labourlist--2020-08-04--Party refuses to restart selection process for West of England mayoral candidate

The south west regional office of the Labour Party has rejected calls to restart the selection process for the West of England mayoral candidate after concerns were raised about the shortlist .
Regional director Phil Gaskin emailed members on Monday in response to a letter sent to Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) last month .
Local members had complained after only two people were shortlisted by the selection committee .
Helen Godwin and Dan Norris were shortlisted but others who received more nominations were dropped , including two current Labour councillors and two who previously stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now told members that although the regional office had been given an out-of-date version of procedures and “ minor irregularities ” had occurred , “ none of the irregularities which occurred had any material impact on the final shortlist ” .
The regional party said that the selection committee were required to review all applicants with at least two nominations by the Labour Party ’ s rules , but said that the shortlist is ultimately “ determined on interview ” .
The party wrote : “ Whilst parliamentary selection procedures do allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific number of nominations that they are automatically shortlisted , there is no such facility/allowance within the rules and procedural guidelines for mayoral selections .
“ The rules clearly state… that ‘ the selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations ’ .
All applicants who received at least two nominations were considered at interview .
“ However , at no point do the procedures allow for any additional weighting of nominations .
As the procedures clearly set out the shortlist is determined on interview , and the decision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The response has prompted concerns from members that there will be no change to the shortlist .
One member of a local party executive told LabourList : “ The main issue for us is that six candidates were considered and four were rejected .
“ It would seem unfortunate that four out of six candidates were considered not good enough to go forward to the ballot for selection by members , when one of them was the previous candidate and two of them are current councillors and were parliamentary candidates as recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed between them being suitable to be parliamentary candidates in December or the previous candidate in 2016 and now ?
” One “ minor irregularity ” cited was not letting local Labour groups make nominations .
Gaskin wrote that after reviewing this with “ relevant key stakeholders ” including the NEC , it has now been decided that they have another 14 days to do so .
But a document responding to the concerns raised by members point-by-point and offering a clarification on the Labour Party ’ s rules sent with the email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count towards the shortlisting process.
” The local member added : “ They ’ re allowing supporting nominations to be made by Labour groups that they already say aren ’ t of material relevance .
They ’ re moving the focus to a now irrelevant clause to make it look like they are being scrupulous , while attempting to rule out a more significant review.
” The Labour Party has been contacted for comment .
Below is the full text of the email sent to members .
As you will know the shortlist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was announced on Thursday 16th July .
Since that time there have been a number of communications expressing concern in respect of how the procedure was managed and the final shortlist was determined .
The Labour Party General Secretary has conducted a review of these concerns .
During the review it was found that Regional Office had been inadvertently provided with an out of date version of the selection procedures ( by the Governance and Legal Unit ) and that therefore there had been some small/minor administrative irregularities .
It should be pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred had any material impact on the final shortlist .
You will find attached to this email an outline of the main concerns and an explanation as to why they were found to be without merit .
However , one omission from the procedures provided to Regional Office which do appear in the more recent version was the point which allows Labour groups from within the combined authority area to make supportive nominations , as below .
“ Each principal Labour group within the combined authority area may make a supporting nomination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received .
If making two nominations , at least one nomination must be a woman .
Supporting nominations do not count towards the shortlisting process.
” As a result of this omission , and as a demonstration of good faith , the general secretary has discussed this with relevant key stakeholders internally ( including the NEC ) and it has been determined that a window of 14 days should be allowed for Labour groups within the combined authority area to consider if they wish to make supportive nominations .
Labour group officers will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to consider if they wish to make supporting nominations , and the process for making a supporting nomination tomorrow morning ( Tuesday 4th August ) .
The deadline for receipt of a Labour group supporting nomination will be 4pm on Tuesday 18th August .
Once , and if , any Labour goup supporting nominations are received the selection committee/interview panel will be invited to consider if they wish to consider any relevant next steps , including the possibility of re-opening interviews .
Those candidates already shortlisted will not be affected by this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any confusion and inconvenience which this may have caused .
As you will see from the attached outline of queries some concerns were expressed that full candidate application forms were not circulated along with candidate statements .
As stated previously this had no material impact on the process , however we will forward you full candidate application forms and candidate statements in due course for your records .
Below is the clarification of the rules sent with the email to members .
As you will see from the email communication a course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting nominations has been determined by the Labour Party general secretary and chair of the NEC organisational sub-committee .
We also wanted to provide an outline of other concerns/complaints which have been submitted and to provide an explanation on these matters .
As below .
Q1 .
Why were the full candidate application forms not provided ( along with candidate statements ) to CLP ’ s/affiliated organisations for nomination meetings .
Clarification : There is no requirement in the selection procedures for full application forms to be circulated to members , and ALL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application forms and statements will be provided to CLP ’ s/Affiliated Organisations for their records .
Q2 .
How and by who was the selection committee ( interview panel ) formed , and was it done correctly .
Clarification : Although regional office was provided with an out of date version of the selection procedures they were properly advised on its ’ composition ( as below ) .
The NEC representatives were appointed by the NEC .
The REC representatives were appointed by the regional director .
The Labour frontbench and/or Parliamentary Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the leader of the opposition .
2 .
The Selection Panel a .
There shall be a selection panel comprising an equal number of regional board and NEC members , and a member of the Labour frontbench and/or Parliamentary Labour Party , whose function shall be to : • receive reports on the conduct of election from the returning officer ; • determine matters referred for decision by the returning officer ; • select a shortlist of candidates from the nominations received ; • receive a statement of selection campaign income and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The panel shall be chaired by a member from the NEC .
c. The panel will reflect the usual balance of stakeholders agreed by the NEC for all such selection panels .
No person seeking selection for mayor shall be eligible to serve on a selection panel .
Q3 .
Why were the selection committee not provided with information in respect of the number of nominations ( CLP/affiliated organisations ) for each individual candidate .
Clarification : There is no requirement within the procedures for this information to be provided .
Had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chair or any other member of the selection committee , it would of course have been provided .
There was no such request .
Q4 .
How were the number of nominations for each individual candidate weighted and accounted for at shortlist interview .
Why were the candidates who received the higher number ( s ) of CLP/affiliate nominations not shortlisted or considered more favourably over those with a smaller number of nominations .
( This question has triggered more queries and complaints than any other issue ) .
Clarification ; Whilst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an individual applicant/candidate achieve a specific number of nominations that they are automatically short-listed , there is no such facility/allowance within the rules and procedural guidelines for mayoral selections .
The rules clearly state ( as below ) that “ the selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations ” .
All applicants who received at least two nominations were considered at interview .
However , at no point do the procedures allow for any additional weighting of nominations .
As the procedures clearly set out the short-list is determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the selection committee is final and binding .
8 .
The shortlisting process a .
The selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations : either from Constituency Labour Parties wholly or partly within the combined authority area , or affiliates , or a combination of both .
b .
The selection committee shall interview all or some ( a long-list ) of those people so nominated .
c. If BAME or women candidates have been validly nominated , the selection committee shall interview at least one BAME candidate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no BAME or women candidates have been nominated then the selection committee may decide to interview a candidate from among any BAME candidates or women candidates who have submitted an application .
d. The selection committee shall determine the shortlist having interviewed the candidates as set out above .
e. The decision of the selection committee in respect of the shortlist is final and not subject to appeal .
Q5 .
There have been concerns that the final short-list did not sufficiently demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion .
Clarification : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BAME applicant who had not received any CLP/affiliated organisation nominations as in point 8C above .

