labourlist--2020-06-09--Forget the ‘respectability’ of political action. As socialists, we defend Black Lives Matter

Since the murder of George Floyd , people have taken to the streets across the world to protest against racist police brutality .
This weekend we also saw a number of protests in the UK .
Whilst there has been a large outpouring of support and sympathy with the Black Lives Matter movement , there are some voices who seek to detract from the issues of systemic racism and police brutality by turning it into a conversation about the ‘ respectability ’ of political action .
Some Conservative MPs , for example , could be seen posting on social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ shocking ” .
Videos from US Twitter circulated of people cleaning up graffiti from a bank building .
It reminds of the # riotcleanup campaign after the London riots in 2011 , where people organised for ‘ community clean-ups ’ .
This seeks to paint those protesting as outsiders in society whose actions are having a negative impact on their neighbourhoods .
It is almost as if those critical of protests think that , if we make sure the facades of our buildings are nice and clean , maybe these tensions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confrontations can ’ t be brushed aside with broomsticks .
When we see protestors take to the street , we see a social conflict visualised .
It is not an expression of something new , something that was triggered by just one particular event .
Rather , it pushes into the open conflicts that have been brewing under the surface for much longer .
Most of the time , these conflicts are not immediately visible for those of us who enjoy certain privileges .
A specific event that triggers mass protests is needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to understand is that just because these conflicts are not immediately visible for us – as white people or middle-class people – it doesn ’ t mean they do not impact the everyday lives of others .
Damage to private property is the worst thing that some people can imagine because an encounter with the police is not usually a question of life or death for them .
It is impossible to argue that police violence against black communities comes down to a few bad apples when it is so abundantly clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roots .
The economic system on which our society is built , which determines our social relations , is at the core of it all .
If we want to be true allies , it is time to lift the blinkers and understand the roles we play and the benefits we reap from a political system that upholds these structures .
It is not in the interest of those who benefit from the system to reveal these fundamental contradictions .
That is why establishment media and politicians seek to distract from systemic critique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general sense of ‘ respectability ’ .
Another is to appeal to protesters to articulate their demands through other means .
Then there is an attempt to focus on ‘ bad individuals ’ rather than question the role and function of the police or the state .
And lastly , if nothing else works , there is the smearing of protesters .
We can observe some of these mechanisms of distraction now around the Black Lives Matter protests .
Some might question whether protesting is the sensible thing to do during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau take the knee like ordinary citizens , deflecting from their complicity .
Unfortunately , Labour is not immune to this either .
During an LBC phone-in on Monday , Keir Starmer said that it was “ completely wrong ” for protesters to tear down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol .
He argued that , instead of direct action , activists should have tried to remove the statue “ with consent ” .
The question of consent in this context throws up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent obtained from the black community to erect a monument to a man who is symbolic of so much pain and suffering .
It implies that society accepts that black communities have to live in spaces that reproduce trauma , and still need to obtain consent from the oppressor to ease it .
And that consent is rarely given .
Locals have called for the removal of the statue for many years without success .
Whenever oppressed communities take to the street to make their voices heard , there is a ‘ respectable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to sign them up to vote for a centre-left party .
It is implied that it is the responsibility of the oppressed to vote and get rid of the likes of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson .
It is often the case that the majority of these communities did not vote for them in the first place .
But somehow the ‘ respectable citizen ’ , instead of interrogating why their peers propelled right-wing politicians into government , demands that the victims of oppression now correct that mistake .
This also obscures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championed policies that have harmed oppressed communities .
New Labour did not only have a shameful record on immigration and refugee policy , their ‘ tough on crime , tough on the causes of crime ’ approach to criminal justice reform also increased police powers .
Aside from dog-whistle rhetoric about ‘ hoodies ’ and ‘ yobs ’ , Tony Blair blamed knife crime on ‘ black culture ’ : he claimed ‘ political correctness ’ was responsible for a failure to understand that knife crime was not a general crime issue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Labour also brought in new stop-and-search powers via the Terrorism Act 2000 .
It saw a trebling of searches carried out , mainly affecting London ’ s Muslim community .
The powers in the Act were later declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights .
Even under the leadership of Labour left veteran Jeremy Corbyn , the party put pledges to increase police funding at the centre of its 2017 election campaign .
As time goes on , the mood in the mainstream may swing against Black Lives Matter activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police charging their horses into protesters in Whitehall .
If things escalate further , it is likely that the movement – rather than the police – will be portrayed as the agitator to erode support for their cause .
As socialists , we must stand firm in our defence of them against police violence .
We must not falter in our unconditional support of the movement ’ s demands .
In the meantime , Labour members who want to show solidarity with the movement are encouraged to donate money to bail funds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the UK , Black Lives Matter is also looking for donations to support their work .
Campaigns like United Families & Friends , Community Action on Prison Expansion and the Network for Police Monitoring are also worthwhile causes to support .

Since the murder of George Floyd, people have taken to the streets across the world to protest against racist police brutality. This weekend we also saw a number of protests in the UK. Whilst there has been a large outpouring of support and sympathy with the Black Lives Matter movement, there are some voices who seek to detract from the issues of systemic racism and police brutality by turning it into a conversation about the ‘respectability’ of political action.
Some Conservative MPs, for example, could be seen posting on social media condemning protests as “violent” and “shocking”. Videos from US Twitter circulated of people cleaning up graffiti from a bank building. It reminds of the #riotcleanup campaign after the London riots in 2011, where people organised for ‘community clean-ups’. This seeks to paint those protesting as outsiders in society whose actions are having a negative impact on their neighbourhoods.
It is almost as if those critical of protests think that, if we make sure the facades of our buildings are nice and clean, maybe these tensions in our communities will go away. But confrontations can’t be brushed aside with broomsticks. When we see protestors take to the street, we see a social conflict visualised. It is not an expression of something new, something that was triggered by just one particular event. Rather, it pushes into the open conflicts that have been brewing under the surface for much longer.
Most of the time, these conflicts are not immediately visible for those of us who enjoy certain privileges. A specific event that triggers mass protests is needed to elevate our consciousness. What we have to understand is that just because these conflicts are not immediately visible for us – as white people or middle-class people – it doesn’t mean they do not impact the everyday lives of others. Damage to private property is the worst thing that some people can imagine because an encounter with the police is not usually a question of life or death for them.
It is impossible to argue that police violence against black communities comes down to a few bad apples when it is so abundantly clear that the tree is rotten from its roots. The economic system on which our society is built, which determines our social relations, is at the core of it all. If we want to be true allies, it is time to lift the blinkers and understand the roles we play and the benefits we reap from a political system that upholds these structures.
It is not in the interest of those who benefit from the system to reveal these fundamental contradictions. That is why establishment media and politicians seek to distract from systemic critique. One tactic is to appeal to a general sense of ‘respectability’. Another is to appeal to protesters to articulate their demands through other means. Then there is an attempt to focus on ‘bad individuals’ rather than question the role and function of the police or the state. And lastly, if nothing else works, there is the smearing of protesters.
We can observe some of these mechanisms of distraction now around the Black Lives Matter protests. Some might question whether protesting is the sensible thing to do during a global pandemic. We see police officers or politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau take the knee like ordinary citizens, deflecting from their complicity.
Unfortunately, Labour is not immune to this either. During an LBC phone-in on Monday, Keir Starmer said that it was “completely wrong” for protesters to tear down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol. He argued that, instead of direct action, activists should have tried to remove the statue “with consent”. The question of consent in this context throws up an important contradiction. There was never consent obtained from the black community to erect a monument to a man who is symbolic of so much pain and suffering. It implies that society accepts that black communities have to live in spaces that reproduce trauma, and still need to obtain consent from the oppressor to ease it. And that consent is rarely given. Locals have called for the removal of the statue for many years without success.
Whenever oppressed communities take to the street to make their voices heard, there is a ‘respectable citizen’ waiting around the corner who wants to sign them up to vote for a centre-left party. It is implied that it is the responsibility of the oppressed to vote and get rid of the likes of Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. It is often the case that the majority of these communities did not vote for them in the first place. But somehow the ‘respectable citizen’, instead of interrogating why their peers propelled right-wing politicians into government, demands that the victims of oppression now correct that mistake.
This also obscures the fact that many centre-left parties have championed policies that have harmed oppressed communities. New Labour did not only have a shameful record on immigration and refugee policy, their ‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ approach to criminal justice reform also increased police powers. Aside from dog-whistle rhetoric about ‘hoodies’ and ‘yobs’, Tony Blair blamed knife crime on ‘black culture’: he claimed ‘political correctness’ was responsible for a failure to understand that knife crime was not a general crime issue, but specific to young black people.
New Labour also brought in new stop-and-search powers via the Terrorism Act 2000. It saw a trebling of searches carried out, mainly affecting London’s Muslim community. The powers in the Act were later declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. Even under the leadership of Labour left veteran Jeremy Corbyn, the party put pledges to increase police funding at the centre of its 2017 election campaign.
As time goes on, the mood in the mainstream may swing against Black Lives Matter activists. Over the weekend, we saw police charging their horses into protesters in Whitehall. If things escalate further, it is likely that the movement – rather than the police – will be portrayed as the agitator to erode support for their cause. As socialists, we must stand firm in our defence of them against police violence. We must not falter in our unconditional support of the movement’s demands.
In the meantime, Labour members who want to show solidarity with the movement are encouraged to donate money to bail funds that give financial support to those arrested. In the UK, Black Lives Matter is also looking for donations to support their work. Campaigns like United Families & Friends, Community Action on Prison Expansion and the Network for Police Monitoring are also worthwhile causes to support.


