labourlist--2020-10-07--Labour abstained on rule of six as “government has majority of 80”

Labour has revealed that it abstained on the ‘ rule of six ’ vote in the House of Commons last night – despite supporting the Covid rule – because the government has an overwhelming 80-seat majority .
At Prime Minister ’ s Questions , Boris Johnson pressed Keir Starmer on why Labour MPs abstained on the vote and whether the Labour leader agreed with the rule , which was backed by 287 to 17 votes on Tuesday .
The Labour leader confirmed that he did support the ‘ rule of six ’ , but added that those living in communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising infection rates in their area .
Asked why Labour abstained on the rule of six , Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ We do support the rule of six .
The government has a majority of 80 , and we abstained to allow the vote to go through and the measures to go through.
” He added : “ This is a government with a majority of 80 .
It doesn ’ t need Labour to get its business through , or at least it shouldn ’ t .
The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tory MPs voted against it.
” Appearing on the BBC ’ s Politics Live , shadow minister Stephen Doughty similarly explained : “ We support the rule of six .
They can get their own legislation through without us trooping through exactly the same lobby as them at a particular time.
” Starmer ’ s spokesperson was also asked by lobby journalists this afternoon about whether Labour plans to vote against the 10pm hospitality curfew .
He would not confirm whipping arrangements ahead of the vote .
“ Keir has been clear about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evidence .
We hope the PM does listen and does publish the evidence , ” the aide said – but would not confirm whether Labour ’ s support was conditional on publication of evidence .
Starmer ’ s spokesperson was asked about Labour ’ s other recent decisions to abstain on key controversial votes in the House of Commons , which has led three frontbenchers to be stood down .
On whether Labour has a strategy of abstaining on second reading , as suggested by current backbencher Lloyd Russell-Moyle in a LabourList @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We take each bill on its merits.
” The aide would not be drawn on how Labour MPs will be whipped on the government ’ s overseas operations bill and covert human intelligence sources ( criminal conduct ) bill at their third readings .
Highlighting that Tory MP David Davis also raised concerns about the so-called ‘ licence to kill ’ bill , he said : “ We ’ ll push our amendments and then we ’ ll take a decision on third reading nearer the time.
” There have been Labour rebellions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as MPs were given a one-line whip to abstain but between 18 and 20 defied the instructions and voted against the bills at second reading .
Starmer ’ s spokesperson was asked whether Starmer is concerned about Labour frontbenchers resigning to vote against the covert human intelligence sources ( criminal conduct ) bill at third reading .
He replied : “ We don ’ t want any Labour frontbenchers to resign .
That ’ s why whenever we take these decisions , we talk extensively with the frontbench and the whole [ Parliamentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union has decided to reduce its affiliation to the Labour Party by 10 % , or 50,000 affiliates , as executive council members are said to be “ angry ” about the party ’ s decision to settle in the Panorama libel case .
General secretary Len McCluskey has said Unite will use the political funds to support “ newer voices ” and “ very talented thinkers and energetic organisations out there who could do with our assistance ” .
Asked when Starmer last spoke to McCluskey , the Labour leader ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know , but I know that they speak regularly.
” Reacting to Unite ’ s decision this week to cut its Labour funding , the spokesperson said : “ We ’ ve seen Len ’ s remarks .
We acknowledge that .
Labour will continue to take decisions in the best interests of the country.
” He added : “ We have a funding strategy in place… Even before Unite ’ s decision , we were looking at how we can raise funds to win in 2024 and we ’ re looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Starmer agrees with Ben Bradshaw , who says “ few people have done more to keep the Tories in power for the last ten years than McCluskey ” , the aide said : “ The whole Labour Party needs to take responsibility for the fact we lost four elections in a row.
” Rosie Duffield has attracted criticism from Labour activists over her views on trans people , after she asserted that “ only women have a cervix ” and liked tweets from people including Piers Morgan .
LGBT+ Labour demanded in August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action on this situation ” and confirmed that it “ will be writing to Keir Starmer on behalf of our members to ask for a response ” .
Starmer ’ s spokesperson said : “ The Labour Party is committed to updating the Gender Recognition Act .
We stand by our belief that everyone should have the right to live with respect and dignity in an equal inclusive society .
“ This is a very serious and sensitive issue , and it ’ s important that the public debate treats it seriously and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urge everyone to recognise that .
”

Labour has revealed that it abstained on the ‘rule of six’ vote in the House of Commons last night – despite supporting the Covid rule – because the government has an overwhelming 80-seat majority.
At Prime Minister’s Questions, Boris Johnson pressed Keir Starmer on why Labour MPs abstained on the vote and whether the Labour leader agreed with the rule, which was backed by 287 to 17 votes on Tuesday.
The Labour leader confirmed that he did support the ‘rule of six’, but added that those living in communities under local coronavirus restrictions are concerned about rising infection rates in their area.
Asked why Labour abstained on the rule of six, Starmer’s spokesperson said: “We do support the rule of six. The government has a majority of 80, and we abstained to allow the vote to go through and the measures to go through.”
He added: “This is a government with a majority of 80. It doesn’t need Labour to get its business through, or at least it shouldn’t. The only reason there was a vote is because Tory MPs voted against it.”
Appearing on the BBC’s Politics Live, shadow minister Stephen Doughty similarly explained: “We support the rule of six. They can get their own legislation through without us trooping through exactly the same lobby as them at a particular time.”
Starmer’s spokesperson was also asked by lobby journalists this afternoon about whether Labour plans to vote against the 10pm hospitality curfew. He would not confirm whipping arrangements ahead of the vote.
“Keir has been clear about the need for the government to publish the evidence. We hope the PM does listen and does publish the evidence,” the aide said – but would not confirm whether Labour’s support was conditional on publication of evidence.
Starmer’s spokesperson was asked about Labour’s other recent decisions to abstain on key controversial votes in the House of Commons, which has led three frontbenchers to be stood down.
On whether Labour has a strategy of abstaining on second reading, as suggested by current backbencher Lloyd Russell-Moyle in a LabourList piece, the spokesperson said: “We take each bill on its merits.”
The aide would not be drawn on how Labour MPs will be whipped on the government’s overseas operations bill and covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill at their third readings.
Highlighting that Tory MP David Davis also raised concerns about the so-called ‘licence to kill’ bill, he said: “We’ll push our amendments and then we’ll take a decision on third reading nearer the time.”
There have been Labour rebellions over the two pieces of legislation, as MPs were given a one-line whip to abstain but between 18 and 20 defied the instructions and voted against the bills at second reading.
Starmer’s spokesperson was asked whether Starmer is concerned about Labour frontbenchers resigning to vote against the covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill at third reading.
He replied: “We don’t want any Labour frontbenchers to resign. That’s why whenever we take these decisions, we talk extensively with the frontbench and the whole [Parliamentary Labour Party].”
Unite the Union has decided to reduce its affiliation to the Labour Party by 10%, or 50,000 affiliates, as executive council members are said to be “angry” about the party’s decision to settle in the Panorama libel case.
General secretary Len McCluskey has said Unite will use the political funds to support “newer voices” and “very talented thinkers and energetic organisations out there who could do with our assistance”.
Asked when Starmer last spoke to McCluskey, the Labour leader’s spokesperson replied: “I don’t know, but I know that they speak regularly.”
Reacting to Unite’s decision this week to cut its Labour funding, the spokesperson said: “We’ve seen Len’s remarks. We acknowledge that. Labour will continue to take decisions in the best interests of the country.”
He added: “We have a funding strategy in place… Even before Unite’s decision, we were looking at how we can raise funds to win in 2024 and we’re looking at various different models.”
Asked whether Starmer agrees with Ben Bradshaw, who says “few people have done more to keep the Tories in power for the last ten years than McCluskey”, the aide said: “The whole Labour Party needs to take responsibility for the fact we lost four elections in a row.”
Rosie Duffield has attracted criticism from Labour activists over her views on trans people, after she asserted that “only women have a cervix” and liked tweets from people including Piers Morgan.
LGBT+ Labour demanded in August that the Labour leadership “take measurable action on this situation” and confirmed that it “will be writing to Keir Starmer on behalf of our members to ask for a response”.
Starmer’s spokesperson said: “The Labour Party is committed to updating the Gender Recognition Act. We stand by our belief that everyone should have the right to live with respect and dignity in an equal inclusive society.
“This is a very serious and sensitive issue, and it’s important that the public debate treats it seriously and with sensitivity. And we’d urge everyone to recognise that.”


labourlist--2020-10-08--GMB calls for immediate resignation of Test and Trace chair Dido Harding

