report concerning racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, in addition to cultural and institutional problems within Labour”.
The signatories concluded by calling for the leadership and panel to “please confirm that your inquiry will be investigating the contents of the leaked report, including the main allegations made in the report”.
A spokesperson for Labour said: “An independent investigation into the circumstances, contents and release of an internal report is taking place. It would not be appropriate to comment further while this investigation is being carried out.”
Below is the full text of the letter sent this afternoon.
Dear Mr Forde,
We are Constituency Labour Party representatives on Labour’s national executive committee, directly elected by Labour members.
We are writing with regard to the inquiry’s call for evidence. The call for evidence suggests that your inquiry will focus on point three of the terms of reference (the culture of the party), and that it will not investigate the content of the leaked report (point one of the terms of reference) because you claim the content of the report is already being investigated by the Labour Party and you do not wish to “duplicate” this investigation.
To the best of our knowledge, this is not true. As NEC members, we are not aware of any Labour Party investigation into the content of the report and it would be entirely inappropriate for the Labour Party to investigate this matter as it clearly requires independent assessment. The NEC was clear on this point.
The terms of reference agreed by the NEC for your investigation state that:
The Panel shall investigate and report on: 1. The truth or otherwise of the main allegations in the report (the panel shall determine which are the most significant allegations which require investigation but they shall include the extent of racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party, and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party).
This specifically mandates the panel to investigate the allegations made in the leaked report, including contents of the report relating to racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture in Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of senior staff in the Labour Party and their relationships with the elected leadership of the party.
We are aware that the party has suspended some individuals over allegations in the leaked report which could constitute a breach of the party’s rules. However, this handful of individual disciplinary cases in no way constitutes an investigation into the contents of the report, or even an investigation into the main allegations made in the report.
Many of the central and most concerning allegations made in the leaked report would not necessarily lead to disciplinary action against individuals, and, we believe, are not being considered at all as part of the party’s current disciplinary processes relating to a handful of individuals.
Firstly, extremely serious allegations were made in the leaked report about the potential misuse of funds during the 2017 general election. The party’s governance and legal unit investigates breaches of membership rules by individuals, and the report did not make allegations about which individuals were responsible for this, which means the party will not yet have brought disciplinary action against those involved. This is one of the most damning revelations in the leaked report. Your inquiry has a clear duty to investigate this allegation, investigate how much of the party’s funds were channelled into this secret ‘key seats’/‘Ergon House’ project, who signed this off, and whether or not full information on spending was provided to the Electoral Commission in 2017. Given that this would have involved potential serious misconduct by former senior staff and that this information was, according to the report, deliberately hidden from the leaders’ office at the time, this clearly falls within point one in the terms of reference, which the NEC has specifically mandated your inquiry to investigate.
Secondly, the report includes further allegations of sabotage, undermining the elected leadership of the party, and about staff working against Labour election victories. These are again extremely serious allegations which are not being investigated by the Labour Party and must be investigated by you and the inquiry panel, as stipulated in point 1 in the terms of reference. As far as we are aware, the investigations undertaken by the party only relate to breaches of membership rules, not potential breaches of employment contracts. The report alleges that some staff worked against the party’s core organisational objective – to win elections. Again this is content within the report that must be investigated by you and the panel.
Thirdly, the report makes very concerning allegations about serious failures under Iain McNicol’s administration to deal with complaints of antisemitism and Islamophobia, alleging that hundreds of complaints were simply ignored, and the report argues that factionalism played a significant role in these failures. The report also alleges factional abuse of the disciplinary process, most notably during the 2016 leadership election, which undermined members’ faith in the party’s disciplinary processes. The allegations made in the leaked report relate to issues that have been aired widely in the public domain, including in a Panorama programme last year, and it is vital that the accuracy of the claims made in the leaked report be investigated. These central allegations made in the leaked report are not being investigated by the party, or the EHRC, and must be investigated by you and your panel, in line with point one in the terms of reference.
NEC members have discussed this matter with members of Angela Rayner’s office, who confirmed that the disciplinary processes relating to a handful of individuals named in the leaked report do not preclude your inquiry investigating the contents of the report, and that they were not aware that your inquiry was considering not investigating the contents of the leaked report. We have copied Angela Rayner into this letter.
We have also copied in Keir Starmer and we note that he has given assurances to black members and voters who are distressed about the racism exposed in the leaked report, that the contents of the report are being fully investigated by this inquiry. This means fully investigating all allegations in the leaked report concerning racism, Islamophobia and antisemitism, in addition to cultural and institutional problems within Labour Party workplaces which have fostered or tolerated racism.
Indeed, although we do not know which individuals who were named in the leaked report are currently being subject to disciplinary action, based on the information we have received, we believe that these cases relate to racist, sexist or abusive language exposed in the leaked report. Therefore, the current investigations into these individuals being conducted by the Labour Party overlap far more with point three in the terms of reference on culture (which is the part of the terms of reference your call for evidence says your inquiry will focus on), than they do with point one.
We are extremely concerned that the panel may have been misled or that there may have been a misunderstanding about what the Labour Party is investigating. We, on behalf of the wider membership, are deeply concerned that these central allegations must be investigated by the inquiry panel, as set out in the terms of reference agreed by the NEC when we commissioned this inquiry.
Could you please confirm that your inquiry will be investigating the contents of the leaked report, including the main allegations made in the report, including the extent of racist, sexist and other discriminatory culture within Labour Party workplaces, the attitudes and conduct of the senior staff of the Labour Party, and their relationships with the elected leadership of the Labour Party? We also ask that you please confirm that these main allegations include the three areas we have set out in this letter.
Given the public interest in this matter and the deep concerns among thousands of Labour members that the shocking contents of the leaked report will not be fully and thoroughly investigated, we will be making this letter public for transparency.
Yours sincerely,
Huda Elmi
Jon Lansman
Yasmine Dar
Rachel Garnham
Darren Williams
Ann Henderson


labourlist--2020-07-22--Chancellor must “come clean” on plans for spending review, says Labour

