labourlist--2020-02-12--NEC candidates demand clarity from Labour over suspension of frontrunners

Candidates in the national executive committee by-elections have demanded clarity over the suspension of two of the frontrunners in the contest .
A letter signed by Labour members and several of the other candidates in the race said that the party “ must make it clear that due process has been followed ” .
Mohammed Azam and Jo Bird , both running to be constituency Labour party ( CLP ) representatives on the party ’ s ruling body , were suspended from the Labour Party by the NEC last week .
There have been claims of a ‘ stitch up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sits on the ruling body as CLP rep , by those on the left who have defended Bird – a Jewish member , supported by Jewish Voice for Labour – from accusations of antisemitism and who consistently opposed Lansman from the Momentum grassroots .
The suspension makes the candidates ineligible to stand as NEC candidates but Labour Left Alliance has tweeted to encourage Labour members to continue nominating Azam and Bird at their CLP meetings .
Three of the signatories – Trish Williams , Peter Apps , Peyman Owladi – have received nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a place on the ballot in the CLP rep contest .
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the Labour Party .
Elections have to be fair , and they also have to be seen to be fair .
We are concerned that the elections for NEC representatives are not meeting this standard .
The media have reported that two candidates for NEC CLP representative posts have been suspended and are therefore not eligible to stand in the election .
If these candidates have been ruled ineligible as reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that due process has been followed to come to this conclusion .
Members have a right to know who has decided to remove them from the process , the rules under which this has happened , and the conditions that had to be met for this step to be taken .
And if these candidates are still eligible , the Party must inform members immediately .
There is widespread confusion about whether nominations for these candidates are still in order , and Officers of Constituency Parties organising nomination meetings have received no guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement to clarify these points , it ’ s unsurprising that members are speculating , rightly or wrongly , about whether these elections are a free and fair process .
We urge the Party to clarify the situation immediately so that we can start to rebuild trust in the process .
Peyman Owladi , Luton South ( NEC CLP rep candidate ) Trish Williams , Berwick-upon-Tweed ( NEC CLP rep candidate ) Pete Apps , Vauxhall ( NEC CLP rep candidate ) Thomas Plater , NE Herts ( NEC CLP rep candidate ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CLP rep candidate ) Chaudhry Qamer Iqbal , Ealing Southall ( NEC BAME rep candidate ) Omolola Oyewusi , Chatham & Aylesford ( NEC BAME rep candidate ) Mehmood Khan , Luton North ( NEC BAME rep candidate ) Markus Keaney , Luton South ( CLP Chair ) John Regan , Blyth Valley ( CLP Chair ) Holly Sutherland , Newcastle Central ( CLP Chair ) Ian Chapman , Berwick-upon-Tweed ( CLP Chair ) Sheila Williams , City of Durham ( CLP Chair ) Tom Tunney , Newbury ( CLP Secretary ) Mick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Mohammad Qadri , Luton North ( CLP Secretary ) Sorrel Adams , Waveney ( CLP Secretary ) Anjona Roy , Northampton South ( CLP Secretary ) Keri Edmonds , Milton Keynes ( CLP Secretary ) Emma Smith , Gosport ( CLP Secretary ) Jessica Leschnikoff , Maidstone & The Weald ( CLP Secretary ) Jan Appleby , North Herefordshire ( CLP Secretary ) Angie Ray , Dover & Deal ( CLP Secretary ) Judith Wardle , Witney ( CLP Secretary ) Hannah Walter , City of Durham ( CLP Secretary ) Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Jon Farley , Leeds North East Jim Hignett , Mid Beds M Shafi , Cambridge Jean Watson , Bedford David Plank , Cambridge Jennifer Runham , Cambridge Philip Veasey , North Herefordshire Jenny Secretan , Newcastle upon Tyne Central Dan Dowling , Hexham David Mallon , Blyth Valley Justin Cousins , Cambridge Angela Mallon , Blyth Valley Michael Armstrong , Blyth Valley Michael Lloyd , Blyth Valley Graham Eastwood , Blyth Valley Brenda Stephenson , City of Durham Rachel Edge , Blyth Valley Dean Jackson , Blyth valley

Candidates in Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) by-elections have demanded clarity over the suspension of two of the frontrunners in the contest.
A letter signed by Labour members and eight of the other NEC candidates in the race said that the party “must make it clear that due process has been followed”.
Mohammed Azam and Jo Bird, both running to be Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representatives on the party’s ruling body, were suspended from the Labour Party by the NEC itself last week.
Claims of a ‘stitch up’ have followed, as Momentum chair Jon Lansman is a member of the NEC and the Momentum slate of NEC candidates does not include Bird or Azam, who are instead promoted by rival left slates.
The suspension makes the candidates ineligible to stand as NEC candidates but Labour Left Alliance has tweeted to encourage Labour members to continue nominating Azam and Bird at their CLP meetings.
Three of the signatories – Trish Williams, Peter Apps, Peyman Owladi – have received nominations from more than five constituency parties and have secured their place on the ballot in the CLP rep contest.
Below is the full text of the letter sent to the Labour Party.
Elections have to be fair, and they also have to be seen to be fair. We are concerned that the elections for NEC representatives are not meeting this standard.
The media have reported that two candidates for NEC CLP representative posts have been suspended and are therefore not eligible to stand in the election.
If these candidates have been ruled ineligible as reported, the Party must make it clear that due process has been followed to come to this conclusion. Members have a right to know who has decided to remove them from the process, the rules under which this has happened, and the conditions that had to be met for this step to be taken.
And if these candidates are still eligible, the Party must inform members immediately. There is widespread confusion about whether nominations for these candidates are still in order, and Officers of Constituency Parties organising nomination meetings have received no guidance.
In the absence of any official statement to clarify these points, it’s unsurprising that members are speculating, rightly or wrongly, about whether these elections are a free and fair process. We urge the Party to clarify the situation immediately so that we can start to rebuild trust in the process.
Signed,
Peyman Owladi, Luton South (NEC CLP rep candidate)
Trish Williams, Berwick-upon-Tweed (NEC CLP rep candidate)
Pete Apps, Vauxhall (NEC CLP rep candidate)
Thomas Plater, NE Herts (NEC CLP rep candidate)
Yaqub Hanif, Luton North (NEC CLP rep candidate)
Chaudhry Qamer Iqbal, Ealing Southall (NEC BAME rep candidate)
Omolola Oyewusi, Chatham & Aylesford (NEC BAME rep candidate)
Mehmood Khan, Luton North (NEC BAME rep candidate)
Markus Keaney, Luton South (CLP Chair)
John Regan , Blyth Valley (CLP Chair)
Holly Sutherland, Newcastle Central (CLP Chair)
Ian Chapman , Berwick-upon-Tweed (CLP Chair)
Sheila Williams, City of Durham (CLP Chair)
Tom Tunney, Newbury (CLP Secretary)
Mick Kennedy, St Ives (CLP Secretary)
Mohammad Qadri, Luton North (CLP Secretary)
Sorrel Adams, Waveney (CLP Secretary)
Anjona Roy, Northampton South (CLP Secretary)
Keri Edmonds, Milton Keynes (CLP Secretary)
Emma Smith, Gosport (CLP Secretary)
Jessica Leschnikoff, Maidstone & The Weald (CLP Secretary)
Jan Appleby, North Herefordshire (CLP Secretary)
Angie Ray, Dover & Deal (CLP Secretary)
Judith Wardle, Witney (CLP Secretary)
Hannah Walter, City of Durham (CLP Secretary)
Bill Haylock, Hexham CLP (LCF Secretary)
Jon Farley, Leeds North East
Jim Hignett, Mid Beds
M Shafi, Cambridge
Jean Watson, Bedford
David Plank, Cambridge
Jennifer Runham, Cambridge
Philip Veasey, North Herefordshire
Jenny Secretan , Newcastle upon Tyne Central
Dan Dowling, Hexham
David Mallon, Blyth Valley
Justin Cousins, Cambridge
Angela Mallon, Blyth Valley
Michael Armstrong, Blyth Valley
Michael Lloyd, Blyth Valley
Graham Eastwood, Blyth Valley
Brenda Stephenson, City of Durham
Rachel Edge, Blyth Valley
Dean Jackson, Blyth valley
The letter can be signed here.


labourlist--2020-02-12--One moment from the first TV debate of Labour’s leadership race said it all

Who saw “ that calamitous election defeat ” coming ?
The opening scene of the first televised debate during Labour ’ s leadership election actually said it all .
Asked to put their hands up if they foresaw Labour ’ s crushing 2019 loss , Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry did so while Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey didn ’ t .
This set the tone for the whole discussion .
Nandy wants to make the point that she is best-placed to win back now- ‘ Blue Wall ’ seats , particularly as she has seen Labour ’ s failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so long .
She put her hand up .
Thornberry wanted to reiterate that she didn ’ t think Labour should have agreed to an election – a remark she repeatedly makes because the idea is that it shows off her political nous and experience .
Her hand shot up too .
Starmer is trying to pitch left in his campaign for the leadership .
As the frontrunner , he is successfully building a coalition of selectorate voters that has produced apparent oddities in the local party nominations whereby he can be nominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Angela Rayner – supposedly Long-Bailey ’ s running mate – and left slate candidates for Labour ’ s national executive committee .
Saying he didn ’ t anticipate the scale of the defeat plays into this pitch .
Long-Bailey simply can not say anything different – and she has already admitted to not having realised that Labour would do so badly .
In fact , she has cited it as a reason for not having a ready-made leadership campaign ready to go after the election .
Although this is communicated as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard worker who strongly believed in the viability of Corbynism , it provokes criticism of her political judgment .
What ’ s more , her base was enthused by a commitment to open selections – but confirming tonight that she wouldn ’ t stick with a four-day week or abolishing private schools will have the opposite effect .
This one key moment of hand-raising , which crystallised their positions in the race , summed up the debate .
While Long-Bailey is stuck playing to type , Starmer is counter-intuitively appealing to the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thornberry , though she is close to securing a place on the ballot after the latest nominations , did not make enough of an impact to really improve her chances of a good showing in the ultimate vote .
Nandy is strengthening her position as ‘ the one most feared by Tories ’ , and should be guaranteed one of the biggest shadow cabinet roles if not the top job itself .

