labourlist--2020-09-04--Left Out by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire review – inside story of Labour under Corbyn

Left Out by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire benefited from there being no shortage of odd , dull-witted and downright shitty behaviour from Labour officials and elected representatives over the last few years .
Covering such a leak-prone period of the party could have been a challenging endeavour , and you might think there can ’ t possibly be more to reveal .
But the time between Labour ’ s 2017 better-than-expected general election performance and Keir Starmer taking the helm provides plenty of material .
As editor of LabourList , following the minutiae of Labour politics since February 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder of many frustrating decisions made and reported in agony .
But some of the details are new .
According to staffer sources , Iain McNicol as general secretary “ was averse to using his computer ” and the karate black belt “ regularly used his training to turn light switches on and off with his feet ” .
Ian Lavery , the party ’ s chair , apparently believed that YouGov polling could not be trusted when predicting the ‘ Red Wall ’ collapse because it was a “ Tory firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zahawi and a Conservative pollster ) .
Ian Murray – now a shadow cabinet member – was originally one of the ‘ Independent Group ’ quitters , and pulled out so close to their departure that he had a speech ready .
A similar irony is to be found in policy head Andrew Fisher reportedly having pushed for Nick Thomas-Symonds , Anneliese Dodds , David Lammy , Rachel Reeves , Ed Miliband and Alison McGovern to join the frontbench .
The advice was not taken up under Corbyn , but those promotions were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everyone familiar with the Labour rumour mill has heard the story of David Prescott , son of John and a LOTO ( leader ’ s office ) staffer , allegedly pooing on the kitchen floor of a woman who refused to have sex with him in the ’ 90s – a disputed claim .
They ’ ll also know that a Labour MP , who has never wanted to be named publicly , raised a complaint with Corbyn alleging that Prescott had made unwanted sexual advances towards her in 2014 .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by LOTO .
To have this chain of events set out before you is quite something , even when you ’ re aware of all the components .
And then there are phrases like “ they ’ re saying the Jews have got to you ” , reportedly said by one LOTO aide to Emily Thornberry , which are gut-wrenching .
The approach taken to writing this book should be noted because it has a great impact on the story told .
The style is dissimilar to , for example , David Kogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which reads like a TV documentary in that it builds a narrative by deftly stitching together on-the-record interviews .
Left Out ’ s authors don ’ t allow interviewees to take responsibility for recounting events accurately but prefer to tell the story themselves .
This means we can ’ t judge as readers whether we trust their sources .
The choice has already led to some controversies .
There was the ‘ oatcake ’ saga , which portrayed Corbyn ’ s wife Laura Alvarez negatively and had Labour Twitter scrutinising footage from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – denying that they edited out the scene described in the book from their footage , as claimed – led to the Times online extract being amended .
A later passage alleges that Corbyn met Antonio Costa and assumed that the Portuguese Prime Minister had tabled an EU citizens ’ rights amendment in Westminster that was in fact put forward by Tory MP Alberto Costa .
I didn ’ t find this anecdote credible when I read it , and shortly afterwards Corbyn spokesperson James Schneider said it was the Portuguese who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For these reasons , the book is being given short shrift by some on the Labour left .
But its central theme is a truthful one : ‘ the Project ’ had been in pain for years before it lost in December 2019 , and some key players behaved as if they wanted to be relieved of their duties .
There was lots of passion but LOTO was a mess , as evident in the extraordinary handling of a parliamentary security problem and in the indecision over the bid to abolish Tom Watson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in detail .
The book also explores the extent to which John McDonnell was pushing from the other side – not talking to Corbyn for some time over their disagreements on antisemitism , and lobbying hard for a fresh EU referendum , even regularly talking to People ’ s Vote campaigner Alastair Campbell .
The former Shadow Chancellor recently praised Starmer ’ s Covid response , which has attracted much criticism from others on the party ’ s left , as “ exactly right ” .
Those comments are even less surprising in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially in politics and especially in Corbyn ’ s Labour , has more than a couple of sides to it .
This book sometimes appears to overlook that .
It is also very much a Westminster lobby take on the events , not covering the developments at the grassroots but focusing instead on the views of MPs , LOTO staff and party grandees .
Left Out is a must-read , however , for any Labour supporter who wants to know more about what went on behind the scenes .
I warn you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whatever your factional allegiance .
Left Out : The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn is published by Bodley Head ( £18.99 ) .

Left Out by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire benefited from there being no shortage of odd, dull-witted and downright shitty behaviour from Labour officials and elected representatives over the last few years. Covering such a leak-prone period of the party could have been a challenging endeavour, and you might think there can’t possibly be more to reveal. But the time between Labour’s 2017 better-than-expected general election performance and Keir Starmer taking the helm provides plenty of material.
As editor of LabourList, following the minutiae of Labour politics since February 2018, much of the book is simply a reminder of many frustrating decisions made and reported in agony. But some of the details are new. According to staffer sources, Iain McNicol as general secretary “was averse to using his computer” and the karate black belt “regularly used his training to turn light switches on and off with his feet”. Ian Lavery, the party’s chair, apparently believed that YouGov polling could not be trusted when predicting the ‘Red Wall’ collapse because it was a “Tory firm” (founded by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi and a Conservative pollster).
Ian Murray – now a shadow cabinet member – was originally one of the ‘Independent Group’ quitters, and pulled out so close to their departure that he had a speech ready. A similar irony is to be found in policy head Andrew Fisher reportedly having pushed for Nick Thomas-Symonds, Anneliese Dodds, David Lammy, Rachel Reeves, Ed Miliband and Alison McGovern to join the frontbench. The advice was not taken up under Corbyn, but those promotions were made by Starmer earlier this year.
Everyone familiar with the Labour rumour mill has heard the story of David Prescott, son of John and a LOTO (leader’s office) staffer, allegedly pooing on the kitchen floor of a woman who refused to have sex with him in the ’90s – a disputed claim. They’ll also know that a Labour MP, who has never wanted to be named publicly, raised a complaint with Corbyn alleging that Prescott had made unwanted sexual advances towards her in 2014. (He denies that this took place and LabourList understands that no witness could corroborate the accusations against him.) His selection bid in Mansfield was backed by LOTO anyway. To have this chain of events set out before you is quite something, even when you’re aware of all the components. And then there are phrases like “they’re saying the Jews have got to you”, reportedly said by one LOTO aide to Emily Thornberry, which are gut-wrenching.
The approach taken to writing this book should be noted because it has a great impact on the story told. The style is dissimilar to, for example, David Kogan’s 2019 Protest and Power, which reads like a TV documentary in that it builds a narrative by deftly stitching together on-the-record interviews. Left Out’s authors don’t allow interviewees to take responsibility for recounting events accurately but prefer to tell the story themselves. This means we can’t judge as readers whether we trust their sources. The choice has already led to some controversies.
There was the ‘oatcake’ saga, which portrayed Corbyn’s wife Laura Alvarez negatively and had Labour Twitter scrutinising footage from the campaign day. A tweet from ITV – denying that they edited out the scene described in the book from their footage, as claimed – led to the Times online extract being amended. A later passage alleges that Corbyn met Antonio Costa and assumed that the Portuguese Prime Minister had tabled an EU citizens’ rights amendment in Westminster that was in fact put forward by Tory MP Alberto Costa. I didn’t find this anecdote credible when I read it, and shortly afterwards Corbyn spokesperson James Schneider said it was the Portuguese who were confused rather than the Labour leader.
For these reasons, the book is being given short shrift by some on the Labour left. But its central theme is a truthful one: ‘the Project’ had been in pain for years before it lost in December 2019, and some key players behaved as if they wanted to be relieved of their duties. There was lots of passion but LOTO was a mess, as evident in the extraordinary handling of a parliamentary security problem and in the indecision over the bid to abolish Tom Watson’s deputy post, both imparted in detail.
The book also explores the extent to which John McDonnell was pushing from the other side – not talking to Corbyn for some time over their disagreements on antisemitism, and lobbying hard for a fresh EU referendum, even regularly talking to People’s Vote campaigner Alastair Campbell. The former Shadow Chancellor recently praised Starmer’s Covid response, which has attracted much criticism from others on the party’s left, as “exactly right”. Those comments are even less surprising in light of Left Out.
Every story, especially in politics and especially in Corbyn’s Labour, has more than a couple of sides to it. This book sometimes appears to overlook that. It is also very much a Westminster lobby take on the events, not covering the developments at the grassroots but focusing instead on the views of MPs, LOTO staff and party grandees. Left Out is a must-read, however, for any Labour supporter who wants to know more about what went on behind the scenes. I warn you: it’s a depressing study, whatever your factional allegiance.
Left Out: The Inside Story of Labour Under Corbyn is published by Bodley Head (£18.99).


