labourlist--2020-10-23--What now for pro-Europeans in the Labour Party?

Brexit is a tragedy for the UK .
It removes us from a key western alliance and the world ’ s largest trading bloc .
It restricts the rights and life chances of millions of British citizens .
It makes our country poorer .
It massively increases the chances of a break-up of the UK .
And it is a powerful rejection of solidarity , peace and internationalism .
These are all major tenets of our party and movement .
Brexit ’ s genesis – in a referendum with no requirement for a supermajority and where millions of directly affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something few developed democracies would accept as the basis for such severe and hard-to-reverse constitutional change .
It has driven a wedge through our society , culture and even through families .
And it was done for no other purpose than to unite the Conservative Party .
All of this is true , and we must never forget it .
Yet there is no immediate prospect of reversing this tragedy .
We are leaving the European Union ’ s orbit , the single market and the customs union .
Most Labour members hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our task as pro-Europeans in the Labour Party is to adapt our campaigning to an environment we did not design , rather than pine for a past we have lost .
This was not the case before the 2019 general election .
The parliamentary arithmetic meant there was a real chance to change course .
And despite the disappointing shrug from some quarters of our movement , it was always the entirely right and proper thing to strive for .
Whatever else people may offer up as an explanation for Labour ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be remembered that politics is as much about leading as it is about following .
A clear position based on conviction and delivered with authority , on an issue most voters ranked lower than other bread-and-butter concerns , could have altered the outcome .
But , despite the heroic efforts of many in the Parliamentary Labour Party , our then-leadership showed no such conviction .
But enough history – now we must look forward .
I believe there are four fundamental tasks for pro-Europeans in the Labour Party in the coming months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ savvy enough not to fall into Boris Johnson ’ s all-too-obvious Brexit trap .
When Rachel Reeves says that under a Labour government “ we will not be in the EU ” , although it may make us feel uncomfortable , I do not believe it is done to give victory to Brexiteers or put two fingers up to Remainers .
It is surely done to avoid the trap that Johnson has been desperate for Labour to jump into since Keir assumed the leadership of the party .
Brexit will happen and be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we appeared incapable of accepting its imminent arrival , Labour could easily have been portrayed as incapable of changing .
And change is clearly what voters demand of us .
However , it is both the case that a campaign to rejoin the EU is unthinkable for the Labour Party right now and that Brexit will prove to be a catastrophic failure , the effects of which will need resolving under a Labour government .
Therefore , our second task is to scrutinise the new reality , rather than re-litigate the events that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told many times since 2016 to “ just accept it and move on ” .
Brexit is obviously happening .
Not to accept that would , frankly , be bizarre .
But it would be a huge mistake to collude in a cross-party delusion that it could be a success , or to pretend a progressive social democratic future can be built on a landscape permanently reconfigured to suit a hard Brexit .
We need to start scrutinising the consequences of this new reality for our country .
A reality where the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supply chains .
Where our food , labour and environmental standards are configured to suit the needs of much larger economies with much lower standards in order to secure tariff and quota arrangements .
Where exporting businesses are hampered by barriers their counterparts in the EU don ’ t face .
Where British citizens are disadvantaged by no longer being able to move and work freely around their own continent .
Where our universities are constrained in the talent and expertise they can attract .
Where consumers face fewer protections .
Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the loss of reciprocal healthcare .
Where our police forces don ’ t routinely co-operate across borders .
Where our economy supports fewer jobs .
And where our public services come under sustained attack from lower tax revenue and fewer extraordinary people who choose to make the UK their home .
This is clearly not a sustainable future .
It is not a platform from which a prosperous , progressive country can be built .
It is not a vision of life shared by any of our socialist and social democratic sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us in the Labour Party is : “ If we can not be inside the EU ecosystem , how do we solve these vital issues ?
” The third task for pro-Europeans is to reclaim patriotism .
The huge success of Brexiteers , and populists in general , has been equating their otherwise disastrous projects with a love for their country .
Whatever your approach to the vexed issue of patriotism , it speaks to identity and pride , which are two maxims most of us hold dear to in some way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this emotion , as it is a prime driver of support for our opponents .
We must extend this concept to the consequences of Brexit .
We must argue loudly and clearly how deeply unpatriotic the Tories have been in fracturing our society for their own internal benefit .
Brexit makes the UK weaker abroad , poorer at home , and more likely to break apart .
If you genuinely love your country , you don ’ t tear it apart – there ’ s nothing patriotic about that .
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tories ’ attitudes to immigration , multilateralism and our justice system .
Their attacks on our values might come wrapped in the flag , but they run contrary to the common British values we must champion .
Adopting the mantle of patriotism must not be viewed as a way of ceding ground to the Tories , but instead as a key weapon in bringing them down .
Finally – and crucially – we must remake the case for internationalism , a bedrock of the labour movement .
EU membership is just one part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lost an important piece of that puzzle , but by building the rest of the picture it will make the missing piece far more obvious .
I joined the Labour Party for many reasons , but high among them was its commitment to internationalism .
Losing the EU referendum in 2016 was a body blow to the ideas I hold dear .
But we must now arrest the slide towards nationalist isolationism and win the argument that today ’ s challenges can be met only through an internationalist approach .
That cross-border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work and that nationalist conservatism acts only to exacerbate the problems we face .
The last four years have undoubtedly been a very tough time for pro-Europeans , and the months and years ahead may be no different .
We will find ourselves frustrated and , at times , lonely and isolated .
But don ’ t give up .
Remember that it is not a question of whether , but when Brexit will fail .
It will fail both on its own terms and as a foundation on which to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure might be long and piecemeal , or it could be sudden .
In either case , it would be foolish to assume the worldview of Brexiteers is sustainable just because their campaigning has been more successful than ours up until now .
If we focus our energies on the four tasks above , then we will , in time , have the space to make our wider arguments for ever-closer co-operation with our European friends and neighbours .
Brexit is unsustainable – and that makes any future built on it unsustainable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : confidence that ours is really the only route to the progressive future our movement want to build .