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to publish instructions issued to departments by the Chancellor in preparation for the 2020 comprehensive spending review , calling on the government to “ come clean ” on its plans .
In a letter sent to Rishi Sunak today , the Shadow Chancellor raised concerns that the government is preparing departments for further cuts – despite Boris Johnson ’ s claim that “ we are absolutely not going back to the austerity of ten years ago ” .
Dodds urged the Chancellor to “ learn the lessons ” of the 2008 financial crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ ideological approach to spending that resulted in the slowest economic recovery in eight generations ” .
She said : “ This has been the toughest of times for Britain ’ s workers , wherever they work .
Even before Covid-19 hit , real terms wages were flatlining for many and even falling for others compared with a decade ago .
“ Yesterday , there seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel for some frontline workers .
But the language in the Chancellor ’ s announcement on the comprehensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with one hand only to take away with the other .
“ This is not the time to fall back on policies that delivered the slowest economic recovery in eight generations .
And it ’ s not the time for the government to keep the public in the dark about its fiscal plans .
“ It ’ s time for the Chancellor to come clean and explain how he plans to delivers growth across the country and rebuild the vital public services we all rely on.
” Following an announcement this week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurses or care staff , would see a pay rise the Treasury launched its review and said : “ We must exercise restraint in future public sector pay awards.
” The government indicated on Tuesday that public sector employees could expect a squeeze on their pay levels in its bid to restore the public finances after the coronavirus pandemic .
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Dodds this morning .
The comprehensive spending review ( CSR ) that you announced today takes place in extraordinary circumstances .
The outlook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finances , looks completely different today to how it looked even six months ago .
The CSR needs to reflect that .
This is a moment to think boldly and strategically about the kind of country we want to be , and the public services we need , as we emerge from this crisis and prepare ourselves for the future .
In particular , we need to ensure that a health emergency which has done so much to restrict economic activity is not compounded by political choices around public spending that weaken demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the last crisis .
As things stand , however , it is not clear whether the instructions you have given to departments are more in line with the Prime Minister ’ s promise that “ we are absolutely not going back to the austerity of ten years ago ” or the intimations in your statement today that further – and potentially significant – cuts are on the way .
The messages are similarly mixed when it comes to paying the public workers who have done so much for us all throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some would be receiving a pay rise and yet this morning you spoke of “ restraint ” and the prospect of cuts to come .
That is not the right way to treat those who have contributed so significantly to tackling the coronavirus , often at great personal risk .
The CSR – and the context in which it is taking place – raises big public policy questions .
They deserve to be discussed openly and publicly so that voters know whether this is genuinely an exercise in designing public services fit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presages a return to an ideological approach to spending that gave us the slowest economic recovery in eight generations .
As such , I am calling on you today to publish the directions you have given to government departments so that everyone can see the context in which those departments will begin making critical choices about their spending plans and operations .
I look forward to hearing from you and engaging with this process , which comes at such a critical time for our country .

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to publish instructions issued to departments by the Chancellor in preparation for the 2020 comprehensive spending review, calling on the government to “come clean” on its plans.
In a letter sent to Rishi Sunak today, the Shadow Chancellor raised concerns that the government is preparing departments for further cuts – despite Boris Johnson’s claim that “we are absolutely not going back to the austerity of ten years ago”.
Dodds urged the Chancellor to “learn the lessons” of the 2008 financial crisis, and warned against a return to an “ideological approach to spending that resulted in the slowest economic recovery in eight generations”.
She said: “This has been the toughest of times for Britain’s workers, wherever they work. Even before Covid-19 hit, real terms wages were flatlining for many and even falling for others compared with a decade ago.
“Yesterday, there seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel for some frontline workers. But the language in the Chancellor’s announcement on the comprehensive spending review suggests he might be giving with one hand only to take away with the other.
“This is not the time to fall back on policies that delivered the slowest economic recovery in eight generations. And it’s not the time for the government to keep the public in the dark about its fiscal plans.
“It’s time for the Chancellor to come clean and explain how he plans to delivers growth across the country and rebuild the vital public services we all rely on.”
Following an announcement this week that some public sector workers, not including nurses or care staff, would see a pay rise the Treasury launched its review and said: “We must exercise restraint in future public sector pay awards.”
The government indicated on Tuesday that public sector employees could expect a squeeze on their pay levels in its bid to restore the public finances after the coronavirus pandemic.
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Dodds this morning.
Dear Chancellor,
The comprehensive spending review (CSR) that you announced today takes place in extraordinary circumstances. The outlook for our economy, and our public finances, looks completely different today to how it looked even six months ago.
The CSR needs to reflect that. This is a moment to think boldly and strategically about the kind of country we want to be, and the public services we need, as we emerge from this crisis and prepare ourselves for the future. In particular, we need to ensure that a health emergency which has done so much to restrict economic activity is not compounded by political choices around public spending that weaken demand further. We must learn the lessons of the last crisis.
As things stand, however, it is not clear whether the instructions you have given to departments are more in line with the Prime Minister’s promise that “we are absolutely not going back to the austerity of ten years ago” or the intimations in your statement today that further – and potentially significant – cuts are on the way.
The messages are similarly mixed when it comes to paying the public workers who have done so much for us all throughout the crisis. Last night you announced that some would be receiving a pay rise and yet this morning you spoke of “restraint” and the prospect of cuts to come. That is not the right way to treat those who have contributed so significantly to tackling the coronavirus, often at great personal risk.
The CSR – and the context in which it is taking place – raises big public policy questions. They deserve to be discussed openly and publicly so that voters know whether this is genuinely an exercise in designing public services fit for the 21st century or if it just presages a return to an ideological approach to spending that gave us the slowest economic recovery in eight generations.
As such, I am calling on you today to publish the directions you have given to government departments so that everyone can see the context in which those departments will begin making critical choices about their spending plans and operations.
I look forward to hearing from you and engaging with this process, which comes at such a critical time for our country.
Yours sincerely,
Anneliese Dodds


labourlist--2020-07-22--Ask no questions, tell no lies – the government’s approach to Russian interference

The long-awaited report on Russian interference in the UK has been published , with some pretty extraordinary and damning findings .
It confirmed that Russia did try to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum , but that even after this the government only “ belatedly realised the level of threat ” posed .
On the 2016 Brexit vote , the document described how the committee had “ not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference ” , and its members accused the government of having “ actively avoided ” looking for evidence of meddling .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any problems with the Brexit referendum… But only because it didn ’ t look .
And while this might be the way I handle my own personal finances , it ’ s probably not the best way to approach national security .
The government has rejected the claim , along with any suggestion that the UK has been complacent in its approach to Russia .
It also rejected the report ’ s call for a new investigation into the referendum .
Reacting to the findings , Labour slammed the government for “ deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security .
Shadow Europe minister Catherine West has written for LabourList this morning on the need for the government to “ make amends for its weak handling of the Russian threat ” , and called for the introduction of legislation to “ clean up the murky dealings of business and politics ” .
The party has tabled an urgent parliamentary question for today .
Meanwhile , Labour ’ s lawyers read out an apology in court this morning and agreed to pay “ substantial damages ” in the libel case relating to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven of eight former Labour staffers who appeared on a programme last year about antisemitism within the party , as well as BBC journalist John Ware .
They had accused the party of attacking their reputations .
A Labour spokesperson at the time had described the whistleblowers as “ disaffected officials who have always opposed Corbyn ’ s leadership , worked to actively undermine it and have both personal and political axes to grind ” .
The party today said it “ unreservedly withdraws ” these allegations .
The Guardian has reported that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former director of comms Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology , and that “ senior figures are considering routes for a future challenge to the settlement ” .
Keir Starmer reportedly reminded national executive committee ( NEC ) members yesterday that all candidates in the leadership race earlier this year had pledged to settle the case – and told them it ’ s the right thing to do both morally and financially .
But the settlement remains controversial within Labour .
For some on the left , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of antisemitism complaints makes a real difference .
The dossier , which emerged after the leadership election , described a “ hyper-factional ” environment in the party and alleged that disciplinary cases were mishandled in order to undermine Corbyn ’ s leadership .
That internal document is of course subject to its own investigation .
A four-person panel , chaired by Martin Forde QC , was appointed to look into the allegations in the report , its commissioning and how it was put into the public domain , and the culture within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representatives yesterday wrote to Forde and the leadership requesting clarification in response to the panel ’ s call for evidence , in which it appeared to suggest that the inquiry “ intends to focus on paragraph three of the terms of reference ” – the bit about party culture .
The reps have called for the inquiry to also cover the contents of the report .
A Labour spokesperson told LabourList that “ an independent investigation into the circumstances , contents and release ” of the report is taking place .
Sign up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything Labour , every weekday morning .