labourlist--2020-09-04--Thornberry slams “shambolic excuse for a government” over Abbott appointment

Emily Thornberry has slammed the Conservative administration as a “ shambolic excuse for a government ” over the appointment of Tony Abbott as an adviser to the Board of Trade .
Responding to the announcement of the former Australian Prime Minister ’ s selection for the job , the Shadow International Trade Secretary identified “ two factors that should have immediately disqualified Tony Abbott from this role ” .
She highlighted his offensive statements and said that he has “ no experience of detailed trade negotiations ” .
She described the decision made by the government as “ wrong appointment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening , Thornberry said : “ There are two factors that should have immediately disqualified Tony Abbott from this role .
“ First , his history of offensive statements is so long and repetitive that it speaks to serious defects in his character , which is not one I think should be representing Britain on the world stage .
“ And second , the fact that he has no experience of detailed trade negotiations , no understanding of Brexit , no belief in climate change , no concern for workers ’ rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s car industry mean , to my mind , that he has no credentials for this role .
“ Tony Abbott is therefore the wrong appointment on every level , which begs the more important question of why on earth Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have given him the job .
“ However , with this shambolic excuse for a government , we may continue to be appalled and disappointed at their serial incompetence , but we should never any longer be surprised.
” Labour warned against the decision to appoint Abbott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ completely unacceptable ” .
It urged that the government look for an “ expert with views on women and equalities that better reflect our British values ” .
Party leader Keir Starmer told Sky News that he has “ real concerns about Tony Abbott ” and that if he were Prime Minister he would not appoint him to the senior trade role .
But Boris Johnson dismissed claims that Abbott is not suitable for the position today , rejecting criticisms of the former Australian politician ’ s remarks about women , LGBT+ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve as an adviser to the UK ’ s relaunched Board of Trade , which International Trade Secretary and women and equalities minister Liz Truss currently heads as president .
Earlier this week , Labour ’ s Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary highlighted Abbott ’ s record for misogynistic and homophobic comments – including his comments on the “ sex appeal ” of two female politicians .
Marsha de Cordova also criticised Truss for refusing to condemn Abbott ’ s remarks in the Commons and described Health Secretary Matt Hancock ’ s defence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday as “ deeply disturbing ” .

Emily Thornberry has slammed the Conservative administration as a “shambolic excuse for a government” over the appointment of Tony Abbott as an adviser to the Board of Trade.
Responding to the announcement of the former Australian Prime Minister’s selection for the job, the Shadow International Trade Secretary identified “two factors that should have immediately disqualified Tony Abbott from this role”.
She highlighted his offensive statements and said that he has “no experience of detailed trade negotiations”. She described the decision made by the government as “wrong appointment on every level”.
Commenting this evening, Thornberry said: “There are two factors that should have immediately disqualified Tony Abbott from this role.
“First, his history of offensive statements is so long and repetitive that it speaks to serious defects in his character, which is not one I think should be representing Britain on the world stage.
“And second, the fact that he has no experience of detailed trade negotiations, no understanding of Brexit, no belief in climate change, no concern for workers’ rights, and no compunction about killing off Australia’s car industry mean, to my mind, that he has no credentials for this role.
“Tony Abbott is therefore the wrong appointment on every level, which begs the more important question of why on earth Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have given him the job.
“However, with this shambolic excuse for a government, we may continue to be appalled and disappointed at their serial incompetence, but we should never any longer be surprised.”
Labour warned against the decision to appoint Abbott on Thursday and described the move as “completely unacceptable”. It urged that the government look for an “expert with views on women and equalities that better reflect our British values”.
Party leader Keir Starmer told Sky News that he has “real concerns about Tony Abbott” and that if he were Prime Minister he would not appoint him to the senior trade role.
But Boris Johnson dismissed claims that Abbott is not suitable for the position today, rejecting criticisms of the former Australian politician’s remarks about women, LGBT+ people and climate change.
He will serve as an adviser to the UK’s relaunched Board of Trade, which International Trade Secretary and women and equalities minister Liz Truss currently heads as president.
Earlier this week, Labour’s Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary highlighted Abbott’s record for misogynistic and homophobic comments – including his comments on the “sex appeal” of two female politicians.
Marsha de Cordova also criticised Truss for refusing to condemn Abbott’s remarks in the Commons and described Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s defence of the former Australian Prime Minister on Thursday as “deeply disturbing”.


labourlist--2020-09-04--Rayner: “I have nothing but respect” for Starmer

Angela Rayner has declared that she has “ nothing but respect ” for the new Labour leader but added that “ if Keir Starmer did something wrong , I ’ d think nothing of calling him out on it ” .
In a Times Radio interview this afternoon , the deputy leader of the party discussed working with Starmer and what it was like to take up her role in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
Commenting on her relationship with Starmer , Rayner explained : “ If Keir Starmer did something wrong , I ’ d think nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let me tell you .
“ Keir ’ s forensic but he doesn ’ t do much about his personal life .
But if you know what motivates Keir , you ’ ll know what an amazing individual he is .
“ You know , looking after his mum who was , as you know , very , very poorly .
I can disagree with him on the point of policy but his core principles , and what motivates him , is tremendous .
I have nothing but respect for him.
” Starmer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections in April this year in the midst of the pandemic .
Rayner described how it was a “ bit weird starting off as we did in lockdown ” .
On her first conversation with Starmer as deputy , she said : “ He said to me what happens if I get it and get poorly ?
I need to make sure that immediately the system is in place that you become the leader .
Which shows you the kind of man he is.
” She also spoke about her decision to stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her colleague and friend Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for leader .
Rayner described how she thought that it would not be “ helpful for the party ” .
She said : “ Women , especially women in positions of power , almost are set up to compete against each other .
I didn ’ t want to compete with Beccy because I think Beccy is an amazing politician .
“ And I didn ’ t want us to be up against each other .
I didn ’ t see that as helpful for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as helpful for sisterhood .
I didn ’ t see it as helpful for us going forward… “ I was like : yeah of course you should stand for it , I think it ’ s great .
I just think that as women , we do get a tougher time in positions of power… It ’ s so important that us women look out for each other.
” On Starmer ’ s move to sack Long-Bailey earlier this year , Rayner said : “ You ’ ve got to separate out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as leader of the Labour Party and the role that each and every one of us have as a member of that cabinet .
”