Brexit is a tragedy for the UK. It removes us from a key western alliance and the world’s largest trading bloc. It restricts the rights and life chances of millions of British citizens. It makes our country poorer. It massively increases the chances of a break-up of the UK. And it is a powerful rejection of solidarity, peace and internationalism. These are all major tenets of our party and movement.
Brexit’s genesis – in a referendum with no requirement for a supermajority and where millions of directly affected citizens were unable to vote – is something few developed democracies would accept as the basis for such severe and hard-to-reverse constitutional change. It has driven a wedge through our society, culture and even through families. And it was done for no other purpose than to unite the Conservative Party.
All of this is true, and we must never forget it. Yet there is no immediate prospect of reversing this tragedy. We are leaving the European Union’s orbit, the single market and the customs union. Most Labour members hate it, but it’s happening. Our task as pro-Europeans in the Labour Party is to adapt our campaigning to an environment we did not design, rather than pine for a past we have lost.
This was not the case before the 2019 general election. The parliamentary arithmetic meant there was a real chance to change course. And despite the disappointing shrug from some quarters of our movement, it was always the entirely right and proper thing to strive for. Whatever else people may offer up as an explanation for Labour’s catastrophic defeat in December, it must be remembered that politics is as much about leading as it is about following. A clear position based on conviction and delivered with authority, on an issue most voters ranked lower than other bread-and-butter concerns, could have altered the outcome. But, despite the heroic efforts of many in the Parliamentary Labour Party, our then-leadership showed no such conviction.
But enough history – now we must look forward. I believe there are four fundamental tasks for pro-Europeans in the Labour Party in the coming months. The first task is to be savvy enough not to fall into Boris Johnson’s all-too-obvious Brexit trap. When Rachel Reeves says that under a Labour government “we will not be in the EU”, although it may make us feel uncomfortable, I do not believe it is done to give victory to Brexiteers or put two fingers up to Remainers. It is surely done to avoid the trap that Johnson has been desperate for Labour to jump into since Keir assumed the leadership of the party. Brexit will happen and be real enough very soon. But had we appeared incapable of accepting its imminent arrival, Labour could easily have been portrayed as incapable of changing. And change is clearly what voters demand of us.
However, it is both the case that a campaign to rejoin the EU is unthinkable for the Labour Party right now and that Brexit will prove to be a catastrophic failure, the effects of which will need resolving under a Labour government. Therefore, our second task is to scrutinise the new reality, rather than re-litigate the events that got us here. We have been told many times since 2016 to “just accept it and move on”. Brexit is obviously happening. Not to accept that would, frankly, be bizarre. But it would be a huge mistake to collude in a cross-party delusion that it could be a success, or to pretend a progressive social democratic future can be built on a landscape permanently reconfigured to suit a hard Brexit.
We need to start scrutinising the consequences of this new reality for our country. A reality where the UK plays no significant role in European manufacturing and supply chains. Where our food, labour and environmental standards are configured to suit the needs of much larger economies with much lower standards in order to secure tariff and quota arrangements. Where exporting businesses are hampered by barriers their counterparts in the EU don’t face. Where British citizens are disadvantaged by no longer being able to move and work freely around their own continent. Where our universities are constrained in the talent and expertise they can attract.
Where consumers face fewer protections. Where tourists and pensioners face prohibitive travel costs through the loss of reciprocal healthcare. Where our police forces don’t routinely co-operate across borders. Where our economy supports fewer jobs. And where our public services come under sustained attack from lower tax revenue and fewer extraordinary people who choose to make the UK their home. This is clearly not a sustainable future. It is not a platform from which a prosperous, progressive country can be built. It is not a vision of life shared by any of our socialist and social democratic sister parties. The urgent question for all of us in the Labour Party is: “If we cannot be inside the EU ecosystem, how do we solve these vital issues?”
The third task for pro-Europeans is to reclaim patriotism. The huge success of Brexiteers, and populists in general, has been equating their otherwise disastrous projects with a love for their country. Whatever your approach to the vexed issue of patriotism, it speaks to identity and pride, which are two maxims most of us hold dear to in some way. Keir is absolutely right to focus on this emotion, as it is a prime driver of support for our opponents. We must extend this concept to the consequences of Brexit.
We must argue loudly and clearly how deeply unpatriotic the Tories have been in fracturing our society for their own internal benefit. Brexit makes the UK weaker abroad, poorer at home, and more likely to break apart. If you genuinely love your country, you don’t tear it apart – there’s nothing patriotic about that. And as with Brexit, so too with the Tories’ attitudes to immigration, multilateralism and our justice system. Their attacks on our values might come wrapped in the flag, but they run contrary to the common British values we must champion. Adopting the mantle of patriotism must not be viewed as a way of ceding ground to the Tories, but instead as a key weapon in bringing them down.
Finally – and crucially – we must remake the case for internationalism, a bedrock of the labour movement. EU membership is just one part of a much bigger jigsaw. We have lost an important piece of that puzzle, but by building the rest of the picture it will make the missing piece far more obvious. I joined the Labour Party for many reasons, but high among them was its commitment to internationalism. Losing the EU referendum in 2016 was a body blow to the ideas I hold dear. But we must now arrest the slide towards nationalist isolationism and win the argument that today’s challenges can be met only through an internationalist approach. That cross-border co-operation is essential to finding solutions that work and that nationalist conservatism acts only to exacerbate the problems we face.
The last four years have undoubtedly been a very tough time for pro-Europeans, and the months and years ahead may be no different. We will find ourselves frustrated and, at times, lonely and isolated. But don’t give up. Remember that it is not a question of whether, but when Brexit will fail. It will fail both on its own terms and as a foundation on which to build a social-democratic future. The realisation of that failure might be long and piecemeal, or it could be sudden. In either case, it would be foolish to assume the worldview of Brexiteers is sustainable just because their campaigning has been more successful than ours up until now.
If we focus our energies on the four tasks above, then we will, in time, have the space to make our wider arguments for ever-closer co-operation with our European friends and neighbours. Brexit is unsustainable – and that makes any future built on it unsustainable. We must always hold on to confidence: confidence that ours is really the only route to the progressive future our movement want to build.


labourlist--2020-10-23--Minimum rage: Why a wage floor is a key demand ahead of Labour’s next fight

Things are not going well for Boris Johnson .
When not voting against free school meals , the government spent this week battling with Andy Burnham and other local leaders over the imposition of Tier 3 restrictions without extra financial support .
Negotiations concluded in no agreement , a Greater Manchester press conference that produced a viral clip and avoidable confusion over what money exactly was being offered .
And after all that mess , the Chancellor stood up in the chamber on Thursday and announced retrospective grants for businesses in Tier 2 areas , which served to validate Burnham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woke up to the lack of Tier 2 support once London entered it and saw the Prime Minister use up political capital before the Chancellor swooped in to ‘ save the day ’ .
This is not the time to congratulate Rishi Sunak for doing “ whatever it takes ” , however , because he hasn ’ t done that .
His third economic update in a month unveiled three measures : Tier 2 business grants equal to 70 % of the support currently available in Tier 3 ; an overhaul of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see employers contribute 5 % , not 33 % to hours-not-worked wages ; doubling grants for the self-employed from 20 % to 40 % of average monthly profits .
Further details are set out in my write-up here .
These changes were desperately needed – and that was evident at the time Sunak announced his first winter economic plan , and his second – but they do not go far enough .
A big factor is that they were largely for businesses , not workers .
The idea is that there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 businesses are now genuinely incentivised to keep employees on part-time under the job support scheme , this will surely help to limit unemployment .
But the benefits of this approach will be limited .
As Elliot has explained in his analysis piece on the Chancellor ’ s statement , the support is conditional on your job and at the discretion of your employer .
People need direct support of the kind demanded by trade unions , mayors , MPs and councillors in a joint statement this week : 80 % wage support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and allowing all to claim it .
Even these demands are missing something crucial : a wage floor that will ensure minimum wage workers do not have to live on anything below their normal wage .
67 % , 77 % or 80 % of the minimum is not enough : the clue is in the word ‘ minimum ’ .
Many will be forced to make do with “ just £5.81 per hour – the minimum wage level of 11 years ago ” , as Richard Burgon pointed out in the chamber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without this floor risks undermining the fight against a minimum wage freeze next year .
Ministers are looking for cover from the Low Pay Commission to do just that , and it sounds like some of its members could be willing to provide that cover .
Trade unions have been preparing for this battle , and we must all be ready for it .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Things are not going well for Boris Johnson. When not voting against free school meals, the government spent this week battling with Andy Burnham and other local leaders over the imposition of Tier 3 restrictions without extra financial support. Negotiations concluded in no agreement, a Greater Manchester press conference that produced a viral clip and avoidable confusion over what money exactly was being offered. And after all that mess, the Chancellor stood up in the chamber on Thursday and announced retrospective grants for businesses in Tier 2 areas, which served to validate Burnham’s argument that the government only woke up to the lack of Tier 2 support once London entered it and saw the Prime Minister use up political capital before the Chancellor swooped in to ‘save the day’.
This is not the time to congratulate Rishi Sunak for doing “whatever it takes”, however, because he hasn’t done that. His third economic update in a month unveiled three measures: Tier 2 business grants equal to 70% of the support currently available in Tier 3; an overhaul of the job support scheme, which will now see employers contribute 5%, not 33% to hours-not-worked wages; doubling grants for the self-employed from 20% to 40% of average monthly profits. Further details are set out in my write-up here. These changes were desperately needed – and that was evident at the time Sunak announced his first winter economic plan, and his second – but they do not go far enough. A big factor is that they were largely for businesses, not workers.
The idea is that there will be a trickle down effect: if Tier 2 businesses are now genuinely incentivised to keep employees on part-time under the job support scheme, this will surely help to limit unemployment. But the benefits of this approach will be limited. As Elliot has explained in his analysis piece on the Chancellor’s statement, the support is conditional on your job and at the discretion of your employer. People need direct support of the kind demanded by trade unions, mayors, MPs and councillors in a joint statement this week: 80% wage support, an increase in statutory sick pay and allowing all to claim it.
Even these demands are missing something crucial: a wage floor that will ensure minimum wage workers do not have to live on anything below their normal wage. 67%, 77% or 80% of the minimum is not enough: the clue is in the word ‘minimum’. Many will be forced to make do with “just £5.81 per hour – the minimum wage level of 11 years ago”, as Richard Burgon pointed out in the chamber. And asking for 80% furlough without this floor risks undermining the fight against a minimum wage freeze next year. Ministers are looking for cover from the Low Pay Commission to do just that, and it sounds like some of its members could be willing to provide that cover. Trade unions have been preparing for this battle, and we must all be ready for it. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-10-23--Labour should build a transformational devolution agenda – and not stop there

