labourlist--2020-06-29--The pick of Kate Green and the first day in a new job for David Evans

Kate Green was swiftly appointed over the weekend to replace sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary .
It was thought that Keir Starmer would choose former teacher Emma Hardy , already in the education team , Lucy Powell who has held the brief before , or perhaps someone recognisably on the Labour left to factionally rebalance the top team and boost party unity after a rocky few days .
But instead he plumped for a Fabian member ( already a significant number of these on the frontbench ) and an MP who not only joined the mass resignation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s leadership campaign .
The displeasure of Corbynites could be easily anticipated .
But their representatives in the parliamentary party aren ’ t loudly protesting : there have been no resignations and the Socialist Campaign Group statement issued after the meeting with Starmer on Friday was restrained .
The Labour leader made clear on BBC Radio 4 this morning that he didn ’ t place much importance on the views expressed via social media ( and by implication ‘ Labour Twitter ’ ) anyway .
And plumping for Green is in keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , also in line with head of policy Claire Ainsley ’ s priorities : a focus on child poverty .
This was Green ’ s brief in the work and pensions team before the promotion , and she was once chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group .
It is the first day of new general secretary David Evans .
Managing party unity while sticking to Starmer ’ s agenda is one of the key challenges facing him , as well as responding to antisemitism in a robust way and ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email to party staff ) “ improving diversity ” within Labour .
According to The Sunday Times , the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is expected to send its report to the party today .
As outlined in this recent LabourList piece , this is not supposed to mean that the report is published – it is a draft that first goes to Labour for review over at least 28 days .
However , it could be leaked , of course .
The culture of leaking in the party is another big problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a busy week ahead .
Apart from the prospect of the EHRC draft report on antisemitism being put prematurely into the public domain , there is a national executive committee ( NEC ) meeting tomorrow .
It will be interesting simply because it will be Evans ’ first .
But the ruling body is also set to decide how and when NEC elections due to take place this summer will go ahead .
The leadership is expected to be successful in changing the voting system ( a move opposed by the Campaign for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour , Labour First and Progress ; with Momentum not approving of the reform being “ rushed through ” ) and not delaying them by much .
And on Thursday , our next ‘ in conversation ’ event will be with Lisa Nandy , jointly organised by the Tribune group .
Stay tuned .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Kate Green was swiftly appointed over the weekend to replace sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey as Shadow Education Secretary. It was thought that Keir Starmer would choose former teacher Emma Hardy, already in the education team, Lucy Powell who has held the brief before, or perhaps someone recognisably on the Labour left to factionally rebalance the top team and boost party unity after a rocky few days. But instead he plumped for a Fabian member (already a significant number of these on the frontbench) and an MP who not only joined the mass resignation in 2016 but also chaired challenger Owen Smith’s leadership campaign.
The displeasure of Corbynites could be easily anticipated. But their representatives in the parliamentary party aren’t loudly protesting: there have been no resignations and the Socialist Campaign Group statement issued after the meeting with Starmer on Friday was restrained. The Labour leader made clear on BBC Radio 4 this morning that he didn’t place much importance on the views expressed via social media (and by implication ‘Labour Twitter’) anyway. And plumping for Green is in keeping with a notable theme of the Starmer era, also in line with head of policy Claire Ainsley’s priorities: a focus on child poverty. This was Green’s brief in the work and pensions team before the promotion, and she was once chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group.
It is the first day of new general secretary David Evans. Managing party unity while sticking to Starmer’s agenda is one of the key challenges facing him, as well as responding to antisemitism in a robust way and (as he has just outlined in an email to party staff) “improving diversity” within Labour. According to The Sunday Times, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is expected to send its report to the party today. As outlined in this recent LabourList piece, this is not supposed to mean that the report is published – it is a draft that first goes to Labour for review over at least 28 days. However, it could be leaked, of course. The culture of leaking in the party is another big problem for Evans to tackle.
We have a busy week ahead. Apart from the prospect of the EHRC draft report on antisemitism being put prematurely into the public domain, there is a national executive committee (NEC) meeting tomorrow. It will be interesting simply because it will be Evans’ first. But the ruling body is also set to decide how and when NEC elections due to take place this summer will go ahead. The leadership is expected to be successful in changing the voting system (a move opposed by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy; supported by Open Labour, Labour First and Progress; with Momentum not approving of the reform being “rushed through”) and not delaying them by much. And on Thursday, our next ‘in conversation’ event will be with Lisa Nandy, jointly organised by the Tribune group. Stay tuned. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-29--WATCH: Sacking Long-Bailey was “the right thing to do”, says Starmer

Keir Starmer has defended his decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey from the Labour frontbench – declaring that it was “ the right thing to do ” .
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning , the Labour leader was asked whether there was anything that Long-Baily could have done after tweeting the article to have kept her position .
Starmer refused to go into the detail on the conversations between the two – he instead reiterated that he is determined to “ root out antisemitism ” within the Labour Party .
The Labour leader said : “ I took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Long-Bailey tweeted about was classic antisemitic in the sense of saying here ’ s something awful that happened in America – point the finger at Israel.
” He added : “ I ’ m absolutely clear in my mind that it was the right thing to do , because I do not want the Labour Party and antisemitism to be in the same sentence ever again.
” Starmer sacked Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet after she shared an interview containing the claim that US police learnt kneeling on people ’ s necks “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kate Green MP – previously in the shadow work and pensions team – has been appointed as her replacement .
Green served in Jeremy Corbyn ’ s cabinet .
She resigned in 2016 and subsequently chaired Owen Smith ’ s leadership campaign .

Keir Starmer has defended his decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey from the Labour frontbench – declaring that it was “the right thing to do”.
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning, the Labour leader was asked whether there was anything that Long-Bailey could have done after tweeting the article to have kept her position.
Starmer refused to go into the detail on the conversations between the two – he instead reiterated that he is determined to “root out antisemitism” within the Labour Party.
The Labour leader said: “I took the view that the article that Rebecca Long-Bailey tweeted about was classic antisemitic in the sense of saying here’s something awful that happened in America – point the finger at Israel.”
He added: “I’m absolutely clear in my mind that it was the right thing to do, because I do not want the Labour Party and antisemitism to be in the same sentence ever again.”
"I do not want the Labour Party and anti-semitism to be in the same sentence ever again”
Labour Party Leader, Sir Keir Starmer, tells #BBCBreakfast he stands by his decision to sack Rebecca Long-Bailey.
More here: https://t.co/94DJYZCA4q pic.twitter.com/oNtZdSxoKE — BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) June 29, 2020
Starmer sacked Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet after she shared an interview containing the claim that US police learnt kneeling on people’s necks “from seminars with Israeli secret services”.
Kate Green MP – previously in the shadow work and pensions team – has been appointed as her replacement. Green served in Jeremy Corbyn’s cabinet. She resigned in 2016 and subsequently chaired Owen Smith’s leadership campaign.


labourlist--2020-07-01--The return to Bevinite principles in a new era of Labour foreign policy