The long-awaited report on Russian interference in the UK has been published, with some pretty extraordinary and damning findings. It confirmed that Russia did try to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, but that even after this the government only “belatedly realised the level of threat” posed. On the 2016 Brexit vote, the document described how the committee had “not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference”, and its members accused the government of having “actively avoided” looking for evidence of meddling. So, the government didn’t find any problems with the Brexit referendum… But only because it didn’t look. And while this might be the way I handle my own personal finances, it’s probably not the best way to approach national security.
The government has rejected the claim, along with any suggestion that the UK has been complacent in its approach to Russia. It also rejected the report’s call for a new investigation into the referendum. Reacting to the findings, Labour slammed the government for “deep systemic failings” in its approach to national security. Shadow Europe minister Catherine West has written for LabourList this morning on the need for the government to “make amends for its weak handling of the Russian threat”, and called for the introduction of legislation to “clean up the murky dealings of business and politics”. The party has tabled an urgent parliamentary question for today.
Meanwhile, Labour’s lawyers read out an apology in court this morning and agreed to pay “substantial damages” in the libel case relating to a Panorama documentary. The case involves seven of eight former Labour staffers who appeared on a programme last year about antisemitism within the party, as well as BBC journalist John Ware. They had accused the party of attacking their reputations. A Labour spokesperson at the time had described the whistleblowers as “disaffected officials who have always opposed Corbyn’s leadership, worked to actively undermine it and have both personal and political axes to grind”. The party today said it “unreservedly withdraws” these allegations.
The Guardian has reported that both the former Labour leader and the former director of comms Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology, and that “senior figures are considering routes for a future challenge to the settlement”. Keir Starmer reportedly reminded national executive committee (NEC) members yesterday that all candidates in the leadership race earlier this year had pledged to settle the case – and told them it’s the right thing to do both morally and financially. But the settlement remains controversial within Labour. For some on the left, the leaked report into the party’s handling of antisemitism complaints makes a real difference. The dossier, which emerged after the leadership election, described a “hyper-factional” environment in the party and alleged that disciplinary cases were mishandled in order to undermine Corbyn’s leadership.
That internal document is of course subject to its own investigation. A four-person panel, chaired by Martin Forde QC, was appointed to look into the allegations in the report, its commissioning and how it was put into the public domain, and the culture within the party. But constituency party NEC representatives yesterday wrote to Forde and the leadership requesting clarification in response to the panel’s call for evidence, in which it appeared to suggest that the inquiry “intends to focus on paragraph three of the terms of reference” – the bit about party culture. The reps have called for the inquiry to also cover the contents of the report. A Labour spokesperson told LabourList that “an independent investigation into the circumstances, contents and release” of the report is taking place. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-22--Labour apologises and pays “substantial damages” in Panorama libel case

Labour has issued a statement in court , in which it “ apologises unreservedly ” to former Labour staffers and journalist John Ware in the Panorama libel case and agrees to pay “ substantial damages ” .
William Bennet QC read out an agreed statement to the High Court this morning , saying that the “ Labour Party is here today to publicly set the record straight and to apologise ” .
The case involves seven former Labour staffers who appeared in the programme and BBC journalist John Ware .
The staffers claimed senior figures had attacked their reputations and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party .
The party said today that it had “ issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations against the whistleblowers ” in the documentary – and that it “ unreservedly withdraws these allegations ” .
A party spokesperson at the time had described the staffers as “ disaffected officials who have always opposed Corbyn ’ s leadership , worked to actively undermine it and have both personal and political axes to grind ” .
Labour said that Ware had made “ deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that its statements had included “ invented quotes ” , “ flouted journalistic ethics ” and were “ defamatory ” .
In its statement this morning , Labour said that it was “ profoundly sorry for the distress ” caused by the “ publication and republication ” of the allegations .
The apology and settlement today follows reports that an agreement had been reached last week .
New Labour leader Keir Starmer had been clear about his intention to settle the case .
When the documentary was aired last year , a party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ malicious , selective briefing from disaffected , politically hostile former employees ” and complained to Ofcom .
Its complaints were rejected .
During the leadership contest , all four of the candidates running at the time disavowed Labour ’ s response to the Panorama programme and committed to settling the case at a Jewish Labour Movement hustings .
The Guardian reports that the settlement is believed to have cost the party between £600,000 and £750,000 – with about £200,000 in damages agreed for the eight individuals .
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court ” .
He added that the leaked antisemitism report “ tells a very different story about what happened ” .
Other labour movement figures welcomed the development today .
Chris Elmore MP said he was “ pleased that the party has taken this decision ” and concluded that it was “ absolutely the right thing to do ” .
The Jewish Labour Movement welcomed the move by Labour , issuing a statement in which it said : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that the party will continue to demonstrate this willingness to change and act decisively against antisemitism.
” Below is the full text of the apology issued to John Ware today .
The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to John Ware , who investigated and presented the July 2019 BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party .
Before the broadcast of the programme the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about John Ware .
We would like to take this opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apologise unreservedly for the distress , embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication .
As we acknowledge in the Statement in Open Court , John Ware is a very experienced broadcast and print journalist , producer and author , and we have agreed to pay damages to him .
Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner , we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party .
Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years .
It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community , as well as members of staff .
If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community , we must demonstrate a change of leadership .
That means being open , transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers and the free press and freedom of expression which includes the right to object to things written or published .
We are determined to deliver that change .
Below is the full text of the apology issued to the former Labour staffers today .
The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who contributed to a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party in July 2019 .
Before the broadcast of the programme , the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these Whistleblowers .
We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff .
We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the party .
We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith , malice and lying .
We would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication .
We have agreed to pay them damages .
Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner , we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party .
Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years .
It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief and distress for many in the Jewish community , as well as members of staff .
If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community , we must demonstrate a change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers .
We are determined to deliver that change .

