labourlist--2020-06-25--Keir Starmer decisively breaks with the Corbyn era

When the Labour leadership election first kicked off , Rebecca Long-Bailey was thought to have a good chance of winning it .
She didn ’ t win – instead members chose Keir Starmer , who campaigned on the promise of more competence and less factionalism , to replace Jeremy Corbyn .
He promised to give the runner-up a top job in his shadow cabinet , and did so .
But today Long-Bailey was fired from the Labour frontbench just three months after the election .
The sacking represents the moment that Starmer decisively broke with the Corbyn era .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent in the leadership and one of the very few Corbynites appointed to the frontbench by Starmer , and because it was about antisemitism , an issue that dominated the Corbyn leadership .
Long-Bailey shared an article in which Maxine Peake said Israel ’ s security services had taught the US police to kneel on people ’ s necks , described as an “ antisemitic conspiracy theory ” by Starmer ’ s spokesperson .
For Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies , the move signals a clear shift towards zero tolerance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer has not been found flawless in his dealing with antisemitism issues since he took over : in welcoming the sacking , the Campaign Against Antisemitism pointed out that they had criticised his “ early handling of incidents ” and his lack of timetable for reforming the complaints process .
But this decision will be taken as evidence that Starmer is willing to sacrifice party unity for cracking down on antisemitism .
For many on the Labour left , this sacking backs up claims that there are double standards in the way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is often pointed out that Rachel Reeves posted a lengthy and uncritical thread about Nazi sympathiser Nancy Astor without consequences .
This is frequently held up on social media as proof that the response to MPs behaving badly is overall based on factional priorities and conveniences .
The picture is also complicated by the fact that there were clearly tensions in the party over education policy during the coronavirus crisis .
Long-Bailey welcomed the news at the start of the month that schools would not be able to reopen for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has said “ the sooner , the better ” .
She has been notably absent from the airwaves despite the importance of the issue .
Starmer ’ s decision to stand down Long-Bailey today will undoubtedly entrench party disunity .
Already , Long-Bailey has tweeted a thread that is critical of the leader ’ s office in the situation and John McDonnell has expressed solidarity with her .
What we can be certain of is that the new leadership is no longer politely appealing for everyone in Labour to just get along nicely @

When the Labour leadership election first kicked off, Rebecca Long-Bailey was thought to have a good chance of winning it. She didn’t win – instead members chose Keir Starmer, who campaigned on the promise of more competence and less factionalism, to replace Jeremy Corbyn. He promised to give the runner-up a top job in his shadow cabinet, and did so. But today Long-Bailey was fired from the Labour frontbench just three months after the election.
The sacking represents the moment that Starmer decisively broke with the Corbyn era. Both because she was Starmer’s Corbynite opponent in the leadership and one of the very few Corbynites appointed to the frontbench by Starmer, and because it was about antisemitism, an issue that dominated the Corbyn leadership. Long-Bailey shared an article in which Maxine Peake said Israel’s security services had taught the US police to kneel on people’s necks, described as an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” by Starmer’s spokesperson.
For Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies, the move signals a clear shift towards zero tolerance of antisemitism by the Labour leadership. Starmer has not been found flawless in his dealing with antisemitism issues since he took over: in welcoming the sacking, the Campaign Against Antisemitism pointed out that they had criticised his “early handling of incidents” and his lack of timetable for reforming the complaints process. But this decision will be taken as evidence that Starmer is willing to sacrifice party unity for cracking down on antisemitism.
For many on the Labour left, this sacking backs up claims that there are double standards in the way that racism is dealt with in the party. It is often pointed out that Rachel Reeves posted a lengthy and uncritical thread about Nazi sympathiser Nancy Astor without consequences. This is frequently held up on social media as proof that the response to MPs behaving badly is overall based on factional priorities and conveniences.
The picture is also complicated by the fact that there were clearly tensions in the party over education policy during the coronavirus crisis. Long-Bailey welcomed the news at the start of the month that schools would not be able to reopen for all children before the summer, whereas Starmer has said “the sooner, the better”. She has been notably absent from the airwaves despite the importance of the issue.
Starmer’s decision to stand down Long-Bailey today will undoubtedly entrench party disunity. Already, Long-Bailey has tweeted a thread that is critical of the leader’s office in the situation and John McDonnell has expressed solidarity with her. What we can be certain of is that the new leadership is no longer politely appealing for everyone in Labour to just get along nicely.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Labour demands answers from Jenrick over planning row documents

Steve Reed has written to Robert Jenrick demanding answers over the Westferry Printworks Development scandal following the release of documents relating to his handling of the planning application .
In a letter to Jenrick today , the Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary called for the minister to explain the discrepancies between the account he gave to parliament and the published documents .
He has also called on the Housing Secretary to release any remaining documents not subject to freedom of information requests , “ in the interests of transparency and given the controversy ” around the decision .
Commenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ These breathtaking documents raise far more questions about the Secretary of State ’ s relationship with Richard Desmond than they answer .
Whether the Prime Minister likes it or not , this matter is far from closed .
“ An explosive and unprecedented case of a Secretary of State quashing his own unlawful , biased decision to approve a “ cash-for-favours ” planning decision that saved a Conservative donor over £150m demands the utmost transparency .
“ That is why the Secretary of State must come back to the House of Commons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publish all remaining evidence .
The public need to know there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy friends and another rule for everyone else.
” The letter from Labour follows the release of 129 pages of correspondence relating to a decision by Jenrick to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor ’ s planning application for a development after admitting “ apparent bias ” .
The Housing Secretary has admitted that he published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m .
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced , Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m .
Business minister Nadhim Zahawi defended his colleague this morning , denying that Desmond had ‘ bought ’ the approval and arguing that any ordinary member of the public could influence their MP by becoming a Tory donor .
A spokesperson for No .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out his account in public and in parliament , including publishing the relevant documentation .
In light of this account the Prime Minister considers this matter closed ” .
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Reed today .
Thank you for releasing documents relating to your decision on the Westferry Printworks Development following yesterday ’ s debate in the House of Commons .
I recognise you agree that transparency is important in allowing proper democratic scrutiny of the way you exercise your powers as Secretary of State .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arise from the documents and I would be grateful for your response .
1 .
In a memorandum dated 20 November your private office contact MHCLG officials in the following terms : “ Morning ( and you thought you wouldn ’ t hear from me over purdah !
!
! )
!
Quick thing from me , SoS has flagged a case in Westferry London Docklands ( redevelopment of a printworks or something like that ? )
.
He understands a ministerial decision on this is likely to be coming up soon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with timing of final decision .
Given this he has asked that advice be prepared for the first few eays of the new Gov so a decision can be made and communicated before xmas .
Does this all sound ok ?
” Please can you explain the following : • Does the ‘ sensitivity with timing of final decision ’ refer to the date that Tower Hamlets CIL was due to come into force ?
• Given that this email was sent from your private office to MHCLG officials you clearly did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitivity ’ , but the email is sent two days after you sat next to Richard Desmond and executives from Northern & Shell and Mace at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner .
It seems likely this was the source of your information but you have not declared this , so please can you confirm what the source of this information was ?
2 .
You eventually quashed your decision on the Westferry Printworks Development for reasons of ‘ apparent bias ’ but you have never explained what , precisely , this ‘ apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason arises from advice you received from MHCLG officials or legal advisers when they advised you of the likely outcome of Tower Hamlets ’ judicial review of your decision .
Please can you share the advice you received detailing the exact nature of the ‘ apparent bias ’ that made your decision unlawful ?
3 .
You have released documents relating to the Westferry case that would have been subject to FoI .
In the interests of transparency and given the controversy surrounding this decision , will you now also release the remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to FoI ?
4 .
Please can you confirm what contacts you had with other ministers or their representatives about the Westferry decision , including in person or by electronic means such as texts , and disclose the content of those communications or conversations ?
5 .
There is a significant discrepancy between your reports and Mr Desmond ’ s of how long you viewed a promotional video about Westferry on his phone .
Please can you confirm whether Mr Desmond is correct in claiming that you viewed the video for three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for showing it to you ?
6 .
Please can you confirm who in MHCLG you notified about your dinner with Mr Desmond and why you did not notify them at the earliest opportunity ?
I look forward to your reply .
Steve Reed Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Steve Reed has written to Robert Jenrick demanding answers over the Westferry Printworks Development scandal following the release of documents relating to his handling of the planning application.
In a letter to Jenrick today, the Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary called for the minister to explain the discrepancies between the account he gave to parliament and the published documents.
He has also called on the Housing Secretary to release any remaining documents not subject to freedom of information requests, “in the interests of transparency and given the controversy” around the decision.
Commenting on the case, Reed said: “These breathtaking documents raise far more questions about the Secretary of State’s relationship with Richard Desmond than they answer. Whether the Prime Minister likes it or not, this matter is far from closed.
“An explosive and unprecedented case of a Secretary of State quashing his own unlawful, biased decision to approve a “cash-for-favours” planning decision that saved a Conservative donor over £150m demands the utmost transparency.
“That is why the Secretary of State must come back to the House of Commons to explain himself and why he must publish all remaining evidence. The public need to know there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy friends and another rule for everyone else.”
The letter from Labour follows the release of 129 pages of correspondence relating to a decision by Jenrick to overturn his own approval of a Tory donor’s planning application for a development after admitting “apparent bias”.
The Housing Secretary has admitted that he published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m.
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced, Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m.
Business minister Nadhim Zahawi defended his colleague this morning, denying that Desmond had ‘bought’ the approval and arguing that any ordinary member of the public could influence their MP by becoming a Tory donor.
A spokesperson for No. 10 said that Jenrick had “set out his account in public and in parliament, including publishing the relevant documentation. In light of this account the Prime Minister considers this matter closed”.
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Reed today.
Dear Secretary of State
Westferry Printworks Development
Thank you for releasing documents relating to your decision on the Westferry Printworks Development following yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons.
I recognise you agree that transparency is important in allowing proper democratic scrutiny of the way you exercise your powers as Secretary of State. In that spirit, a number of questions arise from the documents and I would be grateful for your response.
1. In a memorandum dated 20 November your private office contact MHCLG officials in the following terms:
“Morning (and you thought you wouldn’t hear from me over purdah!!!)! Quick thing from me, SoS has flagged a case in Westferry London Docklands (redevelopment of a printworks or something like that?). He understands a ministerial decision on this is likely to be coming up soon and also that there may be some sensitivity with timing of final decision. Given this he has asked that advice be prepared for the first few eays of the new Gov so a decision can be made and communicated before xmas. Does this all sound ok?”
Please can you explain the following:
Does the ‘sensitivity with timing of final decision’ refer to the date that Tower Hamlets CIL was due to come into force?
Given that this email was sent from your private office to MHCLG officials you clearly did not receive information from officials about this ‘sensitivity’, but the email is sent two days after you sat next to Richard Desmond and executives from Northern & Shell and Mace at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner. It seems likely this was the source of your information but you have not declared this, so please can you confirm what the source of this information was?
2. You eventually quashed your decision on the Westferry Printworks Development for reasons of ‘apparent bias’ but you have never explained what, precisely, this ‘apparent bias’ was. I presume this reason arises from advice you received from MHCLG officials or legal advisers when they advised you of the likely outcome of Tower Hamlets’ judicial review of your decision. Please can you share the advice you received detailing the exact nature of the ‘apparent bias’ that made your decision unlawful?
3. You have released documents relating to the Westferry case that would have been subject to FoI. In the interests of transparency and given the controversy surrounding this decision, will you now also release the remaining relevant documents that would not have been subject to FoI?
4. Please can you confirm what contacts you had with other ministers or their representatives about the Westferry decision, including in person or by electronic means such as texts, and disclose the content of those communications or conversations?
5. There is a significant discrepancy between your reports and Mr Desmond’s of how long you viewed a promotional video about Westferry on his phone. Please can you confirm whether Mr Desmond is correct in claiming that you viewed the video for three or four minutes and then thanked him for showing it to you?
6. Please can you confirm who in MHCLG you notified about your dinner with Mr Desmond and why you did not notify them at the earliest opportunity?
I look forward to your reply.
Steve Reed
Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government