The south west regional office of the Labour Party has rejected calls to restart the selection process for the West of England mayoral candidate after concerns were raised about the shortlist.
Regional director Phil Gaskin emailed members on Monday in response to a letter sent to Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) last month. Local members had complained after only two people were shortlisted by the selection committee.
Helen Godwin and Dan Norris were shortlisted but others who received more nominations were dropped, including two current Labour councillors who also stood for the party as parliamentary candidates in the 2019 general election.
Gaskin has now told members that although the regional office had been given an out-of-date version of procedures and “minor irregularities” had occurred, “none of the irregularities which occurred had any material impact on the final shortlist”.
The regional party said that the selection committee were required to review all applicants with at least two nominations by the Labour Party’s rules, but said that the shortlist is ultimately “determined on interview”.
The party wrote: “Whilst parliamentary selection procedures do allow that should an individual applicant/candidate achieve a specific number of nominations that they are automatically shortlisted, there is no such facility/allowance within the rules and procedural guidelines for mayoral selections.
“The rules clearly state… that ‘the selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations’. All applicants who received at least two nominations were considered at interview.
“However, at no point do the procedures allow for any additional weighting of nominations. As the procedures clearly set out the shortlist is determined on interview, and the decision of the selection committee is final and binding.”
The response has prompted concerns from members that there will be no change to the shortlist. One member of a local party executive told LabourList: “The main issue for us is that six candidates were considered and four were rejected.
“It would seem unfortunate that four out of six candidates were considered not good enough to go forward to the ballot for selection by members, when one of them was the previous candidate and two of them are current councillors and were parliamentary candidates as recently as last December.
“What has changed between them being suitable to be parliamentary candidates in December or the previous candidate in 2016 and now?”
One “minor irregularity” cited was not letting local Labour groups make nominations. Gaskin wrote that after reviewing this with “relevant key stakeholders” including the NEC, it has now been decided that they have another 14 days to do so.
But a document responding to the concerns raised by members point-by-point and offering a clarification on the Labour Party’s rules sent with the email stated: “Supporting nominations do not count towards the shortlisting process.”
The local member added: “They’re allowing supporting nominations to be made by Labour groups that they already say aren’t of material relevance. They’re moving the focus to a now irrelevant clause to make it look like they are being scrupulous, while attempting to rule out a more significant review.”
The Labour Party has been contacted for comment.
Below is the full text of the email sent to members.
Dear Colleague,
As you will know the shortlist for the West of England Metro-Mayoral Selection was announced on Thursday 16th July.
Since that time there have been a number of communications expressing concern in respect of how the procedure was managed and the final shortlist was determined.
The Labour Party General Secretary has conducted a review of these concerns. During the review it was found that Regional Office had been inadvertently provided with an out of date version of the selection procedures (by the Governance and Legal Unit) and that therefore there had been some small/minor administrative irregularities. It should be pointed out that none of the irregularities which occurred had any material impact on the final shortlist. You will find attached to this email an outline of the main concerns and an explanation as to why they were found to be without merit.
However, one omission from the procedures provided to Regional Office which do appear in the more recent version was the point which allows Labour groups from within the combined authority area to make supportive nominations, as below.
“Each principal Labour group within the combined authority area may make a supporting nomination of one or two candidates from the applications received. If making two nominations, at least one nomination must be a woman. Supporting nominations do not count towards the shortlisting process.”
As a result of this omission, and as a demonstration of good faith, the general secretary has discussed this with relevant key stakeholders internally (including the NEC) and it has been determined that a window of 14 days should be allowed for Labour groups within the combined authority area to consider if they wish to make supportive nominations. Labour group officers will be provided with all appropriate information on how to consider if they wish to make supporting nominations, and the process for making a supporting nomination tomorrow morning (Tuesday 4th August). The deadline for receipt of a Labour group supporting nomination will be 4pm on Tuesday 18th August.
Once, and if, any Labour goup supporting nominations are received the selection committee/interview panel will be invited to consider if they wish to consider any relevant next steps, including the possibility of re-opening interviews. Those candidates already shortlisted will not be affected by this and will remain shortlisted.
We apologise for any confusion and inconvenience which this may have caused.
As you will see from the attached outline of queries some concerns were expressed that full candidate application forms were not circulated along with candidate statements. As stated previously this had no material impact on the process, however we will forward you full candidate application forms and candidate statements in due course for your records.
Many thanks,
Phil Gaskin
Regional director
Below is the clarification of the rules sent with the email to members.
As you will see from the email communication a course of action in respect of Labour group supporting nominations has been determined by the Labour Party general secretary and chair of the NEC organisational sub-committee.
We also wanted to provide an outline of other concerns/complaints which have been submitted and to provide an explanation on these matters. As below.
Q1. Why were the full candidate application forms not provided (along with candidate statements) to CLP’s/affiliated organisations for nomination meetings.
Clarification: There is no requirement in the selection procedures for full application forms to be circulated to members, and ALL candidate statements were appropriately circulated. Full application forms and statements will be provided to CLP’s/Affiliated Organisations for their records.
Q2. How and by who was the selection committee (interview panel) formed, and was it done correctly.
Clarification: Although regional office was provided with an out of date version of the selection procedures they were properly advised on its’ composition (as below). The NEC representatives were appointed by the NEC. The REC representatives were appointed by the regional director. The Labour frontbench and/or Parliamentary Labour Party representative was appointed by the office of the leader of the opposition.
2. The Selection Panel a. There shall be a selection panel comprising an equal number of regional board and NEC members, and a member of the Labour frontbench and/or Parliamentary Labour Party, whose function shall be to: receive reports on the conduct of election from the returning officer;
determine matters referred for decision by the returning officer;
select a shortlist of candidates from the nominations received;
receive a statement of selection campaign income and expenditure from each shortlisted candidate. b. The panel shall be chaired by a member from the NEC. c. The panel will reflect the usual balance of stakeholders agreed by the NEC for all such selection panels.
No person seeking selection for mayor shall be eligible to serve on a selection panel.
Q3. Why were the selection committee not provided with information in respect of the number of nominations (CLP/affiliated organisations) for each individual candidate.
Clarification: There is no requirement within the procedures for this information to be provided. Had such a request been received either from the chair or any other member of the selection committee, it would of course have been provided. There was no such request.
Q4. How were the number of nominations for each individual candidate weighted and accounted for at shortlist interview. Why were the candidates who received the higher number(s) of CLP/affiliate nominations not shortlisted or considered more favourably over those with a smaller number of nominations. (This question has triggered more queries and complaints than any other issue).
Clarification; Whilst parliamentary selection procedures do allow that should an individual applicant/candidate achieve a specific number of nominations that they are automatically short-listed, there is no such facility/allowance within the rules and procedural guidelines for mayoral selections. The rules clearly state (as below) that “the selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations”.
All applicants who received at least two nominations were considered at interview. However, at no point do the procedures allow for any additional weighting of nominations. As the procedures clearly set out the short-list is determined on interview, and the decision of the selection committee is final and binding.
8. The shortlisting process a. The selection committee shall consider all applicants receiving at least two nominations: either from Constituency Labour Parties wholly or partly within the combined authority area, or affiliates, or a combination of both. b. The selection committee shall interview all or some (a long-list) of those people so nominated. c. If BAME or women candidates have been validly nominated, the selection committee shall interview at least one BAME candidate and at least one woman candidate. If no BAME or women candidates have been nominated then the selection committee may decide to interview a candidate from among any BAME candidates or women candidates who have submitted an application. d. The selection committee shall determine the shortlist having interviewed the candidates as set out above. e. The decision of the selection committee in respect of the shortlist is final and not subject to appeal.
Q5. There have been concerns that the final short-list did not sufficiently demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Clarification: The selection committee did consider at interview a BAME applicant who had not received any CLP/affiliated organisation nominations as in point 8C above.


labourlist--2020-08-04--The government’s ‘independent’ panel looking at judicial review reveals a fear of scrutiny

If , whilst flicking through news from around the world , it was reported that a government abroad had unlawfully closed parliament , sat on a report into Russian interference with its elections for a year , appointed their biggest donors to the legislature and attempted to ensure their favoured candidate was elected to the independent National Security Committee , the story would be about worrying trends of constitutional impropriety .
But these are not tales from Donald Trump ’ s America or Viktor Orbán ’ s Hungary .
These are measures of a Boris Johnson government that has little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law and convention .
And things are about to get worse .
The government has launched an ‘ independent panel to look at judicial review ’ .
This appears to be the culmination of briefings from the government that they would “ sort out the judges ” and clip the wings of the judiciary so that they are unable to make “ political rulings ” ( whatever they are ) .
On any analysis , it is clear that this is yet another example of an administration that aims to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care for the health of our constitution .
Firstly , the panel is not ‘ independent ’ .
It is chaired by Lord Faulks , a Tory peer and a former justice minister during Chris Grayling ’ s disastrous period as Justice Secretary .
He has written extensively on the subject of judicial power , and it is clear that he holds strong and fully-formed views on the role of the courts .
He has bemoaned the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that ruled as unlawful the prorogation of parliament ( for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their reasons ) , and set out a reading list for any future members of a commission looking at judicial review , with commentary supportive of his view .
It is no wonder that public lawyers worry about the independence of the panel reviewing this key component of our constitution .
His views on the Human Rights Act are also illustrative .
He argues that parliament should legislate on human rights issues as they emerge , rather than the current model whereby human rights are codified within a single piece of legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cleaner option would be the ‘ full fat ’ one : leave the Council of Europe altogether , repeal the Human Rights Act and allow our own courts and Parliament to protect human rights ” .
This is a lawyer and politician with an agenda .
Further , data of judicial review applications reveals a system that is working .
The vast majority of cases lodged do not reach a final hearing , because they are refused permission by judges who fully understand their role as assessing whether the public authorities have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the relative merits of a policy or politics .
In other cases , concessions are made by the public body and the case ‘ settles ’ .
Only around 5 % of cases reach a final hearing – and even then the government wins more than it loses .
There is little evidence of judges becoming more eager to stifle government and the government looks paranoid to suggest otherwise .
Of course , any party that wins a majority of 80 should have the space to implement its agenda and govern .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ elected dictatorship ’ , and ensures there are checks and balances through the legislature and the courts .
After all , the Conservatives won 43 % of the vote – a fine victory but not one that allows them to do as they please without regard to the law .
There is also an issue as to priorities .
We are in the midst of a global pandemic , and the economy and justice system is teetering on the brink of disaster .
There remains a huge backlog of cases in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profession are facing bankruptcy and the prison system remains in disrepair .
In this context , why is the Justice Secretary focusing on attacking the role of judges ?
This is symptomatic of a government that lashes out at any check on its power .
It reveals a shallow ideological zeal that fears opposition and scrutiny .
Keir Starmer ’ s Labour will stand up to it .