labourlist--2020-06-09--Labour for Devolution: We need to rebalance Britain and build a fairer union

With contact tracing and lockdown easing set to repeat the tragic shambles of testing and personal protective equipment procurement , this government ’ s handling of coronavirus has been calamitous .
But blame for the world ’ s worst excess death rate also lies with the British political system ’ s inherent dysfunction , which hands disproportionate power and responsibility to a few individuals in Westminster .
Coronavirus affects places in such wide-ranging ways that it can not be managed from the centre , yet locally-led responses have been sidelined .
Existing local testing capacity was overlooked in favour of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites and national targets prioritising quantity over quality .
PPE was funnelled to the NHS , leaving councils scrambling to source equipment for care workers as domestic suppliers were ignored by central procurement .
It is no coincidence locally-managed social care has borne the worst of the crisis , not centrally-managed healthcare .
Test-and-trace , announced with great fanfare from the Downing Street lectern , is far from operational because central government has more faith in its app and Serco than local public health teams experienced in contact-tracing infectious diseases .
These local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at hospitals or by councils , but data from government-procured facilities is not being shared .
Over-centralisation is not just a liability for public health .
Multiple studies show countries with greater local power have lower regional inequality , better public services and higher productivity .
Britain is the most centralised developed country in the world and under-performs on all these measures .
Seven of Britain ’ s 13 regions or nations have experienced recession in the last half-decade .
The difference in healthy life expectancy across the UK is 19 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the priorities of their Whitehall departments , not those of the places they serve .
In such a system there can be no local autonomy , no local differences recognised and addressed .
At the moment , local government is a hotchpotch of systems – from directly-elected metro-mayors to multiple council types , with varied powers and often excluding smaller towns and rural areas .
With Labour mostly absent from the debate , Boris Johnson has reheated George Osborne ’ s metro-mayor programme , which has delivered some powers to some cities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scorched-earth austerity falling on local government more than any central government department .
Labour mayor of North of Tyne Jamie Driscoll , for example , controls an annual budget of £20m ; Newcastle City Council alone , one of three local authorities included in his combined authority , has seen £280m cut from its budget since 2010 .
The government has used the coronavirus crisis to launch austerity redux upon local government .
Councils have had to spend extra on care homes , hotels for the homeless , council tax relief for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in domestic violence and children in care , amid collapsing revenue from parking fees , commercial rents and business rates .
Initially the government promised councils ‘ whatever is necessary ’ to cover coronavirus costs .
Now the message is ‘ share the burden ’ but , without central government support , the only possible outcome is councils going bankrupt , or again cutting core local services such as social care .
Labour must support our metro-mayors doing great work , but this should not stop us offering an alternative to deliver true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposes a parliament for each English region , Wales and Northern Ireland with powers equal to the Scottish parliament .
Democratically-elected , with their own first ministers and funded by a fair Barnett formula for all , these new bodies would ensure local control over health and social care , education , housing , training and transport , and free local government funding from Westminster ’ s whims .
They would bring public services closer to communities and replace Whitehall bureaucracy with local democracy , while embedding and sharing prosperity within communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would give communities from Cornwall to Caithness the same powers and freedom to celebrate local identities within a renewed union .
What we propose is not radical .
A version of it exists in every comparable country .
Labour needs to win in 2024 .
That means showing that we will deliver for every part of our country and reshape it for good .
It means trusting communities to have their own answers .
That is why we have formed Labour for Devolution .
We need to rebalance Britain , fix our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairer union we can all celebrate .
Sign up on our website to join our grassroots campaign and together we can bring power home to our communities .

With contact tracing and lockdown easing set to repeat the tragic shambles of testing and personal protective equipment procurement, this government’s handling of coronavirus has been calamitous. But blame for the world’s worst excess death rate also lies with the British political system’s inherent dysfunction, which hands disproportionate power and responsibility to a few individuals in Westminster.
Coronavirus affects places in such wide-ranging ways that it cannot be managed from the centre, yet locally-led responses have been sidelined. Existing local testing capacity was overlooked in favour of new, privately-run and often inaccessible test sites and national targets prioritising quantity over quality. PPE was funnelled to the NHS, leaving councils scrambling to source equipment for care workers as domestic suppliers were ignored by central procurement. It is no coincidence locally-managed social care has borne the worst of the crisis, not centrally-managed healthcare.
Test-and-trace, announced with great fanfare from the Downing Street lectern, is far from operational because central government has more faith in its app and Serco than local public health teams experienced in contact-tracing infectious diseases. These local teams know the results of tests conducted at hospitals or by councils, but data from government-procured facilities is not being shared.
Over-centralisation is not just a liability for public health. Multiple studies show countries with greater local power have lower regional inequality, better public services and higher productivity. Britain is the most centralised developed country in the world and under-performs on all these measures.
Seven of Britain’s 13 regions or nations have experienced recession in the last half-decade. The difference in healthy life expectancy across the UK is 19 years. In Britain, public services work to the priorities of their Whitehall departments, not those of the places they serve. In such a system there can be no local autonomy, no local differences recognised and addressed.
At the moment, local government is a hotchpotch of systems – from directly-elected metro-mayors to multiple council types, with varied powers and often excluding smaller towns and rural areas. With Labour mostly absent from the debate, Boris Johnson has reheated George Osborne’s metro-mayor programme, which has delivered some powers to some cities, but which is small fry alongside the scorched-earth austerity falling on local government more than any central government department.
Labour mayor of North of Tyne Jamie Driscoll, for example, controls an annual budget of £20m; Newcastle City Council alone, one of three local authorities included in his combined authority, has seen £280m cut from its budget since 2010.
The government has used the coronavirus crisis to launch austerity redux upon local government. Councils have had to spend extra on care homes, hotels for the homeless, council tax relief for new Universal Credit claimants, and a rise in domestic violence and children in care, amid collapsing revenue from parking fees, commercial rents and business rates.
Initially the government promised councils ‘whatever is necessary’ to cover coronavirus costs. Now the message is ‘share the burden’ but, without central government support, the only possible outcome is councils going bankrupt, or again cutting core local services such as social care.
Labour must support our metro-mayors doing great work, but this should not stop us offering an alternative to deliver true power into regions. Labour for Devolution proposes a parliament for each English region, Wales and Northern Ireland with powers equal to the Scottish parliament.
Democratically-elected, with their own first ministers and funded by a fair Barnett formula for all, these new bodies would ensure local control over health and social care, education, housing, training and transport, and free local government funding from Westminster’s whims.
They would bring public services closer to communities and replace Whitehall bureaucracy with local democracy, while embedding and sharing prosperity within communities. While other parties encourage division, devolution would give communities from Cornwall to Caithness the same powers and freedom to celebrate local identities within a renewed union.
What we propose is not radical. A version of it exists in every comparable country. Labour needs to win in 2024. That means showing that we will deliver for every part of our country and reshape it for good. It means trusting communities to have their own answers.
That is why we have formed Labour for Devolution. We need to rebalance Britain, fix our country’s structural problems and build a fairer union we can all celebrate. Sign up on our website to join our grassroots campaign and together we can bring power home to our communities.
labourfordevolution.co.uk | @Lab4Devolution


labourlist--2020-06-09--Labour councils pledge to review all statues and commemorations in their areas

Labour councils have pledged to review all statues and commemorations in their local areas following the removal of the slave trader Edward Colston statue in Bristol by Black Lives Matter protesters .
In a statement , Local Government Association Labour deputy leaders Anntoinette Bramble and Michael Payne said the organisation had “ consulted with all Labour council leaders ” and found “ overwhelming agreement ” .
They said that all Labour-controlled councils in England and Wales will “ listen to and work with their local communities to review the appropriateness of local monuments and statues on public land and council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Steve Reed said : “ We welcome the decision by Labour councils to listen to their local communities to make sure monuments and statues on public land are appropriate and represent local people ’ s values.
” The Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government oversaw , as leader of Lambeth Council , the installation of London ’ s first public statue of an African-Caribbean woman after a community campaign .
Labour mayor Sadiq Khan has said that statues and street names in London with links to slavery “ should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had established a commission to review landmarks in the capital .
He said that although London is “ one of the most diverse cities in the world ” , recent Black Lives Matter protests had highlighted that statues , plaques and street names largely reflect Victorian Britain .
Khan commented : “ It is an uncomfortable truth that our nation and city owes a large part of its wealth to its role in the slave trade .
While this is reflected in our public realm , the contribution of many of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been wilfully ignored.
” The moves have been made amid a debate over the value of statues memorialising historic figures who were racist .
A website , ‘ Topple the Racists ‘ , has been set up to map all such statues in the UK .
Activists in Bristol have argued that removal of the Colston statue – and the idea of adding a plaque to note his involvement in the slave trade – had been the subject of debate in the city for years , but they took action last weekend because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Keir Starmer said : “ This was a man who was responsible for 100,000 people being moved from Africa to the Caribbean as slaves… who were branded on their chests with the name of the company he ran.
” The Labour leader told LBC that the statue of the 17th-century slave trader “ should have been taken down a long , long time ago ” , though it was “ completely wrong ” for protesters to pull it down and it should have been removed “ properly with consent ” .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University , former East India Company official Robert Clive in Shropshire , Henry Dundas in Edinburgh as he was involved in the slave trade and delayed its abolition .

