labourlist--2020-09-25--The new job scheme is important – but ministers will need to do far more

Unions have been pushing hard for months for jobs support to continue beyond October .
The short-time working scheme announced yesterday by Rishi Sunak – a model common in the rest of Europe but the first ever in the UK – is an important step .
But let ’ s be clear : it ’ s just one piece in the jigsaw of support we need .
While the new scheme will give many firms much-needed breathing space to get back on their feet , ministers will need to do far more to protect livelihoods in the months ahead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and business on a wider support package for the hardest-hit sectors of the economy .
Which is why cancelling the Budget was a mistake .
The new scheme unveiled by the Chancellor is likely to benefit manufacturing companies most , where unions can negotiate work shares and pay top-ups .
But industries like aviation , retail , arts and hospitality needed targeted support now .
And we need action on job creation , too .
The TUC has set out detailed plans for investment in green infrastructure and public service resilience that together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour was right to highlight that yesterday ’ s announcement was a missed opportunity for skills and training .
It ’ s crucial that hours not worked under the new short-time working scheme are not wasted .
Workers must be given the chance during their down time to build their skills and expertise , as an investment for the future .
We will continue to push the government on our proposals for upskilling during this pandemic and beyond .
It ’ s no secret that the TUC pushed for the scheme to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to provide more support for the self-employed .
Mass unemployment is a real and growing threat .
It scars lives and whole communities .
Much better for our economic recovery to have workers paying their taxes and spending wages than adding to the benefit bill .
That ’ s why it ’ s essential that ministers are flexible and keep the level of support provided by the scheme under review .
And they must set out what protections will be in place if we see more local lockdowns , and for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they ’ re caring or shielding .
This new scheme is not going to halt all job losses and – despite a recent ( temporary ) increase in Universal Credit – is simply not enough for people to live on .
We need a social security net that catches those who lose their jobs and allows them to bounce back quickly .
This pandemic has exposed the need for our benefits system to be urgently overhauled .
This should include a rise in the standard UC payment to £260 per week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payment , and the end of the two-child benefit cap .
And if we want people to able to self-isolate we need to give them a proper rate of sick pay .
Rather than one-off payments for some of those are self-isolating , we need to increase statutory sick pay to the equivalent of a week ’ s living wage ( £326 ) and make it available to all .
It ’ s even more vital that government takes proactive steps now to shore up our economy .
The TUC set out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create 1.24 million jobs in the next two years in the green industries of the future – if ministers fast-track investment now .
We have also called for a public sector jobs drive that will create decent , higher-skilled and better paid work .
With the right investment , this could create 600,000 new jobs in public services .
The TUC and our unions know that the road ahead is going to be tough .
But with the right support in place , government can stave off mass unemployment and protect people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to push for a wider economic plan that prioritises protecting and investing in good jobs , fixes the social safety net and finally sorts out sick pay .
A responsible government would call unions and business to work with ministers in a National Recovery Council to do just that .

Unions have been pushing hard for months for jobs support to continue beyond October. The short-time working scheme announced yesterday by Rishi Sunak – a model common in the rest of Europe but the first ever in the UK – is an important step.
But let’s be clear: it’s just one piece in the jigsaw of support we need. While the new scheme will give many firms much-needed breathing space to get back on their feet, ministers will need to do far more to protect livelihoods in the months ahead.
Wider support package
The government must urgently work with unions and business on a wider support package for the hardest-hit sectors of the economy. Which is why cancelling the Budget was a mistake.
The new scheme unveiled by the Chancellor is likely to benefit manufacturing companies most, where unions can negotiate work shares and pay top-ups. But industries like aviation, retail, arts and hospitality needed targeted support now.
And we need action on job creation, too. The TUC has set out detailed plans for investment in green infrastructure and public service resilience that together could create nearly two million jobs.
Training
Labour was right to highlight that yesterday’s announcement was a missed opportunity for skills and training. It’s crucial that hours not worked under the new short-time working scheme are not wasted.
Workers must be given the chance during their down time to build their skills and expertise, as an investment for the future. We will continue to push the government on our proposals for upskilling during this pandemic and beyond.
Keeping things under review
It’s no secret that the TUC pushed for the scheme to be more generous to avoid triggering more lay-offs and to provide more support for the self-employed. Mass unemployment is a real and growing threat. It scars lives and whole communities. Much better for our economic recovery to have workers paying their taxes and spending wages than adding to the benefit bill.
That’s why it’s essential that ministers are flexible and keep the level of support provided by the scheme under review. And they must set out what protections will be in place if we see more local lockdowns, and for people who can’t go to work because they’re caring or shielding.
Fixing the safety net
This new scheme is not going to halt all job losses and – despite a recent (temporary) increase in Universal Credit – is simply not enough for people to live on. We need a social security net that catches those who lose their jobs and allows them to bounce back quickly.
This pandemic has exposed the need for our benefits system to be urgently overhauled. This should include a rise in the standard UC payment to £260 per week, scrapping the five-week wait for the first payment, and the end of the two-child benefit cap.
And if we want people to able to self-isolate we need to give them a proper rate of sick pay. Rather than one-off payments for some of those are self-isolating, we need to increase statutory sick pay to the equivalent of a week’s living wage (£326) and make it available to all.
Investing in the future
It’s even more vital that government takes proactive steps now to shore up our economy. The TUC set out a plan in June for how we could create 1.24 million jobs in the next two years in the green industries of the future – if ministers fast-track investment now.
We have also called for a public sector jobs drive that will create decent, higher-skilled and better paid work. With the right investment, this could create 600,000 new jobs in public services.
The TUC and our unions know that the road ahead is going to be tough. But with the right support in place, government can stave off mass unemployment and protect people’s livelihoods.
We’ll continue to push for a wider economic plan that prioritises protecting and investing in good jobs, fixes the social safety net and finally sorts out sick pay. A responsible government would call unions and business to work with ministers in a National Recovery Council to do just that.


labourlist--2020-09-25--How the British left could learn from the patriotism of French socialists

Patriotism has always been a difficult subject for the British left .
Too often , it is seen as a vulgar form of nationalism .
It is described as the opium of the working class , who can not see that behind the flag and the natural attachment to the country that most British people feel hide the ruling class , predatory capitalism and war .
For them , patriotism divides the workers and make them fight with each other for the interest of our rich and powerful British bourgeoisie .
In their world , the workers of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , no love for their nations and no other goal than the destruction of world capitalism .
They believe in a fairy tale about workers waving the red flag and fighting for world socialism , as Lenin , Trotsky and others believed in .
Nobody can reject the advantages of a world without borders , but it is evident that the British working class might not agree with the socialist ’ s dreams of a few middle-class people in London who know nothing outside of their little bubble .
Here is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no form of patriotism that can be progressive and claim that patriotism is inherently a right-wing concept , most working men and women in our heartland see patriotism as the love they feel for their land , their work , their towns and their families .
Patriotism is more than just flag-waving and God Save the Queen .
It is part of the community ’ s spirit , of which we are all proud and makes this country unique for most of us .
No , being a patriot does not make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have always been amazed by the unwillingness of the British left to engage with patriotism .
As a French socialist , I find it quite difficult to understand .
Not only in France is the left unapologetically patriotic , but they have built their own political world and mythology around the notion of the defence of the Republic , the French Revolution and of its territory .
It is the French right that historically is unpatriotic , not the left .
Of course , the French left has a history of bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uprisings .
This is something that the British hard left would love to see in UK , but they don ’ t grasp that those systemic changes have been brought by the imperative need to protect the country and its institutions .
In other words , the French left has not always been revolutionary , but it has always been patriotic .
During the French Revolution , the common people of the lower classes , called les sans-culottes , were deeply patriotic , whilst the royalistes were the traitors who worked with foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is the common people who fought against the King and his privileged friends who had no patrie and hated France .
These people by their sacrifices shaped the French left-wing political world throughout history .
In every revolutionary episode that France has been through since then , you will find the desire to protect the country as the starting point for political changes .
In 1830 , the defence of the interest of France and of its people was central in the July Revolution .
The overthrow of King Charles X @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Paris wanted to save the country from him and his family .
Then , La Commune de Paris in 1871 started with the desire to protect the country and its people .
What sparked the revolution was the left and the working classes ’ refusal to let the Prussians enter Paris .
They fought back against them and those who betrayed France by refusing to fight the enemy .
This is how the most radical , socialist , anti-clerical , feminist government Western Europe ever had started .
Yes , even La @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced Karl Marx to reassess some of his writings ( including the Manifesto ) , was born out of the French desire to protect the country .
The year 1934 is another great example of what we can call left-wing patriotism in action .
6th February 1934 saw various fascist organisations try to overthrow the Third Republic in Paris .
But it is the united front of the left who fought back and defeated them , which saved the country .
This led to the victory of the Front Populaire in 1936 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France , such as two weeks paid holidays .
Even the French Resistance was only possible because a section of the democratic left , then joined by the communists , refused to accept the Nazi invasion of the country and the government of Vichy .
Here again , the far-right betrayed the country , whilst the patriotic and democratic left continued to fight .
Even today , the French left – from the social democrats to the hard left – have organised around Jean-Luc Mélenchon .
Patriotism remains an important part of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not deny the danger that it also represents .
For instance , the so-called ‘ mission civilisatrice ’ of the French Republic helped justifying the worst excess of French colonialism and explains why France is also a racist country today .
And when this form of left-wing patriotism mingles with French nationalism , the French left can become as racist as the far right and do contribute to the hostility towards French Muslims .
Meanwhile Mélenchon , once invited to speak at The World Transformed and hailed as a new hero by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his sovereigntist and antisemitic outbursts .
Yet these are exceptions to the rule .
It is because the French left is patriotic that it has been able to be radical .
It is because it has developed a left-wing patriotic view of French history that it has been able to fight the far right and not let them dictate their own terms of what patriotism means .
I believe that this is something the British left should learn from .
Yes , France has a different political history and the left has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the British left used to be proud of being British .
The greatest generation , who fought the Nazis and the fascists from Dunkirk to El Alamein , from Salerno to the beaches of Normandy , were all proud patriots who then voted for the most transformative Labour government this country ever had in 1945 .
They elected not just a socialist government but a patriotic Labour party .
They voted for a party that believed in Britain and wanted to make this country great for all of us .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @

Patriotism has always been a difficult subject for the British left. Too often, it is seen as a vulgar form of nationalism. It is described as the opium of the working class, who cannot see that behind the flag and the natural attachment to the country that most British people feel hide the ruling class, predatory capitalism and war. For them, patriotism divides the workers and make them fight with each other for the interest of our rich and powerful British bourgeoisie. In their world, the workers of the world are united. They have no real country, no love for their nations and no other goal than the destruction of world capitalism. They believe in a fairy tale about workers waving the red flag and fighting for world socialism, as Lenin, Trotsky and others believed in.
Nobody can reject the advantages of a world without borders, but it is evident that the British working class might not agree with the socialist’s dreams of a few middle-class people in London who know nothing outside of their little bubble. Here is the problem. Whilst they claim that there is no form of patriotism that can be progressive and claim that patriotism is inherently a right-wing concept, most working men and women in our heartland see patriotism as the love they feel for their land, their work, their towns and their families. Patriotism is more than just flag-waving and God Save the Queen. It is part of the community’s spirit, of which we are all proud and makes this country unique for most of us. No, being a patriot does not make you a racist or white supremacist.
I have always been amazed by the unwillingness of the British left to engage with patriotism. As a French socialist, I find it quite difficult to understand. Not only in France is the left unapologetically patriotic, but they have built their own political world and mythology around the notion of the defence of the Republic, the French Revolution and of its territory. It is the French right that historically is unpatriotic, not the left.
Of course, the French left has a history of bringing systemic change through (sometimes violent) uprisings. This is something that the British hard left would love to see in UK, but they don’t grasp that those systemic changes have been brought by the imperative need to protect the country and its institutions. In other words, the French left has not always been revolutionary, but it has always been patriotic.
During the French Revolution, the common people of the lower classes, called les sans-culottes, were deeply patriotic, whilst the royalistes were the traitors who worked with foreign kings to crush the Revolution. Thus, it is the common people who fought against the King and his privileged friends who had no patrie and hated France. These people by their sacrifices shaped the French left-wing political world throughout history. In every revolutionary episode that France has been through since then, you will find the desire to protect the country as the starting point for political changes.
In 1830, the defence of the interest of France and of its people was central in the July Revolution. The overthrow of King Charles X was made possible only because the people of Paris wanted to save the country from him and his family. Then, La Commune de Paris in 1871 started with the desire to protect the country and its people. What sparked the revolution was the left and the working classes’ refusal to let the Prussians enter Paris. They fought back against them and those who betrayed France by refusing to fight the enemy. This is how the most radical, socialist, anti-clerical, feminist government Western Europe ever had started. Yes, even La Commune de Paris, the event that forced Karl Marx to reassess some of his writings (including the Manifesto), was born out of the French desire to protect the country.
The year 1934 is another great example of what we can call left-wing patriotism in action. 6th February 1934 saw various fascist organisations try to overthrow the Third Republic in Paris. But it is the united front of the left who fought back and defeated them, which saved the country. This led to the victory of the Front Populaire in 1936, which introduced political and social changes in France, such as two weeks paid holidays. Even the French Resistance was only possible because a section of the democratic left, then joined by the communists, refused to accept the Nazi invasion of the country and the government of Vichy. Here again, the far-right betrayed the country, whilst the patriotic and democratic left continued to fight.
Even today, the French left – from the social democrats to the hard left – have organised around Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Patriotism remains an important part of their political belief. Of course, we cannot deny the danger that it also represents. For instance, the so-called ‘mission civilisatrice’ of the French Republic helped justifying the worst excess of French colonialism and explains why France is also a racist country today. And when this form of left-wing patriotism mingles with French nationalism, the French left can become as racist as the far right and do contribute to the hostility towards French Muslims. Meanwhile Mélenchon, once invited to speak at The World Transformed and hailed as a new hero by the hard left, is also well-known for his sovereigntist and antisemitic outbursts.
Yet these are exceptions to the rule. It is because the French left is patriotic that it has been able to be radical. It is because it has developed a left-wing patriotic view of French history that it has been able to fight the far right and not let them dictate their own terms of what patriotism means.
I believe that this is something the British left should learn from. Yes, France has a different political history and the left has a proud revolutionary and republican tradition. But the British left used to be proud of being British. The greatest generation, who fought the Nazis and the fascists from Dunkirk to El Alamein, from Salerno to the beaches of Normandy, were all proud patriots who then voted for the most transformative Labour government this country ever had in 1945. They elected not just a socialist government but a patriotic Labour party. They voted for a party that believed in Britain and wanted to make this country great for all of us. This is what British left-wing patriotism means.


labourlist--2020-09-25--Leonard: “Students are being punished for the SNP government’s incompetence”

Richard Leonard has accused the SNP government of “ punishing ” Scottish students for its own “ incompetence ” after they were told by Nicola Sturgeon ’ s administration not to visit pubs or restaurants over the weekend .
Stricter coronavirus restrictions announced by the Scottish government today have told students to “ avoid all socialising outside of their households and outside of their accommodation ” and not to visit hospitality venues .
After Nicola Sturgeon was criticised for “ singling out ” students , the First Minister tweeted a message to students that she was “ so sorry Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives so tough ” but urged them to “ please do what ’ s being asked of you ” .
The First Minister of Scotland also clarified that the newly released Universities Scotland guidance is “ just for this weekend ” , rather than starting from this weekend as some reporters had assumed from the way the rules were originally phrased .
At the daily briefing , Sturgeon responded to the backlash by saying : “ I want to be clear as some of you feel blamed for spread of Covid right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this is not your fault .
The sooner we get this under control , the sooner you will enjoy normal student life.
” Commenting on the concerns over the rules for students , Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard said : “ It is becoming clearer with every passing hour that Scotland ’ s students are being punished for the SNP government ’ s incompetence and lack of foresight .
“ Hundreds of students are being forced to remain in cramped student accommodation , and the guidance is as clear as mud .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer .
“ International evidence has highlighted the risks of allowing students to return physically to university and college , and senior experts such as Professor Linda Bauld have raised concerns over the ban on students returning home.
” Linda Bauld , professor of public health at Edinburgh University said self-isolating students should be allowed to return home , and added that government guidance should include ways of reducing the risk of transmission within households .
Universities Scotland has warned students that they risk discontinuation of their study if they break the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with anyone outside of their households or accommodation .
558 new Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in Scotland since yesterday , which amounts to 9.7 % of newly tested people and brings the total number of cases to 26,518 .
89 people are being treated in hospital for suspected or confirmed coronavirus .