Law professor Sionaidh Douglass-Scott recently said that “ constitution-building is a bit like dentistry : there ’ s never a good time for it ; nobody does it for fun , but it ’ s sometimes necessary and , when it ’ s done right , it prevents greater pain in the future ” .
We should all be regretting the lack of significant constitution-building in modern Britain .
The pandemic has highlighted the uneasy constitutional framework of our union .
Developed over centuries but accelerated under the last Labour government ’ s devolution agenda , there is confused settlement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Westminster , the devolved nations and the English regions .
The money is in Westminster , but the health regulations are made in Cardiff and Edinburgh .
The power may be in Downing Street , but city region mayors like Andy Burnham have a mandate , and the government is now cutting local deals in order to implement further lockdown measures .
Our country is experiencing and responding to this crisis in an incoherent manner .
A comparison to Germany ’ s federal system is startling .
From the outset of their response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empowered with regard to test and trace , the health system and the local economy .
Their system of government , although not perfect , has been more robust to the challenge .
On the other hand , our government has belatedly handed some powers to our regional leaders to operate tracing system some eight months into the crisis .
The issue of devolution is intertwined with the feverish political debate about where power lies in the context of Brexit .
For many , ‘ take back control ’ meant less about directives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more about grasping it back from London .
The public felt forgotten and unheard , isolated from Westminster and the decision-making process .
Conversely in Scotland , people voted two to one to remain in the EU , but have now been dragged out .
Support for independence in Scotland is at an all-time high after 13 years of anemic SNP government .
During the leadership campaign , Keir Starmer called for a new written constitution and focused on the “ giving away of powers to hand more power to people in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He described a “ radical federalism ” and a “ new constitutional settlement : a large-scale devolution of power and resources ” .
Although not a priority during the crisis , in a post-Covid world the public will be more alive to the politics of devolution .
The high-profile stand taken by Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester will mean the dynamics of a regional mayor set against Westminster will likely further the desire for more local decision-making and greater devolved powers .
The devolution genie is well and truly out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and begin work on a transformational devolution agenda to take into the 2024 election campaign .
But Labour should not stop there .
Other singular issues emerged from the Brexit chaos , from the extent of prerogative powers in proroguing parliament to the role of the legislature in operating international treaties .
The Supreme Court has been forced to enter political terrain which , as they themselves have remarked , is highly unsatisfactory .
Our unwritten constitution – a rare position in the modern world shared only with New Zealand and Israel – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackle the admittedly daunting tasks of implementing a referendum result on Brexit and now a global pandemic .
The lack of codification of our constitution gives more room for political recklessness .
On Brexit , for example , that we had a referendum at all , when one option led to a vast array of unknowns that were not set out for the public , and would split opinion once more , remains bewildering .
Clement Attlee once said that referenda are a “ device so alien to all our traditions… and too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nazism and Fascism ” .
This is not a party-political point : Margaret Thatcher , a supporter of parliamentary sovereignty , once read out a letter in the House of Commons bemoaning the notion that referenda were useful in a healthy democracy .
A codification of aspects of our constitution would be able to offer a remedy .
There is also a further tension at the heart of our constitution that must be confronted .
In a system that leans so heavily on the separation of powers , there is a lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but what if , as the government has hinted it would do , there is a majority to curtail the role of judges to review executive decisions ?
What , as again this government has flirted with , there is a majority to repeal the Human Rights Act ?
What could be relied upon to protect our most basic rights ?
These questions are not easy for constitutional lawyers , let alone lay members of the public .
To have a constitution that is so incoherent and so inaccessible does not befit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with an 80-seat majority , we can observe how vulnerable key constitutional tenets can be with the Faulks panel assessing means of stifling judicial review , attacks on “ lefty lawyers ” , and the breaching of international law with the internal market bill .
Labour should begin work to prepare for government and to find the mechanisms to better protect the principles of human rights , judicial review and the rule of law .
The Conservatives have used Policy Exchange – a shadowy right-wing think tank full of Dominic Cummings ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Judicial Power Project ’ for their agenda of constitutional vandalism .
Labour needs similar organisations to come together , but to make the case for constitutional propriety in a new settlement .
Tony Blair ’ s New Labour government entered office with the intention of implementing dramatic constitutional reform .
It was successful , but only to some extent .
The fire-fighting nature of government , with daily distractions and political challenges , meant this work went unfinished .
The consequences of that are being felt today .
A Keir Starmer government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job done .

Law professor Sionaidh Douglass-Scott recently said that “constitution-building is a bit like dentistry: there’s never a good time for it; nobody does it for fun, but it’s sometimes necessary and, when it’s done right, it prevents greater pain in the future”.
We should all be regretting the lack of significant constitution-building in modern Britain. The pandemic has highlighted the uneasy constitutional framework of our union. Developed over centuries but accelerated under the last Labour government’s devolution agenda, there is confused settlement of powers, responsibilities and expectations between Westminster, the devolved nations and the English regions.
The money is in Westminster, but the health regulations are made in Cardiff and Edinburgh. The power may be in Downing Street, but city region mayors like Andy Burnham have a mandate, and the government is now cutting local deals in order to implement further lockdown measures. Our country is experiencing and responding to this crisis in an incoherent manner.
A comparison to Germany’s federal system is startling. From the outset of their response to the pandemic, regional leaders were empowered with regard to test and trace, the health system and the local economy. Their system of government, although not perfect, has been more robust to the challenge. On the other hand, our government has belatedly handed some powers to our regional leaders to operate tracing system some eight months into the crisis.
The issue of devolution is intertwined with the feverish political debate about where power lies in the context of Brexit. For many, ‘take back control’ meant less about directives from Brussels and the EU, and more about grasping it back from London. The public felt forgotten and unheard, isolated from Westminster and the decision-making process. Conversely in Scotland, people voted two to one to remain in the EU, but have now been dragged out. Support for independence in Scotland is at an all-time high after 13 years of anemic SNP government.
During the leadership campaign, Keir Starmer called for a new written constitution and focused on the “giving away of powers to hand more power to people in the devolved nations and the English regions”. He described a “radical federalism” and a “new constitutional settlement: a large-scale devolution of power and resources”.
Although not a priority during the crisis, in a post-Covid world the public will be more alive to the politics of devolution. The high-profile stand taken by Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester will mean the dynamics of a regional mayor set against Westminster will likely further the desire for more local decision-making and greater devolved powers. The devolution genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Labour should grasp the nettle and begin work on a transformational devolution agenda to take into the 2024 election campaign.
But Labour should not stop there. Other singular issues emerged from the Brexit chaos, from the extent of prerogative powers in proroguing parliament to the role of the legislature in operating international treaties. The Supreme Court has been forced to enter political terrain which, as they themselves have remarked, is highly unsatisfactory. Our unwritten constitution – a rare position in the modern world shared only with New Zealand and Israel – has provided unstable foundations by which to tackle the admittedly daunting tasks of implementing a referendum result on Brexit and now a global pandemic.
The lack of codification of our constitution gives more room for political recklessness. On Brexit, for example, that we had a referendum at all, when one option led to a vast array of unknowns that were not set out for the public, and would split opinion once more, remains bewildering. Clement Attlee once said that referenda are a “device so alien to all our traditions… and too often it has been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism”. This is not a party-political point: Margaret Thatcher, a supporter of parliamentary sovereignty, once read out a letter in the House of Commons bemoaning the notion that referenda were useful in a healthy democracy. A codification of aspects of our constitution would be able to offer a remedy.
There is also a further tension at the heart of our constitution that must be confronted. In a system that leans so heavily on the separation of powers, there is a lack of any underpinning principle. Parliament is sovereign, but what if, as the government has hinted it would do, there is a majority to curtail the role of judges to review executive decisions? What, as again this government has flirted with, there is a majority to repeal the Human Rights Act? What could be relied upon to protect our most basic rights? These questions are not easy for constitutional lawyers, let alone lay members of the public. To have a constitution that is so incoherent and so inaccessible does not befit a modern nation.
Under this government, with an 80-seat majority, we can observe how vulnerable key constitutional tenets can be with the Faulks panel assessing means of stifling judicial review, attacks on “lefty lawyers”, and the breaching of international law with the internal market bill. Labour should begin work to prepare for government and to find the mechanisms to better protect the principles of human rights, judicial review and the rule of law. The Conservatives have used Policy Exchange – a shadowy right-wing think tank full of Dominic Cummings’ misfits and weirdos – to build a ‘Judicial Power Project’ for their agenda of constitutional vandalism. Labour needs similar organisations to come together, but to make the case for constitutional propriety in a new settlement.
Tony Blair’s New Labour government entered office with the intention of implementing dramatic constitutional reform. It was successful, but only to some extent. The fire-fighting nature of government, with daily distractions and political challenges, meant this work went unfinished. The consequences of that are being felt today. A Keir Starmer government should be different, and get the job done.


labourlist--2020-10-23--One in three night workers earn less than £10 an hour, TUC analysis shows