Labour councils have pledged to review all statues and commemorations in their local areas following the removal of the slave trader Edward Colston statue in Bristol by Black Lives Matter protesters.
In a statement, Local Government Association Labour deputy leaders Anntoinette Bramble and Michael Payne said the organisation had “consulted with all Labour council leaders” and found “overwhelming agreement”.
They said that all Labour-controlled councils in England and Wales will “listen to and work with their local communities to review the appropriateness of local monuments and statues on public land and council property”.
Commenting on the announcement, Steve Reed said: “We welcome the decision by Labour councils to listen to their local communities to make sure monuments and statues on public land are appropriate and represent local people’s values.”
The Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government oversaw, as leader of Lambeth Council, the installation of London’s first public statue of an African-Caribbean woman after a community campaign.
Labour mayor Sadiq Khan has said that statues and street names in London with links to slavery “should be taken down”, and said he had established a commission to review landmarks in the capital.
He said that although London is “one of the most diverse cities in the world”, recent Black Lives Matter protests had highlighted that statues, plaques and street names largely reflect Victorian Britain.
Khan commented: “It is an uncomfortable truth that our nation and city owes a large part of its wealth to its role in the slave trade. While this is reflected in our public realm, the contribution of many of our communities to life in our capital has been wilfully ignored.”
The moves have been made amid a debate over the value of statues memorialising historic figures who were racist. A website, ‘Topple the Racists‘, has been set up to map all such statues in the UK.
Activists in Bristol have argued that removal of the Colston statue – and the idea of adding a plaque to note his involvement in the slave trade – had been the subject of debate in the city for years, but they took action last weekend because progress had stalled.
Commenting on Colston, Keir Starmer said: “This was a man who was responsible for 100,000 people being moved from Africa to the Caribbean as slaves… who were branded on their chests with the name of the company he ran.”
The Labour leader told LBC that the statue of the 17th-century slave trader “should have been taken down a long, long time ago”, though it was “completely wrong” for protesters to pull it down and it should have been removed “properly with consent”.
Other campaigns are aiming to remove the statues of Cecil Rhodes at Oxford University, former East India Company official Robert Clive in Shropshire, Henry Dundas in Edinburgh as he was involved in the slave trade and delayed its abolition.


labourlist--2020-06-09--We need a radical rethink about NHS and social care workers beyond their pay

Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic , we ’ ve seen a change in the way the British public views our public services , particularly our NHS and social care system .
We ’ ve seen , in the response to Covid-19 , the vital importance of work that some would have previously classified as “ low-skilled ” , and many have been forced into a radical rethink about the value placed on certain jobs .
We ’ ve witnessed the phenomenon of people gathering together every Thursday evening in a show of appreciation for key workers .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and care staff in a public display of support on a scale that surpasses anything that has come before .
And the clapping wasn ’ t just for doctors and nurses – it was for cleaners , porters , cooks , healthcare assistants , care workers , laboratory staff , reception staff , estates workers , midwives , ambulance staff , physiotherapists , radiographers and the myriad of other roles that make up our NHS and our social care system .
The coronavirus pandemic is not over – far from it – but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how can we channel this new-found appreciation of the hard and dedicated work done day after day by NHS and care workers ?
Our answer to this question , as Labour Tribune members standing for the party ’ s national executive committee , is that we must build upon this new awareness and take action to ensure that these workers continue to be valued and appreciated .
The lessons of the pandemic must not be forgotten and we can not just go back to “ business as usual ” .
All three of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked in the NHS or have represented those who do , and we have seen for ourselves the way in which the NHS and social care operate against a background of constant change , continuing to provide vital services whilst undergoing reorganisation after reorganisation .
We all saw David Cameron promise in 2010 that there would be no more top-down , disruptive reorganisations of the NHS .
We all saw his Coalition government bring in the most disruptive , top-down reorganisation in the history of the NHS with Andrew Lansley ’ s 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health and Social Care Act sowed the seeds for the fragmentation of NHS and care systems .
Well-functioning public health systems were fractured and passed to local authority control .
Yet over the last decade , local authorities have had 60 % of their funding cut from central government according to the LGA .
Spending on public health has declined , and many authorities have had to cut the services they are able to provide .
All of this has created the perfect storm for our health and care systems and now this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them sorely wanting .
We ’ ve seen the government bring in private companies like Serco and Deloitte to run huge out-of-town testing systems , and we ’ ve read the reports of test results going astray and never finding their way back into patients ’ medical records .
We ’ ve seen the government exaggerate the number of tests done , double counting samples taken and , unbelievably , counting a test kit put in the post as a test completed .
There really is no end to the astonishing steps that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conceal the crisis in healthcare that this pandemic has so cruelly exposed .
We ’ ve witnessed in England and Scotland patients being discharged from hospitals back into care homes without being tested for Covid-19 .
We ’ ve seen the shocking outbreaks of the disease in care homes as a result , and a huge increase in the numbers of deaths .
25 % of all Covid-19 deaths across the UK have been in care homes .
As Shadow Scottish Secretary and Tribune MP Ian Murray points out , in Scotland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Wales , health minister Vaughan Gething stresses that their protocol is to test all residents returning from hospital and only those with negative results are transferred back to their care homes .
The Welsh government also publishes regular summaries of the scientific advice upon which it make decisions , and ministers are ensuring a stronger lockdown for longer than in England .
We mustn ’ t forget another vital piece of the healthcare jigsaw here : palliative care , generally provided by hospices .
Adult hospices only receive 30 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding ( children ’ s hospices receive even less , around 20 % ) and the rest of it is raised by by fundraising and charity events .
The lockdown has put a stop to many of these activities – charity shops are closed and the fetes , fun runs and sponsored events that are the lifeblood of the palliative care sector are forbidden during lockdown , threatening the whole future of hospice care .
We have to take hospices off this insecure footing .
We need to take a serious look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We should work with experts in the field and with trade unions to bring this vital part of healthcare back into the NHS , and end the inequality of pay for qualified medical and nursing staff working in the hospice sector .
We also need to work with the trade unions in taking a long look at the years of austerity under which health service staff , despite having their salaries reviewed by the NHS Pay Review Body ( NHSPRB ) , were subjected to either frozen wages or a pay cap of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect for the independence of NHSPRB in the same way as the independence of IPSA is respected in their annual determination of MPs ’ pay rises .
We need to look at ways in which to compensate the shortfall in NHS pay , which was allowed to develop over the years of the failed Tory austerity experiment .
Labour ’ s 2019 manifesto promise to give all public sector workers a 5 % pay rise was an attempt to address this and should be worked on .
Showing workers that they are valued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although that is an important factor .
We need to restore equality to the entire health and social care sector – bringing an end to minimum wage jobs , and ensuring proper training and career progression .
We also need root and branch reform of the social care sector , and an end to privatisation and outsourcing .
Local authorities must be properly funded and resourced to provide this vital service .
We need to restore the NHS nursing and allied health professional bursary , which was scrapped by the Tory government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for these roles as mature students , and working in the NHS whilst they train , the student loan system just does not work and has demonstrably led to a fall in applications for these training places .
Bursaries must be reinstated to rebuild and replenish our healthcare staff and to show them that they are valued .
We will fight to support our health and social care workers .
When the next pandemic comes , we need to have the infrastructure in place to ensure that this time , we are ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the NHS , free at the point of delivery based on need , founded by Labour MPs under Labour Tribune MP and health and housing minister Nye Bevan in 1948 .
We can only achieve this under a Labour government .
Theresa Griffin , Liz McInnes and Paula Sherriff are standing for Labour ’ s national executive committee .