Labour has issued a statement in court, in which it “apologises unreservedly” to former Labour staffers and journalist John Ware in the Panorama libel case and agrees to pay “substantial damages”.
William Bennet QC read out an agreed statement to the High Court this morning, saying that the “Labour Party is here today to publicly set the record straight and to apologise”.
The case involves seven former Labour staffers who appeared in the programme and BBC journalist John Ware. The staffers claimed senior figures had attacked their reputations and suggested they had personal motives to undermine the party.
The party said today that it had “issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations against the whistleblowers” in the documentary – and that it “unreservedly withdraws these allegations”.
A party spokesperson at the time had described the staffers as “disaffected officials who have always opposed Corbyn’s leadership, worked to actively undermine it and have both personal and political axes to grind”.
Labour said that Ware had made “deliberate and malicious misrepresentations designed to mislead the public”. But it said today that its statements had included “invented quotes”, “flouted journalistic ethics” and were “defamatory”.
In its statement this morning, Labour said that it was “profoundly sorry for the distress” caused by the “publication and republication” of the allegations.
The apology and settlement today follows reports that an agreement had been reached last week. New Labour leader Keir Starmer had been clear about his intention to settle the case.
When the documentary was aired last year, a party spokesperson stated that the programme was a “malicious, selective briefing from disaffected, politically hostile former employees” and complained to Ofcom. Its complaints were rejected.
During the leadership contest, all four of the candidates running at the time disavowed Labour’s response to the Panorama programme and committed to settling the case at a Jewish Labour Movement hustings.
The Guardian reports that the settlement is believed to have cost the party between £600,000 and £750,000 – with around £200,000 in damages agreed for the eight individuals.
Corbyn responded this afternoon, saying that the “decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last year’s Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one”.
“Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence, and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an national executive committee inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme.”
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey tweeted that this is a “misuse of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court”. He added that the leaked antisemitism report “tells a very different story about what happened”.
Other labour movement figures welcomed the development today. Chris Elmore MP said he was “pleased that the party has taken this decision” and concluded that it was “absolutely the right thing to do”.
The Jewish Labour Movement welcomed the move by Labour, issuing a statement in which it said: “Under new leadership, our hope is that the party will continue to demonstrate this willingness to change and act decisively against antisemitism.”
Wes Streeting tweeted that “the courage of the whistleblowers is extraordinary” and that his “admiration for them is matched in equal measure with contempt for those who sought to silence and smear them”.
Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy told BBC News this afternoon that she “really welcomes” the outcome at the High Court, adding that the party is “taking steps today to get it right” on antisemitism.
Asked whether Corbyn should challenge the ruling, she said: “No I don’t think we should be challenging this. I think we need to draw a line under what has been a very sorry episode in relation to the way that Labour has dealt with antisemitism.”
Below is the full text of the apology issued to John Ware today.
The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to John Ware, who investigated and presented the July 2019 BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party.
Before the broadcast of the programme the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about John Ware. We would like to take this opportunity to withdraw these allegations. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication.
As we acknowledge in the Statement in Open Court, John Ware is a very experienced broadcast and print journalist, producer and author, and we have agreed to pay damages to him.
Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party. Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years. It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief and distress for many in the Jewish community, as well as members of staff.
If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community, we must demonstrate a change of leadership. That means being open, transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers and the free press and freedom of expression which includes the right to object to things written or published. We are determined to deliver that change.
Below is the full text of the apology issued to the former Labour staffers today.
The Labour Party has today issued an unreserved apology to the former members of staff who contributed to a BBC Panorama programme about antisemitism within the Labour Party in July 2019.
Before the broadcast of the programme, the Labour Party issued a press release that contained defamatory and false allegations about these Whistleblowers.
We acknowledge the many years of dedicated and committed service that the Whistleblowers have given to the Labour Party as members and as staff. We appreciate their valuable contribution at all levels of the party.
We unreservedly withdraw all allegations of bad faith, malice and lying. We would like to apologise unreservedly for the distress, embarrassment and hurt caused by their publication. We have agreed to pay them damages.
Under the leadership of Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, we are committed to tackling antisemitism within the Labour Party. Antisemitism has been a stain on the Labour Party in recent years. It has caused unacceptable and unimaginable levels of grief and distress for many in the Jewish community, as well as members of staff.
If we are to restore the trust of the Jewish community, we must demonstrate a change of leadership. That means being open, transparent and respecting the right of whistleblowers. We are determined to deliver that change.


labourlist--2020-07-22--The government must not miss this opportunity to keep our democracy safe

Yesterday , the long-awaited report into Russian interference in our democracy was finally released , after the decision by Boris Johnson and his government to delay its publication for a whole nine months .
The findings of the report are damning and extraordinary , and clearly show the lax approach of this government when handling national security and the systemic failure to equip our security services for the challenges they face .
For a decade , they have simply failed to take the threat of Russia seriously , and they have left a gaping hole in our defences – right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be alive to the threat to our democracy , our civil society , and our way of life .
No wonder the Prime Minister was so eager to delay the report and see one of his allies elected chair of the intelligence and security committee .
The report is clear that the Russian government sees the UK as one of its top targets for espionage , and lays out a litany of hostile activities – from cyber warfare and interfering in democratic processes , to acts of violence on UK soil and illicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to instruct the intelligence services to conduct an investigation into potential interference in key national elections , failed to give them the tools that they need to investigate hostile activity , and failed to give them the political leadership needed to protect the UK .
This is unforgivable , and is in stark contrast to the US and their proactive approach to rooting out the threat to their presidential elections .
One of the key issues identified by the report has been the use of London as a major centre for housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undoubtedly sourced through illicit means .
The government ’ s recent Magnitsky regulations fail to follow the bold lead of our allies in Canada and the US by including corruption , along with human rights violations , as crimes that will lead to targeted sanctions on individuals and organisations .
The report shows that this omission is unsustainable and needs to be revisited to clean up London ’ s reputation .
One of the promising parts of the report demonstrated the breadth of international solidarity the UK received following the heinous use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with countless countries expelling Russian officials and working with the UK to hold Russia to account .
It is vital that this international solidarity is maintained and redoubled to tackle hostile actions against the UK and our allies .
The government now has the opportunity to make amends for its weak handling of the Russian threat .
Legislation can be introduced that will clean up the murky dealings of business and politics .
The government can allow our world-class security services to do their job by developing a strategic approach to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can work with our international allies to tackle our shared threats .
Labour will work with them to keep our democracy safe .
But we will not allow them to waste this opportunity .