The TUC has called for better pay and conditions for night workers , including 1.8 million key workers , after it was revealed that one in three of those who regularly work overnight shifts earn less than £10 an hour .
The new analysis released by the trade union federation today shows that 1.2 million of the UK ’ s 3.4 million night workers earn less than £10 an hour and the TUC has warned that many are increasingly on insecure zero-hour contracts .
The data also indicates that 1.8 million members of that night-time workforce are key workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twice as likely to be on low-paid overnight shifts than the rest of the workforce .
TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady said : “ Working through the night is tough – especially in the middle of a global pandemic .
We all owe Britain ’ s night workers a huge debt for keeping the country running while we are asleep .
“ It is not right that so many of those who work overnight – especially in key sectors like care – are on low pay and insecure contracts .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are treated with dignity at work .
“ That means levelling up working conditions and pay and ensuring people are given proper notice of their shifts .
And it means honouring the promise to increase the minimum wage that would benefit over two million key workers.
” The TUC analysis , based on figures from the Office for National Statistics ( ONS ) , revealed that nurses and care workers were the most likely professions to work night shifts , with 406,000 care staff and 245,000 nurses regularly working overnight .
The North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the highest number of night workers in England and Wales , with 424,000 late-night staff .
It was closely followed by London , where 415,000 staff regularly work during the night .
Yorkshire and the Humber had the highest proportion of key workers who worked night shifts , with 183,000 of the region ’ s total 306,000 night workers – or 60 % – employed in a key worker profession .
The TUC has issued a warning about the damaging effects night work can have on the physical health of workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as the potential impact on family life .
As a result , the trade union federation is calling on the government to put more protections for night workers in its proposed employment bill that was announced as part of the Queen ’ s Speech last year .
The TUC called on the government to introduce better pay for night workers to reflect the extra costs of childcare , legislation to ensure that workers have early notice of shifts and compensation for shift changes at short notice as part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanded the government commit to raising the minimum wage and the banning of zero-hours contracts , as night workers are frequently subject to low paying insecure contracts .
Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell lodged an early day motion in parliament earlier this month calling on the government to raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour for all UK workers regardless of age .
The motion was tabled amid fears that the independent Low Pay Commission could recommend a minimum wage freeze or very limited increase , rather than a rise to £9.21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn called for a minimum wage rate increase to £10 for all workers over 16 years of age .
The pledge was included in the party ’ s 2019 general election manifesto .

The TUC has called for better pay and conditions for night workers, including 1.8 million key workers, after it was revealed that one in three of those who regularly work overnight shifts earn less than £10 an hour.
The new analysis released by the trade union federation today shows that 1.2 million of the UK’s 3.4 million night workers earn less than £10 an hour and the TUC has warned that many are increasingly on insecure zero-hour contracts.
The data also indicates that 1.8 million members of that night-time workforce are key workers, which means that key workers are over twice as likely to be on low-paid overnight shifts than the rest of the workforce.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Working through the night is tough – especially in the middle of a global pandemic. We all owe Britain’s night workers a huge debt for keeping the country running while we are asleep.
“It is not right that so many of those who work overnight – especially in key sectors like care – are on low pay and insecure contracts. The government must ensure that all night workers are treated with dignity at work.
“That means levelling up working conditions and pay and ensuring people are given proper notice of their shifts. And it means honouring the promise to increase the minimum wage that would benefit over two million key workers.”
The TUC analysis, based on figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), revealed that nurses and care workers were the most likely professions to work night shifts, with 406,000 care staff and 245,000 nurses regularly working overnight.
The North West was found to be the region with the highest number of night workers in England and Wales, with 424,000 late-night staff. It was closely followed by London, where 415,000 staff regularly work during the night.
Yorkshire and the Humber had the highest proportion of key workers who worked night shifts, with 183,000 of the region’s total 306,000 night workers – or 60% – employed in a key worker profession.
The TUC has issued a warning about the damaging effects night work can have on the physical health of workers, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression, as well as the potential impact on family life.
As a result, the trade union federation is calling on the government to put more protections for night workers in its proposed employment bill that was announced as part of the Queen’s Speech last year.
The TUC called on the government to introduce better pay for night workers to reflect the extra costs of childcare, legislation to ensure that workers have early notice of shifts and compensation for shift changes at short notice as part of the bill.
The trade union organisation also demanded the government commit to raising the minimum wage and the banning of zero-hours contracts, as night workers are frequently subject to low paying insecure contracts.
Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell lodged an early day motion in parliament earlier this month calling on the government to raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour for all UK workers regardless of age.
The motion was tabled amid fears that the independent Low Pay Commission could recommend a minimum wage freeze or very limited increase, rather than a rise to £9.21 an hour as previously expected.
Labour under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn called for a minimum wage rate increase to £10 for all workers over 16 years of age. The pledge was included in the party’s 2019 general election manifesto.


labourlist--2020-10-23--Labour: Half a million self-employed people “left in the lurch” by government

Labour has accused the government of “ leaving self-employed people in the lurch ” as changes to the self-employment income support scheme ( SEISS ) will leave almost half a million of those most in need with reduced support .
New analysis released by Labour today has revealed that half a million self-employed people work in industries that are being hit hard by coronavirus restrictions , including hospitality , the arts and sports .
The Chancellor announced on Thursday that the SEISS will now provide just 40 % of a self-employed worker ’ s average monthly trading profits if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compared to first Covid grant of 80 % .
The new Labour research suggests that , as a result , the average self-employed person working in the arts or hospitality industry will receive just £450 a month via the government support scheme this winter .
Commenting on the difficulties facing many self-employed people in the coming months , Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband said : “ The promise of doing ‘ whatever it takes ’ to protect workers is a distant memory .
“ Despite public health restrictions tightening and many sectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people in the lurch .
Almost half a million self-employed people work in industries either partially or fully closed .
“ They ’ re in desperately choppy waters with many deeply worried about their future .
Yet ministers are taking away their life raft and leaving them to sink or swim .
That ’ s not just callous , but economically wrong .
“ These are our country ’ s artists and performers , and people in our vibrant tourism , sports , cultural and hospitality sectors .
The Business Secretary must stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given a fair deal.
” The SEISS was launched by the government in March .
It allowed some self-employed people to claim a taxable grant worth 80 % of their average monthly trading profits , capped at £7,500 over three months .
Despite many industries with self-employed workers experiencing reduced footfall or closures due to Covid rules , earlier this month the Chancellor announced plans to cut the amount that the self-employed can claim to 20 % of monthly income .
Rishi Sunak increased the figure this week , when he announced it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the opposition has argued this will still leave many self-employed people with heavily slashed incomes .
Labour is emphasising that half a million self-employed workers are in industries hit hard by the pandemic and government restrictions , including 177,000 in the arts sector and 52,000 people working in accommodation and hotels .
The half a million figure also includes a further 83,000 self-employed staff working in food and beverage businesses such as restaurants and bars , 97,000 people in the sports industry and 41,000 in film and television .
Many others are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any income support from the government , including the newly self-employed and those who usually made over £50,000 in profit a year .
The new analysis has also highlighted that the average amount paid to a self-employed person in both the arts and hospitality sector under the first set of SEISS grants was £2,700 – roughly £900 a month .
The new adjustments to the scheme mean self-employed workers receive only half what they were getting in that original tranche of funding , meaning many are now set to receive just £450 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has maintained that Universal Credit will help resolve the income gap , but under the welfare programme every £1 a self-employed person receives through SEISS , their Universal Credit payment reduces by 63p .
Ministers have also ignored Labour ’ s calls for Universal Credit to be reformed during the pandemic in a way that would make those with savings eligible for the benefit , and that would see the five-week wait removed .
The new changes to the SEISS were announced as part of the Chancellor ’ s third economic update in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost support for businesses badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic .
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds criticised Sunak for “ always running to keep up ” during the crisis and asked the Chancellor to explain why the new support was coming months after many regions first faced tighter local restrictions .