labourlist--2020-06-25--Keir Starmer sacks Rebecca Long-Bailey over Maxine Peake article

Keir Starmer has sacked Rebecca 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 ” .
The Labour leader ’ s spokesperson said : “ This afternoon Keir Starmer asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet .
The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory .
“ As leader of the Labour Party , Keir has been clear that restoring trust with the Jewish community is a number one priority .
Antisemitism takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we all are vigilant against it.
” Long-Bailey has become the first shadow cabinet member to be stood down by Starmer .
It is understood that the appointment of a new Shadow Education Secretary will take place in the coming days .
Reacting to the move , Margaret Hodge tweeted : “ This is what a change in culture looks like .
This is what zero tolerance looks like .
This is what rebuilding trust with the Jewish community looks like.
” Labour ’ s shadow minister for faiths Janet Daby said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it is vital we have a zero tolerance approach .
I am grateful for Keir ’ s strong leadership.
” The party-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement said the decision “ should be welcomed ” , concluding : “ We hope that the party , at every level , reflect and learn from this action ” .
In response to her sacking , Long-Bailey tweeted a thread , which said : “ In no way was my retweet an intention to endorse every part of that article .
“ I wished to acknowledge these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my retweet , with the wording agreed in advance by the Labour Party leader ’ s office , but after posting I was subsequently instructed to take both this agreed clarification and my original retweet down .
“ I could not do this in good conscience without the issuing of a press statement of clarification .
I had asked to discuss these matters with Keir before agreeing what further action to take , but sadly he had already made his decision.
” The Salford MP said she was proud of Labour policies such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ continue to support the Labour Party in parliament under Keir Starmer ’ s leadership ” .
John McDonnell said : “ Throughout discussion of antisemitism it ’ s always been said criticism of practices of Israeli state is not antisemitic .
I don ’ t believe therefore that this article is or  @ RLong_Bailey should ’ ve been sacked .
I stand in solidarity with her ” .
Momentum ’ s Jon Lansman said “ I don ’ t believe there is anything antisemitic in the interview ” and described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overreaction ” .
Following criticism on social media of her quote tweet with the comment that “ Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond ” , the Shadow Education Secretary tweeted again to defend her original comment .
Long-Bailey wrote : “ I retweeted Maxine Peake ’ s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party .
It wasn ’ t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.
” Labour MP Kate Osborne also shared the article in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Finding it hard to disagree with the fantastic Maxine Peake ” .
This was later deleted .
In an interview with The Independent published today , Peake said : “ The tactics used by the police in America , kneeling on George Floyd ’ s neck , that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.
” The Board of Deputies of British Jews condemned Long-Bailey for “ praising an interview containing the conspiracy theory that Israel played a part in the death of George Floyd ” .
President Marie van der @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delete the tweet and issue an apology was “ frankly pathetic ” , and concluded that it “ raises serious and immediate questions about her suitability for the role ” .
After the sacking , she said Long-Bailey ’ s frontbench position was “ untenable ” and thanked Starmer for “ backing his words with action on antisemitism ” .
Labour MP Stella Creasy tweeted that the interview was “ textbook casual antisemitism ” , and said that “ being antiracist means countering , not indulging , such tropes ” .

Keir Starmer has sacked Rebecca 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”.
The Labour leader’s spokesperson said: “This afternoon Keir Starmer asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet. The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
“As leader of the Labour Party, Keir has been clear that restoring trust with the Jewish community is a number one priority. Antisemitism takes many different forms and it is important that we all are vigilant against it.”
Long-Bailey has become the first shadow cabinet member to be stood down by Starmer. It is understood that the appointment of a new Shadow Education Secretary will take place in the coming days.
Reacting to the move, Margaret Hodge tweeted: “This is what a change in culture looks like. This is what zero tolerance looks like. This is what rebuilding trust with the Jewish community looks like.”
Labour’s shadow minister for faiths Janet Daby said: “Antisemitism takes many different forms and it is vital we have a zero tolerance approach. I am grateful for Keir’s strong leadership.”
The party-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement said the decision “should be welcomed”, concluding: “We hope that the party, at every level, reflect and learn from this action”.
In response to her sacking, Long-Bailey tweeted a thread, which said: “In no way was my retweet an intention to endorse every part of that article.
“I wished to acknowledge these concerns and duly issued a clarification of my retweet, with the wording agreed in advance by the Labour Party leader’s office, but after posting I was subsequently instructed to take both this agreed clarification and my original retweet down.
“I could not do this in good conscience without the issuing of a press statement of clarification. I had asked to discuss these matters with Keir before agreeing what further action to take, but sadly he had already made his decision.”
The Salford MP said she was proud of Labour policies such as the National Education Service and would “continue to support the Labour Party in parliament under Keir Starmer’s leadership”.
John McDonnell said: “Throughout discussion of antisemitism it’s always been said criticism of practices of Israeli state is not antisemitic. I don’t believe therefore that this article is or @RLong_Bailey should’ve been sacked. I stand in solidarity with her”.
Momentum’s Jon Lansman said “I don’t believe there is anything antisemitic in the interview” and described the response by Starmer as a “reckless overreaction”.
Following criticism on social media of her quote tweet with the comment that “Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond”, the Shadow Education Secretary tweeted again to defend her original comment.
Long-Bailey wrote: “I retweeted Maxine Peake’s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party. It wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.”
Labour MP Kate Osborne also shared the article in a tweet this morning, adding: “Finding it hard to disagree with the fantastic Maxine Peake”. This was later deleted.
In an interview with The Independent published today, Peake said: “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews condemned Long-Bailey for “praising an interview containing the conspiracy theory that Israel played a part in the death of George Floyd”.
President Marie van der Zyl said the failure by Long-Bailey to delete the tweet and issue an apology was “frankly pathetic”, and concluded that it “raises serious and immediate questions about her suitability for the role”.
After the sacking, she said Long-Bailey’s frontbench position was “untenable” and thanked Starmer for “backing his words with action on antisemitism”.
Labour MP Stella Creasy tweeted that the interview was “textbook casual antisemitism”, and said that “being antiracist means countering, not indulging, such tropes”.