Yesterday, the long-awaited report into Russian interference in our democracy was finally released, after the decision by Boris Johnson and his government to delay its publication for a whole nine months. The findings of the report are damning and extraordinary, and clearly show the lax approach of this government when handling national security and the systemic failure to equip our security services for the challenges they face.
For a decade, they have simply failed to take the threat of Russia seriously, and they have left a gaping hole in our defences – right at the time when we need to be alive to the threat to our democracy, our civil society, and our way of life. No wonder the Prime Minister was so eager to delay the report and see one of his allies elected chair of the intelligence and security committee.
The report is clear that the Russian government sees the UK as one of its top targets for espionage, and lays out a litany of hostile activities – from cyber warfare and interfering in democratic processes, to acts of violence on UK soil and illicit finance.
Despite this, the government failed to instruct the intelligence services to conduct an investigation into potential interference in key national elections, failed to give them the tools that they need to investigate hostile activity, and failed to give them the political leadership needed to protect the UK. This is unforgivable, and is in stark contrast to the US and their proactive approach to rooting out the threat to their presidential elections.
One of the key issues identified by the report has been the use of London as a major centre for housing Russian wealth, some of which is undoubtedly sourced through illicit means. The government’s recent Magnitsky regulations fail to follow the bold lead of our allies in Canada and the US by including corruption, along with human rights violations, as crimes that will lead to targeted sanctions on individuals and organisations. The report shows that this omission is unsustainable and needs to be revisited to clean up London’s reputation.
One of the promising parts of the report demonstrated the breadth of international solidarity the UK received following the heinous use of chemical weapons on UK soil in Salisbury, with countless countries expelling Russian officials and working with the UK to hold Russia to account. It is vital that this international solidarity is maintained and redoubled to tackle hostile actions against the UK and our allies.
The government now has the opportunity to make amends for its weak handling of the Russian threat. Legislation can be introduced that will clean up the murky dealings of business and politics. The government can allow our world-class security services to do their job by developing a strategic approach to our national security. Crucially, the government can work with our international allies to tackle our shared threats. Labour will work with them to keep our democracy safe. But we will not allow them to waste this opportunity.


labourlist--2020-07-22--Labour councils are on the Covid frontline. We need funding and powers

Coronavirus has had a devastating impact in every part of our country , but in the face of this unimaginably difficult time it ’ s so inspiring to see the way communities have come together to support each other .
In my own borough of Waltham Forest we are incredibly proud of the work done by key workers – from health and social care staff to refuse workers and council officers , working round the clock to keep us safe and the lights on .
Local government is at the frontline of fighting this pandemic .
While we rightly recognise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , large parts of the healthcare system – including most of the social care sector – are under the responsibility of local councils .
And our incredible social care staff have faced impossible challenges working under Covid-19 .
In Waltham Forest we set up our community help network to deliver food and medicine parcels , and make support calls for thousands of vulnerable residents .
We were quickly flooded with offers of support from the community , with over 4,000 volunteers putting themselves forward to help .
It ’ s just one example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have worked with our communities to step up during this crisis .
We ensured that all the borough ’ s rough sleepers were sheltered in temporary hotel accommodation at the start of the pandemic to protect them from the virus , and we are proud that all of them in Waltham Forest have been successfully moved into secure , long-term accommodation .
Even despite the impact of Covid-19 , we have been able to use these terrible circumstances as a unique opportunity to help rough sleepers achieve real , meaningful life changes – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services and addiction support for those who need it .
Other support services have also seen a huge increase in pressure and demand , sadly including services such as those tackling domestic violence .
Councils have had to reinvent the way we do things overnight : in Waltham Forest the youth offending service team shifted to making home visits , conducting over 1,000 in-person visits to the homes of at-risk and vulnerable young people .
But we know that delivering all this extra help and support isn ’ t free , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses of income caused by coronavirus – including from closed leisure facilities , decreases in tourism revenue , and a significant fall in the council tax base as more and more residents require financial support .
And of course this follows a decade of Tory austerity , which has already cut to the bone .
Waltham Forest has lost half of our central government funding since 2010 , and councils like Northamptonshire teetered on the brink of bankruptcy even before coronavirus .
At the start of the crisis , the now infamous Robert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything they need , and encouraged councils to spend accordingly – only to try to renege on their word .
After intensive lobbying from groups like Local Government Association Labour group , London Councils and local councils across the country , the government finally committed to extra funding .
Yet in Waltham Forest this barely covers half the funding gap caused by the virus .
Local government now faces a £6bn funding gap during the most serious crisis we have faced for generations .
But the government in Westminster is expecting councils to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boris Johnson now clearly unwilling to implement a national lockdown and likening it to the ‘ nuclear ’ option , it ’ s increasingly clear the responsibility of preventing a second wave will be through local lockdowns borne by local government .
With these huge extra responsibilities , the government needs to do more than fund councils – it needs to be willing to respect and trust them too , and give us the powers we need to support our communities .
Councils need powers of general competence , and we need more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by bodies such as job centres and health partners to be transferred to councils – guided by the people in local government who have experience of , and are dedicated to , delivering services for the people who need them most .
The new Labour frontbench has made a strong start in prioritising the work of local government , with Keir Starmer regularly in touch with Labour council leaders and Steve Reed holding the government ’ s feet to the fire on council funding .
Labour is in power across the country – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regions but in local authorities up and down the UK – and we need the whole labour movement to make the argument for local government .
An effective response to the most urgent public health crisis of our times can not be run on a shoestring or out of an office in Whitehall .
Councils are proud to play a leading role but we urgently need the funding and resources to do so .
As a great man and former mayor of Stepney once said : “ We have a great opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
”