Labour has accused the government of “leaving self-employed people in the lurch” as changes to the self-employment income support scheme (SEISS) will leave almost half a million of those most in need with reduced support.
New analysis released by Labour today has revealed that half a million self-employed people work in industries that are being hit hard by coronavirus restrictions, including hospitality, the arts and sports.
The Chancellor announced on Thursday that the SEISS will now provide just 40% of a self-employed worker’s average monthly trading profits if they are badly affected or unable to work, compared to first Covid grant of 80%.
The new Labour research suggests that, as a result, the average self-employed person working in the arts or hospitality industry will receive just £450 a month via the government support scheme this winter.
Commenting on the difficulties facing many self-employed people in the coming months, Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband said: “The promise of doing ‘whatever it takes’ to protect workers is a distant memory.
“Despite public health restrictions tightening and many sectors being shut, ministers are leaving self-employed people in the lurch. Almost half a million self-employed people work in industries either partially or fully closed.
“They’re in desperately choppy waters with many deeply worried about their future. Yet ministers are taking away their life raft and leaving them to sink or swim. That’s not just callous, but economically wrong.
“These are our country’s artists and performers, and people in our vibrant tourism, sports, cultural and hospitality sectors. The Business Secretary must stand up for them and ensure they are given a fair deal.”
The SEISS was launched by the government in March. It allowed some self-employed people to claim a taxable grant worth 80% of their average monthly trading profits, capped at £7,500 over three months.
Despite many industries with self-employed workers experiencing reduced footfall or closures due to Covid rules, earlier this month the Chancellor announced plans to cut the amount that the self-employed can claim to 20% of monthly income.
Rishi Sunak increased the figure this week, when he announced it would be doubled to 40%, but the opposition has argued this will still leave many self-employed people with heavily slashed incomes.
Labour is emphasising that half a million self-employed workers are in industries hit hard by the pandemic and government restrictions, including 177,000 in the arts sector and 52,000 people working in accommodation and hotels.
The half a million figure also includes a further 83,000 self-employed staff working in food and beverage businesses such as restaurants and bars, 97,000 people in the sports industry and 41,000 in film and television.
Many others are excluded from the scheme altogether and left without any income support from the government, including the newly self-employed and those who usually made over £50,000 in profit a year.
The new analysis has also highlighted that the average amount paid to a self-employed person in both the arts and hospitality sector under the first set of SEISS grants was £2,700 – roughly £900 a month.
The new adjustments to the scheme mean self-employed workers receive only half what they were getting in that original tranche of funding, meaning many are now set to receive just £450 each month in support.
The government has maintained that Universal Credit will help resolve the income gap, but under the welfare programme every £1 a self-employed person receives through SEISS, their Universal Credit payment reduces by 63p.
Ministers have also ignored Labour’s calls for Universal Credit to be reformed during the pandemic in a way that would make those with savings eligible for the benefit, and that would see the five-week wait removed.
The new changes to the SEISS were announced as part of the Chancellor’s third economic update in a month, alongside new measures to boost support for businesses badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic.
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds criticised Sunak for “always running to keep up” during the crisis and asked the Chancellor to explain why the new support was coming months after many regions first faced tighter local restrictions.


labourlist--2020-10-23--5 terrible Tory excuses for not extending free school meals this week

The Conservatives voted down , by a majority of 61 , a Labour motion this week to extend free school meals over the holidays up to and including the Easter break next year .
Just five Tories voted with Labour to support the motion .
LabourList has found and put together a list of some of the worst justifications from Conservative MPs that have cropped up in the past few days for not voting in favour of the free school meals extension .
1 .
They are not in favour of “ nationalising children ” .
This gem came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It started doing the rounds on Twitter almost immediately after the free school meals debate ended on Wednesday evening .
The new Tory MP for Bassetlaw told the Commons : “ Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children ?
I do not believe in nationalising children .
“ Instead , we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility , ” he said .
Referring implicitly to Marcus Rashford , he added : “ This means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real causes of child poverty.
” There is the obvious issue , of course : it is not entirely clear how extending an already existing scheme to feed children is “ nationalising ” them .
But the rest of his argument is also pretty questionable .
Clarke-Smith suggests that the government has been dealing with these “ real causes of child poverty ” , which would make extending the free school meals programme to help feed children over the holidays would be irresponsible .
Leaving aside the unique circumstances of a global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pupils to sign up for the scheme , the total number of children living in relative poverty has increased under the Tories .
2 .
Children were already fed during term time .
Birmingham Northfield MP Gary Sambrook justified his decision to vote against the motion in a letter to a constituent , in which he claimed that the government only fed children over the summer to make up for missed term-time meals .
He wrote : “ We took the unprecedented step , which had never been done before in history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer holiday this year because the majority of children hadn ’ t been in school since March and families had been meeting extra costs .
“ The situation is now totally different .
The majority of children are back in school and have therefore been benefitting from free school meals during term time as normal .
We need to avoid creating a deepening cycle of state dependency.
” His argument suggests that free school meals ought only to be tied to whether a child was fed during term time , and not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a global pandemic and economic crisis .
Leaving aside that the problem of food poverty does not disappear once term ends , it is not clear how the situation is “ totally different ” now .
Cases of Covid are rising , more of the country faces restrictions and the economy is facing a significant downturn .
Rising unemployment has led to a higher demand for food banks and free school meals .
The idea that somehow the need or circumstances are less dire now than during the summer is tenuous .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open .
Mansfield MP Ben Bradley justified his decision to vote against the free school meals motion by suggesting that extending the scheme would encourage parents to choose not to feed their children and rely on state support .
Asked on Twitter whether he really believed that parents would choose not to feed their children and depend on the state , Bradley replied : “ Some do… don ’ t think that ’ s controversial to say , [ to be honest ] .
“ Some parents are not good parents and prioritise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Small minority , yes… but some do .
Step out of the PC [ politically correct ] bubble and come live in the real world.
” His response raises several questions .
For example , as Hannah Al-Othman said , if a number of parents do not prioritise their children as they should , are these not the children that the state most needs to feed ?
Writing for the Spectator in 1995 , Boris Johnson criticised what he called “ uppity and irresponsible ” single mothers and claimed that their children grow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and illegitimate ” .
It is not surprising to see a similar line spouted by Bradley , who once declared that the “ vast sea of unemployed wasters ” ought to get vasectomies so that taxpayers do not have to pay to support their children .
4 .
The policy could destroy the currency .
Tory backbencher Steve Baker offered up this line of thinking in response to a tweet by Marcus Rashford , which argued that the government was going to “ turn a blind eye to the needs of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded : “ No one will be turning a blind eye and it is wrong to suggest anyone would .
Not destroying the currency with excessive QE [ quantitative easing ] is also one of our duties.
” QE is the process by which the Bank of England buys government bonds to fund public spending .
It is not clear why Baker thinks this would be very relevant to free school meals , which would have cost just £20m to extend over the winter break .
The idea that spending in the tens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk is questionable to begin with , not least when you consider that the government is set to borrow £372bn this year to fund its coronavirus policies .
In a later tweet , Baker agreed it was wrong for Rishi Sunak to spend “ £500m to help people dine at places… such as Wagamama ” .
The staunch fiscal conservative seems to believe neither policy is worthwhile .
5 .
They may have supported it if Labour had not used “ unparliamentary words ” .
Former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan suggested on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that more Conservatives might have supported the policy if deputy leader Angela Rayner had not called a Tory MP “ scum ” .
Morgan told the programme : “ I think the Labour Party might have found they got more supporters yesterday if the deputy Labour leader hadn ’ t called one of the Conservative MPs ‘ scum ’ in the course of the debate.
” She added : “ Well , if the Labour Party had really wanted support , they wouldn ’ t have made it what ’ s called an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been other ways to build a coalition in parliament.
” The former minister concluded : “ If the Labour Party really want to get people supporting this debate , then labelling Conservative MPs with unconscionable , unparliamentary words , and then the way it was dealt with , absolutely not.
” Labour frontbencher Bridget Phillipson , who also appeared on the programme , posed the obvious question when she responded : “ So kids go hungry this Christmas because you don ’ t like the parliamentary process ?
” The implication of Morgan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have entertained the idea of supporting the free school meals motion if the Labour Party had introduced the policy in a friendlier way .

