labourlist--2020-10-14--Commons abstentions are clashing with Labour’s commitment to human rights

Recent weeks have seen Labour MPs adopt positions on human rights issues in parliament that were surprising to many , not least Labour Party members .
And it has been particularly surprising because the current Labour leader , Keir Starmer QC , has spent most of his career as one of Britain ’ s most distinguished human rights lawyers .
The first contentious human rights issue to come up was the overseas operations bill .
The government claimed it would stop “ vexatious ” legal claims being brought against British soldiers .
After five years from when the incident took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against any criminal prosecutions of soldiers .
This would include war crimes , allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment and torture .
In effect , the bill would decriminalise torture by British soldiers if it had taken place more than five years earlier .
But the truth is that British troops have committed brutal crimes , they have often taken years to be revealed and it has been extremely difficult to hold the individual soldiers concerned to account .
Accordingly , the bill was condemned by the former head of the British armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former commander of British land forces ; the ex-head of service prosecutions ; and even former Tory defence secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind .
They all argued that British soldiers would be put at greater risk if Britain was seen to ignore international law .
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke for many Labour MPs when he said : “ I have grave concerns that , as it stands , the overseas operations bill defies and undermines international law.
” Yet despite the widespread condemnation of the bill , from people ranging from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapporteur on torture , astonishingly Keir Starmer directed Labour MPs to abstain on it at second reading .
He even sacked three Labour MPs from their frontbench positions who insisted on voting against the bill .
But as one of the sacked MPs Nadia Whittome said : “ The bill was anti-veteran , anti-human-rights and would effectively decriminalise torture.
” In the end , 18 Labour MPs altogether voted against the bill .
Less than two weeks later , the government introduced the covert human intelligence sources ( criminal conduct ) bill – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ spycops ’ bill .
In the same way that the overseas operations bill put soldiers above the law , this new bill would put undercover police officers and security agents above the law .
As the human rights organisation Amnesty said : “ There is a grave danger that this bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill ” .
But once again , Keir Starmer instructed Labour MPs to abstain .
Noticeably the Labour frontbench mainly talked about undercover policemen in terms of criminal gangs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surveillance of civil society including trade unions .
Over four decades , undercover policemen had infiltrated nearly 1,000 political groups .
These groups included environmental campaigns like Greenpeace , animal rights organisations and family justice campaigns like the Stephen Lawrence campaigns .
In the case of the Stephen Lawrence campaign , police officers were blunt .
They said that they had infiltrated not because they suspected criminality , but to dig dirt .
As the scale of the infiltration became apparent , the controversial methods also caused concern .
People were shocked that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with female activists , even had children with them , and then disappeared back to their real lives as police officers .
Even in terms of criminal gangs , many people – including former Labour director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald – questioned why the bill did not exclude murder torture and sexual violence from being legalised ( as similar Canadian legislation does ) .
Lord Macdonald also questioned why the bill extended the power to engage in criminal activity to organisations like the Gambling Commission and the Food Standard agency .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing ( with the consequent massive intrusion into people ’ s lives ) did not require a warrant but something like phone tapping did .
So once again , in the face of all the criticism of this ‘ spycops ’ bill , a group of 20 Labour MPs defied Keir Starmer ’ s instructions and voted against it at second reading .
But concern about the bill was more widespread than people prepared to vote against it .
Keir Starmer ’ s reasoning in making Labour MPs abstain on these human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the key to winning back ‘ Red Wall ’ Labour seats is sounding tough on security and policing .
But there is increasingly a clash between this electoral strategy and standing up for human rights in the House of Commons .
It remains to be seen how Keir Starmer will resolve this .

Recent weeks have seen Labour MPs adopt positions on human rights issues in parliament that were surprising to many, not least Labour Party members. And it has been particularly surprising because the current Labour leader, Keir Starmer QC, has spent most of his career as one of Britain’s most distinguished human rights lawyers.
The first contentious human rights issue to come up was the overseas operations bill. The government claimed it would stop “vexatious” legal claims being brought against British soldiers. After five years from when the incident took place, there would be a presumption against any criminal prosecutions of soldiers. This would include war crimes, allegations of inhuman or degrading treatment and torture. In effect, the bill would decriminalise torture by British soldiers if it had taken place more than five years earlier.
But the truth is that British troops have committed brutal crimes, they have often taken years to be revealed and it has been extremely difficult to hold the individual soldiers concerned to account. Accordingly, the bill was condemned by the former head of the British armed forces, Field Marshal Charles Guthrie; a former commander of British land forces; the ex-head of service prosecutions; and even former Tory defence secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. They all argued that British soldiers would be put at greater risk if Britain was seen to ignore international law. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke for many Labour MPs when he said: “I have grave concerns that, as it stands, the overseas operations bill defies and undermines international law.”
Yet despite the widespread condemnation of the bill, from people ranging from top British military men to the UN rapporteur on torture, astonishingly Keir Starmer directed Labour MPs to abstain on it at second reading. He even sacked three Labour MPs from their frontbench positions who insisted on voting against the bill. But as one of the sacked MPs Nadia Whittome said: “The bill was anti-veteran, anti-human-rights and would effectively decriminalise torture.” In the end, 18 Labour MPs altogether voted against the bill.
Less than two weeks later, the government introduced the covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill – or as campaigners describe it, the ‘spycops’ bill. In the same way that the overseas operations bill put soldiers above the law, this new bill would put undercover police officers and security agents above the law. As the human rights organisation Amnesty said: “There is a grave danger that this bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill”. But once again, Keir Starmer instructed Labour MPs to abstain.
Noticeably the Labour frontbench mainly talked about undercover policemen in terms of criminal gangs. But there was huge concern about undercover surveillance of civil society including trade unions. Over four decades, undercover policemen had infiltrated nearly 1,000 political groups. These groups included environmental campaigns like Greenpeace, animal rights organisations and family justice campaigns like the Stephen Lawrence campaigns. In the case of the Stephen Lawrence campaign, police officers were blunt. They said that they had infiltrated not because they suspected criminality, but to dig dirt.
As the scale of the infiltration became apparent, the controversial methods also caused concern. People were shocked that undercover police officers routinely had sexual relationships with female activists, even had children with them, and then disappeared back to their real lives as police officers. Even in terms of criminal gangs, many people – including former Labour director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald – questioned why the bill did not exclude murder torture and sexual violence from being legalised (as similar Canadian legislation does).
Lord Macdonald also questioned why the bill extended the power to engage in criminal activity to organisations like the Gambling Commission and the Food Standard agency. And he raised the question of why undercover policing (with the consequent massive intrusion into people’s lives) did not require a warrant but something like phone tapping did. So once again, in the face of all the criticism of this ‘spycops’ bill, a group of 20 Labour MPs defied Keir Starmer’s instructions and voted against it at second reading. But concern about the bill was more widespread than people prepared to vote against it.
Keir Starmer’s reasoning in making Labour MPs abstain on these human rights issues is clear. He believes that the key to winning back ‘Red Wall’ Labour seats is sounding tough on security and policing. But there is increasingly a clash between this electoral strategy and standing up for human rights in the House of Commons. It remains to be seen how Keir Starmer will resolve this.


labourlist--2020-10-14--By calling for a national ‘circuit break’, Keir Starmer has played a blinder