Who saw “that calamitous election defeat” coming? The opening scene of the first televised debate during Labour’s leadership election actually said it all. Asked to put their hands up if they foresaw Labour’s crushing 2019 loss, Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry did so while Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey didn’t. This set the tone for the whole discussion.
Nandy wants to make the point that she is best-placed to win back now-‘Blue Wall’ seats, particularly as she has seen Labour’s failure to connect with voters in towns for so long. She put her hand up. Thornberry wanted to reiterate that she didn’t think Labour should have agreed to an election – a remark she repeatedly makes because the idea is that it shows off her political nous and experience. Her hand shot up too.
Starmer is trying to pitch left in his campaign for the leadership. As the frontrunner, he is successfully building a coalition of selectorate voters that has produced apparent oddities in the local party nominations whereby he can be nominated alongside Richard Burgon for deputy, or with Angela Rayner – supposedly Long-Bailey’s running mate – and left slate candidates for Labour’s national executive committee. Saying he didn’t anticipate the scale of the defeat plays into this pitch.
Long-Bailey simply cannot say anything different – and she has already admitted to not having realised that Labour would do so badly. In fact, she has cited it as a reason for not having a ready-made leadership campaign ready to go after the election. Although this is communicated as a reason for trusting that she is a hard worker who strongly believed in the viability of Corbynism, it provokes criticism of her political judgment. What’s more, her base was enthused by a commitment to open selections – but confirming tonight that she wouldn’t stick with a four-day week or abolishing private schools will have the opposite effect.
This one key moment of hand-raising, which crystallised their positions in the race, summed up the debate. While Long-Bailey is stuck playing to type, Starmer is counter-intuitively appealing to the Labour left and gaining votes across a broad coalition as a result. Thornberry, though she is close to securing a place on the ballot after the latest nominations, did not make enough of an impact to really improve her chances of a good showing in the ultimate vote. Nandy is strengthening her position as ‘the one most feared by Tories’, and is very unlikely to win the top job itself but should be guaranteed one of the biggest shadow cabinet roles.


labourlist--2020-02-12--I worked in Holloway prison for six years. Here’s what I learnt about deporting ‘foreign national of

I worked in Holloway prison for six years. Here’s what I learnt about deporting ‘foreign national offenders’

I worked in Holloway prison for six years .
A number of the women I worked with were ‘ foreign nationals ’ .
Some of these women had been trafficked and endured extensive exploitation – but rather than being in the National Referral Mechanism , they were in prison .
Some of these women had been trafficked and given false papers .
They were then in prison for their false passport and obtaining a national insurance number through dodgy documents .
In some cases , these crimes had enabled these women to work and to pay tax in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authorities .
A number of women I worked with came to the UK as children but for a variety of reasons had never got the paperwork that confirmed their British citizenship .
That means when in their 30s they were caught shoplifting , or in their late 20s without a TV licence , things escalated quickly .
One woman we worked with was a year over her tariff ( the sentence imposed by the judge ) .
For reasons unknown , she remained in prison and not in an Immigration Removal Centre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She had lived here since she was six , having fled the Congolese civil war with the surviving members of her family .
She was facing deportation back to Kinshasa , where she knew no-one and had nothing , 25 years after she ’ d left .
A huge legal battle ensued meaning she was on the plane , on the tarmac when she had a reprieve and was brought back to the prison .
She was then transferred to another prison .
I don ’ t know how her story ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we worked with a young care leaver .
Again , she had arrived as a young child .
She had ended up in local authority care .
We were trying to assist her in applying to university – but she had no proof of her citizenship .
After a long , tenacious journey , we finally got the local authority , as her corporate parent , to admit its failing in not securing her citizenship when she turned 18 .
They agreed to pay for her to gain her citizenship , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t previously received it .
This all took many months of graft and advocacy from a caseworker to achieve .
What if the caseworker hadn ’ t bothered ?
Would this bright young woman have ended up on a deportation flight because of the negligence of those who were meant to protect her ?
Our immigration detention system is beyond broken .
People ’ s human rights and citizenship rights are frequently violated and ignored .
If there is any kind of silver lining to the hideous events of this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s that a much larger part of our population now know about these heinous flights and can be involved in the fight for ending this injustice .
It is the worst kind of politics that lazily characterises the people on these flights as ‘ foreign national offenders ’ .
It is a double othering – not just “ bad people ” but “ bad people from other countries !
” – designed to induce fear and place those arranging these flights above scrutiny .
When you dig into the detail of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived here over 20 years , with families here , who served as little as two months .
These flights are part of an unjust machinery .
They are inspected by the Justice Inspectorates , who scrutinise them but have no power to insist on the implementation of the recommendations made .
If someone dies in detention , it is investigated by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman , who then make recommendations .
But , again , they have no mechanism to ensure implementation of their findings .
So , the inhumane treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dismantled and replaced with a just system .
In the meantime , is it too much to ask that people are held with humanity and decency ?
And in conditions that are safe ?
In light of Brexit and a new relationship with the world , as internationalists , as socialists and as anti-racists , we need to stand with those at the sharp end of these deportations .
We must insist on a fair and proportionate system .
As this brilliant thread by the End Violence Against Women coalition points out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
This is about power and who wields it .
The incredible David Lammy MP asked on Monday – when , when will black lives matter once again ?
We urgently need new systems to prevent lives being shattered and to prevent even graver injustices .
Sara Hyde is currently running to be a Labour candidate for the London Assembly .

I worked in Holloway prison for six years. A number of the women I worked with were ‘foreign nationals’. Some of these women had been trafficked and endured extensive exploitation – but rather than being in the National Referral Mechanism, they were in prison. Some of these women had been trafficked and given false papers. They were then in prison for their false passport and obtaining a national insurance number through dodgy documents. In some cases, these crimes had enabled these women to work and to pay tax in the UK, prior to being picked up by the authorities.
A number of women I worked with came to the UK as children but for a variety of reasons had never got the paperwork that confirmed their British citizenship. That means when in their 30s they were caught shoplifting, or in their late 20s without a TV licence, things escalated quickly.
One woman we worked with was a year over her tariff (the sentence imposed by the judge). For reasons unknown, she remained in prison and not in an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) like Harmondsworth or Colnbrook. She had lived here since she was six, having fled the Congolese civil war with the surviving members of her family. She was facing deportation back to Kinshasa, where she knew no-one and had nothing, 25 years after she’d left. A huge legal battle ensued meaning she was on the plane, on the tarmac when she had a reprieve and was brought back to the prison. She was then transferred to another prison. I don’t know how her story ended.
In another job, working post-prison, we worked with a young care leaver. Again, she had arrived as a young child. She had ended up in local authority care. We were trying to assist her in applying to university – but she had no proof of her citizenship. After a long, tenacious journey, we finally got the local authority, as her corporate parent, to admit its failing in not securing her citizenship when she turned 18. They agreed to pay for her to gain her citizenship, as it was their failings that meant she hadn’t previously received it. This all took many months of graft and advocacy from a caseworker to achieve. What if the caseworker hadn’t bothered? Would this bright young woman have ended up on a deportation flight because of the negligence of those who were meant to protect her?
Our immigration detention system is beyond broken. People’s human rights and citizenship rights are frequently violated and ignored. If there is any kind of silver lining to the hideous events of this week’s charter flight deportation, it’s that a much larger part of our population now know about these heinous flights and can be involved in the fight for ending this injustice.
It is the worst kind of politics that lazily characterises the people on these flights as ‘foreign national offenders’. It is a double othering – not just “bad people” but “bad people from other countries!” – designed to induce fear and place those arranging these flights above scrutiny. When you dig into the detail of some individual cases you find people who have lived here over 20 years, with families here, who served as little as two months.
These flights are part of an unjust machinery. They are inspected by the Justice Inspectorates, who scrutinise them but have no power to insist on the implementation of the recommendations made. If someone dies in detention, it is investigated by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman, who then make recommendations. But, again, they have no mechanism to ensure implementation of their findings. So, the inhumane treatment goes on. The machinery needs to be dismantled and replaced with a just system. In the meantime, is it too much to ask that people are held with humanity and decency? And in conditions that are safe?
In light of Brexit and a new relationship with the world, as internationalists, as socialists and as anti-racists, we need to stand with those at the sharp end of these deportations. We must insist on a fair and proportionate system. As this brilliant thread by the End Violence Against Women coalition points out – when will Rolf Harris be deported? This is about power and who wields it. The incredible David Lammy MP asked on Monday – when, when will black lives matter once again? We urgently need new systems to prevent lives being shattered and to prevent even graver injustices.
Sara Hyde is currently running to be a Labour candidate for the London Assembly.


labourlist--2020-02-12--What does Keir Starmer mean by a ‘Prevention of Military Intervention Act’?