Labour-affiliated trade union GMB has called for the immediate resignation of Tory peer and NHS Test and Trace chair Baroness Dido Harding after a series of controversies involving the public office holder .
Harding was criticised this week after she voted with the Conservatives in a House of Lords vote on the government ’ s immigration plans despite having promised to remain neutral due to her roles in the NHS .
Labour raised concerns last month over her membership of the Tory group in the Lords , describing it as a “ flagrant breach ” of the civil service code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be bound .
She is chair of the NHS Test and Trace programme and in August was appointed as interim chair of the new National Institute for Health Protection ( NIHP ) body , which is replacing Public Health England .
GMB national secretary Rehana Azam said : “ The Prime Minister said he couldn ’ t think of anyone better than Baroness Harding to run the UK ’ s Test and Trace programme , and that shows a clear lack of judgement .
It ’ s scary that one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible track record has been put in temporary custody of our country ’ s public health .
“ We ’ ve seen blunder after blunder under her leadership of Test and Trace and now the Baroness has further shown herself as a flunky for the Tory Party voting against efforts in the House of Lords to ensure the social care workforce are considered when the government brings in its immigration policies .
“ This is not the independent public health expert the country and its staff need leading the scheme .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s Test and Trace programme needs to be taken into public hands and led by experts and local authorities , not party-political cronies.
” GMB has made the call for Harding to “ consider her positions ” after the Test and Trace system saw 16,000 Covid-19 cases go unpublished in government reports due to what the Prime Minister called a “ computing issue ” .
The backlog of infections , which was left out of Public Health England ’ s figures , meant as many as 48,000 people who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not contacted and told to self-isolate .
The trade union has also highlighted that the latest figure for contacts reached and told to self-isolate , which is 68.8 % , has seen the scheme hit a new low .
It is the lowest number since Test and Trace started .
Government experts have advised that the test and trace system in England can only work effectively if at least 80 % of “ close contacts ” are reached and instructed to self-isolate under Covid-19 rules .
Labour ’ s Jonathan Ashworth commented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firms , saying “ now is the time to not renew Serco ’ s contract , and instead give responsibility and resources to NHS labs and local public health teams ” .
Serco and Sitel , the two firms hired by the government to help run the national test and trace programme , are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme .
Serco receives 40 % of its annual revenue from running UK public services .
Harding has been the subject of ongoing controversy during the coronavirus pandemic after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 programme despite having no experience working in healthcare .

Labour-affiliated trade union GMB has called for the immediate resignation of Tory peer and NHS Test and Trace chair Baroness Dido Harding after a series of controversies involving the public office holder.
Harding was criticised this week after she voted with the Conservatives in a House of Lords vote on the government’s immigration plans despite having promised to remain neutral due to her roles in the NHS.
Labour raised concerns last month over her membership of the Tory group in the Lords, describing it as a “flagrant breach” of the civil service code, by which the party says Harding should be bound.
She is chair of the NHS Test and Trace programme and in August was appointed as interim chair of the new National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) body, which is replacing Public Health England.
GMB national secretary Rehana Azam said: “The Prime Minister said he couldn’t think of anyone better than Baroness Harding to run the UK’s Test and Trace programme, and that shows a clear lack of judgement. It’s scary that one of the Prime Minister’s cronies with a terrible track record has been put in temporary custody of our country’s public health.
“We’ve seen blunder after blunder under her leadership of Test and Trace and now the Baroness has further shown herself as a flunky for the Tory Party voting against efforts in the House of Lords to ensure the social care workforce are considered when the government brings in its immigration policies.
“This is not the independent public health expert the country and its staff need leading the scheme. There is now ample proof to show that the UK’s Test and Trace programme needs to be taken into public hands and led by experts and local authorities, not party-political cronies.”
GMB has made the call for Harding to “consider her positions” after the Test and Trace system saw 16,000 Covid-19 cases go unpublished in government reports due to what the Prime Minister called a “computing issue”.
The backlog of infections, which was left out of Public Health England’s figures, meant as many as 48,000 people who had been near someone who tested positive for Covid were not contacted and told to self-isolate.
The trade union has also highlighted that the latest figure for contacts reached and told to self-isolate, which is 68.8%, has seen the scheme hit a new low. It is the lowest number since Test and Trace started.
Government experts have advised that the test and trace system in England can only work effectively if at least 80% of “close contacts” are reached and instructed to self-isolate under Covid-19 rules.
Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth commented this week on the involvement of outsourcing firms, saying “now is the time to not renew Serco’s contract, and instead give responsibility and resources to NHS labs and local public health teams”.
Serco and Sitel, the two firms hired by the government to help run the national test and trace programme, are set to receive over £1bn for their work on the scheme. Serco receives 40% of its annual revenue from running UK public services.
Harding has been the subject of ongoing controversy during the coronavirus pandemic after she was made head of the crucial Covid-19 programme despite having no experience working in healthcare.
Despite the Tory peer overseeing a catalogue of failures, the Prime Minister, his official spokesperson, the Chancellor and other members of government have all repeatedly asserted that they have full confidence in Harding.


labourlist--2020-10-08--Cap wages for highest earners to save jobs in Covid, new report urges

A new report has called on the government to cap the salaries of the highest earners in an effort to reduce widening economic inequality and save millions of jobs that could be at risk as a result of coronavirus .
The research published today by think tanks Autonomy and the High Pay Centre modelled various proposed wage caps and found that a maximum salary of £100,000 would have the power to release the cash equivalent of one million jobs .
The new analysis also found that with the introduction of a salary cap targeted at just the top 1 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost wages for nine million low and middle-income workers .
Autonomy director of research Will Stronge said : “ A maximum wage is popular with the public and could be an essential tool for making sure that industries and those that work in them survive this pandemic .
“ It ’ s a way of creating a fairer economy – ensuring that when firms succeed , everyone working in them does too .
Let ’ s be honest – earning anything more than £100,000 a year is by most people ’ s standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis where millions are being made unemployed .
“ If income was distributed just a little more fairly , you could still have high salaries but with much higher employment and higher average wages too .
After 2008 , the 99 % were unfairly made to pay for the cost of the crash through austerity but this time around the 1 % can and should pay for the crisis.
” The report also suggested that a minimum wage of £10.50 an hour could be paid for by companies if a salary cap of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research highlighted would affect just the top 0.6 % of earners .
In sectors such as the arts , where the highest earners make vastly more than their low-income counterparts , the research indicated that an £11 per-hour wage could be provided to every worker if the highest salaries were capped at £251,760 .
The think tanks have released new polling from Survation alongside the report , which shows that 54 % of the public backs the introduction of a maximum wage , with a further 31 % backing capping all salaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luke Hilyard said : “ Many policymakers and commentators would view the introduction of a maximum wage as a radical step , but this polling shows that the public are much more open-minded .
“ Tolerating the vast gaps between those at the top and everybody else in this country is a far more extremist policy than putting a cap on annual earnings of £200,000… a perfectly sufficient reward for doing a difficult or demanding job .
“ With the UK economy likely to be much smaller than previously envisaged for the foreseeable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about sharing the wealth we do have more evenly.
” 700,000 people have been pushed into unemployment as a result of the pandemic with millions more , particularly in the hospitality sector , set to lose their jobs in the coming weeks and months .
But a report last month showed that the highest earners had experienced nowhere near the same level of wage cuts , with many reported salary decreases among the wealthiest being “ superficial or short-term ” .
Unite the Union proposed plans last week for a strike among its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 % wage cuts , despite airport directors earning over £21m last year and its chief executive receiving £2.6m in pay and pensions .

A new report has called on the government to cap the salaries of the highest earners in an effort to reduce widening economic inequality and save millions of jobs that could be at risk as a result of coronavirus.
The research published today by think tanks Autonomy and the High Pay Centre modelled various proposed wage caps and found that a maximum salary of £100,000 would have the power to release the cash equivalent of one million jobs.
The new analysis also found that with the introduction of a salary cap targeted at just the top 1% of earners in the country would significantly boost wages for nine million low and middle-income workers.
Autonomy director of research Will Stronge said: “A maximum wage is popular with the public and could be an essential tool for making sure that industries and those that work in them survive this pandemic.
“It’s a way of creating a fairer economy – ensuring that when firms succeed, everyone working in them does too. Let’s be honest – earning anything more than £100,000 a year is by most people’s standards extremely excessive, especially during an economic crisis where millions are being made unemployed.
“If income was distributed just a little more fairly, you could still have high salaries but with much higher employment and higher average wages too. After 2008, the 99% were unfairly made to pay for the cost of the crash through austerity but this time around the 1% can and should pay for the crisis.”
The report also suggested that a minimum wage of £10.50 an hour could be paid for by companies if a salary cap of £187,000 was introduced – a move which the research highlighted would affect just the top 0.6% of earners.
In sectors such as the arts, where the highest earners make vastly more than their low-income counterparts, the research indicated that an £11 per-hour wage could be provided to every worker if the highest salaries were capped at £251,760.
The think tanks have released new polling from Survation alongside the report, which shows that 54% of the public backs the introduction of a maximum wage, with a further 31% backing capping all salaries at £100,000.
High Pay Centre director Luke Hilyard said: “Many policymakers and commentators would view the introduction of a maximum wage as a radical step, but this polling shows that the public are much more open-minded.
“Tolerating the vast gaps between those at the top and everybody else in this country is a far more extremist policy than putting a cap on annual earnings of £200,000… a perfectly sufficient reward for doing a difficult or demanding job.
“With the UK economy likely to be much smaller than previously envisaged for the foreseeable future, we urgently need to think about sharing the wealth we do have more evenly.”
700,000 people have been pushed into unemployment as a result of the pandemic with millions more, particularly in the hospitality sector, set to lose their jobs in the coming weeks and months.
But a report last month showed that the highest earners had experienced nowhere near the same level of wage cuts, with many reported salary decreases among the wealthiest being “superficial or short-term”.
Unite the Union proposed plans last week for a strike among its Heathrow airport members in protest at planned 25% wage cuts, despite airport directors earning over £21m last year and its chief executive receiving £2.6m in pay and pensions.