Keir Starmer has taken a stand by telling the government to implement a national ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown , as recommended by its scientific advisory group SAGE three weeks ago .
In his first live televised press conference as Labour leader , he spoke more clearly than he has ever done before – more clearly than Boris Johnson ever does – and put forward his case for a bold but entirely reasonable measure in the coronavirus crisis .
The demand married together SAGE opinion , public opinion , Andy Burnham ’ s opinion ( the man knows how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the toughest of all unity challenges – most of the Labour Party ’ s opinion .
MPs and activists now have a solid alternative plan to get behind and promote to the country , whether on the airwaves or in family catch-ups on Zoom .
Boris Johnson ’ s Tories are rattled : evidence includes the misleading CCHQ Press tweet and the sad little anonymous quote fed to top lobby journalists last night that described Starmer as a “ shameless opportunist playing political games ” .
We all know that the Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the internal politics of his party than the rising infection rates , re-escalating care home crisis and desperate need for more financial support .
They must know that Starmer has just played a blinder : if the government does go for a circuit break , the Labour leader looks like big boss calling the shots ; if they refuse , he ’ ll be ‘ Bruce Foresight ’ rather than ‘ Captain Hindsight ’ .
There is undeniable logic in trying a two- or three-week break over half-term to avoid a longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The call has allowed Starmer to show leadership and commit to a specific course of action .
Johnson , meanwhile , doesn ’ t seem to be taking the whole thing that seriously .
On a call with Tory MPs last night , he laughed off Theresa May ’ s serious suggestion of adding business people to SAGE because it could then be called ‘ beige ’ .
Katy Balls also reports that he answered the question “ what can you tell me about Christmas ?
” with the reply : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been celebrated 2020 years ” .
The Prime Minister will probably try to portray Labour as divided over coronavirus restrictions at PMQs this afternoon .
He may cite Jonathan Ashworth this week saying a full national lockdown would be “ disastrous ” as proof that Labour is flip-flopping , though the Shadow Health Secretary was talking about the kind of lockdown a circuit breaker is intended to avoid .
But the leadership did well to give backbenchers a free vote on the 10pm hospitality curfew last night , which allowed 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rebellion .
And Starmer can hit back by highlighting the Whitty-predicted ineffectiveness of the new tier system and the ‘ levelling down ’ consequences of the government ’ s current approach .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Keir Starmer has taken a stand by telling the government to implement a national ‘circuit break’ lockdown, as recommended by its scientific advisory group SAGE three weeks ago. In his first live televised press conference as Labour leader, he spoke more clearly than he has ever done before – more clearly than Boris Johnson ever does – and put forward his case for a bold but entirely reasonable measure in the coronavirus crisis. The demand married together SAGE opinion, public opinion, Andy Burnham’s opinion (the man knows how to get a news line) and even – the toughest of all unity challenges – most of the Labour Party’s opinion. MPs and activists now have a solid alternative plan to get behind and promote to the country, whether on the airwaves or in family catch-ups on Zoom.
Boris Johnson’s Tories are rattled: evidence includes the misleading CCHQ Press tweet and the sad little anonymous quote fed to top lobby journalists last night that described Starmer as a “shameless opportunist playing political games”. We all know that the Prime Minister is the one paying more attention to the internal politics of his party than the rising infection rates, re-escalating care home crisis and desperate need for more financial support. They must know that Starmer has just played a blinder: if the government does go for a circuit break, the Labour leader looks like big boss calling the shots; if they refuse, he’ll be ‘Bruce Foresight’ rather than ‘Captain Hindsight’.
There is undeniable logic in trying a two- or three-week break over half-term to avoid a longer, April-style lockdown over the Christmas period. The call has allowed Starmer to show leadership and commit to a specific course of action. Johnson, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to be taking the whole thing that seriously. On a call with Tory MPs last night, he laughed off Theresa May’s serious suggestion of adding business people to SAGE because it could then be called ‘beige’. Katy Balls also reports that he answered the question “what can you tell me about Christmas?” with the reply: “It’s a religious festival that’s been celebrated 2020 years”.
The Prime Minister will probably try to portray Labour as divided over coronavirus restrictions at PMQs this afternoon. He may cite Jonathan Ashworth this week saying a full national lockdown would be “disastrous” as proof that Labour is flip-flopping, though the Shadow Health Secretary was talking about the kind of lockdown a circuit breaker is intended to avoid. But the leadership did well to give backbenchers a free vote on the 10pm hospitality curfew last night, which allowed 23 MPs to vote against it without causing a rebellion. And Starmer can hit back by highlighting the Whitty-predicted ineffectiveness of the new tier system and the ‘levelling down’ consequences of the government’s current approach. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-10-14--Labour urges government to “ditch failing Serco and let councils run contact tracing”

Labour is set to urge the government to “ ditch Serco and let councils and local public health teams run contact tracing ” following reports that the largely privatised system is only having a “ marginal impact ” on stopping transmission .
The party will use an opposition day debate in parliament this afternoon to discuss the poorly performing track and trace system , which according to official figures for the latest weekly statistics only reached 68.6 % of contacts .
Labour is expected to use the session to highlight the markedly better rate of success in tracing undertaken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same period managed to reach 97.1 % of contacts .
Commenting ahead of the debate , Rachel Reeves said : “ For months , Labour has been asking this government to put contact tracing into the hands of councils and local public health teams who know their own communities better than anyone .
“ In the face of all the evidence , the Tories are continuing with a system that rewards failure by handing enormous sums of money to big companies such as Serco and Sitel .
“ This approach has defied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underfunded public services to clear up the mess days later and made our communities vulnerable to rising infection rates.
” Serco and Sitel , the two firms hired by the government to help run the national test and trace programme , are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme .
Serco receives 40 % of its annual revenue from running UK public services .
Serco was initially contracted for £108m for 14 weeks up to August 23rd , with the option to extend for a longer period up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sitel had a similar arrangement , for £84m initially and £310m if extended .
Labour has several times requested that the government outline the performance standards ministers are using to assess private companies involved in the contact tracing system .
The government has repeatedly refused to do so .
Serco last month admitted that it only managed to reach 60 % of those in contact with people who tested positive for Covid-19 .
It was also responsible for a data breach earlier in the pandemic .
Reeves added : “ The government should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s call to bring in a circuit break and transfer control of contact tracing to local authorities , so that we can better protect people ’ s lives and livelihoods.
” Starmer called on the government to implement a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown on Tuesday evening following reports that ministers ignored advice from experts to implement the nationwide measure to combat the spread of the virus .
Welsh Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has also declared that his government is considering a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown for the devolved nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of coronavirus cases .
The Prime Minister has come under increasing pressure over recent weeks for the government ’ s management of the tracing programme with criticism escalating significantly as a result of what Boris Johnson called a “ computing issue ” .
Over 15,000 Covid cases went unpublished in the government ’ s daily reports , and were not passed onto contact tracers and public health teams in early October .
This meant that as many as 48,000 potential Covid contacts went untraced .
Labour is expected to use the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the test and trace system alongside the “ huge sums of public money ” handed to private companies to administer the programme .
The party will also call for additional funding for contact tracing in tier-three areas to be transferred to all parts of the country to make sure “ councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require ” .
Below is the full text of the motion tabled by the Labour Party today .
That this House notes the consistently high performance of local contact tracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established by the government ; notes the wealth of evidence that the considerable sums of public money spent so far on the national system would deliver better public health outcomes if devolved to local authorities and public health experts ; and calls on the government to extend the additional funding for contact tracing available in tier three areas to all parts of the country and ensure that councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require .

Labour is set to urge the government to “ditch Serco and let councils and local public health teams run contact tracing” following reports that the largely privatised system is only having a “marginal impact” on stopping transmission.
The party will use an opposition day debate in parliament this afternoon to discuss the poorly performing track and trace system, which according to official figures for the latest weekly statistics only reached 68.6% of contacts.
Labour is expected to use the session to highlight the markedly better rate of success in tracing undertaken by local health protection teams, which for the same period managed to reach 97.1% of contacts.
Commenting ahead of the debate, Rachel Reeves said: “For months, Labour has been asking this government to put contact tracing into the hands of councils and local public health teams who know their own communities better than anyone.
“In the face of all the evidence, the Tories are continuing with a system that rewards failure by handing enormous sums of money to big companies such as Serco and Sitel.
“This approach has defied the experience around the world, left underfunded public services to clear up the mess days later and made our communities vulnerable to rising infection rates.”
Serco and Sitel, the two firms hired by the government to help run the national test and trace programme, are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme. Serco receives 40% of its annual revenue from running UK public services.
Serco was initially contracted for £108m for 14 weeks up to August 23rd, with the option to extend for a longer period up to a value of £410m in total. Sitel had a similar arrangement, for £84m initially and £310m if extended.
Labour has several times requested that the government outline the performance standards ministers are using to assess private companies involved in the contact tracing system. The government has repeatedly refused to do so.
Serco last month admitted that it only managed to reach 60% of those in contact with people who tested positive for Covid-19. It was also responsible for a data breach earlier in the pandemic.
Reeves added: “The government should look at the science, follow Labour’s call to bring in a circuit break and transfer control of contact tracing to local authorities, so that we can better protect people’s lives and livelihoods.”
Starmer called on the government to implement a ‘circuit break’ lockdown on Tuesday evening following reports that ministers ignored advice from experts to implement the nationwide measure to combat the spread of the virus.
Welsh Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has also declared that his government is considering a ‘circuit break’ lockdown for the devolved nation in an effort to suppress the rising number of coronavirus cases.
The Prime Minister has come under increasing pressure over recent weeks for the government’s management of the tracing programme with criticism escalating significantly as a result of what Boris Johnson called a “computing issue”.
Over 15,000 Covid cases went unpublished in the government’s daily reports, and were not passed onto contact tracers and public health teams in early October. This meant that as many as 48,000 potential Covid contacts went untraced.
Labour is expected to use the debate this afternoon to highlight the poor performance of the test and trace system alongside the “huge sums of public money” handed to private companies to administer the programme.
The party will also call for additional funding for contact tracing in tier-three areas to be transferred to all parts of the country to make sure “councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require”.
Below is the full text of the motion tabled by the Labour Party today.
That this House notes the consistently high performance of local contact tracing systems when compared with the centralised system established by the government; notes the wealth of evidence that the considerable sums of public money spent so far on the national system would deliver better public health outcomes if devolved to local authorities and public health experts; and calls on the government to extend the additional funding for contact tracing available in tier three areas to all parts of the country and ensure that councils and local public health teams receive the resources and powers they require.