Since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, we’ve seen a change in the way the British public views our public services, particularly our NHS and social care system. We’ve seen, in the response to Covid-19, the vital importance of work that some would have previously classified as “low-skilled”, and many have been forced into a radical rethink about the value placed on certain jobs.
We’ve witnessed the phenomenon of people gathering together every Thursday evening in a show of appreciation for key workers. People clapped to show their solidarity with NHS and care staff in a public display of support on a scale that surpasses anything that has come before. And the clapping wasn’t just for doctors and nurses – it was for cleaners, porters, cooks, healthcare assistants, care workers, laboratory staff, reception staff, estates workers, midwives, ambulance staff, physiotherapists, radiographers and the myriad of other roles that make up our NHS and our social care system.
The coronavirus pandemic is not over – far from it – but the question must now be asked: how can we channel this new-found appreciation of the hard and dedicated work done day after day by NHS and care workers? Our answer to this question, as Labour Tribune members standing for the party’s national executive committee, is that we must build upon this new awareness and take action to ensure that these workers continue to be valued and appreciated. The lessons of the pandemic must not be forgotten and we cannot just go back to “business as usual”.
All three of us standing for the NEC have either worked in the NHS or have represented those who do, and we have seen for ourselves the way in which the NHS and social care operate against a background of constant change, continuing to provide vital services whilst undergoing reorganisation after reorganisation. We all saw David Cameron promise in 2010 that there would be no more top-down, disruptive reorganisations of the NHS. We all saw his Coalition government bring in the most disruptive, top-down reorganisation in the history of the NHS with Andrew Lansley’s 2012 Health and Social Care Act.
The Health and Social Care Act sowed the seeds for the fragmentation of NHS and care systems. Well-functioning public health systems were fractured and passed to local authority control. Yet over the last decade, local authorities have had 60% of their funding cut from central government according to the LGA. Spending on public health has declined, and many authorities have had to cut the services they are able to provide.
All of this has created the perfect storm for our health and care systems and now this pandemic has tested those systems and found them sorely wanting. We’ve seen the government bring in private companies like Serco and Deloitte to run huge out-of-town testing systems, and we’ve read the reports of test results going astray and never finding their way back into patients’ medical records. We’ve seen the government exaggerate the number of tests done, double counting samples taken and, unbelievably, counting a test kit put in the post as a test completed. There really is no end to the astonishing steps that this Tory government has taken to try to conceal the crisis in healthcare that this pandemic has so cruelly exposed.
We’ve witnessed in England and Scotland patients being discharged from hospitals back into care homes without being tested for Covid-19. We’ve seen the shocking outbreaks of the disease in care homes as a result, and a huge increase in the numbers of deaths. 25% of all Covid-19 deaths across the UK have been in care homes. As Shadow Scottish Secretary and Tribune MP Ian Murray points out, in Scotland that figure is an appalling 45%.
In Wales, health minister Vaughan Gething stresses that their protocol is to test all residents returning from hospital and only those with negative results are transferred back to their care homes. The Welsh government also publishes regular summaries of the scientific advice upon which it make decisions, and ministers are ensuring a stronger lockdown for longer than in England.
We mustn’t forget another vital piece of the healthcare jigsaw here: palliative care, generally provided by hospices. Adult hospices only receive 30% of their funding from the government and statutory funding (children’s hospices receive even less, around 20%) and the rest of it is raised by by fundraising and charity events. The lockdown has put a stop to many of these activities – charity shops are closed and the fetes, fun runs and sponsored events that are the lifeblood of the palliative care sector are forbidden during lockdown, threatening the whole future of hospice care. We have to take hospices off this insecure footing.
We need to take a serious look at central government funding of palliative care. We should work with experts in the field and with trade unions to bring this vital part of healthcare back into the NHS, and end the inequality of pay for qualified medical and nursing staff working in the hospice sector.
We also need to work with the trade unions in taking a long look at the years of austerity under which health service staff, despite having their salaries reviewed by the NHS Pay Review Body (NHSPRB), were subjected to either frozen wages or a pay cap of 1%. We need to reinstate respect for the independence of NHSPRB in the same way as the independence of IPSA is respected in their annual determination of MPs’ pay rises. We need to look at ways in which to compensate the shortfall in NHS pay, which was allowed to develop over the years of the failed Tory austerity experiment. Labour’s 2019 manifesto promise to give all public sector workers a 5% pay rise was an attempt to address this and should be worked on.
Showing workers that they are valued isn’t just about pay, although that is an important factor. We need to restore equality to the entire health and social care sector – bringing an end to minimum wage jobs, and ensuring proper training and career progression. We also need root and branch reform of the social care sector, and an end to privatisation and outsourcing. Local authorities must be properly funded and resourced to provide this vital service.
We need to restore the NHS nursing and allied health professional bursary, which was scrapped by the Tory government. With many people wishing to to train for these roles as mature students, and working in the NHS whilst they train, the student loan system just does not work and has demonstrably led to a fall in applications for these training places. Bursaries must be reinstated to rebuild and replenish our healthcare staff and to show them that they are valued.
We will fight to support our health and social care workers. When the next pandemic comes, we need to have the infrastructure in place to ensure that this time, we are ready. We must return to the values of the NHS, free at the point of delivery based on need, founded by Labour MPs under Labour Tribune MP and health and housing minister Nye Bevan in 1948. We can only achieve this under a Labour government.
Theresa Griffin, Liz McInnes and Paula Sherriff are standing for Labour’s national executive committee.


labourlist--2020-06-09--This government is creating a class of zero-rights employees

For years , the talk has been about the changing working landscape and the oncoming digital revolution .
Over the last few months , it has come as a surge .
The former dot-com boom was all about innovation on top of a thriving economy , whereas we may now have digital innovation on top of a receding economy .
We hope that is not fully the case .
The world of work is definitely changing , businesses are going to close , and the threat of a recession hangs in the air .
The financial crisis of ten years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw an increase in people setting up businesses and work as self-employed .
Which is the same thing : when you are self-employed , you are in business .
We are going to see further growth in the number of self-employed workers , as people are pushed out to fend for themselves .
As someone who is already in the ranks of the self-employed , let me say to the newcomers that we didn ’ t all choose to be self-employed .
Circumstances dictated it for many of us .
But now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedoms alongside the precarity that comes with it .
I couldn ’ t go back to employment easily , though self-employment isn ’ t without risk .
There is no guarantee of work , thus no guarantee of an income .
You will find it harder to get a loan and buy a home , if that is your goal .
There is no holiday pay .
Time between work isn ’ t a holiday , it is just time you are working looking for work but not earning any revenue .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pension , no sick pay , no death-in-service benefit .
No side benefits , nobody will offer you maternity or paternity pay , nobody will cover your pay if you are called up for jury service .
You are your own boss , and you are in business on your own account .
You need to use the revenue you generate to pay for these hidden costs .
You particularly need to cover your costs between clients .
It is expensive and hard work .
It is expensive , to be fair to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights do cost money , and the Tories have always worked hard to reduce those expensive rights – always looking at the cost of everything never looking at its value .
In recent years , for those who haven ’ t made it to self-employment but instead live for the long-term in the precarious world of temporary work , we have seen the growth of zero-hour contracts .
It is a throwback to the dark days of the 1930s and the depression .
Margaret Thatcher legislated such that employees would attain no real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an employer for two years .
No right for unfair dismissal , no maternity benefits , etc : it was low-rights employment .
Boris Johnson and his pals have decided to move forward both zero-hour contracts and low-rights employment with a new idea – zero-rights employment .
It has been specially designed for the self-employed .
Under this scheme , to be administered through the off-payroll regulations that were discussed as part of the Finance Bill , the self-employed will be able to carry all the risks of self-employment but pay the taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in staff for the short term , treat them as if they were suppliers but not give them any rights , while the government can tax them as if they were employees .
When they are between clients , I understand that the government will consider them to be self-employed and as such they won ’ t be eligible for unemployment benefits .
It is a scandal and it has passed through its first stages in parliament without even a vote being cast .
There were loud voices of protest on the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Meg Hillier , who has championed the self-employed in parliament for some time .
It was too much for a number of fair minded and free-thinking Conservative MPs such as David Davis too , who tried to move an amendment that could have garnered enough support but unfortunately the bill was passed at second reading by the Commons without division .
This was an issue at the general election , when opposition parties all pledged to review the proposals .
Reluctantly , at the eleventh hour , Savid Javid made a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of the word ‘ review ’ was different to what I previously understood the word to mean .
All they decided to review was how to implement the proposal , rather than the proposal itself .
The House of Lords , however , did carry out a proper review .
The select committee concluded : “ It is unfair that contractors within the rules are treated as employees for tax purposes but do not qualify for employment rights , thus creating a class of “ zero-rights employees ” .
The government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Business has long held the view that the off-payroll tax and the original IR35 legislation needs both review and reform .
We set out proposals for doing this in 2016 in our booklet ‘ The Freelancing Agenda ’ and again last year in our review entitled ‘ Taxation of the self-employed ’ .
It doesn ’ t sound like bedtime reading , but the mess that the taxation and rights issue is keeping the self-employed awake at night .
Indeed , the new proposals are a total nightmare .
Clearly , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an environment where zero-rights employment is legislated for .
It would undermine over 100 years of progress by the labour movement .
We look forward to seeing this strongly opposed by the new Shadow Business and Shadow Treasury frontbench teams .
Anneliese Dodds has in the past been a critic of IR35 , so our confidence is high .
Labour Business would be happy to help any MPs receiving correspondence on this issue and any concerned freelancers , and encourage them to stand with us , so that we can make Labour the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-employed .

