labourlist--2020-03-03--Labour must reject nationalism for an inclusive definition of community

How to reconnect with communities in places that we have lost in the general election has become one of the main talking points in Labour ’ s leadership race .
The various leader and deputy campaigns have offered their own analysis of what went wrong for us and how to turn the tide , but on a general note , everyone in Labour agrees that ’ empowerment of communities ’ in some shape or form lies at the heart of our electoral rehabilitation .
Less clear in the contest so far is what Labour ’ s leadership hopefuls mean when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We speak of towns vs cities , ‘ heartlands ’ and the ‘ Red Wall ’ with – so far – little definition of who it actually is that we seek to reach out to and win back or win over .
This loose discussion centred on an abstract concept of a community has at times felt a bit uneasy .
Too often , immigrant and ethnic minority communities have not been included in a definition of community articulated by politicians .
If Labour wants to put forward a progressive definition of community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migrants at rest , we need our leaders to adopt policies that are not just inclusive in rhetoric but also treat us as equal citizens .
This will also be key to building an electoral coalition based on solidarity .
For a definition of community to be inclusive , we must reject nationalism , racism and xenophobia .
Whilst the most vulgar elements of the far right will attack migrant and minority communities with slurs and violence , institutional racism and xenophobia is often more subtle ; woven into the fabric of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into our public discourse , through exclusionary – but not necessarily outright aggressive , and therefore harder to spot – language .
Labour members and representatives are not immune from consolidating the harmful nationalist narrative that benefits the Conservative Party .
There is a simple reason why pandering to nationalism will , in the end , always benefit the right : it is a tool employed by the ruling class to maintain their power and put blame for their failings somewhere else .
People are told that as citizens they are members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we know that in Britain this could not be further from the truth .
The recently published Marmot report has shown that people in the most deprived parts of the country are more likely to die prematurely than those living in more affluent parts .
Homelessness is rising .
And class still determines educational and job outcomes : those who are born privileged are more likely to remain so , whereas working-class young people have higher obstacles to overcome .
The national community is , as this illustrates , a smoke screen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and housing that exist between working-class Britons and the upper and middle classes .
The difference in quality of life between the poorest and richest people in Britain is stark .
But to shift the blame for this away from themselves , Britain ’ s upper classes have found the perfect scapegoats : immigrants .
One example of this is the public discussion around migrants ’ rights to access the NHS .
But the political framing of free movement , and plans to increase investment in education and skills as it ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The government is claiming that with the end of free movement , jobs and training opportunities will be made available for British people again .
Free movement , they argue , has helped to “ undercut ” the native worker and meant that businesses felt no need to train their employees or offer better terms and conditions .
This line of thinking has been replicated by the Labour Party for years and the leadership contest is sadly no different : for example , deputy frontrunner Angela Rayner said during party hustings that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , but rather focus on skills investment for British youths .
And leadership candidate Lisa Nandy wrote in The Independent that people in her constituency felt free movement meant “ opportunities for other people ” .
Rather than challenging these false assumptions , Nandy was vague in her proposed solutions and talked about “ listening to concerns ” instead .
The same triangulation was illustrated by Rebecca Long-Bailey in a campaign video in which she is speaking to Leave voters .
The voter said that immigration doesn ’ t bother her in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impact on public services .
In response , Long-Bailey highlighted the role of austerity but did not clearly challenge the assumption that immigration was at least partly to blame for longer GP waiting times .
She then rounded off her response by acknowledging the need for a “ fair ” immigration system .
It is a strange framing from labour movement figures to imply that it was not worth demanding fair pay and training for migrant workers – but that now that we might see an increase in British people in these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the natural consequence .
Equally , what constitutes a ‘ fair ’ immigration system might be very different for the Leave voters interviewed in Long-Bailey ’ s video , and families suffering from the consequences of the Windrush scandal or struggling to apply for settled status .
Anti-austerity politics rooted in a racialisation of welfare spending and skills investment will maintain a national community that regards immigrants and people of colour as second-class citizens , whilst the situation of working-class Brits will not improve .
This is the Conservative Party ’ s ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat it , Labour ’ s triangulation must stop .

How to reconnect with communities in places that we have lost in the general election has become one of the main talking points in Labour’s leadership race. The various leader and deputy campaigns have offered their own analysis of what went wrong for us and how to turn the tide, but on a general note, everyone in Labour agrees that ’empowerment of communities’ in some shape or form lies at the heart of our electoral rehabilitation.
Less clear in the contest so far is what Labour’s leadership hopefuls mean when they talk about ‘communities’. We speak of towns vs cities, ‘heartlands’ and the ‘Red Wall’ with – so far – little definition of who it actually is that we seek to reach out to and win back or win over. This loose discussion centred on an abstract concept of a community has at times felt a bit uneasy.
Too often, immigrant and ethnic minority communities have not been included in a definition of community articulated by politicians. If Labour wants to put forward a progressive definition of community and put the minds of minorities and migrants at rest, we need our leaders to adopt policies that are not just inclusive in rhetoric but also treat us as equal citizens. This will also be key to building an electoral coalition based on solidarity.
For a definition of community to be inclusive, we must reject nationalism, racism and xenophobia. Whilst the most vulgar elements of the far right will attack migrant and minority communities with slurs and violence, institutional racism and xenophobia is often more subtle; woven into the fabric of this country, through its laws and integrated into our public discourse, through exclusionary – but not necessarily outright aggressive, and therefore harder to spot – language.
Labour members and representatives are not immune from consolidating the harmful nationalist narrative that benefits the Conservative Party. There is a simple reason why pandering to nationalism will, in the end, always benefit the right: it is a tool employed by the ruling class to maintain their power and put blame for their failings somewhere else.
People are told that as citizens they are members of a national community of equals. But we know that in Britain this could not be further from the truth. The recently published Marmot report has shown that people in the most deprived parts of the country are more likely to die prematurely than those living in more affluent parts. Homelessness is rising. And class still determines educational and job outcomes: those who are born privileged are more likely to remain so, whereas working-class young people have higher obstacles to overcome.
The national community is, as this illustrates, a smoke screen to obscure these different experiences of work, health and housing that exist between working-class Britons and the upper and middle classes. The difference in quality of life between the poorest and richest people in Britain is stark. But to shift the blame for this away from themselves, Britain’s upper classes have found the perfect scapegoats: immigrants. One example of this is the public discussion around migrants’ rights to access the NHS.
But the political framing of free movement, and plans to increase investment in education and skills as it ends, also falls under this umbrella. The government is claiming that with the end of free movement, jobs and training opportunities will be made available for British people again. Free movement, they argue, has helped to “undercut” the native worker and meant that businesses felt no need to train their employees or offer better terms and conditions.
This line of thinking has been replicated by the Labour Party for years and the leadership contest is sadly no different: for example, deputy frontrunner Angela Rayner said during party hustings that we should not “open up our borders”, but rather focus on skills investment for British youths. And leadership candidate Lisa Nandy wrote in The Independent that people in her constituency felt free movement meant “opportunities for other people”. Rather than challenging these false assumptions, Nandy was vague in her proposed solutions and talked about “listening to concerns” instead.
The same triangulation was illustrated by Rebecca Long-Bailey in a campaign video in which she is speaking to Leave voters. The voter said that immigration doesn’t bother her in itself, but she was concerned about the impact on public services. In response, Long-Bailey highlighted the role of austerity but did not clearly challenge the assumption that immigration was at least partly to blame for longer GP waiting times. She then rounded off her response by acknowledging the need for a “fair” immigration system.
It is a strange framing from labour movement figures to imply that it was not worth demanding fair pay and training for migrant workers – but that now that we might see an increase in British people in these jobs, better pay and conditions are the natural consequence. Equally, what constitutes a ‘fair’ immigration system might be very different for the Leave voters interviewed in Long-Bailey’s video, and families suffering from the consequences of the Windrush scandal or struggling to apply for settled status.
Anti-austerity politics rooted in a racialisation of welfare spending and skills investment will maintain a national community that regards immigrants and people of colour as second-class citizens, whilst the situation of working-class Brits will not improve. This is the Conservative Party’s ‘divide and rule’ strategy. To beat it, Labour’s triangulation must stop.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Campaign donations for Keir Starmer published on parliamentary register

A further set of campaign donations received by Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer have been released with the latest update of the parliamentary register .
This comes after rival contenders Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy released their funding sources independently of parliament , by publishing directly on their own campaign websites .
The Camden MP opted instead to follow the usual rules for MPs by relying on the register of members ’ financial interests , which was updated with the latest information this afternoon .
The largest donation of the new tranche came from Robert Latham , a Camden Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street Chambers – like Starmer .
He is a specialist in housing law .
As well as Latham ’ s £100,000 donation , there are a number of smaller contributions that have been registered , including several in-kind ones from Trust Reservations for stays in hotels for Starmer and his team .
Trust Reservations is a company used by the Labour Party for its annual conference , and its director is Labour donor Farah Sassoon who is also helping Angela Rayner with fundraising according to a reliable source .
The other financial contributions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £5,000 from human rights barrister Richard Hermer and £2,500 from Labour Lambeth councillor Iain Simpson .
The total amount declared by Starmer so far during the leadership election for his campaign is £125,521 .
This is not the total received , as MPs are given 30 days between accepting a donation and having to declare it .
The mailshot issued by the Camden MP ’ s campaign , which saw every Labour member sent a promotional poster , is estimated to have cost £280,000 , plus there will have been high staffing costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest donations declared by Starmer via the parliamentary website will not have covered other contributions received after February 3rd .
This is in line with rules set by the Registrar and Labour .
Voting in Labour ’ s leader and deputy contests will continue until April 2nd – though it is thought that the vast majority of those who vote do so shortly after the ballots open .