Coronavirus has had a devastating impact in every part of our country, but in the face of this unimaginably difficult time it’s so inspiring to see the way communities have come together to support each other. In my own borough of Waltham Forest we are incredibly proud of the work done by key workers – from health and social care staff to refuse workers and council officers, working round the clock to keep us safe and the lights on.
Local government is at the frontline of fighting this pandemic. While we rightly recognise the dedication and sacrifice of NHS staff, large parts of the healthcare system – including most of the social care sector – are under the responsibility of local councils. And our incredible social care staff have faced impossible challenges working under Covid-19.
In Waltham Forest we set up our community help network to deliver food and medicine parcels, and make support calls for thousands of vulnerable residents. We were quickly flooded with offers of support from the community, with over 4,000 volunteers putting themselves forward to help. It’s just one example of how local councils across the country have worked with our communities to step up during this crisis.
We ensured that all the borough’s rough sleepers were sheltered in temporary hotel accommodation at the start of the pandemic to protect them from the virus, and we are proud that all of them in Waltham Forest have been successfully moved into secure, long-term accommodation. Even despite the impact of Covid-19, we have been able to use these terrible circumstances as a unique opportunity to help rough sleepers achieve real, meaningful life changes – including getting access to health and GP services and addiction support for those who need it.
Other support services have also seen a huge increase in pressure and demand, sadly including services such as those tackling domestic violence. Councils have had to reinvent the way we do things overnight: in Waltham Forest the youth offending service team shifted to making home visits, conducting over 1,000 in-person visits to the homes of at-risk and vulnerable young people.
But we know that delivering all this extra help and support isn’t free, and it comes at the same time as major losses of income caused by coronavirus – including from closed leisure facilities, decreases in tourism revenue, and a significant fall in the council tax base as more and more residents require financial support. And of course this follows a decade of Tory austerity, which has already cut to the bone. Waltham Forest has lost half of our central government funding since 2010, and councils like Northamptonshire teetered on the brink of bankruptcy even before coronavirus.
At the start of the crisis, the now infamous Robert Jenrick promised that local government would have everything they need, and encouraged councils to spend accordingly – only to try to renege on their word. After intensive lobbying from groups like Local Government Association Labour group, London Councils and local councils across the country, the government finally committed to extra funding. Yet in Waltham Forest this barely covers half the funding gap caused by the virus. Local government now faces a £6bn funding gap during the most serious crisis we have faced for generations.
But the government in Westminster is expecting councils to do more, not less. With Boris Johnson now clearly unwilling to implement a national lockdown and likening it to the ‘nuclear’ option, it’s increasingly clear the responsibility of preventing a second wave will be through local lockdowns borne by local government. With these huge extra responsibilities, the government needs to do more than fund councils – it needs to be willing to respect and trust them too, and give us the powers we need to support our communities.
Councils need powers of general competence, and we need more of the resources held nationally and delivered by bodies such as job centres and health partners to be transferred to councils – guided by the people in local government who have experience of, and are dedicated to, delivering services for the people who need them most.
The new Labour frontbench has made a strong start in prioritising the work of local government, with Keir Starmer regularly in touch with Labour council leaders and Steve Reed holding the government’s feet to the fire on council funding. Labour is in power across the country – not only in Wales and devolved city regions but in local authorities up and down the UK – and we need the whole labour movement to make the argument for local government.
An effective response to the most urgent public health crisis of our times cannot be run on a shoestring or out of an office in Whitehall. Councils are proud to play a leading role but we urgently need the funding and resources to do so. As a great man and former mayor of Stepney once said: “We have a great opportunity to set things right. Let us seize it.”


labourlist--2020-07-22--For my people – a lifetime of struggle

For my people – a lifetime of struggle

The events of the past year have put Black people in the UK under unbelievable emotional and physical pressure .
It has asked us urgent questions about the world we are creating for our young ones and brought back painful memories of the sacrifice of our parents .
Whether it is the fresh injuries of the Windrush scandal , where we saw our elders rewarded after a lifetime of struggle by losing their homes , health , livelihood and country ; the tragic toll the coronavirus is having on Black and Asian workers and their families ; or the murders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahmaud Arbery – it feels as if a renewed and unquenchable call demanding justice has been heard around the world .
I hear from young people , like my daughter and my nieces , how hungry they are for justice and for real change .
They don ’ t want to be told to be patient and to wait .
Black Lives Matter , right now .
My earliest memories of the pain of racism are not about me .
They ’ re about my little brother , towards whom I was fiercely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from constant physical and verbal attacks .
One snowy day , I remember how some other boys stole my brother ’ s boots , leaving him nothing to walk home in but plimsolls .
The teachers did not believe him .
We had to tell our father who went marching back with us to make sure we got the boots back .
Today I am just as protective and just as proud of my brother and what he has achieved – but I also know how racist violence still threatens his life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life and career .
It is watching the racism suffered by others that affects me most deeply .
It is the example of my parents that has taught me to how to respond .
I saw the patient courage of my parents who never allowed racism to stand .
They stood up for us each and every time – challenged it every time .
In those days it was even more difficult than it is now , when racist street violence was so normal that my father would never walk around on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great dignity and politeness , but they did it without compromise .
And as lifelong Labour voters and trade unionists , they did not see it as an individual act , but one which stood up for all people experiencing racism .
It is these values I took into the workplace .
I became a trade unionist at the age of 17 when I started work for Birmingham City Council and started my life ’ s work : fighting for justice for all and challenging racism and discrimination wherever I found it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ constructively as possible , but I never compromise on justice .
To see injustice happen in front of me takes me back to my childhood , defending my little brother from the cruelties of a racist world we could barely understand .
It is these values I take into the Labour Party and on to the national executive committee .
It is an honour and a responsibility to represent Labour ’ s BAME members .
It is one I intend to use to create real change for Black , Asian and ethnic minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle are written , the role of Black women activists is too frequently left out .
But if you look closely at our history , you will see dedicated work and struggle that keeps communities going and sustains the long campaigns for justice .
Our experience and our knowledge should not be underestimated or dismissed .
We have lived the struggle that others write about .
We understand exactly how the systemic racism in our economy , our politics and our society affect people ’ s day to day lives .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April , I ’ ve been focussed on developing genuinely representative BAME structures that allow for real and meaningful self organisation .
The structures that we ’ re building will be guided by the best principles of our labour movement , and driven by the self organisation I have been involved with through a lifetime of trade unionism .
There will be a strong national committee , empowered to work with the party in the fight to eliminate all forms of racism , harassment , prejudice and unfair discrimination .
And that fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the party – not just through structures , campaigning and activism , but also by making sure our party reflects our membership and the communities we seek to serve .
For me , the fight against racism means giving visibility and space to those affected by it .
It means allowing more voices to speak .
It has to be about creating real change in our party , our workplaces and our society .
We must act to make sure entire communities of Black , Asian and ethnic minority people are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a society that rests on their labour .
I was elected on a pledge to fight for all-BAME shortlists , and I will continue to make the case for the party to increase Black , Asian and ethnic minority representation at every level .
I take my inspiration for the title of this article from the wonderful poem – For my people – by the African-American poet Margaret Walker .
But I end it by echoing another poem by my beloved Maya Angelou : “ Still we rise .
”