Keir Starmer can fairly be described as the frontrunner in Labour ’ s leadership contest .
As well as gaining the endorsements of UNISON , Usdaw and Community trade unions , plus a number of affiliate organisations , he has won support from 311 local parties .
That is over 58 % of the total CLP nominations that have come in so far .
He has played it very safe so far in the race , and you might assume that he would continue to do so .
But his list of ten policy pledges released today has provoked some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – both because of what they did include and what was missed out .
Those most keen on the immigration motion that passed at Labour conference – advocating the extension of free movement , amongst other things – have been critical of the voting rights pledge .
Labour ’ s 2019 manifesto would have seen all UK residents enfranchised , but Starmer is only promising to extend voting rights to EU nationals .
Perhaps more surprisingly , the ten pledges have come under fire by Corbynsceptics who would typically be expected to back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excited , even , that the so-called ‘ continuity Corbyn ’ candidate isn ’ t in the lead .
And yet high-profile figures from David Aaronovitch to Ayesha Hazarika have been vocally disappointed .
The promise to keep Labour ’ s current policy on university tuition fees – i.e .
scrapping them altogether – is one of the policies doing most to rile up critics .
That applies particularly to those invested in defending the New Labour years , under which fees were introduced before being trebled by the coalition government .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even simply confusion , is the specifics of Starmer ’ s vow to ‘ promote peace and human rights ’ .
As well as “ no more illegal wars ” , which is clearly phrased to reference Tony Blair ’ s Iraq intervention , the frontrunner talks of introducing a “ Prevention of Military Intervention Act ” .
The name of this proposed piece of legislation has raised some eyebrows .
“ At least call it “ Abandon Sierra Leoneans , Kosovars and Kurds Act ” , ” John Rentoul tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” asked James Bloodworth .
It is not explained in the press release or accompanying comments from Starmer , but this is what he recently specified on The Andrew Marr Show : “ I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made , secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons.
” This approach , focussed on legal criteria rather than more political priorities , is likely to characterise Starmer ’ s leadership if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminds us that he opposed the Iraq war on the basis that it was “ not lawful under international law because there was no UN resolution expressly authorising it ” .
The requirement to gain the consent of MPs through a Commons vote would formalise what is currently only an acknowledged convention .
We don ’ t yet know the details of what will constitute ‘ making the lawful case ’ nor a ‘ viable objective ’ .
But the proposal doesn ’ t seem to have an in-built assumption against all types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It only seeks to establish reasonable hurdles .
This development is a vindication of Richard Burgon ’ s proposal to ballot members on military action – his announcement has clearly shaped the main leadership contest let alone the deputy race .
And yet , at the same time , Starmer ’ s pledge isn ’ t as strident as its name might have you believe .

Keir Starmer can fairly be described as the frontrunner in Labour’s leadership contest. As well as gaining the endorsements of UNISON, Usdaw and Community trade unions, plus a number of affiliate organisations, he has won support from 311 local parties. That is over 58% of the total CLP nominations that have come in so far.
He has played it very safe so far in the race, and you might assume that he would continue to do so. But his list of ten policy pledges released today has provoked some criticism in Labour circles on social media – both because of what they did include and what was missed out.
Those most keen on the immigration motion that passed at Labour conference – advocating the extension of free movement, amongst other things – have been critical of the voting rights pledge. Labour’s 2019 manifesto would have seen all UK residents enfranchised, but Starmer is only promising to extend voting rights to EU nationals.
Perhaps more surprisingly, the ten pledges have come under fire by Corbynsceptics who would typically be expected to back Starmer for the leadership – and be excited, even, that the so-called ‘continuity Corbyn’ candidate isn’t in the lead. And yet high-profile figures from David Aaronovitch to Ayesha Hazarika have been vocally disappointed.
The promise to keep Labour’s current policy on university tuition fees – i.e. scrapping them altogether – is one of the policies doing most to rile up critics. That applies particularly to those invested in defending the New Labour years, under which fees were introduced before being trebled by the coalition government.
But the pledge that has caused most concern, or even simply confusion, is the specifics of Starmer’s vow to ‘promote peace and human rights’. As well as “no more illegal wars”, which is clearly phrased to reference Tony Blair’s Iraq intervention, the frontrunner talks of introducing a “Prevention of Military Intervention Act”.
The name of this proposed piece of legislation has raised some eyebrows. “At least call it “Abandon Sierra Leoneans, Kosovars and Kurds Act”,” John Rentoul tweeted. “What does that even mean?” asked James Bloodworth.
It is not explained in the press release or accompanying comments from Starmer, but this is what he recently specified on The Andrew Marr Show: “I would pass legislation that said military action could be taken if first the lawful case for it was made, secondly there was a viable objective and thirdly you got the consent of the Commons.”
This approach, focussed on legal criteria rather than more political priorities, is likely to characterise Starmer’s leadership if he wins on April 4th. It reminds us that he opposed the Iraq war on the basis that it was “not lawful under international law because there was no UN resolution expressly authorising it”.
The requirement to gain the consent of MPs through a Commons vote would formalise what is currently only an acknowledged convention. We don’t yet know the details of what will constitute ‘making the lawful case’ nor a ‘viable objective’. But the proposal doesn’t seem to have an in-built assumption against all types of intervention, despite its title. It only seeks to establish reasonable hurdles.
This development is a vindication of Richard Burgon’s proposal to ballot members on military action – his announcement has clearly shaped the main leadership contest let alone the deputy race. And yet, at the same time, Starmer’s pledge isn’t as strident as its name might have you believe.


labourlist--2020-02-12--Society of Labour Lawyers backs Starmer and Rayner in leadership elections

The Society of Labour Lawyers has nominated Keir Starmer to be the next leader of the Labour Party alongside Angela Rayner as deputy .
After balloting its members , the Labour-affiliated organisation announced today that the two candidates would be receiving its nomination .
The society used a preferential voting system for the vote with the first candidate to receive 50 % of the vote declared the winner .
Starmer reached the 50 % threshold in the first round while the deputy contest went to the fourth round of counting .
The society did not nominate a candidate in either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rayner tweeted following the announcement and said : “ Thank-you so much to @ SocLabLaw for nominating me as deputy leader of the Labour Party l really appreciate the support.
” Camden MP Starmer also took to social media to express his gratitude for the nomination and said : “ Really appreciate your support and the brilliant work you do.
” Each leadership hopeful needs nominations from 5 % of constituency Labour parties – a total of 33 – or from three affiliates , including two trade unions , comprising 5 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy candidates have made it onto the ballot .
The only leadership contender who has not yet secured her place in the final round is Emily Thornberry .
The deadline for CLPs and affiliated organisations to submit their nominations in the leadership contests is February 14th .

The Society of Labour Lawyers has nominated Keir Starmer to be the next leader of the Labour Party alongside Angela Rayner as deputy.
After balloting its members, the Labour-affiliated organisation announced today that the two candidates would be receiving its nomination.
The society used a preferential voting system for the vote with the first candidate to receive 50% of the vote declared the winner.
Starmer reached the 50% threshold in the first round while the deputy contest went to the fourth round of counting.
The society did not nominate a candidate in either the 2015 or 2016 Labour leadership elections.
Rayner tweeted following the announcement and said: “Thank-you so much to @SocLabLaw for nominating me as deputy leader of the Labour Party l really appreciate the support.”
Camden MP Starmer also took to social media to express his gratitude for the nomination and said: “Really appreciate your support and the brilliant work you do.”
Each leadership hopeful needs nominations from 5% of constituency Labour parties – a total of 33 – or from three affiliates, including two trade unions, comprising 5% of affiliated membership.
All of the deputy candidates have made it onto the ballot. The only leadership contender who has not yet secured her place in the final round is Emily Thornberry.
The deadline for CLPs and affiliated organisations to submit their nominations in the leadership contests is February 14th.


labourlist--2020-02-12--Trans rights, deputy hustings and TV debates – Labour’s leadership latest