For years, the talk has been about the changing working landscape and the oncoming digital revolution. Over the last few months, it has come as a surge. The former dot-com boom was all about innovation on top of a thriving economy, whereas we may now have digital innovation on top of a receding economy. We hope that is not fully the case. The world of work is definitely changing, businesses are going to close, and the threat of a recession hangs in the air.
The financial crisis of ten years ago ushered in austerity but it also saw an increase in people setting up businesses and work as self-employed. Which is the same thing: when you are self-employed, you are in business. We are going to see further growth in the number of self-employed workers, as people are pushed out to fend for themselves.
As someone who is already in the ranks of the self-employed, let me say to the newcomers that we didn’t all choose to be self-employed. Circumstances dictated it for many of us. But now that we are here, we enjoy the freedoms alongside the precarity that comes with it. I couldn’t go back to employment easily, though self-employment isn’t without risk.
There is no guarantee of work, thus no guarantee of an income. You will find it harder to get a loan and buy a home, if that is your goal. There is no holiday pay. Time between work isn’t a holiday, it is just time you are working looking for work but not earning any revenue. There is no boss to pay into your pension, no sick pay, no death-in-service benefit. No side benefits, nobody will offer you maternity or paternity pay, nobody will cover your pay if you are called up for jury service.
You are your own boss, and you are in business on your own account. You need to use the revenue you generate to pay for these hidden costs. You particularly need to cover your costs between clients. It is expensive and hard work. It is expensive, to be fair to employers, when they employ people. Rights do cost money, and the Tories have always worked hard to reduce those expensive rights – always looking at the cost of everything never looking at its value.
In recent years, for those who haven’t made it to self-employment but instead live for the long-term in the precarious world of temporary work, we have seen the growth of zero-hour contracts. It is a throwback to the dark days of the 1930s and the depression. Margaret Thatcher legislated such that employees would attain no real employment rights until they had work for an employer for two years. No right for unfair dismissal, no maternity benefits, etc: it was low-rights employment.
Boris Johnson and his pals have decided to move forward both zero-hour contracts and low-rights employment with a new idea – zero-rights employment. It has been specially designed for the self-employed. Under this scheme, to be administered through the off-payroll regulations that were discussed as part of the Finance Bill, the self-employed will be able to carry all the risks of self-employment but pay the taxes of an employee. Companies can bring in staff for the short term, treat them as if they were suppliers but not give them any rights, while the government can tax them as if they were employees. When they are between clients, I understand that the government will consider them to be self-employed and as such they won’t be eligible for unemployment benefits.
It is a scandal and it has passed through its first stages in parliament without even a vote being cast. There were loud voices of protest on the Labour backbenches from informed MPs like Rachel Hopkins and Meg Hillier, who has championed the self-employed in parliament for some time. It was too much for a number of fair minded and free-thinking Conservative MPs such as David Davis too, who tried to move an amendment that could have garnered enough support but unfortunately the bill was passed at second reading by the Commons without division.
This was an issue at the general election, when opposition parties all pledged to review the proposals. Reluctantly, at the eleventh hour, Savid Javid made a similar half-hearted promise. The Conservative’s use of the word ‘review’ was different to what I previously understood the word to mean. All they decided to review was how to implement the proposal, rather than the proposal itself.
The House of Lords, however, did carry out a proper review. The select committee concluded: “It is unfair that contractors within the rules are treated as employees for tax purposes but do not qualify for employment rights, thus creating a class of “zero-rights employees”. The government is replacing one unfairness with another.”
Labour Business has long held the view that the off-payroll tax and the original IR35 legislation needs both review and reform. We set out proposals for doing this in 2016 in our booklet ‘The Freelancing Agenda’ and again last year in our review entitled ‘Taxation of the self-employed’. It doesn’t sound like bedtime reading, but the mess that the taxation and rights issue is keeping the self-employed awake at night. Indeed, the new proposals are a total nightmare.
Clearly, we can’t have a proposition to create an environment where zero-rights employment is legislated for. It would undermine over 100 years of progress by the labour movement. We look forward to seeing this strongly opposed by the new Shadow Business and Shadow Treasury frontbench teams. Anneliese Dodds has in the past been a critic of IR35, so our confidence is high.
Labour Business would be happy to help any MPs receiving correspondence on this issue and any concerned freelancers, and encourage them to stand with us, so that we can make Labour the natural party both of and for the self-employed.


labourlist--2020-06-10--The need for more BAME representation in Labour. We’re seeing it more clearly than ever

Which press releases to send out ?
Who to put up for broadcast ?
Which stories to brief out ?
What to lead on for the week ?
Which outlets to appear in ?
What tone to adopt ?
What to lead on for PMQs ?
How these decisions come about and who is sat around the table when they are made inform the outcomes – if you ’ re not in the room , you ’ re not being heard , your experiences aren ’ t considered , your perspective goes unheeded .
Which brings us on to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not that one .
I ’ m talking about the Representation rating , or the ‘ R² ’ rating , the level of Race Representation in the Labour Party , at all levels , public-facing and behind the scenes .
The fact that this level is low , and has never not been , under all leaders and general secretaries , is a secret shame of the Labour Party ( are we the baddies ? )
.
Seldom has it been more important that this issue is addressed and changes made than now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world following the police murder of George Floyd , including tens of thousands taking to the streets in the UK .
There has been criticism in recent days that the Labour leadership has been too slow and too cautious in its response to events – just a few words on George Floyd ( and no questions ) at last week ’ s PMQs ; only caveated support for the protests ; condemnation of the toppling of Edward Colston ’ s statue as “ completely wrong ” .
And it ’ s that initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ; the absence of instinctive backing for the Black Lives Matter protests ; the lack of an emotional response to the Bristoric scenes on Sunday that show how important it is to have diversity of outlook in the decision-making process .
If you nor anyone in your circle of influence has walked a mile in the shoes of a black person who has had to see that statue every day , go to a school bearing that slave owner ’ s name , pass streets named in his honour , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the everyday lived experiences of BAME Britons , the response will inevitably be one that is slow , flat and underwhelming .
But such has been the fast pace of the story that a new approach does seem to be developing in real-time .
Just in the time it has taken me to write this piece , the Shadow Communities Secretary has backed the decision by Labour councils to review all statues and commemorations in their areas , and Labour ’ s leader and deputy leader took a knee in solidarity with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In terms of the deeper problems , though , change is needed to ensure Labour responds better and faster in future .
To increase representation from the present low levels , the issue of BAME-only shortlists for parliamentary selections must be looked at ( and not just in ‘ ethnic ’ areas – the Tories seem to have no qualms fielding the likes of Rishi Sunak in Richmond ( Yorks ) , Priti Patel in Witham , Suella Braverman in Fareham and Kemi Badenoch in Saffron Walden ) , and for senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethnic-minority candidates have to be shortlisted for interview , should be considered .
And speaking of staff , when allegations of anti-black racism and Islamophobia are made , these must be investigated .
The failure to deal with complaints about antisemitism over the last few years are a stain on Labour ’ s reputation and the same lax approach must not recur .
Greater representation of BAME opinion and experiences will also affect policy prioritisation and development – on stop and search , drug policy , the criminal justice system , education outcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and minority ethnic Britons overall are disproportionately disadvantaged .
This is something we have seen most tragically in terms of the impact of coronavirus , with some groups up to four times more likely to die from Covid-19 .
In terms of futurist policy areas , there is a BAME dimension : artificial intelligence will have racial justice implications , with the advent of facial recognition and predictive policing .
Preventing discrimination against minorities through AI should be part of Labour ’ s agenda .
And we know that globally , climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is not dealt with – this must be an absolute priority as we move forward .
Representation matters .
Without equality , there can be no justice .