Richard Leonard has accused the SNP government of “punishing” Scottish students for its own “incompetence” after they were told by Nicola Sturgeon’s administration not to visit pubs or restaurants over the weekend.
Stricter coronavirus restrictions announced by the Scottish government today have told students to “avoid all socialising outside of their households and outside of their accommodation” and not to visit hospitality venues.
After Nicola Sturgeon was criticised for “singling out” students, the First Minister tweeted a message to students that she was “so sorry Covid is making this special time of your lives so tough” but urged them to “please do what’s being asked of you”.
The First Minister of Scotland also clarified that the newly released Universities Scotland guidance is “just for this weekend”, rather than starting from this weekend as some reporters had assumed from the way the rules were originally phrased.
At the daily briefing, Sturgeon responded to the backlash by saying: “I want to be clear as some of you feel blamed for spread of Covid right now. Nobody deserves to be facing this and this is not your fault. The sooner we get this under control, the sooner you will enjoy normal student life.”
Commenting on the concerns over the rules for students, Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard said: “It is becoming clearer with every passing hour that Scotland’s students are being punished for the SNP government’s incompetence and lack of foresight.
“Hundreds of students are being forced to remain in cramped student accommodation, and the guidance is as clear as mud. The Scottish government has serious questions to answer.
“International evidence has highlighted the risks of allowing students to return physically to university and college, and senior experts such as Professor Linda Bauld have raised concerns over the ban on students returning home.”
Linda Bauld, professor of public health at Edinburgh University said self-isolating students should be allowed to return home, and added that government guidance should include ways of reducing the risk of transmission within households.
Universities Scotland has warned students that they risk discontinuation of their study if they break the new coronavirus rules by joining parties or socialising with anyone outside of their households or accommodation.
558 new Covid-19 cases have been confirmed in Scotland since yesterday, which amounts to 9.7% of newly tested people and brings the total number of cases to 26,518. 89 people are being treated in hospital for suspected or confirmed coronavirus.


labourlist--2020-09-25--“Act now on the illegal Israeli settlements,” Kinnock urges UK government

Labour MP Stephen Kinnock , as outgoing chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Palestine , delivered the following opening speech in a parliamentary debate he secured on the settlements and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories .
As the outgoing chair of the APPG on Palestine , I pay particular tribute to colleagues who have been such powerful advocates for peace , justice and security in this troubled land , not least the Honourable Member for Sunderland Central ( Julie Elliot ) , who will taking over as chair of the APPG .
I wish her well .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out three core principles , which I hope and believe are shared by all who are taking part in this debate .
First , this is not about religion or ethnicity – it ’ s not a question of Arab , Muslim or Jewish identity .
It ’ s about upholding the universal norms and values that we hold dear , and it is about working to constrain and reverse the actions of those who seek to undermine those norms and values .
Neither is this about being “ pro-Israel ” or “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for peace , justice and security for all , on the basis of the rule of law .
Second , we condemn violence in all its forms .
Whether it is Hamas launching rockets , or the IDF bombarding Gaza or bulldozing Bedouin villages to make way for illegal settlements , we oppose any and all actions that lead to the death and destruction that have so tragically come to define this conflict .
And third , we believe passionately in the rule of law .
Indeed , our point of departure is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for negotiation .
It is not some bargaining chip that can be tossed onto the table in exchange for concessions or compromises .
It is the very cornerstone of the rules-based order , and the bedrock of the norms , rights and values that we cherish and seek to defend .
And I believe that our defence of the rule of law matters more now than it has done at any time since 1945 .
Because we stand today at a moment in history where the rule of law is under threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party has breached the Sino-British Declaration on Hong Kong .
The Russian government annexed Crimea in 2014 .
And even our own government is willing to renege on its commitment to a legally-binding treaty .
But Israel ’ s consistent flouting of UN resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention has undermined the rules-based order for decades , and the international community can no longer look the other way .
Both sides in this have witnessed horrific bloodshed , and both sides deserve an end to the fear and suffering they have had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so vital and urgent that the rule of law be brought to bear , as the foundation upon which a viable and sustainable Palestine can be negotiated and built .
A Palestine which protects the rights of its citizens , and lives in peace with its neighbours .
Mr Speaker , the illegal Israeli settlements undermine all three of the principles that I have outlined : they drive and amplify the vicious identity politics that poisons this conflict , they cause violence on a daily basis , and they are a flagrant breach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand .
2018 marked 25 years since the signing of the Oslo accords .
That moment in 1993 was meant to herald a new and lasting era of peace and co-existence—the beginning of a genuine two-state solution .
But since 1993 the number of illegal settlers has increased from 258,000 to more than 610,000 .
50,000 homes and properties have been demolished , and an illegal separation barrier has been built , which carves up the West Bank and brutally disconnects towns , cities , families and communities from each other .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time ?
Insecurity , fear of attacks through suicide bombing , rockets and mortars , knife attacks , car rammings – none of which will end whilst there is no proper peace and no end of occupation .
It has been a disaster for all sides .
It is against this backdrop that Trump and Netanyahu have come forward with their so-called ‘ Deal of the Century ’ .
This is not a deal .
It is not a plan .
It is not even a starting point for talks .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it has no basis in law .
It is a land and power grab , which would mean Israel seizing around 40 % of the West Bank – with full military and security control over Palestinians and their resources .
Which government in its right mind would ever agree with such terms ?
Why would the Palestinian Authority ever enter into talks on the basis of a document that effectively legitimises attempts to destroy any chance of an independent sovereign Palestine ?
The Foreign Secretary and his ministers continue to present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks and ask the Palestinian to compromise .
Yet , Mr Speaker , the Palestinians have already ceded 78 % of their land to Israel .
How much more can they be asked to compromise ?
And they say that the Palestinian side should make a counter-offer .
Well they have .
A two-state solution as already set out in countless UN resolutions , and based on the 1967 lines .
Prime Minister Netanyahu ’ s coalition had agreed that Israel would begin de jure annexation from 1 July .
Thankfully , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for now – but what we are instead witnessing is more annexation by stealth .
Netanyahu has announced approval of preliminary plans for 3,500 new housing units in a new settlement in the E1 area , between Jerusalem and Ma ’ ale Adumim , thus severing East Jerusalem ’ s contiguity with the rest of the West Bank .
Building on E1 is more of a danger to the two-state outcome than the formal annexation of parts of the West Bank .
It has long been seen by U.K. , France and Germany @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement plan of 7,000 units has been approved at Efrat , to the south of Bethlehem , often labelled E2 .
In both of these cases , the reality is that the Israeli government holds all the cards , whilst the Palestinian Authority has limited power and relies only on international support .
Those who take a more sympathetic view of the actions of the Israeli government will no doubt point to the so-called Abraham Accords , which were signed by the UAE and Bahrain at the White House on 13 August this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the normalisation of relations with Israel .
Yet the reality is that the Abraham Accords are simply the formalisation of pre-existing and well-established relations between the signatories .
These states have been working together for years on joint military operations , coups and counter-revolutions .
For the Palestinian people nothing has changed – the reality is that the creeping annexation of their land continues , and is accelerating .
How can Britain and the international community respond ?
What is clear is that actions speak louder than words .
The question that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the British government can use its position as a leading member of the international community to press the Israeli government to pull back from creeping annexation , and to re-engage in talks on the basis of a viable two-state solution .
The problem we face is that the deadlock will continue so long as Israel rejects any deal that includes Jerusalem , that does not mean Israel keeps the Jordan valley , that rejects a sovereign viable Palestinian state , and will negotiate only on the basis of a plan that annexes occupied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any Palestinian entity , including control of all borders .
Israel must drop all of these pre-conditions .
There have already been some attempts by European states to assert influence .
For instance , 11 states – including the UK , Germany and France – joined in a démarche to the Israeli Foreign Ministry on 1 May opposing Mr Netanyahu ’ s annexation plans .
But together the international community must go further .
We should explore the potential for the International Criminal Court to play a role .
The Israeli Attorney-General ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an investigation of “ senior army officers , civil service officials and heads of regional councils of West Bank settlements.
” It is essential that the UK condemns any further creeping annexation – but condemnation alone will never be enough .
To this end , the UK government must take the following steps , with urgency .
First , it must immediately recognise the state of Palestine on the basis of its 1967 lines .
The UK government argues that recognition should follow successful negotiations , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flawed and partisan to one side .
It suggests we are happy to see a 53-year old occupation persist , legitimising the illegal actions of the Israeli government , and contributing to the brutality and violence that shames us all .
Second , the government must ban all products that originate from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories .
Profiting from these products is tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime , and it must stop .
When we trade with these settlements , we are essentially telling the world that international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade legitimises and facilitates the existence and expansion of the settlements .
In 2014 it was right that the UK – as part of the European Union – prohibited trade with Crimea , following its illegal annexation by Russia .
It is crucial that we are consistent in our application of international law .
Third , the government must act to end the involvement of UK-based companies within the illegal settlements .
In March the UN published a list of companies that are involved in the settlements , which included JCB , Opodo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal settlement projects should not be eligible for the privileges of charitable status , including and tax exemption .
What steps will our government be taking to hold these companies and charities to account ?
I look forward to hearing the minister ’ s views on these points .
These measures must be put in place immediately .
No more excuses or obfuscation from this government .
Standing here in this chamber today , it is easy to forget the human cost of this conflict .
Visiting the West Bank and East Jerusalem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East and the Council for Arab-British Understanding in 2014 , I saw how the settlements touch the lives of those in the occupied territories like little else .
I think of the father from Gaza I met in Makassad hospital , nursing his four-year-old double-amputee son , worrying about his wife , in another hospital 20 miles away , who ’ d also had both her legs amputated .
I think of the bedouin community of Khan Al-Ahmar – residents living in perpetual fear of military demolitions and harassment .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the Palestinian Territories who the UN identify as in need of psychosocial support and child protection interventions .
What future can these children look forward to ?
What hope can we offer them ?
A 10-year-old child in Gaza will already have witnessed three wars , and nothing but the siege .
I therefore rise today to convey this simple message to the minister : act now .
Act now , to show that Britain is still a country that will give voice to the voiceless , and to stand up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , to show that Britain is still a beacon of hope , a country that stands tall in the world and strives relentlessly for peace and justice .
Act now , to help us to believe that yours is a government that still believes in the rule of law .
Thank you very much .

Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, as outgoing chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Palestine, delivered the following opening speech in a parliamentary debate he secured on the settlements and annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Principles
As the outgoing chair of the APPG on Palestine, I pay particular tribute to colleagues who have been such powerful advocates for peace, justice and security in this troubled land, not least the Honourable Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliot), who will taking over as chair of the APPG. I wish her well.
I’d like to start by setting out three core principles, which I hope and believe are shared by all who are taking part in this debate.
First, this is not about religion or ethnicity – it’s not a question of Arab, Muslim or Jewish identity. It’s about upholding the universal norms and values that we hold dear, and it is about working to constrain and reverse the actions of those who seek to undermine those norms and values. Neither is this about being “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine”. This is about striving for peace, justice and security for all, on the basis of the rule of law.
Second, we condemn violence in all its forms. Whether it is Hamas launching rockets, or the IDF bombarding Gaza or bulldozing Bedouin villages to make way for illegal settlements, we oppose any and all actions that lead to the death and destruction that have so tragically come to define this conflict.
And third, we believe passionately in the rule of law. Indeed, our point of departure is that the rule of law is not up for negotiation. It is not some bargaining chip that can be tossed onto the table in exchange for concessions or compromises. It is the very cornerstone of the rules-based order, and the bedrock of the norms, rights and values that we cherish and seek to defend.
And I believe that our defence of the rule of law matters more now than it has done at any time since 1945. Because we stand today at a moment in history where the rule of law is under threat across the world. The Chinese Communist Party has breached the Sino-British Declaration on Hong Kong. The Russian government annexed Crimea in 2014. And even our own government is willing to renege on its commitment to a legally-binding treaty.
But Israel’s consistent flouting of UN resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention has undermined the rules-based order for decades, and the international community can no longer look the other way.
Both sides in this have witnessed horrific bloodshed, and both sides deserve an end to the fear and suffering they have had to experience. This is why it is so vital and urgent that the rule of law be brought to bear, as the foundation upon which a viable and sustainable Palestine can be negotiated and built. A Palestine which protects the rights of its citizens, and lives in peace with its neighbours.
Settlements
Mr Speaker, the illegal Israeli settlements undermine all three of the principles that I have outlined: they drive and amplify the vicious identity politics that poisons this conflict, they cause violence on a daily basis, and they are a flagrant breach of international law.
Yet still they expand. 2018 marked 25 years since the signing of the Oslo accords. That moment in 1993 was meant to herald a new and lasting era of peace and co-existence—the beginning of a genuine two-state solution. But since 1993 the number of illegal settlers has increased from 258,000 to more than 610,000.
50,000 homes and properties have been demolished, and an illegal separation barrier has been built, which carves up the West Bank and brutally disconnects towns, cities, families and communities from each other.
And what have the Israeli people experienced in that time? Insecurity, fear of attacks through suicide bombing, rockets and mortars, knife attacks, car rammings – none of which will end whilst there is no proper peace and no end of occupation. It has been a disaster for all sides.
Proposal – Trump plan
It is against this backdrop that Trump and Netanyahu have come forward with their so-called ‘Deal of the Century’. This is not a deal. It is not a plan. It is not even a starting point for talks. This is a proposal that is fundamentally flawed, because it has no basis in law.
It is a land and power grab, which would mean Israel seizing around 40% of the West Bank – with full military and security control over Palestinians and their resources. Which government in its right mind would ever agree with such terms?
Why would the Palestinian Authority ever enter into talks on the basis of a document that effectively legitimises attempts to destroy any chance of an independent sovereign Palestine?
The Foreign Secretary and his ministers continue to present the Trump/Netanyahu plan as a basis for talks and ask the Palestinian to compromise. Yet, Mr Speaker, the Palestinians have already ceded 78% of their land to Israel. How much more can they be asked to compromise?
And they say that the Palestinian side should make a counter-offer. Well they have. A two-state solution as already set out in countless UN resolutions, and based on the 1967 lines.
Annexation by stealth
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition had agreed that Israel would begin de jure annexation from 1 July. Thankfully, the Israeli government has rowed back from this for now – but what we are instead witnessing is more annexation by stealth.
Netanyahu has announced approval of preliminary plans for 3,500 new housing units in a new settlement in the E1 area, between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, thus severing East Jerusalem’s contiguity with the rest of the West Bank.
Building on E1 is more of a danger to the two-state outcome than the formal annexation of parts of the West Bank. It has long been seen by U.K., France and Germany as a red line. Another huge settlement plan of 7,000 units has been approved at Efrat, to the south of Bethlehem, often labelled E2. In both of these cases, the reality is that the Israeli government holds all the cards, whilst the Palestinian Authority has limited power and relies only on international support.
Israel – UAE deal
Those who take a more sympathetic view of the actions of the Israeli government will no doubt point to the so-called Abraham Accords, which were signed by the UAE and Bahrain at the White House on 13 August this year, and which commit those states to the normalisation of relations with Israel.
Yet the reality is that the Abraham Accords are simply the formalisation of pre-existing and well-established relations between the signatories. These states have been working together for years on joint military operations, coups and counter-revolutions.
For the Palestinian people nothing has changed – the reality is that the creeping annexation of their land continues, and is accelerating.
How can Britain and the international community respond?
What is clear is that actions speak louder than words. The question that we must therefore address today is how the British government can use its position as a leading member of the international community to press the Israeli government to pull back from creeping annexation, and to re-engage in talks on the basis of a viable two-state solution.
The problem we face is that the deadlock will continue so long as Israel rejects any deal that includes Jerusalem, that does not mean Israel keeps the Jordan valley, that rejects a sovereign viable Palestinian state, and will negotiate only on the basis of a plan that annexes occupied territory and includes total security control on any Palestinian entity, including control of all borders. Israel must drop all of these pre-conditions.
There have already been some attempts by European states to assert influence. For instance, 11 states – including the UK, Germany and France – joined in a démarche to the Israeli Foreign Ministry on 1 May opposing Mr Netanyahu’s annexation plans. But together the international community must go further.
We should explore the potential for the International Criminal Court to play a role. The Israeli Attorney-General’s office has already warned the Israeli Prime Minister that annexation could trigger an investigation of “senior army officers, civil service officials and heads of regional councils of West Bank settlements.”
It is essential that the UK condemns any further creeping annexation – but condemnation alone will never be enough. To this end, the UK government must take the following steps, with urgency.
First, it must immediately recognise the state of Palestine on the basis of its 1967 lines. The UK government argues that recognition should follow successful negotiations, but the logic of this argument is deeply flawed and partisan to one side. It suggests we are happy to see a 53-year old occupation persist, legitimising the illegal actions of the Israeli government, and contributing to the brutality and violence that shames us all.
Second, the government must ban all products that originate from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Profiting from these products is tantamount to profiting from the proceeds of crime, and it must stop.
When we trade with these settlements, we are essentially telling the world that international law does not matter – and such trade legitimises and facilitates the existence and expansion of the settlements.
In 2014 it was right that the UK – as part of the European Union – prohibited trade with Crimea, following its illegal annexation by Russia. It is crucial that we are consistent in our application of international law.
Third, the government must act to end the involvement of UK-based companies within the illegal settlements. In March the UN published a list of companies that are involved in the settlements, which included JCB, Opodo and Greenkote.
Charities actively involved in illegal settlement projects should not be eligible for the privileges of charitable status, including and tax exemption. What steps will our government be taking to hold these companies and charities to account?
I look forward to hearing the minister’s views on these points. These measures must be put in place immediately. No more excuses or obfuscation from this government.
Conclusion
Standing here in this chamber today, it is easy to forget the human cost of this conflict. Visiting the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and the Council for Arab-British Understanding in 2014, I saw how the settlements touch the lives of those in the occupied territories like little else.
I think of the father from Gaza I met in Makassad hospital, nursing his four-year-old double-amputee son, worrying about his wife, in another hospital 20 miles away, who’d also had both her legs amputated. I think of the bedouin community of Khan Al-Ahmar – residents living in perpetual fear of military demolitions and harassment.
I think of the quarter of a million children across the Palestinian Territories who the UN identify as in need of psychosocial support and child protection interventions. What future can these children look forward to? What hope can we offer them? A 10-year-old child in Gaza will already have witnessed three wars, and nothing but the siege.
I therefore rise today to convey this simple message to the minister: act now. Act now, to show that Britain is still a country that will give voice to the voiceless, and to stand up for the rights of the oppressed.
Act now, to show that Britain is still a beacon of hope, a country that stands tall in the world and strives relentlessly for peace and justice. Act now, to help us to believe that yours is a government that still believes in the rule of law.
Thank you very much.