The Conservatives voted down, by a majority of 61, a Labour motion this week to extend free school meals over the holidays up to and including the Easter break next year. Just five Tories voted with Labour to support the motion.
LabourList has found and put together a list of some of the worst justifications from Conservative MPs that have cropped up in the past few days for not voting in favour of the free school meals extension.
1. They are not in favour of “nationalising children”.
This gem came from 2019 intake Conservative backbencher Brendan Clarke-Smith. It started doing the rounds on Twitter almost immediately after the free school meals debate ended on Wednesday evening.
The new Tory MP for Bassetlaw told the Commons: “Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children? I do not believe in nationalising children.
“Instead, we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility,” he said. Referring implicitly to Marcus Rashford, he added: “This means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy and more action to tackle the real causes of child poverty.”
There is the obvious issue, of course: it is not entirely clear how extending an already existing scheme to feed children is “nationalising” them. But the rest of his argument is also pretty questionable.
Clarke-Smith suggests that the government has been dealing with these “real causes of child poverty”, which would make extending the free school meals programme to help feed children over the holidays irresponsible.
Leaving aside the unique circumstances of a global pandemic that has driven one million new pupils to sign up for the scheme, the total number of children living in relative poverty has increased under the Tories.
Brendan Clarke-Smith(Tory MP) – “I do not believe in nationalising children. We need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility. This means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy" #FreeSchoolMeals pic.twitter.com/83FuyWrfsi — Haggis_UK 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 (@Haggis_UK) October 21, 2020
2. Children were already fed during term time.
Birmingham Northfield MP Gary Sambrook justified his decision to vote against the motion in a letter to a constituent, in which he claimed that the government only fed children over the summer to make up for missed term-time meals.
He wrote: “We took the unprecedented step, which had never been done before in history, to extend free school meals over the summer holiday this year because the majority of children hadn’t been in school since March and families had been meeting extra costs.
“The situation is now totally different. The majority of children are back in school and have therefore been benefitting from free school meals during term time as normal. We need to avoid creating a deepening cycle of state dependency.”
His argument suggests that free school meals ought only to be tied to whether a child was fed during term time, and not, for example, the extraordinary circumstances of a global pandemic and economic crisis.
Leaving aside that the problem of food poverty does not disappear once term ends, it is not clear how the situation is “totally different” now. Cases of Covid are rising, more of the country faces restrictions and the economy is facing a significant downturn.
Rising unemployment has led to a higher demand for food banks and free school meals. The idea that somehow the need or circumstances are less dire now than during the summer is tenuous. The only difference is that schools are still open.
Telling that in his statement to the press Gary didn’t mention the paragraphs in which he says that children don’t need food during school holidays because they have already eaten during term time. I’d be ashamed too. Also tories have been in gov over a decade Gary. It’s on you. pic.twitter.com/WFDdY5gkkO — Olly Armstrong (@Olly4Northfield) October 22, 2020
3. Free school meals reward bad parenting.
Mansfield MP Ben Bradley justified his decision to vote against the free school meals motion by suggesting that extending the scheme would encourage parents to choose not to feed their children and rely on state support.
Asked on Twitter whether he really believed that parents would choose not to feed their children and depend on the state, Bradley replied: “Some do… don’t think that’s controversial to say, [to be honest].
“Some parents are not good parents and prioritise other things ahead of their kids. Small minority, yes… but some do. Step out of the PC [politically correct] bubble and come live in the real world.”
His response raises several questions. For example, as Hannah Al-Othman said, if a number of parents do not prioritise their children as they should, are these not the children that the state most needs to feed?
Writing for the Spectator in 1995, Boris Johnson criticised what he called “uppity and irresponsible” single mothers and claimed that their children grow up “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”.
It is not surprising to see a similar line spouted by Bradley, who once declared that the “vast sea of unemployed wasters” ought to get vasectomies so that taxpayers do not have to pay to support their children.
Some do… dont think that's controversial to say, tbh. Some parents are not good parents and prioritise other things ahead of their kids. Small minority, yes… but some do. Step out of the PC bubble and come live in the real world. https://t.co/oDPzxmbiWL — Ben Bradley MP (@BBradley_Mans) October 21, 2020
4. The policy could destroy the currency.
Tory backbencher Steve Baker offered up this line of thinking in response to a tweet by Marcus Rashford, which argued that the government was going to “turn a blind eye to the needs of the most vulnerable children”.
The Wycombe MP responded: “No one will be turning a blind eye and it is wrong to suggest anyone would. Not destroying the currency with excessive QE [quantitative easing] is also one of our duties.”
QE is the process by which the Bank of England buys government bonds to fund public spending. It is not clear why Baker thinks this would be very relevant to free school meals, which would have cost just £20m to extend over the winter break.
The idea that spending in the tens of millions puts the entire economy at risk is questionable to begin with, not least when you consider that the government is set to borrow £372bn this year to fund its coronavirus policies.
In a later tweet, Baker agreed it was wrong for Rishi Sunak to spend “£500m to help people dine at places… such as Wagamama”. The staunch fiscal conservative seems to believe neither policy is worthwhile.
No one will be turning a blind eye and it is wrong to suggest anyone would. Not destroying the currency with excessive QE is also one of our duties. https://t.co/EeDp1x3d85 — Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) October 21, 2020
5. They may have supported it if Labour had not used “unparliamentary words”.
Former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan suggested on an episode of Question Time on Thursday night that more Conservatives might have supported the policy if deputy leader Angela Rayner had not called a Tory MP “scum”.
Morgan told the programme: “I think the Labour Party might have found they got more supporters yesterday if the deputy Labour leader hadn’t called one of the Conservative MPs ‘scum’ in the course of the debate.”
She added: “Well, if the Labour Party had really wanted support, they wouldn’t have made it what’s called an opposition day debate. There would have been other ways to build a coalition in parliament.”
The former minister concluded: “If the Labour Party really want to get people supporting this debate, then labelling Conservative MPs with unconscionable, unparliamentary words, and then the way it was dealt with, absolutely not.”
Labour frontbencher Bridget Phillipson, who also appeared on the programme, posed the obvious question when she responded: “So kids go hungry this Christmas because you don’t like the parliamentary process?”
The implication of Morgan’s remarks is that the government would have entertained the idea of supporting the free school meals motion if the Labour Party had introduced the policy in a friendlier way.


labourlist--2020-10-23--Low traffic neighbourhoods: the biggest transport controversy of the century

It has become the biggest transport controversy of the century .
Not rail nationalisation , not the £27bn roads programme , not even the £100bn on HS2 , but the humble ‘ low traffic neighbourhood ’ .
Or LTNs , as they are known in the jargon that was previously only used by highway engineers and cycle campaigners .
The fundamental idea is simple .
By cutting off through traffic in minor residential roads , local residents will enjoy a quieter environment , less pollution , reduced danger from traffic and be more likely to walk or cycle .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cyclists and pedestrians can get through the barriers but cars and vans can not .
This has implications far beyond transport .
Having less traffic going past your door makes life better in lots of ways , from improving sleep to making for a more friendly neighbourhood .
Research in the 1970s in San Francisco revealed that there was a strong correlation between the busyness of a street and loneliness .
People on quieter streets were far more likely to know their neighbours than those on busy ones .
What is there not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some people , including some who do not benefit from quieter streets , may have a longer journey when travelling out of the area .
In general , streets will be blocked off in such a way that they will be forced to access the outside world via one main road .
And therein lies the problem .
There is no doubt that some car users will be inconvenienced .
And boy do they make a fuss , often out of all proportion to the inconvenience caused .
Certain tropes recur , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get through , massive congestion on neighbouring roads and people not being able to get to work .
In Ealing , a tree fell down on a road affected by a temporary LTN and that somehow was blamed on its introduction .
One complaint used by some Labour opponents is that poorer people tend to live on the main roads that will see increases in traffic .
This does not stand up to serious scrutiny .
There is no evidence that schemes benefit more affluent people over poorer ones .
Quite the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correlated with income .
While undoubtedly some mistakes have been made with the rapid introduction of these schemes – some 160 in London alone and numerous others in big cities such as Newcastle , Manchester and Birmingham – many of the most vociferous complaints come from well-organised groups such as taxi drivers .
Petitions have often been circulated and attract large numbers , but this does not mean they are representative of local residents .
Often the complaint is that there has been no or little consultation , but that is because these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Covid outbreak , and this can now be rectified .
In the face of opposition – often vociferous – some local authorities such as Brighton and Redbridge have retreated , saying they are ‘ listening to people ’ .
However , they may be listening to a lot of ill-informed noise from outsiders while ignoring the voice of residents who have benefited .
Winning people over can be achieved through good communication , on the ground work and a readiness to make amendments and remedy mistakes .
Ultimately the controversy arises because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LTNs .
The most obvious is to improve the environment and air quality of residents on the closed-off streets – and by-and-large , that is universally acceptable .
It is the other , more radical , aspect , which is to make car use more difficult and nudge people into using other modes , that engenders much of the opposition .
LTNs have been around for years , and there are some great success stories .
Probably the best is Waltham Forest , where a series of LTNs were created with funding support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early schemes have been so successful that parts of the borough where opposition was greatest are now seeking to have LTNs .
For councils and councillors implementing these schemes , there are several important things to remember : • Be prepared for the backlash with clear arguments about why the scheme is being implemented ; • Council leaders and transport cabinet members must be prepared to support schemes publicly ; • Enlist the help of supportive local community leaders in getting the message across ; • Surveys are generally a bad idea as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ random signatures than local supporters ; • Stick to emphasising the local benefits rather than big-picture stuff like climate change ; • Crucially , this is not about cyclists who are often criticised , but about all local people ; and • In general , traders in LTNs benefit from greater footfall after they are installed .
Residents in Railton Road in Brixton , South London , decided to reinforce the efforts of the local Lambeth Council with a series of activities in this presentation .
The crowding on the main roads can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from public transport in over concerns about Covid risks .
Christian Wolmar was a founder of Labour Cycles , which can provide speakers to any Labour branches or groups to discuss these issues .
Do contact us , too , if you are willing to help with the campaign .
Contact [ email protected ] or go to labourcycles.org .