A further set of campaign donations received by Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer have been released with the latest update of the parliamentary register.
This comes after rival contenders Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy released their funding sources independently of parliament, by publishing directly on their own campaign websites.
The Camden MP opted instead to follow the usual rules for MPs by relying on the register of members’ financial interests, which was updated with the latest information this afternoon.
The largest donation of the new tranche came from Robert Latham, a Camden Labour activist and barrister who practised at Doughty Street Chambers – like Starmer. He is a specialist in housing law.
As well as Latham’s £100,000 donation, there are a number of smaller contributions that have been registered, including several in-kind ones from Trust Reservations for stays in hotels for Starmer and his team.
Trust Reservations is a company used by the Labour Party for its annual conference, and its director is Labour donor Farah Sassoon who is also helping Angela Rayner with fundraising according to a reliable source.
The other financial contributions over £1,500 that have been released are £5,000 from human rights barrister Richard Hermer and £2,500 from Labour Lambeth councillor Iain Simpson.
The total amount declared by Starmer so far during the leadership election for his campaign is £125,521. This is not the total received, as MPs are given 30 days between accepting a donation and having to declare it.
The mailshot issued by the Camden MP’s campaign, which saw every Labour member sent a promotional poster, is estimated to have cost £280,000, plus there will have been high staffing costs.
It is therefore expected that the latest donations declared by Starmer via the parliamentary website will not have covered other contributions received after February 3rd. This is in line with rules set by the Registrar and Labour.
Voting in Labour’s leader and deputy contests will continue until April 2nd – though it is thought that the vast majority of those who vote do so shortly after the ballots open.


labourlist--2020-03-03--London’s mayoral election is nothing less than a referendum on rent controls

Since day one of my mayoralty I have made tackling London ’ s housing crisis one of my top priorities .
I ’ m proud of the progress that we ’ ve been able to make despite Brexit uncertainty affecting the construction sector and the huge mess left by the last Tory administration .
When I took office , the pipeline of affordable housing was close to empty .
Rather than building the homes Londoners need , Boris Johnson had instead prioritised luxury penthouse apartments for overseas investors .
It ’ s taken time to undo his damaging legacy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right direction .
Over the last two years , for example , we ’ ve started building more genuinely affordable homes in London than in any year since the mayor was given responsibility for affordable housing .
We ’ ve also started more new council homes than in any year since 1984 , given tenants the right to vote on estate regeneration plans and doubled our homelessness outreach teams .
If I am re-elected on May 7th , I will continue to stand up for Londoners bearing the brunt of our city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City Hall is given the power to introduce rent controls in the capital .
Today , I launch my re-election campaign by declaring that the forthcoming contest is nothing less than a referendum on rent controls .
Voters will face a clear choice between a Labour mayor who will continue to stand up for renters , or a Tory candidate who has shown he will oppose the measures needed to help Londoners struggling with the cost of living .
London gave me the chance to go from the council estate where I grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city on earth .
But I fear that if my Tory opponent gets into City Hall , many Londoners will be forced out of our city due to skyrocketing rents and denied the same opportunities to fulfil their potential .
It ’ s clear that in recent years , London ’ s private rents have spiralled out of control – between 2010 and 2020 , rents rose by 27 % .
The average private rent for a one-bedroom home in London is now more than the average for a three-bed home in every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not like it , but Londoners need rent controls now .
This election is a two-horse race and we will need the help of our amazing Labour members to win .
Please lend your support , and help ensure that our rent control plans in the capital become a reality .
You can find Labour campaign events in your area here .

Since day one of my mayoralty I have made tackling London’s housing crisis one of my top priorities. I’m proud of the progress that we’ve been able to make despite Brexit uncertainty affecting the construction sector and the huge mess left by the last Tory administration.
When I took office, the pipeline of affordable housing was close to empty. Rather than building the homes Londoners need, Boris Johnson had instead prioritised luxury penthouse apartments for overseas investors. It’s taken time to undo his damaging legacy, but we’re now heading in the right direction.
Over the last two years, for example, we’ve started building more genuinely affordable homes in London than in any year since the mayor was given responsibility for affordable housing. We’ve also started more new council homes than in any year since 1984, given tenants the right to vote on estate regeneration plans and doubled our homelessness outreach teams.
If I am re-elected on May 7th, I will continue to stand up for Londoners bearing the brunt of our city’s housing crisis by demanding that City Hall is given the power to introduce rent controls in the capital. Today, I launch my re-election campaign by declaring that the forthcoming contest is nothing less than a referendum on rent controls.
Voters will face a clear choice between a Labour mayor who will continue to stand up for renters, or a Tory candidate who has shown he will oppose the measures needed to help Londoners struggling with the cost of living.
London gave me the chance to go from the council estate where I grew up to being mayor of the greatest city on earth. But I fear that if my Tory opponent gets into City Hall, many Londoners will be forced out of our city due to skyrocketing rents and denied the same opportunities to fulfil their potential.
It’s clear that in recent years, London’s private rents have spiralled out of control – between 2010 and 2020, rents rose by 27%. The average private rent for a one-bedroom home in London is now more than the average for a three-bed home in every other region of England. The Tories might not like it, but Londoners need rent controls now.
This election is a two-horse race and we will need the help of our amazing Labour members to win. Please lend your support, and help ensure that our rent control plans in the capital become a reality. You can find Labour campaign events in your area here.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Jon Trickett calls on Keir Starmer to publish campaign donations

Update , 4.30pm : The latest tranche of Starmer ’ s donations have now been published by the parliamentary website , and can be found here .
Jon Trickett has called on Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer to publish the donations made to his campaign , saying that to do so after people have voted is “ undemocratic ” .
Ballots are open and voting is currently taking place to elect the next Labour leader .
Both of Starmer ’ s rivals – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy – have released funding lists .
Trickett has today called on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said that voters deserve to know the details of the candidate ’ s backers “ before they cast their vote ” .
He said : “ Keir Starmer promised last week that he would publish his donations yesterday but there is still no sign of them .
We need to put an end to the secrecy surrounding political donations , which means political donations being declared in real time .
“ Whether it ’ s in general elections or internal party elections , delaying publishing donations until the vast majority of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserve to know what lies behind the candidates they are being asked to vote for , before they cast their vote , not afterwards.
” Long-Bailey was the first of the Labour leadership contenders to publish her funding on her website , followed shortly afterwards by Nandy .
A source on Starmer ’ s campaign said that the donations have been registered with the parliamentary authority under its processes , as required by the national executive committee ( NEC ) .
They added : “ And the regular reminder that Jon is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this process works.
” The Holborn and St Pancras said last week that the “ next tranche ” of information would “ probably ” be published on the parliamentary site on Monday , yesterday .
As yet , his register of interests page has not been updated and he has not issued an independent release through his own campaign website .
Voting in the leader and deputy contests will continue until April 2nd – however it is thought that the vast majority of those who vote do so shortly after the ballots open @

Update, 4.30pm: The latest tranche of Starmer’s donations have now been published by the parliamentary website, and can be found here.
Jon Trickett has called on Labour leadership candidate Keir Starmer to publish the donations made to his campaign, saying that to do so after people have voted is “undemocratic”.
Ballots are open and voting is currently taking place to elect the next Labour leader. Both of Starmer’s rivals – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Lisa Nandy – have released funding lists.
Trickett has today called on the Camden MP to do the same, and said that voters deserve to know the details of the candidate’s backers “before they cast their vote”.
He said: “Keir Starmer promised last week that he would publish his donations yesterday but there is still no sign of them. We need to put an end to the secrecy surrounding political donations, which means political donations being declared in real time.
“Whether it’s in general elections or internal party elections, delaying publishing donations until the vast majority of people have voted is entirely undemocratic. Voters deserve to know what lies behind the candidates they are being asked to vote for, before they cast their vote, not afterwards.”
Long-Bailey was the first of the Labour leadership contenders to publish her funding on her website, followed shortly afterwards by Nandy.
A source on Starmer’s campaign said that the donations have been registered with the parliamentary authority under its processes, as required by the national executive committee (NEC).
They added: “And the regular reminder that Jon is a member of the NEC so knows how this process works.”
The Holborn and St Pancras said last week that the “next tranche” of information would “probably” be published on the parliamentary site on Monday, yesterday.
As yet, his register of interests page has not been updated and he has not issued an independent release through his own campaign website.
Voting in the leader and deputy contests will continue until April 2nd – however it is thought that the vast majority of those who vote do so shortly after the ballots open.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Labour bracing for “one of its worst” local election results