If, whilst flicking through news from around the world, it was reported that a government abroad had unlawfully closed parliament, sat on a report into Russian interference with its elections for a year, appointed their biggest donors to the legislature and attempted to ensure their favoured candidate was elected to the independent National Security Committee, the story would be about worrying trends of constitutional impropriety. But these are not tales from Donald Trump’s America or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. These are measures of a Boris Johnson government that has little respect for the value of accountability, the rule of law and convention. And things are about to get worse.
The government has launched an ‘independent panel to look at judicial review’. This appears to be the culmination of briefings from the government that they would “sort out the judges” and clip the wings of the judiciary so that they are unable to make “political rulings” (whatever they are). On any analysis, it is clear that this is yet another example of an administration that aims to stifle scrutiny and accountability, with little care for the health of our constitution.
Firstly, the panel is not ‘independent’. It is chaired by Lord Faulks, a Tory peer and a former justice minister during Chris Grayling’s disastrous period as Justice Secretary. He has written extensively on the subject of judicial power, and it is clear that he holds strong and fully-formed views on the role of the courts. He has bemoaned the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that ruled as unlawful the prorogation of parliament (for which the government offered no evidence as to their reasons), and set out a reading list for any future members of a commission looking at judicial review, with commentary supportive of his view. It is no wonder that public lawyers worry about the independence of the panel reviewing this key component of our constitution.
His views on the Human Rights Act are also illustrative. He argues that parliament should legislate on human rights issues as they emerge, rather than the current model whereby human rights are codified within a single piece of legislation. He concludes that “the braver and cleaner option would be the ‘full fat’ one: leave the Council of Europe altogether, repeal the Human Rights Act and allow our own courts and Parliament to protect human rights”. This is a lawyer and politician with an agenda.
Further, data of judicial review applications reveals a system that is working. The vast majority of cases lodged do not reach a final hearing, because they are refused permission by judges who fully understand their role as assessing whether the public authorities have acted lawfully. They are not interested in the relative merits of a policy or politics. In other cases, concessions are made by the public body and the case ‘settles’. Only around 5% of cases reach a final hearing – and even then the government wins more than it loses. There is little evidence of judges becoming more eager to stifle government and the government looks paranoid to suggest otherwise.
Of course, any party that wins a majority of 80 should have the space to implement its agenda and govern. But our constitution attempts to avoid an ‘elected dictatorship’, and ensures there are checks and balances through the legislature and the courts. After all, the Conservatives won 43% of the vote – a fine victory but not one that allows them to do as they please without regard to the law.
There is also an issue as to priorities. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the economy and justice system is teetering on the brink of disaster. There remains a huge backlog of cases in the criminal courts, swathes of the legal profession are facing bankruptcy and the prison system remains in disrepair. In this context, why is the Justice Secretary focusing on attacking the role of judges? This is symptomatic of a government that lashes out at any check on its power. It reveals a shallow ideological zeal that fears opposition and scrutiny. Keir Starmer’s Labour will stand up to it.


labourlist--2020-08-04--Blair repeats call for government to appoint “senior minister of testing”

Tony Blair has repeated his call for the UK government to appoint a “ senior minister of testing ” and warned that mass testing is necessary because the aim of “ eradicating ” Covid-19 is not a “ realistic ” one .
In an interview with Times Radio this morning , the former Labour Prime Minister said the government had “ chosen someone good ” and “ highly capable ” in Dido Harding , who leads on the UK ’ s Test and Trace programme .
But he added : “ I ’ m talking about a senior minister that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministers or they can bring someone back .
They ’ ve got plenty of talented people who aren ’ t in government at the moment.
” Blair said : “ Once you decide that this mass testing is an essential component of getting things working again , you ’ ve got to drill down on every single aspect of it… structural changes necessary in government flow from it.
” The Labour politician called on the government in early April to appoint a minister solely responsible for Covid-19 mass testing in the UK , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of a unit devoted to “ literally nothing else ” .
“ Unless you ’ re able to get mass testing , at scale , with speed , I don ’ t see how you get a way out of this lockdown – and I ’ m terrified by the economic damage we ’ re doing with every week this lockdown continues , ” he told the BBC .
Explaining the reasons for his recommendation today , Blair said : “ Roughly , on some estimates , 70 % of people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re only testing people with symptoms , you ’ re losing the majority of people from your testing strategy .
“ We began this pandemic thinking and talking about herd immunity , and rightly moved away from that very quickly because of the immense damage that we do .
But we then , I think , maybe fooled ourselves into thinking you could eliminate the disease .
“ So you go from this sort of herd immunity concept to eradicating the disease .
I don ’ t think that ’ s ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak to around the world say we ’ re going to be living with this disease for some time .
“ The issue is how do you control it and contain it .
And I think the only way that you can do that – absent a vaccine that works and is mass distributed , or a therapeutic that reduces dramatically the severity of the disease – the only way you can do it , is to test as many people as possible .
“ I think from the very beginning , mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets you through this , allows you to avoid the severity of the very blunt instrument of lockdown , and gets you to a place where you can more or less get your economy moving whilst containing the disease.
” UCL ’ s Dr Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths told the BBC today that if the NHS Test and Trace system is “ not done effectively or adequately , then there is a risk of an occurrence of a second wave later this year and peaking in December ” .
Labour ’ s shadow minister Sarah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News this morning that “ the government has failed on the test , track and trace system ” and “ the government needs to do better ” .
56,651 deaths have been registered in the UK so far where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate , including suspected cases .

Tony Blair has repeated his call for the UK government to appoint a “senior minister of testing” and warned that mass testing is necessary because the aim of “eradicating” Covid-19 is not a “realistic” one.
In an interview with Times Radio this morning, the former Labour Prime Minister said the government had “chosen someone good” and “highly capable” in Dido Harding, who leads on the UK’s Test and Trace programme.
But he added: “I’m talking about a senior minister that is either from the existing stock of ministers or they can bring someone back. They’ve got plenty of talented people who aren’t in government at the moment.”
Blair said: “Once you decide that this mass testing is an essential component of getting things working again, you’ve got to drill down on every single aspect of it… structural changes necessary in government flow from it.”
The Labour politician called on the government in early April to appoint a minister solely responsible for Covid-19 mass testing in the UK, recommending that one cabinet member be in charge of a unit devoted to “literally nothing else”.
“Unless you’re able to get mass testing, at scale, with speed, I don’t see how you get a way out of this lockdown – and I’m terrified by the economic damage we’re doing with every week this lockdown continues,” he told the BBC.
Explaining the reasons for his recommendation today, Blair said: “Roughly, on some estimates, 70% of people with the disease are asymptomatic. If you’re only testing people with symptoms, you’re losing the majority of people from your testing strategy.
“We began this pandemic thinking and talking about herd immunity, and rightly moved away from that very quickly because of the immense damage that we do. But we then, I think, maybe fooled ourselves into thinking you could eliminate the disease.
“So you go from this sort of herd immunity concept to eradicating the disease. I don’t think that’s ever been realistic. All the people I speak to around the world say we’re going to be living with this disease for some time.
“The issue is how do you control it and contain it. And I think the only way that you can do that – absent a vaccine that works and is mass distributed, or a therapeutic that reduces dramatically the severity of the disease – the only way you can do it, is to test as many people as possible.
“I think from the very beginning, mass testing has been the only thing that gets you through this, allows you to avoid the severity of the very blunt instrument of lockdown, and gets you to a place where you can more or less get your economy moving whilst containing the disease.”
UCL’s Dr Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths told the BBC today that if the NHS Test and Trace system is “not done effectively or adequately, then there is a risk of an occurrence of a second wave later this year and peaking in December”.
Labour’s shadow minister Sarah Jones declared in an interview with Sky News this morning that “the government has failed on the test, track and trace system” and “the government needs to do better”.
56,651 deaths have been registered in the UK so far where Covid-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, including suspected cases.


labourlist--2020-08-04--We’ve uncovered gross human rights violations in Hong Kong. The UK must act

Hong Kong women are bravely speaking out about the abuses they have faced at the hands of their police .
A new inquiry report published by the all-party parliamentary group ( APPG ) on Hong Kong , for which I am vice-chair , reveals the human rights abuses that many have faced across the city .
Two testimonies particularly stay with me .
A doctor , speaking to the APPG for the purpose of this inquiry on condition of anonymity , explained in her submission : “ On 7th October 2019 , a nine-month pregnant woman was arrested in Tuen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent to the hospital as she showed signs that she was in labour .
The police first rejected it , and she was sent to the maternity ward of Tuen Mun hospital much later .
While she was putting on a patient gown and preparing to be checked , a male officer entered the maternity ward despite an attempt by medical staff members to block his access.
” She went on to detail other shocking denials of dignity and basic healthcare in Hong Kong : “ First aiders on the site revealed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wounded protesters .
The first injured protester arrived at the hospital , which is a ten-minute walk from the site , one hour later .
The last injured protester arrived at the hospital , which is a 30-minute drive from the site , five hours later.
” Denying protesters the right to medical attention , and blocking the access that medical professionals should have to the injured , breaches numerous international human rights laws for which Hong Kong must be held accountable .
One humanitarian worker , also protected by anonymity , reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest after attending to the injured .
Despite displaying documents that proved her status , her hands were tied behind her back for more than four hours and she was made to sit on the ground for more than an hour .
She was later detained for 28 hours without explanation in a seriously overcrowded police cell , simply for doing her job and attending to the injured .
Women like this brave doctor and humanitarian worker are speaking up .
Many have come forward to become a central part of our APPG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong understanding of the abuses that many Hongkongers have been subjected to .
We call upon parliament to seriously consider our recommendations , based on the gross human rights violations we have uncovered .
Hongkongers deserve to feel safe .
As signatories with China to the joint declaration , the UK has a special responsibility to act – as well as the specific responsibility to the 33,733 UK nationals resident in the city .
Thanks to those who have submitted evidence to our inquiry , we now have solid evidence of some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong .
These experiences and corroborating testimonies can not be ignored .
It is time for the UK to act .