labourlist--2020-10-14--WATCH: Government “irresponsible” not to implement ‘circuit break’, says Labour

Rachel Reeves has declared that the government is acting in an “ irresponsible ” way not to implement a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown across the country to slow the increase in coronavirus cases .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told viewers that the government can no longer argue it is ‘ following the science ’ in its response to the pandemic .
Asked about government reluctance to implement the national Covid measure , Reeves said : “ That ’ s a big mistake… It is irresponsible because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mantra was : ‘ We ’ re following the science.
’ “ We know now that ’ s just not the case .
And if they haven ’ t go the anchor of the science , what is their anchor ?
What is their strategy now ?
… I don ’ t know now what the government is being led by .
And that ’ s a very worrying place to be in.
” Starmer called on the government to implement a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown on Tuesday evening following reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implement the nationwide measure to combat the spread of the virus .
Welsh Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has also declared that his government is considering a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown for the devolved nation in an effort to suppress the rising number of coronavirus cases .
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies warned the government three weeks ago that the country faced a “ very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences ” unless it took urgent action and implemented the national measure .
Based on the current rate of growth in infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be as many as 3,000 hospital admissions per day by the end of the month , the same as during the peak of the pandemic in April .

Rachel Reeves has declared that the government is acting in an “irresponsible” way not to implement a ‘circuit break’ lockdown across the country to slow the increase in coronavirus cases.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told viewers that the government can no longer argue it is ‘following the science’ in its response to the pandemic.
Asked about government reluctance to implement the national Covid measure, Reeves said: “That’s a big mistake… It is irresponsible because back at the beginning the government’s mantra was: ‘We’re following the science.’
“We know now that’s just not the case. And if they haven’t go the anchor of the science, what is their anchor? What is their strategy now?… I don’t know now what the government is being led by. And that’s a very worrying place to be in.”
.@RachelReevesMP says "it's a big mistake" and "irresponsible" for the govt to not want to implement national restrictions or a 'circuit break' to help curb the rise in #coronavirus cases.#KayBurley: https://t.co/e0lJ4H0ZJY pic.twitter.com/Zd0lD0qIMS — SkyNews (@SkyNews) October 14, 2020
Starmer called on the government to implement a ‘circuit break’ lockdown on Tuesday evening following reports that ministers ignored advice from experts to implement the nationwide measure to combat the spread of the virus.
Welsh Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford has also declared that his government is considering a ‘circuit break’ lockdown for the devolved nation in an effort to suppress the rising number of coronavirus cases.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies warned the government three weeks ago that the country faced a “very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences” unless it took urgent action and implemented the national measure.
Based on the current rate of growth in infections, SAGE has estimated that there could be as many as 3,000 hospital admissions per day by the end of the month, the same as during the peak of the pandemic in April.


labourlist--2020-10-14--Voting down the CHIS bill would weaken national security and human rights

One of the many problems with losing general elections is that you don ’ t get the legislation or indeed much else you want .
Many bills introduced by this government are nakedly political , divisive and deeply harmful to the national interest .
In that bracket you find – amongst many others – the internal market bill , which openly breaks international law ; the agriculture bill , which would lower food standards and harm our farming industry ; and the immigration bill , which makes it harder to recruit staff for our NHS and care homes .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when concerning national security .
But , of course , under a Tory government these bills will always be imperfect and written with fundamentally different priorities to a Labour government .
The covert human intelligence sources ( criminal conduct ) bill , which returns to the Commons this week , is in this latter group .
The CHIS bill addresses a vital issue : the need to provide a clear lawful framework for the use of human intelligence sources , who often help uncover crimes such as far-right terrorism and child sexual exploitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national interest would need to legislate to address this .
The current status quo is unacceptable , as it means this happens without proper oversight and the formal protections offered by the Human Rights Act .
Since 2017 , the security services have thwarted 27 terror attacks and in 2018 alone covert human intelligence sources helped disrupt 30 threats to life .
But these sources can not and should not operate without a clear legal framework that is legally enforceable , and that includes effective and necessary safeguards .
That is the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legislation , undercover sources will either be unable to operate – depriving our security services of a vital tool in disrupting terrorism and serious and organised crime – or continue to do so only by operating in the shadows .
Neither outcome is in the national interest .
Both are worse than this bill passing .
The bill makes clear that any activity carried out by agents must be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights – which explicitly outlaws torture , murder and sexual violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and legally enforceable protection .
It means agents can not be authorised to undertake any activity that breaches the HRA or the ECHR – and that this can be upheld in court .
Keir Starmer , who literally wrote the text book on human rights law and has represented those seeking justice in the very highest courts in the land on this issue , made that case incredibly powerfully to Labour MPs this week .
However , we recognise the bill is far from perfect .
Our amendments would put in place stronger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They would also reinforce the existing legal position that legitimate trade union activity is explicitly excluded from the ambit of investigatory powers .
We will also seek to improve the bill in House of Lords and use every opportunity possible to improve it throughout its passage through parliament .
There have been concerns raised about the potential for this bill to interfere with the campaigns against burning injustices , such as the ‘ spycops ’ scandal , the appalling events at and surrounding Orgreave , the abuse and secrecy around the Cammell Laird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and collusion on blacklisting .
That is why we have been pressing the government to be explicit in stating that this bill is in no way retrospective and can not legally impede these campaigns for justice .
On all these issues , the Labour Party led by Keir Starmer remains steadfastly committed to supporting those campaigns – many of which he has fought for throughout his working life .
We also pressed and received a firm commitment from the government that this bill will have no business interfering in the lawful activities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cornerstone of our democracy .
Some people have raised the possible impact on addressing issues relating to the Troubles Northern Ireland and the pursuit of justice and truth , specifically in cases like that of the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane and many others involving state agents .
This is something that is deeply personal to me and indeed Keir Starmer , and we place the utmost importance on it .
As I said at the despatch box when this bill received second reading , I do not need to be convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its power in this arena .
I saw the consequences of it , which is why I am acutely aware of the need the greater oversight and human rights protections in this bill .
It ’ s also why I have been dogged in ensuring cast iron guarantees that this bill will not stand in the way of justice for victims .
In short , we must ensure that the security services have the powers they need to keep us safe – and we will also introduce proper oversight , scrutiny and legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given the opportunity that is what a Labour government would do : protect national security , strengthen human rights , support victims .
But until then we have to deal with the legislation this government brings forward , and do so in a way that shows we are a responsible government-in-waiting .
The covert human intelligence sources ( criminal conduct ) bill is imperfect , but voting it down would weaken national security and lead to weaker legal safeguards .
That ’ s not a choice we will make .