labourlist--2020-06-25--Rebecca Long-Bailey criticised for sharing Maxine Peake interview

Rebecca Long-Bailey has been criticised for sharing an interview in which Maxine Peake claims that US police learnt the practice of kneeling on people ’ s necks “ from seminars with Israeli secret services ” .
Following criticism on social media after her quote tweet with the comment that “ Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond ” , the Shadow Education Secretary tweeted again to defend her original comment .
Long-Bailey wrote : “ I retweeted Maxine Peake ’ s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.
” Labour MP Kate Osborne also shared the article in a tweet this morning , adding : “ Finding it hard to disagree with the fantastic Maxine Peake ” .
This was later deleted .
In an interview with The Independent published today , Peake said : “ The tactics used by the police in America , kneeling on George Floyd ’ s neck , that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.
” The current version of the Independent article adds : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has denied this , stating that “ there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway.
” It used to read : “ Though a spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this , a 2016 Amnesty International report said that hundreds of law enforcement officials had travelled to Israel for training.
” A 2016 Amnesty USA article states that law enforcement officials in Baltimore , Florida , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , California , Arizona , Connecticut , New York and other places “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has condemned Long-Bailey for “ praising an interview containing the conspiracy theory that Israel played a part in the death of George Floyd ” .
President of the organisation Marie van der Zyl said that the failure by Long-Bailey to delete the tweet and issue an apology is “ frankly pathetic ” , and concluded that it “ raises serious and immediate questions about her suitability for the role ” .
The head of Holocaust Educational Trust has said she was shocked by the tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leadership Council tweeted : “ No lessons learned… Rebecca Long Bailey should apologise.
” Dave Rich , head of policy at the Community Security Trust , said : “ There is a deep well of antisemitic conspiracism that blames Jews for every calamity .
There are people who will believe anything bad about Israel , however ludicrous .
“ Maxine Peake ’ s suggestion that Israeli police taught US police how to kill George Floyd is where these groups meet ” .
Labour MP Stella Creasy tweeted that the interview was “ textbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ being antiracist means countering , not indulging , such tropes ” .
Maxine Peake , who has starred in Dinnerladies , Shameless and Silk , was an enthusiastic supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and campaigned in his favour in 2017 and 2019 .
In the new interview , Peake describes Keir Starmer as “ a more acceptable face of the Labour Party for a lot of people who are not really left wing ” , before adding : “ But that ’ s fine .
Whatever .
As long as the Tories get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anymore .
”

Rebecca Long-Bailey has been criticised for sharing an interview in which Maxine Peake claims that US police learnt the practice of kneeling on people’s necks “from seminars with Israeli secret services”.
Following criticism on social media after her quote tweet with the comment that “Maxine Peake is an absolute diamond”, the Shadow Education Secretary tweeted again to defend her original comment.
Long-Bailey wrote: “I retweeted Maxine Peake’s article because of her significant achievements and because the thrust of her argument is to stay in the Labour Party. It wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of all aspects of the article.”
Labour MP Kate Osborne also shared the article in a tweet this morning, adding: “Finding it hard to disagree with the fantastic Maxine Peake”. This was later deleted.
In an interview with The Independent published today, Peake said: “The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd’s neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services.”
The current version of the Independent article adds: “A spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, stating that “there is no tactic or protocol that calls to put pressure on the neck or airway.”
It used to read: “Though a spokesperson for the Israeli police has denied this, a 2016 Amnesty International report said that hundreds of law enforcement officials had travelled to Israel for training.”
A 2016 Amnesty USA article states that law enforcement officials in Baltimore, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, Connecticut, New York and other places “have all traveled to Israel for training”.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has condemned Long-Bailey for “praising an interview containing the conspiracy theory that Israel played a part in the death of George Floyd”.
President of the organisation Marie van der Zyl said that the failure by Long-Bailey to delete the tweet and issue an apology is “frankly pathetic”, and concluded that it “raises serious and immediate questions about her suitability for the role”.
The head of Holocaust Educational Trust has said she was shocked by the tweet, while the chair of the Jewish Leadership Council tweeted: “No lessons learned… Rebecca Long Bailey should apologise.”
Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust, said: “There is a deep well of antisemitic conspiracism that blames Jews for every calamity. There are people who will believe anything bad about Israel, however ludicrous.
“Maxine Peake’s suggestion that Israeli police taught US police how to kill George Floyd is where these groups meet”.
Labour MP Stella Creasy tweeted that the interview was “textbook casual antisemitism”, and said that “being antiracist means countering, not indulging, such tropes”.
Maxine Peake, who has starred in Dinnerladies, Shameless and Silk, was an enthusiastic supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and campaigned in his favour in 2017 and 2019.
In the new interview, Peake describes Keir Starmer as “a more acceptable face of the Labour Party for a lot of people who are not really left wing”, before adding: “But that’s fine. Whatever. As long as the Tories get out, I don’t care anymore.”


labourlist--2020-06-26--The choice for pubs: rush to open for ‘Independence Day’ or risk going under

‘ Independence Day ’ is coming , we ’ ve been told , but pub owners know that they still have a fight to save the industry .
The way that this has been dealt with by the government is a complete mess .
We have been promised the guidelines for weeks – we told the government that we needed three weeks to get everything in place to open properly .
The guidelines came out at 7am on June 24th , giving us just 11 days to put the measures in place .
The mantra of being “ guided by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we are now supposed to make a ‘ one-metre-plus ’ set of guidelines work .
These guidelines are of course vague , with measures that we could consider putting in place – leaving all the pressure on business owners to interpret and implement .
Hospitality is a highly regulated industry .
There are existing powers to close us down .
How this will work in practice under social distancing is unclear .
Why are we not all refusing to open when there are still so many questions ?
The simple truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear that the government will not give more financial support : most of the support they have given is in the form of loans and furlough is coming to an end .
Many pub owners will still have to pay rent , or pay a large penalty for ending a contract early that we simply can ’ t afford .
We need urgent help to negotiate with rents and other costs .
We can ’ t rely on the good will of pub owners and brewers to help us out – we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dimension that we need to place orders for beer with these businesses if we want to reopen .
I ’ m lucky .
I had the cash in the business to carry on through lockdown .
We were planning on doing some work in the summer to the garden , so we had money in our account from profits we made at Christmas .
Other pub owners will not have been so lucky .
There was no way to factor the virus and the length of closure that we have faced into any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have foreseen that the government would completely ignore advice on setting up track and trace , so had no way to predict that customer confidence would be this low when we reopen .
Pub owners who have had to go into debt will need monitoring so that they receive appropriate support and advice if it becomes apparent that they are not viable under social distancing measures .
We also need to be able to understand our liabilities under licensing laws and whether we can expect support .
Every premises has what is known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are responsible for ensuring the safe sales of alcohol .
As a DPS , I will have to consider very carefully whether I feel that I can operate safely under the guidelines that have just been published and within the broader social conditions .
The government has decided that it wants to reopen every pub on an ‘ Independence Day ’ .
From my initial risk assessment , I will not be opening on the July 4th : there are too many unknown risks that I can ’ t introduce measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customers than the new working practices will allow for .
I know that there will be no extra support if there are problems , and that is more risk than I am willing to take on .
We will open on the Sunday instead , once we have had time to reflect on expected levels of trade .
I have contacted my union , Unite .
I hope that we can work together to ensure a safe return to work .
I welcome their involvement in a spirit of cooperation at a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reopening pubs is not a story about people versus profit .
I am not a ‘ business ’ , I am not a ‘ sector ’ , I am not an ‘ economic trend ’ .
The use of this abstract language to talk about the situation is insulting .
I am a person who is worried about my livelihood , my pension savings and the fate of something that took me years to build up .
I am worried about my staff , for whom I feel responsible .
The last three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I can ’ t carry on much longer with that level of loss .
I had already been undergoing therapy for stress and anxiety .
The published guidelines have clauses for supporting the mental welfare of staff ; pub owners will also need that support .
We know that there are many months of uncertainty to come , and we are a long way from knowing that our business will survive .
We asked for three weeks to prepare for a reason , rushing us into opening on a Saturday when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not reasonable .
I hope that the Labour Party will continue to challenge the way the government is handling the lifting of lockdown .