Angela Rayner has declared that she has “nothing but respect” for the new Labour leader but added that “if Keir Starmer did something wrong, I’d think nothing of calling him out on it”.
In a Times Radio interview this afternoon, the deputy leader of the party discussed working with Starmer and what it was like to take up her role in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Commenting on her relationship with Starmer, Rayner explained: “If Keir Starmer did something wrong, I’d think nothing of calling him out on it, let me tell you.
“Keir’s forensic but he doesn’t do much about his personal life. But if you know what motivates Keir, you’ll know what an amazing individual he is.
“You know, looking after his mum who was, as you know, very, very poorly. I can disagree with him on the point of policy but his core principles, and what motivates him, is tremendous. I have nothing but respect for him.”
Starmer and Rayner won the leader and deputy elections in April this year in the midst of the pandemic. Rayner described how it was a “bit weird starting off as we did in lockdown”.
On her first conversation with Starmer as deputy, she said: “He said to me what happens if I get it and get poorly? I need to make sure that immediately the system is in place that you become the leader. Which shows you the kind of man he is.”
She also spoke about her decision to stand for deputy, rather than standing against her colleague and friend Rebecca Long-Bailey MP for leader. Rayner described how she thought that it would not be “helpful for the party”.
She said: “Women, especially women in positions of power, almost are set up to compete against each other. I didn’t want to compete with Beccy because I think Beccy is an amazing politician.
“And I didn’t want us to be up against each other. I didn’t see that as helpful for the party. I didn’t see it as helpful for sisterhood. I didn’t see it as helpful for us going forward…
“I was like: yeah, of course you should stand for it, I think it’s great. I just think that as women, we do get a tougher time in positions of power… It’s so important that us women look out for each other.”
On Starmer’s move to sack Long-Bailey earlier this year, Rayner said: “You’ve got to separate out the job that Keir Starmer has as leader of the Labour Party and the role that each and every one of us have as a member of that cabinet.”


labourlist--2020-09-04--Who will succeed Prentis? Our guide to UNISON’s general secretary election

All of the ‘ big three ’ trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party will soon face general secretary elections , but the first one to get going in earnest is that of UNISON .
LabourList has put together a guide to everything you need to know about the UNISON race , from who ’ s running to each candidate ’ s policy platform .
Who is in the race ?
There are currently five people in the running to succeed Dave Prentis as general secretary next year , but LabourList has only been able to reach four of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate most closely aligned with outgoing general secretary Dave Prentis , under whom she has worked for two years .
Currently an assistant general secretary responsible for collective bargaining and negotiation , Glasgow-born McAnea would be the first female leader of the union in its history .
Roger McKenzie , whilst also an assistant general secretary , has distanced himself somewhat from the last administration .
The Black Country native and former painter-decorator has highlighted the need for reform at UNISON , of which he has been a member for over a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national executive council member for local government , joined the race after receiving the endorsement of UNISON Action Broad Left , the union ’ s grassroots left-wing grouping , in August .
His campaign has focused on making the union more militant and less bureaucratic .
Holmes is currently suspended from his job at Kirklees Council and from UNISON , but is still being allowed to compete in the race .
Hugo Pierre , currently a Black member ’ s representative on UNISON ’ s NEC , has worked for Camden Council for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent socialist campaign to be general secretary after missing out on the Action Broad Left nomination .
Peter Sharma is a branch officer and health and safety worker for UNISON in Edinburgh .
( If you ’ re reading , Peter , do get in touch . )
If elected , Sharma , McKenzie and Pierre would all be the first Black leaders of UNISON .
Of the candidates , McAnea , McKenzie and Holmes are the most likely to both reach the ballot .
How does it work ?
There are four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot .
The easiest route is by being nominated by 25 of the union ’ s 1,200 local branches .
Candidates can also qualify by being nominated by the NEC of the union , two regional councils or two of the union ’ s nine National Service Groups , which represent the different industries in the union .
UNISON members will then vote on who their preferred candidate is from October 28 to November 27 2020 , with a result set to be announced on January 11 2021 .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by far the most branch nominations and she has reached the ballot .
Roger McKenzie and Paul Holmes are both within a couple nominations of the 25 necessary endorsements to be in the running .
Who has backed the candidates ?
Christina McAnea has been supported by several members of the union ’ s NEC , as well as the East Midlands Regional Council .
Despite leading the race , she is yet to receive backing from any prominent political figures .
Paul Holmes has received the support of over 20 of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as endorsements from former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and filmmaker Ken Loach .
McDonnell , himself a UNISON member , has described Holmes as a “ dedicated rank and file campaigner ” and claimed the union was currently being run by a “ small elite of unaccountable bureaucrats ” .
Roger McKenzie has received an array of endorsements from prominent Labour politicians , including former leader Jeremy Corbyn , Diane Abbott and Kate Osamor .
He was also backed by Labour MP Dawn Butler at a campaign event on Monday .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and said a vote for McKenzie was a “ practical thing ” supporters of Black Lives Matter could do to bring about change .
Hugo Pierre has received the endorsement of the Socialist Party , of which he is a member .
What are they campaigning on ?
Christina McAnea has been stressing her skills as a negotiator during the campaign , and her past successes working with both government and employers to achieve better pay and conditions .
She has committed herself to backing workers affected by Covid , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a national care service .
Roger McKenzie has largely focused his campaign on reforming and democratising the union to try to increase membership and participation .
The turnout in the last leadership election was less than 10 % , and in UNISON ’ s other internal elections participation is even lower .
He has also pledged to increase the union ’ s media profile and increase the number of union activists to 100,000 .
Paul Holmes ’ campaign has centred around making UNISON more openly political and prepared to go on strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouting union ” .
His main pledge is to take a worker ’ s salary of £32,000 and donate the extra £100,000 of the general secretary ’ s pay package to the union ’ s own welfare fund .
He has also suggested the union sell its two office buildings in London and move its HQ to the Midlands .
Hugo Pierre has matched that worker ’ s wage pledge .
He has also said he would advocate the union being “ more foe than friend ” to Labour , even suggesting UNISON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbents .
Why does it matter to Labour ?
UNISON under Dave Prentis has been hugely supportive of Keir Starmer as the new Labour leader , endorsing him in the leadership race as well as former UNISON rep Angela Rayner for the role of deputy .
From its votes on Labour ’ s NEC to its position as one of Labour ’ s largest donors , the change in direction that has been backed by candidates on the union ’ s left could heavily shape Starmer ’ s tenure as leader and Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .

All of the ‘big three’ trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party will soon face general secretary elections, but the first one to get going in earnest is that of UNISON. LabourList has put together a guide to everything you need to know about the UNISON race, from who’s running to each candidate’s policy platform.
Who is in the race?
There are currently five people in the running to succeed Dave Prentis as general secretary next year, but LabourList has only been able to reach four of the campaign teams.
Christina McAnea is the candidate most closely aligned with outgoing general secretary Dave Prentis, under whom she has worked for two years. Currently an assistant general secretary responsible for collective bargaining and negotiation, Glasgow-born McAnea would be the first female leader of the union in its history.
Roger McKenzie, whilst also an assistant general secretary, has distanced himself somewhat from the last administration. The Black Country native and former painter-decorator has highlighted the need for reform at UNISON, of which he has been a member for over a decade.
Paul Holmes, currently a UNISON national executive council member for local government, joined the race after receiving the endorsement of UNISON Action Broad Left, the union’s grassroots left-wing grouping, in August. His campaign has focused on making the union more militant and less bureaucratic. Holmes is currently suspended from his job at Kirklees Council and from UNISON, but is still being allowed to compete in the race.
Hugo Pierre, currently a Black member’s representative on UNISON’s NEC, has worked for Camden Council for 30 years. He is running an independent socialist campaign to be general secretary after missing out on the Action Broad Left nomination.
Peter Sharma is a branch officer and health and safety worker for UNISON in Edinburgh. (If you’re reading, Peter, do get in touch.)
If elected, Sharma, McKenzie and Pierre would all be the first Black leaders of UNISON. Of the candidates, McAnea, McKenzie and Holmes are the most likely to both reach the ballot.
How does it work?
There are four different ways for the candidates to get on the ballot. The easiest route is by being nominated by 25 of the union’s 834 participating local branches. Candidates can also qualify by being nominated by the NEC of the union, two regional councils or two of the union’s nine National Service Groups, which represent the different industries in the union.
UNISON members will then vote on who their preferred candidate is from October 28 to November 27 2020, with a result set to be announced on January 11 2021.
At the time of writing, Christina McAnea has by far the most branch nominations and she has reached the ballot. Roger McKenzie and Paul Holmes are both within a couple nominations of the 25 necessary endorsements to be in the running.
Who has backed the candidates?
Christina McAnea has been supported by several members of the union’s NEC, as well as the East Midlands Regional Council. Despite leading the race, she is yet to receive backing from any prominent political figures.
Paul Holmes has received the support of over 20 of the union’s 75-member NEC, as well as endorsements from former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and filmmaker Ken Loach. McDonnell, himself a UNISON member, has described Holmes as a “dedicated rank and file campaigner” and claimed the union was currently being run by a “small elite of unaccountable bureaucrats”.
Roger McKenzie has received an array of endorsements from prominent Labour politicians, including former leader Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and Kate Osamor. He was also backed by Labour MP Dawn Butler at a campaign event on Monday. She called the decision a “no brainer” and said a vote for McKenzie was a “practical thing” supporters of Black Lives Matter could do to bring about change.
Hugo Pierre has received the endorsement of the Socialist Party, of which he is a member.
What are they campaigning on?
Christina McAnea has been stressing her skills as a negotiator during the campaign, and her past successes working with both government and employers to achieve better pay and conditions. She has committed herself to backing workers affected by Covid, and has said she will make the union campaign for a national care service.
Roger McKenzie has largely focused his campaign on reforming and democratising the union to try to increase membership and participation. The turnout in the last leadership election was less than 10%, and in UNISON’s other internal elections participation is even lower. He has also pledged to increase the union’s media profile and increase the number of union activists to 100,000.
Paul Holmes’ campaign has centred around making UNISON more openly political and prepared to go on strike – what he has termed “a shouting union”. His main pledge is to take a worker’s salary of £32,000 and donate the extra £100,000 of the general secretary’s pay package to the union’s own welfare fund. He has also suggested the union sell its two office buildings in London and move its HQ to the Midlands.
Hugo Pierre has matched that worker’s wage pledge. He has also said he would advocate the union being “more foe than friend” to Labour, even suggesting UNISON should stand council candidates against unsupportive Labour incumbents.
Why does it matter to Labour?
UNISON under Dave Prentis has been hugely supportive of Keir Starmer as the new Labour leader, endorsing him in the leadership race as well as former UNISON rep Angela Rayner for the role of deputy. From its votes on Labour’s NEC to its position as one of Labour’s largest donors, the change in direction that has been backed by candidates on the union’s left could heavily shape Starmer’s tenure as leader and Labour’s chances in a future general election.


labourlist--2020-09-04--Mo Mowlam would have been the ideal leader for a drug reform movement

Kelly Grehan wrote movingly about the importance of not forgetting Mo Mowlam ’ s extraordinary contribution to the peace in Northern Ireland on the 15th anniversary of her death .
I had the good fortune to have briefly dealt with her in another area where , if she had lived , I believe she might have also made a real difference – drug reform .
Whilst serving as a minister in the Cabinet Office from 1999 to 2001 , her main responsibility was coordinating the government ’ s drugs policy .
During that time , she went to Colombia three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening in what was then the hottest front of the so-called ‘ war on drugs ’ .
Being Mo , this was not limited to comfortable talks with the President and ministers in Bogotá , but meant going to the jungle to meet those risking their lives .
The then Ambassador told me how she quickly realised the enormity of the task , even finding that there was sometimes a shortage of fuel for the security services ’ vehicles .
She concluded that there needed to be a complete overhaul of the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on drugs , which was based on the three UN drugs conventions and their one-size-fits-all prohibitionism .
After her retirement , she forcefully made the case for reform in her memoirs Momentum , published in 2002 .
Her position was that prohibition made the drugs trade so profitable that it could not be stopped .
It would make much more sense to have legal regulation of all drugs and tax them .
The revenues should then be ringfenced for the treatment of addicts .
Addiction had been a problem for a century but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
An international NGO set up that year that I worked with to campaign for drug reform , the Senlis Council , invited her as a guest of honour to its 2003 conference in Lisbon .
Her speech made an utterly compelling case for change and nobody there could doubt the depth of her feelings .
As the conference came to a close , her impatience about the gradual approach towards reform in UN institutions became ever clearer .
At the farewell lunch , she said that we Brits should really do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me who I knew in public life that was sympathetic to the cause .
I immediately told her of the MPs and ministers that I had met since I had taken a public office in 2001 , just after she had retired .
At the time , there was a push from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore reform to the UN Conventions , but the dead hand of the Home Office had , as on so many other issues , eventually blocked progress .
Finally , she said she thought a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those I had mentioned .
Would I co-sign it ?
Naturally , I agreed .
Sadly , her declining health did not allow her to pursue things any further .
I believe that Mo Mowlam would have been the ideal leader for a drug reform movement .
She was , I think , trusted in a way that no other politician has been in my very long life .
She would have been listened to not only by those involved with the problem in health and law enforcement but also those living in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug abuse was a frightening menace .
It would have needed someone of exceptional authenticity to cut through with all those people and make the case for change .
Mo was undoubtedly that person .

Kelly Grehan wrote movingly about the importance of not forgetting Mo Mowlam’s extraordinary contribution to the peace in Northern Ireland on the 15th anniversary of her death. I had the good fortune to have briefly dealt with her in another area where, if she had lived, I believe she might have also made a real difference – drug reform.
Whilst serving as a minister in the Cabinet Office from 1999 to 2001, her main responsibility was coordinating the government’s drugs policy. During that time, she went to Colombia three times to see for herself what was happening in what was then the hottest front of the so-called ‘war on drugs’. Being Mo, this was not limited to comfortable talks with the President and ministers in Bogotá, but meant going to the jungle to meet those risking their lives.
The then Ambassador told me how she quickly realised the enormity of the task, even finding that there was sometimes a shortage of fuel for the security services’ vehicles. She concluded that there needed to be a complete overhaul of the way that the international community approached the war on drugs, which was based on the three UN drugs conventions and their one-size-fits-all prohibitionism.
After her retirement, she forcefully made the case for reform in her memoirs Momentum, published in 2002. Her position was that prohibition made the drugs trade so profitable that it could not be stopped. It would make much more sense to have legal regulation of all drugs and tax them. The revenues should then be ringfenced for the treatment of addicts. Addiction had been a problem for a century but had never been tackled seriously by any government.
An international NGO set up that year that I worked with to campaign for drug reform, the Senlis Council, invited her as a guest of honour to its 2003 conference in Lisbon. Her speech made an utterly compelling case for change and nobody there could doubt the depth of her feelings. As the conference came to a close, her impatience about the gradual approach towards reform in UN institutions became ever clearer.
At the farewell lunch, she said that we Brits should really do something to speed things up and asked me who I knew in public life that was sympathetic to the cause. I immediately told her of the MPs and ministers that I had met since I had taken a public position on reform in 2001, just after she had retired. At the time, there was a push from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to explore reform to the UN Conventions, but the dead hand of the Home Office had, as on so many other issues, eventually blocked progress. Finally, she said she thought a letter urging action should be sent to those I had mentioned. Would I co-sign it? Naturally, I agreed. Sadly, her declining health did not allow her to pursue things any further.
I believe that Mo Mowlam would have been the ideal leader for a drug reform movement. She was, I think, trusted in a way that no other politician has been in my very long life. She would have been listened to not only by those involved with the problem in health and law enforcement but also those living in housing estates across the UK, where drug abuse was a frightening menace. It would have needed someone of exceptional authenticity to cut through with all those people and make the case for change. Mo was undoubtedly that person.