One of the many problems with losing general elections is that you don’t get the legislation or indeed much else you want. Many bills introduced by this government are nakedly political, divisive and deeply harmful to the national interest. In that bracket you find – amongst many others – the internal market bill, which openly breaks international law; the agriculture bill, which would lower food standards and harm our farming industry; and the immigration bill, which makes it harder to recruit staff for our NHS and care homes.
Some, though, are necessary – particularly when concerning national security. But, of course, under a Tory government these bills will always be imperfect and written with fundamentally different priorities to a Labour government. The covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill, which returns to the Commons this week, is in this latter group.
The CHIS bill addresses a vital issue: the need to provide a clear lawful framework for the use of human intelligence sources, who often help uncover crimes such as far-right terrorism and child sexual exploitation. Any responsible government acting in the national interest would need to legislate to address this. The current status quo is unacceptable, as it means this happens without proper oversight and the formal protections offered by the Human Rights Act.
Since 2017, the security services have thwarted 27 terror attacks and in 2018 alone covert human intelligence sources helped disrupt 30 threats to life. But these sources cannot and should not operate without a clear legal framework that is legally enforceable, and that includes effective and necessary safeguards. That is the point this bill tries to address.
Without the legislation, undercover sources will either be unable to operate – depriving our security services of a vital tool in disrupting terrorism and serious and organised crime – or continue to do so only by operating in the shadows. Neither outcome is in the national interest. Both are worse than this bill passing.
The bill makes clear that any activity carried out by agents must be compliant with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights – which explicitly outlaws torture, murder and sexual violence. This is a powerful, important and legally enforceable protection. It means agents cannot be authorised to undertake any activity that breaches the HRA or the ECHR – and that this can be upheld in court.
Keir Starmer, who literally wrote the text book on human rights law and has represented those seeking justice in the very highest courts in the land on this issue, made that case incredibly powerfully to Labour MPs this week. However, we recognise the bill is far from perfect.
Our amendments would put in place stronger safeguards and strengthen rights for victims. They would also reinforce the existing legal position that legitimate trade union activity is explicitly excluded from the ambit of investigatory powers. We will also seek to improve the bill in House of Lords and use every opportunity possible to improve it throughout its passage through parliament.
There have been concerns raised about the potential for this bill to interfere with the campaigns against burning injustices, such as the ‘spycops’ scandal, the appalling events at and surrounding Orgreave, the abuse and secrecy around the Cammell Laird shipyard workers and the Shrewsbury 24, and collusion on blacklisting. That is why we have been pressing the government to be explicit in stating that this bill is in no way retrospective and cannot legally impede these campaigns for justice.
On all these issues, the Labour Party led by Keir Starmer remains steadfastly committed to supporting those campaigns – many of which he has fought for throughout his working life. We also pressed and received a firm commitment from the government that this bill will have no business interfering in the lawful activities of our trade union movement, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.
Some people have raised the possible impact on addressing issues relating to the Troubles Northern Ireland and the pursuit of justice and truth, specifically in cases like that of the murder of solicitor Pat Finucane and many others involving state agents. This is something that is deeply personal to me and indeed Keir Starmer, and we place the utmost importance on it.
As I said at the despatch box when this bill received second reading, I do not need to be convinced about the consequences of the state exceeding its power in this arena. I saw the consequences of it, which is why I am acutely aware of the need the greater oversight and human rights protections in this bill. It’s also why I have been dogged in ensuring cast iron guarantees that this bill will not stand in the way of justice for victims.
In short, we must ensure that the security services have the powers they need to keep us safe – and we will also introduce proper oversight, scrutiny and legal safeguards alongside robust protection for victims. Given the opportunity, that is what a Labour government would do: protect national security, strengthen human rights, support victims.
But until then we have to deal with the legislation this government brings forward, and do so in a way that shows we are a responsible government-in-waiting. The covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill is imperfect, but voting it down would weaken national security and lead to weaker legal safeguards. That’s not a choice we will make.


labourlist--2020-10-14--MPs reject Labour motion to put test and trace in hands of public health teams

The House of Commons has voted down a Labour motion that called on the government to drop private firms such as Serco from its highly-criticised coronavirus test and trace system and instead expand the role of public health teams .
The opposition day motion from Labour had demanded that the government expand funding to local health authorities and give them a leading role in Test and Trace – but it was resoundingly defeated tonight by a majority of 80 votes .
Labour frontbencher Rachel Reeves described the use of private firms such as Serco , despite their failing records on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ political choice ” by a government “ obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing ” .
The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called on the government to adopt the more localised model used in Wales , in an impassioned debate where many MPs shared the impact the system was having on their constituents .
Reeves said : “ This government is obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing .
It ’ s failing to reach people who have come into contact with the virus , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers ’ money.
” Government ministers claimed that Serco had gone through “ fair and open competition ” to receive the contract and that having a nationwide system was the only way to make sure “ we can see how the virus is spreading ” .
But Reeves argued : “ The Prime Minister promised a world-beating test and trace system , and yet we have one that is barely functioning , and a system that is so broken that SAGE is saying it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The truth is as soon as the government looked toward a privatised solution a political choice was made about how to respond to a public health crisis .
Serco is not integrated into the fabric of any of our communities.
” Taking a leaf out of Ed Miliband ’ s book , Reeves offered to give way to the minister at the despatch box if they would reveal all of Serco ’ s subcontractors after it was found that 85 % of their contact tracing services were sold on to third-party firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of Wales , Reeves highlighted that their contact tracing system is run by local health authorities , and 83 % of contacts are reached versus the 69 % reached by outsourcing firms in England .
The senior shadow cabinet member quipped : “ Perhaps if the Welsh government were a private outsourcing consultancy , then the government would have paid them a small fortune to take over the system in England.
” Very few Conservative MPs attended the debate , with just three Tories putting themselves forward to speak .
This led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 365 Tory MPs elected .
Where are they ?
They ’ re up in their offices hiding.
” Backbench Labour MPs used the debate to share stories of how the failures in the system were having an impact on their constituents .
Shadow minister Margaret Greenwood described how one was told to self-isolate a month too late .
Shadow railways minister Tan Dhesi said a member of his own staff was forced to self-isolate for two weeks after “ no test was offered ” to them when a relative was taken to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shadow Treasury minister Dan Carden told MPs that one of his Liverpool constituents was forced to drive 70 miles to South West Wales with an autistic child in the car , only to find the test centre had closed for the day .
Carden also used the debate to take aim at the “ cronyism ” between government ministers and private contractors , pointing out that the chief executive of outsourcing firm Serco is the brother of former Tory MP Nicholas Soames .
Labour has consistently criticised the relationship between private firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Conservatives , after it was revealed that companies connected to party donors frequently benefited .
In one example , the government awarded contracts worth £81.8m to produce personal protective equipment to a company co-owned by former chair of the President ’ s Club David Meller , who has donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Tories in the last decade .

The House of Commons has voted down a Labour motion that called on the government to drop private firms such as Serco from its highly-criticised coronavirus test and trace system and instead expand the role of public health teams.
The opposition day motion from Labour had demanded that the government expand funding to local health authorities and give them a leading role in Test and Trace – but it was resoundingly defeated tonight by a majority of 80 votes.
Labour frontbencher Rachel Reeves described the use of private firms such as Serco, despite their failing records on contact tracing during the pandemic, as a “political choice” by a government “obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing”.
The Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called on the government to adopt the more localised model used in Wales, in an impassioned debate where many MPs shared the impact the system was having on their constituents.
Reeves said: “This government is obsessed with a failed model of outsourcing. It’s failing to reach people who have come into contact with the virus, it’s not getting information to local councils… and it is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds worth of taxpayers’ money.”
Government ministers claimed that Serco had gone through “fair and open competition” to receive the contract and that having a nationwide system was the only way to make sure “we can see how the virus is spreading”.
But Reeves argued: “The Prime Minister promised a world-beating test and trace system, and yet we have one that is barely functioning, and a system that is so broken that SAGE is saying it is making next to no difference.
“The truth is as soon as the government looked toward a privatised solution a political choice was made about how to respond to a public health crisis. Serco is not integrated into the fabric of any of our communities.”
Taking a leaf out of Ed Miliband’s book, Reeves offered to give way to the minister at the despatch box if they would reveal all of Serco’s subcontractors after it was found that 85% of their contact tracing services were sold on to third-party firms.
Urging the government to follow the example of Wales, Reeves highlighted that their contact tracing system is run by local health authorities, and 83% of contacts are reached versus the 69% reached by outsourcing firms in England.
The senior shadow cabinet member quipped: “Perhaps if the Welsh government were a private outsourcing consultancy, then the government would have paid them a small fortune to take over the system in England.”
Very few Conservative MPs attended the debate, with just three Tories putting themselves forward to speak. This led Labour MP Toby Perkins to declare: “365 Tory MPs elected. Where are they? They’re up in their offices hiding.”
Backbench Labour MPs used the debate to share stories of how the failures in the system were having an impact on their constituents. Shadow minister Margaret Greenwood described how one was told to self-isolate a month too late.
Shadow railways minister Tan Dhesi said a member of his own staff was forced to self-isolate for two weeks after “no test was offered” to them when a relative was taken to hospital with a suspected case of Covid-19.
Shadow Treasury minister Dan Carden told MPs that one of his Liverpool constituents was forced to drive 70 miles to South West Wales with an autistic child in the car, only to find the test centre had closed for the day.
Carden also used the debate to take aim at the “cronyism” between government ministers and private contractors, pointing out that the chief executive of outsourcing firm Serco is the brother of former Tory MP Nicholas Soames.
Labour has consistently criticised the relationship between private firms hired to handle public health contracts and the Conservatives, after it was revealed that companies connected to party donors frequently benefited.
In one example, the government awarded contracts worth £81.8m to produce personal protective equipment to a company co-owned by former chair of the President’s Club David Meller, who has donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Tories in the last decade.


labourlist--2020-10-14--Tracy Brabin: Why I want to be Labour’s candidate for West Yorkshire mayor