labourlist--2020-09-26--John McDonnell proposes bill to block Covid state aid for bad bosses

Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is set to bring forward a new bill in the House of Commons next week that will aim to block coronavirus financial support from the government going to “ appalling employers ” .
In his first intervention in the UK parliament since stepping down from the shadow cabinet when Keir Starmer was elected Labour leader , McDonnell plans to propose a ‘ ten minute rule bill ’ on business standards during the pandemic .
Under the scheme being presented by McDonnell on Wednesday , employers would be denied Covid aid if they use ‘ fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently said should be outlawed , use zero-hour contracts , avoid tax or pollute the environment .
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard is set to give the UK bill a boost by declaring his support for the “ serious and credible ” proposed legislation – reserved to Westminster – in a motion at the Scottish parliament .
McDonnell said : “ Billions of pounds of taxpayers ’ money is being paid to companies to help them get through the pandemic , so it is not much to ask that these companies abide by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their employees decently , not harming our environment and paying their fair share in taxes.
” In his bid to prevent the government from “ shelling out large sums of public money to subsidise poor business practice ” , an accreditation scheme would be set up for firms able to meet decent standards .
The scheme would be overseen by a ‘ Good Business ’ commission , comprising representatives of business , trade unions , environmental groups and tax justice campaigners , which would have the power to impose tough sanctions .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added : “ Conditions should be attached to government funding support both linked to the pandemic relief schemes but also to longer term benefits like tax relief and listing on the stock exchange.
” The Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington , who served as Shadow Chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn , wants the government to “ seize this opportunity to transform our business environment and stamp out bad business behaviour ” .
Giving his backing to the proposals , Scottish Labour ’ s Leonard said : “ For too long some big firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pockets have been allowed to exploit the taxpayer and their workers .
“ They have used loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while paying their workers poverty wages , and at the same time drawing on public money .
In the past decade , inequality in this country has rocketed .
The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer .
“ While this legislation is reserved to Westminster , as Scottish Labour leader I will not stand by and allow these practices to continue .
The ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credible proposals to effectively tackle tax avoidance head on , as well as fundamentally transforming the workplace and business environment for the better.
” Tech giants such as Amazon , Google and Apple would face sanctions , under McDonnell ’ s plan , for practices including the use of profit-shifting arrangements that allow them to pay tax in countries with lower rates .
Companies would only be eligible for state aid , tax reliefs and to be listed on the stock exchange if they adhere to good employment practices – from recognising trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promoting gender pay parity and shunning zero-hour contracts .
Environmental considerations would also be taken into account by the government , with firms being rewarded for adopting a strategy for achieving net-zero emissions within a decade to help meet the UK ’ s decarbonisation target .
As well as looking at tax avoidance schemes , the legislation would see the state consider whether firms include worker representatives on their boards and implement a pay ratio between the highest and average pay .
Ten minute rule bills allow backbench MPs to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lasting up to ten minutes in the House of Commons , which then decides whether or not the proposals should be introduced to parliament .

Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is set to bring forward a new bill in the House of Commons next week that will aim to block coronavirus financial support from the government going to “appalling employers”.
In his first intervention in the UK parliament since stepping down from the shadow cabinet when Keir Starmer was elected Labour leader, McDonnell plans to propose a ‘ten minute rule bill’ on business standards during the pandemic.
Under the scheme being presented by McDonnell on Wednesday, employers would be denied Covid aid if they use ‘fire and rehire’ tactics, which Starmer recently said should be outlawed, use zero-hour contracts, avoid tax or pollute the environment.
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard is set to give the UK bill a boost by declaring his support for the “serious and credible” proposed legislation – reserved to Westminster – in a motion at the Scottish parliament.
McDonnell said: “Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being paid to companies to help them get through the pandemic, so it is not much to ask that these companies abide by very basic good business practices of treating their employees decently, not harming our environment and paying their fair share in taxes.”
In his bid to prevent the government from “shelling out large sums of public money to subsidise poor business practice”, an accreditation scheme would be set up for firms able to meet decent standards.
The scheme would be overseen by a ‘Good Business’ commission, comprising representatives of business, trade unions, environmental groups and tax justice campaigners, which would have the power to impose tough sanctions.
On the detail of his bill, McDonnell added: “Conditions should be attached to government funding support both linked to the pandemic relief schemes but also to longer term benefits like tax relief and listing on the stock exchange.”
The Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, who served as Shadow Chancellor under Jeremy Corbyn, wants the government to “seize this opportunity to transform our business environment and stamp out bad business behaviour”.
Giving his backing to the proposals, Scottish Labour’s Leonard said: “For too long some big firms with the broadest shoulders and the deepest pockets have been allowed to exploit the taxpayer and their workers.
“They have used loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes while paying their workers poverty wages, and at the same time drawing on public money. In the past decade, inequality in this country has rocketed. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.
“While this legislation is reserved to Westminster, as Scottish Labour leader I will not stand by and allow these practices to continue. The ‘business standards’ bill includes serious and credible proposals to effectively tackle tax avoidance head on, as well as fundamentally transforming the workplace and business environment for the better.”
Tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Apple would face sanctions, under McDonnell’s plan, for practices including the use of profit-shifting arrangements that allow them to pay tax in countries with lower rates.
Companies would only be eligible for state aid, tax reliefs and to be listed on the stock exchange if they adhere to good employment practices – from recognising trade unions and paying the real living wage to promoting gender pay parity and shunning zero-hour contracts.
Environmental considerations would also be taken into account by the government, with firms being rewarded for adopting a strategy for achieving net-zero emissions within a decade to help meet the UK’s decarbonisation target.
As well as looking at tax avoidance schemes, the legislation would see the state consider whether firms include worker representatives on their boards and implement a pay ratio between the highest and average pay.
Ten minute rule bills allow backbench MPs to make their case for new legislation in a speech lasting up to ten minutes in the House of Commons, which then decides whether or not the proposals should be introduced to parliament.


labourlist--2020-09-26--The Scottish government and Universities Scotland have put profit before people