labourlist--2020-09-04--Beijing’s actions only fuel our mission to support democracy in Hong Kong

The principles of internationalism , respect for human rights and support for democracy are key pillars of the labour movement and will continue to be in the future .
But the fight for these values goes beyond domestic party politics , which is why I am proud to serve as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group ( APPG ) on Hong Kong , working with MPs from other parties to support Hongkongers in their fight for freedom .
This month , the APPG launched its report into human rights abuse perpetrated by the Hong Kong police force .
We revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – including descriptions of “ torture ” , “ abuse ” of medical staffers tending to injured protesters and “ mass unlawful arrests ” .
These actions were not only authorised by Beijing , but they were also organised and encouraged by the very officials who are appointed to keep citizens safe .
Supporters of democracy have been arrested and many face life imprisonment simply for believing in a democratic future for their city .
Such revelations would shock most countries into action and encourage leaders to right the wrongs that have undeniably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong .
Instead , the authorities have attempted to muzzle those who speak out .
Campaigners allegedly connected to our APPG inquiry have been arrested , including those who alleged to support pro-democracy grassroots organisation Fight for Freedom .
Stand with Hong Kong .
Such brave individuals now face life imprisonment .
They have been charged with several offences under the newly imposed and dictatorial national security law , including “ colluding with foreign elements ” , “ incitement ” and “ conspiracy to defraud ” .
This reaction is concerning .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control the fiercely brave people of Hong Kong and the threat that they have consistently posed to disrupt the increasingly draconian grip of Beijing .
I would like to reassure anyone who is fearful that we do not tolerate bullies .
Beijing ’ s heinous actions only fuel the UK parliament ’ s mission to support democracy in this unique city .
We have a moral duty to stand with Hong Kong , and I am determined that we will continue to do so .
I would like to send a clear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who feels unsafe at this time : the UK is with you .
We will never give up on Hong Kong .
We will always stand with Hongkongers and the rights signed into law by the Sino-British joint declaration since 1984 .
We call upon the UK government to take note of our APPG inquiry report and the shocking first-hand experiences it reveals , and to consider carefully our recommendations .
These include placing Magnitsky-style sanctions onto senior Hong Kong officials that are found to have perpetrated human rights abuses against Hongkongers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the British national ( overseas ) lifeboat scheme .
Hongkongers need this government to act now more than ever before .
The APPG on Hong Kong will continue to lobby the government by producing a series of reports in the coming months .
These reports will shine a light on the freedoms and rights that are under threat in Hong Kong , such as academic freedom , the independence of financial institutions and press freedom .
These investigations will also involve experts and first-hand experiences .
They will be used to inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hong Kong needs international support if it is to be successful in its fight for freedom .
This APPG will do all that it can , and expects both the UK government and others to fight with us in the name of democracy and for the rights of Hong Kong .

The principles of internationalism, respect for human rights and support for democracy are key pillars of the labour movement and will continue to be in the future. But the fight for these values goes beyond domestic party politics, which is why I am proud to serve as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Hong Kong, working with MPs from other parties to support Hongkongers in their fight for freedom.
This month, the APPG launched its report into human rights abuse perpetrated by the Hong Kong police force. We revealed shocking and horrifying experiences told by Hongkongers – including descriptions of “torture”, “abuse” of medical staffers tending to injured protesters and “mass unlawful arrests”. These actions were not only authorised by Beijing, but they were also organised and encouraged by the very officials who are appointed to keep citizens safe.
Supporters of democracy have been arrested and many face life imprisonment simply for believing in a democratic future for their city. Such revelations would shock most countries into action and encourage leaders to right the wrongs that have undeniably harmed their citizens. But not Hong Kong. Instead, the authorities have attempted to muzzle those who speak out.
Campaigners allegedly connected to our APPG inquiry have been arrested, including those who alleged to support pro-democracy grassroots organisation Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong. Such brave individuals now face life imprisonment. They have been charged with several offences under the newly imposed and dictatorial national security law, including “colluding with foreign elements”, “incitement” and “conspiracy to defraud”.
This reaction is concerning. It reflects Carrie Lam’s desperation to control the fiercely brave people of Hong Kong and the threat that they have consistently posed to disrupt the increasingly draconian grip of Beijing. I would like to reassure anyone who is fearful that we do not tolerate bullies. Beijing’s heinous actions only fuel the UK parliament’s mission to support democracy in this unique city.
We have a moral duty to stand with Hong Kong, and I am determined that we will continue to do so. I would like to send a clear and unwavering message to anyone in Hong Kong who feels unsafe at this time: the UK is with you. We will never give up on Hong Kong. We will always stand with Hongkongers and the rights signed into law by the Sino-British joint declaration since 1984.
We call upon the UK government to take note of our APPG inquiry report and the shocking first-hand experiences it reveals, and to consider carefully our recommendations. These include placing Magnitsky-style sanctions onto senior Hong Kong officials that are found to have perpetrated human rights abuses against Hongkongers and ensuring that such officials do not benefit from the British national (overseas) lifeboat scheme. Hongkongers need this government to act now more than ever before.
The APPG on Hong Kong will continue to lobby the government by producing a series of reports in the coming months. These reports will shine a light on the freedoms and rights that are under threat in Hong Kong, such as academic freedom, the independence of financial institutions and press freedom. These investigations will also involve experts and first-hand experiences. They will be used to inform and lobby government to act with urgency. Hong Kong needs international support if it is to be successful in its fight for freedom. This APPG will do all that it can, and expects both the UK government and others to fight with us in the name of democracy and for the rights of Hong Kong.


labourlist--2020-09-04--WATCH: In conversation with… Jim McMahon MP

Join us at 7pm on Monday 7th September for our latest “ In conversation with… ” online event featuring LabourList @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shadow transport secretary Jim McMahon MP .
If readers have suggestions for questions @ @ @ @ @ by McMahon , which is the focus of the event , please feel free to @ @ @ @ @ advance .
You will also be able to offer suggestions during the live broadcast .
@ @ @ @ @ to show the livestream below when the event starts at 7pm .
You will also @ @ @ @ @ directly on YouTube by clicking here .