Hong Kong women are bravely speaking out about the abuses they have faced at the hands of their police. A new inquiry report published by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Hong Kong, for which I am vice-chair, reveals the human rights abuses that many have faced across the city. Two testimonies particularly stay with me.
A doctor, speaking to the APPG for the purpose of this inquiry on condition of anonymity, explained in her submission: “On 7th October 2019, a nine-month pregnant woman was arrested in Tuen Mun, and she requested to be sent to the hospital as she showed signs that she was in labour. The police first rejected it, and she was sent to the maternity ward of Tuen Mun hospital much later. While she was putting on a patient gown and preparing to be checked, a male officer entered the maternity ward despite an attempt by medical staff members to block his access.”
She went on to detail other shocking denials of dignity and basic healthcare in Hong Kong: “First aiders on the site revealed that the police have forbidden them from assessing wounded protesters. The first injured protester arrived at the hospital, which is a ten-minute walk from the site, one hour later. The last injured protester arrived at the hospital, which is a 30-minute drive from the site, five hours later.” Denying protesters the right to medical attention, and blocking the access that medical professionals should have to the injured, breaches numerous international human rights laws for which Hong Kong must be held accountable.
One humanitarian worker, also protected by anonymity, reported being detained while leaving a site of protest after attending to the injured. Despite displaying documents that proved her status, her hands were tied behind her back for more than four hours and she was made to sit on the ground for more than an hour. She was later detained for 28 hours without explanation in a seriously overcrowded police cell, simply for doing her job and attending to the injured.
Women like this brave doctor and humanitarian worker are speaking up. Many have come forward to become a central part of our APPG inquiry report and to give us a strong understanding of the abuses that many Hongkongers have been subjected to. We call upon parliament to seriously consider our recommendations, based on the gross human rights violations we have uncovered.
Hongkongers deserve to feel safe. As signatories with China to the joint declaration, the UK has a special responsibility to act – as well as the specific responsibility to the 33,733 UK nationals resident in the city. Thanks to those who have submitted evidence to our inquiry, we now have solid evidence of some of the atrocities that have occurred throughout Hong Kong. These experiences and corroborating testimonies cannot be ignored. It is time for the UK to act.


labourlist--2020-08-04--WATCH: Government failing on test, track and trace system, says Labour

Labour has said that “ the government has failed on the test , track and trace system ” and stressed the need for the country to “ get the right systems in place to recover ” from the Covid health crisis .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , Labour ’ s Sarah Jones discussed the country ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic and highlighted that the UK has had “ higher deaths than most other countries in the world ” .
The shadow minister for policing and fire services described this as a “ failing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are very clear that the government needs to do better ” .
Commenting on the response , Jones said : “ We are very clear that the government has failed on the test , track and trace system and they need to improve .
We are very clear that we have seen higher deaths than most other countries in the world and that is a failing of government .
“ We are very clear that the economic response is not up to scratch – spending £9bn giving people money for their employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have returned already , not supporting more some of those very vulnerable sectors that we have been hearing about today… “ We are very clear that the government needs to do better , that this is too important not to say .
We are here to try and improve outcomes for our country , not just to be opposition for opposition ’ s sake.
” The UK Clinical Virology Network have written to the chief medical officer for England to say that mistakes are being made in the handling of testing , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than based on expertise .
They specifically discussed the 90-minute testing announced on Monday .
They said that rapid tests are already in use , and that they have no knowledge or information on the DnaNudge or LamPORE tests that the government is contracting to buy .
In the letter , the experts said that they have been sidelined by the government and shut out of talks on how the country can most effectively respond to the health crisis .
The group has not had a response to its letter , sent on @ @ @

Labour has said that “the government has failed on the test, track and trace system” and stressed the need for the country to “get the right systems in place to recover” from the Covid health crisis.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, Labour’s Sarah Jones discussed the country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic and highlighted that the UK has had “higher deaths than most other countries in the world”.
The shadow minister for policing and fire services described this as a “failing of government”. She added that “we are very clear that the government needs to do better”.
Commenting on the response, Jones said: “We are very clear that the government has failed on the test, track and trace system and they need to improve. We are very clear that we have seen higher deaths than most other countries in the world and that is a failing of government.
“We are very clear that the economic response is not up to scratch – spending £9bn giving people money for their employees to return to work when they would have returned already, not supporting more some of those very vulnerable sectors that we have been hearing about today…
“We are very clear that the government needs to do better, that this is too important not to say. We are here to try and improve outcomes for our country, not just to be opposition for opposition’s sake.”
“The government needs to do better.” Shadow policing minister Sarah Jones says the government has "failed on the test, track and trace system" and they need to "improve" it to tackle the #COVID19 pandemic.#KayBurley https://t.co/NR6cfeoldI pic.twitter.com/BLDYxk0sJu — SkyNews (@SkyNews) August 4, 2020
The UK Clinical Virology Network have written to the chief medical officer for England to say that mistakes are being made in the handling of testing, with contracts being awarded on ideological grounds rather than based on expertise.
They specifically discussed the 90-minute testing announced on Monday. They said that rapid tests are already in use, and that they have no knowledge or information on the DnaNudge or LamPORE tests that the government is contracting to buy.
In the letter, the experts said that they have been sidelined by the government and shut out of talks on how the country can most effectively respond to the health crisis. The group has not had a response to its letter, sent on July 10th.


labourlist--2020-08-04--Tory lead over Labour widens to nine points, Survation poll shows

A new poll has indicated that the Tory lead over the Labour Party has widened from six points to nine , with 44 % saying they would vote Conservative in a general election compared to 35 % who would vote for the opposition .
In a survey carried out between July 31st and August 3rd , Survation has shown that support for Labour fell by two points since last month , but that net favourability ratings for Keir Starmer rose by two points to +9 % .
37 % of respondents opted for “ strongly favourable ” or “ somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compared to 28 % of those asked who found him “ strongly ” or “ somewhat ” unfavourable .
27 % said that they were neutral .
In comparison , Boris Johnson proved far more divisive among those surveyed .
Net favourability for the Prime Minister fell by three points to 0 % , with 43 % each finding him unfavourable or favourable and just 4 % remaining neutral .
Other polls record a tighter margin .
Opinium showed the Tories three points ahead of Labour on 41 % in a survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Redfield & Wilton Strategies ‘ latest poll published on July 29th indicated a five-point lead .
When Survation asked who would make the best PM , Starmer also saw his rating increase on the July figure , by one point .
35 % of people preferred him , while 42 % opted for Johnson – down three points since the last survey .
The poll also suggested a marked decrease in opinion among the public for the government ’ s performance , with the net approval rating falling by nine points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were unfavourable , up five points on last month .
A recent poll by Opinium showed a more positive picture for Labour , with the Tory lead in voting intentions having narrowed to just three points , showing the Conservatives on 41 % and Labour on 38 % .

A new poll has indicated that the Tory lead over the Labour Party has widened from six points to nine, with 44% saying they would vote Conservative in a general election compared to 35% who would vote for the opposition.
In a survey carried out between July 31st and August 3rd, Survation has shown that support for Labour fell by two points since last month, but that net favourability ratings for Keir Starmer rose by two points to +9%.
37% of respondents opted for “strongly favourable” or “somewhat favourable” to describe the Labour leader, compared to 28% of those asked who found him “strongly” or “somewhat” unfavourable. 27% said that they were neutral.
In comparison, Boris Johnson proved far more divisive among those surveyed. Net favourability for the Prime Minister fell by three points to 0%, with 43% each finding him unfavourable or favourable and just 4% remaining neutral.
Other polls record a tighter margin. Opinium showed the Tories three points ahead of Labour on 41% in a survey carried out between July 30th and 31st, while Redfield & Wilton Strategies‘ latest poll published on July 29th indicated a five-point lead.
When Survation asked who would make the best PM, Starmer also saw his rating increase on the July figure, by one point. 35% of people preferred him, while 42% opted for Johnson – down three points since the last survey.
The poll also suggested a marked decrease in opinion among the public for the government’s performance, with the net approval rating falling by nine points to -7%. 45% of people were unfavourable, up five points on last month.
A recent poll by Opinium showed a more positive picture for Labour, with the Tory lead in voting intentions having narrowed to just three points, showing the Conservatives on 41% and Labour on 38%.


labourlist--2020-08-04--John Hume’s vision is an inspiration across these islands

John Hume was a political giant .
Somehow , he endlessly gathered the strength and the bravery to make peace happen at enormous personal risk to himself and often in the face of fierce opposition , most notably in the talks he held that brought Sinn Fein to the negotiating table .
For those of us who grew up during the ceasefire and the peace agreement that followed , he is as much a monument as a man .
To courage and perseverance , and to peace .
He was a rare thing in politics : visionary , yes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing , hoping , working to try to make peace happen .
Never naïve to the immensities of the challenges , never indifferent to injustice , he nevertheless believed there was a path to bring communities together through a vision of a future where everyone had a stake .
Another great Irishman , W.B .
Yeats , once said that he wished to “ hold in a single thought , reality and justice ” .
This could equally be said of the practical politics , life and contribution of John Hume .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of the peace agreement , which simply can not be understood without him .
His dream of a shared Ireland , based on consent , human rights and equality is the thread which runs through the peace enjoyed today .
It was an accommodation that diminished the self respect of no political tradition .
“ Ireland is not a romantic dream , ” he said .
“ It is 4.5 million people divided into two powerful traditions .
The solution will be found not on the basis of victory for either , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership.
” That it endures today is a testament to him , and that it was possible at all is thanks to the communities that put their faith in him .
There are many extraordinary stories of his life ; none more so than during his attendance at the funerals of those murdered in the Greysteel massacre .
This and the Shankill massacre – two outrages that shook communities – cast doubt on whether his efforts to secure peace had been in vain .
But at the funerals , a grieving family member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his work to bring peace .
Each strengthening the other , at a critical juncture .
Tony Blair has told how he relied on that strength and clear-mindedness in the fraught months leading to the historic Good Friday Agreement , when an accord looked distant .
John Hume sat the Labour Prime Minister down and told him directly : “ I am telling you this can happen.
” For Labour figures past and present , his vision of peace , social justice , shared power and equal rights guided our approach then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much today .
That vision must be protected .
For John Hume , delivering social justice had to be the prize of peace ; a shared island that waged war on want and poverty and that understood that prosperity was integral to the peace process .
With the dark clouds of growing unemployment , following a decade of austerity , it has never been more important that Westminster focuses on the need to protect jobs and a create a fairer future in Northern Ireland in order to secure Hume ’ s vision .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly bear lessons for our fractious politics today .
He repeatedly explained that “ the answer to difference is to respect it ” .
Hume believed that we could only build lasting peace if we had institutions that respected difference and if we removed the idea of difference as a threat .
Ultimately , there are few of us that can be said to have shaped the destiny of millions , and to have changed the course of history – but from the outpouring of affection and praise we have seen from every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that John Hume was one of those .
In his Nobel Peace Prize winning speech , he never forgot the purpose of the work he had dedicated his life towards .
He spoke of a time “ where our children can look to the future with a smile of hope ” .
May this be his legacy , and the extraordinary power of the shared future he imagined continue to guide all of us in the years ahead .