A leaked poll has suggested that the Labour Party is bracing for “ one of its worst ” results in the upcoming local elections later this year .
The public will head to the polls in May this year to vote for their council representatives in 118 local authorities .
An internal party document passed to the BBC said that the party should prepare to lose control of Labour-held councils across the country .
Based on the general election result , the analysis predicts a “ bounce in the polls for the Tories ” and says “ we fully expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research produced three separate models using varying polling methodology .
In the worst-case scenario predicted , the party loses control of nine councils .
In every model , Plymouth , Harlow in Essex , Amber Valley in Derbyshire and West Lancashire are lost .
Labour loses Southampton in two and in one , Labour loses Sheffield .
The only gains that the party is predicted to make are the Wirral and Burnley , where Labour is already the biggest party in a council with no overall control .
A spokesperson for the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of the challenge we face on May 7th and we will be fighting for every vote in the local elections.
” The document does note that , given that Labour will have a new leader by the time of the elections , “ there may be changes in the level of support for the major parties ” .
The local elections will be the first challenge for the new Labour leader , and they will have little over a month in the position before polling day .
Voting is taking place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Rebecca Long-Bailey will replace Jeremy Corbyn , and the result will be announced on April 4th .

A leaked internal report has suggested that the Labour Party is bracing for “one of its worst” results in the upcoming local elections later this year.
The public will head to the polls in May this year to vote for their council representatives in 118 local authorities, as well as 36 police and crime commissioners and eight directly-elected mayors.
An internal party document passed to the BBC indicated that the party was preparing to lose control of a number of currently Labour-held councils across the country.
Based on the general election result, the analysis predicts a “bounce in the polls for the Tories” and says “we fully expect to lose hard-working councillors”.
The research produced three separate models using varying polling methodology. In the worst-case scenario predicted, the party loses control of nine councils.
In every model, Plymouth, Harlow in Essex, Amber Valley in Derbyshire and West Lancashire are lost. Labour loses Southampton in two and in one, Labour loses Sheffield.
The only gains that the party is predicted to make are the Wirral and Burnley, where Labour is already the biggest party in a council with no overall control.
A spokesperson for the Labour Party said: “We recognise the scale of the challenge we face on May 7th and we will be fighting for every vote in the local elections.”
The document does note that, given that Labour will have a new leader by the time of the elections, “there may be changes in the level of support for the major parties”.
The local elections will be the first challenge for the new Labour leader, and they will have little over a month in the position before polling day.
Voting is taking place to decide whether Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy or Rebecca Long-Bailey will replace Jeremy Corbyn, and the result will be announced on April 4th.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Only 6% of newly appointed Commons select committee members are BAME

Only 6 % of all members of the newly appointed House of Commons select committees are BAME , despite BAME MPs making up 10 % of all parliamentarians .
MPs are only now taking their places on the select committees following the reconvening of parliament after the general election in December .
The number of BAME parliamentarians increased to 65 , or 10 % of all MPs , at the election – but this proportion has not been reflected in the Commons committees .
Of the 28 newly elected chairs of the House of Commons select committees , not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current members of the committees , only 6 % are BAME .
28 % of new chairs are women while 34 % of the overall membership are woman , which corresponds to 34 % of parliamentarians elected last year being women .
Amid the appointments , Labour ’ s Tan Dhesi became the first BAME person to sit on the defence select committee in the history of its existence .
After his initial election to parliament in 2017 , Dhesi also served as a member of the housing , communities and local government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said : “ It is an honour to join the defence select committee , after having been a member during the last two years of the housing , communities and local government select committee .
“ I ’ m looking forward to learning more about our armed forces , to strengthen my understanding of our legislation surrounding defence and to make more informed decisions on this important issue.
” Select committees are appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure , administration , and policy of government departments and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutinise various things , including the administration of the House itself or allegations about the conduct of individual MPs , for example .
A proportion of the membership is given to each party depending on the number of their MPs , and the members are then selected through internal party elections .
To stand to be the chair of a select committee , an MP must secure the signatures of 15 colleagues from their party , or 10 % of their party depending on which is lowest .
All MPs then vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including their work and membership can be found on the UK parliament website .

Only 6% of all members of the newly appointed House of Commons select committees are BAME, despite BAME MPs making up 10% of all parliamentarians.
MPs are only now taking their places on the select committees following the reconvening of parliament after the general election in December.
The number of BAME parliamentarians increased to 65, or 10% of all MPs, at the election – but this proportion has not been reflected in the Commons committees.
Of the 28 newly elected chairs of the House of Commons select committees, not one is BAME. And of the total current members of the committees, only 6% are BAME.
28% of new chairs are women while 34% of the overall membership are woman, which corresponds to 34% of parliamentarians elected last year being women.
Amid the appointments, Labour’s Tan Dhesi became the first BAME person to sit on the defence select committee in the history of its existence.
After his initial election to parliament in 2017, Dhesi also served as a member of the housing, communities and local government select committee.
Commenting on his appointment, he said: “It is an honour to join the defence select committee, after having been a member during the last two years of the housing, communities and local government select committee.
“I’m looking forward to learning more about our armed forces, to strengthen my understanding of our legislation surrounding defence and to make more informed decisions on this important issue.”
Select committees are appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of government departments and their associated bodies.
The committees can scrutinise various things, including the administration of the House itself or allegations about the conduct of individual MPs, for example.
A proportion of the membership is given to each party depending on the number of their MPs, and the members are then selected through internal party elections.
To stand to be the chair of a select committee, an MP must secure the signatures of 15 colleagues from their party, or 10% of their party depending on which is lowest. All MPs then vote by secret ballot.
Information on the committees, including their work and membership can be found on the UK parliament website.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Homeless people are dying in bins while ministers fiddle the figures

A man was found dead in a commercial bin in Southwark last week .
Stories like this one are becoming more common as the government refuses to properly acknowledge the extent of the housing crisis and its impact on rough sleeping .
There have been seven fatalities in the last five years due to people sleeping in bins , according to The Mirror .
The story in north Wales focused on two children aged about nine or ten sleeping in a recycling skip narrowly avoiding being tipped into a crusher .
The alertness of operatives is crucial it seems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 100 near-misses of a similar nature in just nine months last year .
If only the government were more alert to the problem , created by its own policies , of rough sleeping .
David Cameron and Nick Clegg , followed by Theresa May and now Boris Johnson , have allowed rough sleeping and dangerous situations like these to rocket .
The five-week wait for Universal Credit is known to have contributed to homelessness , yet ministers have repeatedly failed to act on this evidence .
Cuts to mental health services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued Home Office hostile environment policies axing most help to some families even with British-born children are all having a devastating impact .
The failure to build enough council homes at the same time as increasing demand for council services but cutting local authority budgets all compounds the problem and leaves people in desperate situations .
We will know if the government begins to care because it will bother to measure the scale of the problem .
Currently , there is only an estimate of rough sleeping .
There is no adequate measurement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on a one-night assessment of the problem .
These figures are provided by councils that are already strapped for resources ; often submit desk-based guesstimates ; and can not possibly check every street , doorway , stairwell , bin cupboard or commercial bin or recycling skip in their community in a single evening – and do not seriously try .
Even using this very dodgy estimate , ministers claiming rough sleeping fell 9 % last year would still be a decade away from ending the problem they have created .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this parliament .
The reality is that government ministers have ignored the two homeless people dying daily , the children sleeping in recycling bins , and rough sleepers being crushed to death in bin lorries .
Ministers could ensure deaths are at least investigated .
Safeguarding reviews could examine if the death of anyone crushed in a bin lorry could have been avoided .
If housing could have been identified .
If a mental health intervention might have helped .
If they were fleeing violence or exploitation elsewhere .
But reviews do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to date , avoided requiring them routinely .
That must change .