The UK general election in December was momentous in many respects .
It effectively sealed the country ’ s exit from the European Union after 47 years of membership and reshaped the domestic political landscape .
But it was also momentous in bringing to an end four years of Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership .
For many in the party , he was a beacon of socialist hope after the apparent conservatisation of Labour under Tony Blair , who had , it was said , surrendered to the ideals of free market capitalism .
Yet while the defeat signals a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new leader , Keir Starmer , it is not in economics but foreign policy where the sharpest divergence is perhaps likely to come .
After all , the leftward trajectory of Conservatives ’ economic policies under Boris Johnson , accelerated by the scale of government economic intervention necessitated by the Covid-19 outbreak , may reduce Starmer ’ s incentives to move markedly rightward .
As leader , Corbyn avowed many positions on foreign policy that were far from the recent historical mainstream of the Labour Party .
He was ( and continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security services , evident in his response to the poison attack by Russian agents in Salisbury , when he called for the evidence to be given to the Russian government for verification .
He was ( and continues to be ) reflexively hostile to the US and sceptical of NATO .
And on the nuclear deterrent , he declared at the start of his leadership that he would never use such weapons if he became Prime Minister .
All of this was distinctly unconventional .
Foreign policy cuts to the heart of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party .
The 2001 Iraq War was an inflexion point that still haunts it today and cemented an isolationist tendency that was ascendant under Corbyn and aided his rise .
The party ’ s opposition to military intervention in Syria in 2013 under Ed Miliband – a move that ultimately blocked such action and influenced US president Barack Obama ’ s decision not to intervene as well– demonstrated this shift even before Corbyn took over in 2015 .
Notably , his only two interventions in that debate , as a backbencher , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regimes in Tehran and Moscow while opposing military action .
For others in the party , this Corbyn-esque ( if not yet Corbynite ) approach marked an over-reaction to the many failures of the Iraq War and created its own moral hazards .
After all , not intervening does not guarantee that innocent lives will not be lost , as the subsequent tragic years of conflict in Syria ( and elsewhere ) has attested all too clearly .
As Shadow Foreign Secretary in December 2015 , Hilary Benn said in a famous speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Islamic State group ( with Jeremy Corbyn sat next to him , now as party leader ) : “ As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism .
We believe we have a responsibility one to another .
We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road.
” Within six months of this speech , Benn was sacked after calling into question Corbyn ’ s leadership .
These are the deep divisions that Starmer and Lisa Nandy , Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contend with .
One difficulty is that on such issues there is rarely a middle ground or fudge that can be negotiated : military intervention , for instance , either happens or it does not .
Any apparent modalities are simply anathema to the Corbynite wing , which opposes such action on principle .
By most accounts , both Starmer and Nandy appear more conventional on foreign policy than Corbyn and will certainly change the party ’ s direction on many issues , not least NATO and Russia .
Yet there have already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nandy recently set out a firm stance against annexation plans of parts of the West Bank by the Israeli government , calling for a UK ban on imports of goods produced in such settlements if it goes ahead .
This is a move that even Corbyn did not make formal policy as leader , despite expressing support for it .
More widely , little useful remained in the filing cabinet from Corbyn ’ s time , so the party will have to reformulate its position almost from scratch on many of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to have to make concessions to the Corbynite wing of the party , which remains a sizeable though much diminished force .
At the same time , they will want to take a distinctive approach to the Conservatives while continuing with Starmer ’ s call to avoid “ opposition for opposition ’ s sake ” .
With all of these internal and external challenges in mind , it is worth considering how the party might go about developing a foreign policy in the coming years .
The world as it is The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in foreign policy – especially one that is likely to be a distinctive break with the previous regime – is a good time to return to first principles .
For Labour , those principles perhaps begin with its post-war foreign policy under Ernest Bevin , Foreign Secretary in 1945-51 .
Bevin ’ s time in office coincided with a period in which much of the global institutional architecture of today , and many of the norms of inter-state behaviour , were established .
It was also a period of intense uncertainty and disruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bevin was a practical politician , largely uninterested in ( and perhaps incapable of ) soaring rhetoric and abstract ideology .
His speaking style in the House of Commons reflected a methodical mindset – he would take issues sequentially and assiduously address each point of concern in a debate – and a preference for frankness .
As he said , he preferred to “ put the cards on the table face upwards ” , crucial he thought to assuage any suspicions of his or the British government ’ s intentions .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarities between the challenges that faced Bevin in 1945 and those of today .
Then , like now , a return to the US isolationism of the pre-war years was a major British concern .
At the same time , Bevin bemoaned a lack of unity among Western allies .
And there was a proliferation of seemingly intractable issues that the war had not resolved and indeed , in respect of Germany and Korea especially , had created or exacerbated .
As Bevin said in the Commons in November 1945 : “ All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have to deal with all the troubles at once.
” It was far from clear , indeed some deemed it probable , that after two world wars in three decades this would not be an interminable pattern .
Despite being a self-declared social democrat with a long history in the trade union movement , Bevin was not strongly party political .
As Foreign Secretary , he met regularly in private with Anthony Eden , his Conservative predecessor , then in opposition .
Nor would he brook , as he saw it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Responding to a letter published by six Labour MPs in the Daily Herald on 22 January 1948 calling for a “ united democratic Socialist Western Europe ” , Bevin said in the Commons : This reflects a common thread running through the Bevinite philosophy , and one that all political parties would do well to heed today : the world should be dealt with as it is , not as one would like or imagine it to be .
This period was also one in which Labour made a lasting contribution to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to operate – admittedly with varying degrees of functionality – to this day .
Most notably , it was just after Labour came into office in July 1945 that the UN was established , in October that year , with the UK a founding member .
Bevin made a firm case for multilateralism , arguing that “ no one ever surrenders sovereignty ; they merge it into a greater sovereignty ” .
Yet he also expressed concerns that the UN ’ s remit could be pushed too far .
“ It can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people feel is necessary for their security , ” he said , not a sprawling remit .
He argued firmly that such institutions needed strong public support and that they would not be sustainable simply as the project of the political classes .
The formation of NATO in 1949 also owes much to Bevin ’ s efforts .
It followed directly from the Brussels Treaty , signed in March 1948 by the UK , France and the Benelux countries , an initiative that was animated by Bevin .
This was just one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treaties that he agreed with European allies during his time in office .
The Brussels Treaty , whose organisational base was in London , included a commitment to collective self-defence , something which morphed into the famous Article 5 of the NATO agreement and continues to be in operation to this day .
( Admittedly , the Brussels Treaty was not the origin of such a provision – it originated in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance 1947 – but its inclusion was a major and lasting commitment to European security by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played an important role in the Marshall Plan , which aided Europe ’ s and the UK ’ s economic recovery in the post-war period .
In June 1947 , US Secretary of State George Marshall gave his infamous , though in fact vague , speech at Harvard which proceeded the plan .
He said : Less than two weeks later , Bevin put a proposal to the cabinet for closer economic relations with continental Europe , an attempt to show Britain ’ s willingness to co-operate with its European partners to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Europe .
Then , in July , he chaired a conference of 14 European nations to discuss economic co-operation .
All of this culminated in the setting up of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation ( now the OECD ) , which would administer the Marshall Plan .
Bevin jumped into action following Marshall ’ s speech , ultimately – combined with the establishment of NATO – helping to secure a decades-long US commitment to Europe and its economic well-being and security .
For these reasons , the multilateral system of institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least from the US under Donald Trump , ought to be recognised not as a set of distant bureaucratic organisations but part of the political heritage of the Labour Party , and indeed of the UK .
The party ought to feel and display more ownership over them , including engaging more in how these institutions ought to develop and reform in future .
After all , Clause 4 ( 3 ) of Labour ’ s constitution says that it is “ committed to the defence and security of the British people and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Nations , the Commonwealth and other international bodies ” .
Multilateralism , in other words , is part of Labour ’ s DNA .
The coronavirus outbreak presents a moment of reckoning for the existing global order , and for the UK in particular , which has been badly hit .
As in 1945 , the UK finds itself entering what appears to be a new era in global affairs with a large degree of uncertainty about its role .
A Bevinite placing of the cards on the table face upwards is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK can not deny its global interdependence – indeed this should now be self-evident ; it can not pretend that it can solve what are in fact global problems alone ; and the UK can not imagine that ( forgive the metaphor ) it is immune to global threats nor inoculated through some divine exceptionalism .
The coronavirus outbreak ought to have proven that to be the delusion it always was .
What is required , by all parties , is a sober reckoning with the world as it is and an unsentimental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within it .
The Conservatives ’ presentation of the UK ’ s role leads all too easily to the conclusion that the UK can only either be extraordinary or irrelevant – and , of course , the Conservative argument goes , it should choose the former .
Yet this is fanciful thinking .
As Lawrence Freedman wrote recently , the UK must recognise “ the limits of independence ” , not just its freedoms , and abandon “ the quest for a unique , exceptional role ” .
In 1950 , the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it is today , yet even then Bevin recognised that “ the day when we , as Great Britain , can declare a policy independently of our allies and colleagues has gone ” .
The lessons that can be drawn for Labour , and indeed the Conservatives , from the post-war period are several .
First , we are far from unique in facing , as Freedman describes it , a world “ beset by anxiety ” .
The scale of global issues today may be profound , but it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for despair at our apparently unique historical bad luck in inheriting such problems , but a working through of practical solutions with willing partners .
Second , Bevin was quick to recognise the limits of his own ideals .
Although a social democrat and trade unionist , he did not shy away from – and could not deny – the fact that much of the rest of the world was not .
He was willing to work with those ( within reason ) who were willing to work with him .
As he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ It does not matter whether it is a small nation or a big one.
” He did not wish to limit the UK to working only with the great powers but sought allies wherever he could find them .
While Bevin was no Europhile after the war , he saw ‘ the west ’ , and western Europe , as a valuable construction of alliances that ought to be defended and bolstered .
The implications for socialism , or any other -ism , were secondary to the national interest as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the two were always coterminous .
Third , while Bevin appreciated the necessity of global co-operation , he also recognised its political limits .
The UN ought to be supported , but its remit should be limited .
He signed numerous defence and security treaties with European allies , yet he objected to deep economic and political integration .
Politicians had to constrain themselves and the multilateral institutions that they created , and ensure that they served the purpose for which they were designed in order to maintain public support .
Above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK ’ s core interests : keeping the US engaged in Europe , both economically and militarily ; working to ensure the stability and prosperity of other European nations , albeit with limits on the degree of UK integration ; strengthening the UK ’ s existing alliances ; and supporting – and indeed helping to found – multilateral institutions .
These remain central to British interests today .
Yet the UK now finds itself more isolated than it has been in the last half a century , having left the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done to relationships with member states ) and with an increasingly destructive partner across the Atlantic .
All political parties must take current circumstances at face value and not pretend they will change dramatically any time soon .
The UK , for the first time in 47 years , is not part of a major regional trade bloc , unlike the EU and the US ( via the USMCA ) .
The extensive network of trade ( and other ) agreements that the UK helped to build as an EU member now has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
The routine interactions that would otherwise have taken place with EU countries on a plethora of issues will now be less comprehensive and less regular .
The UK has deinstitutionalised its relationship with the EU and the US is in the process of doing the same in other multilateral settings .
Nevertheless , Bevin ’ s basic insight still holds true : there is no alternative for the UK but the West – that is to say , mainly the US and Europe , but also other democratic partners – regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture has been largely absent from the Brexit debates , both in the UK and the EU .
But the undeniable truth is that , whatever political decisions are made , there is an irrefutable interdependence that can not be swept away even by the most hostile of personal or political relations .
We are , for better or worse , stuck with each other .
The US is perhaps slightly different , large enough to at least credibly imagine a lone course .
The UK ’ s task is not to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go it alone , but that its interests are best served by not doing so .
These alliances have the advantage of still being highly institutionalised , albeit increasingly less so , and well ingrained in mindsets and identities of politicians and populations on all sides .
Rather than casting about for potential alternatives , which may or may not come to fruition in several decades ’ time , it would be better to refocus on the tried and tested formula of Western alliances .
No doubt , these relationships need reinvigorating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Freedman puts it , the US and UK in particular need a new “ shared project ” .
Clearly , there are political limitations as far as the Trump administration is concerned , but even that should not stop the UK attempting to rebuild its relations with its European partners – as well as with other democracies – and begin to think how they form a common response to the issues of unilateralism , protectionism and deglobalisation , as well as climate change , migration and the role of China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Lecture in 1993 , “ [ cynics ] will always find a host of reasons why change is impossible , even undesirable .
Surely the lesson of history is that we must be grateful that the cynics were outnumbered by the people of vision back in 1945 ” .
Today , as in 1945 , ‘ vision ’ does not amount to idealism or an unbending faith in a world yet to come , nor sentimentalism for one already passed .
Rather , it involves a clear-sighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwilling to lead , a China increasingly exerting itself beyond its region , multilateral institutions descending into ever more dysfunction , an ineffective European Union on the global stage and the UK more isolated than any other time in recent history .
This makes for an unpalatable menu .
Yet it is the understanding on which we must proceed .
The UK can not do much about domestic politics in the US ; the best that can be hoped of Donald Trump is that he refrains from destructive acts .
Yet even Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business as usual .
As Kori Schake wrote recently , he has far from an impeccable track record of decision-making when it comes to foreign policy .
China , too , must not be seen in simplistic terms .
Yes , it has become more assertive , but it is also faces constraints , just as the US has done in recent decades .
It is important not to buy into Trump-like hysteria , but we must also recognise the many illicit activities of Chinese state and state-sponsored actors , whether stealing intellectual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , China ’ s economic power is increasingly being leveraged against governments that criticise it , most recently recently Australia and New Zealand .
The UK ought to be at the forefront of seeking reform of multilateral institutions .
We have been nearing the point for some time that many simply cease to function .
This indeed is what has happened with the World Trade Organisation ’ s Appellate Court , and further threats have been made against the World Health Organisation and the International Criminal Court .
Plus , protectionist measures have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade , further calling into question the continuing effectiveness of the WTO .
Unilateralism is increasingly preferred over UN mediation , especially among larger powers , not least the US .
It is simply a recognition of fact that for many of these institutions it is a matter of reform or , at the very best , increasing irrelevance .
Relations with the EU have come to be seen simply in narrow , transactional terms as a matter of what the UK can extract at a minimal price to sovereignty .
When it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , the UK has rejected even the need for a treaty basis for future co-operation .
The argument goes that the EU has relatively limited powers in these matters , which themselves are subject to unanimity , making it an ineffective and a relatively minor player .
The UK , it is thought , can achieve what it wishes in Europe mainly through NATO and the E3 alliance with France and Germany .
Yet , at a time when western alliances appear frail , near complete UK deinstitutionalisation from the EU only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , there needs to be a formal forum for UK-EU interaction to ensure future mutual understanding and co-operation outside of a trade and economic context .
There is no point relitigating the arguments of the Brexit saga .
The UK has to learn to operate in this environment , with its most valued ally often AWOL and its erstwhile European partners alienated .
It is a rebuilding exercise that will take time , perhaps several political cycles .
Yet , unless it is built on stable foundations , any rebuilding will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its apparent historical glories .
What is needed is a rational appraisal of the world as it is , the UK ’ s place within it and the modest contribution that it undoubtedly can make to global peace and security .
All the world may appear in trouble once again , but for Labour – indeed all parties – there is a rich heritage to draw on .
The successes that Bevin achieved in an arguably more troubled world were the result of frankness about the challenges , practicality in tackling them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacities to do so .
As a set of guiding principles , the party could do worse .