‘Independence Day’ is coming, we’ve been told, but pub owners know that they still have a fight to save the industry. The way that this has been dealt with by the government is a complete mess. We have been promised the guidelines for weeks – we told the government that we needed three weeks to get everything in place to open properly. The guidelines came out at 7am on June 24th, giving us just 11 days to put the measures in place.
The mantra of being “guided by the science” has been dropped, and we are now supposed to make a ‘one-metre-plus’ set of guidelines work. These guidelines are of course vague, with measures that we could consider putting in place – leaving all the pressure on business owners to interpret and implement. Hospitality is a highly regulated industry. There are existing powers to close us down. How this will work in practice under social distancing is unclear.
Why are we not all refusing to open when there are still so many questions? The simple truth is that we have little choice. It is clear that the government will not give more financial support: most of the support they have given is in the form of loans and furlough is coming to an end. Many pub owners will still have to pay rent, or pay a large penalty for ending a contract early that we simply can’t afford. We need urgent help to negotiate with rents and other costs. We can’t rely on the good will of pub owners and brewers to help us out – we are already under pressure with the added dimension that we need to place orders for beer with these businesses if we want to reopen.
I’m lucky. I had the cash in the business to carry on through lockdown. We were planning on doing some work in the summer to the garden, so we had money in our account from profits we made at Christmas. Other pub owners will not have been so lucky. There was no way to factor the virus and the length of closure that we have faced into any cash flow forecast. We could not have foreseen that the government would completely ignore advice on setting up track and trace, so had no way to predict that customer confidence would be this low when we reopen. Pub owners who have had to go into debt will need monitoring so that they receive appropriate support and advice if it becomes apparent that they are not viable under social distancing measures.
We also need to be able to understand our liabilities under licensing laws and whether we can expect support. Every premises has what is known as a “designated premises supervisor”. They are responsible for ensuring the safe sales of alcohol. As a DPS, I will have to consider very carefully whether I feel that I can operate safely under the guidelines that have just been published and within the broader social conditions.
The government has decided that it wants to reopen every pub on an ‘Independence Day’. From my initial risk assessment, I will not be opening on the July 4th: there are too many unknown risks that I can’t introduce measures to mitigate because there may be more customers than the new working practices will allow for. I know that there will be no extra support if there are problems, and that is more risk than I am willing to take on. We will open on the Sunday instead, once we have had time to reflect on expected levels of trade. I have contacted my union, Unite. I hope that we can work together to ensure a safe return to work. I welcome their involvement in a spirit of cooperation at a time of acute stress for the industry.
Reopening pubs is not a story about people versus profit. I am not a ‘business’, I am not a ‘sector’, I am not an ‘economic trend’. The use of this abstract language to talk about the situation is insulting. I am a person who is worried about my livelihood, my pension savings and the fate of something that took me years to build up. I am worried about my staff, for whom I feel responsible. The last three months have cost me thousands of pounds and I can’t carry on much longer with that level of loss.
I had already been undergoing therapy for stress and anxiety. The published guidelines have clauses for supporting the mental welfare of staff; pub owners will also need that support. We know that there are many months of uncertainty to come, and we are a long way from knowing that our business will survive. We asked for three weeks to prepare for a reason, rushing us into opening on a Saturday when there are so many questions to answer is not reasonable. I hope that the Labour Party will continue to challenge the way the government is handling the lifting of lockdown.


labourlist--2020-06-26--Labour’s silence on Brexit smells of moral cowardice

Until now I ’ d only ever heard Keir Starmer described by five words , and three of them were “ forensic ” .
We ’ d also had “ moral ” and “ inscrutable ” , but now we can add a new one – “ ruthless ” .
Even his biggest supporters were taken by surprise by his sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey , and he probably surprised himself .
Up until now , he ’ s had a pretty easy ride : watch the Tories mess up , ask a couple of sensible questions , watch the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shambles .
Now he ’ s attacked head-on one of the few issues that was always going to decide the fate of Labour as a party fit for power .
It was a risk , and it could still backfire terribly , but the greater risk was doing nothing .
The only other issue Starmer has ignored so far is Brexit .
For the moment , Labour is steering clear .
Apart from refusing to back calls for a transition period , the former shadow Brexit minister has barely mentioned the subject and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will hold the government to account on its promise to strike a deal .
With Keir setting the agenda on every aspect of Covid policy – the NHS , track and trace , care homes , child poverty , schools reopening and so on – won ’ t the Tories breathe a sigh of relief if we move away from their litany of failure to what is considered their single success , “ Get Brexit Done ” ?
What could possibly be gained from the leader , a lefty London Remainer , dredging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roll their eyes with boredom ?
Everything points to Labour saying nothing .
Why , then , do I think that conclusion is wrong ?
First , there are new things to say .
You wouldn ’ t know this from how the media report it and how people define themselves , but we left the EU on January 31st .
Brexit got done .
We are no longer Leavers and Remainers , we are pro-deal or anti-deal .
The government needs to be making the case right now for the policy they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place them in the latter group .
Second , when we look at the cavalier attitude of the government towards losing trade deals and jobs , at the start of a terrible new recession , the road leads us back , via Barnard Castle , to the PM-in-all-but-name himself .
There ’ s a persuasive argument that every day Dominic Cummings is allowed to stay in his job another couple of percentage points are added to Labour ’ s electability , but we ’ re years from an election and his policy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the country .
If Cummings goes , Johnson ’ s position is seriously weakened and , as with Covid , people will turn to Starmer for reassurance .
Third is Scotland .
People in Labour are asking “ how do we win Scotland back ?
” .
This feels a little premature , but at the very least we should be making common cause with Scotland for the shocking way that the government has ignored the will of their people .
Fourth , the often-repeated argument about not interrupting your enemy when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was sensible when Ed Miliband was in charge and Ukip was tearing pieces out of the Tories , but it didn ’ t work even then .
It was disastrous through 2018 , when the Tories were offering the country no deal or extremely hard deal and we refused to offer a sensible alternative .
Now it smells of moral cowardice .
That , for me , is the main reason for talking about Brexit .
Whether or not Labour gains politically from it should be secondary to ensuring disaster is averted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Covid – constructive opposition – and it can be applied equally here .
Herd immunity is a classic Brexit notion and it collapsed almost instantly when it met reality .
Austerity was blown away in a moment by a government that understood that the only way for the NHS to cope with coronavirus was to spend money on it .
Force any rampant Tory Brexiteer to explain why we don ’ t need new infrastructure and why there ’ ll be no problems crashing out or breaking our pledges on the Irish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in seconds .
Brexit is still the most toxic issue of our lifetimes .
It has arguably destroyed the Conservative Party , ridding it of its traditional base of business , defence and security supporters , and turning it into Ukip with MPs .
Even with its massive majority , the government looks shaky on every issue except its single remaining reason to exist – fighting old culture wars .
Even here , its default position on BLM is looking tired and racist to its core of supporters .
Culture wars are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how they keep Brexit as a battleground .
Without it , they are nothing .