Over the past few weeks , students from across the UK and further afield have been either returning , or arriving for the first time , to Scottish universities .
Last week , freshers ’ events were held across Scotland in what ordinarily would have been an exciting time for incoming students , with the opportunity to make new friends , join societies and settle into university life more generally .
Then , two days ago , all of this changed with the announcement of harsh restrictions placed on students after Covid-19 outbreaks .
I can understand why you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrive on campus during a global health pandemic ?
Wasn ’ t an outbreak surely inevitable ?
” .
It is not uncommon to hear cries of how irresponsible and reckless students have been .
But this rhetoric is deeply unfair and detracts attention away from who is ultimately responsible : the Scottish government and Universities Scotland .
Most students were promised that they would receive ‘ blended learning ’ – a combination of both remote and in-person teaching .
However , we now know this is not the case , and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
This begs the question , why would universities make this promise to students , with the knowledge that learning was likely to be entirely remote , and in full awareness of the dangerously unnecessary risks of encouraging students to arrive on campus ?
The answer is painfully simple : the Scottish government and Universities Scotland have put profit before people .
Over the past few decades , higher education has seen turbo-charged marketisation .
By encouraging students to arrive on campus , universities have reaped the financial rewards of tuition fee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of residence .
It seems unimaginable that universities were not aware of the risks .
Murano Street Residences at the University of Glasgow , the largest student halls in Scotland and the epicentre of the Covid-19 outbreak , holds 1,579 rooms .
Surely the university could have predicted that throwing such large numbers of people into shared living spaces could only end in disaster ?
Why weren ’ t adequate measures taken during the summer to ensure that student accommodation would be safe to live in ?
Students were also lulled into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At my own university , the University of Glasgow , many Freshers ’ Week events were held in person .
There was a Freshers ’ Fair for societies and various events at the student unions , such as a vintage clothing sale .
The university ’ s Beer Bar was open during the evenings and often attracted queues of students .
All of this was not only permitted but actively encouraged by the university .
Yesterday , the news broke of 172 positive Covid cases at Murano Street Residences with various other outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Despite universities and the Scottish government having actively encouraged students to return to campuses and participate in freshers ’ events , the blame was immediately pinned on students .
That evening , the announcement was made that all students were banned from seeing anyone outside of their own accommodation or from visiting pubs , bars , cafes and restaurants .
Students were told that any breaches to these rules “ will not be tolerated ” .
Where does this leave students ?
Not only have we been scapegoated by the Scottish government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our accommodation without knowing when we will be able to see our families again .
First-year students are trapped in poor quality student halls , with people they have only just met , after having likely left home for the first time in their lives .
Extortionate accommodation fees are being paid , as well as grossly high tuition fees for non-Scottish students , without the academic and social experiences that this was promised to bring .
Students from within halls are already talking of feeling isolated and lonely .
Students who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are now trapped in an at-risk environment , seemingly unable to leave .
This is bound to be particularly difficult for students who have disabilities such as autism , learning difficulties or physical impairments .
No mention has been made of students who may have caring responsibilities .
Students who do not live in halls have also been included in restrictions , despite no clear evidence that they are part of the outbreak .
There has been no thought given to working-class students who rely on part-time employment to afford living costs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Children and Young People ’ s Commissioner Scotland has raised concerns regarding “ human rights implications ” .
Potentially , all of this could mean that students who are vulnerable , suffering from mental health problems , or reliant upon part-time work might drop out of university .
Due to austerity measures imposed by the Westminster and Holyrood governments , our mental health services are simply not fit to deal with the crisis that is bound to ensue from these conditions .
The Scottish government has already failed young people this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now they are failing young people again .
Where do we go from here ?
In the first instance , direct action is needed to protest the harsh measures and poor living conditions that first-year students face .
The Glasgow Uni rent strike campaign has already been established on social media to force commercialised universities to listen by impacting their profits .
Secondly , the Scottish government and Universities Scotland need to take responsibility for their part in causing this outbreak , rather than continuing to scapegoat students .
The government and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students , and on this they have totally failed .
Thirdly , the Scottish government need to commit to increased funding for youth mental health services so as to halt the downward trajectory of youth mental health conditions .
However , this would only deal with the symptoms .
If the Scottish government really want to help students and save higher education they need to deal with the cause and overturn the commercialisation of the sector .
Never again should profit come before the safety and wellbeing of students .

Over the past few weeks, students from across the UK and further afield have been either returning, or arriving for the first time, to Scottish universities. Last week, freshers’ events were held across Scotland in what ordinarily would have been an exciting time for incoming students, with the opportunity to make new friends, join societies and settle into university life more generally. Then, two days ago, all of this changed with the announcement of harsh restrictions placed on students after Covid-19 outbreaks.
I can understand why you might ask, “Why did students physically arrive on campus during a global health pandemic? Wasn’t an outbreak surely inevitable?”. It is not uncommon to hear cries of how irresponsible and reckless students have been. But this rhetoric is deeply unfair and detracts attention away from who is ultimately responsible: the Scottish government and Universities Scotland.
Most students were promised that they would receive ‘blended learning’ – a combination of both remote and in-person teaching. However, we now know this is not the case, and all learning will be remote for the foreseeable future. This begs the question, why would universities make this promise to students, with the knowledge that learning was likely to be entirely remote, and in full awareness of the dangerously unnecessary risks of encouraging students to arrive on campus? The answer is painfully simple: the Scottish government and Universities Scotland have put profit before people.
Over the past few decades, higher education has seen turbo-charged marketisation. By encouraging students to arrive on campus, universities have reaped the financial rewards of tuition fee payments and the sky-high costs of halls of residence. It seems unimaginable that universities were not aware of the risks. Murano Street Residences at the University of Glasgow, the largest student halls in Scotland and the epicentre of the Covid-19 outbreak, holds 1,579 rooms. Surely the university could have predicted that throwing such large numbers of people into shared living spaces could only end in disaster? Why weren’t adequate measures taken during the summer to ensure that student accommodation would be safe to live in?
Students were also lulled into a false sense of security by universities. At my own university, the University of Glasgow, many Freshers’ Week events were held in person. There was a Freshers’ Fair for societies and various events at the student unions, such as a vintage clothing sale. The university’s Beer Bar was open during the evenings and often attracted queues of students. All of this was not only permitted but actively encouraged by the university.
Yesterday, the news broke of 172 positive Covid cases at Murano Street Residences with various other outbreaks at universities such as Dundee and Aberdeen. Despite universities and the Scottish government having actively encouraged students to return to campuses and participate in freshers’ events, the blame was immediately pinned on students. That evening, the announcement was made that all students were banned from seeing anyone outside of their own accommodation or from visiting pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants. Students were told that any breaches to these rules “will not be tolerated”.
Where does this leave students? Not only have we been scapegoated by the Scottish government, but we have been confined to our accommodation without knowing when we will be able to see our families again. First-year students are trapped in poor quality student halls, with people they have only just met, after having likely left home for the first time in their lives. Extortionate accommodation fees are being paid, as well as grossly high tuition fees for non-Scottish students, without the academic and social experiences that this was promised to bring.
Students from within halls are already talking of feeling isolated and lonely. Students who are vulnerable to Covid due to health conditions are now trapped in an at-risk environment, seemingly unable to leave. This is bound to be particularly difficult for students who have disabilities such as autism, learning difficulties or physical impairments. No mention has been made of students who may have caring responsibilities. Students who do not live in halls have also been included in restrictions, despite no clear evidence that they are part of the outbreak. There has been no thought given to working-class students who rely on part-time employment to afford living costs. The situation is so utterly dire that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has raised concerns regarding “human rights implications”.
Potentially, all of this could mean that students who are vulnerable, suffering from mental health problems, or reliant upon part-time work might drop out of university. Due to austerity measures imposed by the Westminster and Holyrood governments, our mental health services are simply not fit to deal with the crisis that is bound to ensue from these conditions. The Scottish government has already failed young people this summer with the SQA exam fiasco, and now they are failing young people again.
Where do we go from here? In the first instance, direct action is needed to protest the harsh measures and poor living conditions that first-year students face. The Glasgow Uni rent strike campaign has already been established on social media to force commercialised universities to listen by impacting their profits.
Secondly, the Scottish government and Universities Scotland need to take responsibility for their part in causing this outbreak, rather than continuing to scapegoat students. The government and the universities had a duty of care to students, and on this they have totally failed.
Thirdly, the Scottish government need to commit to increased funding for youth mental health services so as to halt the downward trajectory of youth mental health conditions. However, this would only deal with the symptoms. If the Scottish government really want to help students and save higher education they need to deal with the cause and overturn the commercialisation of the sector. Never again should profit come before the safety and wellbeing of students.


labourlist--2020-09-27--Sunday shows: Labour calls for students to return home at Christmas

Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy confirmed that Labour wants students to be able to return home from university for Christmas , but would not call for tuition fees to be returned to students .
He appeared to criticise the 10pm pubs and restaurants closing time , though said Labour does not want to give mixed messages on Covid measures .
• On Labour ’ s call for students to return home at Christmas : “ Absolutely .
Obviously we want young people home with their families at Christmastime and they need the testing to make sure that can happen.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll have had the coronavirus for nine months .
That we couldn ’ t get a test , track and trace system in place by then has got to be described as pathetic .
Of course we should be able to get students back with their families.
” • On Mark Drakeford saying we must consider that students may not return for Christmas : “ Students have been done over on their A-Levels , they ’ ve been done over on freshers ’ week , the government is now having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When they graduate , we may be looking at long-term unemployment.
” • On whether students should get tuition fees back : “ Lots of universities are struggling financially… There ’ s a balance here to be struck.
” • On Labour backing the Brady amendment to force parliamentary votes on future Covid rules : “ What we ’ re clear on is that we need more transparency , there should be regular reviews so it ’ s coming back to parliament , and we should be debating rules for the country.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re very sympathetic to Graham Brady ’ s amendment… If our amendment is not picked , we ’ re sympathetic to Graham Brady ’ s. ” • On Sadiq Khan ’ s call for a London lockdown , Lammy listed Covid difficulties in the city and concluded : “ It ’ s very likely London will find itself in that situation.
” • On whether there is any science behind the 10pm pubs and restaurants closing time : “ No.
” • Asked why Labour was backing it : “ The truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have two different public health messages… The government is the lead , the government has the science.
” • But added : “ It does look like the 10pm – it ’ s not clear where that came from – has led to a situation where people are bubbling out of pubs , hanging around towns and potentially spread the virus.
” Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden claimed that there is “ definitely science behind ” the 10pm pubs and restaurants shutdown , although it has been revealed that the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dowden said he was “ a huge fan of the BBC ” but wanted it not to have a “ narrow metropolitan outlook ” .
Asked whether there had been “ behind the scenes conversations ” with Paul Dacre and Charles Moore for the BBC and Ofcom chair jobs , he replied : “ Of course I have conversations with people all the time , but there is a formal process.
” New leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey said he was “ hugely sympathetic ” to the Brady amendment and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in favour of it , explaining : “ My only concern is it doesn ’ t go far enough .
I like it very much.
” Shadow Culture Secretary Jo Stevens said the Chancellor ’ s new Covid support package would “ trigger mass unemployment like we have not seen since the 1980s ” and criticised potential new appointments to key roles at Ofcom and the BBC .
She also suggested Labour would support a move by backbench Tories to force a Commons vote on any new Covid restrictions .
• On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dacre and Charles Moore to leading roles at Ofcom and the BBC : “ I think the whole idea of announcing appointments before a process has actually taken place is a bit strange , and I think people will be wondering where the government ’ s priorities are on this.
” • She added : “ Why are the government interfering in that kind of thing when they should be concentrating on getting a grip on test and trace , keeping coronavirus rates under control and getting the economy back on track ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stance : “ I ’ m not going to comment on individuals being trailed as potential heads of the BBC or heads of Ofcom .
When an appointment is made and announced , we ’ ll take a position and we ’ ll take a view and comment on it then.
” • On criticisms of the BBC : “ I think if you look at the BBC , you ’ ll have people complaining that it ’ s too left-wing , you ’ ll have people complaining that it ’ s too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re both complaining suggests to me that it has probably got it somewhere right in the middle of it.
” • On the resumed ban on crowds attending sports games : “ We know that lower league clubs in football are completely reliant on ticket revenue and this is no different from any other sector of the economy where you need to have targeted support to the sectors that can ’ t operate or can barely operate.
” • On the Chancellor ’ s new economic package : “ The one-size-fits-all approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why the announcement this week from the Chancellor was so disappointing because , rather than target those specific sectors that need the help , he has taken a one-size-fits-all approach again and that ’ s not going to work , that ’ s going to help trigger mass unemployment like we have not seen since the 1980s.
” • On students facing campus lockdowns : “ We have to put safety and public health first , obviously .
But we have said , Labour has said , that we think students should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enable them to do that we need an effective test , trace and isolate system in place.
” • On Labour ’ s support for the Brady amendment : “ We have our own amendment , which we have tabled .
It will depend which ones the Speaker selects for a debate and a vote.
” • She added : “ If it ’ s selected , I think the likelihood is that we would back it but we would like to see our amendment debated and voted on , so let ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for.
” Tory backbencher and Brady amendment supporter Steve Baker criticised the government ’ s new coronavirus regulations , which have bypassed Commons scrutiny , saying : “ How do people think that liberty dies ?
It dies like this.
” Oliver Dowden insisted that “ everyone ’ s getting a little ahead of themselves ” in their speculation about the government ’ s future appointments to the BBC and Ofcom .
He said the government wants “ a strong , big person who can hold the BBC to account ” as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public broadcaster of currently only representing “ narrow metropolitan areas ” .

The Andrew Marr Show
Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy confirmed that Labour wants students to be able to return home from university for Christmas, but would not call for tuition fees to be returned to students. He appeared to criticise the 10pm pubs and restaurants closing time, though said Labour does not want to give mixed messages on Covid measures.
On Labour’s call for students to return home at Christmas: “Absolutely. Obviously we want young people home with their families at Christmastime and they need the testing to make sure that can happen.”
He added: “By Christmas, we’ll have had the coronavirus for nine months. That we couldn’t get a test, track and trace system in place by then has got to be described as pathetic. Of course we should be able to get students back with their families.”
On Mark Drakeford saying we must consider that students may not return for Christmas: “Students have been done over on their A-Levels, they’ve been done over on freshers’ week, the government is now having to lock them up at university. When they graduate, we may be looking at long-term unemployment.”
On whether students should get tuition fees back: “Lots of universities are struggling financially… There’s a balance here to be struck.”
On Labour backing the Brady amendment to force parliamentary votes on future Covid rules: “What we’re clear on is that we need more transparency, there should be regular reviews so it’s coming back to parliament, and we should be debating rules for the country.”
Pressed further: “We’re very sympathetic to Graham Brady’s amendment… If our amendment is not picked, we’re sympathetic to Graham Brady’s.”
On Sadiq Khan’s call for a London lockdown, Lammy listed Covid difficulties in the city and concluded: “It’s very likely London will find itself in that situation.”
On whether there is any science behind the 10pm pubs and restaurants closing time: “No.”
Asked why Labour was backing it: “The truth is there cannot be a situation where we have two different public health messages… The government is the lead, the government has the science.”
But added: “It does look like the 10pm – it’s not clear where that came from – has led to a situation where people are bubbling out of pubs, hanging around towns and potentially spread the virus.”
Students have been “done over on their A-levels” and the government is threatening to “lock them up” at university says Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy #Marr #coronavirus https://t.co/hQqxpz1Gig pic.twitter.com/BqAuv8rukZ — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 27, 2020
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden claimed that there is “definitely science behind” the 10pm pubs and restaurants shutdown, although it has been revealed that the government’s scientific advisory group never discussed it.
Dowden said he was “a huge fan of the BBC” but wanted it not to have a “narrow metropolitan outlook”. Asked whether there had been “behind the scenes conversations” with Paul Dacre and Charles Moore for the BBC and Ofcom chair jobs, he replied: “Of course I have conversations with people all the time, but there is a formal process.”
New leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey said he was “hugely sympathetic” to the Brady amendment and that his party would “almost certainly” vote in favour of it, explaining: “My only concern is it doesn’t go far enough. I like it very much.”
Ridge on Sunday
Shadow Culture Secretary Jo Stevens said the Chancellor’s new Covid support package would “trigger mass unemployment like we have not seen since the 1980s” and criticised potential new appointments to key roles at Ofcom and the BBC. She also suggested Labour would support a move by backbench Tories to force a Commons vote on any new Covid restrictions.
On reported plans to appoint BBC critics Paul Dacre and Charles Moore to leading roles at Ofcom and the BBC: “I think the whole idea of announcing appointments before a process has actually taken place is a bit strange, and I think people will be wondering where the government’s priorities are on this.”
She added: “Why are the government interfering in that kind of thing when they should be concentrating on getting a grip on test and trace, keeping coronavirus rates under control and getting the economy back on track?”
On Labour’s official stance: “I’m not going to comment on individuals being trailed as potential heads of the BBC or heads of Ofcom. When an appointment is made and announced, we’ll take a position and we’ll take a view and comment on it then.”
On criticisms of the BBC: “I think if you look at the BBC, you’ll have people complaining that it’s too left-wing, you’ll have people complaining that it’s too right-wing. And the fact that they’re both complaining suggests to me that it has probably got it somewhere right in the middle of it.”
On the resumed ban on crowds attending sports games: “We know that lower league clubs in football are completely reliant on ticket revenue and this is no different from any other sector of the economy where you need to have targeted support to the sectors that can’t operate or can barely operate.”
On the Chancellor’s new economic package: “The one-size-fits-all approach is not working. And that’s why the announcement this week from the Chancellor was so disappointing because, rather than target those specific sectors that need the help, he has taken a one-size-fits-all approach again and that’s not going to work, that’s going to help trigger mass unemployment like we have not seen since the 1980s.”
On students facing campus lockdowns: “We have to put safety and public health first, obviously. But we have said, Labour has said, that we think students should be allowed home at Christmas and to enable them to do that we need an effective test, trace and isolate system in place.”
On Labour’s support for the Brady amendment: “We have our own amendment, which we have tabled. It will depend which ones the Speaker selects for a debate and a vote.”
She added: “If it’s selected, I think the likelihood is that we would back it but we would like to see our amendment debated and voted on, so let’s see which one the Speaker goes for.”
It's been suggested that Paul Dacre and Charles Moore might be appointed to chair OFCOM and the BBC. People will wonder why the government is "interfering" there and not focusing on "getting a grip" on test and trace and coronavirus cases says Labour's @JoStevensLabour #Ridge pic.twitter.com/iYmmDRJIn4 — Sophy Ridge on Sunday (@RidgeOnSunday) September 27, 2020
Tory backbencher and Brady amendment supporter Steve Baker criticised the government’s new coronavirus regulations, which have bypassed Commons scrutiny, saying: “How do people think that liberty dies? It dies like this.”
Oliver Dowden insisted that “everyone’s getting a little ahead of themselves” in their speculation about the government’s future appointments to the BBC and Ofcom. He said the government wants “a strong, big person who can hold the BBC to account” as the new BBC chair, and accused the public broadcaster of currently only representing “narrow metropolitan areas”.