It has become the biggest transport controversy of the century. Not rail nationalisation, not the £27bn roads programme, not even the £100bn on HS2, but the humble ‘low traffic neighbourhood’. Or LTNs, as they are known in the jargon that was previously only used by highway engineers and cycle campaigners.
The fundamental idea is simple. By cutting off through traffic in minor residential roads, local residents will enjoy a quieter environment, less pollution, reduced danger from traffic and be more likely to walk or cycle. The road system will be filtered so that cyclists and pedestrians can get through the barriers but cars and vans cannot.
This has implications far beyond transport. Having less traffic going past your door makes life better in lots of ways, from improving sleep to making for a more friendly neighbourhood. Research in the 1970s in San Francisco revealed that there was a strong correlation between the busyness of a street and loneliness. People on quieter streets were far more likely to know their neighbours than those on busy ones.
What is there not to like? Creating LTNs does mean that some people, including some who do not benefit from quieter streets, may have a longer journey when travelling out of the area. In general, streets will be blocked off in such a way that they will be forced to access the outside world via one main road. And therein lies the problem.
There is no doubt that some car users will be inconvenienced. And boy do they make a fuss, often out of all proportion to the inconvenience caused. Certain tropes recur, such as ambulances not being able to get through, massive congestion on neighbouring roads and people not being able to get to work. In Ealing, a tree fell down on a road affected by a temporary LTN and that somehow was blamed on its introduction.
One complaint used by some Labour opponents is that poorer people tend to live on the main roads that will see increases in traffic. This does not stand up to serious scrutiny. There is no evidence that schemes benefit more affluent people over poorer ones. Quite the opposite, since higher car ownership is greatly correlated with income.
While undoubtedly some mistakes have been made with the rapid introduction of these schemes – some 160 in London alone and numerous others in big cities such as Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham – many of the most vociferous complaints come from well-organised groups such as taxi drivers. Petitions have often been circulated and attract large numbers, but this does not mean they are representative of local residents. Often the complaint is that there has been no or little consultation, but that is because these measures were taken in the face of the Covid outbreak, and this can now be rectified.
In the face of opposition – often vociferous – some local authorities such as Brighton and Redbridge have retreated, saying they are ‘listening to people’. However, they may be listening to a lot of ill-informed noise from outsiders while ignoring the voice of residents who have benefited. Winning people over can be achieved through good communication, on the ground work and a readiness to make amendments and remedy mistakes.
Ultimately the controversy arises because there is a dual purpose behind the LTNs. The most obvious is to improve the environment and air quality of residents on the closed-off streets – and by-and-large, that is universally acceptable. It is the other, more radical, aspect, which is to make car use more difficult and nudge people into using other modes, that engenders much of the opposition.
LTNs have been around for years, and there are some great success stories. Probably the best is Waltham Forest, where a series of LTNs were created with funding support from the mayor of London. The early schemes have been so successful that parts of the borough where opposition was greatest are now seeking to have LTNs. For councils and councillors implementing these schemes, there are several important things to remember:
Be prepared for the backlash with clear arguments about why the scheme is being implemented; Council leaders and transport cabinet members must be prepared to support schemes publicly; Enlist the help of supportive local community leaders in getting the message across; Surveys are generally a bad idea as a few active antis can collect more random signatures than local supporters; Stick to emphasising the local benefits rather than big-picture stuff like climate change; Emphasise success stories where LTNs have made a real positive difference; Crucially, this is not about cyclists who are often criticised, but about all local people; and In general, traders in LTNs benefit from greater footfall after they are installed.
Residents in Railton Road in Brixton, South London, decided to reinforce the efforts of the local Lambeth Council with a series of activities in this presentation. The crowding on the main roads can mostly be attribute to the shift away from public transport in over concerns about Covid risks.
Christian Wolmar was a founder of Labour Cycles, which can provide speakers to any Labour branches or groups to discuss these issues. Do contact us, too, if you are willing to help with the campaign. Contact [email protected] or go to labourcycles.org.


labourlist--2020-10-23--Gurinder Singh Josan: Why I’m standing to represent local parties on Labour’s NEC

The Labour Party simply must win the next general election .
I have been a Labour member for 32 years and was elected to the national executive committee ( NEC ) in April .
I want to continue the work we have started to create a united movement behind Keir Starmer , to bring an end the last few years of divisive and factionalism and to elect a Labour government .
The Labour Party needs NEC members that understand the importance of , and the scale of , the challenge ahead of us and that will act for members first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when I was 16 years old .
I am a trustee and director of HOPE not hate , secretary of my Unite branch , vice-chair of Sikhs for Labour , a school governor , a member of West Midlands strategic police and crime board and central council member of the Socialist Health Association – I am Labour to my core !
When elected to the NEC , I promised to publish regular reports .
Since then I ’ ve published a monthly report detailing my NEC and other activities .
I have published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details of the discussions and decisions .
I believe transparency and accountability of NEC members is crucial , and I live it !
If re-elected , I will continue to be a critical friend to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner .
I will support the leadership in their efforts to fix the party and make it election-ready .
But I will also continue challenging the leadership so that they always act in the interests of our members , so resources are used most effectively and so we stay true to our Labour values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the answer in itself – yes , we lost two general elections under Jeremy Corbyn ’ s leadership .
But we also lost two general elections before that .
There are fundamental challenges developing over time , which go beyond the leader , that we must fix .
If re-elected , I will continue my work to fix the party ’ s governance deficit .
I ’ ve been outspoken about the need for improving governance from the NEC down and have been relentlessly pushing for improvements .
We must put our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show we are a credible party of government .
Transparency and accountability are crucial .
Transparency on the NEC is about creating a state of openness in which there is a presumption that information will be made available to our members and affiliates rather than hidden .
It is the basis on which communication will be most effective , and it is a fundamental requirement for effective accountability .
In a party divided by factionalism in recent years , it is also the basis on which trust and unity will be built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand-in-hand with improvements to our organisation .
To rebuild our election-winning party we also need significant change in strategy , organisation and the relationship of power between members and the party .
We need to ensure our head office and regional offices are staffed with the best talents in our movement appointed for their knowledge , expertise , experience , dynamism and commitment to helping our candidates win .
We need to refresh our internal democracy and campaigning to take account of Covid conditions , but also so that both are fully accessible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latest technology and use our resources most effectively .
We need an independent complaints process that has clear expectations regarding behaviour and is robust , prompt and fair in its operation .
We must ensure zero tolerance of any form of discrimination within our party .
We must also continue improving diversity and representation at all levels of the party .
We needs real change to embrace this agenda by all in the party .
We must ensure diversity is ingrained and not just seen as an extra with additional structures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power is exercised .
This NEC election is the first to be conducted under the single transferable vote system and is an opportunity for a more diverse NEC reflecting all traditions of the party – the broad-church party that wins elections .
It is also an opportunity to build the best organisation , show zero tolerance to discrimination , build an independent complaints system , fix the governance deficit , put members back in charge of policy-making and candidate selections , and rebuild trust with voters who left us .
I hope to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be privileged to have your first preference in this election .
I bring with me my background as a long-standing and dedicated party activist , a passionate equalities campaigner and my independent-minded commitment to a member-led democratic Labour Party .
I am also supporting Luke Akehurst , Johanna Baxter , Terry Paul , Michael Payne and Shama Tatler .