Join us at 7pm on Monday 7th September for our latest “In conversation with…” online event featuring LabourList editor Sienna Rodgers and Labour’s shadow transport secretary Jim McMahon MP.
If readers have suggestions for questions about the policy brief held by McMahon, which is the focus of the event, please feel free to email them to us in advance. You will also be able to offer suggestions during the live broadcast.
This page will refresh automatically to show the livestream below when the event starts at 7pm. You will also be able to watch it directly on YouTube by clicking here.


labourlist--2020-09-04--Mish Rahman: Why I’m standing to represent local parties on Labour’s NEC

This pandemic has changed the world , and there is no going back .
We now have a choice .
We can use this moment to build something stronger – a sustainable society that treats people as equals .
Or we can be passive and wring our hands while the old system , built on structural racism and the prioritisation of profit over planet , is patched up once again .
The Labour national executive committee ( NEC ) slate I ’ m standing on , Grassroots Voice , believes that our party must choose the first route .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and build a Labour Party that fights for the future we all need .
For me , this fight isn ’ t an abstract one .
As a British Muslim male with Bangladeshi heritage , born in Walsall , whose father campaigned with the Anti-Nazi League against the National Front in the ’ 80s , I ’ ve always been a committed anti-racist activist .
I was the first Labour candidate of Bangladeshi heritage to stand in Walsall ’ s council elections , one of the first graduates of Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m now standing in the NEC elections to push for better inclusion and representation for BAME communities .
I want to ensure that this important body reflects the diversity of our party , but I also want to prove that people like me offer more than just diversity – we have a huge amount to contribute to the fight for a better society .
Progress on racial justice , both within and outside the party , has been far too slow .
I ’ ve seen tokenistic reforms and half-measures fail to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many times .
Which is why our party must join with Black Lives Matter in their fight for systemic change – change to a justice system that criminalises young people , to a housing sector that charges so much for so little , and an end to racialised health inequalities that cost so many lives .
I will lead from the front on these issues .
The climate crisis must also be top of our agenda .
By 2030 we need to create a zero-carbon economy that works for us all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate collapse .
This means our party must start building support for a transformative Green New Deal now .
The only way to win power is to address the real problems facing ordinary people .
Coronavirus has changed the way people think about society and what is seen as politically possible , but its economic fallout threatens millions of us .
There ’ s massive public support for transformative socialist policies that can create the future we need .
If we don ’ t harness this deep desire for a better world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our party must be at the forefront of the fight for an economy that protects and empowers the workers that the Tories hold back .
The Green New Deal is the perfect framework through which to do this .
But to successfully champion these vital policies , we must also get our house in order .
This means , first , ensuring proper NEC accountability .
For example , members deserve to know if the party went against its own legal advice to make the recent Panorama payouts from our subs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t undermine the ongoing Labour leaks inquiry .
A properly transparent and accountable NEC would enable members to hold their representatives accountable for the huge decisions they make on their behalf .
In fact , I ’ d go further : it is members who should decide matters of policy and procedure wherever possible .
We ’ re a party that believes in democracy , after all .
Second , Labour ’ s NEC must establish a meaningful and dynamic relationship between the top and the bottom of the party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role to play here .
We must end selection stitch-ups and let local members decide their candidates .
No more ‘ knowing the right people ’ : transparency , fairness , and member-led democracy are key .
By fostering Constituency Labour Parties ( CLPs ) as engines of local creativity and talent , we can transform Labour into a powerful campaigning organisation .
Finally , we need an NEC with a strategy to win communities back to Labour – be that rebuilding the Red Wall or healing damaged trust between the party and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this if we let the Conservatives set the political agenda .
We must capture people ’ s hunger for change by offering them a vision of the future we need : a sustainable , equal society where good jobs and decent homes are the norm , not the exception .
A society that supports people to flourish no matter the colour of their skin , class , gender identity , or where they come from .
We have a future to win , and the right NEC will be vital in helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Voice NEC campaign on Twitter and Facebook .

This pandemic has changed the world, and there is no going back. We now have a choice. We can use this moment to build something stronger – a sustainable society that treats people as equals. Or we can be passive and wring our hands while the old system, built on structural racism and the prioritisation of profit over planet, is patched up once again.
The Labour national executive committee (NEC) slate I’m standing on, Grassroots Voice, believes that our party must choose the first route. We must meet the challenges we face head on and build a Labour Party that fights for the future we all need.
For me, this fight isn’t an abstract one. As a British Muslim male with Bangladeshi heritage, born in Walsall, whose father campaigned with the Anti-Nazi League against the National Front in the ’80s, I’ve always been a committed anti-racist activist.
I was the first Labour candidate of Bangladeshi heritage to stand in Walsall’s council elections, one of the first graduates of Labour’s Bernie Grant Leadership Programme, and I’m now standing in the NEC elections to push for better inclusion and representation for BAME communities. I want to ensure that this important body reflects the diversity of our party, but I also want to prove that people like me offer more than just diversity – we have a huge amount to contribute to the fight for a better society.
Progress on racial justice, both within and outside the party, has been far too slow. I’ve seen tokenistic reforms and half-measures fail to tackle the UK’s deep-rooted racism too many times. Which is why our party must join with Black Lives Matter in their fight for systemic change – change to a justice system that criminalises young people, to a housing sector that charges so much for so little, and an end to racialised health inequalities that cost so many lives. I will lead from the front on these issues.
Labour has been far too quiet on the Tories’ scapegoating of refugees and migrants, which is why I – along with Momentum, Open Labour and Labour Campaign for Free Movement – have called on Keir Starmer to stand up for the rights of refugees and migrants and make clear that no human is illegal.
If elected to the NEC, I’ll fight for Labour to adopt strong policies in support of refugees and migrants’ rights, including providing safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and ending indefinite detention. Inequality and unemployment are caused by Tory policies, not by migrants – but if Labour doesn’t make this clear, the Tories’ racist narratives flourish without opposition.
The climate crisis must also be top of our agenda. By 2030, we need to create a zero-carbon economy that works for us all, or we face a real threat of climate collapse. This means our party must start building support for a transformative Green New Deal now.
The only way to win power is to address the real problems facing ordinary people. Coronavirus has changed the way people think about society and what is seen as politically possible, but its economic fallout threatens millions of us. There’s massive public support for transformative socialist policies that can create the future we need.
If we don’t harness this deep desire for a better world, we will have wasted a historic opportunity. Our party must be at the forefront of the fight for an economy that protects and empowers the workers that the Tories hold back. The Green New Deal is the perfect framework through which to do this.
But to successfully champion these vital policies, we must also get our house in order. This means, first, ensuring proper NEC accountability. For example, members deserve to know if the party went against its own legal advice to make the recent Panorama payouts from our subs, and we deserve assurances that these payouts won’t undermine the ongoing Labour leaks inquiry – a concern that has been expressed by many Black MPs, staff and members. Banning discussions of these payouts within CLPs is an affront to democracy and free speech within our party, and comes after the Labour right on the NEC voted down a motion to allow CLPs to conduct normal business online. We must stand up to such attempts to silence CLPs and stifle democracy.
A properly transparent and accountable NEC would enable members to hold their representatives accountable for the huge decisions they make on their behalf. In fact, I’d go further: it is members who should decide matters of policy and procedure wherever possible. We’re a party that believes in democracy, after all.
Second, Labour’s NEC must establish a meaningful and dynamic relationship between the top and the bottom of the party, and local party reps have a vital role to play here. We must end selection stitch-ups and let local members decide their candidates. No more ‘knowing the right people’: transparency, fairness, and member-led democracy are key. By fostering Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) as engines of local creativity and talent, we can transform Labour into a powerful campaigning organisation.
Finally, we need an NEC with a strategy to win communities back to Labour – be that rebuilding the Red Wall or healing damaged trust between the party and BAME communities. We can’t do this if we let the Conservatives set the political agenda. We must capture people’s hunger for change by offering them a vision of the future we need: a sustainable, equal society where good jobs and decent homes are the norm, not the exception. A society that supports people to flourish no matter the colour of their skin, class, gender identity, or where they come from. We have a future to win, and the right NEC will be vital in helping us get there.
Support the Grassroots Voice NEC campaign on Twitter and Facebook.


labourlist--2020-09-05--Labour calls for “rapid review to fix chaotic quarantine arrangements”