A man was found dead in a commercial bin in Southwark last week. Stories like this one are becoming more common as the government refuses to properly acknowledge the extent of the housing crisis and its impact on rough sleeping.
There have been seven fatalities in the last five years due to people sleeping in bins, according to The Mirror. The story in north Wales focused on two children aged about nine or ten sleeping in a recycling skip narrowly avoiding being tipped into a crusher. The alertness of operatives is crucial it seems, as it is claimed that there were over 100 near-misses of a similar nature in just nine months last year.
If only the government were more alert to the problem, created by its own policies, of rough sleeping. David Cameron and Nick Clegg, followed by Theresa May and now Boris Johnson, have allowed rough sleeping and dangerous situations like these to rocket.
The five-week wait for Universal Credit is known to have contributed to homelessness, yet ministers have repeatedly failed to act on this evidence. Cuts to mental health services, drug and alcohol treatment services and the continued Home Office hostile environment policies axing most help to some families even with British-born children are all having a devastating impact. The failure to build enough council homes at the same time as increasing demand for council services but cutting local authority budgets all compounds the problem and leaves people in desperate situations.
We will know if the government begins to care because it will bother to measure the scale of the problem. Currently, there is only an estimate of rough sleeping. There is no adequate measurement. Ministers claim rough sleeping is falling based on a one-night assessment of the problem. These figures are provided by councils that are already strapped for resources; often submit desk-based guesstimates; and cannot possibly check every street, doorway, stairwell, bin cupboard or commercial bin or recycling skip in their community in a single evening – and do not seriously try.
Even using this very dodgy estimate, ministers claiming rough sleeping fell 9% last year would still be a decade away from ending the problem they have created. But the Tory manifesto committed to ending rough sleeping in this parliament. The reality is that government ministers have ignored the two homeless people dying daily, the children sleeping in recycling bins, and rough sleepers being crushed to death in bin lorries.
Ministers could ensure deaths are at least investigated. Safeguarding reviews could examine if the death of anyone crushed in a bin lorry could have been avoided. If housing could have been identified. If a mental health intervention might have helped. If they were fleeing violence or exploitation elsewhere. But reviews do not take place and the government has, to date, avoided requiring them routinely. That must change.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Sadiq Khan demands new powers as he seeks a mandate for rent controls

Sadiq Khan has launched his re-election campaign in Hackney this morning .
Speaking at a housing estate , the Labour incumbent delivered a fresh pledge to stand up for the 2.4 million renters in the capital , and declared that the election in May will be a referendum on introducing rent controls .
The specifics are yet to be worked out , but Khan proposed a new private rent commission , with renters on its board , to implement and enforce measures to control rents and keep them at lower levels .
Other European and American cities have brought in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues .
The problem is that the mayor of London currently has no statutory power over the sector – and the government has simply refused to grant him any .
But last year the mayor commissioned a report to explore how and what controls could be introduced , and set out the powers that the government should devolve .
By couching it in terms of a referendum , the mayor is portraying the government at odds with the people ; Boris Johnson would be “ ignoring the democratic will of millions ” – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government is expected to publish its plan for combatting the coronavirus this morning .
Three more people tested positive for the virus yesterday , bringing the total number in the UK to 39 .
Johnson will hold a press conference at 10.30am to discuss the measures his government will put in place .
Labour ’ s John McDonnell has set out his five-point plan to deal with the potential economic impact of the outbreak – including working with businesses and trade unions to assess impact and needs ; planning requirements for resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the economy ; ensuring protections for workers , such as sick pay ; and working with international bodies and ministers of finance .
And the Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has called on the government to pass emergency legislation to ensure that all workers receive sick pay from day one .
Local elections , taking place in 118 councils across the country in May , will be the first electoral challenge for the new Labour leader – whoever it may be .
Unfortunately , an internal document given to the BBC has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of its worst ” local election defeats ever .
It sets out three different scenarios – in the worst case , Labour would lose 315 seats and the control of several local authorities including strongholds such as Sheffield .
Either Keir Starmer , Rebecca Long-Bailey or Nandy will be in place from April 4th , and will have little over a month to make an impact on the outcome .
As the leadership contest rumbles on , all eyes are on Starmer and his campaign funding .
Both Nandy and Long-Bailey published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure is mounting on the Camden MP to do the same .
He is choosing to use his parliamentary webpage to declare donations as per the usual rules for MPs – whereas the others have simply published the information independently .
Although Starmer said last week that the “ next tranche ” of information would “ probably ” be published on the site on Monday , his register of interests was not updated and there is no sign of an independent release .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything @ @ @ @ @ @

Sadiq Khan has launched his re-election campaign in Hackney this morning. Speaking at a housing estate, the Labour incumbent delivered a fresh pledge to stand up for the 2.4 million renters in the capital, and declared that the election in May will be a referendum on introducing rent controls. The specifics are yet to be worked out, but Khan proposed a new private rent commission, with renters on its board, to implement and enforce measures to control rents and keep them at lower levels. Other European and American cities have brought in such controls with great effect, he argues. The problem is that the mayor of London currently has no statutory power over the sector – and the government has simply refused to grant him any. But last year the mayor commissioned a report to explore how and what controls could be introduced, and set out the powers that the government should devolve. By couching it in terms of a referendum, the mayor is portraying the government at odds with the people; Boris Johnson would be “ignoring the democratic will of millions” – sound familiar?
In other news, the government is expected to publish its plan for combatting the coronavirus this morning. Three more people tested positive for the virus yesterday, bringing the total number in the UK to 39. Johnson will hold a press conference at 10.30am to discuss the measures his government will put in place. Labour’s John McDonnell has set out his five-point plan to deal with the potential economic impact of the outbreak – including working with businesses and trade unions to assess impact and needs; planning requirements for resources across government departments; making strategic interventions in the economy; ensuring protections for workers, such as sick pay; and working with international bodies and ministers of finance. And the Labour leadership candidate Lisa Nandy has called on the government to pass emergency legislation to ensure that all workers receive sick pay from day one.
Local elections, taking place in 118 councils across the country in May, will be the first electoral challenge for the new Labour leader – whoever it may be. Unfortunately, an internal document given to the BBC has warned the party to brace for “one of its worst” local election defeats ever. It sets out three different scenarios – in the worst case, Labour would lose 315 seats and the control of several local authorities including strongholds such as Sheffield. Either Keir Starmer, Rebecca Long-Bailey or Nandy will be in place from April 4th, and will have little over a month to make an impact on the outcome. As the leadership contest rumbles on, all eyes are on Starmer and his campaign funding. Both Nandy and Long-Bailey published lists of donations last week and the pressure is mounting on the Camden MP to do the same. He is choosing to use his parliamentary webpage to declare donations as per the usual rules for MPs – whereas the others have simply published the information independently. Although Starmer said last week that the “next tranche” of information would “probably” be published on the site on Monday, his register of interests was not updated and there is no sign of an independent release. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-03-04--Tories receive £1.5m in donations from polluting industries and climate deniers

The Conservatives have received nearly £1.5m in donations from polluting industries and funders of climate change denial in the past three months .
Analysis by DeSmog UK of information published by the Electoral Commission shows that the party has received substantial donations from JCB and London City Airport , among others .
British multinational JCB , which manufactures heavy machinery , has made several donations to the Tories including two of £700,000 each , while London City Airport donated £12,500 .
Donations amounting to £20,000 were recorded from a company called Offshore Group Newcastle , which produces steel for North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a funder of climate sceptic think tank GWPF , gave cash to Priti Patel , Andrea Leadsom , Robert Halfon , Mark Garnier and Penny Mordaunt .
The research shows that the total sum of donations to the Conservatives from high-carbon industries amounts to £1,448,478 in the past three months .
Commenting on the findings , shadow minister Alan Whitehead said : “ News that the Conservative Party is funded by fossil fuel interests raises worrying questions about Tory sincerity on net zero and the green economy .
“ Nothing has changed since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare a climate emergency , and millions of pounds of tax relief are being funnelled by this government towards fossil fuel interests .
“ Businesses rarely hand over money for no reason , the question for the Conservative Party is , what have these companies bought ?
” Labour put forward a motion in parliament last year to declare a climate emergency , making the UK the first country in the world to have done so .
At the last election , the Conservatives set a target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaffirmed that commitment .
However , Jeremy Corbyn recently highlighted in Prime Minister ’ s Questions that the government is badly failing and is on track to reach this net-zero target by 2099 .

The Conservatives have received nearly £1.5m in donations from polluting industries and funders of climate change denial in the past three months.
Analysis by DeSmog UK of information published by the Electoral Commission shows that the party has received substantial donations from JCB and London City Airport, among others.
British multinational JCB, which manufactures heavy machinery, has made several donations to the Tories including two of £700,000 each, while London City Airport donated £12,500.
Donations amounting to £20,000 were recorded from a company called Offshore Group Newcastle, which produces steel for North Sea oil rigs.
Michael Hintze, a funder of climate sceptic think tank GWPF, gave cash to Priti Patel, Andrea Leadsom, Robert Halfon, Mark Garnier and Penny Mordaunt.
The research shows that the total sum of donations to the Conservatives from high-carbon industries amounts to £1,448,478 in the past three months.
Commenting on the findings, shadow minister Alan Whitehead said: “News that the Conservative Party is funded by fossil fuel interests raises worrying questions about Tory sincerity on net zero and the green economy.
“Nothing has changed since parliament accepted Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency, and millions of pounds of tax relief are being funnelled by this government towards fossil fuel interests.
“Businesses rarely hand over money for no reason, the question for the Conservative Party is, what have these companies bought?”
Labour put forward a motion in parliament last year to declare a climate emergency, making the UK the first country in the world to have done so.
At the last election, the Conservatives set a target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the Prime Minister has since reaffirmed that commitment.
However, Jeremy Corbyn recently highlighted in Prime Minister’s Questions that the government is badly failing and is on track to reach this net-zero target by 2099.


labourlist--2020-03-04--Disappointing results for the left, plus coronavirus and flooding in the UK