Which press releases to send out? Who to put up for broadcast? Which stories to brief out? What to lead on for the week? Which outlets to appear in? What tone to adopt? What to lead on for PMQs? How these decisions come about and who is sat around the table when they are made inform the outcomes – if you’re not in the room, you’re not being heard, your experiences aren’t considered, your perspective goes unheeded.
Which brings us on to the ‘R’ rating – no, not that one. I’m talking about the Representation rating, or the ‘R²’ rating, the level of Race Representation in the Labour Party, at all levels, public-facing and behind the scenes. The fact that this level is low, and has never not been, under all leaders and general secretaries, is a secret shame of the Labour Party (are we the baddies?). Seldom has it been more important that this issue is addressed and changes made than now, with racial justice protests sweeping the world following the police murder of George Floyd, including tens of thousands taking to the streets in the UK.
There has been criticism in recent days that the Labour leadership has been too slow and too cautious in its response to events – just a few words on George Floyd (and no questions) at last week’s PMQs; only caveated support for the protests; condemnation of the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue as “completely wrong”. And it’s that initial inability to see this as a priority last week; the absence of instinctive backing for the Black Lives Matter protests; the lack of an emotional response to the Bristoric scenes on Sunday that show how important it is to have diversity of outlook in the decision-making process.
If you nor anyone in your circle of influence has walked a mile in the shoes of a black person who has had to see that statue every day, go to a school bearing that slave owner’s name, pass streets named in his honour, if nobody round that table has an understanding of the everyday lived experiences of BAME Britons, the response will inevitably be one that is slow, flat and underwhelming.
But such has been the fast pace of the story that a new approach does seem to be developing in real-time. Just in the time it has taken me to write this piece, the Shadow Communities Secretary has backed the decision by Labour councils to review all statues and commemorations in their areas, and Labour’s leader and deputy leader took a knee in solidarity with “all those opposing anti-black racism”.
In terms of the deeper problems, though, change is needed to ensure Labour responds better and faster in future. To increase representation from the present low levels, the issue of BAME-only shortlists for parliamentary selections must be looked at (and not just in ‘ethnic’ areas – the Tories seem to have no qualms fielding the likes of Rishi Sunak in Richmond (Yorks), Priti Patel in Witham, Suella Braverman in Fareham and Kemi Badenoch in Saffron Walden), and for senior staff appointments a Rooney Rule, whereby ethnic-minority candidates have to be shortlisted for interview, should be considered.
And speaking of staff, when allegations of anti-black racism and Islamophobia are made, these must be investigated. The failure to deal with complaints about antisemitism over the last few years are a stain on Labour’s reputation and the same lax approach must not recur.
Greater representation of BAME opinion and experiences will also affect policy prioritisation and development – on stop and search, drug policy, the criminal justice system, education outcomes, job opportunities – black, Asian and minority ethnic Britons overall are disproportionately disadvantaged. This is something we have seen most tragically in terms of the impact of coronavirus, with some groups up to four times more likely to die from Covid-19.
In terms of futurist policy areas, there is a BAME dimension: artificial intelligence will have racial justice implications, with the advent of facial recognition and predictive policing. Preventing discrimination against minorities through AI should be part of Labour’s agenda. And we know that globally, climate change will impact developing countries the most if it is not dealt with – this must be an absolute priority as we move forward.
Representation matters. Without equality, there can be no justice.


School’s out

Edward Colston fell last weekend in Bristol .
Robert Milligan in Canary Wharf was the next statue to be removed .
It had actually been held in storage until 1997 , before being re-erected that year in the drive to regenerate the Docklands area of east London .
Milligan was a prominent slave owner , and as Sadiq Khan put it : “ It ’ s a sad truth that much of our wealth was derived from the slave trade – but this does not have to be celebrated in our public spaces.
” The mayor has established a commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aim of improving diversity , while Labour councils across England and Wales have promised to undertake their own reviews .
Many Tories are intensely annoyed about these activities as they claim that history is being erased .
I can ’ t remember a time when there was so much discussion of these historical figures , though , which would suggest that the removals are more educational than the continued commemoration of men who traded in humans – as well as being historical moments in themselves .
Conservative commentators can not resist describing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are desperate to return to discussions of ‘ moral relativism ’ .
But as David Olusoga wrote , this is “ one of those rare historic moments whose arrival means things can never go back to how they were ” .
There is also much frustration in the Conservative Party over the government ’ s handling of schools reopening in England .
We have witnessed a predictable U-turn : the aim to get all primary school children back in class a month before the summer holidays has been dropped , as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describe the current plans as unworkable .
The Times has attributed this shambles to a lack of “ determined and imaginative leadership ” and called on the Prime Minister to “ take personal charge ” .
Perhaps most important is a recognition that only 25 % of those children eligible to return to school did so last week .
This is a broader issue of public confidence in the government , which is falling at a time of crisis .
The top scientific advisers have disappeared from the press conferences .
Ministers keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are unable to answer the simplest of questions in media appearances .
The Tories are so eager to ‘ return to normal ’ that they dismissed the idea of improving life under lockdown , instead choosing to rush through measures that unsurprisingly go wrong and end up lengthening the whole process of easing restrictions .
The damage will be felt for many years to come .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Edward Colston fell last weekend in Bristol. Robert Milligan in Canary Wharf was the next statue to be removed. It had actually been held in storage until 1997, before being re-erected that year in the drive to regenerate the Docklands area of east London. Milligan was a prominent slave owner, and as Sadiq Khan put it: “It’s a sad truth that much of our wealth was derived from the slave trade – but this does not have to be celebrated in our public spaces.” The mayor has established a commission to review statues and landmarks with the aim of improving diversity, while Labour councils across England and Wales have promised to undertake their own reviews.
Many Tories are intensely annoyed about these activities as they claim that history is being erased. I can’t remember a time when there was so much discussion of these historical figures, though, which would suggest that the removals are more educational than the continued commemoration of men who traded in humans – as well as being historical moments in themselves. Conservative commentators cannot resist describing it all as ‘virtue signalling’ and they are desperate to return to discussions of ‘moral relativism’. But as David Olusoga wrote, this is “one of those rare historic moments whose arrival means things can never go back to how they were”.
There is also much frustration in the Conservative Party over the government’s handling of schools reopening in England. We have witnessed a predictable U-turn: the aim to get all primary school children back in class a month before the summer holidays has been dropped, as it turns out trade unions were right to describe the current plans as unworkable. The Times has attributed this shambles to a lack of “determined and imaginative leadership” and called on the Prime Minister to “take personal charge”.
Perhaps most important is a recognition that only 25% of those children eligible to return to school did so last week. This is a broader issue of public confidence in the government, which is falling at a time of crisis. The top scientific advisers have disappeared from the press conferences. Ministers keep making policy on the hoof, and they are unable to answer the simplest of questions in media appearances. The Tories are so eager to ‘return to normal’ that they dismissed the idea of improving life under lockdown, instead choosing to rush through measures that unsurprisingly go wrong and end up lengthening the whole process of easing restrictions. The damage will be felt for many years to come. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-06-10--Luke Pollard interview: UK net-zero target, National Food Service, winning in rural areas and more

Luke Pollard , Labour MP for Plymouth and Shadow Environment Secretary , spoke to editor Sienna Rodgers for LabourList ‘ s first online ‘ in conversation ’ event on Tuesday evening .
“ Being a massive gay as I am , I always like taking the insults that people throw at you and making them your own .
So I ’ m very proud to be a big gay Janner.
” On putting together his shadow Defra team… “ There is a lot of focus on who is the shadow cabinet member for a department , but the workload , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done by the entire team and I ’ m really pleased that I ’ ve got Lloyd in the team… Lloyd is a force of nature.
” On the environment during the coronavirus lockdown… “ I think the lockdown has reminded us of what ’ s important .
Not only in terms of recognising the key workers… but I think it has reminded us of our connection to the environment , why we need to build back better , why this is important .
It ’ s also taught us that it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist groups such as Extinction Rebellion… “ We need to listen to those groups about their proposals , and then we need to also apply our own judgement as a party and our own values to that.
” “ It ’ s a really difficult question .
Because the Tories are going too slow on decarbonisation .
They ’ re not putting the investment into the transformative change that ’ s required , nor I think do they have the mindset for that systemic change in the way our economy works that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We need to look again at where we ’ re going to be because the Tories won ’ t have reached the place that we would have reached if we were in power .
So is it possible to reach those same targets ?
It ’ s going to be quite challenging .
That ’ s why we need to be able to look at where we need to be , not tie ourselves down on that target immediately.
” “ I ’ m cautious about tying ourselves down to a set of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election where we might need a completely different approach by the time that comes.
” “ I ’ m lactose intolerant .
I bloody love milk , but I ’ m not allowed it .
As a result , my diet is quite vegan , quite milk-free for obvious reasons.
” “ We ’ ve accepted that food is a market provision now… People in our politics have become comfortable with the sense that the market provides it and the government ’ s job is to step out.
” “ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast and do go into what it means .
You risk falling into a trap of making nicer food banks… We should be uncomfortable with the idea of emergency food provision being there at all .
The policies contained behind the front of house on that one are good and worth looking at.
” On the shortage of pickers in the UK… “ The government scheme to encourage a ‘ land army ’ I think has been a victory of PR over practice .
But we do need to encourage Brits to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a career of choice.
” “ We need to be the voice of rural communities .
How do we do that ?
You ’ ve got to turn up and listen , you ’ ve got to be present , you ’ ve got to have a view , you ’ ve got to be genuine about it.
” “ There is real disquiet on Tory benches about chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef .
They are not the bogeymen of the Brexit debate .
They are the reality of what a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unless we put our standards into law .
”