Nick Thomas-Symonds has called for a “ rapid review to fix chaotic quarantine arrangements ” and said that the government ’ s handling of people coming to the UK has “ lacked urgency , coherence and clarity from the outset ” .
In a letter to Priti Patel , the Shadow Home Secretary highlighted the “ dire warnings that have been made regarding job losses by travel-related sectors ” and said that the government is “ putting whole sectors of the economy at risk ” .
He wrote that the Home Secretary should carry out a policy review of UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and introduce a “ robust testing regime ” to “ safely minimise the need for 14 day quarantine ” .
Under the current system implemented earlier this year due to the pandemic , the government maintains a list of countries from which people are required to quarantine for a period of two weeks .
The government has been facing increasing pressure to review the process after England chose not to quarantine arrivals from Portugal earlier this week , even though a two-week isolation period was imposed by Scotland and Wales .
Transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences across the four nations are “ confusing ” , but he also accused Scotland of having “ jumped the gun ” in relation to requiring lockdown for travellers from Portugal .
Thomas-Symonds highlighted in his letter that Shapps has also said that it “ may be possible to bring the quarantine period down to seven , eight or ten days ” with the right kind of system in place .
Many other countries around the world have already put in place a system of testing for coronavirus in new arrivals at their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Austria , Dubai and Iceland .
A facility was set up at Heathrow airport last month that would potentially allow for 13,000 people to be screened a day .
The unit is not in use as the government has refused to say that those with a negative result can avoid quarantine .
Labour called in July for the protection of travel jobs after the introduction of quarantine for people coming from Spain , highlighting the “ 17,500 redundancy notices issued in the aviation sector since the beginning of lockdown ” .
Below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to Priti Patel .
I write to call for a rapid review to fix chaotic quarantine arrangements that are losing public confidence and undermining our ability to keep people safe and save jobs .
In order to rebuild this trust I am calling on government to undertake a review in to quarantine policy to report within a fortnight .
It should include outlining options for a robust testing regime in airports , and related follow up tests , that could help to safely minimise the need for 14 day quarantine .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important part of trying to respond to the pandemic and safely reopen society .
Given the huge challenges being faced by the travel sector and the scale of job losses , it makes sense to look at this area as part of wider package of improvements to the testing regime .
You will of course be aware of the dire warnings that have been made regarding job losses by travel related sectors .
Your cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Transport suggested this week that with the right kind of system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring the quarantine period down to seven , eight or ten days .
What is needed now is far more clarity about how that might be achieved , including more transparency about what is being done to act on the advice reported by The scientific advisory group for emergencies ( SAGE ) that it may be possible to reduce quarantine times with testing at airports and follow up tests at home .
The continued uncertainty is damaging public confidence and putting whole sectors of the economy at risk .
Furthermore , there have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of compliance with the quarantine restrictions that are in place .
There are reports that less than a third of passenger locator forms are checked , with a non-compliance rate of around 10 per cent .
The effectiveness of this regime should also be part of the review , to try and build confidence in the arrangements .
The government ’ s handling of arrivals into the UK has lacked urgency , coherence and clarity from the outset .
Including being too slow to implement controls at the onset of the crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact on the travel sector , as with other badly-hit parts of our economy , is so significant that your government must abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of income support without delay .

Nick Thomas-Symonds has called for a “rapid review to fix chaotic quarantine arrangements” and said that the government’s handling of people coming to the UK has “lacked urgency, coherence and clarity from the outset”.
In a letter to Priti Patel, the Shadow Home Secretary highlighted the “dire warnings that have been made regarding job losses by travel-related sectors” and said that the government is “putting whole sectors of the economy at risk”.
He wrote that the Home Secretary should carry out a policy review of UK quarantine procedures to report within a fortnight, and introduce a “robust testing regime” to “safely minimise the need for 14 day quarantine”.
Under the current system implemented earlier this year due to the pandemic, the government maintains a list of countries from which people are required to quarantine for a period of two weeks.
The government has been facing increasing pressure to review the process after England chose not to quarantine arrivals from Portugal earlier this week, even though a two-week isolation period was imposed by Scotland and Wales.
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps admitted on Friday that differences across the four nations are “confusing”, but he also accused Scotland of having “jumped the gun” in relation to requiring lockdown for travellers from Portugal.
Thomas-Symonds highlighted in his letter that Shapps has also said that it “may be possible to bring the quarantine period down to seven, eight or ten days” with the right kind of system in place.
Many other countries around the world have already put in place a system of testing for coronavirus in new arrivals at their international airports, including Germany, France, Austria, Dubai and Iceland.
A facility was set up at Heathrow airport last month that would potentially allow for 13,000 people to be screened a day. The unit is not in use as the government has refused to say that those with a negative result can avoid quarantine.
Labour called in July for the protection of travel jobs after the introduction of quarantine for people coming from Spain, highlighting the “17,500 redundancy notices issued in the aviation sector since the beginning of lockdown”.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to Priti Patel.
Dear Home Secretary
I write to call for a rapid review to fix chaotic quarantine arrangements that are losing public confidence and undermining our ability to keep people safe and save jobs.
In order to rebuild this trust I am calling on government to undertake a review in to quarantine policy to report within a fortnight. It should include outlining options for a robust testing regime in airports, and related follow up tests, that could help to safely minimise the need for 14 day quarantine.
It is clear that ramped up testing is an important part of trying to respond to the pandemic and safely reopen society. Given the huge challenges being faced by the travel sector and the scale of job losses, it makes sense to look at this area as part of wider package of improvements to the testing regime.
You will of course be aware of the dire warnings that have been made regarding job losses by travel related sectors.
Your cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Transport suggested this week that with the right kind of system in place it may be possible to bring the quarantine period down to seven, eight or ten days. What is needed now is far more clarity about how that might be achieved, including more transparency about what is being done to act on the advice reported by The scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE) that it may be possible to reduce quarantine times with testing at airports and follow up tests at home.
The continued uncertainty is damaging public confidence and putting whole sectors of the economy at risk.
Furthermore, there have been serious concerns raised about the monitoring of compliance with the quarantine restrictions that are in place. There are reports that less than a third of passenger locator forms are checked, with a non-compliance rate of around 10 per cent. The effectiveness of this regime should also be part of the review, to try and build confidence in the arrangements.
The government’s handling of arrivals into the UK has lacked urgency, coherence and clarity from the outset. Including being too slow to implement controls at the onset of the crisis.
It’s also clear that the impact on the travel sector, as with other badly-hit parts of our economy, is so significant that your government must abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of income support without delay.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Thomas-Symonds MP
Shadow Home Secretary


labourlist--2020-09-05--“Massive failure of accountability”: MPs’ staffers say parliament isn’t working