The UK general election in December was momentous in many respects. It effectively sealed the country’s exit from the European Union after 47 years of membership and reshaped the domestic political landscape. But it was also momentous in bringing to an end four years of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. For many in the party, he was a beacon of socialist hope after the apparent conservatisation of Labour under Tony Blair, who had, it was said, surrendered to the ideals of free market capitalism.
Yet while the defeat signals a substantial break with Corbynism under Labour’s new leader, Keir Starmer, it is not in economics but foreign policy where the sharpest divergence is perhaps likely to come. After all, the leftward trajectory of Conservatives’ economic policies under Boris Johnson, accelerated by the scale of government economic intervention necessitated by the Covid-19 outbreak, may reduce Starmer’s incentives to move markedly rightward.
As leader, Corbyn avowed many positions on foreign policy that were far from the recent historical mainstream of the Labour Party. He was (and continues to be) innately suspicious of British security services, evident in his response to the poison attack by Russian agents in Salisbury, when he called for the evidence to be given to the Russian government for verification. He was (and continues to be) reflexively hostile to the US and sceptical of NATO. And on the nuclear deterrent, he declared at the start of his leadership that he would never use such weapons if he became Prime Minister. All of this was distinctly unconventional.
Foreign policy cuts to the heart of many of the internal divisions in the Labour Party. The 2003 Iraq War was an inflexion point that still haunts it today and cemented an isolationist tendency that was ascendant under Corbyn and aided his rise. The party’s opposition to military intervention in Syria in 2013 under Ed Miliband – a move that ultimately blocked such action and influenced US president Barack Obama’s decision not to intervene as well– demonstrated this shift even before Corbyn took over in 2015. Notably, his only two interventions in that debate, as a backbencher, were to call for greater co-operation with the regimes in Tehran and Moscow while opposing military action.
For others in the party, this Corbyn-esque (if not yet Corbynite) approach marked an over-reaction to the many failures of the Iraq War and created its own moral hazards. After all, not intervening does not guarantee that innocent lives will not be lost, as the subsequent tragic years of conflict in Syria (and elsewhere) has attested all too clearly. As Shadow Foreign Secretary in December 2015, Hilary Benn said in a famous speech in a debate on taking military action against the Islamic State group (with Jeremy Corbyn sat next to him, now as party leader): “As a party we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road.” Within six months of this speech, Benn was sacked after calling into question Corbyn’s leadership.
These are the deep divisions that Starmer and Lisa Nandy, Labour’s new Shadow Foreign Secretary, have to contend with. One difficulty is that on such issues there is rarely a middle ground or fudge that can be negotiated: military intervention, for instance, either happens or it does not. Any apparent modalities are simply anathema to the Corbynite wing, which opposes such action on principle.
By most accounts, both Starmer and Nandy appear more conventional on foreign policy than Corbyn and will certainly change the party’s direction on many issues, not least NATO and Russia. Yet there have already been hints of greater boldness as well. Nandy recently set out a firm stance against annexation plans of parts of the West Bank by the Israeli government, calling for a UK ban on imports of goods produced in such settlements if it goes ahead. This is a move that even Corbyn did not make formal policy as leader, despite expressing support for it.
More widely, little useful remained in the filing cabinet from Corbyn’s time, so the party will have to reformulate its position almost from scratch on many of these issues. The new leadership will also continue to have to make concessions to the Corbynite wing of the party, which remains a sizeable though much diminished force. At the same time, they will want to take a distinctive approach to the Conservatives while continuing with Starmer’s call to avoid “opposition for opposition’s sake”. With all of these internal and external challenges in mind, it is worth considering how the party might go about developing a foreign policy in the coming years.
The world as it is
The start of a new era for Labour in foreign policy – especially one that is likely to be a distinctive break with the previous regime – is a good time to return to first principles. For Labour, those principles perhaps begin with its post-war foreign policy under Ernest Bevin, Foreign Secretary in 1945-51. Bevin’s time in office coincided with a period in which much of the global institutional architecture of today, and many of the norms of inter-state behaviour, were established. It was also a period of intense uncertainty and disruption, not unlike today.
Above all, Bevin was a practical politician, largely uninterested in (and perhaps incapable of) soaring rhetoric and abstract ideology. His speaking style in the House of Commons reflected a methodical mindset – he would take issues sequentially and assiduously address each point of concern in a debate – and a preference for frankness. As he said, he preferred to “put the cards on the table face upwards”, crucial he thought to assuage any suspicions of his or the British government’s intentions.
Despite the immense differences, there are some similarities between the challenges that faced Bevin in 1945 and those of today. Then, like now, a return to the US isolationism of the pre-war years was a major British concern. At the same time, Bevin bemoaned a lack of unity among Western allies. And there was a proliferation of seemingly intractable issues that the war had not resolved and indeed, in respect of Germany and Korea especially, had created or exacerbated. As Bevin said in the Commons in November 1945: “All the world is in trouble, and I have to deal with all the troubles at once.” It was far from clear, indeed some deemed it probable, that after two world wars in three decades this would not be an interminable pattern.
Despite being a self-declared social democrat with a long history in the trade union movement, Bevin was not strongly party political. As Foreign Secretary, he met regularly in private with Anthony Eden, his Conservative predecessor, then in opposition. Nor would he brook, as he saw it, misled idealism from his own side. Responding to a letter published by six Labour MPs in the Daily Herald on 22 January 1948 calling for a “united democratic Socialist Western Europe”, Bevin said in the Commons:
“…it would be impracticable, indeed fantastic, to attempt to build the unity of Western Europe solely on a basis of united Western European Socialism… We need the help of all parties in all these countries, whether they are in the government or not…”
This reflects a common thread running through the Bevinite philosophy, and one that all political parties would do well to heed today: the world should be dealt with as it is, not as one would like or imagine it to be.
Labour’s heritage
This period was also one in which Labour made a lasting contribution to the multilateral global order whose most important institutions continue to operate – admittedly with varying degrees of functionality – to this day. Most notably, it was just after Labour came into office in July 1945 that the UN was established, in October that year, with the UK a founding member. Bevin made a firm case for multilateralism, arguing that “no one ever surrenders sovereignty; they merge it into a greater sovereignty”. Yet he also expressed concerns that the UN’s remit could be pushed too far. “It can only deal with the specific objective that the people feel is necessary for their security,” he said, not a sprawling remit. He argued firmly that such institutions needed strong public support and that they would not be sustainable simply as the project of the political classes.
The formation of NATO in 1949 also owes much to Bevin’s efforts. It followed directly from the Brussels Treaty, signed in March 1948 by the UK, France and the Benelux countries, an initiative that was animated by Bevin. This was just one of a number of defence and security treaties that he agreed with European allies during his time in office. The Brussels Treaty, whose organisational base was in London, included a commitment to collective self-defence, something which morphed into the famous Article 5 of the NATO agreement and continues to be in operation to this day. (Admittedly, the Brussels Treaty was not the origin of such a provision – it originated in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance 1947 – but its inclusion was a major and lasting commitment to European security by the UK and others.)
Bevin also played an important role in the Marshall Plan, which aided Europe’s and the UK’s economic recovery in the post-war period. In June 1947, US Secretary of State George Marshall gave his infamous, though in fact vague, speech at Harvard which proceeded the plan. He said:
“[B]efore the United States government can… help start the European world on its way to recovery, there must be some agreement among the countries of Europe as to the requirements of the situation and the part those countries themselves will take in order to give proper effect to whatever action might be undertaken by this government.”
Less than two weeks later, Bevin put a proposal to the cabinet for closer economic relations with continental Europe, an attempt to show Britain’s willingness to co-operate with its European partners to ensure US engagement after an earlier standoffish approach to Europe. Then, in July, he chaired a conference of 14 European nations to discuss economic co-operation. All of this culminated in the setting up of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (now the OECD), which would administer the Marshall Plan. Bevin jumped into action following Marshall’s speech, ultimately – combined with the establishment of NATO – helping to secure a decades-long US commitment to Europe and its economic well-being and security.
For these reasons, the multilateral system of institutions that is currently under threat, not least from the US under Donald Trump, ought to be recognised not as a set of distant bureaucratic organisations but part of the political heritage of the Labour Party, and indeed of the UK. The party ought to feel and display more ownership over them, including engaging more in how these institutions ought to develop and reform in future. After all, Clause 4(3) of Labour’s constitution says that it is “committed to the defence and security of the British people and to co-operating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and other international bodies”. Multilateralism, in other words, is part of Labour’s DNA.