Until now I’d only ever heard Keir Starmer described by five words, and three of them were “forensic”. We’d also had “moral” and “inscrutable”, but now we can add a new one – “ruthless”. Even his biggest supporters were taken by surprise by his sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey, and he probably surprised himself.
Up until now, he’s had a pretty easy ride: watch the Tories mess up, ask a couple of sensible questions, watch the policy unravel and move on to their next shambles. Now he’s attacked head-on one of the few issues that was always going to decide the fate of Labour as a party fit for power. It was a risk, and it could still backfire terribly, but the greater risk was doing nothing.
The only other issue Starmer has ignored so far is Brexit. For the moment, Labour is steering clear. Apart from refusing to back calls for a transition period, the former shadow Brexit minister has barely mentioned the subject and has simply said that the opposition party will hold the government to account on its promise to strike a deal.
With Keir setting the agenda on every aspect of Covid policy – the NHS, track and trace, care homes, child poverty, schools reopening and so on – won’t the Tories breathe a sigh of relief if we move away from their litany of failure to what is considered their single success, “Get Brexit Done”?
What could possibly be gained from the leader, a lefty London Remainer, dredging up the subject that causes everyone to roll their eyes with boredom? Everything points to Labour saying nothing. Why, then, do I think that conclusion is wrong?
First, there are new things to say. You wouldn’t know this from how the media report it and how people define themselves, but we left the EU on January 31st. Brexit got done. We are no longer Leavers and Remainers, we are pro-deal or anti-deal. The government needs to be making the case right now for the policy they’re pursuing, which seems to place them in the latter group.
Second, when we look at the cavalier attitude of the government towards losing trade deals and jobs, at the start of a terrible new recession, the road leads us back, via Barnard Castle, to the PM-in-all-but-name himself. There’s a persuasive argument that every day Dominic Cummings is allowed to stay in his job another couple of percentage points are added to Labour’s electability, but we’re years from an election and his policy of hostility to the EU is potentially disastrous for the country. If Cummings goes, Johnson’s position is seriously weakened and, as with Covid, people will turn to Starmer for reassurance.
Third is Scotland. People in Labour are asking “how do we win Scotland back?”. This feels a little premature, but at the very least we should be making common cause with Scotland for the shocking way that the government has ignored the will of their people.
Fourth, the often-repeated argument about not interrupting your enemy when they’re making a mistake. That was sensible when Ed Miliband was in charge and Ukip was tearing pieces out of the Tories, but it didn’t work even then. It was disastrous through 2018, when the Tories were offering the country no deal or extremely hard deal and we refused to offer a sensible alternative. Now it smells of moral cowardice.
That, for me, is the main reason for talking about Brexit. Whether or not Labour gains politically from it should be secondary to ensuring disaster is averted. That is Starmer’s policy on Covid – constructive opposition – and it can be applied equally here.
Herd immunity is a classic Brexit notion and it collapsed almost instantly when it met reality. Austerity was blown away in a moment by a government that understood that the only way for the NHS to cope with coronavirus was to spend money on it. Force any rampant Tory Brexiteer to explain why we don’t need new infrastructure and why there’ll be no problems crashing out or breaking our pledges on the Irish border, and their arguments fall away in seconds.
Brexit is still the most toxic issue of our lifetimes. It has arguably destroyed the Conservative Party, ridding it of its traditional base of business, defence and security supporters, and turning it into Ukip with MPs. Even with its massive majority, the government looks shaky on every issue except its single remaining reason to exist – fighting old culture wars. Even here, its default position on BLM is looking tired and racist to its core of supporters. Culture wars are all they’ve got, it’s how they keep Brexit as a battleground. Without it, they are nothing.


labourlist--2020-06-26--Labour refers Jenrick to parliamentary commissioner for standards over ‘cash-for-favours’ scandal

Labour has asked the parliamentary commissioner for standards to investigate Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick for breach of MPs ’ code of conduct in the ‘ cash-for-favours ’ planning scandal .
In a letter to the commissioner Kathryn Stone OBE , Labour ’ s Steve Reed set out his concerns about Jenrick ’ s handling of the Westferry planning application in east London and “ apparent breaches ” of the code of conduct .
Labour has warned that the government must “ publish all the remaining secret documents ” in the case , to prove to the public that “ this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era of Tory sleaze ” .
Commenting on the case , Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Reed said : “ The Prime Minister can ’ t just sweep this issue under the carpet .
There are still so many unanswered questions about Robert Jenrick ’ s unlawful attempt to help Richard Desmond dodge £150m in tax days before he made a generous donation to the Conservative Party .
“ The Prime Minister has yet again shown woefully poor judgment by not referring clear breaches of the ministerial code to the Cabinet Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his own involvement in this case .
“ The government must publish all the remaining secret documents in this case to show the public what Mr Jenrick and the Prime Minister were really up to and prove that this is not the start of a new era of Tory sleaze.
” This latest intervention by the opposition comes after the publication of documents relating to the decision by Jenrick to overturn his own planning approval of the Tory donor ’ s application after admitting “ apparent bias ” .
Jenrick has admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m .
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced , Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m .
129-pages of documents relating to the case were released earlier this week , showing emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Housing Secretary on Thursday , calling for the minister to explain the discrepancies between the account he gave to parliament and the published documents .
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the commissioner by Reed .
I am writing to you about the decision of the Secretary of State for Housing , Communities and Local Government in the Westferry planning case , his subsequent appearances in the House of Commons on 15 and 24 June 2020 , and the documents released about the case to the Housing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also on 24 June 2020 .
The coded of conduct for members of the House of Commons states that members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them .
They should always behave with probity and integrity , including in their use of public resources .
It also states that holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take .
They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State has not lived up to these principles in his actions in the Westferry case .
I would like to bring the following apparent breaches to your attention : • The documents released by the Secretary of State to the Housing , Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the 24 June 2020 make clear that he did not immediately declare his meeting with the applicant , Richard Desmond , to officials at his Department , but instead delayed notification for a month .
• There are significant discrepancies between Mr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewing a promotional video about the scheme on Mr Desmond ’ s phone , and reports made by Mr Desmond [ 2 ] who claims the Secretary of State viewed the video for three or four minutes and thanked him for showing it to him .
If Mr Desmond ’ s claim is accurate , then the Secretary of State has failed to make the necessary declaration .
• The Secretary of State and Mr Desmond exchanged phone numbers at the Conservative Party fundraising dinner on 18 November .
The following day the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages with Mr Desmond by both email and text .
At this time the Secretary of State had not declared the meeting to officials but he nevertheless asked a member of his staff to set up a further meeting and a possible site visit .
• When the Secretary of State sought to end the exchange he had initiated and cancelled his planned site visit , he gave as his reason what he called the ‘ appearance ’ of bias .
The nature and tone of the exchange , and the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Secretary of State wanted to do favours for Mr Desmond without being seen to do so .
I would be grateful for your view .
• The Secretary of State made clear to officials that he wanted the development to be approved before Tower Hamlets ’ new Community Infrastructure Levy came into force on 15 January 2020 claiming the additional costs would make the scheme financially unviable .
No evidence has been released showing that this was the view of officials in his Department , nor has any evidence been provided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assertion on viability .
Since the emails make clear that officials were unaware of the significance of the date or any impact the CIL might have on viability , it seems likely this information came from Mr Desmond and the Secretary of State was therefore acting on the instruction of the applicant in a way that makes his decision biased and is a potential breach of the code of conduct for members .
I would be grateful if you would conduct a full investigation and advise me whether the Secretary of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his behaviour .