The Labour Party simply must win the next general election. I have been a Labour member for 32 years and was elected to the national executive committee (NEC) in April. I want to continue the work we have started to create a united movement behind Keir Starmer, to bring an end the last few years of divisive and factionalism and to elect a Labour government. The Labour Party needs NEC members that understand the importance of, and the scale of, the challenge ahead of us and that will act for members first and foremost.
I joined the party when I was 16 years old. I am a trustee and director of HOPE not hate, secretary of my Unite branch, vice-chair of Sikhs for Labour, a school governor, a member of West Midlands strategic police and crime board and central council member of the Socialist Health Association – I am Labour to my core! When elected to the NEC, I promised to publish regular reports. Since then I’ve published a monthly report detailing my NEC and other activities. I have published reports after scheduled full NEC meetings giving details of the discussions and decisions. I believe transparency and accountability of NEC members is crucial, and I live it!
If re-elected, I will continue to be a critical friend to Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. I will support the leadership in their efforts to fix the party and make it election-ready. But I will also continue challenging the leadership so that they always act in the interests of our members, so resources are used most effectively and so we stay true to our Labour values.
I understand that changing leadership is not the answer in itself – yes, we lost two general elections under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. But we also lost two general elections before that. There are fundamental challenges developing over time, which go beyond the leader, that we must fix. If re-elected, I will continue my work to fix the party’s governance deficit. I’ve been outspoken about the need for improving governance from the NEC down and have been relentlessly pushing for improvements. We must put our own house in order if we are to show we are a credible party of government.
Transparency and accountability are crucial. Transparency on the NEC is about creating a state of openness in which there is a presumption that information will be made available to our members and affiliates rather than hidden. It is the basis on which communication will be most effective, and it is a fundamental requirement for effective accountability. In a party divided by factionalism in recent years, it is also the basis on which trust and unity will be built.
Improvements to our governance must go hand-in-hand with improvements to our organisation. To rebuild our election-winning party we also need significant change in strategy, organisation and the relationship of power between members and the party. We need to ensure our head office and regional offices are staffed with the best talents in our movement appointed for their knowledge, expertise, experience, dynamism and commitment to helping our candidates win.
We need to refresh our internal democracy and campaigning to take account of Covid conditions, but also so that both are fully accessible to all members, make use of the latest technology and use our resources most effectively. We need an independent complaints process that has clear expectations regarding behaviour and is robust, prompt and fair in its operation. We must ensure zero tolerance of any form of discrimination within our party.
We must also continue improving diversity and representation at all levels of the party. We needs real change to embrace this agenda by all in the party. We must ensure diversity is ingrained and not just seen as an extra with additional structures that sit outside the mainstream, where real power is exercised.
This NEC election is the first to be conducted under the single transferable vote system and is an opportunity for a more diverse NEC reflecting all traditions of the party – the broad-church party that wins elections. It is also an opportunity to build the best organisation, show zero tolerance to discrimination, build an independent complaints system, fix the governance deficit, put members back in charge of policy-making and candidate selections, and rebuild trust with voters who left us.
I hope to have your support, and I would be privileged to have your first preference in this election. I bring with me my background as a long-standing and dedicated party activist, a passionate equalities campaigner and my independent-minded commitment to a member-led democratic Labour Party. I am also supporting Luke Akehurst, Johanna Baxter, Terry Paul, Michael Payne and Shama Tatler.


labourlist--2020-10-23--There is “real danger of confusion” over new Covid rules, warns Richard Leonard

Richard Leonard has warned that there is a “ real danger of confusion among the public ” over the new set of coronavirus restrictions in Scotland that was unveiled by SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon today .
The Scottish Labour leader has called on the Scottish government to “ provide clarity ” to people and businesses after announcing a new tiered framework of Covid-19 rules for the country to help limit the effects of the pandemic .
Sturgeon revealed the measures during her coronavirus briefing today .
The new system will see regions placed under one of five grades of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weekly basis .
Leonard said : “ With Scotland set to enter into a five-tier system of lockdown restrictions , the need for the Scottish government to provide clarity for the public and businesses is more urgent than ever .
“ Scottish Labour supports measures taken to control the spread of the virus , but it is vital that there is clarity over what restrictions people are living under and for how long they can expect to be under these restrictions.
” Under Level 0 , most businesses will remain open and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indoors .
Under Level 1 , social interactions indoors will be restricted to six people from two households .
Level 2 restrictions are similar to the current rules that apply across the entirety of Scotland , including limits on the serving of alcohol by the hospitality industry and the ban of all gatherings inside private homes .
Level 3 is similar to the tougher rules currently in place across the central belt of Scotland , in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh .
Pubs are forced to close and restaurants can remain open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to the full lockdown seen across the UK in March , with all non-essential shops being forced to close and only six people from two households being allowed to meet in an outdoor setting .
Businesses in Scotland affected by these new lockdown restrictions will be able to apply for new support grants that will be offered in addition to those already being provided by the UK government .
Responding to the new framework , the Scottish Labour leader added : “ With the potential for different areas of the country to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real danger of confusion among the public , putting health at risk .
“ The support for businesses is to be welcomed , but there must be greater support for workers over the coming months .
It is of paramount importance that the Scottish and UK governments co-operate to ensure that businesses and workers get the support they need .
“ The new testing strategy is necessary – a more extensive and strengthened track and trace system is desperately needed to get us out of a cycle of continued lockdowns , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mental health.
” The latest Covid-19 measures are significantly more strict than those announced by the Scottish government earlier this month , under which pubs and restaurants were not allowed to serve alcohol indoors .
Leonard took a tough line on those coronavirus restrictions at the time and declared that the Holyrood administration needed to stop treating the Scottish hospitality sector like “ Sodom and Gomorrah ” .
The Scottish Labour leader similarly issued strong words when he tweeted on Thursday evening that it was “ tone deaf ” for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ get their digital Christmas ready ” .
The Scottish government ’ s national clinical director James Leitch had declared that a “ normal ” Christmas could not take place this year and advised people to “ get their digital Christmas ready ” .
Leitch replied to Leonard : “ Wow .
Tone deaf ?
I didn ’ t suggest a miserable Dickensian Christmas Richard .
If you listen to the interview I said a large multi-household family gathering doesn ’ t seem likely ” .
The Scottish Labour leader later added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and particularly so in a pandemic .
Flippancy and throwaway statements ought to have no place in public health communications.
” There have been 52,615 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Scotland , with 8,218 cases being detected this week , with 1,712 being confirmed on Thursday alone , according to the latest Scottish government figures .

Richard Leonard has warned that there is a “real danger of confusion among the public” over the new set of coronavirus restrictions in Scotland that was unveiled by SNP First Minister Nicola Sturgeon today.
The Scottish Labour leader has called on the Scottish government to “provide clarity” to people and businesses after announcing a new tiered framework of Covid-19 rules for the country to help limit the effects of the pandemic.
Sturgeon revealed the measures during her coronavirus briefing today. The new system will see regions placed under one of five grades of restrictions, with classifications being reviewed on a weekly basis.
Leonard said: “With Scotland set to enter into a five-tier system of lockdown restrictions, the need for the Scottish government to provide clarity for the public and businesses is more urgent than ever.
“Scottish Labour supports measures taken to control the spread of the virus, but it is vital that there is clarity over what restrictions people are living under and for how long they can expect to be under these restrictions.”
Under Level 0, most businesses will remain open and eight people from three households can meet indoors. Under Level 1, social interactions indoors will be restricted to six people from two households.
Level 2 restrictions are similar to the current rules that apply across the entirety of Scotland, including limits on the serving of alcohol by the hospitality industry and the ban of all gatherings inside private homes.
Level 3 is similar to the tougher rules currently in place across the central belt of Scotland, in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh. Pubs are forced to close and restaurants can remain open under certain rules.
Level 4 is closer to the full lockdown seen across the UK in March, with all non-essential shops being forced to close and only six people from two households being allowed to meet in an outdoor setting.
Businesses in Scotland affected by these new lockdown restrictions will be able to apply for new support grants that will be offered in addition to those already being provided by the UK government.
Responding to the new framework, the Scottish Labour leader added: “With the potential for different areas of the country to be under different regulations, there exists a real danger of confusion among the public, putting health at risk.
“The support for businesses is to be welcomed, but there must be greater support for workers over the coming months. It is of paramount importance that the Scottish and UK governments co-operate to ensure that businesses and workers get the support they need.
“The new testing strategy is necessary – a more extensive and strengthened track and trace system is desperately needed to get us out of a cycle of continued lockdowns, which are damaging to the economy and people’s mental health.”
The latest Covid-19 measures are significantly more strict than those announced by the Scottish government earlier this month, under which pubs and restaurants were not allowed to serve alcohol indoors.
Leonard took a tough line on those coronavirus restrictions at the time and declared that the Holyrood administration needed to stop treating the Scottish hospitality sector like “Sodom and Gomorrah”.
The Scottish Labour leader similarly issued strong words when he tweeted on Thursday evening that it was “tone deaf” for a Scottish public health official to tell people to “get their digital Christmas ready”.
The Scottish government’s national clinical director James Leitch had declared that a “normal” Christmas could not take place this year and advised people to “get their digital Christmas ready”.
Leitch replied to Leonard: “Wow. Tone deaf? I didn’t suggest a miserable Dickensian Christmas Richard. If you listen to the interview I said a large multi-household family gathering doesn’t seem likely”.
The Scottish Labour leader later added: “Word choice always matters, and particularly so in a pandemic. Flippancy and throwaway statements ought to have no place in public health communications.”
There have been 52,615 confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Scotland, with 8,218 cases being detected this week, with 1,712 being confirmed on Thursday alone, according to the latest Scottish government figures.