Labour MPs ’ staffers have described a “ massive failure of accountability on the part of the government ” as they reveal that normal parliamentary procedures used to scrutinise the government are not working .
Employees in MPs ’ offices have spoken to LabourList after a communication breakdown with ministers .
They say responses from government figures have been delayed by “ months and months ” during the pandemic .
Parliamentary workers have said MPs have waited as long as five months for formal ministerial replies to letters .
According to Cabinet Office guidance , they should receive an answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told LabourList : “ Anything to do with a ministerial response – so letters and written questions in the main – have been really slow coming back… We ’ re talking months and months in some cases .
“ We wrote a letter in early April to the Department of Transport and it came back last week .
So , what , like five months later ?
By which point , the issue that the letter was originally about is not even relevant anymore.
” LabourList has seen five ministerial letters sent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made since April this year , that have all taken between three and five months for the government representative to respond .
In one instance , the member had written to a cabinet member on April 8th about a specific policy issue affecting taxi drivers .
The official response from the minister came back to the Labour MP on August 28th .
Employees working in Labour MPs ’ offices have also noted a decline in the standard of the answers being received , with several highlighting that ministers are “ just sending bulk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ Say you ’ ve written about the furlough scheme .
They will write a bulk response , and you can tell it ’ s been written in response to lots of different people because it doesn ’ t answer the nuances of your question.
” The staffer added : “ Nobody is really talking about this .
But this is a massive failure of accountability on the part of the government.
” Labour MP for Stockton North and shadow justice minister Alex Cunningham has taken to social media to express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am sick and tired of Tory ministers taking weeks on end to answer letters I write on behalf of constituents.
” Parliamentary workers have told LabourList that they have also seen a marked increase in the number of letters signed off by civil servants rather than the relevant minister .
This normally only happens in a small minority of cases .
Cunningham added : “ The latest to the Chancellor Rishi Sunak has taken six weeks and he delegated it to a civil servant .
He should at least sign the letters off.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Health and Social Care has sent out responses from a civil servant , with a covering letter explaining that minister Helen Whately has too much correspondence to sign off .
Guidance is clear that “ all correspondence to ministers from MPs should be signed off at an appropriate equivalent ministerial level ” .
Where this is not possible , it says a ‘ duty minister ’ should “ sign in his or her absence ” .
It adds that civil servants should only sign off letters in “ exceptional circumstances ” when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or if it has been “ decreed that under certain circumstances an official reply would be more appropriate ” .
The MP ’ s staff member added : “ The Treasury do the same without the covering letter , it ’ s just some member of staff having to sign off with his own name on some poorly written stuff that doesn ’ t answer the questions put to the Chancellor.
” The same staffer also told LabourList that , for the first time in her two years ’ experience working for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return a query to the member by suggesting it should be sent to another department .
The usual process for correspondence sent to the wrong minister is for it to be forwarded internally .
The staffer added that in this particular case the official had made a mistake and seemingly not read the letter .
The guidance for officials handling correspondence sent to the wrong department states that the teams involved should resolve who must send a reply within three working days , or five in exceptional cases .
She concluded : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either don ’ t have capacity to answer everything to a reasonable standard , or don ’ t care what goes out any more.
” Boris Johnson has been repeatedly criticised for avoiding scrutiny – including his prorogation of parliament last September and delaying his appearance in front of the liaison committee , which he attended for the first time as PM in May this year .
It was also reported following an investigation by the The Times that the Prime Minister had missed five of the government ’ s emergency COBRA meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Parliament went into recess early due to the pandemic after passing emergency legislation , handing government powers to shape its response to the crisis .
For several weeks , members of the government only faced questions at press briefings .
Unlike many local councils , for example , the government was slow to make alternative scrutiny arrangements such as holding usual meetings over Zoom – leaving no opportunity for backbenchers to hold ministers to account .
At the time , Labour leader Keir Starmer called for “ urgent talks ” on recalling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be “ challenged and subject to scrutiny ” to avoid mistakes .
A government spokesperson said : “ Every effort is made to provide a substantive reply to correspondence within a reasonable timeframe .
“ Ministers receive large volumes of correspondence , exacerbated during the height of the coronavirus pandemic .
While departments endeavour to answer all correspondence in a timely manner , occasionally this is not possible .
”

Labour MPs’ staffers have described a “massive failure of accountability on the part of the government” as they reveal that normal parliamentary procedures used to scrutinise the government are not working.
Employees in MPs’ offices have spoken to LabourList after a communication breakdown with ministers. They say responses from government figures have been delayed by “months and months” during the pandemic.
Parliamentary workers have said MPs have waited as long as five months for formal ministerial replies to letters. According to Cabinet Office guidance, they should receive an answer within 20 working days.
One staffer told LabourList: “Anything to do with a ministerial response – so letters and written questions in the main – have been really slow coming back… We’re talking months and months in some cases.
“We wrote a letter in early April to the Department of Transport and it came back last week. So, what, like five months later? By which point, the issue that the letter was originally about is not even relevant anymore.”
LabourList has seen five ministerial letters sent to a Labour MP following their queries, made since April this year, that have all taken between three and five months for the government representative to respond.
In one instance, the member had written to a cabinet member on April 8th about a specific policy issue affecting taxi drivers. The official response from the minister came back to the Labour MP on August 28th.
Employees working in Labour MPs’ offices have also noted a decline in the standard of the answers being received, with several highlighting that ministers are “just sending bulk responses” to their enquiries.
One said: “Say you’ve written about the furlough scheme. They will write a bulk response, and you can tell it’s been written in response to lots of different people because it doesn’t answer the nuances of your question.”
The staffer added: “Nobody is really talking about this. But this is a massive failure of accountability on the part of the government.”
Labour MP for Stockton North and shadow justice minister Alex Cunningham has taken to social media to express his frustration, writing: “I am sick and tired of Tory ministers taking weeks on end to answer letters I write on behalf of constituents.”
Parliamentary workers have told LabourList that they have also seen a marked increase in the number of letters signed off by civil servants rather than the relevant minister. This normally only happens in a small minority of cases.
Cunningham added: “The latest to the Chancellor Rishi Sunak has taken six weeks and he delegated it to a civil servant. He should at least sign the letters off.”
One staffer described how the Department for Health and Social Care has sent out responses from a civil servant, with a covering letter explaining that minister Helen Whately has too much correspondence to sign off.
Guidance is clear that “all correspondence to ministers from MPs should be signed off at an appropriate equivalent ministerial level”. Where this is not possible, it says a ‘duty minister’ should “sign in his or her absence”.
It adds that civil servants should only sign off letters in “exceptional circumstances” when dealing with a large volume of letters, or if it has been “decreed that under certain circumstances an official reply would be more appropriate”.
The MP’s staff member added: “The Treasury do the same without the covering letter, it’s just some member of staff having to sign off with his own name on some poorly written stuff that doesn’t answer the questions put to the Chancellor.”
The same staffer also told LabourList that, for the first time in her two years’ experience working for the MP, a civil servant attempted to return a query to the member by suggesting it should be sent to another department.
The usual process for correspondence sent to the wrong minister is for it to be forwarded internally. The staffer added that in this particular case the official had made a mistake and seemingly not read the letter.
The guidance for officials handling correspondence sent to the wrong department states that the teams involved should resolve who must send a reply within three working days, or five in exceptional cases.
She concluded: “I get the impression that they either don’t have capacity to answer everything to a reasonable standard, or don’t care what goes out any more.”
Boris Johnson has been repeatedly criticised for avoiding scrutiny – including his prorogation of parliament last September and delaying his appearance in front of the liaison committee, which he attended for the first time as PM in May this year.
It was also reported following an investigation by the The Times that the Prime Minister had missed five of the government’s emergency COBRA meetings in the early stages of the pandemic.
Parliament went into recess early due to the pandemic after passing emergency legislation, handing government powers to shape its response to the crisis. For several weeks, members of the government only faced questions at press briefings.
Unlike many local councils, for example, the government was slow to make alternative scrutiny arrangements such as holding usual meetings over Zoom – leaving no opportunity for backbenchers to hold ministers to account.
At the time, Labour leader Keir Starmer called for “urgent talks” on recalling parliament and said that government decisions needed to be “challenged and subject to scrutiny” to avoid mistakes.
A government spokesperson said: “Every effort is made to provide a substantive reply to correspondence within a reasonable timeframe.
“Ministers receive large volumes of correspondence, exacerbated during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. While departments endeavour to answer all correspondence in a timely manner, occasionally this is not possible.”