Labour has asked the parliamentary commissioner for standards to investigate Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick for breaching the MPs’ code of conduct in the ‘cash-for-favours’ planning scandal.
In a letter to the commissioner Kathryn Stone OBE, Labour’s Steve Reed set out his concerns about Jenrick’s handling of the Westferry planning application in east London and “apparent breaches” of the code of conduct.
Labour has warned that the government must “publish all the remaining secret documents” in the case, to prove to the public that “this is not the start of a new era of Tory sleaze”.
Commenting on the case, Shadow Communities and Local Government Secretary Reed said: “The Prime Minister can’t just sweep this issue under the carpet. There are still so many unanswered questions about Robert Jenrick’s unlawful attempt to help Richard Desmond dodge £150m in tax days before he made a generous donation to the Conservative Party.
“The Prime Minister has yet again shown woefully poor judgment by not referring clear breaches of the ministerial code to the Cabinet Secretary and he must now come clean himself about his own involvement in this case.
“The government must publish all the remaining secret documents in this case to show the public what Mr Jenrick and the Prime Minister were really up to and prove that this is not the start of a new era of Tory sleaze.”
This latest intervention by the opposition comes after the publication of documents relating to the decision by Jenrick to overturn his own planning approval of the Tory donor’s application after admitting “apparent bias”.
Jenrick has admitted that he published his decision in time for the developer to avoid a new charge – known as a community infrastructure levy – which would have cost the developer additional £30m to £50m.
Labour has highlighted that as well as approving the decision the day before the new charge was introduced, Jenrick had overruled his advisors to reduce the amount of affordable housing in the development – saving Desmond a further £106m.
129-pages of documents relating to the case were released earlier this week, showing emails and letters between Jenrick and his officials and representatives of the developer.
Labour also wrote to the Housing Secretary on Thursday, calling for the minister to explain the discrepancies between the account he gave to parliament and the published documents.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the commissioner by Reed.
Dear Kathryn,
I am writing to you about the decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the Westferry planning case, his subsequent appearances in the House of Commons on 15 and 24 June 2020, and the documents released about the case to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, also on 24 June 2020.
The coded of conduct for members of the House of Commons states that members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.
It also states that holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
I am concerned that the Secretary of State has not lived up to these principles in his actions in the Westferry case. I would like to bring the following apparent breaches to your attention:
The documents released by the Secretary of State to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the 24 June 2020 make clear that he did not immediately declare his meeting with the applicant, Richard Desmond, to officials at his Department, but instead delayed notification for a month. There are significant discrepancies between Mr Jenrick’s notification of only briefly viewing a promotional video about the scheme on Mr Desmond’s phone, and reports made by Mr Desmond[2] who claims the Secretary of State viewed the video for three or four minutes and thanked him for showing it to him. If Mr Desmond’s claim is accurate, then the Secretary of State has failed to make the necessary declaration. The Secretary of State and Mr Desmond exchanged phone numbers at the Conservative Party fundraising dinner on 18 November. The following day the Secretary of State initiated an exchange of messages with Mr Desmond by both email and text. At this time the Secretary of State had not declared the meeting to officials but he nevertheless asked a member of his staff to set up a further meeting and a possible site visit. When the Secretary of State sought to end the exchange he had initiated and cancelled his planned site visit, he gave as his reason what he called the ‘appearance’ of bias. The nature and tone of the exchange, and the use of the term ‘appearance’ imply that the Secretary of State wanted to do favours for Mr Desmond without being seen to do so. I would be grateful for your view. The Secretary of State made clear to officials that he wanted the development to be approved before Tower Hamlets’ new Community Infrastructure Levy came into force on 15 January 2020 claiming the additional costs would make the scheme financially unviable. No evidence has been released showing that this was the view of officials in his Department, nor has any evidence been provided to back up the Secretary of State’s assertion on viability. Since the emails make clear that officials were unaware of the significance of the date or any impact the CIL might have on viability, it seems likely this information came from Mr Desmond and the Secretary of State was therefore acting on the instruction of the applicant in a way that makes his decision biased and is a potential breach of the code of conduct for members.
I would be grateful if you would conduct a full investigation and advise me whether the Secretary of State is in breach of any code governing his behaviour.


labourlist--2020-06-26--Risk-averse? Keir Starmer has proved quite the opposite

Cautious ?
Risk-averse ?
More concerned with keeping the peace than asserting authority ?
Nobody can accuse the new leader of those things now .
Keir Starmer sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet yesterday .
The most prominent Corbynite on the frontbench and his left-wing opponent in the leadership race has been jettisoned less than three months after the election concluded .
There were concerns expressed in private that Starmer as leader would prioritise party unity over his other aims , but his leadership is shaping up to be quite different .
Actually , his decision to favour David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this move .
The Labour leader has consistently shown a willingness to take risks .
Long-Bailey called Maxine Peake an “ absolute diamond ” when sharing an interview in which the actress claimed that US police learnt the tactic of kneeling on people ’ s necks “ from seminars with Israeli secret services ” .
According to the leader ’ s office , she was asked to delete that tweet but refused and did not take their calls .
A few hours later , Keir Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to step down from the shadow cabinet .
The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
” The party-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement , as well as the Board of Deputies , welcomed the swift action .
Jon Lansman said he didn ’ t believe there was anything antisemitic in the interview and called the sacking a “ reckless overreaction ” .
Unite ’ s Len McCluskey said it was an “ unnecessary overreaction ” .
Jon Trickett described it as a “ provocation ” .
Momentum has launched an open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no doubt that this move has brought internal divisions to the fore once again .
We ’ ll know a little more about the consequences once MPs surface from the Socialist Campaign Group meeting currently being held with Starmer to raise concerns about the sacking .
Much will depend on next steps .
Will the new Shadow Education Secretary , to be appointed in the coming days , be from the party ’ s left ?
Names being floated include Lucy Powell , Tracy Brabin , Tulip Siddiq and Marsha de Cordova @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bet as an ex-teacher , already a member of Labour ’ s education team and a former parliamentary private secretary to Starmer .
She fits the Starmer mould for shadow cabinet members : quietly competent , barely known , factionally ambiguous .
The other crucial aspect of Starmer ’ s next steps : consistency .
Many on the Labour left wonder why it is acceptable for shadow cabinet members to celebrate Nazi sympathiser Nancy Astor , and there has also been much criticism of how Labour has handled anti-Black racism recently .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report inquiry and Equalities and Human Rights Commission investigation conclude .
Starmer ’ s response to those events will shape the future of the party .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Cautious? Risk-averse? More concerned with keeping the peace than asserting authority? Nobody can accuse the new leader of those things now. Keir Starmer sacked Rebecca Long-Bailey from the shadow cabinet yesterday. The most prominent Corbynite on the frontbench and his left-wing opponent in the leadership race has been jettisoned less than three months after the election concluded. There were concerns expressed in private that Starmer as leader would prioritise party unity over his other aims, but his leadership is shaping up to be quite different. Actually, his decision to favour David Evans for general secretary was a precursor to this move. The Labour leader has consistently shown a willingness to take risks.
Long-Bailey called Maxine Peake an “absolute diamond” when sharing an interview in which the actress claimed that US police learnt the tactic of kneeling on people’s necks “from seminars with Israeli secret services”. According to the leader’s office, she was asked to delete that tweet but refused and did not take their calls. A few hours later, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said: “This afternoon Keir Starmer asked Rebecca Long-Bailey to step down from the shadow cabinet. The article Rebecca shared earlier today contained an antisemitic conspiracy theory.” The party-affiliated Jewish Labour Movement, as well as the Board of Deputies, welcomed the swift action.
Jon Lansman said he didn’t believe there was anything antisemitic in the interview and called the sacking a “reckless overreaction”. Unite’s Len McCluskey said it was an “unnecessary overreaction”. Jon Trickett described it as a “provocation”. Momentum has launched an open letter expressing solidarity with Long-Bailey. There is no doubt that this move has brought internal divisions to the fore once again. We’ll know a little more about the consequences once MPs surface from the Socialist Campaign Group meeting currently being held with Starmer to raise concerns about the sacking.
Much will depend on next steps. Will the new Shadow Education Secretary, to be appointed in the coming days, be from the party’s left? Names being floated include Lucy Powell, Tracy Brabin, Tulip Siddiq and Marsha de Cordova. Emma Hardy seems like a good bet as an ex-teacher, already a member of Labour’s education team and a former parliamentary private secretary to Starmer. She fits the Starmer mould for shadow cabinet members: quietly competent, barely known, factionally ambiguous.
The other crucial aspect of Starmer’s next steps: consistency. Many on the Labour left wonder why it is acceptable for shadow cabinet members to celebrate Nazi sympathiser Nancy Astor, and there has also been much criticism of how Labour has handled anti-Black racism recently. There are huge challenges ahead as the leaked report inquiry and Equalities and Human Rights Commission investigation conclude. Starmer’s response to those events will shape the future of the party. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-26--Labour calls for judge-led review into ‘lone attacker’ strategy