This is not the most encouraging time for the left , to put it lightly .
UK Labour is preparing for significant losses at the upcoming local elections in May , with every scenario set out by a leaked internal document predicting that Labour will lose control of Plymouth , Harlow , Amber Valley and West Lancashire .
In Israel , Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed victory , and polling shows that young Israelis are much more likely to be right-wing and oppose a two-state solution than their older counterparts .
Labour left members who were keenly following the US Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results of Super Tuesday – or Super Thursday , as comeback kid Joe Biden likes to call it .
At the moment , it looks like the November election could be between two men who are rarely coherent in speech and have both faced allegations of inappropriate conduct with women .
Of course , as a moderate Democrat , Biden does not endorse Medicare for All but instead favours a public health insurance option that bestows the gift of ‘ choice ’ to Americans .
On that stark reminder of the need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the coronavirus outbreak that has given the UK government a rude awakening .
The TUC , GMB , Lisa Nandy and others have done excellent work highlighting the urgent issue of nearly two million workers not being eligible for sick pay .
This situation forces those people – including 34 % of those on zero-hour contracts , 10 % of women in work , and a whopping 62 % of workers aged 16-24 , according to the TUC – to ‘ choose ’ between self-isolation and no pay .
Despite the blatant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harm others , there is no sign so far of the government preparing to introduce emergency legislation as called for by Labour .
Following Prime Minister ’ s Questions at midday , Labour will also call attention to the inadequate government response to flooding in the UK .
The party will put forward an opposition day motion that demands an independent review to look at funding , defences and prevention and ensure that lessons are learnt .
The second motion will be on health inequalities , as explored by Jon Ashworth on LabourList @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two leadership candidates who have not yet been grilled by Andrew Neil – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer – will be put to the test .
How will they fare ?
We ’ ll find out from 7pm tonight .
• Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer on The Andrew Neil Show ( 7pm )

This is not the most encouraging time for the left, to put it lightly. UK Labour is preparing for significant losses at the upcoming local elections in May, with every scenario set out by a leaked internal document predicting that Labour will lose control of Plymouth, Harlow, Amber Valley and West Lancashire. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed victory, and polling shows that young Israelis are much more likely to be right-wing and oppose a two-state solution than their older counterparts.
Labour left members who were keenly following the US Democratic primaries will also be disappointed with the results of Super Tuesday – or Super Thursday, as comeback kid Joe Biden likes to call it. At the moment, it looks like the November election could be between two men who are rarely coherent in speech and have both faced allegations of inappropriate conduct with women. Of course, as a moderate Democrat, Biden does not endorse Medicare for All but instead favours a public health insurance option that bestows the gift of ‘choice’ to Americans.
On that stark reminder of the need to defend our beloved NHS, we turn to the coronavirus outbreak that has given the UK government a rude awakening. The TUC, GMB, Lisa Nandy and others have done excellent work highlighting the urgent issue of nearly two million workers not being eligible for sick pay. This situation forces those people – including 34% of those on zero-hour contracts, 10% of women in work, and a whopping 62% of workers aged 16-24, according to the TUC – to ‘choose’ between self-isolation and no pay. Despite the blatant injustice for those concerned and potential to harm others, there is no sign so far of the government preparing to introduce emergency legislation as called for by Labour.
Following Prime Minister’s Questions at midday, Labour will also call attention to the inadequate government response to flooding in the UK. The party will put forward an opposition day motion that demands an independent review to look at funding, defences and prevention and ensure that lessons are learnt. The second motion will be on health inequalities, as explored by Jon Ashworth on LabourList last week. And later tonight, the two leadership candidates who have not yet been grilled by Andrew Neil – Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer – will be put to the test. How will they fare? We’ll find out from 7pm tonight.
Today…


labourlist--2020-03-04--Labour set to release new party political broadcast celebrating local councillors

The Labour Party is set to release a new political broadcast this evening that will celebrate the work of local councillors in their communities ahead of elections in May .
Airing on BBC1 and ITV1 this evening , the four-and-a-half-minute film takes viewers through some examples of the achievements of Labour ’ s local representatives .
The piece sees residents from Salford interviewed about a flood basin proposed , designed and funded by the council , which protected their homes from flooding .
Other work picked up on includes ramps for those with mobility issues in Hastings , a refugee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brighton .
The video is being broadcast ahead of elections taking place in May , which will see 118 local authorities contested , as well as 36 police and crime commissioners and eight directly-elected mayors .
A leaked internal report based on analysis of the 2019 general election has suggested that Labour is braced for “ one of its worst ” results ever on May 7th .
The research produced three separate models using varying polling methodology .
In the worst-case scenario predicted , the party loses control of nine councils .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The upcoming local elections will be the first challenge for Labour ’ s new leader , and they will have little over a month of being in post before polling day .
Voting is taking place to decide whether Keir Starmer , Lisa Nandy or Rebecca Long-Bailey will replace Jeremy Corbyn , and the result will be announced on April 4th .

The Labour Party is set to release a new political broadcast this evening that will celebrate the work of local councillors in their communities ahead of elections in May.
Airing on BBC1 and ITV1 this evening, the four-and-a-half-minute film takes viewers through some examples of the achievements of Labour’s local representatives.
Update 9am, March 5th: The video has now been broadcast.
"If we all band together, we can get things like this." Our latest TV advert. pic.twitter.com/hFn3M9qLpM — Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) March 4, 2020
The piece sees residents from Salford interviewed about a flood basin proposed, designed and funded by the council, which protected their homes from flooding.
Other work picked up on includes ramps for those with mobility issues in Hastings, a refugee teaching program in Bradford and defibrillator installations in Brighton.
The video is being broadcast ahead of elections taking place in May, which will see 118 local authorities contested, as well as 36 police and crime commissioners and eight directly-elected mayors.
A leaked internal report based on analysis of the 2019 general election has suggested that Labour is braced for “one of its worst” results ever on May 7th.
The research produced three separate models using varying polling methodology. In the worst-case scenario predicted, the party loses control of nine councils. In the best, four are lost.
The upcoming local elections will be the first challenge for Labour’s new leader, and they will have little over a month of being in post before polling day.
Voting is taking place to decide whether Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy or Rebecca Long-Bailey will replace Jeremy Corbyn, and the result will be announced on April 4th.


labourlist--2020-03-04--Labour calls for independent review of government response to flooding

Labour is set to call for an independent review into the government ’ s response to the recent flooding in the UK and the “ adequacy of the funding ” for flood defences .
The party will put forward a motion during an opposition day debate on Wednesday in which MPs will discuss the impact of the floods on communities and businesses in affected areas .
Commenting ahead of the debate , Labour accused the Prime Minister of being “ missing in action ” , and highlighted that it follows years of Tory cuts to the environment agency , councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new Shadow Secretary of State for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs , said : “ Boris Johnson has proved himself to be a part-time Prime Minister who is unwilling to help communities and businesses that have suffered terribly because of the floods.
” Jeremy Corbyn heavily criticised Boris Johnson during Prime Minister ’ s Questions last week for his failure to visit affected communities and for not convening COBRA , which he eventually did on Monday .
Pollard added : “ There needs to be an independent review into the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flood-hit communities .
“ We need to know how many homes and businesses have been affected , and what additional funding will be made available to local authorities and emergency services.
” The Met Office has declared that last month was the wettest February on record with an average of 202.1mm falling last month .
Over the course of storm Ciara , the Environment Agency issued 186 flood alerts and 251 flood warnings , while storm Dennis is believed to have caused the worst winter floods in recent times .
Thousands of houses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected and many people were evacuated from their homes .
Johnson did not call a meeting of COBRA throughout the disruption , despite having done so when flooding occurred in the run-up to the election in December .
Corbyn accused him of not doing so this time because there were no votes at stake , and said that the Prime Minister had shown “ his true colours ” .
A recent study demonstrated that 20,000 homes not protected by the government ’ s insurance scheme , are also not protected by flood defences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scape Group , government spending on vital flood defences across England has fallen by £64m since 2015 .
Last year , the Environment Agency said that £1bn per year was needed to tackle flooding and coastal erosion – between more than £600m to £800m than the amount spent since 2010 .