labourlist--2020-10-08--Government must adopt local furlough approach to save jobs, says TUC

The TUC has called on the government to adopt a new approach to prevent mass unemployment in the Covid crisis by acting to “ preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme ” .
Responding to reports today that Downing Street is set to introduce further measures across parts of the country , general secretary Frances O ’ Grady has called for a “ fresh approach to protect jobs and livelihoods ” .
The proposals from the trade union body include creating furlough schemes that run in an area for the duration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for employers in the job support scheme and providing support to self-employed workers .
O ’ Grady said : “ We all hoped the economy would be starting to reopen and recover this autumn .
But with further restrictions imminent in some areas , we need the Chancellor to adopt a fresh approach to protect jobs and livelihoods .
“ In areas facing high infection rates and further business closures , the government must act to preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and job support schemes , with help for the self-employed too .
“ That ’ s the right response to this renewed public health emergency in parts of the UK .
Local lockdowns put jobs in peril , but across the country families are worried for their livelihoods .
“ Ministers need to get round the table with businesses and unions and hammer out a plan to save jobs and protect whole industries from going to the wall .
“ The government must sort out its chaotic test and trace system and pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s how we control the virus and avoid the devastation of mass unemployment.
” The Prime Minister signed off on additional lockdown measures in a meeting last night , which will see pubs and restaurants close in northern England from Monday in response to the marked increase in Covid cases .
The government is reportedly set to announce support alongside the new measures , as businesses are being required to close just three months after Boris Johnson ended the national lockdown and reopened hospitality venues .
But asked today about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister ’ s spokesperson said support for businesses was included in the Chancellor ’ s latest package of measures .
He added : “ If we do have to take further steps [ on restrictions ] , then of course we will take seriously how we can support those businesses that are affected.
” The TUC has today reiterated its call for the Prime Minister to convene a national recovery council with businesses and unions .
On its plans for a new local furlough approach in the pandemic , the organisation has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are required to close should be able to put workers on a new local furlough scheme .
This new scheme should be allowed to run on for the duration of additional restrictions in that area , and be withdrawn gradually as restrictions ease .
The scheme should be run nationally , and should mirror the original job retention scheme , reimbursing employers for 80 % of the wages of their workers ; • “ Businesses based in local lockdown areas that are affected by low demand but not required to close should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme , giving financial assistance over and above the national scheme .
There should be no requirement to work a minimum number of hours .
And the government should cover 60 % of wages for non-working time , with the employer covering 20 % ; and • “ The government should also consider how to ensure self-employed workers do not miss out on necessary support , for example , by increasing the payments rate of the self-employment income support scheme round three from 20 % to 60 % of taxable monthly profits for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand as a result of additional local restrictions.
” Labour welcomed a “ U-turn ” by the government in September as Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that a new jobs support scheme would replace the existing furlough scheme ending this month .
The new programme will see eligible employees – those working at least one third of their normal hours – have their worked hours paid by employers and their hours not worked paid jointly by the government and their employer .
For the time that workers are not working , the government said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers ’ usual pay and the employer will pay another third of their usual pay .
Those eligible will be paid 77 % of their usual pay in total .
O ’ Grady offered support to the Chancellor ’ s winter economic plan , which included the new scheme , along with the CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn , but trade unions expressed reservations about the support being provided .
The federation of trade unions has also today repeated its demand that the government ensure everyone is eligible for statutory sick pay and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that of the real living wage , which is currently £320 per week .
Both Labour and the TUC have highlighted the large number of people unable to self-isolate as they do not qualify for sick pay and warned that this is undermining the national effort to fight the spread of coronavirus .
The government announced in August that those who contract the virus and need to self-isolate would receive £132 for a 10-day self-isolation period , while others who have come into contact with them will receive £182 for 14 days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payable to those already on Universal Credit or in receipt of working tax credits .
Critics have pointed out that there are lots of low earners in low-income households not on UC – e.g .
large numbers of young single people .
O ’ Grady at the time slammed the new benefit as “ paltry ” , declaring that it would not make the difference needed .
She added : “ The sooner government gets on with delivering fair sick pay for everyone , the quicker we will beat this pandemic.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutory sick pay , which is an income that the Health Secretary Matt Hancock himself admitted in March that he could not live on .
The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in Europe at just £95.85 a week .

The TUC has called on the government to adopt a new approach to prevent mass unemployment in the Covid crisis by acting to “preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme”.
Responding to reports today that Downing Street is set to introduce further restrictions in the North of England, general secretary Frances O’Grady has called for a “fresh approach to protect jobs and livelihoods”.
The proposals from the trade union body include creating furlough schemes that run in an area for the duration of any measures, reducing the burden for employers in the job support scheme and providing support to self-employed workers.
O’Grady said: “We all hoped the economy would be starting to reopen and recover this autumn. But with further restrictions imminent in some areas, we need the Chancellor to adopt a fresh approach to protect jobs and livelihoods.
“In areas facing high infection rates and further business closures, the government must act to preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme – building on the existing national job retention and job support schemes, with help for the self-employed too.
“That’s the right response to this renewed public health emergency in parts of the UK. Local lockdowns put jobs in peril, but across the country families are worried for their livelihoods.
“Ministers need to get round the table with businesses and unions and hammer out a plan to save jobs and protect whole industries from going to the wall.
“The government must sort out its chaotic test and trace system and pay decent sick pay to everyone self-isolating. That’s how we control the virus and avoid the devastation of mass unemployment.”
The Prime Minister signed off on additional lockdown measures in a meeting last night, which will see pubs and restaurants close in northern England from Monday in response to the marked increase in Covid cases.
The government is reportedly set to announce support alongside the new measures, as businesses are being required to close just three months after Boris Johnson ended the national lockdown and reopened hospitality venues.
Asked today about the possibility of further financial aid, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “If we do have to take further steps [on restrictions], then of course we will take seriously how we can support those businesses that are affected.”
The TUC has today reiterated its call for the Prime Minister to convene a national recovery council with businesses and unions. On its plans for a new local furlough approach, the organisation has proposed that:
“Businesses that are required to close should be able to put workers on a new local furlough scheme. This new scheme should be allowed to run on for the duration of additional restrictions in that area, and be withdrawn gradually as restrictions ease. The scheme should be run nationally, and should mirror the original job retention scheme, reimbursing employers for 80% of the wages of their workers; “Businesses based in local lockdown areas that are affected by low demand but not required to close should be eligible for an enhanced local job support scheme, giving financial assistance over and above the national scheme. There should be no requirement to work a minimum number of hours. And the government should cover 60% of wages for non-working time, with the employer covering 20%; and “The government should also consider how to ensure self-employed workers do not miss out on necessary support, for example, by increasing the payments rate of the self-employment income support scheme round three from 20% to 60% of taxable monthly profits for those who can demonstrate renewed reductions in demand as a result of additional local restrictions.”
Labour welcomed a “U-turn” by the government in September as Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that a new jobs support scheme would replace the existing furlough scheme ending this month.
The new programme will see eligible employees – those working at least one third of their normal hours – have their worked hours paid by employers and their hours not worked paid jointly by the government and their employer.
For the time that workers are not working, the government said it will pay a third of the workers’ usual pay and the employer will pay another third of their usual pay. Those eligible will be paid 77% of their usual pay in total.
O’Grady offered support to the Chancellor’s winter economic plan, which included the new scheme, along with the CBI director general Carolyn Fairbairn, but trade unions expressed reservations about the support being provided.
The federation of trade unions has also today repeated its demand that the government ensure everyone is eligible for statutory sick pay and raise the level of the benefit to that of the real living wage, which is currently £320 per week.
Both Labour and the TUC have highlighted the large number of people unable to self-isolate as they do not qualify for sick pay and warned that this is undermining the national effort to fight the spread of coronavirus.
The government announced in August that those who contract the virus and need to self-isolate would receive £132 for a 10-day self-isolation period, while others who have come into contact with them will receive £182 for 14 days of isolation.
But the benefit is only payable to those already on Universal Credit or in receipt of working tax credits. Critics have pointed out that there are lots of low earners in low-income households not on UC – e.g. large numbers of young single people.
O’Grady at the time slammed the new benefit as “paltry”, declaring that it would not make the difference needed. She added: “The sooner government gets on with delivering fair sick pay for everyone, the quicker we will beat this pandemic.”
The payment is lower than the level of statutory sick pay, which is an income that the Health Secretary Matt Hancock himself admitted in March that he could not live on. The UK has one of the lowest sick pay rates in Europe at just £95.85 a week.


labourlist--2020-10-08--‘Captain Hindsight’: Labour’s tricky coronavirus challenge