Social media erupted last night as leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey backed twelve pledges issued by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights .
The list included a commitment to expel members that express transphobic views and the newly launched campaign says its aim is to rid the party of transphobia .
The move by the Salford MP received both approval and recrimination online and a Twitter row quickly ensued .
Some Labour members expressed concerns and thousands began sharing the hashtag # expelme in protest , which was the top trend on the platform in the UK by midnight .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy leader Angela Rayner supported the pledges as well , urging others to sign up .
Lisa Nandy also appeared supportive , sharing the pledges and tweeting “ rather than allow women to be pitted against one another , the Labour Party should always be an open and safe space for all ” .
The deputy leadership candidates met in Manchester yesterday for the first Jewish Labour Movement hustings , at which the ex-Labour MP Ruth Smeeth accused contenders who were in the shadow cabinet of having remained “ silent ” and leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Stoke-on-Trent North said that she “ stood up at every PLP meeting and called out antisemitism and asked for help , and I didn ’ t get any ” .
Keir Starmer continued to maintain the line that he will not oversee a wholesale ditching of Corbynism if made Labour leader with a policy announcement last night .
The Holborn and Pancras MP declared that he would keep the party ’ s current commitment to scrap university tuition fees and said that the party must “ end the national scandal of spiralling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of ten unveiled by the leadership hopeful that included common ownership of rail , mail , water and energy and a promise for “ no more illegal wars ” with the introduction of a Prevention of Military Intervention Act , among others .
The full list can be read here .
The Camden MP ’ s announcement comes ahead of televised hustings taking place tonight .
The candidates will appear on BBC Newsnight at 10.30pm , and another televised debate will take place tomorrow on the Victoria Derbyshire Show .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituency party nominations , coming up this Friday .
Starmer is out in front with the backing of 312 local parties – Long-Bailey is in second place with 138 and Nandy third with 59 .
The only candidate not to have made it onto the ballot yet , through either affiliate or local party nominations , is Emily Thornberry .
If the Islington MP is to make it through to the final vote it looks like she will be leaving it right down to the wire , as she did with MP/MEP nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local parties so far and needs a last push of ten more to see her through .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Social media erupted last night as leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey backed twelve pledges issued by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. The list included a commitment to expel members that express transphobic views and the newly launched campaign says its aim is to rid the party of transphobia. The move by the Salford MP received both approval and recrimination online and a Twitter row quickly ensued. Some Labour members expressed concerns and thousands began sharing the hashtag #expelme in protest, which was the top trend on the platform in the UK by midnight. The bookies’ favourite to be the next deputy leader Angela Rayner supported the pledges as well, urging others to sign up. Lisa Nandy also appeared supportive, sharing the pledges and tweeting “rather than allow women to be pitted against one another, the Labour Party should always be an open and safe space for all”.
The deputy leadership candidates met in Manchester yesterday for the first Jewish Labour Movement hustings, at which the ex-Labour MP Ruth Smeeth accused contenders who were in the shadow cabinet of having remained “silent” and leaving backbenchers to combat antisemitism. The ex-MP for Stoke-on-Trent North said that she “stood up at every PLP meeting and called out antisemitism and asked for help, and I didn’t get any”.
Keir Starmer continued to maintain the line that he will not oversee a wholesale ditching of Corbynism if made Labour leader with a policy announcement last night. The Holborn and Pancras MP declared that he would keep the party’s current commitment to scrap university tuition fees and said that the party must “end the national scandal of spiralling student debt”. The policy commitment was one of ten unveiled by the leadership hopeful that included common ownership of rail, mail, water and energy and a promise for “no more illegal wars” with the introduction of a Prevention of Military Intervention Act, among others. The full list can be read here.
The Camden MP’s announcement comes ahead of televised hustings taking place tonight. The candidates will appear on BBC Newsnight at 10.30pm, and another televised debate will take place tomorrow on the Victoria Derbyshire Show. We’re also approaching the deadline for constituency party nominations, coming up this Friday. Starmer is out in front with the backing of 312 local parties – Long-Bailey is in second place with 138 and Nandy third with 59. The only candidate not to have made it onto the ballot yet, through either affiliate or local party nominations, is Emily Thornberry. If the Islington MP is to make it through to the final vote it looks like she will be leaving it right down to the wire, as she did with MP/MEP nominations. She has the support of 23 local parties so far and needs a last push of ten more to see her through. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-02-12--PMQs: This time, it’s personal

PMQs: This time, it’s personal

“ If there was a case of a young white boy with blonde hair , who later dabbled in class A drugs , and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist would he deport that boy ?
” Jeremy Corbyn challenged the Prime Minister across the despatch box this afternoon .
Referring to the PM here in this punchy comparison , we saw the Labour leader fired up and taking the fight to a personal level in a way that he never normally does .
The first part of the session today was predictably taken up by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn laid bare the stark hypocrisy .
And this was definitely one of his strongest performances , with the Islington MP landing some clever blows and maintaining a clear and concise line of attack .
He also took Boris Johnson to task over the handling the death of Harry Dunn , and questioned the PM on the one-sided nature of the UK ’ s extradition relationship with the United States .
Is it right that someone who came here when they were five , was groomed into trafficking drugs , served a sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
This was the first question from the Labour leader as he highlighted the plight of one of this week ’ s deportees to cries of “ shame ” from the opposition benches .
“ Is it one rule for young black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the US ?
” The PM was obstinate in his defence of the deportations as Corbyn accused the government of trying to mislead the public in suggesting it was only deporting foreign nationals guilty of murder , rape and other similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ absolutely right ” to deport foreign national offenders .
He also accused the Labour leader of conflating this week ’ s deportation with those of the Windrush generation , when Corbyn said that the government had “ learnt absolutely nothing ” from the scandal two years ago .
Moving onto ongoing issues with the US , the Labour leader highlighted the case of Harry Dunn and the row over the extradition of Anna Sacoolas .
Corbyn declared that Dominic Raab had misled the family for not disclosing that she was previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foreign Secretary ’ s removal from office and challenged the PM to clarify : “ Is Anna Sacoolas being shielded from justice because she is a former CIA officer ?
” He replied only that she was notified to the UK as a “ spouse with no official role ” .
Referring to the removal of Julian Assange from the UK to the US , Corbyn called on Johnson to support a recent parliamentary report in opposing the extradition and highlighted the one-sided nature of the two country ’ s extradition arrangement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seek an equal and balanced extradition relationship with the US ?
” Corbyn asked .
The PM denied that this had anything to do with the case of Dunn and Sacoolas , but in a rare moment of agreement in Prime Minister ’ s Questions he conceded that Corbyn “ had a point ” about the relationship .
This is something that legal experts have long criticised – officials in London have been far more likely to hand over people than their counterparts in Washington .
Back in 2012 , the home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the treaty – recommending an increase in the evidential requirement for US authorities and more information from prosecutors .
The UK ’ s relationship with the US is of special interest at the moment , given our departure from the EU and Johnson ’ s desire to form ever closer ties with our transatlantic neighbour .
The one-sided nature of our extradition arrangement should be seen as an indication of the wider relationship , and any future trade deal .
As Corbyn has warned , the US will demand various things from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up of our health service – and it will be unlikely that this Conservative government will refuse .

“If there was a case of a young white boy with blonde hair, who later dabbled in class A drugs, and conspired with a friend to beat up a journalist would he deport that boy?” Jeremy Corbyn challenged the Prime Minister across the despatch box this afternoon. Referring to the PM here in this punchy comparison, we saw the Labour leader fired up and taking the fight to a personal level in a way that he never normally does. The first part of the session today was predictably taken up by the UK government’s deportation policy as Corbyn laid bare the stark hypocrisy. And this was definitely one of his strongest performances, with the Islington MP landing some clever blows and maintaining a clear and concise line of attack. He also took Boris Johnson to task over the handling the death of Harry Dunn, and questioned the PM on the one-sided nature of the UK’s extradition relationship with the United States.
Is it right that someone who came here when they were five, was groomed into trafficking drugs, served a sentence and has never since reoffended be deported? This was the first question from the Labour leader as he highlighted the plight of one of this week’s deportees to cries of “shame” from the opposition benches. “Is it one rule for young black boys from the Caribbean and another for white boys from the US?” The PM was obstinate in his defence of the deportations as Corbyn accused the government of trying to mislead the public in suggesting it was only deporting foreign nationals guilty of murder, rape and other similarly serious offences. Johnson replied that it was “absolutely right” to deport foreign national offenders. He also accused the Labour leader of conflating this week’s deportation with those of the Windrush generation, when Corbyn said that the government had “learnt absolutely nothing” from the scandal two years ago.
Moving onto ongoing issues with the US, the Labour leader highlighted the case of Harry Dunn and the row over the extradition of Anna Sacoolas. Corbyn declared that Dominic Raab had misled the family for not disclosing that she was previously a CIA agent. He called for the Foreign Secretary’s removal from office and challenged the PM to clarify: “Is Anna Sacoolas being shielded from justice because she is a former CIA officer?” He replied only that she was notified to the UK as a “spouse with no official role”. Referring to the removal of Julian Assange from the UK to the US, Corbyn called on Johnson to support a recent parliamentary report in opposing the extradition and highlighted the one-sided nature of the two country’s extradition arrangement. “Will the PM commit today to seek an equal and balanced extradition relationship with the US?” Corbyn asked.
The PM denied that this had anything to do with the case of Dunn and Sacoolas, but in a rare moment of agreement in Prime Minister’s Questions he conceded that Corbyn “had a point” about the relationship. This is something that legal experts have long criticised – officials in London have been far more likely to hand over people than their counterparts in Washington. Back in 2012, the home affairs select committee called for the renegotiation of the treaty – recommending an increase in the evidential requirement for US authorities and more information from prosecutors.
The UK’s relationship with the US is of special interest at the moment, given our departure from the EU and Johnson’s desire to form ever closer ties with our transatlantic neighbour. The one-sided nature of our extradition arrangement should be seen as an indication of the wider relationship, and any future trade deal. As Corbyn has warned, the US will demand various things from the UK – not least the opening up of our health service – and it will be unlikely that this Conservative government will refuse.


labourlist--2020-02-13--REWATCH: Long-Bailey vs Sunak on economic plans in election campaign

Rishi Sunak is reportedly replacing Sajid Javid as the new Chancellor .
The new cabinet member was first elected to @ @ @ @ @ a junior minister in local government as recently as July 2019 .
Labour leadership candidate @ @ @ @ @ debate with Sunak in a BBC programme during the 2019 general election campaign .
Standing @ @ @ @ @ the Shadow Business Secretary impressed pundits when she pointed out that Javid was “ selling @ @ @ @ @ when the global crash hit .
When Sunak talked about “ the cost of Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ key Tory campaign lines , Long-Bailey remarked that he didn ’ t seem to know @ @ @ @ @ and day-to-day spending .