Labour is set to call for an independent review into the government’s response to the recent flooding in the UK and the “adequacy of the funding” for flood defences.
The party will put forward a motion during an opposition day debate on Wednesday in which MPs will discuss the impact of the floods on communities and businesses in affected areas.
Commenting ahead of the debate, Labour accused the Prime Minister of being “missing in action”, and highlighted that it follows years of Tory cuts to the environment agency, councils and emergency services.
Luke Pollard, the new Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “Boris Johnson has proved himself to be a part-time Prime Minister who is unwilling to help communities and businesses that have suffered terribly because of the floods.”
Jeremy Corbyn heavily criticised Boris Johnson during Prime Minister’s Questions last week for his failure to visit affected communities and for not convening COBRA, which he eventually did on Monday.
Pollard added: “There needs to be an independent review into the government’s woefully slow response to help flood-hit communities.
“We need to know how many homes and businesses have been affected, and what additional funding will be made available to local authorities and emergency services.”
The Met Office has declared that last month was the wettest February on record with an average of 202.1mm falling last month.
Over the course of storm Ciara, the Environment Agency issued 186 flood alerts and 251 flood warnings, while storm Dennis is believed to have caused the worst winter floods in recent times.
Thousands of houses and businesses across England and Wales were affected and many people were evacuated from their homes.
Johnson did not call a meeting of COBRA throughout the disruption, despite having done so when flooding occurred in the run-up to the election in December.
Corbyn accused him of not doing so this time because there were no votes at stake, and said that the Prime Minister had shown “his true colours”.
A recent study demonstrated that 20,000 homes not protected by the government’s insurance scheme, are also not protected by flood defences.
According to a report by the Scape Group, government spending on vital flood defences across England has fallen by £64m since 2015.
Last year, the Environment Agency said that £1bn per year was needed to tackle flooding and coastal erosion – between more than £600m to £800m than the amount spent since 2010.


labourlist--2020-03-03--Keir Starmer campaign donations updated on parliamentary register


labourlist--2020-03-04--WATCH: Starmer and Long-Bailey interviews in 6 clips

Both of the Labour leadership frontrunners , Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey , were interviewed by Andrew Neil this evening @ @ @ @ @ summary here , and watch the key moments below .
Keir Starmer on Jeremy Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ his donors and supporting continued freedom of movement… Rebecca Long-Bailey criticises Keir Starmer , admits @ @ @ @ @ and says she should have called out antisemitism at a recent event…

Both of the Labour leadership frontrunners, Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey, were interviewed by Andrew Neil this evening. You can read our summary here, and watch the key moments below.
Keir Starmer on Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, naming his donors and supporting continued freedom of movement…
Keir Starmer asked about Lord Falconer claiming the leadership contender was “appalled by the awfulness of Corbyn leadership” “I don’t speak outside the shadow cabinet” but adds: “I served Jeremy for 3.5 years… I worked well with him”#AndrewNeilShow https://t.co/8XcBz7ltqz pic.twitter.com/4fFy2oCO0X — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
Why has Keir Starmer not named all of his donors? The leadership contender says he is “following the rules” agreed ahead of the campaign and “not hiding behind the process” His funders are “unions, crowdfunding and individual donations”#AndrewNeilShow https://t.co/8XcBz7ltqz pic.twitter.com/wRuHEEKGsx — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
Would freedom of movement continue under PM Keir Starmer? He tells @afneil that “if it boils down to ‘do you want immigration, yes/no?’ we are going absolutely nowhere”#AndrewNeilShow https://t.co/8XcBz7ltqz pic.twitter.com/YPBEakic9B — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
Rebecca Long-Bailey criticises Keir Starmer, admits to working on PFI contracts and says she should have called out antisemitism at a recent event…
“I don’t know what Keir’s policy ideas are if I am honest” Rebecca Long-Bailey is asked by @afneil to name policy differences between her and Sir Keir Starmer#AndrewNeilShow https://t.co/8XcBz7ltqz pic.twitter.com/2OEYni8hTK — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
Rebecca Long-Bailey on her work as a solicitor: “You couldn’t not work on PFI” as it was “the only game in town” @afneil asks how was she defending the NHS, as she claimed, while working on private finance initiative (PFI) deals#AndrewNeilShow https://t.co/8XcBz7ltqz pic.twitter.com/CFz2h8R1GP — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020


labourlist--2020-03-04--Andrew Neil exposes key weakness of Labour leadership frontrunners

Andrew Neil got the chance to interview the two frontrunners in Labour ’ s main leadership contest tonight .
Both Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey waited until now , ten days after ballots started dropping , whereas Lisa Nandy took the risky move of being grilled early back in January , which paid off .
Unlike that interview , in which Nandy skilfully avoided blunders and came across as supremely confident , the BBC ’ s top Rottweiler effectively exposed the key weakness of Starmer and Long-Bailey this evening .
Starmer went first .
As always , he very carefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has been “ running a very positive campaign ” – refusing to be negative about either the outgoing leader or his rivals in the contest .
Starmer stayed on message with a focus on party unity , and stuck by his pledges to keep key Labour left policies such as scrapping tuition fees and taking water , rail , mail and energy into public ownership .
These commitments may have surprised Neil , whose politics no doubt means he thinks they ’ re absurd , but they came as no surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer stuck by his decision to quit the shadow cabinet in 2016 and his early declaration for Remain in a second referendum .
He did get more uncomfortable when accused of undermining Corbyn on Brexit , calling this “ utter nonsense ” , and claimed that he only backed Remain after the public vote policy had been adopted by Labour .
Starmer also offered a less than convincing answer on his backing for continued freedom of movement .
He explained that “ there ’ s a lot of respect people have when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ getting past the soundbite , do you want immigration , yes/ no ” means ‘ Red Wall ’ voters usually agree with the policy .
The obvious problem with that plan is that being Labour leader doesn ’ t consist of talking in person to each and every voter Labour needs to win back – certainly Starmer would get very far if he were able to do just that , there is no doubt .
Instead , it means facing a media onslaught on a daily basis , having every statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never having the time to get beyond the uncharitable headline .
If elected , he will need a better plan than relying on his face-to-face persuasion skills .
Long-Bailey had a tougher time .
She did commit news , as they say , by admitting that she worked on PFI contracts as a solicitor before entering politics .
“ You couldn ’ t not work on PFI if you were doing an NHS estate , ” she told Neil .
Her spokesperson Matt Zarb-Cousin tweeted that this was “ perfectly reasonable ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightly scrutinised over his past backing of big pharma in the 2016 race and it is only reasonable for Long-Bailey to be confronted with similar questions now .
It is not so much the detail of the that matters in this contest , rather it shows Long-Bailey has not had a long history in the labour movement .
This is a blessing and a curse .
Corbyn inspired members thanks to his record of fighting the good fight for many decades ( and indeed Starmer has similarly used his past to win left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his lengthy political career also made it easier to attack his record .
In an internal election , however , being a ‘ Jenny come lately ’ to Labour – as Neil put it – has hurt Long-Bailey ’ s chances by depressing the enthusiasm of the Labour left for her candidacy .
The other news line that came out of Long-Bailey ’ s interview was that she expressed regret for not calling out the antisemitism of an activist at a recent event .
This is not a case of failing to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awful summer of 2018 – Neil was raising concerns about something that happened last month , when a man spoke to Long-Bailey about “ people like Margaret Hodge , John Mann , Tom Watson ” being “ all members of the Israeli lobby ” .
She agreed that it was antisemitic , adding : “ In my response I thought at the time that I ’ d been implicit in explaining why this particular gentleman was wrong .
But with retrospect I should have called that out directly.
” This exchange won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the antisemitism crisis in Labour is overblown , and it won ’ t satisfy anyone deeply hurt by the handling of antisemitism who wants a marked improvement .
And the fact that she said “ should have ” about an incident as recent as last month is all the more damaging .
The line of questioning by Neil highlighted the key concerns about the two leadership hopefuls .
Long-Bailey on PFI contracts showed why many Labour left members have been more enthused by Richard Burgon than her leadership bid , while her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Starmer revealed a couple of moments of irritation , which must be nipped in the bud – we saw how this only got worse under pressure with Corbyn .
Starmer also failed say anything newsworthy .
This has been a consistent feature of his campaign .
That is commendable on the one hand , and his success in avoiding traps set by the media – such as the 10/10 rating question – has been praised by Labour members across the country in nomination meetings .
But it presents a challenge for Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , the cameras will turn away , as Lisa Nandy says .
Can he grab public attention when necessary ?
Is his safety-first approach a permanent fixture , or can he adapt ?
Holding the Prime Minister to account at the despatch box is essential , but other requirements include a vibrant activist base and a leadership figure with a bit of personality who can appeal to voters in interviews .