Government communications are not improving .
You would have thought that they would be learning from their mistakes during the early stages of the coronavirus crisis , but the same problems keep reappearing .
A large proportion of people living in this country have been told via a number of front pages this morning that pubs and restaurants are set to be shut again .
Boris Johnson is predicted to announce on Monday that hospitality will close “ in northern England ” , which will come alongside news of financial support for those living under local restrictions and a tiered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jennifer Williams pointed out last night : “ It isn ’ t good enough to brief vaguely about ‘ people in the north of England ’ .
” And local leaders are complaining that as usual there was no consultation , with Andy Burnham concluding : “ Millions of lives affected by Whitehall diktat.
” Despite this calamitous approach led by Johnson , Keir Starmer struggled somewhat at the latest Prime Minister ’ s Questions .
He highlighted that 19 out of 20 areas in England under local restrictions have actually seen an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t leave lockdown because their Covid-19 problem is getting worse , not better .
The Labour leader called on the PM to “ level with ” those communities – just what is going wrong ?
This point has made front pages .
He also rightly demanded standardisation : what are the criteria for why local rules are imposed , which measures determine whether they can leave lockdown , do you have a plan for any of this ?
But Starmer faced an unusually well-prepared Johnson , who picked up on Labour ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six ’ vote this week and use it to portray the opposition party as flip-flopping .
Starmer said Labour does definitely back the rule of six .
But his party didn ’ t vote in favour because : “ This is a government with a majority of 80 .
It doesn ’ t need Labour to get its business through.
” The practicalities of Commons voting during Covid are a nightmare .
And you can argue that Labour was staying out of this issue to allow the Tories to fight amongst themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a clear and firm position on something , it seems absurd to have it buried under ‘ Captain Hindsight ’ accusations .
When Starmer attacked the PM over the 10pm hospitality curfew , Johnson similarly replied : our argument for it , without scientific evidence , was enough for you to back it two weeks ago .
In this way , Labour is in the difficult position of not being in government .
Without the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ( SAGE ) at its disposal , should the party listen to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considers that option to be too risky , and Starmer is wary of muddying the crucial public health message .
Should Labour create a new rule whereby it will only back Covid rules if the government shows a scientific basis for them ?
But ministers could simply refuse , and Labour would be portrayed as unconstructive .
It is a very tricky situation , though it would help if Labour had a stronger theme running through its interventions : a line like the decisions being made unilaterally by “ men sitting behind desks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it during the leadership election , could be helpful .
The arguments that the Tory ‘ levelling up ’ agenda has disappeared and even been put into reverse , and that there has been a dangerous lack of democratic input during Covid , should be made again and again .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Government communications are not improving. You would have thought that they would be learning from their mistakes during the early stages of the coronavirus crisis, but the same problems keep reappearing. A large proportion of people living in this country have been told via a number of front pages this morning that pubs and restaurants are set to be shut again. Boris Johnson is predicted to announce on Monday that hospitality will close “in northern England”, which will come alongside news of financial support for those living under local restrictions and a tiered system designed to clarify rules. As Jennifer Williams pointed out last night: “It isn’t good enough to brief vaguely about ‘people in the north of England’.” And local leaders are complaining that as usual there was no consultation, with Andy Burnham concluding: “Millions of lives affected by Whitehall diktat.”
Despite this calamitous approach led by Johnson, Keir Starmer struggled somewhat at the latest Prime Minister’s Questions. He highlighted that 19 out of 20 areas in England under local restrictions have actually seen an increase in infection rates: they can’t leave lockdown because their Covid-19 problem is getting worse, not better. The Labour leader called on the PM to “level with” those communities – just what is going wrong? This point has made front pages. He also rightly demanded standardisation: what are the criteria for why local rules are imposed, which measures determine whether they can leave lockdown, do you have a plan for any of this? But Starmer faced an unusually well-prepared Johnson, who picked up on Labour’s abstention on the ‘rule of six’ vote this week and use it to portray the opposition party as flip-flopping.
Starmer said Labour does definitely back the rule of six. But his party didn’t vote in favour because: “This is a government with a majority of 80. It doesn’t need Labour to get its business through.” The practicalities of Commons voting during Covid are a nightmare. And you can argue that Labour was staying out of this issue to allow the Tories to fight amongst themselves. But when the opposition party does have a clear and firm position on something, it seems absurd to have it buried under ‘Captain Hindsight’ accusations. When Starmer attacked the PM over the 10pm hospitality curfew, Johnson similarly replied: our argument for it, without scientific evidence, was enough for you to back it two weeks ago.
In this way, Labour is in the difficult position of not being in government. Without the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) at its disposal, should the party listen to its own set of experts? The leadership considers that option to be too risky, and Starmer is wary of muddying the crucial public health message. Should Labour create a new rule whereby it will only back Covid rules if the government shows a scientific basis for them? But ministers could simply refuse, and Labour would be portrayed as unconstructive.
It is a very tricky situation, though it would help if Labour had a stronger theme running through its interventions: a line like the decisions being made unilaterally by “men sitting behind desks in Whitehall”, as Lisa Nandy put it during the leadership election, could be helpful. The arguments that the Tory ‘levelling up’ agenda has disappeared and even been put into reverse, and that there has been a dangerous lack of democratic input during Covid, should be made again and again. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-10-08--Labour accuses government of “smash and grab raid” on struggling businesses

Labour has described the government ’ s decision to force local authorities to hand back £1.3bn in unspent emergency coronavirus business grants as a “ smash and grab raid on business support ” .
The party has today argued that “ clawing back ” the money , which includes £340m for areas still currently under local Covid restrictions , puts England at risk of “ waves of redundancies ” and “ shuttered high streets ” .
Labour is calling on the Conservatives to instead redeploy the unspent funding as part of a proposed hospitality and high street fightback fund to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest-hit sectors .
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell said : “ Businesses are in a fight for survival .
The Business Secretary must stand up to the Treasury and demand they reverse this smash and grab raid on business support or risk the decimation of our high streets .
“ It makes zero sense to remove economic support while public health restrictions are tightening .
It ’ s now clear that some places and some businesses are going to be acutely hard hit over a longer period than was first thought .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government should redeploy these funds and allow local areas to use them flexibly to support those businesses and town centres hardest hit before we see waves of redundancies , shuttered high streets and viable businesses going bust.
” The funding was initially provided by the government in March to help struggling businesses cope with the effects of coronavirus , but the money came with a ‘ use-it-or-lose-it ’ clause mandating that it be spent by August 30th .
Despite coronavirus restrictions meaning that hard-hit industries such as hospitality are at risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in need of support , the government has continued to demand the return of any unused money .
Of the areas still under local lockdowns , Blackpool and Leicester are set to lose the most funding , with the city and town being forced to return £14.5m and £12m in grant funding to the government respectively .
Nearly 900,000 grants have been given to struggling businesses in England under the government support scheme , with the average payment amounting to just over £12,000 – but over a billion pounds of funding is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that the remaining funding is a vital lifeline for countless businesses who are now facing even more hardship in the coming weeks with a looming cliff edge as the furlough scheme finishes at the end of this month .
This latest call from Labour comes amidst criticism from the party of Chancellor Rishi Sunak ’ s new job support scheme , which was unveiled as part of his winter economic plan to replace the furlough scheme .
Labour welcomed the “ U-turn ” on providing some form of wage support but highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect “ viable jobs ” , does not offer any specific help for hard-hit sectors such as hospitality .
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds wrote to her counterpart last week to point out seven ways in which the winter plan “ fails Britain ’ s workers ” .
She accused Sunak of returning to Margaret Thatcher ’ s “ sink or swim ” jobs mentality .

Labour has described the government’s decision to force local authorities to hand back £1.3bn in unspent emergency coronavirus business grants as a “smash and grab raid on business support”.
The party has today argued that “clawing back” the money, which includes £340m for areas still currently under local Covid restrictions, puts England at risk of “waves of redundancies” and “shuttered high streets”.
Labour is calling on the Conservatives to instead redeploy the unspent funding as part of a proposed hospitality and high street fightback fund to help save jobs and businesses in the hardest-hit sectors.
Shadow business minister Lucy Powell said: “Businesses are in a fight for survival. The Business Secretary must stand up to the Treasury and demand they reverse this smash and grab raid on business support or risk the decimation of our high streets.
“It makes zero sense to remove economic support while public health restrictions are tightening. It’s now clear that some places and some businesses are going to be acutely hard hit over a longer period than was first thought.
“Rather than clawing remaining funds back, the government should redeploy these funds and allow local areas to use them flexibly to support those businesses and town centres hardest hit before we see waves of redundancies, shuttered high streets and viable businesses going bust.”
The funding was initially provided by the government in March to help struggling businesses cope with the effects of coronavirus, but the money came with a ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ clause mandating that it be spent by August 30th.
Despite coronavirus restrictions meaning that hard-hit industries such as hospitality are at risk of hundreds of thousands of job losses and still in need of support, the government has continued to demand the return of any unused money.
Of the areas still under local lockdowns, Blackpool and Leicester are set to lose the most funding, with the city and town being forced to return £14.5m and £12m in grant funding to the government respectively.
Nearly 900,000 grants have been given to struggling businesses in England under the government support scheme, with the average payment amounting to just over £12,000 – but over a billion pounds of funding is yet to be spent.
Labour has argued that the remaining funding is a vital lifeline for countless businesses who are now facing even more hardship in the coming weeks with a looming cliff edge as the furlough scheme finishes at the end of this month.
This latest call from Labour comes amidst criticism from the party of Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s new job support scheme, which was unveiled as part of his winter economic plan to replace the furlough scheme.
Labour welcomed the “U-turn” on providing some form of wage support but highlighted that the programme, designed only to protect “viable jobs”, does not offer any specific help for hard-hit sectors such as hospitality.
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds wrote to her counterpart last week to point out seven ways in which the winter plan “fails Britain’s workers”. She accused Sunak of returning to Margaret Thatcher’s “sink or swim” jobs mentality.