Rishi Sunak is reportedly replacing Sajid Javid as the new Chancellor. The new cabinet member was first elected to parliament in 2015 and was a junior minister in local government as recently as July 2019.
Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey had a fiery debate with Sunak in a BBC programme during the 2019 general election campaign.
Standing in for Jeremy Corbyn, the Shadow Business Secretary impressed pundits when she pointed out that Javid was “selling derivatives at Deutsche Bank” when the global crash hit.
Tory Rishi Sunak calls Labour’s spending plans “absolutely reckless” Rebecca Long-Bailey says Labour is the only party with “credible and detailed costing plan”https://t.co/hK0XIORhsk #BBCDebate #GE2019 pic.twitter.com/fuEGTj0564 — BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 29, 2019
When Sunak talked about “the cost of Corbyn”, one of the key Tory campaign lines, Long-Bailey remarked that he didn’t seem to know the difference between capital expenditure and day-to-day spending.


labourlist--2020-02-13--What we learnt about Labour’s leadership race from the Newsnight debate

My own local party nomination meeting was held last night and went as expected .
One member said Keir Starmer was “ so wooden ” as to be a “ posh kebab ” , while others countered that the frontrunner has “ gravitas ” , the “ skills to face the media ” and “ he looks like he belongs in No 10 ” .
As a representative of a town in the North , Lisa Nandy has “ skin in the game ” , one of her advocates argued .
Emily Thornberry “ deals well with interviews and speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Rebecca Long-Bailey listened to the electorate on Brexit unlike her rivals , another speaker asserted .
Ultimately , the meeting picked Starmer and Angela Rayner , which came as no surprise – mine is a north London constituency neighbouring Holborn and St Pancras , but also this pairing has been by far the most popular choice among the whopping 580 ( of 648 ) local parties that have cast nominations .
For a full analysis of these nominations , complete with graphs , check out James McAsh ’ s piece on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was time to get home for the first televised debate of Labour ’ s leadership election .
The BBC Newsnight hustings didn ’ t provide the stark contrasts that they did in the 2015 race , when the policy platforms of each candidate were plainly distinct from one another .
But its format was helpful : rather than have the contenders deliver a 40-second rehearsed answer to every question , the host intervened and shaped a more interesting sit-down conversation .
There were several notable moments .
The first , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anticipated Labour ’ s 2019 defeat while Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey denied that they did , actually summarised the overall dynamics of the race pretty well , as I wrote in my instant reaction piece last night .
A separate hand-raising exercise later saw all leadership hopefuls back scrapping tuition fees ( despite Nandy earlier criticising this very policy ) , as well as renationalising water and electricity .
Not one of them – not even Long-Bailey – vowed to include abolishing private schools , keeping the pension age at 66 or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next manifesto .
On antisemitism , Long-Bailey said she would expect her deputy – as well as all shadow cabinet members and MPs – to sign the Board of Deputies pledges .
This might raise eyebrows among members in the 56 local parties that have backed Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon .
And yet , at the same time , the Shadow Business Secretary came under attack by Thornberry , who accused her of not speaking up about antisemitism in the shadow cabinet .
“ Er , Rebecca did , I think you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Sorry , I don ’ t remember , ” Thornberry said , with a smile .
On that subject for Long-Bailey , seemingly contradictory statements on policy for Nandy , trans rights for Emily Thornberry ( who later tweeted her support for the pledges , despite telling Newsnight she had a problem with describing Woman ’ s Place UK as a “ hate group ” ) , Keir Starmer ’ s rivals had difficult moments .
And yet he seemed to come away from the debate unscathed .
This may intensify the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is certainly something to be said for needing to beat Boris Johnson via charisma and a fearless approach rather than detailed scrutiny .
But Labour members have had the early ‘ rate Corbyn out of ten ’ question stick in their minds .
His rivals duly offered numbers , while Starmer refused to answer .
This wise response is still being raised in meetings .
The first debate will only add to the idea that he is unflappable .
• Thursday : Victoria Derbyshire leadership debate on BBC Two ( now ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7pm )

My own local party nomination meeting was held last night and went as expected. One member said Keir Starmer was “so wooden” as to be a “posh kebab”, while others countered that the frontrunner has “gravitas”, the “skills to face the media” and “he looks like he belongs in No 10”. As a representative of a town in the North, Lisa Nandy has “skin in the game”, one of her advocates argued. Emily Thornberry “deals well with interviews and speaking in the Commons”, an undecided said. Rebecca Long-Bailey listened to the electorate on Brexit unlike her rivals, another speaker asserted.
Ultimately, the meeting picked Starmer and Angela Rayner, which came as no surprise – mine is a north London constituency neighbouring Holborn and St Pancras, but also this pairing has been by far the most popular choice among the whopping 580 (of 648) local parties that have cast nominations so far. For a full analysis of these nominations, complete with graphs, check out James McAsh’s piece on LabourList today.
After a quick pint, it was time to get home for the first televised debate of Labour’s leadership election. The BBC Newsnight hustings didn’t provide the stark contrasts that they did in the 2015 race, when the policy platforms of each candidate were plainly distinct from one another. But its format was helpful: rather than have the contenders deliver a 40-second rehearsed answer to every question, the host intervened and shaped a more interesting sit-down conversation.
There were several notable moments. The first, when Lisa Nandy and Emily Thornberry said they anticipated Labour’s 2019 defeat while Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey denied that they did, actually summarised the overall dynamics of the race pretty well, as I wrote in my instant reaction piece last night. A separate hand-raising exercise later saw all leadership hopefuls back scrapping tuition fees (despite Nandy earlier criticising this very policy), as well as renationalising water and electricity. Not one of them – not even Long-Bailey – vowed to include abolishing private schools, keeping the pension age at 66 or the four-day week in Labour’s next manifesto.
On antisemitism, Long-Bailey said she would expect her deputy – as well as all shadow cabinet members and MPs – to sign the Board of Deputies pledges. This might raise eyebrows among members in the 56 local parties that have backed Long-Bailey and Richard Burgon. And yet, at the same time, the Shadow Business Secretary came under attack by Thornberry, who accused her of not speaking up about antisemitism in the shadow cabinet. “Er, Rebecca did, I think you’ll find,” Long-Bailey interjected. “Sorry, I don’t remember,” Thornberry said, with a smile.
On that subject for Long-Bailey, seemingly contradictory statements on policy for Nandy, trans rights for Emily Thornberry (who later tweeted her support for the pledges, despite telling Newsnight she had a problem with describing Woman’s Place UK as a “hate group”), Keir Starmer’s rivals had difficult moments. And yet he seemed to come away from the debate unscathed. This may intensify the perception that he is dull, and there is certainly something to be said for needing to beat Boris Johnson via charisma and a fearless approach rather than detailed scrutiny. But Labour members have had the early ‘rate Corbyn out of ten’ question stick in their minds. His rivals duly offered numbers, while Starmer refused to answer. This wise response is still being raised in meetings. The first debate will only add to the idea that he is unflappable.


labourlist--2020-02-13--What the latest CLP nominations tell us about Labour’s leadership elections