I announced in the Yorkshire Post last week that I am standing to be the mayor of West Yorkshire .
I ’ m under no illusions at the size of the task ahead .
Our candidate will need a campaign like no other .
So many of our traditional tactics just won ’ t be available .
The Tories will throw the kitchen sink at it , pretending their party shares our Yorkshire values .
The new mayor will face an economic crisis in a region already struggling after a decade of austerity .
We need a bold and creative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t win this election ; neither cuts nor the status quo will rebuild our economy .
West Yorkshire and our devolution deal are unique and we need a different sort of leader for the times that we live in .
I ’ ll be a mayor committed to community wealth building , a green economy – re-industrialising our heartlands in a sustainable way – better transport , social and council housing .
I ’ ll be an ambassador for our region , fighting for investment and jobs .
I want to do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our movement and our values .
I ’ m West Yorkshire born and bred .
Growing up in a council flat on an estate in Batley on free school meals , I ’ ve spent over three decades as a freelancer often living hand to mouth , pay cheque to pay cheque .
I know I ’ m not a typical politician .
I haven ’ t spent my life in politics but I have spent my life putting our values into action – organising donations in the miners ’ strike , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a union rep. As mayor , I will work across our whole movement , in partnership with local government leaders , councillors and trade unions .
I ’ ve seen what social partnership in Wales has delivered for people and communities , and will build on what ’ s worked in Liverpool , North of Tyne and Manchester to forge our own path in West Yorkshire .
Every policy I introduce as mayor will follow a Fair Work Charter that I will introduce within my first year , equality impact assessed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our policies are deliverable and live up to our Labour values .
In West Yorkshire , we ’ re committed to zero emissions by 2038 – a great target but one that needs a delivery roadmap .
On policing , we have to fight Tory cuts while creating a more victim-centred system .
Alongside neighbourhood policing , tackling drug crime and anti-social behaviour , I will make domestic abuse a priority .
These crimes are too rarely reported and prosecuted and violence against women has surged during lockdown .
I want to pilot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learning from the work of charities such as Women ’ s Aid .
As a former shadow early years minister , I know that early Intervention is a key part of this public health approach to crime , and I will work with councils to support a network of Sure Start Plus hubs across West Yorkshire .
Finally , using my own experience , I will lead a Creative New Deal .
Billions of pounds are spent every year in the creative industries .
Calderdale is already vying to be the ‘ Hollywood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Production Park in South Kirby are leading the way in creative skills and manufacturing .
Channel 4 ’ s relocation to Leeds and Sky ’ s £10m commitment to Black , Asian and minority ethnic content means opportunities for our diverse communities .
Screen Yorkshire leads the country in training and apprenticeships .
West Yorkshire can be a world leader bringing tourism , jobs , skills , opportunities , regeneration and investment into our communities .
With campaigning forced off the streets , we have to do things differently if we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I will lead a digital campaigning revolution to win this election .
Learning from Bernie Sanders in the US , but also from homegrown excellence in our movement : CWU and their innovative campaign against Royal Mail , Momentum and their amazing general election efforts , NEU and their successful mass member engagement .
We will reach and engage those currently disengaged from politics .
I have the ideas , the energy and a vision for West Yorkshire , but no one politician has all the answers , which is why I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
In order to lead , you have to listen .
I ’ m asking all members , trade unionists and councillors in our region what is important to you and your community as we build our manifesto for West Yorkshire – so tell me your ideas here .

I announced in the Yorkshire Post last week that I am standing to be the mayor of West Yorkshire. I’m under no illusions at the size of the task ahead. Our candidate will need a campaign like no other. So many of our traditional tactics just won’t be available. The Tories will throw the kitchen sink at it, pretending their party shares our Yorkshire values.
The new mayor will face an economic crisis in a region already struggling after a decade of austerity. We need a bold and creative vision. Campaigning as usual won’t win this election; neither cuts nor the status quo will rebuild our economy. West Yorkshire and our devolution deal are unique and we need a different sort of leader for the times that we live in.
I’ll be a mayor committed to community wealth building, a green economy – re-industrialising our heartlands in a sustainable way – better transport, social and council housing. I’ll be an ambassador for our region, fighting for investment and jobs.
I want to do that because I am passionate about our region, our movement and our values. I’m West Yorkshire born and bred. Growing up in a council flat on an estate in Batley on free school meals, I’ve spent over three decades as a freelancer often living hand to mouth, pay cheque to pay cheque.
I know I’m not a typical politician. I haven’t spent my life in politics but I have spent my life putting our values into action – organising donations in the miners’ strike, marching on Greenham Common, representing members as a union rep.
As mayor, I will work across our whole movement, in partnership with local government leaders, councillors and trade unions. I’ve seen what social partnership in Wales has delivered for people and communities, and will build on what’s worked in Liverpool, North of Tyne and Manchester to forge our own path in West Yorkshire.
Every policy I introduce as mayor will follow a Fair Work Charter that I will introduce within my first year, equality impact assessed and ‘green’ checked to ensure that our policies are deliverable and live up to our Labour values. In West Yorkshire, we’re committed to zero emissions by 2038 – a great target but one that needs a delivery roadmap.
On policing, we have to fight Tory cuts while creating a more victim-centred system. Alongside neighbourhood policing, tackling drug crime and anti-social behaviour, I will make domestic abuse a priority. These crimes are too rarely reported and prosecuted and violence against women has surged during lockdown. I want to pilot domestic abuse courts in our region, learning from the work of charities such as Women’s Aid. As a former shadow early years minister, I know that early Intervention is a key part of this public health approach to crime, and I will work with councils to support a network of Sure Start Plus hubs across West Yorkshire.
Finally, using my own experience, I will lead a Creative New Deal. Billions of pounds are spent every year in the creative industries. Calderdale is already vying to be the ‘Hollywood of the North’, BackStage Academy and Production Park in South Kirby are leading the way in creative skills and manufacturing. Channel 4’s relocation to Leeds and Sky’s £10m commitment to Black, Asian and minority ethnic content means opportunities for our diverse communities. Screen Yorkshire leads the country in training and apprenticeships. West Yorkshire can be a world leader bringing tourism, jobs, skills, opportunities, regeneration and investment into our communities.
With campaigning forced off the streets, we have to do things differently if we want to make this vision a reality. I will lead a digital campaigning revolution to win this election. Learning from Bernie Sanders in the US, but also from homegrown excellence in our movement: CWU and their innovative campaign against Royal Mail, Momentum and their amazing general election efforts, NEU and their successful mass member engagement. We will reach and engage those currently disengaged from politics.
I have the ideas, the energy and a vision for West Yorkshire, but no one politician has all the answers, which is why I’m starting as I mean to go on. In order to lead, you have to listen. I’m asking all members, trade unionists and councillors in our region what is important to you and your community as we build our manifesto for West Yorkshire – so tell me your ideas here.


labourlist--2020-10-14--How the Towns Fund scandal underlines the need for electoral reform

It doesn ’ t look good , does it ?
Out of 61 areas picked by government ministers for the new Towns Fund , 60 were in Conservative-held seats or Tory targets with an average majority of just 3,000 , according to The Times .
It ’ s understandable that Labour is calling for an inquiry into how this happened .
But in a way , the conclusion is moot .
A few comparisons are worth looking at here .
The analysis shows that Labour councils have borne the brunt of local government cuts over the past decade .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to English local authorities are larger in authorities containing marginal constituencies than safe ones .
Last year , the BBC found that Conservative-held constituencies were the overwhelming beneficiaries of the government ’ s increase in schools funding .
Whatever any Cabinet Office probe recommends , the warped incentives will remain the same .
Westminster ’ s politics is anchored in cronyism and pork-barrel politics and it will take more than tinkering to sort it out .
When governments decide they don ’ t stand a chance in some areas , the mental calculation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth funding them .
This is true for all governments .
Why ?
Because the system is bust .
When elections are won and lost on a handful of leafy swing seats , some lucky voters get lavished during elections – and those in most need continue to wither on the vine .
We ’ ve seen a microcosm of this with the Future Towns Fund .
But it can also lead to much bigger public policy choices being made based on where the votes are , and not where the need is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash into a handful of swing seats , ignore the rest .
It ’ s warping our economy .
I ’ m reminded of a Conservative minister quoted in The New Statesman a few years ago : “ When she used to ask Osborne for something , he would first ask her how big her majority was – and then reply , with a smile , that it was too large for her enquiry to be worth considering.
” This winner-takes-all mentality is playing out in the coronavirus crisis , too .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wakefield and Barrow-in-Furness avoiding lockdowns , while two-thirds-red Greater Manchester – with a far lower infection rate – was quickly placed into lockdown earlier this summer .
Westminster ’ s voting system means most of us live in seats that never change hands .
Millions of people are ignored if they didn ’ t vote for the party in power and are often taken for granted if they did .
How many times have you heard on the doorstep “ the same person gets in time and time again ” or “ my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Safe seats only get a look-in when ministers kindly include their own constituencies in the prize draw – as Robert Jenrick did with the Towns Fund .
14.5 million voters went unrepresented in the last election .
One in three felt forced to hold their nose .
Many others simply didn ’ t bother voting at all .
That ’ s why democratic reform is fundamentally an equality issue .
We are committing to being ‘ left behind ’ , by marking most of Britain as uncompetitive .
A House of Commons elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norm in Scotland and Wales – would mean all voters getting their preferences considered , not just a small number of citizens who happen to find themselves living in a swing seat .
It ’ s a damning indictment that at the last election , despite predictions of volatility , the Electoral Reform Society ( ERS ) predicted the result in 316 out of 316 seats , many that were unchanged since the Victorian era .
This is calcifying our communities .
To truly ‘ level up ’ Britain , we need a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wherever they cast their ballot .
Then we could have policy choices being made on sound economic and social grounds – rather than where the governing party hopes to buy support .
The vast majority of Labour members are behind this cause .
Keir Starmer has signalled his support for change .
A new internal initiative is bringing together all those who back democratic equality and fair representation .
To root out the cronyism in Westminster politics , reforming the warped voting system would be a good place to start .