John Hume was a political giant. Somehow, he endlessly gathered the strength and the bravery to make peace happen at enormous personal risk to himself and often in the face of fierce opposition, most notably in the talks he held that brought Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. For those of us who grew up during the ceasefire and the peace agreement that followed, he is as much a monument as a man. To courage and perseverance, and to peace.
He was a rare thing in politics: visionary, yes, but practical, too. He kept believing, hoping, working to try to make peace happen. Never naïve to the immensities of the challenges, never indifferent to injustice, he nevertheless believed there was a path to bring communities together through a vision of a future where everyone had a stake. Another great Irishman, W.B. Yeats, once said that he wished to “hold in a single thought, reality and justice”. This could equally be said of the practical politics, life and contribution of John Hume.
In this, he was the head and heart of the peace agreement, which simply cannot be understood without him. His dream of a shared Ireland, based on consent, human rights and equality is the thread which runs through the peace enjoyed today. It was an accommodation that diminished the self respect of no political tradition. “Ireland is not a romantic dream,” he said. “It is 4.5 million people divided into two powerful traditions. The solution will be found not on the basis of victory for either, but on the basis of agreement and partnership.”
That it endures today is a testament to him, and that it was possible at all is thanks to the communities that put their faith in him. There are many extraordinary stories of his life; none more so than during his attendance at the funerals of those murdered in the Greysteel massacre. This and the Shankill massacre – two outrages that shook communities – cast doubt on whether his efforts to secure peace had been in vain. But at the funerals, a grieving family member told him that they prayed for him and his work to bring peace. Each strengthening the other, at a critical juncture.
Tony Blair has told how he relied on that strength and clear-mindedness in the fraught months leading to the historic Good Friday Agreement, when an accord looked distant. John Hume sat the Labour Prime Minister down and told him directly: “I am telling you this can happen.” For Labour figures past and present, his vision of peace, social justice, shared power and equal rights guided our approach then, and still does every bit as much today.
That vision must be protected. For John Hume, delivering social justice had to be the prize of peace; a shared island that waged war on want and poverty and that understood that prosperity was integral to the peace process. With the dark clouds of growing unemployment, following a decade of austerity, it has never been more important that Westminster focuses on the need to protect jobs and a create a fairer future in Northern Ireland in order to secure Hume’s vision.
And his approach to conflict resolution could certainly bear lessons for our fractious politics today. He repeatedly explained that “the answer to difference is to respect it”. Hume believed that we could only build lasting peace if we had institutions that respected difference and if we removed the idea of difference as a threat.
Ultimately, there are few of us that can be said to have shaped the destiny of millions, and to have changed the course of history – but from the outpouring of affection and praise we have seen from every corner of the globe, it is clear that John Hume was one of those. In his Nobel Peace Prize winning speech, he never forgot the purpose of the work he had dedicated his life towards. He spoke of a time “where our children can look to the future with a smile of hope”. May this be his legacy, and the extraordinary power of the shared future he imagined continue to guide all of us in the years ahead.


labourlist--2020-08-04--Rolling list: CLP nominations of Labour NEC disabled members rep candidates