Luke Pollard, Labour MP for Plymouth and Shadow Environment Secretary, spoke to editor Sienna Rodgers for LabourList‘s first online ‘in conversation’ event on Tuesday evening.
On representing Plymouth…
“Being a massive gay as I am, I always like taking the insults that people throw at you and making them your own. So I’m very proud to be a big gay Janner.”
On putting together his shadow Defra team…
“There is a lot of focus on who is the shadow cabinet member for a department, but the workload, the policy drive, the engagement is done by the entire team and I’m really pleased that I’ve got Lloyd in the team… Lloyd is a force of nature.”
On the environment during the coronavirus lockdown…
“I think the lockdown has reminded us of what’s important. Not only in terms of recognising the key workers… but I think it has reminded us of our connection to the environment, why we need to build back better, why this is important. It’s also taught us that it can be done.”
On Labour working with activist groups such as Extinction Rebellion…
“We need to listen to those groups about their proposals, and then we need to also apply our own judgement as a party and our own values to that.”
On Labour’s 2030 net-zero decarbonisation target…
“It’s a really difficult question. Because the Tories are going too slow on decarbonisation. They’re not putting the investment into the transformative change that’s required, nor I think do they have the mindset for that systemic change in the way our economy works that we’ll need to create.”
“We need to look again at where we’re going to be because the Tories won’t have reached the place that we would have reached if we were in power. So is it possible to reach those same targets? It’s going to be quite challenging. That’s why we need to be able to look at where we need to be, not tie ourselves down on that target immediately.”
“I’m cautious about tying ourselves down to a set of policies in four years ahead of that general election where we might need a completely different approach by the time that comes.”
On food…
“I’m lactose intolerant. I bloody love milk, but I’m not allowed it. As a result, my diet is quite vegan, quite milk-free for obvious reasons.”
“We’ve accepted that food is a market provision now… People in our politics have become comfortable with the sense that the market provides it and the government’s job is to step out.”
On a National Food Service…
“I think the idea works when you say it fast and do go into what it means. You risk falling into a trap of making nicer food banks… We should be uncomfortable with the idea of emergency food provision being there at all. The policies contained behind the front of house on that one are good and worth looking at.”
On the shortage of pickers in the UK…
“The government scheme to encourage a ‘land army’ I think has been a victory of PR over practice. But we do need to encourage Brits to go into agricultural roles. We need farming to be a career of choice.”
On Labour winning in rural areas…
“We need to be the voice of rural communities. How do we do that? You’ve got to turn up and listen, you’ve got to be present, you’ve got to have a view, you’ve got to be genuine about it.”
On post-Brexit food standards…
“There is real disquiet on Tory benches about chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. They are not the bogeymen of the Brexit debate. They are the reality of what a trade deal with the US will be unless we put our standards into law.”


labourlist--2020-06-10--Why Israel’s annexation plans matter to Labour

With the new government in Israel threatening further annexation of occupied Palestinian land , a broad range of parliamentarians , trade unions and cultural figures have signed a statement launched today in support of the global call from Palestine for effective measures to stop the annexation .
The general secretaries of nine trade unions including Len McCluskey and Mick Whelan , cultural figures including Philip Pullman and Maxine Peake , and 33 parliamentarians including Jeremy Corbyn , Andy Slaughter , Diane Abbott , Stephen Kinnock and Bell Ribeiro-Addy have all supported the call from Labour & Palestine , PSC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz is threatening to annex large swathes of the West Bank – including the Jordan valley – starting in July .
This is a time for Labour and the UK government to be vociferous and pro-active in seeking to stop this from happening .
Not just moaning after the event .
Annexation sounds like something anodyne , administrative , neutral rather than dangerous .
But correctly described by leaders of the Arab List – on demonstrations in Tel Aviv – as a ‘ war crime ’ , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Annexation is the forcible and unilateral acquisition by one state – in this case Israel – of territory over which it has no recognised sovereignty .
The land under threat are those parts of the West Bank that were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967 .
This would be the culmination of years of appropriation of land through the forced displacement of Palestinians , settlement and the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 .
The annexation of East Jerusalem was globally condemned , but – in the end – tolerated .
Palestinian civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all states across the world to take ‘ effective measures ’ to stop the annexation taking place .
Since 1967 , the territories Israel occupied have been primarily governed , through the military commander , by military law and Palestinians have had some protection under international law under the laws of occupation .
These are designed to protect the civilian population during a military occupation that is presumed to be temporary .
Although all the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River has been under Israel ’ s control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not directly come under the laws of Israel and the Knesset .
Through settlements , the wall and other laws , such as giving Israeli citizenship to settlers , Israel has sought to blur the lines , but the distinction between Israel and the land it occupies has been broadly maintained in law .
This distinction was the basis of the Oslo accords .
Although annexation was always on the agenda for the more fundamental Zionists within Israel , Netanyahu has mainstreamed it as part of his determination to cling to office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , who has put forward a plan – the ‘ deal of the century ‘ – drawn up by his nephew .
This plan and Trump ’ s actions have been a dream come true for the hardliners in the Knesset , which has a majority publicly supporting annexation .
But time is critical – to do it before the US Presidential elections , in case he is not re-elected .
But also , for a Netanyahu concerned about his legacy , to start it whilst he is still Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , it is a further appeasement to his Christian Evangelical base who support a greater Israel – albeit for different reasons , predominantly driven by antisemitic sentiments .
The core and fundamental purpose underlying annexation is that it permanently puts the ‘ nail in the coffin ’ of a two-state solution .
It leaves no room for any conceivable viable Palestinian state .
It is critical to understanding the motives behind Israel ’ s actions to recognise that it has no interest in and does not want to see the creation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to retain total control of all the land between the sea and the Jordan river , and this is granted under the Trump plan .
Its problem is that there are broadly seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in this land mass , so Israel does not want to sequester all of the occupied territories and all its people .
It wants to take as much land as possible , with as few Palestinians as possible – to quote Netanyahu , “ not a single Palestinian ” .
In its very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is discriminatory .
It picks and chooses who it wants , excluding those who are not Jewish .
It grants rights , privileges and status to some whilst denying and excluding others .
This view was iterated in a letter to Israel ’ s ambassador in the UK , Mark Regev , by a group of prominent British Jews , who wrote : “ It would have grave consequences for the Palestinian people most obviously .
Israel ’ s international standing would also suffer , and it is incompatible with the notion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state.
” Palestinians in East Jerusalem were not granted citizenship when it was annexed , just the status of residents – made to pay taxes , but not eligible to vote .
It is not clear , as yet , what status would be granted to any Palestinians , if there are any , within the annexed territory or to those remaining in the occupied territories .
Israel , far from being a democratic state , becomes even more entrenched as what Israeli human rights organisation Breaking the Silence describes as ‘ One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The racial discrimination will not be limited just to the fundamental legal and political rights , but will permeate every aspect of Palestinian life .
In an excellent briefing , another human rights group , Yesh Din Volunteers for Human Rights , set out some of the other major consequences of annexation .
They detail the impact in two major areas : freedom of movement and property rights .
Under Israeli law , residents of the West Bank have no right of entry to Israel .
They need a permit and to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole new areas ‘ no go ’ zones for Palestinians and would require the establishment of permanent barriers and border controls .
In addition to the settler road system that they are currently excluded from , this would cut across and block many of the remaining roads .
As has been seen in East Jerusalem and elsewhere , once under Israeli law , the way would be open for the expropriation of Palestinian land and houses by the state – because they , the Palestinian owners and residents , were no longer present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land , facilitate the growth of settlement-building and the continuation of ethnic cleansing through expulsion and house demolitions .
It would entrench the already disproportionate control of natural resources , such as water , oil and minerals .
Palestinian civil society has made a global call for ‘ effective measures ’ to be taken to stop this annexation .
If the measures are to be effective , this means the UK should now , at the very least , be adhering to an ethical policy on all the UK ’ s trade with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law on settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and stopping any arms trade with Israel that is used in violation of the human rights of Palestinians .
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic , a number of organisations are cooperating to try to respond to the call from Palestine by making Annexation a live issue on the current political agenda .
Israel ’ s timetable is to annex land quickly with Trump ’ s support .
This means we can not wait .
Stopping annexation must be part of Labour ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at some point Labour needs to recognise there must be consequences for Israel ’ s continual breaches of international law .
Surely annexation is that tipping point .
The Palestinian call for effective measures is reasonable .
This time we can not stand idly by .