It doesn’t look good, does it? Out of 61 areas picked by government ministers for the new Towns Fund, 60 were in Conservative-held seats or Tory targets with an average majority of just 3,000, according to The Times. It’s understandable that Labour is calling for an inquiry into how this happened. But in a way, the conclusion is moot.
A few comparisons are worth looking at here. The analysis shows that Labour councils have borne the brunt of local government cuts over the past decade. Other studies have shown that central government grants to English local authorities are larger in authorities containing marginal constituencies than safe ones. Last year, the BBC found that Conservative-held constituencies were the overwhelming beneficiaries of the government’s increase in schools funding. Whatever any Cabinet Office probe recommends, the warped incentives will remain the same. Westminster’s politics is anchored in cronyism and pork-barrel politics and it will take more than tinkering to sort it out.
When governments decide they don’t stand a chance in some areas, the mental calculation is that it’s just not worth funding them. This is true for all governments. Why? Because the system is bust. When elections are won and lost on a handful of leafy swing seats, some lucky voters get lavished during elections – and those in most need continue to wither on the vine. We’ve seen a microcosm of this with the Future Towns Fund. But it can also lead to much bigger public policy choices being made based on where the votes are, and not where the need is.
The mantra is this: pile cash into a handful of swing seats, ignore the rest. It’s warping our economy. I’m reminded of a Conservative minister quoted in The New Statesman a few years ago: “When she used to ask Osborne for something, he would first ask her how big her majority was – and then reply, with a smile, that it was too large for her enquiry to be worth considering.” This winner-takes-all mentality is playing out in the coronavirus crisis, too. We’ve seen red-to-blue swing seats including Wakefield and Barrow-in-Furness avoiding lockdowns, while two-thirds-red Greater Manchester – with a far lower infection rate – was quickly placed into lockdown earlier this summer.
Westminster’s voting system means most of us live in seats that never change hands. Millions of people are ignored if they didn’t vote for the party in power and are often taken for granted if they did. How many times have you heard on the doorstep “the same person gets in time and time again” or “my vote doesn’t count”? Safe seats only get a look-in when ministers kindly include their own constituencies in the prize draw – as Robert Jenrick did with the Towns Fund.
14.5 million voters went unrepresented in the last election. One in three felt forced to hold their nose. Many others simply didn’t bother voting at all. That’s why democratic reform is fundamentally an equality issue. We are committing to being ‘left behind’, by marking most of Britain as uncompetitive. A House of Commons elected by proportional representation – as is the norm in Scotland and Wales – would mean all voters getting their preferences considered, not just a small number of citizens who happen to find themselves living in a swing seat. It’s a damning indictment that at the last election, despite predictions of volatility, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) predicted the result in 316 out of 316 seats, many that were unchanged since the Victorian era. This is calcifying our communities.
To truly ‘level up’ Britain, we need a voting system where every voter counts, wherever they cast their ballot. Then we could have policy choices being made on sound economic and social grounds – rather than where the governing party hopes to buy support. The vast majority of Labour members are behind this cause. Keir Starmer has signalled his support for change. A new internal initiative is bringing together all those who back democratic equality and fair representation. To root out the cronyism in Westminster politics, reforming the warped voting system would be a good place to start.


labourlist--2020-10-14--Labour demands “economic package that acknowledges reality” in Covid crisis

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to bring forward an “ economic package that acknowledges reality and gets ahead of the problems we face ” in the coronavirus pandemic this winter .
In an opposition day debate on economic support during Covid , the Shadow Chancellor demanded a “ wage support scheme that works properly , a safety net worthy of the name ” and financial support to run alongside any restrictions .
Dodds outlined the inconsistent approach seen from the Conservatives on financial support in the coronavirus crisis , highlighting that while Liverpool recently received just £3.49 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leicester were given £7.30 .
She asked why the government has not used £1.3bn of unspent emergency funding to support businesses that need help .
The government recently required areas to repay any of the unspent cash given to councils earlier in the crisis .
Dodds also again pushed the Chancellor to fix the problems with Universal Credit , uprate the local housing allowance to median market rents , scrap the benefit cap and abolish the two-child limit on UC and tax credits .
She raised the provision for self-employed workers in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has left yawning gaps in their offer… From the start of next month , the support available will fall from 70 % of pre-crisis profits to just 20 % .
” The Shadow Chancellor finished her contribution to parliament this afternoon by telling MPs : “ If we are to avoid the bleakest of winters , this government has to get a grip .
We need a national reset .
“ For that to work , we need an economic package that acknowledges reality and gets ahead of the problems we face ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a safety net worthy of the name , and financial support that goes hand in hand with the imposition of extra restrictions.
” But Rishi Sunak responded to the concerns raised arguing , as the Prime Minister has done , that providing comprehensive economic support would undermine the ability of the government to fund the NHS and other public services .
He argued : “ We must prevent the strain on our NHS from becoming unbearable , but we must also acknowledge the stark reality of the economic and social impacts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing that are not abstract—they are real… “ The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he set out our desire for a balanced approach , taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down , while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods.
” The motion from Labour , which called on the government to “ do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions ” and reform the job support scheme to incentivise employers to retain workers , was defeated by 338 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost a vote on a motion of regret tabled by Labour in the House of Lords this afternoon , over the government ’ s failure to implement an effective test and trace system , by 256 to 250 votes .
Members of the government and Conservative MPs were conspicuously absent from the debate today , which was scheduled by the Labour Party on just one of 20 days in the parliamentary calendar on which the government does not set the agenda .
Charlotte Nichols MP tweeted : “ There ’ s not currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , other than the minister responding to the debate , for the Covid-19 economic support package debate.
” Sunak recently U-turned and announced his new ‘ job support scheme ’ after having resisted calls to introduce support to replace furlough , ending this month .
The new programme will run alongside the already unveiled ‘ job retention bonus ’ .
Under the new scheme , people who work at least a third of their normal hours will have their worked hours paid as usual with the government and their employer each covering 33 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The job retention bonus , announced by the Chancellor in July , will see employers get a £1,000 bonus for each furloughed employee that they bring back to work and keep on the payroll until at least January next year .
But new research from the IPPR indicates that neither measure will offer the same level of job protection as the furlough scheme and could result in 1.8 million jobs being lost .
Labour will also use an opposition day debate this afternoon to tell the Tories to “ ditch Serco and let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the largely privatised system is only having a “ marginal impact ” on stopping transmission .
Below is the full text of the motion tabled by Dodds in parliament today .
That this House believes the government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions , currently the North of England and parts of the Midlands , Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland , by reforming the job support scheme so it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go ; ensuring no-one is pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing ; providing clear , consistent and fair funding that goes hand-in-hand with the imposition of new restrictions , including using the £1.3bn underspend on the grants fund to support local jobs ; fixing gaps in support for the self-employed ; and extending the ban on evictions .