There are currently several positions up for grabs on Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) , and Constituency Labour Parties ( CLPs ) have started to nominate their preferred candidates .
The contest due to end in November will see members elect nine CLP and two local government reps to the party ’ s governing body , alongside one treasurer and one representative each for youth , disabled and Welsh Labour .
There are over 170 Labour members standing for the various positions across the 18 available NEC seats .
The party has published their statements online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at what LabourList knows about them here .
The NEC brings together stakeholders from different sections in the party , including local parties , trade unions , the shadow cabinet , backbench MPs , local government , Scotland and Wales , socialist societies and the party leadership .
All candidates need to be nominated to secure a place on the ballot .
For the disabled rep position , this means getting the backing of five CLPs or two trade unions .
The nomination period started on July 11th and closes on September 27th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispatched to members on October 19th , before voting closes on November 12th .
The rep is elected by an electoral college of 50 % one-member-one-vote of self-identified disabled members and 50 % affiliated trade unions .
LabourList has put together a full guide to the NEC contests that outlines the key functions of Labour ’ s ruling body , which NEC seats are up this summer , the timetable for the elections , and the nominating and voting processes .
Below is the list of nominations for candidates seeking to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Several positions are up for grabs on Labour’s national executive committee (NEC), and Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) have started to nominate their preferred candidates.
The contest due to end in November will see members elect nine CLP and two local government reps to the party’s governing body, alongside one treasurer and one representative each for youth, disabled and Welsh Labour.
Over 170 Labour members are standing for the various positions across the 18 available NEC seats. The party has published their statements online, and you can have a look at what LabourList knows about them here.
All candidates need to be nominated to secure a place on the ballot. For the disabled rep position, this means getting the backing of five CLPs or two trade unions. The nomination period started on July 11th and closes on September 27th.
Ballots will then begin to be dispatched to members on October 19th, before voting closes on November 12th. The rep is elected by an electoral college of 50% one-member-one-vote of self-identified disabled members and 50% affiliated trade unions.
LabourList has put together a full guide to the NEC contests that outlines the key functions of Labour’s ruling body, which NEC seats are up this summer, the timetable for the elections, and the nominating and voting processes.
Below is the list of nominations for candidates seeking to be the disabled members rep on the NEC.
Last updated: 12pm, Monday 28th September. Based on the party’s list.
Stuart Adam – 3 nominations
Clackmannanshire and Dunblane CLP
Sedgefield CLP
Swansea East CLP
Lawrence Arnold – 2 nominations
Coventry North East CLP
Liverpool West Derby CLP
George Baker – 8 nominations
Basingstoke CLP
Bridgend CLP
Chichester CLP
Croydon North CLP
Eastleigh CLP
Wealden CLP
Wyre Forest CLP
Yeovil CLP
Joanna Baker-Rogers – 1 nomination
North Warwickshire CLP
John Banks – 1 nomination
Amber Valley CLP
Laura Baudin – 2 nominations
Maldon CLP
Warwick and Leamington CLP
Geraldine Bird – 6 nominations
Bury St Edmunds CLP
Cambridge CLP
Haltemprice and Howden CLP
Westminster North CLP
Witham CLP
York Central CLP
Jason Boyles – 1 nomination
Chatam and Aylesford CLP
Emily Brothers – 14 nominations (plus Community)
Aberdeen Central CLP
Bolton South East CLP
Bridgwater and West Somerset CLP
Calder Valley CLP
City of Chester CLP
Dumbarton CLP
Hyndburn CLP
Keighley CLP
Nottingham South CLP
Rossendale and Darwen CLP
Sutton and Cheam CLP
Telford CLP
Thornbury and Yate CLP
Wokingham CLP
Kelvin Cracknell – 6 nominations
Ipswich CLP
North East Cambridgeshire CLP
Peterborough CLP
South West Hertfordshire CLP
Suffolk Coastal CLP
West Suffolk CLP
James Driver – 2 nominations
Elmet and Rothwell CLP
Leeds East CLP
Jessie Erlam – 1 nomination
Stourbridge CLP
Jon Fletcher – 4 nominations
Ashton-Under-Lyne CLP
Harrogate and Knaresborough CLP
Northern Ireland
Stretford and Urmston CLP
Kendrick Fowler – 5 nomination
Blackpool North and Cleveleys CLP
Blackpool South CLP
St Austell and Newquay CLP
Stalybridge and Hyde CLP
Wyre and Preston North CLP
Victoria Hoban – 1 nomination
Middlesbrough CLP
David Isaac – 1 nomination
Hammersmith CLP
Shebul Khan – 5 nominations
Barking CLP
Bethnal Green and Bow CLP
Dagenham and Rainham CLP
East Hampshire CLP
Poplar and Limehouse CLP
Adrian Knapper – 2 nominations
Stoke-On-Trent Central CLP
Stoke-On-Trent North CLP
Sebastian Kola-Bankole – 1 nomination
Rochester and Strood CLP
George Lindars-Hammond – 64 nominations (plus GMB, Usdaw, UNISON)
Altrincham and Sale West CLP
Bassetlaw CLP
Batley and Spen CLP
Bermondsey and Old Southwark CLP
Birmingham, Selly Oak CLP
Bolsover CLP
Bolton North East CLP
Bracknell CLP
Braintree CLP
Brentford and Isleworth CLP
Bromley and Chislehurst CLP
Bury North CLP
Bury South CLP
Cheadle CLP
Chingford and Woodford Green CLP
Dewsbury CLP
Doncaster North CLP
East Lothian CLP
Eastwood CLP
Enfield North CLP
Enfield Southgate CLP
Erewash CLP
Finchley and Golders Green CLP
Gedling CLP
Glasgow Anniesland CLP
Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn CLP
Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn CLP
Greenock and Inverclyde CLP
Halton CLP
Harrow West CLP
Holborn and St Pancras CLP
Ilford North CLP
Ilford South CLP
Jarrow CLP
Knowsley CLP
Leeds North West CLP
Leeds West CLP
Leigh CLP
Manchester Withington CLP
Mitcham and Morden CLP
New Forest West CLP
Newcastle Upon Tyne East CLP
Newcastle Upon Tyne North CLP
Nottingham North CLP
Nuneaton CLP
Ogmore CLP
Portsmouth South CLP
Redcar CLP
Richmond Park CLP
Romford CLP
Rugby CLP
Runnymede and Weybridge CLP
Salisbury CLP
Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough CLP
South West Surrey CLP
Strathkelvin and Bearsden CLP
Tynemouth CLP
Vale of Clwyd CLP
Vauxhall CLP
Walthamstow CLP
Warley CLP
Warrington North CLP
Warrington South CLP
Wythenshawe and Sale East CLP
Ellen Morrison – 206 nominations (plus ASLEF, BFAWU, CWU, FBU, Unite the Union, TSSA)
Aberconwy CLP
Aldridge-Brownhills CLP
Almond Valley CLP
Arundel and South Downs CLP
Basildon and Billericay CLP
Bath CLP
Battersea CLP
Beckenham CLP
Bedford CLP
Beverley and Holderness CLP
Birkenhead CLP
Birmingham, Hall Green CLP
Birmingham, Hodge Hill CLP
Birmingham, Northfield CLP
Birmingham, Yardley CLP
Bishop Auckland CLP
Blyth Valley CLP
Bolton West CLP
Bournemouth East CLP
Bournemouth West CLP
Brent Central CLP
Brent North CLP
Brighton, Kemptown CLP
Brighton, Pavilion CLP
Bristol East CLP
Bristol South CLP
Bristol West CLP
Broxtowe CLP
Burton CLP
Caerphilly CLP
Camberwell and Peckham CLP
Camborne and Redruth CLP
Cardiff North CLP
Cardiff West CLP
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr CLP
Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire CLP
Carshalton and Wallington CLP
Ceredigion CLP
Chelsea and Fulham CLP
Chesterfield CLP
Chipping Barnet CLP
Cities of London and Westminster CLP
City of Durham CLP
Clwyd South CLP
Coventry North West CLP
Coventry South CLP
Crawley CLP
Crewe and Nantwich CLP
Croydon Central CLP
Cynon Valley CLP
Doncaster Central CLP
Dulwich and West Norwood CLP
Dwyfor Meirionnydd CLP
Ealing Central and Acton CLP
Ealing Southall CLP
Easington CLP
East Ham CLP
East Worthing and Shoreham CLP
East Yorkshire CLP
Eddisbury CLP
Edinburgh Northern and Leith CLP
Ellesmere Port and Neston CLP
Eltham CLP
Erith and Thamesmead CLP
Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire CLP
Fareham CLP
Feltham and Heston CLP
Filton and Bradley Stoke CLP
Forest of Dean CLP
Garston and Halewood CLP
Glasgow Kelvin CLP
Gower CLP
Greenwich and Woolwich CLP
Guildford CLP
Hackney North and Stoke Newington CLP
Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP
Halesowen and Rowley Regis CLP
Hampstead and Kilburn CLP
Harborough CLP
Harlow CLP
Harrow East CLP
Hastings and Rye CLP
Hazel Grove CLP
Hemsworth CLP
Hendon CLP
Heywood and Middleton CLP
High Peak CLP
Hornsey and Wood Green CLP
Hove CLP
Isle of Wight CLP
Islington North CLP
Islington South and Finsbury CLP
Kenilworth and Southam CLP
Kensington CLP
Kingston and Surbiton CLP
Labour International
Lancaster and Fleetwood CLP
Leeds Central CLP
Leeds North East CLP
Lewisham Deptford CLP
Lewisham East CLP
Lewisham West and Penge CLP
Leyton and Wanstead CLP
Liverpool Riverside CLP
Liverpool Walton CLP
Llanelli CLP
Ludlow CLP
Luton North CLP
Luton South CLP
Manchester Central CLP
Manchester Gorton CLP
Mansfield CLP
Meriden CLP
Mid Bedfordshire CLP
Mid Dorset and North Poole CLP
Mid Norfolk CLP
Mid Sussex CLP
Monmouth CLP
Montgomeryshire CLP
Morley and Outwood CLP
Newbury CLP
Newcastle-Under-Lyme CLP
Newport East CLP
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford CLP
North Devon CLP
North East Bedfordshire CLP
North East Somerset CLP
North West Cambridgeshire CLP
North West Durham CLP
North West Norfolk CLP
Norwich South CLP
Nottingham East CLP
Old Bexley and Sidcup CLP
Oldham East and Saddleworth CLP
Orpington CLP
Oxford East CLP
Oxford West and Abingdon CLP
Penistone and Stocksbridge CLP
Plymouth Moor View CLP
Pontypridd CLP
Poole CLP
Portsmouth North CLP
Pudsey CLP
Putney CLP
Richmond (Yorks) CLP
Rochdale CLP
Romsey and Southampton North CLP
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner CLP
Rushcliffe CLP
Scarborough and Whitby CLP
Scunthorpe CLP
Sefton Central CLP
Sevenoaks CLP
Sheffield Central CLP
Sheffield Heeley CLP
Shipley CLP
Skipton and Ripon CLP
Solihull CLP
Somerton and Frome CLP
South Basildon and East Thurrock CLP
South Dorset CLP
South East Cornwall CLP
South Shields CLP
South Thanet CLP
Southampton, Itchen CLP
Southampton, Test CLP
Southend West CLP
Southport CLP
St Ives CLP
Stafford CLP
Stevenage CLP
Stockport CLP
Stockton North CLP
Stockton South CLP
Stoke-On-Trent South CLP
Stone CLP
Stratford-On-Avon CLP
Streatham CLP
Stroud CLP
Sutton Coldfield CLP
Swansea West CLP
Tatton CLP
Tiverton and Honiton CLP
Tonbridge and Malling CLP
Tooting CLP
Torfaen CLP
Torridge and West Devon CLP
Totnes CLP
Tottenham CLP
Uxbridge and South Ruislip CLP
Wallasey CLP
Walsall South CLP
Wansbeck CLP
Wantage CLP
Watford CLP
Weaver Vale CLP
Wimbledon CLP
Windsor CLP
Wirral South CLP
Wirral West CLP
Woking CLP
Wolverhampton South West CLP
Worcester CLP
Worthing West CLP
Ynys Mon CLP
York Outer CLP
Nik Oakley – 1 nomination
Hertsemere CLP
Liz Okokon – 5 nominations
Bexhill and Battle CLP
Broxbourne CLP
East Surrey CLP
Macclesfield CLP
Rhondda CLP
Gareth Parry – 1 nomination
Delyn CLP
Mary Peberdy – 5 nominations
Leicester East CLP
Leicester South CLP
Leicester West CLP
Loughborough CLP
Tunbridge Wells CLP
Emily Pomroy-Smith – 4 nominations
Aldershot CLP
Darlington CLP
Hitchin and Harpenden CLP
South West Wiltshire CLP
Richard Rosier – 4 nominations
Aldershot CLP
Darlington CLP
Hitchin and Harpenden CLP
South West Wiltshire CLP
Cameron Redpath – 2 nominations
Cannock Chase CLP
Kirkcaldy CLP
Richard Rossier – 4 nominations
Edinburgh Central CLP
Gateshead CLP
North East Hampshire CLP
West Ham CLP
Elisabeth Roberts – 1 nomination
Milton Keynes South CLP
Cam Rose – 2 nominations
North Herefordshire CLP
Workington CLP
Geoff Rouse – 1 nomination
Kingswood CLP
Dawn Sanders – 1 nomination
Exeter CLP
Kevin Watts – 5 nominations
Corby CLP
Northampton South CLP
South Northamptonshire CLP
St Helens South and Whiston CLP
Wellingborough CLP
Dave Webb – 1 nomination
Newcastle Upon Tyne Central CLP
June Whitelaw – 1 nomination
Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale CLP


labourlist--2020-08-04--Trans people must be heard by the Labour Party

Transgender people have been a contentious issue across the political spectrum for a considerable period of time .
As there is yet to be a transgender MP in the UK , the discussions that occur about us in the House of Commons take place without a single transgender person present to give a personal account of how laws and policies will affect us .
Online , there are often calls for nuanced debate , as our place in society is considered to be too complex for a 280-character tweet .
And yet MPs and other public officials continue to tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s first MP for Canterbury , recently came under fire for claiming that “ only women have a cervix ” .
She referred to criticism as a “ communist pile on ” and locked her Twitter account so only those following her could see her posts a few hours after her initial comment .
She trended on Twitter until the FA Cup Final – an Arsenal win that greatly improved my mood that day given everything that had occurred earlier – and fellow Labour MP Jess Phillips defended her on the radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues relating to trans people , it was assumed by many that Duffield ’ s remark excluded trans women – because the vast majority of people either are unaware of , or refuse to acknowledge , the existence of trans men like me .
Even fewer acknowledge that some non-binary and intersex people would also have been affected by such comments .
This is a double-edged sword that hurts the whole community : it paints trans women as ridiculous individuals wanting to be centred in discussions that don ’ t affect them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are impacted by such a choice of words .
For those aware of trans men ’ s existence , it is a deliberate tactic designed to fuel hatred towards trans women .
Those who are unaware of us , but choose to enter a discussion relating to trans men anyway , perhaps even more obviously display their dislike of trans women .
Duffield ’ s comments have real-world consequences in terms of healthcare .
Robert Eads , a trans man from Georgia , USA , died of ovarian cancer in 1999 because gynaecologists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition .
More than 20 different doctors would not refer him for treatment , and some instead opted to refer him to psychiatrists .
By the time he finally got referred in 1997 , his cancer had progressed too far to be treated .
His story was portrayed in a 2001 film , Southern Comfort .
The refusal to acknowledge that it is not only women who can succumb to illnesses relating to ovaries led to the death of a trans man , which perhaps could have been prevented if he had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the UK , when transgender people get a new NHS number to reflect their true gender , there is currently no way for the system to acknowledge their transition .
This means that trans women receive reminders for smear tests but trans men , who may have not yet had any form of genital reconstruction surgery , or who do not believe such procedures to be a part of their transition , do not receive those reminders .
That means there is a real possibility of trans men having conditions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not being aware of them – and they may remain unaware until it is too late .
Choosing to use language that deliberately excludes a portion of the population affected by an issue also enables their exclusion from the solution .
As a trans man , a Labour Party member and a city council candidate , I often wonder whether I am doing more harm than good by remaining in the party .
Since this particular media storm , I have seen several friends tweeting that they intend to leave Labour as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not take an unequivocal stance in favour of the inclusion of transgender people in all aspects of life .
I have doubts about my own membership , particularly due to my online platform .
Am I condoning such actions by continuing to vocally advocate for Labour , when on a seemingly regular basis there are controversies that lead many others in my community to cancel their membership ?
I do not believe there is any easy answer to that question .
For now , I will be staying in the party – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one day we will be heard .