labourlist--2020-10-08--The Covid university chaos shows Labour is right on scrapping tuition fees

Recent data shows a dramatic increase in Covid cases across the country over the last month as students have returned to university .
In a fit of panic , many universities have imposed draconian restrictions on students , often leaving them isolated and confined in their halls .
This has resulted in calls from some , mainly current students , for universities to provide refunds on tuition fees .
These are calls that Keir Starmer has so far refused to support .
However , he has kept to Labour ’ s pledge under Jeremy Corbyn to abolish tuition fees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do maintain this vow : if there were no tuition fees , we would not have the current crisis on university campuses , as there would not be the same financial imperative for students to return to university .
This would have greatly benefited public health .
With the 2010 trebling of tuition fees and removal of government grants , which was as significant as the trebling of fees , universities became excessively dependent on fee income and therefore on students .
Higher education become almost completely marketised .
Although the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the Student Loan Company is funded by the state – by making students the middleman in this transaction , the government commercialised the relationship between students and universities .
Thus , this relationship became one of producer and consumer , and it is because of this that students have been unwisely rushed back to campus .
All producers need consumers , otherwise they will fail .
For example , Cineworld has recently announced it will be closing for the foreseeable future in the absence of customers .
The financial pressures on universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quarter of universities reported running a deficit .
Similarly , in 2018 higher education debt stood at £12bn .
Therefore , many universities felt that they were in an impossible situation and that they had no option but to bring students back to campus ; they needed the income from tuition fees and student rent .
Although this is prioritising profit over people , without this profit , many universities would fail – depriving more people of higher education in the future .
Thus universities were placed in a horrible position by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government .
Under the previous model for financing universities , there would not have been the same financial necessity to bring students back to campus and the rise in Covid cases would not have been as significant .
An unrestrained market forces people to make impossible choices , as what should be relationships between people become relationships between commercial entities .
Universities bringing students back is not a million miles away from those who go to work despite having Covid symptoms , because they can not afford to isolate at home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how economic concerns have led workers and businesses being forced to choose between public heath and paying their bills , it has not done this for universities .
This is not to say that many universities have not behaved appallingly .
Some of the measures imposed on students have been excessively oppressive , and others – for instance , extortionate food prices on quarantining students – have been exploitative .
Essentially , many universities accepted the financial necessity of bringing students back without accepting the human necessity of caring for them .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the government .
The government promised an effective track and trace system that would arrive months before students arrived back at university , and subsequently offered no leadership by declaring that universities were independent bodies .
This declaration is a further consequence of the commercialised structure of higher education that tuition fees underpin .
When it absolved itself of directly funding universities , the state also absolved itself of the responsibility to organise higher education .
Even if universities had better prepared for the resumption of teaching , such as by providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campus , they would have received little support from the government .
The teaching situation and student experience would still be characterised by extreme adversity , and the financial pressures on university would be unchanged .
By pledging to repeal tuition fees and bring back government grants , Labour would be accepting the state ’ s responsibility to fund and help organise higher education .
Universities , the government and Labour should have listened and cooperated with the trade unions representing university staff .
In May , a collection of unions including UNISON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colleges Union ( UCU ) put forward five tests that higher education institutions must meet in order to resume teaching .
The UCU provided plans for alternatives ways of working and has been consistently vocal about the dangers of students returning .
These warning were unnecessarily ignored by many universities .
But Labour was also largely silent on the danger of universities reopening , and the UCU has been an isolated voice in the last two months .
Were UCU affiliated to the Labour Party , this may have been different .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sufficiently agitating about the danger of universities returning , Labour missed a golden political opportunity to highlight the government ’ s incompetence , support students and uphold its party ’ s values .
It must not allow the same carelessness to prevent it from arguing against the current higher education structure that has exacerbated the impact of the pandemic .
I do believe that the majority of staff at universities want to support students and are trying their hardest to do this , painting universities as being completely responsible for the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place .
The true evil here is the market structure that was imposed on higher education in 2010 .
Rather than use the university crisis as a stick with which to beat opposition governments , as Scottish Labour have started doing , Labour should be campaigning on the importance of liberating higher education from the market .
This is something Labour has previously failed to do .
Even while pledging to scrap tuition fees , both Starmer and Corbyn have presented this ambitious as one that would free graduates from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not pay back in full anyway – instead of a policy that would end the destructive , pernicious marketisation of higher education .
To compensate for its previous lack of action regarding Covid and higher education , Labour needs to redouble its efforts .
The party should support students through its local student branches and Constituency Labour Parties , and work with trade unions to make campuses and teaching safer .
At the same time , Labour must underline that the market structure imposed on higher education has heightened this crisis , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of higher education back into a public good , free of the invisible hand of the market that too often during this crisis has been detrimental to public health .

Recent data shows a dramatic increase in Covid cases across the country over the last month as students have returned to university. In a fit of panic, many universities have imposed draconian restrictions on students, often leaving them isolated and confined in their halls. This has resulted in calls from some, mainly current students, for universities to provide refunds on tuition fees. These are calls that Keir Starmer has so far refused to support. However, he has kept to Labour’s pledge under Jeremy Corbyn to abolish tuition fees. The pandemic proves that he is right to do maintain this vow: if there were no tuition fees, we would not have the current crisis on university campuses, as there would not be the same financial imperative for students to return to university. This would have greatly benefited public health.
With the 2010 trebling of tuition fees and removal of government grants, which was as significant as the trebling of fees, universities became excessively dependent on fee income and therefore on students. Higher education become almost completely marketised. Although the government still effectively provides much of the funding – the Student Loan Company is funded by the state – by making students the middleman in this transaction, the government commercialised the relationship between students and universities. Thus, this relationship became one of producer and consumer, and it is because of this that students have been unwisely rushed back to campus. All producers need consumers, otherwise they will fail. For example, Cineworld has recently announced it will be closing for the foreseeable future in the absence of customers.
The financial pressures on universities are stark: in 2019, nearly a quarter of universities reported running a deficit. Similarly, in 2018 higher education debt stood at £12bn. Therefore, many universities felt that they were in an impossible situation and that they had no option but to bring students back to campus; they needed the income from tuition fees and student rent. Although this is prioritising profit over people, without this profit, many universities would fail – depriving more people of higher education in the future. Thus universities were placed in a horrible position by the market, with no support from the government.
Under the previous model for financing universities, there would not have been the same financial necessity to bring students back to campus and the rise in Covid cases would not have been as significant. An unrestrained market forces people to make impossible choices, as what should be relationships between people become relationships between commercial entities. Universities bringing students back is not a million miles away from those who go to work despite having Covid symptoms, because they cannot afford to isolate at home. While Labour has not hesitated in highlighting how economic concerns have led workers and businesses being forced to choose between public heath and paying their bills, it has not done this for universities.
This is not to say that many universities have not behaved appallingly. Some of the measures imposed on students have been excessively oppressive, and others – for instance, extortionate food prices on quarantining students – have been exploitative. Essentially, many universities accepted the financial necessity of bringing students back without accepting the human necessity of caring for them. But universities were also let down and abandoned by the government. The government promised an effective track and trace system that would arrive months before students arrived back at university, and subsequently offered no leadership by declaring that universities were independent bodies. This declaration is a further consequence of the commercialised structure of higher education that tuition fees underpin. When it absolved itself of directly funding universities, the state also absolved itself of the responsibility to organise higher education.
Even if universities had better prepared for the resumption of teaching, such as by providing more remote learning and staggered returns to campus, they would have received little support from the government. The teaching situation and student experience would still be characterised by extreme adversity, and the financial pressures on university would be unchanged. By pledging to repeal tuition fees and bring back government grants, Labour would be accepting the state’s responsibility to fund and help organise higher education.
Universities, the government and Labour should have listened and cooperated with the trade unions representing university staff. In May, a collection of unions including UNISON, Unite the Union and the University Colleges Union (UCU) put forward five tests that higher education institutions must meet in order to resume teaching. The UCU provided plans for alternatives ways of working and has been consistently vocal about the dangers of students returning. These warning were unnecessarily ignored by many universities. But Labour was also largely silent on the danger of universities reopening, and the UCU has been an isolated voice in the last two months. Were UCU affiliated to the Labour Party, this may have been different.
By not working more closely with trade unions and sufficiently agitating about the danger of universities returning, Labour missed a golden political opportunity to highlight the government’s incompetence, support students and uphold its party’s values. It must not allow the same carelessness to prevent it from arguing against the current higher education structure that has exacerbated the impact of the pandemic. I do believe that the majority of staff at universities want to support students and are trying their hardest to do this, painting universities as being completely responsible for the situation on their campuses ignores what caused this in the first place.
The true evil here is the market structure that was imposed on higher education in 2010. Rather than use the university crisis as a stick with which to beat opposition governments, as Scottish Labour have started doing, Labour should be campaigning on the importance of liberating higher education from the market. This is something Labour has previously failed to do. Even while pledging to scrap tuition fees, both Starmer and Corbyn have presented this ambitious as one that would free graduates from debt – a debt that many will not pay back in full anyway – instead of a policy that would end the destructive, pernicious marketisation of higher education.
To compensate for its previous lack of action regarding Covid and higher education, Labour needs to redouble its efforts. The party should support students through its local student branches and Constituency Labour Parties, and work with trade unions to make campuses and teaching safer. At the same time, Labour must underline that the market structure imposed on higher education has heightened this crisis, and champion the necessity of turning the commodity of higher education back into a public good, free of the invisible hand of the market that too often during this crisis has been detrimental to public health.