A moment of reckoning
The coronavirus outbreak presents a moment of reckoning for the existing global order, and for the UK in particular, which has been badly hit. As in 1945, the UK finds itself entering what appears to be a new era in global affairs with a large degree of uncertainty about its role. A Bevinite placing of the cards on the table face upwards is a good place to start: the UK cannot deny its global interdependence – indeed this should now be self-evident; it cannot pretend that it can solve what are in fact global problems alone; and the UK cannot imagine that (forgive the metaphor) it is immune to global threats nor inoculated through some divine exceptionalism. The coronavirus outbreak ought to have proven that to be the delusion it always was. What is required, by all parties, is a sober reckoning with the world as it is and an unsentimental assessment of the UK’s place within it.
The Conservatives’ presentation of the UK’s role leads all too easily to the conclusion that the UK can only either be extraordinary or irrelevant – and, of course, the Conservative argument goes, it should choose the former. Yet this is fanciful thinking. As Lawrence Freedman wrote recently, the UK must recognise “the limits of independence”, not just its freedoms, and abandon “the quest for a unique, exceptional role”. In 1950, the UK’s relative global power was greater than it is today, yet even then Bevin recognised that “the day when we, as Great Britain, can declare a policy independently of our allies and colleagues has gone”.
The lessons that can be drawn for Labour, and indeed the Conservatives, from the post-war period are several. First, we are far from unique in facing, as Freedman describes it, a world “beset by anxiety”. The scale of global issues today may be profound, but it is not unprecedented. Now is not the time for despair at our apparently unique historical bad luck in inheriting such problems, but a working through of practical solutions with willing partners.
Second, Bevin was quick to recognise the limits of his own ideals. Although a social democrat and trade unionist, he did not shy away from – and could not deny – the fact that much of the rest of the world was not. He was willing to work with those (within reason) who were willing to work with him. As he said in the Commons in November 1945: “It does not matter whether it is a small nation or a big one.” He did not wish to limit the UK to working only with the great powers but sought allies wherever he could find them. While Bevin was no Europhile after the war, he saw ‘the west’, and western Europe, as a valuable construction of alliances that ought to be defended and bolstered. The implications for socialism, or any other -ism, were secondary to the national interest as he saw it and he did not pretend that the two were always coterminous.
Third, while Bevin appreciated the necessity of global co-operation, he also recognised its political limits. The UN ought to be supported, but its remit should be limited. He signed numerous defence and security treaties with European allies, yet he objected to deep economic and political integration. Politicians had to constrain themselves and the multilateral institutions that they created, and ensure that they served the purpose for which they were designed in order to maintain public support.
Above all, Bevin had a clear-sighted view of the UK’s core interests: keeping the US engaged in Europe, both economically and militarily; working to ensure the stability and prosperity of other European nations, albeit with limits on the degree of UK integration; strengthening the UK’s existing alliances; and supporting – and indeed helping to found – multilateral institutions. These remain central to British interests today.
Yet the UK now finds itself more isolated than it has been in the last half a century, having left the EU (with the undeniable damage that has done to relationships with member states) and with an increasingly destructive partner across the Atlantic. All political parties must take current circumstances at face value and not pretend they will change dramatically any time soon. The UK, for the first time in 47 years, is not part of a major regional trade bloc, unlike the EU and the US (via the USMCA). The extensive network of trade (and other) agreements that the UK helped to build as an EU member now has to be rebuilt alone to the extent possible. The routine interactions that would otherwise have taken place with EU countries on a plethora of issues will now be less comprehensive and less regular. The UK has deinstitutionalised its relationship with the EU and the US is in the process of doing the same in other multilateral settings.
The West
Nevertheless, Bevin’s basic insight still holds true: there is no alternative for the UK but the West – that is to say, mainly the US and Europe, but also other democratic partners – regardless of any political differences. The big picture has been largely absent from the Brexit debates, both in the UK and the EU. But the undeniable truth is that, whatever political decisions are made, there is an irrefutable interdependence that cannot be swept away even by the most hostile of personal or political relations. We are, for better or worse, stuck with each other. The US is perhaps slightly different, large enough to at least credibly imagine a lone course. The UK’s task is not to try to convince the US that it could not go it alone, but that its interests are best served by not doing so. These alliances have the advantage of still being highly institutionalised, albeit increasingly less so, and well ingrained in mindsets and identities of politicians and populations on all sides.
Rather than casting about for potential alternatives, which may or may not come to fruition in several decades’ time, it would be better to refocus on the tried and tested formula of Western alliances. No doubt, these relationships need reinvigorating and to be given a new purpose. As Freedman puts it, the US and UK in particular need a new “shared project”. Clearly, there are political limitations as far as the Trump administration is concerned, but even that should not stop the UK attempting to rebuild its relations with its European partners – as well as with other democracies – and begin to think how they form a common response to the issues of unilateralism, protectionism and deglobalisation, as well as climate change, migration and the role of China.
As former Labour leader John Smith said in his Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Lecture in 1993, “[cynics] will always find a host of reasons why change is impossible, even undesirable. Surely the lesson of history is that we must be grateful that the cynics were outnumbered by the people of vision back in 1945”. Today, as in 1945, ‘vision’ does not amount to idealism or an unbending faith in a world yet to come, nor sentimentalism for one already passed. Rather, it involves a clear-sighted view of the world: a US unwilling to lead, a China increasingly exerting itself beyond its region, multilateral institutions descending into ever more dysfunction, an ineffective European Union on the global stage and the UK more isolated than any other time in recent history.
The future
This makes for an unpalatable menu. Yet it is the understanding on which we must proceed. The UK cannot do much about domestic politics in the US; the best that can be hoped of Donald Trump is that he refrains from destructive acts. Yet even Joe Biden would not signal a return to business as usual. As Kori Schake wrote recently, he has far from an impeccable track record of decision-making when it comes to foreign policy.
China, too, must not be seen in simplistic terms. Yes, it has become more assertive, but it is also faces constraints, just as the US has done in recent decades. It is important not to buy into Trump-like hysteria, but we must also recognise the many illicit activities of Chinese state and state-sponsored actors, whether stealing intellectual property or intimidating neighbouring countries. Notably, China’s economic power is increasingly being leveraged against governments that criticise it, most recently recently Australia and New Zealand.
The UK ought to be at the forefront of seeking reform of multilateral institutions. We have been nearing the point for some time that many simply cease to function. This indeed is what has happened with the World Trade Organisation’s Appellate Court, and further threats have been made against the World Health Organisation and the International Criminal Court. Plus, protectionist measures have been on the rise over the past decade, further calling into question the continuing effectiveness of the WTO. Unilateralism is increasingly preferred over UN mediation, especially among larger powers, not least the US. It is simply a recognition of fact that for many of these institutions it is a matter of reform or, at the very best, increasing irrelevance.
Relations with the EU have come to be seen simply in narrow, transactional terms as a matter of what the UK can extract at a minimal price to sovereignty. When it comes to foreign affairs, defence and security, the UK has rejected even the need for a treaty basis for future co-operation. The argument goes that the EU has relatively limited powers in these matters, which themselves are subject to unanimity, making it an ineffective and a relatively minor player. The UK, it is thought, can achieve what it wishes in Europe mainly through NATO and the E3 alliance with France and Germany. Yet, at a time when western alliances appear frail, near complete UK deinstitutionalisation from the EU only exacerbates this trend. One way or another, there needs to be a formal forum for UK-EU interaction to ensure future mutual understanding and co-operation outside of a trade and economic context.
There is no point relitigating the arguments of the Brexit saga. The UK has to learn to operate in this environment, with its most valued ally often AWOL and its erstwhile European partners alienated. It is a rebuilding exercise that will take time, perhaps several political cycles. Yet, unless it is built on stable foundations, any rebuilding will be shaky. The UK cannot luxuriate in its apparent historical glories. What is needed is a rational appraisal of the world as it is, the UK’s place within it and the modest contribution that it undoubtedly can make to global peace and security.
All the world may appear in trouble once again, but for Labour – indeed all parties – there is a rich heritage to draw on. The successes that Bevin achieved in an arguably more troubled world were the result of frankness about the challenges, practicality in tackling them and modesty about the UK’s capacities to do so. As a set of guiding principles, the party could do worse.