Transgender people have been a contentious issue across the political spectrum for a considerable period of time. As there is yet to be a transgender MP in the UK, the discussions that occur about us in the House of Commons take place without a single transgender person present to give a personal account of how laws and policies will affect us. Online, there are often calls for nuanced debate, as our place in society is considered to be too complex for a 280-character tweet. And yet MPs and other public officials continue to tweet about us.
Rosie Duffield, Labour’s first MP for Canterbury, recently came under fire for claiming that “only women have a cervix”. She referred to criticism as a “communist pile on” and locked her Twitter account so only those following her could see her posts a few hours after her initial comment. She trended on Twitter until the FA Cup Final – an Arsenal win that greatly improved my mood that day given everything that had occurred earlier – and fellow Labour MP Jess Phillips defended her on the radio the following morning.
As with all issues relating to trans people, it was assumed by many that Duffield’s remark excluded trans women – because the vast majority of people either are unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the existence of trans men like me. Even fewer acknowledge that some non-binary and intersex people would also have been affected by such comments. This is a double-edged sword that hurts the whole community: it paints trans women as ridiculous individuals wanting to be centred in discussions that don’t affect them, while completely excluding those of us who are impacted by such a choice of words. For those aware of trans men’s existence, it is a deliberate tactic designed to fuel hatred towards trans women. Those who are unaware of us, but choose to enter a discussion relating to trans men anyway, perhaps even more obviously display their dislike of trans women.
Duffield’s comments have real-world consequences in terms of healthcare. Robert Eads, a trans man from Georgia, USA, died of ovarian cancer in 1999 because gynaecologists refused to treat him due to his transition. More than 20 different doctors would not refer him for treatment, and some instead opted to refer him to psychiatrists. By the time he finally got referred in 1997, his cancer had progressed too far to be treated. His story was portrayed in a 2001 film, Southern Comfort. The refusal to acknowledge that it is not only women who can succumb to illnesses relating to ovaries led to the death of a trans man, which perhaps could have been prevented if he had been treated as soon as he was diagnosed.
In the UK, when transgender people get a new NHS number to reflect their true gender, there is currently no way for the system to acknowledge their transition. This means that trans women receive reminders for smear tests but trans men, who may have not yet had any form of genital reconstruction surgery, or who do not believe such procedures to be a part of their transition, do not receive those reminders. That means there is a real possibility of trans men having conditions that would be identified by such a test but not being aware of them – and they may remain unaware until it is too late. Choosing to use language that deliberately excludes a portion of the population affected by an issue also enables their exclusion from the solution.
As a trans man, a Labour Party member and a city council candidate, I often wonder whether I am doing more harm than good by remaining in the party. Since this particular media storm, I have seen several friends tweeting that they intend to leave Labour as they cannot support a party that does not take an unequivocal stance in favour of the inclusion of transgender people in all aspects of life. I have doubts about my own membership, particularly due to my online platform. Am I condoning such actions by continuing to vocally advocate for Labour, when on a seemingly regular basis there are controversies that lead many others in my community to cancel their membership? I do not believe there is any easy answer to that question. For now, I will be staying in the party – and hoping, perhaps naïvely, that one day we will be heard.


labourlist--2020-08-04--WATCH: In conversation with… Cat Smith MP

Join us at 6pm on Wednesday 5th August for our latest “ In conversation with… ” online event featuring LabourList @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Shadow Minister for Voter Engagement and Youth Affairs Cat Smith MP .
If @ @ @ @ @ about the policy brief held by Smith , which is the focus of the event @ @ @ @ @ email them to us in advance .
You will also be able to offer suggestions @ @ @ @ @ This page will refresh automatically to show the livestream below when the event starts at @ @ @ @ @ be able to watch it directly on YouTube by clicking here .

Join us at 6pm on Wednesday 5th August for our latest “In conversation with…” online event featuring LabourList editor Sienna Rodgers and Labour’s shadow minister for voter engagement and youth affairs Cat Smith MP.
If readers have suggestions for questions about the policy brief held by Smith, which is the focus of the event, please feel free to email them to us in advance. You will also be able to offer suggestions during the live broadcast.
This page will refresh automatically to show the livestream below when the event starts at 6pm. You will also be able to watch it directly on YouTube by clicking here.


labourlist--2020-08-05--Our test-and-trace system is a long way off “world-beating”, Prime Minister

As we have seen an easing of lockdown measures , a reduction in hospital admissions and the end of the government ’ s daily press conferences , we might have expected there to be a drop in coronavirus-related news .
But the reality is very different .
There has been an uptick in cases and more local restrictions – it seems every day something comes out which brings big questions about the government ’ s handling of the pandemic .
Last week , ministers announced late at night that parts of the North West and Yorkshire were facing new restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections in parts of these areas .
The way in which this was announced combined the worst elements of other recent government announcements .
It followed the pattern previously set by confused , mixed messaging over face masks , and the chaos brought about by the timing of the Spain quarantine decision .
The communication the announcement was so poor that even Matt Hancock wasn ’ t able to answer questions on the decisions live on TV .
It is little wonder that a new study has shown that less than half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
One of the most basic yet most important elements of the fight against coronavirus is clear and consistent messaging from government .
It is a basic test that they are clearly failing .
This is why today Keir Starmer has called for the government to get a grip on their communications , restart government press conferences , and end dangerous , contradictory briefings to the media .
Ministers can not afford to continue to get this wrong .
There has been an increase in the number of positive coronavirus cases in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coincide with the relaxation of lockdown restrictions .
The government ’ s own regulations relaxing the rules explicitly stated that this was a risk – but this risk could have been mitigated by a nationally effective testing and tracing regime .
The Serco-run project is still a long way off the “ world-beating ” system promised by Boris Johnson by the start of June , and in some aspects is actually getting worse .
The number of people who test positive who are contacted within 24 hours has slipped down to 72 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus “ close contacts ” are being reached and asked to self-isolate .
Non-complex cases are the ones dealt with by outsourcing firms Serco and Sitel .
A workable app may go some way to resolving this , but as more and more countries launch theirs , ours is nowhere to be seen .
The fact that councils are now setting up their own contact tracing systems shows what a monumental misjudgement it has been to place so much faith in the private sector .
There is no doubt that the pandemic has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to step in and win government contracts .
But the urgency of the situation has allowed the government to sidestep the usual procurement rules with concerning results .
The shambolic handling of personal protective equipment initially led to a Wild West-style gold rush , where companies with seemingly no track record in this field were handed lucrative contracts .
There must be a very bright light shined on these contracts .
Last month , Rachel Reeves and I asked the National Audit Office to investigate .
It ’ s not just PPE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of companies with links to the Tories have been handed lucrative contracts by the Cabinet Office , particularly in areas to do with public messaging .
Given the shambolic nature of government communications recently , it doesn ’ t seem that they were chosen on the basis of competence .
To effectively combat local outbreaks , local councils must have the resources and information they need to be able to respond quickly – and this is still some way off where it needs to be .
It isn ’ t good enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems and drive down cases .
Test and trace is absolutely vital to our strategy in combatting the virus , and ministers must get a grip of the problems now to avoid a long and challenging winter .

As we have seen an easing of lockdown measures, a reduction in hospital admissions and the end of the government’s daily press conferences, we might have expected there to be a drop in coronavirus-related news. But the reality is very different. There has been an uptick in cases and more local restrictions – it seems every day something comes out which brings big questions about the government’s handling of the pandemic.
Last week, ministers announced late at night that parts of the North West and Yorkshire were facing new restrictions on household visits following concern over rising infections in parts of these areas. The way in which this was announced combined the worst elements of other recent government announcements. It followed the pattern previously set by confused, mixed messaging over face masks, and the chaos brought about by the timing of the Spain quarantine decision. The communication the announcement was so poor that even Matt Hancock wasn’t able to answer questions on the decisions live on TV.
It is little wonder that a new study has shown that less than half of people in England now understand the lockdown rules. One of the most basic yet most important elements of the fight against coronavirus is clear and consistent messaging from government. It is a basic test that they are clearly failing. This is why today Keir Starmer has called for the government to get a grip on their communications, restart government press conferences, and end dangerous, contradictory briefings to the media. Ministers cannot afford to continue to get this wrong.
There has been an increase in the number of positive coronavirus cases in the last few weeks, which does coincide with the relaxation of lockdown restrictions. The government’s own regulations relaxing the rules explicitly stated that this was a risk – but this risk could have been mitigated by a nationally effective testing and tracing regime. The Serco-run project is still a long way off the “world-beating” system promised by Boris Johnson by the start of June, and in some aspects is actually getting worse.
The number of people who test positive who are contacted within 24 hours has slipped down to 72%, while only 61% of non-complex coronavirus “close contacts” are being reached and asked to self-isolate. Non-complex cases are the ones dealt with by outsourcing firms Serco and Sitel. A workable app may go some way to resolving this, but as more and more countries launch theirs, ours is nowhere to be seen. The fact that councils are now setting up their own contact tracing systems shows what a monumental misjudgement it has been to place so much faith in the private sector.
There is no doubt that the pandemic has led to many more opportunities for private companies to step in and win government contracts. But the urgency of the situation has allowed the government to sidestep the usual procurement rules with concerning results. The shambolic handling of personal protective equipment initially led to a Wild West-style gold rush, where companies with seemingly no track record in this field were handed lucrative contracts.
There must be a very bright light shined on these contracts. Last month, Rachel Reeves and I asked the National Audit Office to investigate. It’s not just PPE where this is happening: a number of companies with links to the Tories have been handed lucrative contracts by the Cabinet Office, particularly in areas to do with public messaging. Given the shambolic nature of government communications recently, it doesn’t seem that they were chosen on the basis of competence.
To effectively combat local outbreaks, local councils must have the resources and information they need to be able to respond quickly – and this is still some way off where it needs to be. It isn’t good enough. Now is the time to fix these problems and drive down cases. Test and trace is absolutely vital to our strategy in combatting the virus, and ministers must get a grip of the problems now to avoid a long and challenging winter.