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to bring forward an “economic package that acknowledges reality and gets ahead of the problems we face” in the coronavirus pandemic this winter.
In an opposition day debate on economic support during Covid, the Shadow Chancellor demanded a “wage support scheme that works properly, a safety net worthy of the name” and financial support to run alongside any restrictions.
Dodds outlined the inconsistent approach seen from the Conservatives on financial support in the coronavirus crisis, highlighting that while Liverpool recently received just £3.49 per head in support, others such as Leicester were given £7.30.
She asked why the government has not used £1.3bn of unspent emergency funding to support businesses that need help. The government recently required areas to repay any of the unspent cash given to councils earlier in the crisis.
Dodds also again pushed the Chancellor to fix the problems with Universal Credit, uprate the local housing allowance to median market rents, scrap the benefit cap and abolish the two-child limit on UC and tax credits.
She raised the provision for self-employed workers in the crisis, saying: “The government has left yawning gaps in their offer… From the start of next month, the support available will fall from 70% of pre-crisis profits to just 20%.”
The Shadow Chancellor finished her contribution to parliament this afternoon by telling MPs: “If we are to avoid the bleakest of winters, this government has to get a grip. We need a national reset.
“For that to work, we need an economic package that acknowledges reality and gets ahead of the problems we face; a wage support scheme that works properly, a safety net worthy of the name, and financial support that goes hand in hand with the imposition of extra restrictions.”
But Rishi Sunak responded to the concerns raised arguing, as the Prime Minister has done, that providing comprehensive economic support would undermine the ability of the government to fund the NHS and other public services.
He argued: “We must prevent the strain on our NHS from becoming unbearable, but we must also acknowledge the stark reality of the economic and social impacts of another national lockdown. The costs of doing that are not abstract—they are real…
“The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he set out our desire for a balanced approach, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down, while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods.”
The motion from Labour, which called on the government to “do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions” and reform the job support scheme to incentivise employers to retain workers, was defeated by 338 votes to 261.
But the government lost a vote on a motion of regret tabled by Labour in the House of Lords this afternoon, over the government’s failure to implement an effective test and trace system, by 256 to 250 votes.
Members of the government and Conservative MPs were conspicuously absent from the debate today, which was scheduled by the Labour Party on just one of 20 days in the parliamentary calendar on which the government does not set the agenda.
Charlotte Nichols MP tweeted: “There’s not currently a single Tory MP in the chamber, other than the minister responding to the debate, for the Covid-19 economic support package debate.”
Sunak recently U-turned and announced his new ‘job support scheme’ after having resisted calls to introduce support to replace furlough, ending this month. The new programme will run alongside the already unveiled ‘job retention bonus’.
Under the new scheme, people who work at least a third of their normal hours will have their worked hours paid as usual with the government and their employer each covering 33% of the hours not worked.
The job retention bonus, announced by the Chancellor in July, will see employers get a £1,000 bonus for each furloughed employee that they bring back to work and keep on the payroll until at least January next year.
But new research from the IPPR indicates that neither measure will offer the same level of job protection as the furlough scheme and could result in 1.8 million jobs being lost.
Labour will also use an opposition day debate this afternoon to tell the Tories to “ditch Serco and let councils run contact tracing” following reports that the largely privatised system is only having a “marginal impact” on stopping transmission.
Below is the full text of the motion tabled by Dodds in parliament today.
That this House believes the government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions, currently the North of England and parts of the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by reforming the job support scheme so it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go; ensuring no-one is pushed into poverty when they do the right thing; providing clear, consistent and fair funding that goes hand-in-hand with the imposition of new restrictions, including using the £1.3bn underspend on the grants fund to support local jobs; fixing gaps in support for the self-employed; and extending the ban on evictions.


labourlist--2020-10-14--We’ve applauded our key workers. Now let’s stand up for a real living wage

Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week told Conservative conference that the country faced “ hard choices ” , and committed the government to “ balancing the books ” .
His words echoed those of George Osborne in 2010 , who set the UK on a course of damaging austerity that saw public sector pay freezes , public services slashed and social security cuts – hitting those on lowest incomes hardest , stifling growth and increasing poverty .
When Tories commit to “ balancing the books ” , we know that they have in their minds , “ on the backs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrimping on lockdown measures , with watered-down support for self-employed workers and furlough payments reduced from 80 % to 67 % .
With the Budget cancelled , we will have to wait to see the full extent of Sunak ’ s plans , but a major indication comes later this month .
Within a couple of weeks , the Low Pay Commission ( LPC ) will make its recommendation to government on the national minimum wage increases for April 2021 .
At the start of the LPC ’ s consultation in March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the main rate should rise by 49p to £9.21 per hour from its current £8.72 .
However , there are now calls to reduce the increase to just 15p – or even to freeze the national minimum wage .
Having applauded the workers who have kept our country going through the crisis , now is the time to give them a real pay rise .
As former shadow Chancellor John McDonnell recently said : “ The care workers , shop workers , cleaners and delivery drivers are the minimum wage heroes who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many are risking their lives and sadly some have lost their lives.
” The LPC chair , Bryan Sanderson – a former oil , finance and private health executive – is concerned that the proposed 49p rise is now unaffordable .
But what about what ’ s affordable for low-paid workers ?
Surely that should be the priority for any commission genuinely concerned about low pay ?
We know that suppressing wages suppresses demand too .
Any wage restraint will weaken the economic recovery .
It would be an entirely counterproductive move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another rise in child poverty – as 70 % of children in poverty already live with at least one working parent .
You can ’ t tackle child poverty without tackling low pay .
New research by Autonomy and the High Pay Centre last week showed that we could afford much higher wages for all if the wages of those at the top were capped .
As ever , it ’ s greed that is unaffordable , not the low paid workers who generate the wealth .
Over 20,000 people have already signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the minimum wage to a real living wage of at least £10 per hour for all workers .
Low-paid workers and unemployed people face being doubly hit in April as the temporary £20 increase in Universal Credit is due to end , and the minimum wage may not now rise as planned .
The real living wage ( set by the Living Wage Foundation ) is already £9.30 this year .
Labour has said this is the rate at which all care workers should be paid – and surely that should apply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , shop workers and cleaners , too ?
The policy agreed at Labour ’ s last Clause V meeting and written into the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos is for a real living wage of at least £10 per hour by 2020 .
Members can help bolster that cause by joining 20,000 people in signing and sharing the petition started by Claim the Future calling for exactly that policy .
And please ask your MP to sign EDM 970 ‘ National Minimum Wage ’ , which calls on the Chancellor to make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Gordon Brown said recently , “ austerity economics doesn ’ t work ” .
Labour must not make the mistakes of the 2010-15 parliament .
It must challenge austerity .
There can be no ducking this immediate fight on low pay : it is the opening battle in what is likely to become a Tory onslaught of austerity on the poorest .
Will the lowest paid be protected or will they bear the pain again ?
Keir Starmer won the Labour leadership pledging to “ work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tackle insecure work and low pay ” .
Now is the time to stand up .

Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week told Conservative conference that the country faced “hard choices”, and committed the government to “balancing the books”. His words echoed those of George Osborne in 2010, who set the UK on a course of damaging austerity that saw public sector pay freezes, public services slashed and social security cuts – hitting those on lowest incomes hardest, stifling growth and increasing poverty.
When Tories commit to “balancing the books”, we know that they have in their minds, “on the backs of the poor”. Already Sunak is scrimping on lockdown measures, with watered-down support for self-employed workers and furlough payments reduced from 80% to 67%.
With the Budget cancelled, we will have to wait to see the full extent of Sunak’s plans, but a major indication comes later this month. Within a couple of weeks, the Low Pay Commission (LPC) will make its recommendation to government on the national minimum wage increases for April 2021.
At the start of the LPC’s consultation in March, they had said their central projection was that the main rate should rise by 49p to £9.21 per hour from its current £8.72. However, there are now calls to reduce the increase to just 15p – or even to freeze the national minimum wage.
Having applauded the workers who have kept our country going through the crisis, now is the time to give them a real pay rise. As former shadow Chancellor John McDonnell recently said: “The care workers, shop workers, cleaners and delivery drivers are the minimum wage heroes who are seeing us through this Covid crisis. Many are risking their lives and sadly some have lost their lives.”
The LPC chair, Bryan Sanderson – a former oil, finance and private health executive – is concerned that the proposed 49p rise is now unaffordable. But what about what’s affordable for low-paid workers? Surely that should be the priority for any commission genuinely concerned about low pay?
We know that suppressing wages suppresses demand too. Any wage restraint will weaken the economic recovery. It would be an entirely counterproductive move. It would also result in yet another rise in child poverty – as 70% of children in poverty already live with at least one working parent. You can’t tackle child poverty without tackling low pay.
New research by Autonomy and the High Pay Centre last week showed that we could afford much higher wages for all if the wages of those at the top were capped. As ever, it’s greed that is unaffordable, not the low paid workers who generate the wealth.
Over 20,000 people have already signed a petition urging the government to increase the minimum wage to a real living wage of at least £10 per hour for all workers. Low-paid workers and unemployed people face being doubly hit in April as the temporary £20 increase in Universal Credit is due to end, and the minimum wage may not now rise as planned.
The real living wage (set by the Living Wage Foundation) is already £9.30 this year. Labour has said this is the rate at which all care workers should be paid – and surely that should apply to all low-paid workers, including delivery drivers, shop workers and cleaners, too?
The policy agreed at Labour’s last Clause V meeting and written into the 2017 and 2019 Labour manifestos is for a real living wage of at least £10 per hour by 2020. Members can help bolster that cause by joining 20,000 people in signing and sharing the petition started by Claim the Future calling for exactly that policy. And please ask your MP to sign EDM 970 ‘National Minimum Wage’, which calls on the Chancellor to make the minimum wage a real living wage.
As Gordon Brown said recently, “austerity economics doesn’t work”. Labour must not make the mistakes of the 2010-15 parliament. It must challenge austerity. There can be no ducking this immediate fight on low pay: it is the opening battle in what is likely to become a Tory onslaught of austerity on the poorest. Will the lowest paid be protected or will they bear the pain again?
Keir Starmer won the Labour leadership pledging to “work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay”. Now is the time to stand up.