labourlist--2020-10-08--Government must step up. Boulder Barry-ers alone cannot protect our seas

No doubt there are some people in parliament who can think of no better place to have Barry Gardiner deposited than 100 feet under the North Sea .
Some may even be in my own party !
But I wear it as a badge of pride that a boulder with my name on it , weighing half a tonne , will cause a nasty shock to anyone trawling for fish in one of our most important marine protected areas ( MPAs ) : the Dogger Bank .
The Dogger Bank is the largest sandbank in UK waters .
It provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ species living both on and within the seabed , which are a vital food source for whales , porpoises , dolphins , cod and seabirds like puffins .
The protected feature in the Dogger Bank MPA is the seabed itself , but strangely it is not being protected .
The government allows scallop dredgers and beam trawlers to plough up the very feature it is supposed to have protected .
Bottom trawling catches demersal species that live on or close to the seabed , but it is a particularly destructive fishing method .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fish , but also scrapes and ploughs the seabed , disrupting sediment , destroying habitat and killing large numbers of vital bottom-dwelling organisms .
That is why Greenpeace has deposited a number of what I like to call ‘ boulder Barry-ers ’ to disrupt this devastating mode of fishing .
Our seas and oceans are facing more pressures than at any time in human history .
Last year , just 59 % of UK fish stocks were fished at or below sustainable levels .
Turn that figure round and you get a sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of all fish stocks were being overfished in a way that will lead to the decline and eventual collapse of that species .
That is 10 % worse than it was just the year before .
The scale of some of these gargantuan vessels is awesome .
Over 100 metres in length , they use nets over a mile long with a gaping mouth 200-300 metres wide .
These ‘ super trawlers ’ spent about 3,000 hours fishing in MPAs all around the UK last year – the equivalent of 123 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet , the Annelies Ilena , has been fishing in our supposed protected areas .
It can carry approximately 10,000 tonnes – the weight of the Eiffel Tower – in fish .
Is it any wonder that only five out of the UK ’ s 73 MPAs are making any progress towards their conservation target ?
Governments love big announcements : ‘ championing this initiative ’ , ‘ world-beating that record ’ .
And this government is no exception .
Boasting of establishing the Global Ocean Alliance and championing the creation of marine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s oceans by 2030 .
This is blue not just as a political colour but a branded ‘ blue-belt ’ initiative of designated MPAs around all our overseas territories .
It is great .
It is big .
It is sexy .
I support it – but the key word is protected .
It is not enough to simply designate MPAs .
The whole point is to protect them .
Rhetoric breaks down when one of our most important , Dogger Bank , is being ravaged not only by super trawlers but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , electric pulse fishing and pair trawling .
The reality is that this government is failing to protect our most important and vulnerable marine ecosystems .
The answer is simple : ban destructive and industrial fishing vessels from all UK MPAs .
That ban , backed up by fisheries protection vessels and the Royal Navy , would be an important first step towards establishing a coherent network of marine sanctuaries .
Enforcement will be the test of the rhetoric .
Such a ban would help boost our inshore fishing industry .
One square @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times the amount of fish than an equivalent unprotected area .
That ’ s because fish in protected areas grow to maturity , which means they have higher reproductive outputs .
The orange roughy fish in the North East Atlantic may take 30 years to mature and , as it grows older and larger , its fecundity shoots up .
At just over a kilo , a young female will produce just over 30,000 eggs , but an older five kilo fish will produce 170,000 .
And because fish and their eggs disperse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this has a positive impact on fishery yields outside the protected areas themselves .
This spillover effect to other local waters would help revitalise fish stocks , benefitting small-scale , low-impact fishers who see increases to their catch .
Without government action it is up to non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace to act .
But there is only so much they can do .
This year they will carefully plant ‘ boulder Barry-ers ’ to protect 47 square miles of MPAs – an important token – but a token in an ocean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , raising the reality to the rhetoric so that an MPA becomes exactly what it says : protected .
Until that time , the boulders are the only thing truly protecting these precious marine ecosystems .

No doubt there are some people in parliament who can think of no better place to have Barry Gardiner deposited than 100 feet under the North Sea. Some may even be in my own party! But I wear it as a badge of pride that a boulder with my name on it, weighing half a tonne, will cause a nasty shock to anyone trawling for fish in one of our most important marine protected areas (MPAs): the Dogger Bank.
The Dogger Bank is the largest sandbank in UK waters. It provides a habitat for a wide range of species living both on and within the seabed, which are a vital food source for whales, porpoises, dolphins, cod and seabirds like puffins. The protected feature in the Dogger Bank MPA is the seabed itself, but strangely it is not being protected. The government allows scallop dredgers and beam trawlers to plough up the very feature it is supposed to have protected.
Bottom trawling catches demersal species that live on or close to the seabed, but it is a particularly destructive fishing method. It not only removes vast quantities of fish, but also scrapes and ploughs the seabed, disrupting sediment, destroying habitat and killing large numbers of vital bottom-dwelling organisms. That is why Greenpeace has deposited a number of what I like to call ‘boulder Barry-ers’ to disrupt this devastating mode of fishing.
Our seas and oceans are facing more pressures than at any time in human history. Last year, just 59% of UK fish stocks were fished at or below sustainable levels. Turn that figure round and you get a sense of the damage being done: 41% of all fish stocks were being overfished in a way that will lead to the decline and eventual collapse of that species. That is 10% worse than it was just the year before.
The scale of some of these gargantuan vessels is awesome. Over 100 metres in length, they use nets over a mile long with a gaping mouth 200-300 metres wide. These ‘super trawlers’ spent about 3,000 hours fishing in MPAs all around the UK last year – the equivalent of 123 days. The biggest super trawler on the planet, the Annelies Ilena, has been fishing in our supposed protected areas. It can carry approximately 10,000 tonnes – the weight of the Eiffel Tower – in fish. Is it any wonder that only five out of the UK’s 73 MPAs are making any progress towards their conservation target?
Governments love big announcements: ‘championing this initiative’, ‘world-beating that record’. And this government is no exception. Boasting of establishing the Global Ocean Alliance and championing the creation of marine sanctuaries covering 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. This is blue not just as a political colour but a branded ‘blue-belt’ initiative of designated MPAs around all our overseas territories. It is great. It is big. It is sexy. I support it – but the key word is protected.
It is not enough to simply designate MPAs. The whole point is to protect them. Rhetoric breaks down when one of our most important, Dogger Bank, is being ravaged not only by super trawlers but also by sandeel fisheries, scallop dredging, electric pulse fishing and pair trawling. The reality is that this government is failing to protect our most important and vulnerable marine ecosystems. The answer is simple: ban destructive and industrial fishing vessels from all UK MPAs. That ban, backed up by fisheries protection vessels and the Royal Navy, would be an important first step towards establishing a coherent network of marine sanctuaries. Enforcement will be the test of the rhetoric.
Such a ban would help boost our inshore fishing industry. One square mile of fully protected ocean produces five times the amount of fish than an equivalent unprotected area. That’s because fish in protected areas grow to maturity, which means they have higher reproductive outputs. The orange roughy fish in the North East Atlantic may take 30 years to mature and, as it grows older and larger, its fecundity shoots up. At just over a kilo, a young female will produce just over 30,000 eggs, but an older five kilo fish will produce 170,000. And because fish and their eggs disperse out from the MPA to surrounding areas, this has a positive impact on fishery yields outside the protected areas themselves. This spillover effect to other local waters would help revitalise fish stocks, benefitting small-scale, low-impact fishers who see increases to their catch.
Without government action it is up to non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace to act. But there is only so much they can do. This year they will carefully plant ‘boulder Barry-ers’ to protect 47 square miles of MPAs – an important token – but a token in an ocean. It is government that must take action, raising the reality to the rhetoric so that an MPA becomes exactly what it says: protected. Until that time, the boulders are the only thing truly protecting these precious marine ecosystems.


labourlist--2020-10-08--Starmer: Labour will not oppose 10pm Covid hospitality curfew