The events of the past year have put Black people in the UK under unbelievable emotional and physical pressure. It has asked us urgent questions about the world we are creating for our young ones and brought back painful memories of the sacrifice of our parents. Whether it is the fresh injuries of the Windrush scandal, where we saw our elders rewarded after a lifetime of struggle by losing their homes, health, livelihood and country; the tragic toll the coronavirus is having on Black and Asian workers and their families; or the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery – it feels as if a renewed and unquenchable call demanding justice has been heard around the world. I hear from young people, like my daughter and my nieces, how hungry they are for justice and for real change. They don’t want to be told to be patient and to wait. Black Lives Matter, right now.
My earliest memories of the pain of racism are not about me. They’re about my little brother, towards whom I was fiercely protective. I grew up defending him from constant physical and verbal attacks. One snowy day, I remember how some other boys stole my brother’s boots, leaving him nothing to walk home in but plimsolls. The teachers did not believe him. We had to tell our father who went marching back with us to make sure we got the boots back. Today I am just as protective and just as proud of my brother and what he has achieved – but I also know how racist violence still threatens his life, and how covert racism has affected his life and career.
It is watching the racism suffered by others that affects me most deeply. It is the example of my parents that has taught me to how to respond. I saw the patient courage of my parents who never allowed racism to stand. They stood up for us each and every time – and challenged it every time. In those days, it was even more difficult than it is now, when racist street violence was so normal that my father would never walk around on his own. They always did it with great dignity and politeness, but they did it without compromise. And as lifelong Labour voters and trade unionists, they did not see it as an individual act, but one which stood up for all people experiencing racism.
It is these values that I took into the workplace. I became a trade unionist at the age of 17 when I started work for Birmingham City Council and started my life’s work: fighting for justice for all and challenging racism and discrimination wherever I found it. I always try to solve problems as constructively as possible, but I never compromise on justice. To see injustice happen in front of me takes me back to my childhood, defending my little brother from the cruelties of a racist world we could barely understand. It is these values I take into the Labour Party and on to the national executive committee. It is an honour and a responsibility to represent Labour’s BAME members. It is one I intend to use to create real change for Black, Asian and ethnic minority members.
When the histories of antiracist struggle are written, the role of Black women activists is too frequently left out. But if you look closely at our history, you will see dedicated work and struggle that keeps communities going and sustains the long campaigns for justice. Our experience and our knowledge should not be underestimated or dismissed. We have lived the struggle that others write about. We understand exactly how the systemic racism in our economy, our politics and our society affect people’s day to day lives.
That’s why, since being elected in April, I’ve been focussed on developing genuinely representative BAME structures that allow for real and meaningful self organisation. The structures that we’re building will be guided by the best principles of our labour movement, and driven by the self-organisation I have been involved with through a lifetime of trade unionism. There will be a strong national committee, empowered to work with the party in the fight to eliminate all forms of racism, harassment, prejudice and unfair discrimination. And that fight will take place both inside and outside of the party – not just through structures, campaigning and activism, but also by making sure our party reflects our membership and the communities we seek to serve.
For me, the fight against racism means giving visibility and space to those affected by it. It means allowing more voices to speak. It should be about creating real change in our party, our workplaces and our society. We must act to make sure entire communities of Black, Asian and ethnic minority people are not forced to live as second-class citizens in a society that rests on their labour. I was elected on a pledge to fight for all-BAME shortlists, and I will continue to make the case for the party to increase Black, Asian and ethnic minority representation at every level. I take my inspiration for the title of this article from the wonderful poem – For my people – by the African-American poet Margaret Walker. But I end it by echoing another poem by my beloved Maya Angelou: “Still we rise.”


labourlist--2020-07-22--Libel case apology and settlement were a “political decision”, says Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has criticised the Labour Party ’ s decision to apologise and settle its libel case with former Labour staffers and a journalist , calling it a “ political decision , not a legal one ” .
Responding to a statement made by Labour ’ s lawyers in court today , the former leader said that “ the decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing , and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations ” .
The Islington MP concluded that the report into the leaked report on the handling of antisemitism complaints “ must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report uncovered of racism , sexism , factionalism and obstruction ” .
Labour this morning apologised to seven former Labour staffers and BBC journalist John Ware – and agreed to pay “ substantial damages ” – for its response to a documentary last year in relation to antisemitism within the party .
When the documentary was aired last year , a party spokesperson stated that the programme was a “ malicious , selective briefing from disaffected , politically hostile former employees ” and complained to Ofcom .
Its complaints were rejected .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ contained defamatory and false allegations against the whistleblowers ” in the documentary – and that it “ unreservedly withdraws these allegations ” .
The settlement is believed to have cost the party between £600,000 and £750,000 – with about £200,000 in damages agreed for the eight individuals .
Both the former Labour leader and the former director of comms Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology , and The Guardian reports that “ senior figures are considering routes for a future challenge to the settlement ” .
Unite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move by Labour is a “ misuse of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court ” .
He added that the leaked antisemitism report “ tells a very different story about what happened ” .
But Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy told the BBC that McCluskey is “ completely wrong ” in an interview this afternoon .
She said the party is “ taking steps today to get it right ” on antisemitism .
Asked whether Corbyn should challenge the ruling , she said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be challenging this .
I think we need to draw a line under what has been a very sorry episode in relation to the way that Labour has dealt with antisemitism.
” Below is the full text of the statement issued by Corbyn today .
Labour Party members have a right to accountability and transparency of decisions taken in their name , and an effective commitment from the party to combat antisemitism and racism in all their forms .
The party ’ s decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relation to last year ’ s Panorama programme is a political decision , not a legal one .
Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence , and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an national executive committee inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme .
The decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing , and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party in recent years .
To give our members the answers and justice they deserve , the inquiry led by Martin Forde must now fully address the evidence the internal report uncovered of racism , sexism , factionalism and obstruction of Labour ’ s 2017 general election campaign .

Jeremy Corbyn has criticised the Labour Party’s decision to apologise and settle its libel case with former Labour staffers and a journalist, calling it a “political decision, not a legal one”.
Responding to a statement made by Labour’s lawyers in court today, the former leader said that “the decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing, and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations”.
The Islington MP concluded that the investigation into the leaked report on the handling of antisemitism complaints “must now fully address the evidence the internal report uncovered of racism, sexism, factionalism and obstruction”.
Labour this morning apologised to seven former Labour staffers and BBC journalist John Ware – and agreed to pay “substantial damages” – for its response to a documentary last year in relation to antisemitism within the party.
When the documentary was aired last year, a party spokesperson stated that the programme was a “malicious, selective briefing from disaffected, politically hostile former employees” and complained to Ofcom. Its complaints were rejected.
The party said today that its comments had “contained defamatory and false allegations against the whistleblowers” in the documentary and that it “unreservedly withdraws these allegations”.
The settlement is believed to have cost the party between £600,000 and £750,000 – with around £200,000 in damages agreed for the eight individuals.
Both the former Labour leader and the former director of comms Seumas Milne have taken legal advice about the settlement and apology, and The Guardian reports that “senior figures are considering routes for a future challenge to the settlement”.
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey tweeted that the move by Labour is a “misuse of Labour Party funds to settle a case it was advised we would win in court”. He added that the leaked antisemitism report “tells a very different story about what happened”.
But Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy told the BBC that McCluskey is “completely wrong” in an interview this afternoon. She said the party is “taking steps today to get it right” on antisemitism.
Asked whether Corbyn should challenge the ruling, she said: “No, I don’t think we should be challenging this. I think we need to draw a line under what has been a very sorry episode in relation to the way that Labour has dealt with antisemitism.”
Below is the full text of the statement issued by Jeremy Corbyn today.
Labour Party members have a right to accountability and transparency of decisions taken in their name, and an effective commitment from the party to combat antisemitism and racism in all their forms.
The party’s decision to apologise today and make substantial payments to former staff who sued the party in relation to last year’s Panorama programme is a political decision, not a legal one.
Our legal advice was that the party had a strong defence, and the evidence in the leaked Labour report that is now the subject of an national executive committee inquiry led by Martin Forde QC strengthened concerns about the role played by some of those who took part in the programme.
The decision to settle these claims in this way is disappointing, and risks giving credibility to misleading and inaccurate allegations about action taken to tackle antisemitism in the Labour Party in recent years.
To give our members the answers and justice they deserve, the inquiry led by Martin Forde must now fully address the evidence the internal report uncovered of racism, sexism, factionalism and obstruction of Labour’s 2017 general election campaign.