labourlist--2020-08-05--“We need to get help to the people of Lebanon right now,” says Labour

Lisa Nandy has said that “ we need to get help to the people of Lebanon right now ” and that it is “ absolutely right ” that the UK is offering support and prioritising the medical response .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , the Shadow Foreign Secretary discussed the explosion that took place in Beirut on Tuesday afternoon .
She warned that the city had been hit by a “ triple whammy in terms of healthcare ” .
She described the incident as “ absolutely horrendous ” but said that it is still too soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cause the explosion , which has killed at least 100 people and injured more than 4,000 .
Commenting on the blast , she said : “ It ’ s far too early to spend time speculating on what ’ s happened .
We need to get help to the people of Lebanon right now .
It ’ s absolutely right that the UK is saying that we will step up and right to prioritise the medical response .
“ Lebanon essentially has been hit by a triple whammy in terms of healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people injured .
They were already reeling from the impact of Covid and many of the medical services there were already overwhelmed .
“ And on top of that there ’ s obviously been some damage done to hospitals and healthcare systems because of the blast .
So we ’ ve got to get that medical help in quickly and start to help Lebanon get back on its feet.
” Images and videos of the explosion have been circulating on social media since Tuesday afternoon .
Pictures show cars overturned and roads covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with homes and businesses reduced to rubble .
Residents in the city have reported that the blast caused ceilings to collapse in houses as far as 2km away , and there have also been accounts of hospitals struggling to cope with the number of casualties in the wake of the incident .
The UK has offered support to Lebanon .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the reports from the city as “ shocking ” and said that “ the UK is ready to provide support in any way we can ” .
Lebanon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that the explosion was caused by a 2,750 metric ton store of ammonium nitrate , which he said had been stored for six years at a port warehouse without safety measures .

Lisa Nandy has said that “we need to get help to the people of Lebanon right now” and that it is “absolutely right” that the UK is offering support and prioritising the medical response.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, the Shadow Foreign Secretary discussed the explosion that took place in Beirut on Tuesday afternoon. She warned that the city had been hit by a “triple whammy in terms of healthcare”.
She described the incident as “absolutely horrendous” but said that it is still too soon to speculate on what may have happened to cause the explosion, which has killed at least 100 people and injured more than 4,000.
Commenting on the blast, she said: “It’s far too early to spend time speculating on what’s happened. We need to get help to the people of Lebanon right now. It’s absolutely right that the UK is saying that we will step up and right to prioritise the medical response.
“Lebanon essentially has been hit by a triple whammy in terms of healthcare. They’ve got huge numbers people injured. They were already reeling from the impact of Covid and many of the medical services there were already overwhelmed.
“And on top of that there’s obviously been some damage done to hospitals and healthcare systems because of the blast. So we’ve got to get that medical help in quickly and start to help Lebanon get back on its feet.”
"It's just absolutely horrendous." Shadow Foreign Secretary @lisanandy says Lebanon has been hit by a "triple whammy" over healthcare and it's "absolutely right" that the UK is saying it will step up to help the country. Latest from Beirut: https://t.co/mKC3azPcyk pic.twitter.com/SmriFUYImr — SkyNews (@SkyNews) August 5, 2020
Images and videos of the explosion have been circulating on social media since Tuesday afternoon. Pictures show cars overturned and roads covered in shattered glass and twisted metal, with homes and businesses reduced to rubble.
Residents in the city have reported that the blast caused ceilings to collapse in houses as far as 2km away, and there have also been accounts of hospitals struggling to cope with the number of casualties in the wake of the incident.
The UK has offered support to Lebanon. Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the reports from the city as “shocking” and said that “the UK is ready to provide support in any way we can”.
Lebanon’s Prime Minister Hassan Diab has said that the explosion was caused by a 2,750 metric ton store of ammonium nitrate, which he said had been stored for six years at a port warehouse without safety measures.


labourlist--2020-08-05--Angela Rayner tells PM to block peerage of Claire Fox

Labour ’ s Angela Rayner has backed calls for the Prime Minister to block the peerage of Claire Fox and described the nomination as an “ insult to the people of the North West ” .
Commenting on a letter sent to Boris Johnson by Labour MP Charlotte Nichols on Tuesday , the deputy Labour leader said the nomination of the former Brexit MEP had “ rightly caused revulsion and real hurt ” .
Nichols has urged the Prime Minister to “ ensure that Ms Fox is not created a peer ” , and wrote that doing so would “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to the communities still scarred by the attack 27 years on ” .
Responding to the call from her colleague , Rayner said : “ Boris Johnson ’ s failure to block the elevation of Claire Fox to the House of Lords is an insult to the people of the North West .
“ The awarding of a life peerage to someone who has repeatedly refused to apologise for her support of the heinous IRA bombing attack in Warrington in 1993 has rightly caused revulsion and real hurt both in Warrington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister is showing crass insensitivity to the families of those who lost their lives in 1993 and countless others whose lives were changed forever that day , and as a result of the IRA attack in Manchester city centre in 1996 .
“ If the Prime Minister refuses to block this nomination he is showing that he doesn ’ t care about the victims and survivors of terrorism in our communities.
” Fox has been widely criticised for failing to condemn the IRA bombing of the town in the North West of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago causing the death of two children and injuring more than 50 other people .
In her letter to Johnson , Nichols wrote : “ The nomination of Ms Fox has not only caused considerable hurt to those directly affected by the bombing of Warrington but also revulsion in my constituency and in our town more widely as a result of this .
“ I urge you to please ensure that Ms Fox is not created a peer , by using your power as Prime Minister to block her nomination .
“ To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peer would be to show crass insensitivity to victims of terrorism , and to the communities still scarred by the attack 27 years on .
Warrington will never forget that day , nor the victims whose lives were cruelly cut short.
” At the time of the bombings in 1993 , Fox was a prominent figure in the Revolutionary Communist Party , which defended “ the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures are necessary in their struggle for freedom ” .
In a statement released by former Brexit MEP Fox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ Contrary to what has been reported elsewhere , I do not support or defend the IRA ’ s killing of two young boys in Warrington in 1993 .
“ I have not mentioned the horrific times of over 23 years ago since then and do not believe there is any justification for violence in Ireland today .
“ The killing of Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry was a terrible tragedy .
The 1994 IRA ceasefire and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement drew a line under the conflict .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Warrington bombings were two attacks that took place in February and March 1993 .
The first attack targeted a gas storage facility , causing no injuries .
But the second saw two bombs explode in litter bins resulting in injuries and loss of life .

Labour’s Angela Rayner has backed calls for the Prime Minister to block the peerage of Claire Fox and described the nomination as an “insult to the people of the North West”.
Commenting on a letter sent to Boris Johnson by Labour MP Charlotte Nichols on Tuesday, the deputy Labour leader said the nomination of the former Brexit MEP had “rightly caused revulsion and real hurt”.
Nichols has urged the Prime Minister to “ensure that Ms Fox is not created a peer”, and wrote that doing so would “show crass insensitivity to victims of terrorism, and to the communities still scarred by the attack 27 years on”.
Responding to the call from her colleague, Rayner said: “Boris Johnson’s failure to block the elevation of Claire Fox to the House of Lords is an insult to the people of the North West.
“The awarding of a life peerage to someone who has repeatedly refused to apologise for her support of the heinous IRA bombing attack in Warrington in 1993 has rightly caused revulsion and real hurt both in Warrington and across our region.
“The Prime Minister is showing crass insensitivity to the families of those who lost their lives in 1993 and countless others whose lives were changed forever that day, and as a result of the IRA attack in Manchester city centre in 1996.
“If the Prime Minister refuses to block this nomination he is showing that he doesn’t care about the victims and survivors of terrorism in our communities.”
Fox has been widely criticised for failing to condemn the IRA bombing of the town in the North West of England, which took place 27 years ago causing the death of two children and injuring more than 50 other people.
In her letter to Johnson, Nichols wrote: “The nomination of Ms Fox has not only caused considerable hurt to those directly affected by the bombing of Warrington but also revulsion in my constituency and in our town more widely as a result of this.
“I urge you to please ensure that Ms Fox is not created a peer, by using your power as Prime Minister to block her nomination.
“To allow Ms Fox to become a life peer would be to show crass insensitivity to victims of terrorism, and to the communities still scarred by the attack 27 years on. Warrington will never forget that day, nor the victims whose lives were cruelly cut short.”
At the time of the bombings in 1993, Fox was a prominent figure in the Revolutionary Communist Party, which defended “the right of the Irish people to take whatever measures are necessary in their struggle for freedom”.
In a statement released by former Brexit MEP Fox after the nomination was made, she said: “Contrary to what has been reported elsewhere, I do not support or defend the IRA’s killing of two young boys in Warrington in 1993.
“I have not mentioned the horrific times of over 23 years ago since then and do not believe there is any justification for violence in Ireland today.
“The killing of Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry was a terrible tragedy. The 1994 IRA ceasefire and the 1998 Good Friday Agreement drew a line under the conflict. It’s surely time to move on.”
The Warrington bombings were two attacks that took place in February and March 1993. The first attack targeted a gas storage facility, causing no injuries. But the second saw two bombs explode in litter bins resulting in injuries and loss of life.