Nick Thomas-Symonds has asked to work with the government on a judge-led review into the response needed to address a “ highly dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers ” .
In a letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel today , Labour ’ s Shadow Home Secretary praised the police and security services response to recent incidents but warned that “ they can not fight this battle alone ” .
He called for a “ wider review ” into the prison system , probation , local authorities , mental health workers , housing providers and others to assess how well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter , Thomas-Symonds said : “ The police and security services have responded incredibly bravely to these incidents and foiled many more , thanks to their skill and dedication .
“ However , they can not fight this battle alone .
When looking to identify , monitor and , in some cases , treat subjects who pose an enormous risk to society , we rely on a wide range of services , such as probation , the prison system , local authorities , mental health workers , housing providers and many more.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 outlined work on multi-agency pilots , including among other measures data sharing by MI5 and counter terror policing with other agencies , such as local authorities and government departments .
He added : “ That is why I have written to the Home Secretary to see if we can work together to set up a judge-led review , to undertake an independent assessment of the systemic response needed to address the highly dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers , with all necessary security safeguards in place .
“ The heartbreaking fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just seven months , we have witnessed eerily similar scenes on our streets .
Lone attackers , intent on causing carnage , have taken the lives of innocent people , injured more and caused enormous suffering to all those affected .
“ Now we must come together and redouble efforts to ensure each of these vital services have the resources they need and are working together in the most effective and impactful way , ultimately in a bid to save lives.
” This most recent intervention by the opposition follows the attack in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men were stabbed to death in a park .
A 25 year-old man was arrested and detained under terrorism powers .
Following the incident , Labour called for a “ comprehensive look at deradicalisation in our prisons ” and asked the government to confirm that it would “ never again cut the numbers of community police ” .
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Thomas-Symonds today .
Thank you for taking the time to brief me last Sunday , after the terrible incident in Reading .
I also welcomed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despatch box during the statement on Monday 22 June 2020 .
The whole country was appalled by the violence we witnessed in Forbury Gardens .
In response I want to look at ways to work together to address this .
The Police and Security Services have responded in an incredible way to this incident and have also , notably , foiled many more potential attacks , due to their skill and dedication .
However , they can not fight this battle alone .
As a result , I am writing to ask whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an independent , judge-led review into the systemic response needed to address this highly dangerous , and growing , threat of lone attackers .
As you rightly said in your Statement to the House of Commons on Monday : “ The terrorist threat that we face is complex , diverse and rapidly changing .
It is clear that the threat posed by lone actors is growing.
” This has been evidenced by the appalling attacks we saw at Fishmongers Hall , Streatham , and now Reading – all within a period of seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitor , capture and , in some cases , treat , subjects that pose an enormous risk to society , it is clear that we must rely on a wide range of services , such as the prison system , probation , local authorities , mental health workers , housing providers and others .
As a result , we envisage this review as an opportunity to assess how well these partnerships are currently working together and how that might be improved .
There has , of course , already been excellent work undertaken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson ’ s Independent Assessment of MI5 and Police Internal Reviews , published in 2017 , with the related implementation stock-take in 2019 .
Jonathan Hall QC , as independent review of terrorism legislation , is also doing excellent work in this area , and I know you confirmed he is looking at how “ different agencies — including the police , probation services and security services — investigate , monitor and manage terrorist offenders ” .
However , we are calling for a wider review , giving frontline partners the opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course being mindful of all necessary security safeguards .
A key to this will be trying to ascertain if the frontline services that can support the work of our police and security services have the necessary resources needed , and the support and structures in place to play as full a role as possible .
This threat is evolving and a comprehensive review and strategy are needed within a reasonable time to do all that can be done to prevent any further such atrocities .
I would of course be very happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas-Symonds MP Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department

Nick Thomas-Symonds has asked to work with the government on a judge-led review into the response needed to address a “highly dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers”.
In a letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel today, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary praised the police and security services response to recent incidents but warned that “they cannot fight this battle alone”.
He called for a “wider review” into the prison system, probation, local authorities, mental health workers, housing providers and others to assess how well these partnerships work together.
Commenting on the letter, Thomas-Symonds said: “The police and security services have responded incredibly bravely to these incidents and foiled many more, thanks to their skill and dedication.
“However, they cannot fight this battle alone. When looking to identify, monitor and, in some cases, treat subjects who pose an enormous risk to society, we rely on a wide range of services, such as probation, the prison system, local authorities, mental health workers, housing providers and many more.”
Labour highlighted that a review in 2017 outlined work on multi-agency pilots, including among other measures data sharing by MI5 and counter terror policing with other agencies, such as local authorities and government departments.
He added: “That is why I have written to the Home Secretary to see if we can work together to set up a judge-led review, to undertake an independent assessment of the systemic response needed to address the highly dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers, with all necessary security safeguards in place.
“The heartbreaking fact is, for the third time in just seven months, we have witnessed eerily similar scenes on our streets. Lone attackers, intent on causing carnage, have taken the lives of innocent people, injured more and caused enormous suffering to all those affected.
“Now we must come together and redouble efforts to ensure each of these vital services have the resources they need and are working together in the most effective and impactful way, ultimately in a bid to save lives.”
This most recent intervention by the opposition follows the attack in Reading on June 20th in which three men were stabbed to death in a park. A 25 year-old man was arrested and detained under terrorism powers.
Following the incident, Labour called for a “comprehensive look at deradicalisation in our prisons” and asked the government to confirm that it would “never again cut the numbers of community police”.
Below is the full text of the letter sent by Thomas-Symonds today.
Dear Priti,
Thank you for taking the time to brief me last Sunday, after the terrible incident in Reading. I also welcomed the constructive discussion we had across the despatch box during the statement on Monday 22 June 2020.
The whole country was appalled by the violence we witnessed in Forbury Gardens. In response I want to look at ways to work together to address this. The Police and Security Services have responded in an incredible way to this incident and have also, notably, foiled many more potential attacks, due to their skill and dedication. However, they cannot fight this battle alone.
As a result, I am writing to ask whether you would consider working together to develop an independent, judge-led review into the systemic response needed to address this highly dangerous, and growing, threat of lone attackers. As you rightly said in your Statement to the House of Commons on Monday: “The terrorist threat that we face is complex, diverse and rapidly changing. It is clear that the threat posed by lone actors is growing.” This has been evidenced by the appalling attacks we saw at Fishmongers Hall, Streatham, and now Reading – all within a period of seven months.
When looking to identify, monitor, capture and, in some cases, treat, subjects that pose an enormous risk to society, it is clear that we must rely on a wide range of services, such as the prison system, probation, local authorities, mental health workers, housing providers and others. As a result, we envisage this review as an opportunity to assess how well these partnerships are currently working together and how that might be improved.
There has, of course, already been excellent work undertaken in this area, particularly through Lord Anderson’s Independent Assessment of MI5 and Police Internal Reviews, published in 2017, with the related implementation stock-take in 2019. Jonathan Hall QC, as independent review of terrorism legislation, is also doing excellent work in this area, and I know you confirmed he is looking at how “different agencies — including the police, probation services and security services — investigate, monitor and manage terrorist offenders”.
However, we are calling for a wider review, giving frontline partners the opportunity to contribute to this vital work, whilst of course being mindful of all necessary security safeguards. A key to this will be trying to ascertain if the frontline services that can support the work of our police and security services have the necessary resources needed, and the support and structures in place to play as full a role as possible.
This threat is evolving and a comprehensive review and strategy are needed within a reasonable time to do all that can be done to prevent any further such atrocities.
I would of course be very happy to meet to discuss this.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Thomas-Symonds MP
Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department


labourlist--2020-06-26--Starmer launches Labour Friends of the Forces engagement programme

Keir Starmer has launched a new Labour Friends of the Forces engagement programme on Armed Forces Day , declaring that he is “ proud of my country and proud of those who serve it ” .
The Labour leader will reboot the scheme – originally founded in 2011 – today with a virtual roundtable joined by members of the service community to “ open up Labour again to our armed forces ” .
The party says this will be the first of several online events to be hosted “ in every region and nation with veterans , active personnel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour decision-makers .
Commenting on the launch , Starmer said : “ I am proud of my country and proud of those who serve it .
I want to open up Labour again to our armed forces , their families and veterans across our country .
“ Today ’ s event marks the start of an exciting new dialogue with forces communities with an ambitious new Labour Friends of the Forces scheme.
” Labour Friends of the Forces is an existing membership organisation .
Its stated aim is to “ demonstrate the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ help the service community to come together ” .
Starmer said : “ As we celebrate Armed Forces Day , I say thank you to our forces communities for the role they play both at home and abroad .
I will make sure we listen to you and learn from you.
” John Healey yesterday called for the end of a “ decade of decline ” in the armed forces , highlighting that “ almost every government target for full-time military personnel has been missed ” in the last ten years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary said : “ Armed Forces Day celebrates the pride we share in the excellence and professionalism of Britain ’ s service men and women .
“ They represent the values the British people admire most – integrity , discipline and service .
As Britain faces a period of greater global risk and conflict , I want Labour to hear their voices and views , and I want them to play a bigger part in our party .
“ We ’ ve got to understand the hopes and aspirations of the Armed Forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they face after a decade of declining numbers , morale and pay.
” Since 2010 , military personnel in the British Armed Forces has fallen by a quarter .
Ministers pledged in 2015 to maintain more than 82,000 military personnel , but Labour has highlighted that the number now stands at 73,750 .
The party has called for the government to devote a chapter of its upcoming defence and security review to military personnel , overhaul the country ’ s covenant with serving forces , and champion the armed forces in public .