Andrew Neil got the chance to interview the two frontrunners in Labour’s main leadership contest tonight. Both Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey waited until now, ten days after ballots started dropping, whereas Lisa Nandy took the risky move of being grilled early back in January, which paid off. Unlike that interview, in which Nandy skilfully avoided blunders and came across as supremely confident, the BBC’s top Rottweiler effectively exposed the key weakness of Starmer and Long-Bailey this evening.
Starmer went first. As always, he very carefully avoided criticising Jeremy Corbyn and repeatedly stressed that he has been “running a very positive campaign” – refusing to be negative about either the outgoing leader or his rivals in the contest. Starmer stayed on message with a focus on party unity, and stuck by his pledges to keep key Labour left policies such as scrapping tuition fees and taking water, rail, mail and energy into public ownership. These commitments may have surprised Neil, whose politics no doubt means he thinks they’re absurd, but they came as no surprise to anyone following the race closely.
Starmer stuck by his decision to quit the shadow cabinet in 2016 and his early declaration for Remain in a second referendum. He did get more uncomfortable when accused of undermining Corbyn on Brexit, calling this “utter nonsense”, and claimed that he only backed Remain after the public vote policy had been adopted by Labour. Starmer also offered a less than convincing answer on his backing for continued freedom of movement. He explained that “there’s a lot of respect people have when you do have a conversation with them” and “getting past the soundbite, do you want immigration, yes/ no” means ‘Red Wall’ voters usually agree with the policy.
The obvious problem with that plan is that being Labour leader doesn’t consist of talking in person to each and every voter Labour needs to win back – certainly Starmer would get very far if he were able to do just that, there is no doubt. Instead, it means facing a media onslaught on a daily basis, having every statement you make reported in bad faith and never having the time to get beyond the uncharitable headline. If elected, he will need a better plan than relying on his face-to-face persuasion skills.
Long-Bailey had a tougher time. She did commit news, as they say, by admitting that she worked on PFI contracts as a solicitor before entering politics. “You couldn’t not work on PFI if you were doing an NHS estate,” she told Neil. Her spokesperson Matt Zarb-Cousin tweeted that this was “perfectly reasonable” , but we know that Owen Smith was rightly scrutinised over his past backing of big pharma in the 2016 race and it is only reasonable for Long-Bailey to be confronted with similar questions now.
It is not so much the detail of the PFI issue that matters in this contest, rather it shows Long-Bailey has not had a long history in the labour movement. This is a blessing and a curse. Corbyn inspired members thanks to his record of fighting the good fight for many decades (and indeed Starmer has similarly used his past to win left credentials in this race), but his lengthy political career also made it easier to attack his record. In an internal election, however, being a ‘Jenny come lately’ to Labour – as Neil put it – has hurt Long-Bailey’s chances by depressing the enthusiasm of the Labour left for her candidacy.
The other news line that came out of Long-Bailey’s interview was that she expressed regret for not calling out the antisemitism of an activist at a recent event. This is not a case of failing to act at some point last year or the awful summer of 2018 – Neil was raising concerns about something that happened last month, when a man spoke to Long-Bailey about “people like Margaret Hodge, John Mann, Tom Watson” being “all members of the Israeli lobby”. She agreed that it was antisemitic, adding: “In my response I thought at the time that I’d been implicit in explaining why this particular gentleman was wrong. But with retrospect I should have called that out directly.”
This exchange won’t please members of the party who think the antisemitism crisis in Labour is overblown, and it won’t satisfy anyone deeply hurt by the handling of antisemitism who wants a marked improvement. And the fact that she said “should have” about an incident as recent as last month is all the more damaging.
The line of questioning by Neil highlighted the key concerns about the two leadership hopefuls. Long-Bailey on PFI contracts showed why many Labour left members have been more enthused by Richard Burgon than her leadership bid, while her answers on antisemitism underscored an important weakness. Starmer revealed a couple of moments of irritation, which must be nipped in the bud – we saw how this only got worse under pressure with Corbyn.
Starmer also failed to say anything newsworthy. This has been a consistent feature of his campaign. That is commendable on the one hand, and his success in avoiding traps set by the media – such as the 10/10 rating question – has been praised by Labour members across the country in nomination meetings. But it presents a challenge for Labour in the coming years. After this election, the cameras will turn away, as Lisa Nandy says. Can he grab public attention when necessary? Is his safety-first approach a permanent fixture, or can he adapt? Holding the Prime Minister to account at the despatch box is essential, but other requirements include a vibrant activist base and a leadership figure with a bit of personality who can appeal to voters in interviews.


labourlist--2020-03-04--How Labour’s next leader should approach House of Lords reform

Everyone running to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party is committed to fundamental change of parliament ’ s upper chamber – the House of Lords – and want it reformed or abolished .
This is not new for Labour leaders , who have traditionally called for a change of this kind .
I it is only the detail of the new arrangement on which Rebecca Long-Bailey , Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer could disagree .
How many members of the reformed chamber should there be ?
How would they be selected ?
And what different powers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These questions go straight to the heart of the future of our parliamentary democracy .
The first point worth making is that a second chamber is worth having .
To have only a House of Commons would be to create a parliamentary dictatorship : the majority will get whatever they want , whenever they want it .
There would be no more substantive scrutiny than the government wanted to entertain .
A great means for enacting manifesto commitments quickly , but no way to govern well .
So long as the body continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointments to the House of Lords .
The alternative is to let this body slowly wither on the vine , or at least slowly extinguish Labour ’ s place in it .
Until the Lords is changed , Labour would be choosing to make holding the government to account more difficult .
Labour must do the best it can with the powers currently at its disposal .
A second chamber can , and does , play an invaluable role .
The House of Lords is a chamber of scrutiny where detailed analysis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a wealth of experience and expertise .
A distinctive feature of our parliament is that we have world-leading experts in medicine and science as well as the arts , humanities and social sciences able to introduce bills and help scrutinise legislation , as well as serve on parliamentary committees .
But this leads directly to the main concern that very many will rightly have with the House of Lords : its undemocratic foundations .
Members are unelected , with a small number of seats either inherited or given to the Church of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and expertise , but the selection process raises many issues and many more questions .
Until the institution is changed , the next leader should adopt Corbyn ’ s idea of nominating only those committed to the democratic transformation of the Lords .
And what then ?
Reform is a thornier issue than it might seem at first glance .
Making the Lords democratic will have consequences , as a democratic mandate could justify more powers .
This would fundamentally change the relationship between the Commons and the Lords .
The gridlock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its elected representatives and senators could arrive in Westminster .
While the Lords must be democratised , it should aim to enhance , rather than disrupt , the delicate balance between the two chambers .
The by-elections of hereditary peers must end .
This was previously proposed by Lord Grocott , and gained strong cross-party support .
Their membership has no place in 21st-century Britain .
Numbers also matter .
The second chamber should not be larger than the first , nor anything like the size it is today .
There is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a report by Lord Burns , although this has been blocked by the government .
These plans should not be shelved so that the government can pile up patronage .
Some argue that the Lords should be elected through a proportional system .
In other words , winning 40 % of the popular vote does not mean 40 % of MPs , but it should earn that share in the Lords .
Individual Lords would not contest elections , but the appropriate number would take their seats based on the election results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate for a similar profile of peers today , in terms of experience and expertise , but as a potentially ineffective scrutiny chamber if its majority always mirrors the same party ’ s majority in the Commons .
Alternatively , the Lords should become senators running for election like MPs with their own mandate .
The appeal is to have a chamber of similar democratic legitimacy to the other .
But , again , the potential cost is significant in terms of constitutional balance .
If a senate had its own democratic mandate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gridlock with neither side having any need to give ground to the other as noted above .
This raises the question of constituencies .
If elected peers or senators are not MPs , then on what basis might they be selected ?
The same population electing MPs ?
Apportioned by regions and , if so , which ones ?
One particularly interesting idea is to introduce a model of federalism , as raised during the leadership contest by Keir Starmer .
This is a powerful , structural way to bring about a radical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go far beyond Westminster , to local communities as well .
If the Lords is to become a different kind of body , it must have a different kind of mandate .
This presents a great opportunity to rethink its size , shape and popular legitimacy that extends far beyond numbers .
We must must challenge the system of patronage , as it is often perceived , in the eyes of the public .
With all Labour leadership candidates calling for radical reform of the House of Lords , one point on which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a royal commission on its future .
This would be an advisory public consultation about a fundamental part of our democracy ’ s future , such as part of a broader constitutional convention .
This is not a new idea .
A Labour government held a royal commission , led by Lord Wakeham , about 20 years ago .
It recommended cutting the Lords to 550 members , having an independent body make most appointments to tackle peerages as patronage , creating regional membership for a minority through proportional representation , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that hereditary peers should be removed .
Two decades later , it is time for Labour to run a new royal commission on similar terms as before , but also reflecting on a new federal structure .
Perhaps it will come to similar conclusions as Wakeham .
However – the public must be widely consulted and various options explored .
It is critically important that we get the size , selection and structure right to improve public confidence .
Working these plans into a broader constitutional convention would help join things up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the better , from schools to the NHS and beyond .
And we have begun the work on reforming the House of Lords for the better .
Much work remains to be done .
We must be resolute in our ambition to democratise the second chamber – and address the constitutional issues , as well as the issues of how it is constituted .
It is a pledge that any of the Labour leadership candidates can make – to finish what Labour started .