labourlist--2020-07-01--“The unsung heroes of this crisis” – Starmer’s full speech to the LGA

Below is Keir Starmer ’ s speech to the Local Government Association conference today , in which he described councils as the “ unsung heroes of this crisis ” and set out plans for a “ new relationship between national and local government ” .
Thank you for inviting me to speak today .
It seems a long time since I was with you at last year ’ s LGA conference in Bournemouth In fact , looking at you across this screen , it almost feels like another world .
I had hoped that this would be a chance for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been the first major conference of my leadership .
A chance to thank our fantastic local government leaders .
To hear about the challenges you ’ re facing .
To discuss our vision for the future of local government , and to underline that under my leadership , local government will be at the heart how Labour rebuilds our country and our communities .
But , as with so much in the last few months , we ’ ve had to adapt .
My first speech as Labour Leader was filmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference is by Zoom !
I want to thank everyone at the LGA for making it possible for us to meet today ; albeit virtually !
And I also want to say a much wider thank you to the councillors , the cabinet members and the leaders , to the officials , the officers and the staff , to the more than one million people working in local government the length and the breadth of the country .
Even in “ normal times ” you deliver the services we all depend on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too often taken for granted .
But during this crisis , you have been at the frontline .
Whether in our care homes and delivering social care , obtaining protective equipment , preventing homelessness , emptying our bins , keeping our streets safe and delivering food and basic supplies to those in need .
You have been among the unsung heroes of this crisis .
We all know who the key workers are now .
And so I want to thank you all .
Of course , everything has to be seen through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest crisis our country has faced in most of our life times .
Our economy has been shut down , leaving businesses and workers alike facing huge uncertainty ; loved ones went months without seeing one another ; for some this meant agonising decisions , missing births and even funerals ; and – tragically – many of us have friends , family , constituents and neighbours who were taken too soon by this awful disease .
The UK has suffered more than most countries .
65,000 have died because of Covid-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than any OECD country this year .
And millions of people are living in insecurity about their jobs and their incomes .
But during this crisis , we have also seen incredible and inspiring moments : Captain Tom Moore , who captured the nation ’ s imagination in raising £32 million for NHS charities ; the dedication and bravery of those tackling this disease on the frontline ; the quiet selflessness of those who came together to form community groups or check in on elderly and vulnerable neighbours .
No one is pretending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they have been the glimmers of light that have got us through .
And when we come out of this crisis , but will be because of them .
We ’ re now in a new phase of the pandemic .
As lockdown restrictions begin to ease , people are returning to work , to high streets and to public places in towns and cities across the country .
We welcome that .
It may seem strange for the leader of the opposition to say this , but we want the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lives and livelihoods depend in it .
And the onus is now on government to deliver .
To provide the systems , the reassurance and the clear public messaging that will allow this to happen safely .
From the earliest days of my leadership , I ’ ve said the government need to plan for an exit strategy .
A coherent plan to bring the country together .
My fear now is that we have an exit , but without a strategy .
The Prime Minister can do rhetoric – he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion ” .
But he can ’ t govern .
And his failure to plan , to act quickly and decisively , to take the right decisions at the right time , has held Britain back .
Whether on protective equipment , care homes or testing .
As a result : those at the frontline have too often lacked the power and resources they need .
Nowhere is this truer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade of cuts , the coronavirus crisis and the government ’ s inaction have created a perfect storm .
Councils are faced with much higher costs for key services such as social care .
And much lower revenues through falls in areas such as business rates .
As a result , you ’ ve estimated that councils now face a blackhole of around £10bn .
And a report last week showed eight in ten face councils cutting services or section 144 notices and effective bankruptcy .
This isn ’ t party political – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same problems .
And as you know better than anyone , this would have real effects on the services we all rely on .
It could mean further cuts to social care , fewer police officers – it could mean streetlights going on later and going off earlier .
It could mean libraries , gyms and community centres staying closed : the places that give meaning and character to our communities .
I ’ ve raised this with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister ’ s Questions for the last two weeks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ – I haven ’ t had many answers .
Or at least coherent ones .
In fact , I ’ m not sure the Prime Minister has understood the scale of the problem local councils are facing , or the immediacy .
I ’ m also not sure he understands how central local authorities will be in the next phase of this crisis and in preventing a second spike .
That ’ s why I called last week at PMQs for councils to given much clearer guidance and new powers to enforce local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than take this seriously and put a plan in proper plan in place , the PM ignored it .
And when the MP for Hove – Peter Kyle – warned that seaside towns and councils could be unable to cope with people rushing to beaches or parks in the summer , the PM said he should simply “ show some guts and determination ” .
Two days later , 500,000 people crowded onto Bournemouth beach .
And the local council had no choice but to declare a major incident .
As we begin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , we need much stronger and more focused leadership .
And we need to build a new relationship between national and local government , to end the over-centralisation of power and resources in Westminster , to push it much closer to local communities .
Part of that is empowering local government .
Councillors are at the frontline of this crisis .
They are often the first to see where national government is going wrong .
Yet too often they are ignored , and too often central government is too slow to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under my leadership , we are already giving local government a bigger part in Labour politics .
We have brilliant former local government leaders like Jim McMahon and Steve Reed in the shadow cabinet .
Nick Forbes joins my weekly shadow cabinet meetings to ensure the voice of local government is in the room whenever decisions are being made .
And we ’ ve ensured that every member of the Shadow Cabinet has been partnered with a local government leader .
And while we ’ re been out of power for far too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the UK Labour is changing people ’ s lives through our mayors and councillors .
But my commitment to local government doesn ’ t just exist in opposition .
A Labour government would win power in order to hand it back to the nations , regions , cities and towns across our country .
We would give local government a much bigger say over investment and services – not through plans devised by someone in an office on Whitehall , but ones created and rooted in communities , so that they truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local government , its power and its innovation , straight at the heart of Westminster by replacing the House of Lords with a democratic second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK .
And we would give councillors , communities and people on the front line in our public services a bigger say over the decisions that affect them .
Because at the heart of the broken trust in national politics and politicians is a feeling that we aren ’ t listening .
That we don ’ t care .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Boris Johnson at Prime Ministers ’ Question each week , and you can understand why !
But working with you , we want to prove this wrong , and truly empower local communities .