A staggering 580 of 648 constituency Labour parties ( CLPs ) have now nominated candidates to be the next Labour leader and deputy – more than in any contest before .
A few may trickle still in before the Valentine ’ s Day deadline , but not enough to make any real impact .
Just over a week ago , I analysed the results from the first 250 CLPs .
The total number has now doubled .
What ’ s changed and what has stayed the same ?
The headlines have not changed .
Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each has approximately 60 % of nominations .
Two in five CLPs have nominated both candidates , one in five have nominated each one alone , and only one in five have nominated neither .
There have been subtle changes to the underlying patterns .
First , let ’ s look at the relationship with 2015 nominations .
Where does each candidate find their support ?
Starmer ’ s support is still spread roughly proportionately across the four candidates from that contest ; he has a majority from each .
Rebecca Long-Bailey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeremy Corbyn or Andy Burnham than she does with ones that opted for Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall .
Less than a fifth of Lisa Nandy ’ s nominations come from CLPs which nominated Corbyn in 2015 , despite him winning the most in that contest .
The relationship with nominations from the 2016 leadership contest is more stark .
After all , that race was essentially a referendum on Corbyn ’ s leadership – Owen Smith was never more than a placeholder .
CLPs that nominated Corbyn are divided .
The majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong second .
By contrast , those that nominated Smith favour Starmer over Long-Bailey by a margin of seven-to-one .
CLPs will have changed a lot but the fault lines set in the summer of 2016 still have meaning today .
What about the relationship between nominations for leadership and deputy ?
The patterns from last week have only become clearer .
The Momentum-backed mutual endorsements of Long-Bailey and Rayner have meant almost nothing .
Only 59 CLPs have nominated both : this is a third of Long-Bailey ’ s nominations and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy ( CLPD ) joint ticket of Long-Bailey and Burgon has almost as many , with 55 nominations .
A new thing to look at is how MP nominations match up with that of their local CLPs .
A defining feature of the last four years was the accusation that MPs are out of touch with their local parties .
This was driven in large part by their divergence on the 2016 election : MPs overwhelmingly backed Smith , while CLPs overwhelmingly supported Corbyn .
In 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constituencies , the MP and local party have nominated the same candidate .
The exception is Thornberry ’ s nominations – many of her MPs nominated her to ensure she reaches the ballot , and widen the debate .
CLPs have not been so kind : most of her nominations are from constituencies with no MP .
What about different types of seat ?
Perspective on the EU is still a factor .
CLPs nominating Starmer and Thornberry are more likely to be in areas that voted Remain , while those supporting Long-Bailey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nonetheless , the Brexit vote does not disrupt the headline results : Starmer has won a majority of both groups , Long-Bailey is in second place , and Nandy is beating Thornberry to third place .
Perhaps we ’ re not so divided after all .
There are two hundred CLPs that did not nominate in 2015 but have done in 2020 .
Just over a third nominated in the 2016 leadership contest between Corbyn and Smith .
All but one of those that nominated Smith have now nominated Starmer , whereas those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between him and Long-Bailey .
By contrast , those which did not nominate in 2015 or 2016 are more likely to have nominated Starmer than the average .
A clear pattern has emerged : in 2016 , parties that had become more active under Corbynism rallied to defend him , whereas those which have become active more recently have flocked to Starmer ’ s banner .
The message is very clear .
Seven out of nine candidates will be keen to play down the extent to which these nominations are representative of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , nominations tend to be a very good test of each candidate ’ s popularity .
However , the nature of the system – where each CLP is a winner-takes-all contest – exaggerates the differences .
It is unlikely that the final result will be the landslide those figures suggest but , in the leadership race at least , I suspect that they will at least reflect the same order .
The race for deputy is more complicated because four of the five candidates have a similar number of nominations .
Nominations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and in 2010 it came pretty close .
In a two-candidate contest , you can go even further and predict the numbers using a handy formula .
CLP nominations in the 2016 leadership race predicted that Corbyn would beat Owen Smith 64 % to 36 % .
In the end , the result was 62 % to 38 % .
It is all but impossible that Starmer and Rayner will lose .
Moreover , their staggering leads make it clear that they have hoovered up support from both previous Corbyn supporters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era of unity ?
A happy compromise between those who want the Corbyn project to enter a new stage , and those who want it to end ?
Or rather , will the expectations for the new leadership be ultimately irreconcilable ?
Only time will tell .

A staggering 580 of 648 constituency Labour parties (CLPs) have now nominated candidates to be the next Labour leader and deputy – more than in any contest before. A few may trickle still in before the Valentine’s Day deadline, but not enough to make any real impact.
Just over a week ago, I analysed the results from the first 250 CLPs. The total number has now doubled. What’s changed and what has stayed the same? The headlines have not changed. Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner are in the lead by a considerable margin. Each has approximately 60% of nominations. Two in five CLPs have nominated both candidates, one in five have nominated each one alone, and only one in five have nominated neither.
There have been subtle changes to the underlying patterns. First, let’s look at the relationship with 2015 nominations.
Where does each candidate find their support?
Starmer’s support is still spread roughly proportionately across the four candidates from that contest; he has a majority from each. Rebecca Long-Bailey performs considerably better amongst CLPs that nominated Jeremy Corbyn or Andy Burnham than she does with ones that opted for Yvette Cooper or Liz Kendall. Less than a fifth of Lisa Nandy’s nominations come from CLPs which nominated Corbyn in 2015, despite him winning the most in that contest.
The relationship with nominations from the 2016 leadership contest is more stark. After all, that race was essentially a referendum on Corbyn’s leadership – Owen Smith was never more than a placeholder.
CLPs that nominated Corbyn are divided. The majority want Starmer, but Long-Bailey is a strong second. By contrast, those that nominated Smith favour Starmer over Long-Bailey by a margin of seven-to-one. CLPs will have changed a lot but the fault lines set in the summer of 2016 still have meaning today.
What about the relationship between nominations for leadership and deputy? The patterns from last week have only become clearer. The Momentum-backed mutual endorsements of Long-Bailey and Rayner have meant almost nothing. Only 59 CLPs have nominated both: this is a third of Long-Bailey’s nominations and just a sixth of Rayner’s. The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) joint ticket of Long-Bailey and Burgon has almost as many, with 55 nominations.
CLP and PLP unity?
A new thing to look at is how MP nominations match up with that of their local CLPs. A defining feature of the last four years was the accusation that MPs are out of touch with their local parties. This was driven in large part by their divergence on the 2016 election: MPs overwhelmingly backed Smith, while CLPs overwhelmingly supported Corbyn.
In 2020, that has changed. In most Labour constituencies, the MP and local party have nominated the same candidate. The exception is Thornberry’s nominations – many of her MPs nominated her to ensure she reaches the ballot, and widen the debate. CLPs have not been so kind: most of her nominations are from constituencies with no MP.
What about different types of seat? Perspective on the EU is still a factor. CLPs nominating Starmer and Thornberry are more likely to be in areas that voted Remain, while those supporting Long-Bailey or Nandy more often voted Leave.
Nonetheless, the Brexit vote does not disrupt the headline results: Starmer has won a majority of both groups, Long-Bailey is in second place, and Nandy is beating Thornberry to third place. Perhaps we’re not so divided after all.
Newly active CLPs
There are two hundred CLPs that did not nominate in 2015 but have done in 2020. Just over a third nominated in the 2016 leadership contest between Corbyn and Smith. All but one of those that nominated Smith have now nominated Starmer, whereas those which nominated Corbyn are split almost equally between him and Long-Bailey.
By contrast, those which did not nominate in 2015 or 2016 are more likely to have nominated Starmer than the average. A clear pattern has emerged: in 2016, parties that had become more active under Corbynism rallied to defend him, whereas those which have become active more recently have flocked to Starmer’s banner.
Who will win?
The message is very clear. Seven out of nine candidates will be keen to play down the extent to which these nominations are representative of their support in the party. Unfortunately for them, nominations tend to be a very good test of each candidate’s popularity. However, the nature of the system – where each CLP is a winner-takes-all contest – exaggerates the differences.
It is unlikely that the final result will be the landslide those figures suggest but, in the leadership race at least, I suspect that they will at least reflect the same order. The race for deputy is more complicated because four of the five candidates have a similar number of nominations.
Nominations predicted the order of results in 2015, and in 2010 it came pretty close. In a two-candidate contest, you can go even further and predict the numbers using a handy formula. CLP nominations in the 2016 leadership race predicted that Corbyn would beat Owen Smith 64% to 36%. In the end, the result was 62% to 38%.
It is all but impossible that Starmer and Rayner will lose. Moreover, their staggering leads make it clear that they have hoovered up support from both previous Corbyn supporters and his critics. Is this a new era of unity? A happy compromise between those who want the Corbyn project to enter a new stage, and those who want it to end? Or rather, will the expectations for the new leadership be ultimately irreconcilable? Only time will tell.


labourlist--2020-02-13--WATCH: Thornberry accuses Long-Bailey of silence on antisemitism

Emily Thornberry accused leadership rival Rebecca Long-Bailey of being silent on antisemitism in the most striking moment of the first @ @ @ @ @ .
During the BBC Newsnight hustings , Keir Starmer said : “ The idea that @ @ @ @ @ out is not actually accurate .
So we just need to correct the record there.
@ @ @ @ @ It ought to be said that Keir and I were both in the shadow cabinet @ @ @ @ @ two of us , call for regular reports to the shadow cabinet to find out… @ @ @ @ @ saying “ Rebecca didn ’ t ” , the Shadow Foreign Secretary said : “ @ @ @ @ @ t think Rebecca did , but Keir and I did.
” Long-Bailey then interjected : @ @ @ @ @ , I think you ’ ll find.
” With a smile , Thornberry concluded : @ @ @ @ @ ’ t remember .
”

Emily Thornberry accused leadership rival Rebecca Long-Bailey of being silent on antisemitism in the most striking moment of the first televised debate on Wednesday evening.
During the BBC Newsnight hustings, Keir Starmer said: “The idea that we haven’t spoken out is not actually accurate. So we just need to correct the record there.”
Thornberry replied: “It ought to be said that Keir and I were both in the shadow cabinet and would regularly, the two of us, call for regular reports to the shadow cabinet to find out…”
Asked whether she was saying “Rebecca didn’t”, the Shadow Foreign Secretary said: “No, I don’t think Rebecca did, but Keir and I did.”
Long-Bailey then interjected: “Er, Rebecca did, I think you’ll find.” With a smile, Thornberry concluded: “Sorry, I don’t remember.”


labourlist--2020-02-13--How each leadership candidate fared in the Jewish Labour Movement hustings