Everyone running to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party is committed to fundamental change of parliament’s upper chamber – the House of Lords – and want it reformed or abolished. This is not new for Labour leaders, who have traditionally called for a change of this kind. I it is only the detail of the new arrangement on which Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy and Keir Starmer could disagree. How many members of the reformed chamber should there be? How would they be selected? And what different powers, if any, might they have? These questions go straight to the heart of the future of our parliamentary democracy.
The first point worth making is that a second chamber is worth having. To have only a House of Commons would be to create a parliamentary dictatorship: the majority will get whatever they want, whenever they want it. There would be no more substantive scrutiny than the government wanted to entertain. A great means for enacting manifesto commitments quickly, but no way to govern well.
So long as the body continues to exist, Labour should continue making appointments to the House of Lords. The alternative is to let this body slowly wither on the vine, or at least slowly extinguish Labour’s place in it. Until the Lords is changed, Labour would be choosing to make holding the government to account more difficult. Labour must do the best it can with the powers currently at its disposal.
A second chamber can, and does, play an invaluable role. The House of Lords is a chamber of scrutiny where detailed analysis of legislation happens by a body of members with a wealth of experience and expertise. A distinctive feature of our parliament is that we have world-leading experts in medicine and science as well as the arts, humanities and social sciences able to introduce bills and help scrutinise legislation, as well as serve on parliamentary committees.
But this leads directly to the main concern that very many will rightly have with the House of Lords: its undemocratic foundations. Members are unelected, with a small number of seats either inherited or given to the Church of England hierarchy. Perhaps they bring valued experience and expertise, but the selection process raises many issues and many more questions.
Until the institution is changed, the next leader should adopt Corbyn’s idea of nominating only those committed to the democratic transformation of the Lords. And what then? Reform is a thornier issue than it might seem at first glance. Making the Lords democratic will have consequences, as a democratic mandate could justify more powers. This would fundamentally change the relationship between the Commons and the Lords.
The gridlock we see in the US Congress between its elected representatives and senators could arrive in Westminster. While the Lords must be democratised, it should aim to enhance, rather than disrupt, the delicate balance between the two chambers.
The by-elections of hereditary peers must end. This was previously proposed by Lord Grocott, and gained strong cross-party support. Their membership has no place in 21st-century Britain. Numbers also matter. The second chamber should not be larger than the first, nor anything like the size it is today. There is a model for how to achieve a cutback in a report by Lord Burns, although this has been blocked by the government. These plans should not be shelved so that the government can pile up patronage.
Some argue that the Lords should be elected through a proportional system. In other words, winning 40% of the popular vote does not mean 40% of MPs, but it should earn that share in the Lords. Individual Lords would not contest elections, but the appropriate number would take their seats based on the election results. This would help create a democratic mandate for a similar profile of peers today, in terms of experience and expertise, but as a potentially ineffective scrutiny chamber if its majority always mirrors the same party’s majority in the Commons.
Alternatively, the Lords should become senators running for election like MPs with their own mandate. The appeal is to have a chamber of similar democratic legitimacy to the other. But, again, the potential cost is significant in terms of constitutional balance. If a senate had its own democratic mandate, this would create an environment for gridlock with neither side having any need to give ground to the other as noted above. This raises the question of constituencies. If elected peers or senators are not MPs, then on what basis might they be selected? The same population electing MPs? Apportioned by regions and, if so, which ones?
One particularly interesting idea is to introduce a model of federalism, as raised during the leadership contest by Keir Starmer. This is a powerful, structural way to bring about a radical devolution of power – and his ideas go far beyond Westminster, to local communities as well. If the Lords is to become a different kind of body, it must have a different kind of mandate. This presents a great opportunity to rethink its size, shape and popular legitimacy that extends far beyond numbers. We must must challenge the system of patronage, as it is often perceived, in the eyes of the public.
With all Labour leadership candidates calling for radical reform of the House of Lords, one point on which they can all agree is the need for a royal commission on its future. This would be an advisory public consultation about a fundamental part of our democracy’s future, such as part of a broader constitutional convention. This is not a new idea. A Labour government held a royal commission, led by Lord Wakeham, about 20 years ago. It recommended cutting the Lords to 550 members, having an independent body make most appointments to tackle peerages as patronage, creating regional membership for a minority through proportional representation, that ministers should become accountable to both Houses and that hereditary peers should be removed.
Two decades later, it is time for Labour to run a new royal commission on similar terms as before, but also reflecting on a new federal structure. Perhaps it will come to similar conclusions as Wakeham. However – the public must be widely consulted and various options explored. It is critically important that we get the size, selection and structure right to improve public confidence. Working these plans into a broader constitutional convention would help join things up well.
Labour has transformed so much for the better, from schools to the NHS and beyond. And we have begun the work on reforming the House of Lords for the better. Much work remains to be done. We must be resolute in our ambition to democratise the second chamber – and address the constitutional issues, as well as the issues of how it is constituted. It is a pledge that any of the Labour leadership candidates can make – to finish what Labour started.


labourlist--2020-03-04--PMQs: Johnson announces sick pay from day one, but not for everyone

We “ broadly agree ” with the plan put forward by the government on Covid-19 , Jeremy Corbyn declared at the opening of a Prime Minister ’ s Questions that was unsurprisingly devoted in large part to the virus .
But the issue is NHS capacity .
What additional funding will the government be providing for our health service in light of the coronavirus ?
Boris Johnson shrugged off the question , saying only that the NHS was being afforded “ record levels ” of funding from this Tory government , before moving on to make his own policy announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day , instead of having to wait until the fourth day as the rules currently stand .
But what about those not eligible for any statutory sick pay ?
Corbyn pointed out that many on low wages don ’ t qualify for sick pay at all , and asked the PM to clarify that this new announcement would apply to everyone .
The answer seemed to be ‘ no ’ , as the PM replied : “ Some of them will be entitled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing system such as universal credit.
” But as Corbyn highlighted , if you claim universal credit , you face a five-week wait for any benefits .
Despite the announcement by Johnson today , many will be left in financial difficulty if they follow the advice of health professionals .
Corbyn moved swiftly on to the bullying allegations coming out of the Home Office , asking : “ Will he now commit to an independent investigation into the Home Secretary ’ s conduct ?
” The response can only be described as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who said that she was doing an “ outstanding job ” and listed her various achievements .
The Labour leader cited the PM ’ s own foreword to the ministers ’ code of conduct , and said that the government can not be “ judge and jury ” over its own behaviour .
We have a “ part-time PM ” who is “ determined to cover up for bullies ” , Corbyn concluded .
Johnson told the House that he wouldn ’ t take lessons from a party “ where female MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of antisemitism that they actually left the party ” .
The fact that Corbyn didn ’ t devote more of the questions session today to Patel ’ s conduct could be because it is a bit of an awkward issue for the Labour leader to broach just now .
Besides the accusations hurled by Johnson of bullying taking place within the Labour Party , it ’ s also made more difficult by the Labour leader ’ s recent nomination of John Bercow for a peerage – despite accusations of bullying from staff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of this also represents an interesting role reversal for the two main parties .
The Tories are known to be defenders of the establishment and often seen as the ‘ safe pair of hands ’ , usually aligning with the approach of the civil service .
But this latest bullying story and Dominic Cummings ’ ongoing campaign to shake up the civil service means the Conservatives now stand in opposition to public servants .
It is odd to think that less than a year ago , anonymous briefings from civil servants saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to take power .
It is this dynamic that makes the Patel row difficult for a radical Labour Party .

We “broadly agree” with the plan put forward by the government on Covid-19, Jeremy Corbyn declared at the opening of a Prime Minister’s Questions that was unsurprisingly devoted in large part to the virus. But the issue is NHS capacity. What additional funding will the government be providing for our health service in light of the coronavirus? Boris Johnson shrugged off the question, saying only that the NHS was being afforded “record levels” of funding from this Tory government, before moving on to make his own policy announcement.
He declared that people who self-isolate will be entitled to statutory sick pay from the first day, instead of having to wait until the fourth day as the rules currently stand. But what about those not eligible for any statutory sick pay? Corbyn pointed out that many on low wages don’t qualify for sick pay at all, and asked the PM to clarify that this new announcement would apply to everyone. The answer seemed to be ‘no’, as the PM replied: “Some of them will be entitled, others will be entitled through the existing system such as universal credit.” But as Corbyn highlighted, if you claim universal credit, you face a five-week wait for any benefits. Despite the announcement by Johnson today, many will be left in financial difficulty if they follow the advice of health professionals.
Corbyn moved swiftly on to the bullying allegations coming out of the Home Office, asking: “Will he now commit to an independent investigation into the Home Secretary’s conduct?” The response can only be described as a glowing tribute to Priti Patel from Johnson, who said that she was doing an “outstanding job” and listed her various achievements. The Labour leader cited the PM’s own foreword to the ministers’ code of conduct, and said that the government cannot be “judge and jury” over its own behaviour. We have a “part-time PM” who is “determined to cover up for bullies”, Corbyn concluded. Johnson told the House that he wouldn’t take lessons from a party “where female MPs were bullied so badly in a manner of antisemitism that they actually left the party”.
The fact that Corbyn didn’t devote more of the questions session today to Patel’s conduct could be because it is a bit of an awkward issue for the Labour leader to broach just now. Besides the accusations hurled by Johnson of bullying taking place within the Labour Party, it’s also made more difficult by the Labour leader’s recent nomination of John Bercow for a peerage – despite accusations of bullying from staff. The attack on the Tories for their handling of this also represents an interesting role reversal for the two main parties. The Tories are known to be defenders of the establishment and often seen as the ‘safe pair of hands’, usually aligning with the approach of the civil service. But this latest bullying story and Dominic Cummings’ ongoing campaign to shake up the civil service means the Conservatives now stand in opposition to public servants. It is odd to think that less than a year ago, anonymous briefings from civil servants saw Corbyn accused of being “too frail” to take power. It is this dynamic that makes the Patel row difficult for a radical Labour Party.