Below is Keir Starmer’s speech to the Local Government Association conference today, in which he described councils as the “unsung heroes of this crisis” and set out plans for a “new relationship between national and local government”.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. It seems a long time since I was with you at last year’s LGA conference in Bournemouth In fact, looking at you across this screen, it almost feels like another world. I had hoped that this would be a chance for us to meet in person. It would have been the first major conference of my leadership. A chance to thank our fantastic local government leaders. To hear about the challenges you’re facing. To discuss our vision for the future of local government, and to underline that under my leadership, local government will be at the heart how Labour rebuilds our country and our communities.
But, as with so much in the last few months, we’ve had to adapt. My first speech as Labour Leader was filmed in my living room and my first conference is by Zoom! I want to thank everyone at the LGA for making it possible for us to meet today; albeit virtually! And I also want to say a much wider thank you to the councillors, the cabinet members and the leaders, to the officials, the officers and the staff, to the more than one million people working in local government the length and the breadth of the country.
Even in “normal times” you deliver the services we all depend on. The ones that, frankly, are too often taken for granted. But during this crisis, you have been at the frontline. Whether in our care homes and delivering social care, obtaining protective equipment, preventing homelessness, emptying our bins, keeping our streets safe and delivering food and basic supplies to those in need. You have been among the unsung heroes of this crisis. We all know who the key workers are now. And so I want to thank you all.
Of course, everything has to be seen through the prism of coronavirus. This is the greatest crisis our country has faced in most of our life times. Our economy has been shut down, leaving businesses and workers alike facing huge uncertainty; loved ones went months without seeing one another; for some this meant agonising decisions, missing births and even funerals; and – tragically – many of us have friends, family, constituents and neighbours who were taken too soon by this awful disease.
The UK has suffered more than most countries. 65,000 have died because of Covid-19. Our economy projected to decline by more than any OECD country this year. And millions of people are living in insecurity about their jobs and their incomes. But during this crisis, we have also seen incredible and inspiring moments: Captain Tom Moore, who captured the nation’s imagination in raising £32 million for NHS charities; the dedication and bravery of those tackling this disease on the frontline; the quiet selflessness of those who came together to form community groups or check in on elderly and vulnerable neighbours. No one is pretending we are out of the darkness yet. But they have been the glimmers of light that have got us through. And when we come out of this crisis, but will be because of them.
We’re now in a new phase of the pandemic. As lockdown restrictions begin to ease, people are returning to work, to high streets and to public places in towns and cities across the country. We welcome that. It may seem strange for the leader of the opposition to say this, but we want the government to get this right. People’s lives and livelihoods depend in it. And the onus is now on government to deliver. To provide the systems, the reassurance and the clear public messaging that will allow this to happen safely.
From the earliest days of my leadership, I’ve said the government need to plan for an exit strategy. A coherent plan to bring the country together. My fear now is that we have an exit, but without a strategy. The Prime Minister can do rhetoric – he started this pandemic saying Britain was “ready to take off its Clark Kent spectacles and leap into the phone booth and emerge with its cloak flowing as the supercharged champion”. But he can’t govern. And his failure to plan, to act quickly and decisively, to take the right decisions at the right time, has held Britain back. Whether on protective equipment, care homes or testing.
As a result: those at the frontline have too often lacked the power and resources they need. Nowhere is this truer than in local government. After a decade of cuts, the coronavirus crisis and the government’s inaction have created a perfect storm. Councils are faced with much higher costs for key services such as social care. And much lower revenues through falls in areas such as business rates. As a result, you’ve estimated that councils now face a blackhole of around £10bn. And a report last week showed eight in ten face councils cutting services or section 144 notices and effective bankruptcy.
This isn’t party political – Conservative councils and Labour councils face the same problems. And as you know better than anyone, this would have real effects on the services we all rely on. It could mean further cuts to social care, fewer police officers – it could mean streetlights going on later and going off earlier. It could mean libraries, gyms and community centres staying closed: the places that give meaning and character to our communities. I’ve raised this with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions for the last two weeks. But – as you might have seen – I haven’t had many answers. Or at least coherent ones. In fact, I’m not sure the Prime Minister has understood the scale of the problem local councils are facing, or the immediacy. I’m also not sure he understands how central local authorities will be in the next phase of this crisis and in preventing a second spike.
That’s why I called last week at PMQs for councils to given much clearer guidance and new powers to enforce local lockdowns if needed. Again, rather than take this seriously and put a plan in proper plan in place, the PM ignored it. And when the MP for Hove – Peter Kyle – warned that seaside towns and councils could be unable to cope with people rushing to beaches or parks in the summer, the PM said he should simply “show some guts and determination”. Two days later, 500,000 people crowded onto Bournemouth beach. And the local council had no choice but to declare a major incident.
As we begin to emerge from this stage of the crisis, we need much stronger and more focused leadership. And we need to build a new relationship between national and local government, to end the over-centralisation of power and resources in Westminster, to push it much closer to local communities. Part of that is empowering local government. Councillors are at the frontline of this crisis. They are often the first to see where national government is going wrong. Yet too often they are ignored, and too often central government is too slow to respond. We need to change that.
Under my leadership, we are already giving local government a bigger part in Labour politics. We have brilliant former local government leaders like Jim McMahon and Steve Reed in the shadow cabinet. Nick Forbes joins my weekly shadow cabinet meetings to ensure the voice of local government is in the room whenever decisions are being made. And we’ve ensured that every member of the Shadow Cabinet has been partnered with a local government leader. And while we’re been out of power for far too long nationally, in towns and cities across the UK Labour is changing people’s lives through our mayors and councillors.
But my commitment to local government doesn’t just exist in opposition. A Labour government would win power in order to hand it back to the nations, regions, cities and towns across our country. We would give local government a much bigger say over investment and services – not through plans devised by someone in an office on Whitehall, but ones created and rooted in communities, so that they truly serve the people. We would put local government, its power and its innovation, straight at the heart of Westminster by replacing the House of Lords with a democratic second chamber representing the nations and regions of the UK. And we would give councillors, communities and people on the front line in our public services a bigger say over the decisions that affect them. Because at the heart of the broken trust in national politics and politicians is a feeling that we aren’t listening. That we don’t care. That we don’t understand. Listen to Boris Johnson at Prime Ministers’ Question each week, and you can understand why! But working with you, we want to prove this wrong, and truly empower local communities.


labourlist--2020-07-01--Starmer “missing in action”, say activists fighting for ‘Green New Deal’

Keir Starmer has been accused of being “ missing in action ” as 1,300 Labour members have demanded a ‘ People ’ s Green New Deal ’ as part of the hard-hit UK ’ s coronavirus pandemic recovery .
Supporters of the Labour for a Green New Deal campaign have sent a template submission calling for a “ new social settlement ” to the party ’ s national policy forum consultation on a green recovery plan , which has now ended .
The activists are urging the leadership to back public ownership of key industries and utilities , free full-fibre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing airlines and stringent conditions on government bailouts .
Starmer pledged to “ fight for a Green New Deal now , not in 2024 ” during his leadership campaign , but has been criticised for failing to mention it in the run-up to Rishi Sunak ’ s financial statement next week .
The opposition party has repeatedly told the government to set out a ‘ back to work budget ’ that keeps people in their jobs , supports those who have lost their jobs and creates new opportunities – yet the call does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour members have been pleased to see Ed Miliband call for a Green New Deal in recent weeks .
Yet Keir Starmer has been missing in action , ” Labour for a Green New Deal co-founder Angus Satow said .
“ At a time of social , economic and climate crisis , the Labour leadership is ignoring both party policy and members ’ proposals for a green recovery in favour of empty soundbites .
Boris Johnson might be showboating , but Starmer isn ’ t even on the pitch.
” The activist group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party to its “ bailouts for workers and planet , not billionaires ” petition signed by 1,600 Labour members and submitted two weeks ago .
Lauren Townsend , spokesperson for Labour for a Green New Deal , added : “ Labour should step up the fight for a real Green New Deal… We need an unprecedented state mobilisation for a just and green recovery , now.
” Jeremy Corbyn , John McDonnell and other Socialist Campaign Group MPs joined party activists last week in calling for the new leadership to support the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They signed a letter demanding that Labour does not drop the climate programme put forward by Labour in 2019 , and stating that party policy includes committing to a path to net-zero by 2030 and public ownership of the energy sector .
But asked whether Labour backs a 2030 net-zero target , Keir Starmer ’ s spokesperson did not confirm that the aim was currently party policy and instead stressed that the manifesto would be “ written in four or five years ’ time ” .
Miliband , as Labour ’ s business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the creation of a “ zero-carbon army of young people ” and “ the most ambitious climate recovery plan in the world ” post-coronavirus .

Keir Starmer has been accused of being “missing in action” as 1,300 Labour members have demanded a ‘People’s Green New Deal’ as part of the hard-hit UK’s coronavirus pandemic recovery.
Supporters of the Labour for a Green New Deal campaign have sent a template submission calling for a “new social settlement” to the party’s national policy forum consultation on a green recovery plan, which has now ended.
The activists are urging the leadership to back public ownership of key industries and utilities, free full-fibre broadband, public stakes being taken in failing airlines and stringent conditions on government bailouts.
Starmer pledged to “fight for a Green New Deal now, not in 2024” during his leadership campaign, but has been criticised for failing to mention it in the run-up to Rishi Sunak’s financial statement next week.
The opposition party has repeatedly told the government to set out a ‘back to work budget’ that keeps people in their jobs, supports those who have lost their jobs and creates new opportunities – yet the call does not touch on green priorities.
“Labour members have been pleased to see Ed Miliband call for a Green New Deal in recent weeks. Yet Keir Starmer has been missing in action,” Labour for a Green New Deal co-founder Angus Satow said.
“At a time of social, economic and climate crisis, the Labour leadership is ignoring both party policy and members’ proposals for a green recovery in favour of empty soundbites. Boris Johnson might be showboating, but Starmer isn’t even on the pitch.”
The activist group is waiting for a response from the party to its “bailouts for workers and planet, not billionaires” petition signed by 1,600 Labour members and submitted two weeks ago.
Lauren Townsend, spokesperson for Labour for a Green New Deal, added: “Labour should step up the fight for a real Green New Deal… We need an unprecedented state mobilisation for a just and green recovery, now.”
Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and other Socialist Campaign Group MPs joined party activists last week in calling for the new leadership to support the ‘Green New Deal’ policy programme.
They signed a letter demanding that Labour does not drop the climate programme put forward by Labour in 2019, and stating that party policy includes committing to a path to net-zero by 2030 and public ownership of the energy sector.
But asked whether Labour backs a 2030 net-zero target, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson did not confirm that the aim was currently party policy and instead stressed that the manifesto would be “written in four or five years’ time”.
Miliband, as Labour’s business and energy spokesperson, called last month for the creation of a “zero-carbon army of young people” and “the most ambitious climate recovery plan in the world” post-coronavirus.