labourlist--2020-09-27--Labour overtakes Tories in voting intention for first time since July 2019

The Labour Party has overtaken the ruling Conservatives in polling on voting intention for the first time since July 2019 and for the first time since Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister according to fresh research by Opinium .
In a significant boost for new leader Keir Starmer , who was elected in April after the party suffered a devastating general electoral defeat , the new poll shows Labour on 42 % of the vote share , up three points from two weeks ago .
The Conservatives under Johnson ’ s leadership are down three points to 39 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s handling of the coronavirus crisis has reached its highest level – 50 % , a net of -20 – since the pandemic hit the UK .
Opinium has suggested that Starmer ’ s leadership is largely responsible for the Labour surge because nearly half of British voters polled – 46 % – say their opinion of the party has become more positive since he took over the mantle .
55 % say they can imagine Starmer as Prime Minister , while 36 % say they believe he would make the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who say the same for the current occupier of 10 Downing Street , Johnson .
But the polling also shows that voters are divided on whether Labour could form the next government , with 40 % thinking that the party could do so and 42 % not .
The figures indicate progress compared to July , when 36 % thought Labour was ready for the task and 47 % not .
Labour last had a poll lead over the Tories in July 2019 , with two points over the Conservatives as Theresa May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end .
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party were polling strongly at the time .
Commenting on the new polling results , which prompted Opinium ’ s chief executive to tweet the exploding head emoji on Saturday morning , the company ’ s head of political polling Adam Drummond said : “ The Labour Party has finally caught up with its leader in polling… “ Keir Starmer has had better approval ratings ( both raw and net ) than the Prime Minister for some time and the two leaders have tended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the better Prime Minister .
Now the Labour leader has pulled ahead on that measure as well , leading the Prime Minister by 36 % to 32 % .
” Although the government has recently announced new national Covid restrictions , the poll suggests that 45 % of the public believe the government is underreacting to the pandemic , with just 30 % thinking that it is acting proportionally .
Two thirds – 68 % – say the government has not acted fast enough to prevent the spread of coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration of being “ too slow ” – on the first lockdown , on testing and more .
Polling by Opinium in mid-March , before the UK lockdown , had the Tories on 49 % in terms of voting intention , with Labour well behind on 32 % – a gap of 17 points .
At that point , 44 % approved of the government ’ s handling of Covid .
Opinium Research carried out an online survey of 2,002 UK adults aged 18+ from September 23rd to 25th 2020 .
Results have @ @ @ @ @ @

The Labour Party has overtaken the ruling Conservatives in polling on voting intention for the first time since July 2019 and for the first time since Boris Johnson took over as Prime Minister according to fresh research by Opinium.
In a significant boost for new leader Keir Starmer, who was elected in April after the party suffered a devastating general electoral defeat, the new poll shows Labour on 42% of the vote share, up three points from two weeks ago.
The Conservatives under Johnson’s leadership are down three points to 39%, as public disapproval over the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis has reached its highest level – 50%, a net of -20 – since the pandemic hit the UK.
Opinium has suggested that Starmer’s leadership is largely responsible for the Labour surge because nearly half of British voters polled – 46% – say their opinion of the party has become more positive since he took over the mantle.
55% say they can imagine Starmer as Prime Minister, while 36% say they believe he would make the best Prime Minister – compared to 32% who say the same for the current occupier of 10 Downing Street, Johnson.
But the polling also shows that voters are divided on whether Labour could form the next government, with 40% thinking that the party could do so and 42% not. The figures indicate progress compared to July, when 36% thought Labour was ready for the task and 47% not.
Labour last had a poll lead over the Tories in July 2019, with two points over the Conservatives as Theresa May’s premiership was coming to an end. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party were polling strongly at the time.
Commenting on the new polling results, which prompted Opinium’s chief executive to tweet the exploding head emoji on Saturday morning, the company’s head of political polling Adam Drummond said: “The Labour Party has finally caught up with its leader in polling…
“Keir Starmer has had better approval ratings (both raw and net) than the Prime Minister for some time and the two leaders have tended to draw on the question of who would be the better Prime Minister. Now the Labour leader has pulled ahead on that measure as well, leading the Prime Minister by 36% to 32%.”
Although the government has recently announced new national Covid restrictions, the poll suggests that 45% of the public believe the government is underreacting to the pandemic, with just 30% thinking that it is acting proportionally.
Two thirds – 68% – say the government has not acted fast enough to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Starmer has repeatedly accused Johnson’s administration of being “too slow” – on the first lockdown, on testing and more.
Polling by Opinium in mid-March, before the UK lockdown, had the Tories on 49% in terms of voting intention, with Labour well behind on 32% – a gap of 17 points. At that point, 44% approved of the government’s handling of Covid.
Opinium Research carried out an online survey of 2,002 UK adults aged 18+ from September 23rd to 25th 2020. Results have been weighted to representative criteria.


labourlist--2020-09-28--WATCH: Students used as “cash cows” by universities, says Labour MP

Siobhan McDonagh has accused universities of treating their students like “ cash cows ” and argued the UK needs to consider refunds for students as thousands face campus lockdowns .
The Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden told viewers on the BBC ’ s Politics Live programme this afternoon that the Covid outbreaks at universities “ could have been anticipated ” by the government .
Commenting on proposals to reduce fees for students facing lockdown in their campus accommodation , McDonagh said : “ They certainly should have a look at it .
It does seem like they being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Any of these problems , surely could have been anticipated before term started .
Students like to have fun , like to go out in fresher ’ s week – that ’ s not news to anyone is it.
” Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green called on her counterpart Gavin Williamson over the weekend to delay the start of university terms this year until mass testing is available on campuses .
In a letter to the Education Secretary , she said : “ The key to students staying safe on campus is testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , universities like Leicester and Cambridge are developing their own testing capacity .
“ What steps is your department taking to ensure that every university that wishes to do so is able to deliver this capacity on their campus ?
And what progress is the government making to ensure there is sufficient testing capacity in university communities to ensure those who have symptoms can be tested quickly ?
” 1,700 students at Manchester Metropolitan University , who have been forced to quarantine for a fortnight , have been banned from leaving their flats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test at a walk-in centre less than a mile away .
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard previously accused the SNP of “ punishing ” students for its own “ incompetence ” after Nicola Sturgeon ’ s administration announced a variety of specific restrictions for students in Scotland .

Siobhan McDonagh has accused universities of treating their students like “cash cows” and suggested that the UK should consider refunds for students as thousands face campus lockdowns.
The Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden told viewers on the BBC’s Politics Live programme this afternoon that the Covid outbreaks at universities “could have been anticipated” by the government.
Commenting on proposals to reduce fees for students facing lockdown in their campus accommodation, McDonagh said: “They certainly should have a look at it. It does seem like they being used as cash cows in a way…
“Any of these problems, surely could have been anticipated before term started. Students like to have fun, like to go out in fresher’s week – that’s not news to anyone, is it?”
"It does seem that they are being used as cash cows” says Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh on students paying full university fees but getting online lessons Conservative MP Henry Smith calls for “flexibility”#politicslive https://t.co/axR19jflC0 pic.twitter.com/EjTPl4SmZa — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 28, 2020
Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green called on her counterpart Gavin Williamson over the weekend to delay the start of university terms this year until mass testing is available on campuses.
In a letter to the Education Secretary, she said: “The key to students staying safe on campus is testing… Despite the government’s inaction, universities like Leicester and Cambridge are developing their own testing capacity.
“What steps is your department taking to ensure that every university that wishes to do so is able to deliver this capacity on their campus? And what progress is the government making to ensure there is sufficient testing capacity in university communities to ensure those who have symptoms can be tested quickly?”
1,700 students at Manchester Metropolitan University, who have been forced to quarantine for a fortnight, have been banned from leaving their flats – even to get a test at a walk-in centre less than a mile away.
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard has accused the SNP of “punishing” students for its own “incompetence” after Nicola Sturgeon’s administration announced a variety of restrictions for students in Scotland.