Rebecca Long-Bailey kicked off the Jewish Labour Movement hustings held in a north London synagogue tonight , and she did so with an apology for the “ hurt and anxiety ” caused by Labour antisemitism .
Asked about how to rebuild trust with the Jewish community , she talked about her own constituents in Salford and vowed to prioritise : a disciplinary process that is “ legally independent , free from political bias or interference ” ; educating members ; and calling out antisemitism .
Although seen as the candidate closest to Jeremy Corbyn , Long-Bailey made clear efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken by the current leadership team on this key issue that naturally dominated the JLM debate .
Referring to the ‘ bunker mentality ’ that has often been attributed to the leader ’ s office , she said : “ There was a bunker that formed .
That bunker remained for many years and created a further escalation of the crisis.
” On the specifics of what happened when Labour ’ s ruling body – of which she is a member – appeared to resist adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answers were found by audience members to be vague and far from satisfactory .
She was never going to be the favoured candidate of JLM , but could have been clearer about what exactly happened in that situation and why .
Asked about the Labour whistleblowers who appeared on Panorama , however , Long-Bailey was willing to criticise the leadership .
She said : “ I don ’ t think the party gave the right response .
We should not have called out or attacked former members of staff… We should apologise for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any claims that were made.
” She also confirmed that she would welcome Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman back into the party , saying what they “ have been through was absolutely shocking ” .
Most surprisingly of all , the Shadow Business Secretary offered an answer on Zionism that raised eyebrows among a number of her supporters on the Labour left .
While frontrunner Keir Starmer declined the opportunity to self-describe as a Zionist , Long-Bailey concluded : “ I also agree with a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state… I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I agree with Israel ’ s right to exist and right to self determine.
” It ’ s not difficult to see that one commanding Labour Twitter discourse for the next few days .
Emily Thornberry sat beside Long-Bailey , and wasn ’ t entirely frosty towards her despite having delivered some of the most cutting comments about her record on antisemitism in the Newsnight debate on Wednesday evening .
The Shadow Foreign Secretary was on top form for JLM , always ready to challenge her rivals while offering wit and charisma to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious subject of antisemitism within Labour , Thornberry said : “ The next Labour leader will have political capital .
What she needs to do is use that political capital… ” Starmer chuckled along with the rest of the room .
Thornberry also informed us that Boris Johnson used to live in her constituency , Islington South and Finsbury .
He moved out , she told the event , “ because he said that everybody kept shouting at him and could I stop them shouting at him , and I said : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frankly.
” ” Perhaps her most confrontational moment actually came when Lisa Nandy was talking about social care and the need to build a “ cross-party consensus ” and “ reach across the political divide ” to deal with the crisis .
Thornberry tried to interrupt , indicating that she had a relevant point to make .
When she did manage to take her turn to speak , she pointed out that she had already tried to work with the government on the issue and it was fruitless .
“ I was shadow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No 10 and I tried to engage .
To be honest , we sat around a table and… there was no trust between the two parties at all .
And so I think it sounds good to say the two parties need to come together , but just from my experience , it ain ’ t gon na happen.
” In sharing this anecdote , Thornberry reminded everyone that she has been in the game a long time and has experience to back up her policy positions .
Keir Starmer was strongest when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you might expect .
The format of this hustings , chaired by Robert Peston , gave candidates the opportunity to speak at length – there were barely any interruptions – and this allowed Starmer to expand on his points .
Like Corbyn , and in fact like most of these candidates , he is not brilliant at putting his point across both well and in a concise way .
The frontrunner in Labour ’ s leadership race often raises his experience as a former Director of Public Prosecutions .
It is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe the party needs a thorough upheaval in order to be fit for government – and , before that , the next election campaign .
But Starmer put this attribute into greater perspective tonight when he talked about Labour ’ s handling of the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation .
When confronted with this kind of scrutiny , organisations “ either open the books , or they circle the wagons ” , he said .
Starmer told Labour that it must do the former and take an open approach .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask for preliminary findings , ” he added – a suggestion that sounds like it comes from real and valuable knowledge of running a large organisation .
He was also honest about his view of an independent complaints process .
“ I wasn ’ t an instant convert , ” he told us , admitting that he had reservations about the workability of the idea – something that the leadership candidates have arguably not yet explored in enough detail .
However , he added : “ It became clear to me that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be restored if we didn ’ t have that.
” Starmer also explained that he “ didn ’ t break rank and tell people what was going on in the shadow cabinet ” but said : “ We spoke up in shadow cabinet .
Emily spoke up loud and clear .
Sometimes the row went on for the whole of the meeting , on the definition , on auto-exclude.
” This kind of clarity is helpful .
He did , again , pitch further left than expected with his final answer on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were disappointed with his list of ten pledges earlier this week , which seemed to be really quite Corbynite .
Those same members may not be pleased that he was the only leadership candidates not to say they described themselves as a Zionist .
“ I don ’ t describe myself as a Zionist but I understand , sympathise and support Zionism , ” Starmer replied .
This provoked ‘ ooh ’ s in the room .
Lisa Nandy undoubtedly ‘ won ’ the JLM debate , if we ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was remarkably specific about antisemitism , in terms of both where Labour failed and what it needs to do next .
She often answered questions differently to the other contenders by cleverly finding a way to make a nuanced point – as she did earlier today , when she said “ no ” she would not expel Pete Willsman from the party as Labour leader , because there would be an independent process and the decision wouldn ’ t be up to her .
As a result of antisemitism within Labour , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered my position in the Labour Party… I ’ ve questioned that every single day.
” She specifically condemned the way in which it was described by high-profile figures as “ smears and mood music ” .
She also pointed out that Labour has “ a leadership that is still now refusing to disclose the submission that we made to the EHRC ” .
Asked about whether as leader she would “ abandon Labour ’ s defence and settle ” with regard to the Panorama whistleblowers , who are threatening legal action against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I want to do more than just settle… I will make the Labour Party one that values and celebrates that sort of action.
” There is no doubt that those members in attendance at the event today were most impressed by Nandy .
She offered concise responses , and she was completely unencumbered by having held a shadow cabinet role , as she quit during the coup and never returned to the fold .
Certainly those most active in JLM appear likely to vote in favour of nominating Nandy for the top job @ @ @ @

Rebecca Long-Bailey kicked off the Jewish Labour Movement hustings held in a north London synagogue tonight, and she did so with an apology for the “hurt and anxiety” caused by Labour antisemitism. Asked about how to rebuild trust with the Jewish community, she talked about her own constituents in Salford and vowed to prioritise: a disciplinary process that is “legally independent, free from political bias or interference”; educating members; and calling out antisemitism.
Although seen as the candidate closest to Jeremy Corbyn, Long-Bailey made clear efforts to distance herself from much of the approach taken by the current leadership team on this key issue that naturally dominated the JLM debate. Referring to the ‘bunker mentality’ that has often been attributed to the leader’s office, she said: “There was a bunker that formed. That bunker remained for many years and created a further escalation of the crisis.”
On the specifics of what happened when Labour’s ruling body – of which she is a member – appeared to resist adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and all of its examples, Long-Bailey’s answers were found by audience members to be vague and far from satisfactory. She was never going to be the favoured candidate of JLM, but could have been clearer about what exactly happened in that situation and why.
Asked about the Labour whistleblowers who appeared on Panorama, however, Long-Bailey was willing to criticise the leadership. She said: “I don’t think the party gave the right response. We should not have called out or attacked former members of staff… We should apologise for how we behaved. We should settle any claims that were made.” She also confirmed that she would welcome Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman back into the party, saying what they “have been through was absolutely shocking”.
Most surprisingly of all, the Shadow Business Secretary offered an answer on Zionism that raised eyebrows among a number of her supporters on the Labour left. While frontrunner Keir Starmer declined the opportunity to self-describe as a Zionist, Long-Bailey concluded: “I also agree with a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state… I suppose that makes me a Zionist because I agree with Israel’s right to exist and right to self determine.” It’s not difficult to see that one commanding Labour Twitter discourse for the next few days.
Emily Thornberry sat beside Long-Bailey, and wasn’t entirely frosty towards her despite having delivered some of the most cutting comments about her record on antisemitism in the Newsnight debate on Wednesday evening. The Shadow Foreign Secretary was on top form for JLM, always ready to challenge her rivals while offering wit and charisma to the proceedings.
Even when discussing the serious subject of antisemitism within Labour, Thornberry said: “The next Labour leader will have political capital. What she needs to do is use that political capital…” Starmer chuckled along with the rest of the room.
Thornberry also informed us that Boris Johnson used to live in her constituency, Islington South and Finsbury. He moved out, she told the event, “because he said that everybody kept shouting at him and could I stop them shouting at him, and I said: “No, Boris, you deserve it frankly.””
Perhaps her most confrontational moment actually came when Lisa Nandy was talking about social care and the need to build a “cross-party consensus” and “reach across the political divide” to deal with the crisis. Thornberry tried to interrupt, indicating that she had a relevant point to make. When she did manage to take her turn to speak, she pointed out that she had already tried to work with the government on the issue and it was fruitless.
“I was shadow social care minister and I went to No 10 and I tried to engage. To be honest, we sat around a table and… there was no trust between the two parties at all. And so I think it sounds good to say the two parties need to come together, but just from my experience, it ain’t gonna happen.” In sharing this anecdote, Thornberry reminded everyone that she has been in the game a long time and has experience to back up her policy positions.
Keir Starmer was strongest when talking about issues in great detail, as you might expect. The format of this hustings, chaired by Robert Peston, gave candidates the opportunity to speak at length – there were barely any interruptions – and this allowed Starmer to expand on his points. Like Corbyn, and in fact like most of these candidates, he is not brilliant at putting his point across both well and in a concise way.
The frontrunner in Labour’s leadership race often raises his experience as a former Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a point that inspires trust from members who believe the party needs a thorough upheaval in order to be fit for government – and, before that, the next election campaign.
But Starmer put this attribute into greater perspective tonight when he talked about Labour’s handling of the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation. When confronted with this kind of scrutiny, organisations “either open the books, or they circle the wagons”, he said. Starmer told Labour that it must do the former and take an open approach. “I’ve said we’ve got to ask for preliminary findings,” he added – a suggestion that sounds like it comes from real and valuable knowledge of running a large organisation.
He was also honest about his view of an independent complaints process. “I wasn’t an instant convert,” he told us, admitting that he had reservations about the workability of the idea – something that the leadership candidates have arguably not yet explored in enough detail. However, he added: “It became clear to me that trust with the Jewish community wouldn’t be restored if we didn’t have that.”
Starmer also explained that he “didn’t break rank and tell people what was going on in the shadow cabinet” but said: “We spoke up in shadow cabinet. Emily spoke up loud and clear. Sometimes the row went on for the whole of the meeting, on the definition, on auto-exclude.” This kind of clarity is helpful.
He did, again, pitch further left than expected with his final answer on Zionism. Some of his Corbynsceptic supporters were disappointed with his list of ten pledges earlier this week, which seemed to be really quite Corbynite. Those same members may not be pleased that he was the only leadership candidates not to say they described themselves as a Zionist. “I don’t describe myself as a Zionist but I understand, sympathise and support Zionism,” Starmer replied. This provoked ‘ooh’s in the room.
Lisa Nandy undoubtedly ‘won’ the JLM debate, if we’re going to put it in those straightforward terms. She was remarkably specific about antisemitism, in terms of both where Labour failed and what it needs to do next. She often answered questions differently to the other contenders by cleverly finding a way to make a nuanced point – as she did earlier today, when she said “no” she would not expel Pete Willsman from the party as Labour leader, because there would be an independent process and the decision wouldn’t be up to her.
As a result of antisemitism within Labour, Nandy said: “I’ve considered my position in the Labour Party… I’ve questioned that every single day.” She specifically condemned the way in which it was described by high-profile figures as “smears and mood music”. She also pointed out that Labour has “a leadership that is still now refusing to disclose the submission that we made to the EHRC”.
Asked about whether as leader she would “abandon Labour’s defence and settle” with regard to the Panorama whistleblowers, who are threatening legal action against the party, Nandy replied: “I want to do more than just settle… I will make the Labour Party one that values and celebrates that sort of action.”
There is no doubt that those members in attendance at the event today were most impressed by Nandy. She offered concise responses, and she was completely unencumbered by having held a shadow cabinet role, as she quit during the coup and never returned to the fold. Certainly those most active in JLM appear likely to vote in favour of nominating Nandy for the top job as a result.