Keir Starmer has announced that the Labour Party will not oppose the 10pm Covid curfew introduced by the government to curb the spread of the virus in the pandemic ahead of a vote on the measure in parliament .
In an interview with Sky News this afternoon , the Labour leader told viewers that there is “ growing concern about the 10pm curfew ” and added that there needs to be reform of the restriction to hospitality business opening hours .
But Starmer argued : “ The problem with the vote next week is it ’ s an up down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and if you vote down the current arrangements there won ’ t be any restrictions in place .
“ That ’ s not what we want so we won ’ t be voting down the restrictions in place .
But we do say to the government – reform the 10pm review , show us the evidence , do it in a much smarter way.
” The Labour leader highlighted problems reported in recent weeks since the curfew was introduced , including that hospitality customers have been gathering together in large numbers outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
He declared : “ I want the government to acknowledge that the 10pm curfew isn ’ t working as well as they might have anticipated .
Lots of people spilling out of venues at the same time , there ’ s been lots of concern about it.
” He emphasised that there is a “ smarter way ” to implement a curfew and urged Downing Street to look at the 10pm measure under Labour in Wales , which is a “ drinking-up time ” rather than when guests are forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous comments on the government ’ s Covid strategy , arguing for a review of local measures in light of rising infection rates and calling for more control in the pandemic to be devolved to local authorities .
He said : “ There ’ s deep concern across the country .
What we ’ ve seen is lots of local areas in added restrictions .
In 19 of the 20 areas that have been in restrictions for two months , the infection rate is still going up .
“ We need that rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
I think the constructive thing is for the government to accept the argument that trace and isolate , the vital part of the system , needs to be under local control.
” The Labour leader told the public this afternoon that “ local leaders have been asking for this for months ” , and warned that “ unless that is fixed , we will struggle to get control over this virus ” .
Starmer ’ s comments today followed his questions on the early closing time in parliament on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to publish the “ scientific basis ” for the measure introduced in September .
Professor and SAGE member John Edmunds told BBC Newsnight this week that he does not believe the curfew can “ turn the epidemic around ” , adding : “ I really don ’ t think [ the 10pm curfew ] does anything .
”

Keir Starmer has announced ahead of a vote on the 10pm Covid hospitality curfew that the Labour Party will not oppose the measure introduced by the government to curb the spread of the virus.
In an interview this afternoon, the Labour leader said there is “growing concern about the 10pm curfew” and added that there needs to be reform of the restriction to hospitality business opening hours.
But Starmer added: “The problem with the vote next week is it’s an up down, take it or leave it vote – and if you vote down the current arrangements, there won’t be any restrictions in place.
“That’s not what we want, so we won’t be voting down the restrictions in place. But we do say to the government: reform the 10pm review, show us the evidence, do it in a much smarter way.”
The Labour leader highlighted problems reported in recent weeks since the curfew was introduced, including that hospitality customers have been gathering together in large numbers outside pubs and bars after the early closing time.
He declared: “I want the government to acknowledge that the 10pm curfew isn’t working as well as they might have anticipated. Lots of people spilling out of venues at the same time, there’s been lots of concern about it.”
He emphasised that there is a “smarter way” to implement a curfew and urged Downing Street to look at the 10pm measure under Labour in Wales, which is a “drinking-up time” rather than when guests are forced to leave.
Starmer echoed his previous comments on the government’s Covid strategy, arguing for a review of local measures in light of rising infection rates and calling for more control in the pandemic to be devolved to local authorities.
He said: “There’s deep concern across the country. What we’ve seen is lots of local areas in added restrictions. In 19 of the 20 areas that have been in restrictions for two months, the infection rate is still going up.
“We need that rapidly reviewed and we need something done about it. I think the constructive thing is for the government to accept the argument that trace and isolate, the vital part of the system, needs to be under local control.”
The Labour leader told the public this afternoon that “local leaders have been asking for this for months”, and warned that “unless that is fixed, we will struggle to get control over this virus”.
'There needs to be involvement of local leaders'@Keir_Starmer has criticised the government's handling of local lockdowns, saying the "constructive thing" to do is "accept the argument that trace and isolate" needs to be under "local control". Latest: https://t.co/p8JaHdlEQw pic.twitter.com/MFJBh1HAQI — SkyNews (@SkyNews) October 8, 2020
Starmer’s comments today followed his questions on the early closing time in parliament on Wednesday, during which he called on Boris Johnson to publish the “scientific basis” for the measure introduced in September.
Professor and SAGE member John Edmunds told BBC Newsnight this week that he does not believe the curfew can “turn the epidemic around”, adding: “I really don’t think [the 10pm curfew] does anything.”


labourlist--2020-10-09--Chancellor’s “furlough flip flop causing chaos”, says Anneliese Dodds

Labour ’ s Anneliese Dodds has accused her opposite in government Rishi Sunak of “ causing chaos ” during the pandemic with a “ furlough flip flop ” as the Chancellor prepares to announce new measures .
The government has put local areas particularly in the North of England under coronavirus restrictions , and is expected to unveil yet more rules for Covid-19 hotspots , but avoided offering targeted support until now .
Just three weeks after he announced a winter economic plan including a new job support scheme to replace furlough , the Chancellor is set to reveal a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by local lockdowns .
While the details are not yet known , the policy is expected to be that the government will fund up to 80 % of staff wages where businesses have been temporarily ordered to shut down due to coronavirus .
Dodds commented : “ Once again it seems like the Chancellor has waited to the last possible minute to start listening to Labour and bring in targeted support for those parts of the country under local restrictions .
“ It comes just two weeks after we warned the Chancellor not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of workers before the government had a grip on the virus .
The Chancellor could have changed course on Monday , but he offered nothing .
“ On Tuesday we dragged his minister to parliament – but he had nothing to say either .
Media briefings suggest he ’ s now ready to tear up his winter economic plan before the autumn is even out .
This is serial incompetence at the heart of government.
” Dodds declared at the start of the week that Rishi Sunak had “ nothing new to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech on the government ’ s handling of the Covid-19 economic crisis .
Sunak did not announce any new measures in his address to the virtual conference , despite warnings that workers in hard-hit sectors such as hospitality are facing a cliff edge as furlough ends this month .
The Chancellor ’ s ‘ job support scheme ’ to replace the job retention scheme does not offer targeted sectoral support and analysis has found that it does not sufficiently incentivise short-hours working .
It appears that the government will now seek to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisations such as the Resolution Foundation by unveiling a new offer to areas of the country under tougher restrictions .
Slamming the Chancellor ’ s “ constant flip flopping on furlough ” , Dodds has accused Sunak of “ putting 900,000 jobs at risk , leaving workers in limbo and creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic ” .
The Shadow Chancellor concluded her comments : “ If he doesn ’ t act now , Britain risks an unemployment crisis greater than we have seen in decades – and Rishi Sunak ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The TUC called on the government this week to adopt a new approach to prevent mass unemployment in the Covid crisis by acting to “ preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme ” .
Below is the full text of the letter from Anneliese Dodds to Rishi Sunak .
Seventeen million people live in areas of the country subject to additional local restrictions .
Such restrictions have an inevitable impact on local economies .
Yet in your party conference speech on Monday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people living in these areas .
On Tuesday , when I asked an urgent question on the same issue , your Government still said nothing .
Yet it appears that even more restrictions will soon be imposed on other areas , and today we once again have leaks to the press of a possible change to economic support but with no accompanying detail .
Businesses up and down the country can not plan on this basis .
Action is urgently needed .
I urge you to : Provide predictable and consistent support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were provided with a grant for £7.30 per person in their area , £3.49 was provided for residents of the Liverpool City Region , Warrington , Hartlepool and Middlesbrough .
No funding at all has been announced for the West Midlands or Greater Manchester , and there is only the promise of “ a funding package ” for the North East .
Government must publish the criteria being used to determine economic support and speed up the pace – so that economic support goes hand in hand with the imposition of additional restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help struggling businesses and workers .
The trumpeted Local Restrictions Support Grant does not appear to be currently aiding any businesses under current restrictions .
The grant is only available to firms ordered to close ( or only offering takeaway services ) , and even then the £1,000 grant for smaller businesses doesn ’ t even cover the costs of employing one member of staff on minimum wage .
The additional 5 % payments over which local authorities have discretion can presumably only be deployed if the main grants have been disbursed – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond .
And £1.3bn remains unspent from the discretionary grants scheme , yet local authorities can not access it .
Local authorities should be given more discretion to respond to the needs of businesses and workers in their area .
Ensure the government ’ s wage support genuinely incentivises employers to keep staff on , even when they have been forced to close .
The Job Support Scheme you announced two weeks ago does not work at all for businesses forced to close due to necessary public health restrictions .
Press reports today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – though sadly too late for those who have already been let go as redundancy deadlines have passed .
We will wait to see the detail of any new proposals , but I urge you to make sure that this time you design the scheme so that it gives businesses the certainty they need to get through the winter and we don ’ t need yet more last-minute changes later on .
That means a scheme that works for businesses forced to close as a result of either local or national restrictions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can gain new skills during the time they are unable to work .
I urge you to introduce each of these three measures immediately , so that the millions of people living under local restrictions – and the millions more who fear they might be next – can have hope as we head into a very difficult winter .