labourlist--2020-07-01--Labour welcomes citizenship offer to British nationals in Hong Kong

Lisa Nandy has welcomed the plans announced by the government to offer citizenship to all British nationals in Hong Kong , but warned that it must not become a scheme for “ wealthy Hong Kongers to abandon the city and leave others behind ” .
Responding to Dominic Raab in parliament this afternoon , the Shadow Foreign Secretary declared that the announcement today is “ the right thing to do ” in response to developments in China .
She described the actions of the Chinese government as undermining its commitments to the UK and as well as “ the commitments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong when we signed the Joint Declaration ” .
Nandy said : “ I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to make this statement , for advanced sight of it and most of all to honour the promise he made on the 2nd June .
He is right to do so and he has our support.
” She asked Raab to set out greater detail on the plans , in particular whether salary thresholds would apply , explaining : “ This must not become a scheme simply for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and leave others behind.
” She also highlighted that the new security law imposed today by the Chinese government will allow it to freeze citizens ’ assets , and that many may not be able to take money out of the city .
Nandy therefore asked the minister : “ What recourse to public funds will apply , and will he ensure that dependents will be treated as home students for the purposes of tuition fees ?
” Her comments followed Raab ’ s statement to the House after the imposition of controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw a number of pro-independence and pro-democracy protesters arrested today .
He confirmed the offer of a “ bespoke ” visa route for British nationals , which was touted earlier this month by the government .
The offer would effect an estimated 2.9 million people living in Hong Kong .
Nandy had called on the on the Foreign Secretary to come to parliament and “ lay out concrete steps ” to make sure that the UK is fulfils its commitment to the Hong Kong people , declaring that “ now is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Raab ’ s statement , she said : “ The imposition of new national security legislation in Hong Kong represents a direct challenge to the Joint Declaration , undermining both the commitments made to the UK by China and the obligation that we have to the people of Hong Kong .
“ The government promised action at the point of application – they must not waver now .
It has been five weeks since the Foreign Secretary proposed extending visa rights to British nationals overseas passport holders living in Hong Kong , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any further details .
“ Today , pro-democracy protesters and journalists in Hong Kong have been dispersed using water cannons and pepper spray and dozens have reportedly already been detained under the new security legislation .
Now is not the moment to look away .
”

Lisa Nandy has welcomed the plans announced by the government to offer citizenship to all British nationals in Hong Kong, but warned that it must not become a scheme for “wealthy Hong Kongers to abandon the city and leave others behind”.
Responding to Dominic Raab in parliament this afternoon, the Shadow Foreign Secretary declared that the announcement today is “the right thing to do” in response to developments in China.
She described the actions of the Chinese government as undermining its commitments to the UK and as well as “the commitments that we made to the people of Hong Kong when we signed the Joint Declaration”.
Nandy said: “I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to make this statement, for advanced sight of it and most of all to honour the promise he made on the 2nd June. He is right to do so and he has our support.”
She asked Raab to set out greater detail on the plans, in particular whether salary thresholds would apply, explaining: “This must not become a scheme simply for wealthy Hong Kongers to abandon the city and leave others behind.”
She also highlighted that the new security law imposed today by the Chinese government will allow it to freeze citizens’ assets, and that many may not be able to take money out of the city.
Nandy therefore asked the minister: “What recourse to public funds will apply, and will he ensure that dependents will be treated as home students for the purposes of tuition fees?”
Her comments followed Raab’s statement to the House after the imposition of controversial security laws imposed in Hong Kong that saw a number of pro-independence and pro-democracy protesters arrested today.
He confirmed the offer of a “bespoke” visa route for British nationals, which was touted earlier this month by the government. The offer would affect an estimated 2.9 million people living in Hong Kong.
Nandy had called on the Foreign Secretary to come to parliament and “lay out concrete steps” to make sure that the UK fulfils its commitment to Hong Kong residents, declaring that “now is not the moment to look away”.
Commenting before Raab’s statement, she said: “The imposition of new national security legislation in Hong Kong represents a direct challenge to the Joint Declaration, undermining both the commitments made to the UK by China and the obligation that we have to the people of Hong Kong.
“The government promised action at the point of application – they must not waver now. It has been five weeks since the Foreign Secretary proposed extending visa rights to British nationals overseas passport holders living in Hong Kong, but the government has failed to provide any further details.
“Today, pro-democracy protesters and journalists in Hong Kong have been dispersed using water cannons and pepper spray and dozens have reportedly already been detained under the new security legislation. Now is not the moment to look away.”


labourlist--2020-07-01--PMQs: Chaotic and dangerous “bluster” meets data-focused analysis

Today ’ s Prime Minister ’ s Questions session was all about the data for Keir Starmer .
The Labour leader described the “ bluster ” with which the PM announced his economic recovery plan yesterday , again calling for a “ laser-like focus ” on jobs .
He highlighted the gaps in the government ’ s handling of the crisis and a deeply worrying failure to grasp the detail .
And he did so just as the UK approaches its ‘ Independence Day ’ and the return of the British public to pubs across the country .
Boris Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ whack-a-mole ” comments earlier in the week .
The difference between chaotic and the detail-orientated was clear .
Kicking off with the outbreak in Leicester , Starmer asked the Prime Minister why it had taken 11 days for the government to take action and impose a lockdown in the city – “ Why was the government so slow to act ?
” He focused on why , in particular , “ only half the data ” had been shared with the local council .
They had “ pillar-one Covid tests – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests in hospitals ” , he explained .
What they didn ’ t have , was data for the virus in the community .
“ What that meant was that the local authority thought there were 80 positive tests in the last fortnight , when the real figure was 944 , ” he said .
That figure was only shared with the council last Thursday , Starmer explained , declaring it a “ lost week ” in the authority ’ s response .
The PM can ’ t continue to “ bat away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Johnson insisted that the data had been shared previously – contrary to reports from the mayor of Leicester .
Starmer then quoted the PM ’ s recent response to local government figures asking how seaside towns will cope with an influx of tourists in hot weather : “ Show some guts.
” The Labour leader highlighted that just two days later , we saw massive crowds take to the beach in Bournemouth and a major incident declared .
Ahead of a nationwide lifting of lockdown this weekend , there are very real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – we are heading into this easing “ without an app , without clear data for local authorities , or the world-beating system we were promised ” .
Adding that three-quarters of those with Covid are not being contacted by the tracing system , he remarked that the PM is continuing with his usual tactic : “ Brushing away serious concerns.
” He next asked how many jobs Johnson ’ s recovery plan will protect , but no answer was given by the PM : “ I ’ m not going to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses that may or may not take place.
” The difference in approaches is stark , as ever .
The Labour leader worked his way methodically through the data ; he called for caution ; he pushed , again , for a detailed focus on jobs ; he demanded a “ cast-iron guarantee ” that no local council will be placed in the same situation as Leicester ; and he highlighted the significant gaps in the UK ’ s preparedness for lockdown easing this weekend .
Meanwhile the Prime Minister continued with bluster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , data-obsessed approach made for a clear comparison .
He again used the platform of PMQs to emphasis his ‘ forensic ’ approach against that of Johnson .
Starmer is making clear to people that , ahead of the largest easing of the lockdown since the crisis began , Johnson ’ s approach is either dangerous – “ show some guts ” – or full of “ bluster ” , in the form of his vague recovery plan .
At the same time , the Labour leader continues to bid for public support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grown-up in the room .

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions session was all about the data for Keir Starmer. The Labour leader described the “bluster” with which the PM announced his economic recovery plan yesterday, again calling for a “laser-like focus” on jobs. He highlighted the gaps in the government’s handling of the crisis and a deeply worrying failure to grasp the detail. And he did so just as the UK approaches its ‘Independence Day’ and the return of the British public to pubs across the country. Boris Johnson continued in the same vein as his “whack-a-mole” comments earlier in the week. The difference between chaotic and the detail-orientated was clear.
Kicking off with the outbreak in Leicester, Starmer asked the Prime Minister why it had taken 11 days for the government to take action and impose a lockdown in the city – “Why was the government so slow to act?” He focused on why, in particular, “only half the data” had been shared with the local council. They had “pillar-one Covid tests – that’s NHS, care workers and tests in hospitals”, he explained. What they didn’t have, was data for the virus in the community. “What that meant was that the local authority thought there were 80 positive tests in the last fortnight, when the real figure was 944,” he said. That figure was only shared with the council last Thursday, Starmer explained, declaring it a “lost week” in the authority’s response. The PM can’t continue to “bat away challenges”, the Labour leader concluded as Johnson insisted that the data had been shared previously – contrary to reports from the mayor of Leicester.
Starmer then quoted the PM’s recent response to local government figures asking how seaside towns will cope with an influx of tourists in hot weather: “Show some guts.” The Labour leader highlighted that just two days later, we saw massive crowds take to the beach in Bournemouth and a major incident declared. Ahead of a nationwide lifting of lockdown this weekend, there are very real concerns outstanding, the Labour leader warned – we are heading into this easing “without an app, without clear data for local authorities, or the world-beating system we were promised”. Adding that three-quarters of those with Covid are not being contacted by the tracing system, he remarked that the PM is continuing with his usual tactic: “Brushing away serious concerns.” He next asked how many jobs Johnson’s recovery plan will protect, but no answer was given by the PM: “I’m not going to give a figure for the number of job losses that may or may not take place.”
The difference in approaches is stark, as ever. The Labour leader worked his way methodically through the data; he called for caution; he pushed, again, for a detailed focus on jobs; he demanded a “cast-iron guarantee” that no local council will be placed in the same situation as Leicester; and he highlighted the significant gaps in the UK’s preparedness for lockdown easing this weekend. Meanwhile the Prime Minister continued with bluster and evasion. Starmer’s cautious, data-obsessed approach made for a clear comparison. He again used the platform of PMQs to emphasis his ‘forensic’ approach against that of Johnson. Starmer is making clear to people that, ahead of the largest easing of the lockdown since the crisis began, Johnson’s approach is either dangerous – “show some guts” – or full of “bluster”, in the form of his vague recovery plan. At the same time, the Labour leader continues to bid for public support as the ‘sensible’ politician – the grown-up in the room.