Keir Starmer has launched a new Labour Friends of the Forces engagement programme on Armed Forces Day, declaring that he is “proud of my country and proud of those who serve it”.
The Labour leader will reboot the scheme – originally founded in 2011 – today with a virtual roundtable joined by members of the service community to “open up Labour again to our armed forces”.
The party says this will be the first of several online events to be hosted “in every region and nation with veterans, active personnel and forces families” to connect them with Labour decision-makers.
Commenting on the launch, Starmer said: “I am proud of my country and proud of those who serve it. I want to open up Labour again to our armed forces, their families and veterans across our country.
“Today’s event marks the start of an exciting new dialogue with forces communities with an ambitious new Labour Friends of the Forces scheme.”
Labour Friends of the Forces is an existing membership organisation. Its stated aim is to “demonstrate the value Labour places on the defence community” and “help the service community to come together”.
Starmer said: “As we celebrate Armed Forces Day, I say thank you to our forces communities for the role they play both at home and abroad. I will make sure we listen to you and learn from you.”
John Healey yesterday called for the end of a “decade of decline” in the armed forces, highlighting that “almost every government target for full-time military personnel has been missed” in the last ten years.
Commenting today, the Shadow Defence Secretary said: “Armed Forces Day celebrates the pride we share in the excellence and professionalism of Britain’s service men and women.
“They represent the values the British people admire most – integrity, discipline and service. As Britain faces a period of greater global risk and conflict, I want Labour to hear their voices and views, and I want them to play a bigger part in our party.
“We’ve got to understand the hopes and aspirations of the Armed Forces community, as well as the problems they face after a decade of declining numbers, morale and pay.”
Since 2010, military personnel in the British Armed Forces has fallen by a quarter. Ministers pledged in 2015 to maintain more than 82,000 military personnel, but Labour has highlighted that the number now stands at 73,750.
The party has called for the government to devote a chapter of its upcoming defence and security review to military personnel, overhaul the country’s covenant with serving forces, and champion the armed forces in public.


labourlist--2020-06-26--How you can help shape Labour’s Universal Credit replacement

Labour is committed to developing a complete replacement for Universal Credit .
We believe this to be essential to meeting our objectives of ending child poverty in the UK .
This is a huge mission – and only one of several major policy challenges the shadow work and pensions team is working on – that will develop a modern social security system that offers real support to everyone .
Earlier this month , myself and shadow employment minister Seema Malhotra hosted a roundtable for around 80 members as part of Labour ’ s national policy forum process , which sparked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few days later , I did an event with over 250 members of affiliated trade unions on the future of social security hosted by the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation ( TULO ) .
And we ’ ll do as many events as there is demand for because we need the active democratic involvement of our members and unions .
That ’ s why today , we are specifically asking people to submit their views on the future of UC to the national policy forum ’ s work , pensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear whether people believe we should continue with a single combined benefit covering both in-work and out-of-work support .
Having seen the process by which people have been transferred onto UC , I am conscious that any reform must be done in a way that minimises the impact to claimants .
So I ask : what is the right way to do this ?
Then we must consider what a replacement for UC should be .
During the current pandemic crisis , we have asked the government to end the five-week wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit .
Needless to say , the crisis has exposed the government ’ s arguments , which potentially leads us to the direction of constructing something that works .
In terms of how a replacement should work in practice – fundamentally we seek a completely new approach , putting respect and support at its heart .
Wouldn ’ t it be positive if claimants themselves had the say over how frequently they are paid ; whether their rent is paid directly to the landlord ; and if we had a system more responsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system must also work for those who are self-employed .
The current ‘ minimum income floor ’ regulations can leave people destitute and undermine potentially viable businesses .
Another issue that is often overlooked : how should a replacement for UC interact with other parts of the social security system ?
Most people currently eligible for UC , because they are out of work , are also eligible for National Insurance-based benefits like Jobseeker ’ s Allowance and the Employment and Support Allowance , but there is usually no point in claiming both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduced by a corresponding amount .
At a minimum , these benefits need to be raised to match the increase in UC .
Going forward , we must acknowledge that they are still a significant part of the existing system , with an extra 250,000 claims for JSA up until the end of April alone .
How the alternative to UC interacts with these benefits , and others like Carer ’ s Allowance , is also an important question .
A replacement for UC must work for everyone .
Our social security system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they face .
But the Tories have cut this to woefully inadequate levels , and there is no equivalent of the enhanced disability premium or severe disability premium in UC .
That means disabled people not in paid employment and living without a formal carer can potentially lose out significantly if transferred onto UC .
While the government have been forced to address this , this is clearly a major flaw of the benefit that needs resolve .
Finally , we need to think beyond the existing scope of UC .
The Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Scandinavian-style wage replacement policy in the form of the furlough scheme , working alongside a universal provision .
What can we learn from this ?
We also know that council tax benefit and council tax arrears are major causes of debt and distress .
If rent payments can be contained in one combined benefit – why can ’ t council tax support ?
And on rent , we must never again allow a government to erode the real value of rent support to the point that it becomes dangerously low .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any future system ?
These are not easy questions , but they are essential ones to ask , and the ones Labour is examining closely .

Labour is committed to developing a complete replacement for Universal Credit. We believe this to be essential to meeting our objectives of ending child poverty in the UK. This is a huge mission – and only one of several major policy challenges the shadow work and pensions team is working on – that will develop a modern social security system that offers real support to everyone.
Earlier this month, myself and shadow employment minister Seema Malhotra hosted a roundtable for around 80 members as part of Labour’s national policy forum process, which sparked excellent debate and delivered new ideas. A few days later, I did an event with over 250 members of affiliated trade unions on the future of social security hosted by the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation (TULO). And we’ll do as many events as there is demand for because we need the active democratic involvement of our members and unions.
That’s why today, we are specifically asking people to submit their views on the future of UC to the national policy forum’s work, pensions and equality commission. I am keen to hear whether people believe we should continue with a single combined benefit covering both in-work and out-of-work support. Having seen the process by which people have been transferred onto UC, I am conscious that any reform must be done in a way that minimises the impact to claimants. So I ask: what is the right way to do this?
Then we must consider what a replacement for UC should be. During the current pandemic crisis, we have asked the government to end the five-week wait, the benefit cap and the two-child limit. Needless to say, the crisis has exposed the government’s arguments, which potentially leads us to the direction of constructing something that works.
In terms of how a replacement should work in practice – fundamentally we seek a completely new approach, putting respect and support at its heart. Wouldn’t it be positive if claimants themselves had the say over how frequently they are paid; whether their rent is paid directly to the landlord; and if we had a system more responsive to changes in personal circumstances. The system must also work for those who are self-employed. The current ‘minimum income floor’ regulations can leave people destitute and undermine potentially viable businesses.
Another issue that is often overlooked: how should a replacement for UC interact with other parts of the social security system? Most people currently eligible for UC, because they are out of work, are also eligible for National Insurance-based benefits like Jobseeker’s Allowance and the Employment and Support Allowance, but there is usually no point in claiming both as your UC claim would simply be reduced by a corresponding amount. At a minimum, these benefits need to be raised to match the increase in UC. Going forward, we must acknowledge that they are still a significant part of the existing system, with an extra 250,000 claims for JSA up until the end of April alone. How the alternative to UC interacts with these benefits, and others like Carer’s Allowance, is also an important question.
A replacement for UC must work for everyone. Our social security system should help disabled people with the challenges they face. But the Tories have cut this to woefully inadequate levels, and there is no equivalent of the enhanced disability premium or severe disability premium in UC. That means disabled people not in paid employment and living without a formal carer can potentially lose out significantly if transferred onto UC. While the government have been forced to address this, this is clearly a major flaw of the benefit that needs resolve.
Finally, we need to think beyond the existing scope of UC. The Covid crisis has given us our first experience of a Scandinavian-style wage replacement policy in the form of the furlough scheme, working alongside a universal provision. What can we learn from this? We also know that council tax benefit and council tax arrears are major causes of debt and distress. If rent payments can be contained in one combined benefit – why can’t council tax support? And on rent, we must never again allow a government to erode the real value of rent support to the point that it becomes dangerously low. How can we build that safeguard into any future system? These are not easy questions, but they are essential ones to ask, and the ones Labour is examining closely.