Labour’s Anneliese Dodds has accused her opposite in government Rishi Sunak of “causing chaos” during the pandemic with a “furlough flip flop” as the Chancellor prepares to announce new measures.
The government has put local areas particularly in the North of England under coronavirus restrictions, and is expected to unveil yet more rules for Covid-19 hotspots, but avoided offering targeted support until now.
Just three weeks after he announced a winter economic plan including a new job support scheme to replace furlough, the Chancellor is set to reveal a package of support measures for those affected by local lockdowns.
While the details are not yet known, the policy is expected to be that the government will fund up to 80% of staff wages where businesses have been temporarily ordered to shut down due to coronavirus.
Dodds commented: “Once again it seems like the Chancellor has waited to the last possible minute to start listening to Labour and bring in targeted support for those parts of the country under local restrictions.
“It comes just two weeks after we warned the Chancellor not to pull the rug from under millions of workers before the government had a grip on the virus. The Chancellor could have changed course on Monday, but he offered nothing.
“On Tuesday we dragged his minister to parliament – but he had nothing to say either. Media briefings suggest he’s now ready to tear up his winter economic plan before the autumn is even out. This is serial incompetence at the heart of government.”
Dodds declared at the start of the week that Rishi Sunak had “nothing new to say” in his keynote Conservative Party conference speech on the government’s handling of the Covid-19 economic crisis.
Sunak did not announce any new measures in his address to the virtual conference, despite warnings that workers in hard-hit sectors such as hospitality are facing a cliff edge as furlough ends this month.
The Chancellor’s ‘job support scheme’ to replace the job retention scheme does not offer targeted sectoral support and analysis has found that it does not sufficiently incentivise short-hours working.
It appears that the government will now seek to address these criticisms and pieces of analysis by organisations such as the Resolution Foundation by unveiling a new offer to areas of the country under tougher restrictions.
Slamming the Chancellor’s “constant flip flopping on furlough”, Dodds has accused Sunak of “putting 900,000 jobs at risk, leaving workers in limbo and creating chaos in the midst of a pandemic”.
The Shadow Chancellor concluded her comments: “If he doesn’t act now, Britain risks an unemployment crisis greater than we have seen in decades – and Rishi Sunak’s name will be all over it.”
The TUC called on the government this week to adopt a new approach to prevent mass unemployment in the Covid crisis by acting to “preserve jobs and stop family firms going to the wall through a new local furlough scheme”.
Below is the full text of the letter from Anneliese Dodds to Rishi Sunak.
Dear Chancellor,
Seventeen million people live in areas of the country subject to additional local restrictions. Such restrictions have an inevitable impact on local economies. Yet in your party conference speech on Monday, you had nothing to say about support for people living in these areas. On Tuesday, when I asked an urgent question on the same issue, your Government still said nothing. Yet it appears that even more restrictions will soon be imposed on other areas, and today we once again have leaks to the press of a possible change to economic support but with no accompanying detail. Businesses up and down the country cannot plan on this basis. Action is urgently needed. I urge you to:
Provide predictable and consistent support. While Leicester and Oadby and Wigston were provided with a grant for £7.30 per person in their area, £3.49 was provided for residents of the Liverpool City Region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough. No funding at all has been announced for the West Midlands or Greater Manchester, and there is only the promise of “a funding package” for the North East. Government must publish the criteria being used to determine economic support and speed up the pace – so that economic support goes hand in hand with the imposition of additional restrictions.
Let local authorities use funding to help struggling businesses and workers. The trumpeted Local Restrictions Support Grant does not appear to be currently aiding any businesses under current restrictions. The grant is only available to firms ordered to close (or only offering takeaway services), and even then the £1,000 grant for smaller businesses doesn’t even cover the costs of employing one member of staff on minimum wage. The additional 5% payments over which local authorities have discretion can presumably only be deployed if the main grants have been disbursed – so local leaders have little scope to respond. And £1.3bn remains unspent from the discretionary grants scheme, yet local authorities cannot access it. Local authorities should be given more discretion to respond to the needs of businesses and workers in their area.
Ensure the government’s wage support genuinely incentivises employers to keep staff on, even when they have been forced to close. The Job Support Scheme you announced two weeks ago does not work at all for businesses forced to close due to necessary public health restrictions. Press reports today suggest that you have finally acknowledged this – though sadly too late for those who have already been let go as redundancy deadlines have passed. We will wait to see the detail of any new proposals, but I urge you to make sure that this time you design the scheme so that it gives businesses the certainty they need to get through the winter and we don’t need yet more last-minute changes later on. That means a scheme that works for businesses forced to close as a result of either local or national restrictions, and a training element that means people can gain new skills during the time they are unable to work.
I urge you to introduce each of these three measures immediately, so that the millions of people living under local restrictions – and the millions more who fear they might be next – can have hope as we head into a very difficult winter.
Yours sincerely
Anneliese Dodds


labourlist--2020-10-09--40% of Brits say Labour is holding Tories to account on Covid badly

A new YouGov poll has indicated that 40 % of British people believe Labour is not doing a good job of holding the government to account on its handling of coronavirus , with 14 % saying the party is doing “ very badly ” .
The research , which was conducted this week and saw 5,068 UK adults surveyed , will support the argument made by some that Keir Starmer ’ s opposition party is not criticising strongly enough Boris Johnson ’ s decisions on Covid-19 .
Over a quarter , at 26 % , said they thought Labour was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account on its response to the coronavirus pandemic , while a further 14 % answered that it was doing “ very badly ” .
34 % of those surveyed said they felt Labour was doing a good job of holding the government to account , with 5 % of them saying they were doing “ very well ” .
26 % of respondents chose the “ don ’ t know ” option .
Among Labour voters , 57 % of respondents said they believed Labour was doing well at holding to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only 26 % said they felt the official opposition was doing a bad job .
While gender and class appeared to have little influence on people ’ s views on this question , voters aged over 50 were more likely to have a negative view of Labour ’ s response than young people , which reflects voting intention patterns .
Labour has faced criticism over its “ constructive ” approach to opposition this week , after Starmer was rebuffed by Johnson for asking about the scientific basis behind the 10pm hospitality curfew at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister pointed out that the argument he had already made was enough for the Labour leader to support the measure when it was first unveiled .
Starmer has since said Labour will not oppose the curfew in a parliamentary vote .
Since its launch , the curfew for hospitality venues has been widely criticised as crowds of people were recorded and pictured gathering in city centres and entering public transport , with long queues forming outside off-licences , after 10pm .
Starmer has emphasised that there is a “ smarter way ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged Downing Street to follow Wales , where 10pm is “ drinking-up time ” rather than when guests are forced to leave .
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard took a markedly different tone to Starmer after the SNP announced new restrictions for pubs and restaurants this week , saying Nicola Sturgeon was treating the hospitality sector like “ Sodom and Gomorrah ” .
But Starmer has made stinging criticisms of Johnson ’ s character .
He said of the Prime Minister in a BBC interview last week : “ I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this and I don ’ t think he is up to it.
” The new polling from YouGov comes a week after research from Opinium reported that Starmer ’ s Labour had pulled ahead of the Conservatives in voting intention for the first time since July 2019 .
The poll put Labour on 42 % of the vote share , three points higher than the Tories who sat on 39 % .
It also reported that public disapproval of the government ’ s coronavirus handling had hit an all-time high of -50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before the UK lockdown , had the Tories on 49 % in terms of voting intention , with Labour well behind on 32 % – a gap of 17 points .
At that point , 44 % approved of the government ’ s handling of Covid .

A new YouGov poll has indicated that 40% of British people believe Labour is not doing a good job of holding the government to account on its handling of coronavirus, with 14% saying the party is doing “very badly”.
The research, which was conducted this week and saw 5,068 UK adults surveyed, will support the argument made by some that Keir Starmer’s opposition party is not criticising strongly enough Boris Johnson’s decisions on Covid-19.
Over a quarter, at 26%, said they thought Labour was “fairly badly” holding the government to account on its response to the coronavirus pandemic, while a further 14% answered that it was doing “very badly”.
34% of those surveyed said they felt Labour was doing a good job of holding the government to account, with 5% of them saying they were doing “very well”. 26% of respondents chose the “don’t know” option.
Among Labour voters, 57% of respondents said they believed Labour was doing well at holding to account the government’s Covid response and only 26% said they felt the official opposition was doing a bad job.
While gender and class appeared to have little influence on people’s views on this question, voters aged over 50 were more likely to have a negative view of Labour’s response than young people, which reflects voting intention patterns.
Labour has faced criticism over its “constructive” approach to opposition this week, after Starmer was rebuffed by Johnson for asking about the scientific basis behind the 10pm hospitality curfew at Prime Minister’s Questions.
The Prime Minister pointed out that the argument he had already made was enough for the Labour leader to support the measure when it was first unveiled. Starmer has since said Labour will not oppose the curfew in a parliamentary vote.
Since its launch, the curfew for hospitality venues has been widely criticised as crowds of people were recorded and pictured gathering in city centres and entering public transport, with long queues forming outside off-licences, after 10pm.
Starmer has emphasised that there is a “smarter way” to implement shorter opening hours, and urged Downing Street to follow Wales, where 10pm is “drinking-up time” rather than when guests are forced to leave.
Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard took a markedly different tone to Starmer after the SNP announced new restrictions for pubs and restaurants this week, saying Nicola Sturgeon was treating the hospitality sector like “Sodom and Gomorrah”.
But Starmer has made stinging criticisms of Johnson’s character. He said of the Prime Minister in a BBC interview last week: “I don’t think he has got the right character for this and I don’t think he is up to it.”
The new polling from YouGov comes a week after research from Opinium reported that Starmer’s Labour had pulled ahead of the Conservatives in voting intention for the first time since July 2019.
The poll put Labour on 42% of the vote share, three points higher than the Tories who sat on 39%. It also reported that public disapproval of the government’s coronavirus handling had hit an all-time high of -50%.
Polling by Opinium in mid-March, before the UK lockdown, had the Tories on 49% in terms of voting intention, with Labour well behind on 32% – a gap of 17 points. At that point, 44% approved of the government’s handling of Covid.