labourlist--2020-02-13--Long-Bailey reveals four-point “path to power” plan in bid to shake up leadership race

Labour left candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey is set to reveal a four-point plan for a “ path to power ” in a major speech being delivered as part of an effort to shake up the leadership contest .
Setting out her ideas at an event for party members in Salford , the Shadow Business Secretary will warn against “ looking for an easy option to win next time ” on the basis that “ the path of despair is also the path to defeat ” .
She is expected to reject the suggestion that Labour could “ give up on something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to become more electable , saying : “ Retreating from popular policies that provide answers to the crises facing our country is no route to victory .
“ Shrinking from our ambitions to better our children ’ s lives won ’ t make us more credible .
Triangulation hasn ’ t worked for social democratic parties across Europe and it won ’ t work here.
” Long-Bailey will unveil the following four-point plan as a proposed “ path to power ” for Labour : The leadership hopeful will also send a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her own personal story in terms of not just winning the internal Labour election but also entering 10 Downing Street .
Long-Bailey will say : “ If we lived in a world where how hard you worked or how clever you are translated into success , we wouldn ’ t be on our 20th Prime Minister who went to the same school .
No child from my school ever went on to become Prime Minister .
But I am going to change that .
“ And when I get to Downing Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am , what made me , and that I am there to help deliver the hopes , dreams , and expectations of millions of others who grew up in similar communities as mine .
“ I ’ m a details person .
I work hard .
I don ’ t slack off .
I suppose that ’ s the benefit of being a working class woman , always having to work twice as hard to show you ’ re just as good , in fact better , than an upper-middle class man .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s time our party had a woman leader .
“ It also means I know our people .
I know what drives us forward .
Vision isn ’ t just about big picture thinking and intellect , it ’ s also about a feeling , having a sense for the hopes and dreams of our people .
That ’ s why I know I can win back areas we lost and new ones we failed to win .
“ But to develop a compelling vision , you also need a solid sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve always known what my politics are .
I ’ m a socialist who ’ s aspirational for my family , my community and my class.
” On empowering the grassroots of the party and wider labour movement , Long-Bailey will say : “ We aren ’ t just a different team of politicians in Westminster , alternating power with the Tories .
Our party was born out of a movement in communities like mine and many of those we lost in the election .
“ To win again , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it ’ s our members and our trade unions , on the front line in workplaces and communities , who will make that a reality .
“ I say this to my colleagues in parliament who might be worried about a more democratic party .
Let ’ s not be timid .
Let ’ s nurture our talent and bring people into every role in the party.
” Referring to U.S. Democratic Party congresswoman and Green New Deal activist Alexandria Ocasio Cortez , who is admired by the UK Labour left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s find our AOCs.
” Long-Bailey will also discuss the role that trust played in Labour ’ s 2019 general election defeat , saying : “ We spoke about the economy in the general election , but we didn ’ t have anything to say to people who ’ d lost trust with democracy .
“ And after the Iraq war , the expenses scandal and the austerity lie that we ’ re all in it together , who can blame them ?
So to follow our path to power , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , we can show people how change can happen , with power closer and more open to them.
” The window for local party and affiliate nominations in Labour ’ s leadership elections will close on Friday at midnight .
As of Thursday evening , Long-Bailey had won 148 CLP nominations , while frontrunner Keir Starmer had 338 – amounting to 58 % of nominations cast .

Labour left candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey is set to reveal a four-point plan for a “path to power” in a major speech being delivered as part of an effort to shake up the leadership contest.
Setting out her ideas at an event in Salford on Friday morning, the Shadow Business Secretary will warn against “looking for an easy option to win next time” on the basis that “the path of despair is also the path to defeat”.
She is expected to reject the suggestion that Labour could “give up on something here, be less forthright there” in order to become more electable, saying: “Retreating from popular policies that provide answers to the crises facing our country is no route to victory.
“Shrinking from our ambitions to better our children’s lives won’t make us more credible. Triangulation hasn’t worked for social democratic parties across Europe and it won’t work here.”
Long-Bailey will unveil the following four-point plan as a proposed “path to power” for Labour:
1. Improve Labour’s messaging with an everyday language of aspirational socialism to sell policies and principles.
2. Empower our movement to reconnect with voters in the Red Wall and beyond.
3. Stir up a democratic revolution to break the hold Westminster and the City has over our politics, and show people that they can have the power to achieve what they want to achieve.
4. Use the Green Industrial Revolution to unite Labour’s heartlands, from Blyth to Brixton.
The leadership hopeful will also send a message of confidence to supporters by talking about her own personal story in terms of not just winning the internal Labour election but also entering 10 Downing Street.
Long-Bailey will say: “If we lived in a world where how hard you worked or how clever you are translated into success, we wouldn’t be on our 20th Prime Minister who went to the same school. No child from my school ever went on to become Prime Minister. But I am going to change that.
“And when I get to Downing Street, I will never forget who I am, what made me, and that I am there to help deliver the hopes, dreams, and expectations of millions of others who grew up in similar communities as mine.
“I’m a details person. I work hard. I don’t slack off. I suppose that’s the benefit of being a working class woman, always having to work twice as hard to show you’re just as good, in fact better, than an upper-middle class man. So yes, I do think it’s time our party had a woman leader.
“It also means I know our people. I know what drives us forward. Vision isn’t just about big picture thinking and intellect, it’s also about a feeling, having a sense for the hopes and dreams of our people. That’s why I know I can win back areas we lost and new ones we failed to win.
“But to develop a compelling vision, you also need a solid sense of direction. I have that. I’ve always known what my politics are. I’m a socialist who’s aspirational for my family, my community and my class.”
On empowering the grassroots of the party and wider labour movement, Long-Bailey will say: “We aren’t just a different team of politicians in Westminster, alternating power with the Tories. Our party was born out of a movement in communities like mine and many of those we lost in the election.
“To win again, we need to look and sound like it. And it’s our members and our trade unions, on the front line in workplaces and communities, who will make that a reality.
“I say this to my colleagues in parliament who might be worried about a more democratic party. Let’s not be timid. Let’s nurture our talent and bring people into every role in the party.”
Referring to U.S. Democratic Party congresswoman and Green New Deal activist Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who is admired by the UK Labour left, she will add: “Let’s find our AOCs.”
Long-Bailey will also discuss the role that trust played in Labour’s 2019 general election defeat, saying: “We spoke about the economy in the general election, but we didn’t have anything to say to people who’d lost trust with democracy.
“And after the Iraq war, the expenses scandal and the austerity lie that we’re all in it together, who can blame them? So to follow our path to power, we will champion a democratic revolution. That way, we can show people how change can happen, with power closer and more open to them.”
The window for local party and affiliate nominations in Labour’s leadership elections will close on Friday at midnight. As of Thursday evening, Long-Bailey had won 148 CLP nominations, while frontrunner Keir Starmer had 338 – amounting to 58% of nominations cast.