labourlist--2020-10-14--WATCH: Liverpool mayor warns hospital patients could be moved to care homes

Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson has warned that the city is considering releasing hospital patients into care homes as local hospitals are “ running out of space for people ” due to the spike in coronavirus cases in the area .
Speaking to Sky News this afternoon , Anderson described how officials were being forced to consider the move despite the disastrous effect it had on the rise of Covid cases in care homes during the first wave .
Anderson told the programme : “ Our conversations are around how we can move people from the hospitals into , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what that caused last time .
“ But we have got real serious concerns about the availability of beds in those wards .
And it means that for the other critical care patients , we ’ re running out of space for people .
“ The message from me is that this isn ’ t some fantasy it ’ s not being made up .
This is the reality , this is the life of dealing with Covid .
I called for a ‘ circuit breaker ’ three weeks ago because I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of control.
” During the early weeks of the pandemic , many hospitals discharged elderly patients into the community without Covid tests in an effort to free up hospital beds to cope with a massive influx of coronavirus patients .
It was later found that many of those patients “ seeded ” the virus in the UK ’ s care homes .
It ’ s been estimated by the ONS that as many as 30,000 elderly care home residents in England and Wales have died from coronavirus .
Anderson ’ s call for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes the day after Labour leader Keir Starmer called for the same measure to help stop the growing second spike of the pandemic .

Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson has warned that the city is considering releasing hospital patients into care homes as local hospitals are “running out of space for people” due to the spike in coronavirus cases in the area.
Speaking to Sky News this afternoon, Anderson described how officials were being forced to consider the move despite the disastrous effect it had on the rise of Covid cases in care homes during the first wave.
Anderson told the programme: “Our conversations are around how we can move people from the hospitals into, for instance, care homes – and you know what that caused last time.
“But we have got real serious concerns about the availability of beds in those wards. And it means that for the other critical care patients, we’re running out of space for people.
“The message from me is that this isn’t some fantasy it’s not being made up. This is the reality, this is the life of dealing with Covid. I called for a ‘circuit breaker’ three weeks ago because I was concerned about the infection rates going out of control.”
"We're running out of space for people". Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson says they are considering "care homes" as a possible place to move #COVID19 hospital patients to as there are "serious concerns" about the availability of ICU beds. More here: https://t.co/HkzAQ3PTnw pic.twitter.com/j3G3kEoKO4 — SkyNews (@SkyNews) October 14, 2020
During the early weeks of the pandemic, many hospitals discharged elderly patients into the community without Covid tests in an effort to free up hospital beds to cope with a massive influx of coronavirus patients.
It was later found that many of those patients “seeded” the virus in the UK’s care homes. It’s been estimated by the ONS that as many as 30,000 elderly care home residents in England and Wales have died from coronavirus.
Anderson’s call for a national ‘circuit breaker’ lockdown comes the day after Labour leader Keir Starmer called for the same measure to help stop the growing second spike of the pandemic.


labourlist--2020-10-14--Welsh travel ban to come into force Friday, says Mark Drakeford

Mark Drakeford has told the public that restrictions on people travelling to Wales from Covid hotpots in England , Northern Ireland and Scotland will come into place on Friday this week .
Following requests from the Welsh Labour administration for the UK government to stop people coming into the devolved nation from areas with high prevalences of the virus , the First Minister has declared the ban will go ahead .
The Labour leader in Wales wrote to Boris Johnson last month seeking a travel restriction to be enshrined in law , rather than the government relying on guidance alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other areas .
Drakeford told the BBC on Monday evening that he was offering Johnson “ one final opportunity ” to stop travel from high-prevalence areas before he uses the powers available to him .
But Downing Street rejected the ask from the First Minister on Tuesday evening .
The Prime Minister ’ s spokesperson argued : “ There are no physical borders between Wales and England.
” In a Times Radio interview last night , the First Minister discussed the proposed Covid measure while also telling listeners that the Labour administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” about whether a ‘ circuit break ’ lockdown should be imposed .
He explained : “ There ’ ll be nobody posted on the border , there ’ ll be no physical barriers of any sort .
There will be a powerful message to people : they ’ re not to come into Wales to low incidence areas.
” But he added : “ I need a rule in the regulations .
And then we can properly enforce it .
And I am a bit baffled as to why the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t be enforced , when he could simply put it in regulations as we have in Wales , and then the enforcement of it becomes straightforward.
” Vaughan Gething had already explained earlier in the day that the proposal was not about “ shutting Wales from England ” and stressed that it would apply to prevent travel from “ any part of the UK with high prevalence areas ” .
The Welsh health minister said that similar measures had been in place in March with the ‘ stay local ’ rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce it and people understood and respected the fact there were rules in place .
“ The idea this isn ’ t enforceable is just rubbish because we ’ ve been round this track some way before… For high prevalence areas , there is a very powerful rationale to making sure that travel is restricted to all other parts of the UK.
” Nicola Sturgeon announced shortly after the statement from Drakeford that she is supporting the Welsh First Minister ’ s call for travel restrictions , revealing that she had received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commenting this afternoon , she said : “ The First Minister of Wales is seeking agreement between the four UK nations on travel restrictions where necessary from high prevalence locations in one UK nation to lower prevalence areas in others.
” The Scottish First Minister added : “ I want to be clear today that I back the calls from the First Minister of Wales and I ’ ll be writing to the Prime Minister today to seek urgent talks on that issue .
“ I also support the First Minister of Wales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early course to discuss collectively between the four nations what further steps we can all take at this stage to suppress the virus .
”

Mark Drakeford has told the public that restrictions on people travelling to Wales from Covid hotpots in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will come into place on Friday this week.
Following requests from the Welsh Labour administration for the UK government to stop people coming into the devolved nation from areas with high prevalences of the virus, the First Minister has declared the ban will go ahead.
The Labour leader in Wales wrote to Boris Johnson last month seeking a travel restriction to be enshrined in law, rather than the government relying on guidance alone to prevent people from hotspots spreading Covid to other areas.
Drakeford told the BBC on Monday evening that he was offering Johnson “one final opportunity” to stop travel from high-prevalence areas before he uses the powers available to him.
But Downing Street rejected the ask from the First Minister on Tuesday evening. The Prime Minister’s spokesperson argued: “There are no physical borders between Wales and England.”
In a Times Radio interview last night, the First Minister discussed the proposed Covid measure while also telling listeners that the Labour administration in Wales is “very actively thinking” about whether a ‘circuit break’ lockdown should be imposed.
He explained: “There’ll be nobody posted on the border, there’ll be no physical barriers of any sort. There will be a powerful message to people: they’re not to come into Wales to low incidence areas.”
But he added: “I need a rule in the regulations. And then we can properly enforce it. And I am a bit baffled as to why the Prime Minister is prepared to rely on guidance that can’t be enforced, when he could simply put it in regulations as we have in Wales, and then the enforcement of it becomes straightforward.”
Vaughan Gething had already explained earlier in the day that the proposal was not about “shutting Wales from England” and stressed that it would apply to prevent travel from “any part of the UK with high prevalence areas”.
The Welsh health minister said that similar measures had been in place in March with the ‘stay local’ rules: “The police were able to enforce it and people understood and respected the fact there were rules in place.
“The idea this isn’t enforceable is just rubbish because we’ve been round this track some way before… For high prevalence areas, there is a very powerful rationale to making sure that travel is restricted to all other parts of the UK.”
There has been no formal response from @BorisJohnson to my requests to restrict travel into Wales from coronavirus hotspots. I am preparing new regulations to protect the health of people in Wales that will come into force on Friday. — Mark Drakeford (@fmwales) October 14, 2020
Nicola Sturgeon announced shortly after the statement from Drakeford that she is supporting the Welsh First Minister’s call for travel restrictions, revealing that she had received a letter from the Welsh Labour leader.
Commenting this afternoon, she said: “The First Minister of Wales is seeking agreement between the four UK nations on travel restrictions where necessary from high prevalence locations in one UK nation to lower prevalence areas in others.”
The Scottish First Minister added: “I want to be clear today that I back the calls from the First Minister of Wales and I’ll be writing to the Prime Minister today to seek urgent talks on that issue.
“I also support the First Minister of Wales’ call for another COBRA meeting in early course to discuss collectively between the four nations what further steps we can all take at this stage to suppress the virus.”