labourlist--2020-07-22--PMQs: “The Labour Party is under new management,” Starmer tells MPs

Today ’ s Prime Minister ’ s Questions session was the first in a long time not dominated by Covid-19 .
Instead , the Russia report was on the agenda .
It was also one of the clearest and least bumbling performances from Johnson at the despatch box .
He clearly came prepared with his attack lines this afternoon – seeking to deflect scrutiny on the intelligence and security committee ’ s report by accusing the Labour leader of flip-flopping on his approach to Russia , and of trying to undermine the Brexit referendum with its findings .
Actual policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did mention his government ’ s proposed security laws , which Starmer said Labour is willing to support .
The Labour leader challenged the PM on why he sat on the Russia report for so long , saying that Johnson “ failed to plug a gap in our law on national security , for a year and a half ” .
The Tory leader made the ( baseless ) claim that there is “ no country in the Western world that is more vigilant ” than the UK in protecting against Russian interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the line he then repeated several times , both to the Labour leader and other MPs in the session : “ These criticisms are motivated by a desire to undermine the referendum on membership of the EU that took place in 2016 , the result of which he simply can not bring himself to accept.
” With cries of “ Islingtonian Remainers ” and the “ Remainer elite ” , it was like being transported to a pre-Covid world where we all talked about Brexit incessantly .
Johnson went on to accuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bournemouth beach ” .
He claimed twice that Starmer had “ sat on his hands ” under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn , “ while the Labour Party parroted the line of the Kremlin ” after the Salusbury attack .
Starmer quietly directed him to check the record – you can see the Labour leader condemning the incident in 2018 here .
And when Starmer suggested the government “ look again at the licensing for Russia Today to operate in the UK ” , Johnson challenged him for not calling out the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The PM summed up by saying : “ He flip-flops from day-to-day , Mr Speaker ” – to which Starmer quickly replied that “ this is the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ever published ” .
This line from Johnson , attacking Starmer for apparent U-turns on various issues , is something he ’ s been keen to try and push in recent weeks .
He tried it with the reopening of schools in the pandemic , for example , and will do so again .
The PM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to a “ constructive approach to opposition ” , so often mentioned in his first few weeks as leader .
Starmer has been increasingly vocal in criticising the government recently – on coronavirus , China and now Russia – and as he ramps up this criticism , we should expect to see more of the same tactic from Johnson .
And in terms of deflecting the debate away from serious scrutiny , the strategy worked today .
Starmer ’ s ‘ forensic ’ questioning didn ’ t seem to fluster the PM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his part , Starmer put clear water between himself and Corbyn in the national security-dominated exchange .
The Labour leader declared to the Commons : “ In case the PM hasn ’ t noticed – the Labour Party is under new management.
” He reminded MPs of his time as director of public prosecutions , saying that he spent five years “ working on live operations with the security and intelligence services ” .
He also highlighted his involvement in bringing proceedings against Russia on behalf of the family of Alexander Litvinenko , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top priority for Labour under his leadership .
The message was clear from the Labour leader this afternoon , he can be tough on national security .

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions session was the first in a long time not dominated by Covid-19. Instead, the Russia report was on the agenda. It was also one of the clearest and least bumbling performances from Boris Johnson at the despatch box. He came prepared with his attack lines this afternoon – seeking to deflect scrutiny on the intelligence and security committee’s report by accusing the Labour leader of flip-flopping on his approach to Russia, and of trying to undermine the Brexit referendum with its findings. Actual policy discussion was largely sidelined but the PM did mention his government’s proposed security laws, which Starmer said Labour is willing to support.
The Labour leader challenged the PM over why he sat on the Russia report for so long, saying that Johnson “failed to plug a gap in our law on national security for a year and a half”. The Tory leader made the (baseless) claim that there is “no country in the Western world that is more vigilant” than the UK in protecting against Russian interference. He moved on swiftly to the line he then repeated several times, both to the Labour leader and other MPs in the session: “These criticisms are motivated by a desire to undermine the referendum on membership of the EU that took place in 2016, the result of which he simply cannot bring himself to accept.” With cries of “Islingtonian Remainers” and the “Remainer elite”, it was like being transported to a pre-Covid world in which we all talked about Brexit incessantly.
Johnson then accused Starmer of having “more flip-flops than Bournemouth beach”. He claimed twice that Starmer had “sat on his hands” under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, “while the Labour Party parroted the line of the Kremlin” after the Salisbury attack. Starmer quietly directed him to check the record – you can see the Labour leader condemning the incident in 2018 here. And when Starmer suggested the government “look again at the licensing for Russia Today to operate in the UK”, Johnson challenged him for not calling out the former Labour leader for appearing on the programme. The PM summed up by saying: “He flip-flops from day-to-day, Mr Speaker” – to which Starmer quickly replied that “this is the former columnist who wrote two versions of every article ever published”.
This line from Johnson, attacking Starmer for apparent U-turns on various issues, is something he’s been keen to push in recent weeks. He tried it with the reopening of schools in the pandemic, for example, and will do so again. The PM is attempting to exploit Starmer’s commitment to a “constructive approach to opposition”, so often mentioned in his first few weeks as leader. Starmer has been increasingly vocal in criticising the government recently – on coronavirus, China and now Russia – and as he ramps up this criticism, we should expect to see more of the same tactic from Johnson. In terms of deflecting the debate away from serious scrutiny, the strategy worked today. Starmer’s ‘forensic’ questioning didn’t seem to fluster the PM as it has done before.
For his part, Starmer put clear water between himself and Corbyn in the national security-dominated exchange. The Labour leader declared to the Commons: “In case the PM hasn’t noticed, the Labour Party is under new management.” He reminded MPs of his time as director of public prosecutions, saying that he spent five years “working on live operations with the security and intelligence services”. He also highlighted his involvement in bringing proceedings against Russia on behalf of the family of Alexander Litvinenko, and said national security would be a top priority for Labour under his leadership. The message was clear from the Labour leader this afternoon: he can be tough on national security.