labourlist--2020-07-01--How Croydon is seizing this chance to deliver a green recovery

Boroughs like Croydon have been among the worst affected by coronavirus , with a death rate around double that of the national level .
This has been mainly influenced by existing inequalities – overcrowded housing , poor air quality , health and , of course , race .
Yet as we look to emerge from one crisis , we must not forget that before we had heard of Covid-19 we were already facing another : a climate and ecological emergency of vast proportions .
It is one that we have hardly started to deal with .
Last year , Croydon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared a climate emergency , and the recovery from the pandemic presents us with a unique chance to change direction on the climate crisis .
How to respond ?
Conjuring up the spirit of Clement Attlee and his post-war plan , Ed Miliband has added Labour ’ s voice to call for the most ambitious green recovery programme in the world .
If fully heard and answered , this call could be the first serious start to addressing the climate and ecological crisis while helping to tackle the inequalities highlighted by Covid-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocking levels of inequality are of course related – solving one often helps solve the other .
In short , let ’ s organise the green recovery so that we address the collective fight that ’ s required , rather than a series of separate challenges .
It would be popular .
Emerging from the crisis and having experienced positive side-effects of the lockdown such as better air quality , people rightly want something better for the long term .
Recent YouGov polling reveals that nearly 75 % of people now want better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 % of people would now vote for a political party that invests in nature rich green spaces .
There are significant challenges to delivery , of course .
Finances both short-term ( the pressures of the Covid crisis itself ) and long-term ( over a decade of Tory austerity ) have left both the council and Transport for London in a difficult position .
TfL , which provides most of the funding for sustainable transport and creating liveable neighbourhoods in London , has suspended our funding due to Covid-19 .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support package .
To seize the unique opportunity that now presents itself , the Chancellor must ensure that support for a green recovery is at the centre of a mini-Budget next month , which allows properly funded local authorities to deliver .
In Croydon , we have to contend with the legacy of a mid-20th century development that put the car first .
Our infamous concrete jungle , urban motorways and the visible disparity between the north and south of the borough when it comes to provision of and access to green spaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ re at a crossroads and we know that there can be no return to business as usual .
But how can Labour own the agenda of a green recovery and make it real and tangible for people ?
The blueprint of this plan must come from Labour councils .
That is where we ’ re in power and have responsibility for many of the areas needed to make change happen – planning , transport , energy generation and harnessing the role of the citizens and community .
What follows are our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be replicated and adapted by Labour councils across the country .
Every plan needs a key vision .
While this may be different for each area , our focus is on green corridors flowing from the heart of our city centre to district centres in areas most affected by the current crisis .
Part of our aim is to tackle the inequality in access to quality green space which has been particularly highlighted during lockdown .
Linked to this , and to better enable people to access existing green spaces , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from car use to walking and cycling with wide pavements , slow-moving traffic and roads that are easy to cross .
There are three key components for our proposed Croydon Green Recovery Plan , which builds on our existing strengths as a borough and is divided into short-term ( within six months ) , medium ( six to 12 months ) , and longer-term ( one to three years ) measures : • Community : Invest in projects that help the community and the environment recover together , focusing on green job creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , black and ethnic minority communities and the disadvantaged ; • Environment : Improve access to existing quality green spaces and create new , high-quality , liveable neighbourhoods that tackle the climate and ecological crisis ; and • Transport : Support everyone to increase their walking and cycling for short , local journeys and enable better access to Croydon ’ s green spaces .
Working with TfL , improve public transport to areas with little or no public transport .
We ’ ve already started , investing our resources in the Croydon Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road closures , exercise zones and expanded footways to support residents maintain social distancing as they shop locally .
To address some of the long-term deliverables , we are reviewing our strategic planning document – The Croydon Local Plan – to ensure that it supports climate change mitigation and adaptation and enables us to transform the grey Croydon of today to the green that a post-Covid world demands .
Miliband and colleagues ’ efforts to hold Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak ’ s vague promises to account will be vital .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a green recovery plan , we can seize the political space we need to fight on – green growth and jobs , equality and redistribution , creating tangible action on our journey to recover power too .

Boroughs like Croydon have been among the worst affected by coronavirus, with a death rate around double that of the national level. This has been mainly influenced by existing inequalities – overcrowded housing, poor air quality, health and, of course, race. Yet as we look to emerge from one crisis, we must not forget that before we had heard of Covid-19 we were already facing another: a climate and ecological emergency of vast proportions. It is one that we have hardly started to deal with. Last year, Croydon Council – along with many others – declared a climate emergency, and the recovery from the pandemic presents us with a unique chance to change direction on the climate crisis.
How to respond? Conjuring up the spirit of Clement Attlee and his post-war plan, Ed Miliband has added Labour’s voice to call for the most ambitious green recovery programme in the world. If fully heard and answered, this call could be the first serious start to addressing the climate and ecological crisis while helping to tackle the inequalities highlighted by Covid-19. Black Lives Matter, climate change and shocking levels of inequality are of course related – solving one often helps solve the other. In short, let’s organise the green recovery so that we address the collective fight that’s required, rather than a series of separate challenges.
It would be popular. Emerging from the crisis and having experienced positive side-effects of the lockdown such as better air quality, people rightly want something better for the long term. Recent YouGov polling reveals that nearly 75% of people now want better protections for the environment, and over 50% of people would now vote for a political party that invests in nature rich green spaces.
There are significant challenges to delivery, of course. Finances both short-term (the pressures of the Covid crisis itself) and long-term (over a decade of Tory austerity) have left both the council and Transport for London in a difficult position. TfL, which provides most of the funding for sustainable transport and creating liveable neighbourhoods in London, has suspended our funding due to Covid-19. It is itself reliant on an inadequate central government support package. To seize the unique opportunity that now presents itself, the Chancellor must ensure that support for a green recovery is at the centre of a mini-Budget next month, which allows properly funded local authorities to deliver.
In Croydon, we have to contend with the legacy of a mid-20th century development that put the car first. Our infamous concrete jungle, urban motorways and the visible disparity between the north and south of the borough when it comes to provision of and access to green spaces, all need to be addressed.
We’re at a crossroads and we know that there can be no return to business as usual. But how can Labour own the agenda of a green recovery and make it real and tangible for people? The blueprint of this plan must come from Labour councils. That is where we’re in power and have responsibility for many of the areas needed to make change happen – planning, transport, energy generation and harnessing the role of the citizens and community. What follows are our thoughts on an approach for Croydon that could be replicated and adapted by Labour councils across the country.
Every plan needs a key vision. While this may be different for each area, our focus is on green corridors flowing from the heart of our city centre to district centres in areas most affected by the current crisis. Part of our aim is to tackle the inequality in access to quality green space which has been particularly highlighted during lockdown. Linked to this, and to better enable people to access existing green spaces, we also want to support a radical shift from car use to walking and cycling with wide pavements, slow-moving traffic and roads that are easy to cross.
There are three key components for our proposed Croydon Green Recovery Plan, which builds on our existing strengths as a borough and is divided into short-term (within six months), medium (six to 12 months), and longer-term (one to three years) measures:
Community: Invest in projects that help the community and the environment recover together, focusing on green job creation for young people, people with disabilities, black and ethnic minority communities and the disadvantaged; Environment: Improve access to existing quality green spaces and create new, high-quality, liveable neighbourhoods that tackle the climate and ecological crisis; and Transport: Support everyone to increase their walking and cycling for short, local journeys and enable better access to Croydon’s green spaces. Working with TfL, improve public transport to areas with little or no public transport.
We’ve already started, investing our resources in the Croydon Street Space Programme including pop-up cycle lanes, road closures, exercise zones and expanded footways to support residents maintain social distancing as they shop locally. To address some of the long-term deliverables, we are reviewing our strategic planning document – The Croydon Local Plan – to ensure that it supports climate change mitigation and adaptation and enables us to transform the grey Croydon of today to the green that a post-Covid world demands.
Miliband and colleagues’ efforts to hold Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s vague promises to account will be vital. But if each Labour local authority develops and delivers a green recovery plan, we can seize the political space we need to fight on – green growth and jobs, equality and redistribution, creating tangible action on our journey to recover power too.