With the new government in Israel threatening further annexation of occupied Palestinian land, a broad range of parliamentarians, trade unions and cultural figures have signed a statement launched today in support of the global call from Palestine for effective measures to stop the annexation.
The general secretaries of nine trade unions including Len McCluskey and Mick Whelan, cultural figures including Philip Pullman and Maxine Peake, and 33 parliamentarians including Jeremy Corbyn, Andy Slaughter, Diane Abbott, Stephen Kinnock and Bell Ribeiro-Addy have all supported the call from Labour & Palestine, PSC and other organisations.
The new Israeli unity government of Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz is threatening to annex large swathes of the West Bank – including the Jordan valley – starting in July. This is a time for Labour and the UK government to be vociferous and pro-active in seeking to stop this from happening. Not just moaning after the event.
Annexation sounds like something anodyne, administrative, neutral rather than dangerous. But correctly described by leaders of the Arab List – on demonstrations in Tel Aviv – as a ‘war crime’, annexation is illegal under international law. Annexation is the forcible and unilateral acquisition by one state – in this case Israel – of territory over which it has no recognised sovereignty.
The land under threat are those parts of the West Bank that were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967. This would be the culmination of years of appropriation of land through the forced displacement of Palestinians, settlement and the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980. The annexation of East Jerusalem was globally condemned, but – in the end – tolerated.
Palestinian civil society has made a very clear call for all states across the world to take ‘effective measures’ to stop the annexation taking place. Since 1967, the territories Israel occupied have been primarily governed, through the military commander, by military law and Palestinians have had some protection under international law under the laws of occupation. These are designed to protect the civilian population during a military occupation that is presumed to be temporary.
Although all the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River has been under Israel’s control and domination since it was occupied, it has not directly come under the laws of Israel and the Knesset. Through settlements, the wall and other laws, such as giving Israeli citizenship to settlers, Israel has sought to blur the lines, but the distinction between Israel and the land it occupies has been broadly maintained in law. This distinction was the basis of the Oslo accords.
Although annexation was always on the agenda for the more fundamental Zionists within Israel, Netanyahu has mainstreamed it as part of his determination to cling to office. This has been egged on by Donald Trump, who has put forward a plan – the ‘deal of the century‘ – drawn up by his nephew.
This plan and Trump’s actions have been a dream come true for the hardliners in the Knesset, which has a majority publicly supporting annexation. But time is critical – to do it before the US Presidential elections, in case he is not re-elected. But also, for a Netanyahu concerned about his legacy, to start it whilst he is still Prime Minister and before his trial concludes. For Trump, it is a further appeasement to his Christian Evangelical base who support a greater Israel – albeit for different reasons, predominantly driven by antisemitic sentiments.
The core and fundamental purpose underlying annexation is that it permanently puts the ‘nail in the coffin’ of a two-state solution. It leaves no room for any conceivable viable Palestinian state. It is critical to understanding the motives behind Israel’s actions to recognise that it has no interest in and does not want to see the creation of an independent state of Palestine. It wants to retain total control of all the land between the sea and the Jordan river, and this is granted under the Trump plan.
Its problem is that there are broadly seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in this land mass, so Israel does not want to sequester all of the occupied territories and all its people. It wants to take as much land as possible, with as few Palestinians as possible – to quote Netanyahu, “not a single Palestinian”.
In its very essence, the annexation proposed by Israel is discriminatory. It picks and chooses who it wants, excluding those who are not Jewish. It grants rights, privileges and status to some whilst denying and excluding others. This view was iterated in a letter to Israel’s ambassador in the UK, Mark Regev, by a group of prominent British Jews, who wrote: “It would have grave consequences for the Palestinian people most obviously. Israel’s international standing would also suffer, and it is incompatible with the notion of Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.”
Palestinians in East Jerusalem were not granted citizenship when it was annexed, just the status of residents – made to pay taxes, but not eligible to vote. It is not clear, as yet, what status would be granted to any Palestinians, if there are any, within the annexed territory or to those remaining in the occupied territories. Israel, far from being a democratic state, becomes even more entrenched as what Israeli human rights organisation Breaking the Silence describes as ‘One State, One Discriminatory Regime’.
The racial discrimination will not be limited just to the fundamental legal and political rights, but will permeate every aspect of Palestinian life. In an excellent briefing, another human rights group, Yesh Din Volunteers for Human Rights, set out some of the other major consequences of annexation.
They detail the impact in two major areas: freedom of movement and property rights. Under Israeli law, residents of the West Bank have no right of entry to Israel. They need a permit and to go through border controls. Annexation would make whole new areas ‘no go’ zones for Palestinians and would require the establishment of permanent barriers and border controls. In addition to the settler road system that they are currently excluded from, this would cut across and block many of the remaining roads.
As has been seen in East Jerusalem and elsewhere, once under Israeli law, the way would be open for the expropriation of Palestinian land and houses by the state – because they, the Palestinian owners and residents, were no longer present. It would deny access to agricultural land, facilitate the growth of settlement-building and the continuation of ethnic cleansing through expulsion and house demolitions. It would entrench the already disproportionate control of natural resources, such as water, oil and minerals.
Palestinian civil society has made a global call for ‘effective measures’ to be taken to stop this annexation. If the measures are to be effective, this means the UK should now, at the very least, be adhering to an ethical policy on all the UK’s trade with Israel, in particular by applying international law on settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and stopping any arms trade with Israel that is used in violation of the human rights of Palestinians.
In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, a number of organisations are cooperating to try to respond to the call from Palestine by making Annexation a live issue on the current political agenda. Israel’s timetable is to annex land quickly with Trump’s support. This means we cannot wait.
Stopping annexation must be part of Labour’s foreign policy agenda. Most crucially, at some point Labour needs to recognise there must be consequences for Israel’s continual breaches of international law. Surely annexation is that tipping point. The Palestinian call for effective measures is reasonable. This time we cannot stand idly by.


labourlist--2020-06-10--Labour demands answers from Robert Jenrick on Westferry scandal

Labour has published a series of questions on the ‘ Westferry scandal ’ that the party will put to the implicated housing minister Robert Jenrick in the House of Commons tomorrow .
The urgent question in the parliamentary chamber will follow reports that Jenrick admitted he had shown “ apparent bias ” to billionaire property developer Richard Desmond .
The developer donated £12,000 to the Conservatives after his 1,524-home development was approved by the minister – against the wishes of local residents , Tower Hamlets and the advice of the government ’ s planning inspector .
Labour called on Jenrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the opposition party ’ s local government spokesperson Steve Reed has been granted an urgent question tomorrow .
The party says it is “ taking the unusual step of publishing the questions ” ahead of time after fresh revelations emerged about the Housing Secretary and the former owner of the Express newspapers .
Asked about the reports today , a 10 Downing Street spokesperson defended Jenrick , saying : “ He acted in accordance with this department ’ s guidance on propriety in planning .
“ Like all applications , it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political considerations are never taken into account.
” The questions Labour will put to Jenrick are as follows : • “ Will Mr Jenrick publish all documents and correspondence relating to this decision so the public can see why he took it despite the objections of the local council and the independent planning inspector appointed by his own department ?
• “ Did Mr Jenrick disclose his conversation with Richard Desmond to the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry for Housing , Communities and Local Government ahead of his 14th January decision to grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this represent a breach of the Ministerial Code ?
” • “ Why did Mr Jenrick then not recuse himself from decision making in this case given his relationship with the developer ?
” • “ What contact did Mr Jenrick , or officials in his department , have with the developer or their representatives regarding the application and , specifically , regarding the £30-50m the developer would have been liable for after 14 January if he hadn ’ t intervened ?
” Commenting on the scandal , Reed said : “ Communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fair and transparent , but the unanswered questions around Robert Jenrick ’ s unlawful decision have weakened that trust .
“ It is unprecedented for a Secretary of State to admit to bias – and there are fears he did it to avoid being forced to reveal the truth behind his decision in open court .
“ It ’ s time for Mr Jenrick to come clean and answer these crucial questions about why he overruled his own inspector to grant planning permission for a billionaire Conservative Party donor to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill shortly after they dined together at a glitzy fundraising dinner .
“ Mr Jenrick must prove it ’ s not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy donors but another rule for everyone else .
”

Labour has published a series of questions on the ‘Westferry scandal’ that the party will put to the implicated housing minister Robert Jenrick in the House of Commons tomorrow.
The urgent question in the parliamentary chamber will follow reports that Jenrick admitted he had shown “apparent bias” to billionaire property developer Richard Desmond.
The developer donated £12,000 to the Conservatives after his 1,524-home development was approved by the minister – against the wishes of local residents, Tower Hamlets and the advice of the government’s planning inspector.
Labour called on Jenrick to make a statement to parliament, and the opposition party’s local government spokesperson Steve Reed has been granted an urgent question tomorrow.
The party says it is “taking the unusual step of publishing the questions” ahead of time after fresh revelations emerged about the Housing Secretary and the former owner of the Express newspapers.
Asked about the reports today, a 10 Downing Street spokesperson defended Jenrick, saying: “He acted in accordance with this department’s guidance on propriety in planning.
“Like all applications, it was decided on its individual merits. Party political considerations are never taken into account.”
The questions Labour will put to Jenrick are as follows:
“Will Mr Jenrick publish all documents and correspondence relating to this decision so the public can see why he took it despite the objections of the local council and the independent planning inspector appointed by his own department?
“Did Mr Jenrick disclose his conversation with Richard Desmond to the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government ahead of his 14th January decision to grant planning permission, and if not does this represent a breach of the Ministerial Code?”
“Why did Mr Jenrick then not recuse himself from decision making in this case given his relationship with the developer?”
“What contact did Mr Jenrick, or officials in his department, have with the developer or their representatives regarding the application and, specifically, regarding the £30-50m the developer would have been liable for after 14 January if he hadn’t intervened?”
Commenting on the scandal, Reed said: “Communities must have confidence that the planning process is fair and transparent, but the unanswered questions around Robert Jenrick’s unlawful decision have weakened that trust.
“It is unprecedented for a Secretary of State to admit to bias – and there are fears he did it to avoid being forced to reveal the truth behind his decision in open court.
“It’s time for Mr Jenrick to come clean and answer these crucial questions about why he overruled his own inspector to grant planning permission for a billionaire Conservative Party donor to build a luxury development and dodge a £50m tax bill shortly after they dined together at a glitzy fundraising dinner.
“Mr Jenrick must prove it’s not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy donors but another rule for everyone else.”